Diploma Thesis

Masaryk UniversityFaculty of Arts

Department of Englishand American Studies

Ing. Veronika Ubrová

Central and Other Meanings of English

Modal Verbs in Theory and Coursebooks of

ESL

Master Thesis

Supervisor: Mgr. Jan Chovanec, Ph.D.

2006

1 INTRODUCTION

This diploma thesis will deal with the meanings of English modal verbs, the theory and

teaching to students of English as a second language. For teaching purposes, the complex system

of modal verbs can be simplified by reducing their meanings to one central key meaning from

which the others can be easily derived. The main focus of this diploma thesis will be on looking

for such central meanings and discussion of ways how course books of ESL do and can make use

of them.

Geoffrey Leech explains, “What makes it so difficult to account for the use of these words

(which may be called ‘modal auxiliaries’ or ‘modals’ for short) is that their meaning has both a

logical and a practical (or pragmatic) element” (1971: 66). However, I have encountered the

approach of Michael Lewis, which I find positively motivating for both teachers and students.

Lewis (1986) does not see modals as “defective verbs” but believes that “the language behaves

much more consistently than is often believed” (108, 114). He suggests focusing on the basic

meaning which underlies each modal verb. Other grammarians’ (Yule, Leech) concepts and

explanations of the modal verbs show considerable agreement with Lewis’s views.

First, modal verbs in general will be explored and their functions, uses, frequency, and

various divisions described. Next, the ideas of Michael Lewis regarding the central meanings of

the modals will be studied. The studied material will be also briefly introduced: two sets of

coursebooks – New Headway English series and Inside Out. Then, individual modals will be

dealt with and their central meanings as presented by Lewis discussed. There will follow a

comparison of other grammarians’ interpretations and their agreement with Lewis’s central

meanings. Other meanings which deviate from Lewis’s concept will be mentioned – they either

modify or extend it. For each verb, attention will be focused on the practical use of the key

meanings of modals in teaching English. The modals in the coursebooks will be traced and

studied how their meanings and usage are presented, explained and practised. Special attention

will be paid to the possibility of using Lewis’s theory to enable students better and easier learning

of modal verbs. Semi-modals will be also touched upon. Finally, some other observations which

were made during the research will be discussed. In the conclusion, the contribution of Lewis’s

approach to better teaching and learning of English modal verbs will be summarized.

2 MODAL VERBS

Modality consists of the speakers’ comments on what they are saying about the real

world. According to Saeed (1997), modality “allows speakers to express varying degrees of

commitment to, or belief in, a proposition. Modal systems … signal stronger or weaker

commitment to the factuality of statements” (125). Yule (1998) says that “English modals

typically convey some indication of the speaker’s perspective or attitude with respect to the

situation or state of affairs being described” (88). There are several ways of expressing modality

and auxiliary verbs, so-called modal verbs, are one of them. Biber et al. (1999) list nine central

modals – can, could, may, might, will, would, shall, should and must – marginal auxiliary verbs,

which exist mainly in British English, and fixed phrases which function similarly to modals.

These latter two groups are called semi-modals (483-84). Moreover, modals are often associated

with particular pragmatic uses, e.g. in requests and offers, where the past forms tend to have

implications of tentativeness and politeness (Quirk et al. 1985: 220).

Modality can be divided into two types and sometimes one and the same linguistic form

can have two different meanings. Epistemic modality – also called extrinsic – signals “degree of

knowledge” (Saeed 1997: 126); in Yule’s words, “to indicate ‘what is known’” (1998: 88). It

“refers to the logical status of events or states, usually relating to assessments of likelihood:

possibility, necessity, or prediction” (Biber et al. 1999: 485). Yule (1998) remarks that

“epistemic uses often sound like deductions or conclusions made by the speaker” and that “it is

the speaker’s or writer’s perspective that is being presented” (88-9). Deontic modality – also

called intrinsic – usually “refers to actions and events that humans (or other agents) directly

control: meanings relating to permission, obligation, or volition” (Biber et al. 1999: 485). This

“root” modality in Yule’s terminology is “not based on the speaker’s knowledge of facts, but on

the speaker’s awareness of what is socially determined. Root modals are typically used

interpersonally and … are based on social power [which] is often based on some established

social relationship” (1998: 89). Close (1992) describes these two kinds of modality as two main

functions of modal verbs – primary and secondary. The primary function corresponds to the

deontic use and “express[es] some degree of freedom, or lack of freedom, to act – from complete

liberty to inescapable prohibition; and this freedom, or lack of it, can apply to the speaker, or to

the person(s) being addressed, or to some person(s) to whom the speaker is referring.” The

secondary function of the modal verbs (except shall) includes the epistemic use – they allow the

speaker “to give a personal evaluation of the truth of the statement the speaker is making” (95).

So what is the difference between the two meanings? Quirk et al. (1985) state that all

modals have both intrinsic and extrinsic meanings and that these often overlap (219). Biber et al.

(1999) specify that modals with intrinsic meaning tend to be accompanied by a subject which

refers to a human being, and a full dynamic verb which describes controllable activity or event.

On the other hand, modal verbs with extrinsic meaning “occur with non-human subjects and/or

with main verbs having stative meaning” (485). Saeed (1997) sees the difference between deontic

and epistemic modals in the fact that epistemic modals express “judgment about the way the real

world is,” whereas deontic modals express “judgment about how people should behave in the

world” (127). In his view, the use of deontic modals is connected with social knowledge,

morality, legality, power and authority. They contain various degrees of strength, politeness and

formality of relationship between people (127). Huddleston and Pullum (2002) see the difference

in temporal circumstances: “epistemic modality concerns the speaker’s attitude to the factuality

of past or present time situations while deontic modality concerns the speaker’s attitude to the

actualisation of future situations.” They also point out that “deontic uses are more basic” (178).

Yule (1998) explains that the “parallel” between the epistemic and deontic modality in English

“is based on what is necessary and what is possible. The epistemic uses are knowledge-based and

can be paraphrased as ‘necessary that’ (must) and ‘possible that’ (may).” On the other hand, the

deontic modality is “socially-based. … In these examples, the modals can be paraphrased as

‘necessary for’ (must) and ‘possible for’ (may)” (89-90). Palmer (1988) makes distinction

between “‘kinds’ of modality (epistemic, deontic and dynamic) and ‘degrees’ of modality

(possibility and necessity).” He explains that epistemic modals express a judgement, deontic have

influence on the behaviour of the addressee, and dynamic modals predict something about the

subject of the sentence (97-98). Whatever definition or explanation, modal verbs have definitely

more than just one meaning, which makes their system complex and difficult for English

learners.

Finally, here is the presentation of the modals and their organization in a simple overview.

Biber et al. (1999) present tables and charts which describe the distribution of modals and semi-

modals in the Longman Spoken and Written English Corpus (483-97). The following table sums

up the nine central modals and other semi-modals and their meanings:

Epistemic/extrinsic

meaning

Deontic/intrinsic

meaning

Central modals Semi-modals

Possibility Permission Can, could, may,

might

Necessity Obligation Must, should (Had) better, have (got) to,

need to, ought to, be supposed

to

Prediction Volition Will, would, shall Be going toSource: Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan (1999). Longman

Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Longman, p. 485.

The order of modals according to frequency is: will, would, can, could, may, should, must, might

and shall. Since Biber et al. (1999) study modals according to register, modals and semi-modals

are most frequent in conversation because they convey stance-type meanings. The most used

modal and semi-modal verbs in conversation are will, can, would, be going to, could, and have to.

Moreover, can, could, may and might are used predominantly in their extrinsic meaning (489).

Making a survey of modals and semi-modals and charts of their frequency can help us to get a

better idea of their meanings. However, other modifications such as negation can bring an

unwanted confusion.

Regarding negation, Palmer (1988) sees two problems: firstly, different modals may

express the same kind of modality; secondly, “not all theoretically possible negative forms exist”

(100). Yule (1998) explains, “the action or state (main verb) can be considered as negative or the

modality (modal verb meaning) can be treated as negative” (109). Palmer (1988) talks about

modality – expressed by the modal verb – and proposition, which is “all that follows, including

the main verb” (98-99). We can negate both modality and proposition with epistemic and deontic

modality – with the exception of possibility in which only modality can be negated – but only

modality with dynamic modality (which is prediction in Palmer’s conception) (100-101). Yule

(1998) expresses certain reservations, “for some modals in knowledge-oriented (epistemic)

functions, it is the action that is affected. In socially-oriented (root) functions, it is the modality

that is affected by the negation much more” (109).

To sum up, general and theoretical introduction to the modal verbs has been delineated.

Modals describe the speakers’ understanding of the world and their several meanings help them

to express their views. However, at times, these multiple meanings can confuse students of

English in understanding and using the modal verbs.

3 CENTRAL MEANING

This chapter will aim at exploring Michael Lewis’s concept of narrowing modal verbs to

one central meaning. Grammarians study modal verbs from different angles and various

approaches differ even though the meanings remain constant. Palmer finds the system of modals

“extremely ‘messy’” and the only thing linguists can do is to try to “impose some order” and

focus on “regularities, correspondences, parallelism.” He admits that there exists “a fairly

generalized common meaning” which is, however, unrealistic and fails when we want to explore

modal verbs in more detail (qtd. in Lewis 1986: 99). On the other hand, Lewis (1986) is more

optimistic and talks about “a large central area which is systematic and relatively easy

understood” (99). He presents the basic outline of modals: there are nine modal verbs – can,

could, may, might, shall, should, will, would, and must – which can be put into four pairs and one

odd word. They share the same grammatical characteristics – they are followed by an infinitive

without to, they have the same forms for all persons and numbers, they cannot co-occur, they are

used as operators in questions and negatives. The modals will and shall are often considered

temporal markers expressing the future tense instead of modals. However, their grammatical

features classify them as modals (Lewis 1986: 100).

Modal verbs share semantic similarities. Lewis (1986) defines modal auxiliaries: they

“allow the speaker to express an attitude to the non-factual and non-temporal elements of the

situation. … (s)he can introduce elements of possibility, necessity, desirability, morality, doubt,

certainty, etc.” (101). Therefore, speakers choose a modal according to how they view the reality.

This choice is “intensely personal” and reflects the speaker’s “speculations, guesses, estimates,

idealisations” (Lewis 1986: 101-2). Lewis agrees with other grammarians, such as Yule, Saeed,

and Close, that modals, besides giving information about the subject of the statement, also reveal

the speaker, or, in questions, the listener (1986: 102). He stresses the role of the speaker when he

says that modals “involve the speaker’s judgement, or, perhaps better expressed in this contexts,

the speaker’s judgement.” The difference between I have to get the 8 o’clock train and I must get

the 8 o’clock train, which he discusses as an example, lies in the speaker’s involvement (Lewis

1986: 104-5). Lewis concludes that phrases with modal verbs are not only about facts but also

about two people and their judgement at the moment of speaking (1986: 102).

Lewis presents the argument that there is a single meaning in each modal verb which

describes such judgement. As the meanings of words often depend on the context, it must be

admitted that to define a single meaning is not very much possible. However, some abstraction

and generalization can be useful, especially for students of ESL. According to Palmer, although

we can look for “a set of closely related meanings,” a unique meaning of a modal verb does not,

and cannot, exist (qtd. in Lewis 1986: 99). Unfortunately, a range of meanings hinders

communication because the listener may be confused and must decode which of the possible

meanings the speaker meant. Lewis (1986) criticizes various grammarians and authors of

grammar books for their unnecessary complications. He suggests, “the best approach is to look

for a single central meaning while at the same time accepting that this may involve recognising a

number of marginal examples” (103). Here comes into question the context which influences the

meanings of modal verbs. Lewis believes that “the communicative meaning will be different in

different contexts.” Communicative meaning differs from basic meaning and is “a combination of

the primary semantic characteristics of a form and other factors.” Besides context, these factors

include the speaker’s and listener’s pre-knowledge (Lewis 1986: 103-4). However, based on my

experience, students seem to accept with confusion the fact that words have more than just one

meaning which differs according to situation and context. They like things – and meanings –

simple and clear.

That is why Lewis (1986) suggests starting “with the assumption that each individual

modal has a single meaning, though perhaps with an occasional eccentric or historical use” (103).

He defines each modal verb: “in the present circumstances, it seems to me XXX that…” and the

XXX differs according to individual modal (Lewis 1986: 111). Consequently, various meanings

are united in one definition which covers the basic meaning and leaves enough space for other

uses and explanations. Although with different approaches, other grammarians (for example

Geoffrey Leech) end up with the same meanings of the modals. Leech himself admits that “we

may go so far as to claim, in fact, that ‘possibility’ and ‘necessity’ logically include ‘permission’

and ‘obligation’ – that ‘permission’ is a particular kind of ‘possibility’, and ‘obligation’ a

particular kind of ‘necessity’” (1969: 218). I believe that this simplification is highly desirable

for teaching purposes. Lewis’s idea offers solution to teachers of English: first, students learn one

main meaning of the modal verb – preferably the most common and frequent one – and, only at

higher levels, continue with other derived meanings.

Lewis supports his ideas with examples. The following three sentences containing the

verb can show ambiguities:

(1) I’m afraid I can’t tell you.

(2) Spaniards can’t play football.

(3) John can come.

The first sentence does not tell us if the speaker ‘cannot tell’ because (s)he does not know or

because of the promise not to tell. The second one may describe the Spaniards’ lack of skill in

playing football or the prohibition to play because of a ban or unsuitable condition of the pitch.

However, according to Lewis, despite variety of meanings in various contexts, “a constant

underlying non-contextual meaning can be discerned.” For instance, in sentence (3) can has the

“underlying, general meaning … associated with possibility” which can be of various kinds:

physical (John is able to walk on his legs), possibility of permission (John has permission by the

speaker) or possibility of non-restriction (John has a free day) (1986: 104). We can apply the

possibility meaning of can to sentences (1) and (2): the speaker can’t tell since it is not possible

because of his ignorance or promise of reticence; it is not possible for Spaniards to play because

they are not trained or allowed to play for any reason. These examples lead us to conclude that

Lewis’s support of one key meaning contributes to easier learning and understanding of English

modal verbs.

Lewis suggests using central meanings with students at early stages. He claims, “many …

difficulties are generated by teachers bringing together unsuitable areas, thereby creating

confusion” (1986: 126). So the main task of the teacher is to avoid this. Modern communicative

approaches and functional presentations, which simplify and contextualize the modals, make their

study easier. Lewis highlights the presentation of particular uses of modal verbs. Only later, with

upper-intermediate students, we can collect all uses of one modal and together try to find an

underlying central meaning. Advanced students can also contrast modals, look at the boundaries

between their meanings, and explore them as a group (1986: 126-127). Parott (2000) confirms,

“at lower levels, learners often prefer to concentrate on only one meaning or function of a

particular modal verb at one time” (119). However, the common problem of learners is that when

they later add another meaning to the one already mastered, they find it confusing and suddenly

make mistakes in the first meaning as well. Nevertheless, progress from basic meanings to more

complex ones is a desirable process.

Grammarians vary in their understanding of modals and some consider could, should,

would and might past tenses of can, shall, will and may. As was mentioned above, according to

Lewis (1986), modal verb phrases contain the people’s judgement of facts at the moment of

speaking – “each modal auxiliary is fundamentally grounded in the moment of speaking, at the

point Now” (102). This fact explains the present forms of modal verbs. That means that we

should not understand the forms could, should, would and might as past tense forms of the verbs

can, shall, will and may. The concept of the past tense collides with the basic characteristics of

modals: “the speaker’s judgement is exercised precisely at the moment of speaking” (Lewis

1986: 111). The role of the context is also highlighted: “the same modal verb form can refer to

the present or the future,” and it is the context that clarifies which temporal setting is meant

(Eastwood 2005: 101). Lewis bases his claim on the fact that when “the speaker recalls an event

in Past Time … [it] becomes objective” and loses its subjective judgement (1986: 111). Leech

supports Lewis’s idea that the basic meanings of modals can be only in the present tense – we

should call the present tense modals ‘non-past’ because they refer to both future and present time.

If we want to talk about the past, “the Perfect Infinitive following a modal auxiliary assigns past

time to the meaning of the main verb.” Moreover, “the Past Tense auxiliaries … have various

other functions” (Leech 1971: 67, 92). To express the past, Eastwood (2005) suggests other

expressions such as had to, was able to, or was allowed to (102). To conclude, the search for the

central meanings of modals reduces to meanings related to the present or future.

4 COURSEBOOKS FOR LEARNING ENGLISH

In this chapter, the material analyzed according to theoretical findings will be introduced

briefly. I have chosen two sets of coursebooks of English as a second language: New Headway

English Course published by Oxford University Press and Inside Out which is a product of

Macmillan. The choice is based on the fact that these textbooks belong to the most widely used

coursebooks in English courses. Moreover, two different sets eliminate one-sidedness and allow

simple comparison. As I have been using these materials in class with my students, I have been

acquainted with both their strengths and weaknesses regarding the explanation and practise of

modal verbs.

4.1 NEW HEADWAY ENGLISH COURSE

The New Headway English Course, written by Liz and John Soars, presents itself as

successful material for acquisition of accurate and fluent English and its use for communicative

purposes. This course is a multi-level course which provides students with the structure of the

language and teaches grammar, vocabulary and functions of English. On the Internet, the

textbooks present the methodology as follows: their approach to grammar is clear and structured;

grammar is presented in context and students are encouraged to discover the rules for themselves;

integrated skills work is an important feature of the course and activities in every unit

contextualize and bring together much previously introduced language. The present analysis

focuses on levels two to four (Elementary to Intermediate). Level one – Beginner – has been

omitted so that the set matches the choice of Inside Out coursebooks which lack the beginner

level.

1 The coursebook New Headway English Course Elementary is for both true and false

beginners and provides the basic knowledge of the structure of English. Only four modal

verbs are introduced here - can, could, would and shall – and most of them are presented in

functional approach in conversation.

2 New Headway English Course Pre-Intermediate continues in widening and extending the

students’ abilities of understanding and using English for communicative purposes. In

summary, students learn four additional modals – will, should, must and might – and two

semi-modals – be going to and have to. The more modal verbs they get to know, the more

information they acquire about the system of modality and interrelations in it.

Unfortunately, parallel presentation of several verbs (must, have to, should) contributes to

the intricacy of the learning process.

3 The fourth level coursebook New Headway English Course Intermediate starts with the

summary of auxiliary verbs – including modals – in the first unit. In this textbook, the

explanation of modal verbs is completed and all the modals are grouped according to their

meanings. These meanings include possibility, probability, attitudes, opinions and

judgements of events. The epistemic meanings of possibility (may, might, could), necessity

(must) and prediction (will) are depicted. Practical examples of the use of modality to

express offers, requests and suggestions are practised in short conversations of social

English. At the end of the fourth level, students end up with a complex survey of modals

and practice of some of their uses. However, the attempt to systematize modal verbs seems

to shatter the students’ knowledge so far because it only partly builds on what they already

know about individual modals. Also different grouping adds confusion and disorganization.

4.2 INSIDE OUT

The Macmillan course Inside Out presents itself as a tool to develop real-life

communicative skills and powers of self-expression. On the Internet, these textbooks are

marketed as a material that is built around structured work on grammar and lexis, planned

speaking tasks, and motivating reading and listening texts. The coursebook provides a fully-

integrated grammar syllabus together with entertaining practice. Speaking skills and their

development are seen as the key area but students also require a solid grammatical framework to

make progress. The authors encourage students to discover new grammar themselves and they

present it in contexts where the meaning is clear. Students get a lot of opportunities to manipulate

the new language: they try it out in different situations through a rich variety of engaging practice

and personalised activities. Three levels have been chosen for analysis, matching the levels of

New Headway – Elementary to Intermediate.

1 Inside Out Elementary seems to neglect modals among the grammar topics of individual

units. However, they are present and presented to the students in a rather unusual way: in

lexis and conversation exercises. The coursebooks presents will and might in a conversation

about the weather forecast; would (would like) in a shopping conversation and later among

expressions about the future (including the semi-modal be going to). Should appears as a

tool to give advice, and can(’t) and (don’t) have to in the discussion of possibilities and

necessities of rich film stars.

2 Inside Out Pre-Intermediate extends the students’ knowledge of modals from five to seven

(must and could) and practises their uses to express advice, obligation and permission

(must(n’t), couldn’t, should(n’t), (don’t) have to). Some of them (can, could, would, shall)

are covered in polite questions of offers and requests, opinions, advice and suggestions.

Similar to Headway, simultaneous practice of more verbs (must, should) shows their

differences in use but can overburden students with excessive new knowledge without their

prior absorption of individual meanings.

3 A summary of the forms, but not the meanings, of modals appears in the first unit of Inside

Out Intermediate. Some units discuss the contrasts of modals and other verbs, i.e. would vs.

used to, will vs. going to vs. present continuous tense for future, must(n’t), can(’t),

should(n’t), (don’t) have to for obligation, prohibition and permission; use of modals for

deduction and speculation and in conditional sentences. In contrast to Headway, Inside Out

does not bring a complete survey of modals, their meanings and uses. Again, context and

practical usage play an important role in the students’ acquisition of English modals.

5 INDIVIDUAL MODALS

This section will deal with individual modals. First, central meanings as suggested by

Lewis will be discussed. Other grammarians’ opinions will be added, particularly those which

support Lewis’s ideas. Then, other meanings that differ from the central one will be mentioned.

Finally, the coursebooks will be analyzed if, and how, they make use of the central meanings to

simplify the learning of modals for students of English as a second language.

5.1 CAN

5.1.1 Central meaning

The central meaning of can is possibility. Lewis (1986) defines can: “I assert that it is

possible that…” (112). He interprets one sentence with can in four different ways, all of which

contain the meaning of possibility. This possibility ranges from physical, objective, logical,

possibility decided by the rules, to requests and offers. Only the knowledge of the context permits

us to interpret the sentence correctly (Lewis 1986: 112). Biber et al. (1999), who present charts of

frequency of use, support Lewis: although it is sometimes difficult to determine which of its three

meanings – ability, possibility or permission – can expresses, it is mainly used in the meaning of

possibility and ability (491-92).

Other grammarians highlight the meaning of possibility among the three above-mentioned

meanings of can. Yule (1998) sees the “core concept” of can in “potential” and explains that its

three meanings “result from the way in which that ‘potential’ is perceived in different

circumstances” (92). I believe that his ideas concur with those of Lewis because in Yule’s view,

the ‘possibility’ interpretation of can is the most common and general one and the potential does

not require a “specified source in terms of an animate agent or a social authority” (1998: 92-93).

Also Leech suggests a similar view: can in the meaning of possibility does not need any further

specification and is the only one that does not require human or animate subject. It can be used in

the passive voice as well (1971: 71). So it seems that the possibility meaning of can is the most

general one and represents the cornerstone for other derived meanings.

Possibility is inherent in the permission meaning. If permission is to be granted, it

presupposes the possibility of the action or state. The same holds true for ability, which is the

possibility of physical, mental or another kind. According to Palmer (1988), can is used in “cases

of dynamic possibility, which predicate the possibility to the subject of the sentence and are thus

subject-oriented” (112). Moreover, “can often seems to have a neutral sense, to say that

something is possible without suggesting that this depends on anyone’s ability. Or, perhaps, it is

‘circumstantial’ in that the circumstances make it possible. This is particularly true where there

is a passive” (Palmer 1988: 112-13). Leech observes, “with can the notion of possibility is

general and theoretical“, which means that I have nothing to do with the statement – I simply

state or assert it (1971: 221). Eastwood (2005) supports him, we use can “to say that something is

generally possible. In these sentences can means ‘sometimes’” (114). Leech adds that colloquial

English uses can in the possibility sense to “express a suggestion for future action. In fact with

second- and third-person subject, it has come to be a familiar though tactful imperative” (1971:

71). Parott (2000) explains that can’t is the “opposite of must to express logical deduction” (127).

Again, he contributes to the central meaning of can – we logically deduce that something is not

happening because it is not possible under given circumstances.

5.1.2 Other meanings

Yule (1998) gives further specifications regarding an agent or dynamicity of the verb for

the potential in other meanings of can. Can expresses ability “when the circumstances involve an

animate agent [mostly human], having the potential to perform [physical] actions or activities”

(92). Quirk et al. (1985) offer the synonyms be capable and know how to (222). Leech points out

that the ability meaning of can (=be able to/capable of) does not have a special modal meaning

because it does not express a special speaker’s judgement (1971: 69-70).

Can is also used to express permission. According to Yule (1998), “the ‘permission’

meaning of can is tied to circumstances where social relationships, particularly social authority,

are involved. … The source of th[e] potential [for some social transaction to take place] is the

social power of one individual relative to another.” In reality, “requests for permission are

addressed to, and granted by, the one with social power at that moment” (92). According to Quirk

et al. (1985), can meaning be allowed to is used for polite requests and is less formal than may

when used to express permission (222). Can is more often used for granting permission than may

because it has “the less specific meaning ‘you have permission’ rather than ‘I give you

permission’” (Leech 1997: 70).

Close (1992) also mentions the use of can with verbs of perception (see, hear,

remember): “In such examples, the meaning is almost identical with that of [without can].

However, in I can see etc. we are more concerned with the freedom to perceive, rather than with

the result” (105-6). I think that the ‘freedom’ in Close’s view corresponds to the ‘possibility’ in

Lewis’s central meaning of can. On the other hand, Palmer (1988) does not see the ability of can

in the use with verbs of sensation – “this use of can is subject-oriented in that the subject alone is

involved. But it indicates that he does, in fact, experience the sensation rather than that he is able

to experience it” (113). Moreover, he mentions the use of can with other types of private verbs

(remember, understand), and also verbs “in a semi-idiomatic sense but only in non-assertive

contexts with afford, bear, be bothered, stand” (113-4). Some minor uses include so called

‘existential’ use, use for “habitual or future time reference,” “characteristic behaviour of people”

(derogatory) and “instruction often of a brusque or impolite kind” (Palmer 1988: 107, 110, 113,

116).

5.1.3 Coursebooks

The coursebooks marginalize Lewis’s central meaning of can - possibility. The only clear

usage of can in this sense is in Unit Seven of Inside Out Elementary. It is presented together with

the verb have to. The definition of can(’t) is: It is okay for me to… and It’s not okay for me to.

The exercises include examples of jobs and the possibilities they have or do not have, and

interviews with two actors and what possibilities or lack of possibilities their fame has brought

them. Students then practice can (together with have to) in discussing advantages and

disadvantages of being rich and famous. The possibility meaning of can in New Headway appears

briefly in Intermediate Unit Four. The presentation starts with the question “What sort of

problems can there be [between parents and teenagers]?” which encourages students to come up

with all possible problems. Hence they can use the verb can in the sense of possibility. However,

the presentation and exercises shift their focus on the verb have to.

Possibility is also involved in logical conclusions about reality. Opposed to must, can’t

means logically improbable (New Headway Intermediate Unit Nine). We conclude from our

understanding of the situation that something is impossible. Can’t with perfect infinitive

expresses the same idea in the past. Inside Out Intermediate Unit Eleven refers to the use of can’t

for speculations and deductions about which students are absolutely sure in the negative sense.

In both coursebooks, exercises comprise pictures or facts on which students base their

conclusions.

All other uses deviate more or less from the meaning of can as possibility. Can is the first

modal that students come across in New Headway Elementary. In the unit called “Can you speak

English?”, its meaning of ability is introduced. Because its form differs from other verbs,

students must learn the grammatical form of the verb first. Then, they practise how to use can

when they want to express the capability of doing something. Although this use does not comply

with Lewis’s central meaning of can as expression of possibility, its meaning of ability rates high

in frequency of use. The practice of can compares the abilities of people and computers – the

possibilities in the world of modern technologies and human mind underlie can.

Can permeates all levels of New Headway course in social conversations: Unit Two

Elementary contains a request Can I have…? in a conversation at a café; at the end of Unit Nine

Elementary, in the section of Everyday English called ‘Polite requests’, the idiomatic expressions

Can/Could I…? to ask for things and Can/Could you…? to ask other people to do things for us

are highlighted. Unfortunately, no difference is made in the degree of politeness between can and

could. We could speculate that these phrases involve logical possibility. Asking for a favour

presupposes that the action desired is possible. However, the function of can for requests is more

important here than its proper meaning. And the last meaning of can that appears in New

Headway is to express permission (Unit Four Intermediate). The exercise that practises modals,

including can, uses public notices which command, prohibit, or allow. We could again

manipulate permission into possibility: the logic shows that when something is prohibited (You

can’t do it), it means that it is impossible for you to do it.

In all occurrences of can in both coursebooks, possibility is at the core. Only Inside Out

fully covers and practises its central meaning. Also logical possibility is dealt with at higher

levels of both coursebooks. However, it seems easier and more useful for students to practise can

as a lexical expression for permission or in the meaning of ability.

5.2 COULD


The central meaning of could is remote possibility. Lewis (1986) defines could: “I assert

that it is “remotely” possible that….” The possibility of could is more remote than the possibility

of can. This remoteness can be “in time, social relationship, or likelihood” (112). Palmer (1988)

agrees with Lewis: could expresses “a lower degree of possibility” (119). Also Yule (1998)

supports them, “the relationship between can and … could is one of relative remoteness from the

point of utterance.” Like Lewis, Yule sees the remoteness in time or likelihood. Moreover,

“remote potential in social terms creates an impression of less imposition and hence greater

politeness” (93). However, Lewis (1986) warns teachers that “the idea of could as “a polite form”

can cause confusion without the framework provided by the concept of ‘remote relationship’”

(126). Could thus expresses possibility that is in any way distant from the basic possibility of can.

The distance proves also in slight variations of could. In Parott’s view, the remoteness of

could results in “express[ing] hypothetical meaning” (2000: 127). According to Biber et al.

(1999), could expresses greater degree of uncertainty and tentativeness (493). Eastwood (2005)

disputes the fact that the remoteness in time embraces only the past. He claims, “we use could to

suggest possible future actions” (113). Lewis concludes that “contextual meaning [of both can

and could] may differ greatly. At the same time, the primary semantic characteristics of the forms

remain constant” (1986: 112).


Some grammarians see could as the past tense of can with the meaning of ability.

According to Parott (2000), “could is the only ‘pure’ modal verb that we can normally use on its

own to refer to past time. We use could to refer to the past only for general abilities” (128). Also

Close (1992) depicts that could does not refer to the past accomplishment itself but only to the

ability (106). Yule (1998) talks about the ‘potential’ implied by could (94). Palmer (1988) agrees

with these grammarians: he considers could the past tense form of can – especially with dynamic

verbs. However, he denies its use in positive sentences if actuality (i.e. the fact that the event

really took place) is implied (117-18). Lewis’s meaning of possibility explains why, with could,

the past action was not accomplished: there was only the possibility for it to be accomplished.

When we want to talk about the accomplishment itself we need to use verbs such as managed to,

or was able to.

Several other uses of could are common. According to Eastwood (2005), “we can also use

[could + perfect infinitive] for a possible action when we know that the action did not happen” or

“to express criticism” (114). Palmer (1988) adds other uses: could is also found in reported

speech; it may be accompanied by expressions such as hardly, little, no-one; or with almost or

just that imply limited or difficult success; with deontic meaning, could is “almost entirely

restricted to the use of the interrogative for a polite request” and with dynamic modality “for

suggestions and requests” (117-19).

5.2.3 Coursebooks

Both coursebooks practise could in its central meaning. Similarly to can, could in the

meaning of remote possibility is presented together with have to in Inside Out Pre-Intermediate

Unit Nine. The definition is “it was(n’t) possible for me to….” The remoteness of could lies in

time. Students read a text about the childhood of a rock star and complete gaps with these

expressions. Then, they discuss the (im)possibilities of their own schooldays. Headway

Intermediate presents could in Unit Nine as an expression of logical possibility or probability.

Students infer from two letters facts about their authors. Could is here synonymous with might

and is rated as 45% certainty – the definition is “possible, but less probable.” It means

hypothetical assumption. We infer from given information the possibility of actions and states in

reality. Opposed to must or can’t, our certainty is vague. Students then practise using these

expressions in exercises in which they read, or listen to, a piece of information or short

conversations, and guess what possible situations there may be. Could with the perfect infinitive

expresses the same idea in the past. Likewise, Intermediate Unit Eleven acquaints students with

tools for speculating and deducing. Could is ranked as “I’m not really sure” and synonymous

with may and might. Students learn how to express the possibility of actions and states in

situations which do not clearly show reality.

In New Headway Elementary, the first presentation of could is just after the presentation

of can in Unit Six. The form could/couldn’t is introduced with the same meaning of ability in the

past. Here we can see the remoteness in time. An exercise practising could uses four geniuses

and their abilities when they were children. Students then apply the same structure to describe

their own abilities in their childhood. As was already mentioned above, Headway’s Everyday

English section of Unit 9 (Elementary) ‘Polite requests’, highlights the idiomatic expressions

Can/Could I…? to ask for things and Can/Could you…? to ask other people to do things for us.

The difference in the degree of politeness between the verbs can and could can be clarified by the

teacher and discussed over the sentences in the exercise asking for a favour. The remoteness of

could shows the distance that we take in situations which are inconvenient for the addressee (e.g.

asking for money).

The coursebooks follow Lewis’s conception in two ways: first, remoteness of could lies in

time – students discuss the possibilities in the past; second, remoteness includes greater

uncertainty when expressing conclusions about possible actions and states. Moreover, students

practise could as a lexical expression of asking for permission in social conversations.

5.3 MAY


The central meaning of may is personal possibility. Lewis (1986) defines may: “If I have

anything to do with it, it is possible that….” He stresses the speaker’s, or, in questions, listener’s,

explicit involvement in the possibility (114). The meaning of may seems similar to the meaning

of can. However, they differ in the personal engagement of the speaker. Lewis shows the

difference between two questions: Can I smoke here? and May I smoke here? He paraphrases the

first as: Is it allowed? and the other as Do you permit me? In the second question, “the speaker is

volitionally involved in the creation of a possibility” (1986: 113-4). Yule (1998) agrees with

Lewis, “the core concept of may has to do with some event being possible (or not). The different

interpretations of may result from the ways in which ‘possibility’ is perceived in different

circumstances.” He explains that “the event is judged to have an equal possibility of occurring or

not” (94-5). Also according to Quirk et al. (1985), may “denotes the [epistemic] possibility of a

given proposition’s being or becoming true” (223).

Leech’s comments on the modal may admit Lewis’s definition. He mentions three

meanings which narrow down to the central meaning of possibility: permission is less used

“because of its association with the authoritarianism of the Victorian schoolmaster”, and

benediction and malediction are “very formal and rarely found in modern English.” Moreover, he

asserts, “the ‘permission’ and ‘possibility’ meanings are close enough to one another for the

distinction to be blurred on occasions” – the difference lies in stress which, for instance, cannot

be recognized in writing (1971: 68-9). Furthermore, Leech sees may as “more particular and

practical kind of possibility” and he ascribes it a “slightly stronger meaning” than can (1969:

221). This stronger meaning seems to stem from the involvement of the speaker.

Other grammarians support the central meaning of may as well. According to Palmer

(1988), may again indicates possibility: “It can be paraphrased ‘possible that…’ but with the

suggestion that the speaker makes a judgment about what ‘may’ be.” When it occurs with

adverbs such as perhaps and possibly, “the adverb does little more than reinforce the notion of

possibility” (107). Finally, Biber et al. (1999) also confirm Lewis’s central meaning because

when we look at the frequency of may in English, its use for logical possibility overweighs its use

for permission (491). To conclude, may is not common in English and Lewis recommends it to be

taught in two stages: as a request May I…? different from Can I…? in the personal decision of

the listener; and in statements meaning “as far as I am concerned it is possible that” (Lewis 1986:

126).


Some grammarians assert that may is also used for permission. It is “more formal and

less common than can … [and] is particularly associated with permission given by the speaker”

(Quirk et al. 1985: 223-24). However, Yule (1998) explains permission as “some social authority

having the power to create or prevent the possibility of an event” (95). So again, we get Lewis’s

central meaning of may. Palmer (1988) sees ambiguity in the use of may with the simple form of

a verb – it may be interpreted as giving permission. However, he admits that may is “mostly

literary, formal or old-fashioned” (107-09). This formal expression contributes to greater

politeness and thus is commonly used for polite requests in questions; similar to the question May

I? is the expression if I may (Palmer 1988: 111).

Palmer (1988) also introduces so called ‘concessive’ use. May indicates that “the speaker

entertains a proposition: he merely accepts it for consideration” (108). This use of may is

becoming more common in English. In Yule’s view, “the speaker wishes to acknowledge the

possibility of some event or state of affairs being the case, but not necessarily relevant for the

current discussion.” He adds that “it is often followed by a but clause [and] can usually be

paraphrased by a clause beginning with although” (1998: 95). Moreover, “We use may … to say

that something is possibly true. We can also use may … for an uncertain prediction of intention”

(Eastwood 2005: 112).

5.3.3 Coursebooks

With some exceptions, may is neglected in both sets of coursebooks. The only mention of

may as expression of possibility is in New Headway Intermediate Unite Nine – Grammar

Reference presents may as an expression of possibility in the present or future. However, it does

not appear in any exercise in the unit. Next, we can find it in Inside Out Intermediate Unit Eleven

– it is mentioned alongside might, perhaps, could, maybe for deductions and speculations with

the meaning of “I’m not really sure”.

Moreover, may appears in New Headway Intermediate Grammar Reference of Unit Four:

it expresses permission, together with can and be allowed to. On the other hand, it is totally

ignored in Inside Out Intermediate Unit Ten which deals with obligation, prohibition and

permission.

The teaching of may obviously corresponds to its rare use. Lewis’s recommendation is

observed: expressions of possibility and polite questions of permission are mentioned briefly. It is

only natural that the permission use of may is scarce because of its formal character.

5.4 MIGHT


The central meaning of might is remote personal possibility. Lewis (1986) defines

might: “If I have anything to do with it, it is “remotely” possible that….” The relationship

between may and might is similar to the relationship between can and could – “might is the

remote form of may” (113). Although all four forms: can, could, may and might imply

possibility, “the difference is that with can/could the speaker perceives the existence of a

possibility; with may/might the speaker is volitionally involved in the creation of a possibility”

(Lewis 1986: 113) – the possibility is more personal because of the speaker’s involvement. Yule

(1998) confirms Lewis’s idea of remoteness – “the difference between may and might is based on

relative remoteness from the point of utterance. The remoteness of possibility interpretation of

might results in a sense of ‘uncertainty’ about the likelihood of an event taking place, or a request

being granted.” He adds, “when a possibility is marked as being remote, it can also receive a

hypothetical or ‘unreal’ interpretation. The remoteness associated with might also results in the

concessive uses being marked as even less likely, or less relevant, in the speaker’s view” (96).

Parott (2000) agrees that might “refers to possibility” and “we use … [it] to express hypothetical

meaning” (127).

Lewis’s remoteness of might is reflected in the weakening of the possibility in Palmer’s

view: might is used “as tentative form of epistemic may in all its possible environments, to

express a lower degree of possibility” (1988: 119). Also according to Quirk et al. (1985), might

is “often preferred to may as a modal verb of epistemic possibility.” In this pair, might is more

tentative and polite (223). Finally, Biber et al. (1999) show in their frequency charts that might is

used solely for possibility (491). For teaching purposes, Lewis highlights the one use of might –

“it is quite likely that” – and mentions also “the lexical item Might I suggest…” (1986: 126).


Some grammarians mention other minor and marginal uses of might. In Close’s view,

“might expresses the maximum degree of hesitancy in requests for permission” (1992: 109).

Palmer (1988) agrees that this use is less common and might is used solely in polite requests

(119). In Eastwood’s view, “We can use a statement with might to make a suggestion” and it “can

also express criticism that something is not done” (2005: 112). Palmer (1988) mentions the use of

might for suggestions and reproaches as well (120). Moreover, might is used in the concessive

sense, in reported speech as the past tense of may, and to describe habitual activities in literary

contexts (Palmer 1988: 117, 119, 121). And finally, “we can also use … might for an uncertain

prediction of intention” (Eastwood 2005: 112).

5.4.3 Coursebooks

Both sets of coursebooks teach might in its central meaning of possibility. Both present

them in contrast with other modals. Students first come across might in Unit Twelve in New

Headway Pre-Intermediate. In this unit, might expresses future possibility. Two texts about

young people contrast the certainty of will/be going to/Present Continuous to express future plans

with might to describe the possibilities a person has in life. Might is here synonymous with

perhaps…will. Students’ practice consists of exercises in which they choose between will and

might according to the degree of certainty about the future activities, and express two possibilities

between which they have not decided yet. Then they talk about their possible plans for the future

– evening, weekend, or holiday.

Inside Out includes might even earlier – in Unit Nineteen Elementary. Sentences

forecasting the weather contrast might with will and an axis is presented with a scale from will

happen to won’t happen, in the middle of which appears might for states which are possible but

not certain. Students then rewrite the sentences so that they are true for the weather in their area.

In Inside Out Intermediate Unit Eleven, might is introduced as a synonym to may, perhaps, and

maybe meaning “I’m not really sure”. Students use it for deductions and speculations. The same

use can be found in New Headway Intermediate. Unit Nine discusses the use of might to express

degrees of probability – might is defined as possible, but less probable. It is placed on the same

level as could – 45% sure. As I mentioned above, students are encouraged to use might and other

modal verbs to infer from given facts about the possibility of a situation. With the use of the

Perfect Infinitive, they do the same about the past.

Students learn how to use might to express possibility according to Lewis’s interpretation

‘it’s quite likely that’. The possibility concerns the speakers so it is often used to express their

possible future plans. The remoteness consists of lesser probability and hypothetical

understanding of the reality.

5.5 WILL


The central meaning of will is inevitable truth. Lewis (1986) defines will: “Given my

perception of the immediate situation, it is inevitably true that…” (116). According to Lewis, will

“relates to a state which is not factual for the speaker at the moment of speaking.” The moment of

speaking and the state, which the speaker refers to, are inevitably linked; this other state mostly

differs in time and “is seen as non-factual” and “psychologically immediate for the speaker at the

moment of speaking” (1986: 115). This psychological immediacy and lack of factuality exclude

the past or present states and actions and contribute to the future meaning of will. Besides future,

Lewis (1986) offers another meaning – the other state may refer to logical inevitability of

“which the speaker does not have direct factual knowledge.” Such ““inevitability” of the situation

may be temporal or logical. The former is much the more frequent” (115-17). This supports the

usage of will to express future states and activities.

Other grammarians support Lewis. According to Quirk et al. (1985), will is used for

prediction: it expresses what the speaker thinks will happen (228). Close (1992) states, “will

allows the speaker to make a statement, not asserting that it is true but suggesting that it will

prove to be so” (97). The speakers describe the action that they believe will happen. Close adds

that will is often preceded by phrases such as I suppose or I expect (1992: 97). Yule sees “the

core concept” of will in “likelihood”; its interpretations differ in different circumstances. All

three meanings that he presents – intention, willingness and prediction – are only refinements of

Lewis’s concept of will: the speaker considers some action or state inevitable. In Yule’s view,

‘intention’ covers planned future events reported by the speaker. When future actions are “part

of some social transaction” and are limited to “animate agents and physical actions”, he speaks of

‘willingness’. And the last meaning – prediction – “is … done by the speaker, often about his or

her own future actions, but the subjects of such predictions are frequently non-animate, third

person forms” (1998: 101-2).

Next, Leech presents four uses of will: three of them are various ranges of volition and

only the fourth one, predictability, corresponds to Lewis’s concept. Predictability “is more

closely related to the future meaning of will/shall. … The speaker makes a ‘forecast about the

present’ (in so far as such a thing is possible) concerning an event not directly observable.” Leech

compares this meaning of will to must in the sense of logical necessity (1971: 78-80). Palmer

(1988) paraphrases will as “‘A reasonable conclusion is that…’” (137). In his view, “will is often

used to refer to the future where there is clear reference to a future that is envisaged, planned,

etc., and not simply in future time. In this sense there is a modal rather than a real (tense) future”

(Palmer 1988: 143-4).

According to Biber et al. (1999), will is frequently ambiguous between marking logical

prediction and personal volition. However, it is more common in prediction than volition (496).

In addition, Lewis (1986) explains the difference between the use of will and be going to for

Future Time reference. The important part of the definition of will is the “perception of the

immediate situation” [emphasis added] – the speaker judges the situation and makes prediction

“on the basis of an immediate, instantaneous, perception of the situation at the moment of

speaking.” With be going to, the speaker has thought about the situation before the moment of

speaking (117).


According to Quirk et al. (1985), will conveys volition, which ranges from weak volition

of willingness through intention to strong volition of insistence (229). Leech (1971) describes

these kinds of volition in more detail: willingness (weak volition) is used in “second-person

requests”; insistence (strong volition) has “strong emotional overtones” and is not very common;

intention (intermediate volition) conveys “a promise, a threat, or a corporate decision” and “the

volitional element of meaning is reinforced by a feeling that in the act of speaking, a decision has

been made, and that the fulfilment of the intention is guaranteed”. These volitional meanings are

limited because they require human or animate subjects (78-80). In Palmer’s (1988) view, “will is

used to express volition or willingness on the part of the subject. It is thus clearly ‘subject-

oriented’ and dynamic. This volition use, however, always carries with it the meaning of futurity”

(138).

Inevitability also appears as certainty in assuming and deducing. Parott (2000) states, “In

its weak or contracted form we use will (’ll) to express logical deduction when we are 100%

certain” (127). In this case, Eastwood talks about assumption (2005: 110). Palmer (1988)

observes that will is used “with reference to present states and activities … [and] to habitual

actions.” Jespersen calls this use of will for such typical or habitual behaviour ‘habit’ (Palmer

1988: 136-39). Will is also used in questions to make requests, to give instructions or guidance, to

make suggestions (especially for the benefit of the addressee), and also in “conditional sentences

referring to the future” (Palmer 1988: 138-39, 142-44).

5.5.3 Coursebooks

Will belongs to modals which are thoroughly and frequently dealt with in both

coursebooks. It is quite interesting that will is not included among the future forms in Unit

Twelve of Inside Out Elementary. Neither is it present when discussing the future in Unit Eight

of Inside Out Pre-Intermediate. The prediction meaning of will appears for the first time in

talking about the weather forecast in Elementary Unit Nineteen alongside might. Students

modify sentences and insert will and won’t to make predictions about the weather. Similar

predictions about the future are presented and more thoroughly explored in Pre-Intermediate Unit

Sixteen. Expression such as I hope, I (don’t) think, definitely and probably accompany will.

Students make predictions on various topics, such as family, children, money, house, job, etc.

Prompts are given and the task is to complete sentences with students’ own ideas. The prediction

will is mentioned in New Headway Intermediate Unit Nine: Grammar Reference defines will as

an expression of what we believe to be true about the present: we make guesses based on what

we know about people and things, their routines, characters, and qualities. However, no practice

is done in this unit at all.

Will is mostly presented as a tool for expressing future actions and states. It is often

contrasted to other ways that are used for the same purpose. New Headway Pre-Intermediate

practises the modal will in Unit Five. This unit introduces two uses of will: expressing a future

decision or intention made at the moment of speaking (contrasted with going to for decisions

made before the moment of speaking) and expressing an offer. Students match sentences with

will and going to to pictures according to the immediacy of the decisions – they have to decide

whether the intentions are spontaneous or premeditated. There follows a very entertaining

exercise called Let’s have a party! In the first round, students offer help with the party, saying

“I’ll bring the music” or “I’ll buy some crisps”, etc. Their decisions are impulsive and

unpremeditated. In the second round, the teacher who pretends that he has not heard what the

students have said repeats their sentences. Respective students must correct the teacher with “No,

I’m going to bring some music” realizing at the same time that they have already decided in the

first round and their decisions are planned and determined. Again, will is discussed in detail in

New Headway Intermediate Unit Five under future forms. It expresses a future fact or prediction,

decision, intention or offer made at the moment of speaking. Will is contrasted, both in theory

and exercises, with going to and this time also Present Continuous which is used for personal

arrangements in the future. Will is preceded by I (don’t) think which stresses the speaker’s

involvement in the assessment of the future.

Eventually, Inside Out Intermediate includes will among the future forms in Unit Seven.

The definition of its use is: to state a new decision, to make promises and offers. The use at the

moment of making a decision is stressed. It is, of course, contrasted with the uses of going to and

Present Continuous. Students read a conversation and choose among these forms the correct one

in the particular sense. Completion of short conversations with own ideas and replies makes

students think about the meanings and uses of the three forms they choose from. Intermediate

Unit Nine focuses on will for the future and its connection with continuous and perfect forms.

First, the Language reference sums up the use of will for prediction, promises and offers, refusals

and requests. Then, will with be + -ing is used for an action around a time in the future – the

action starts before and finishes after a specific point. The structure will + Past participle

describes a future event from the point of view of a later time. Timelines accompany the

explanations and show examples. Lexical time expressions help students to talk about the future.

The exercise contains a woman’s timetable and students complete sentences with suitable

structures. Then they write similar sentences about themselves and make predictions about

themselves, their partner and their country.

Moreover, will forms part of conditional sentences (first conditional). It expresses a

probable result after a possible condition is fulfilled. In Unit Nine of New Headway Pre-

Intermediate, students make chains of conditional sentences. Similar focus is in Intermediate

Unit Eight.

The use of will for prediction is well depicted in Inside Out – better than in New Headway

where practise is neglected. Often, will is presented in comparison with other expressions that are

used to talk about the future such as be going to and the present continuous. The advantage is that

students can see the differences in meanings and uses of these forms. On the other hand, not

enough practice of individual structures on their own can be seen as a disadvantage, especially

when they are introduced for the first time.

5.6 WOULD


The central meaning of would is remote inevitable truth. Lewis (1986) defines would:

“Given the (hypothetical) situation which I perceive at the moment of speaking, the action

described is also inevitably true….” Would is related to will – it is its remote form and it

expresses “an event which is psychologically remote for the speaker.” Such psychological

remoteness explains sentences such as We would go there a lot when I was a child to which

Lewis ascribes the feeling of nostalgia (1986: 121-2). Eastwood (2005) specifies, “would is

sometimes used to talk about past habits” in formal and written English (117). Palmer (1988)

agrees that would refers to habitual actions or activities in the past (139). Like with will, the

speaker assesses two situations. However, with would, “the first perceived state is, at the moment

of speaking, remote from the speaker, in a non-factual way. … The speaker, at the moment of

speaking, conceptualizes the action as hypothetical, i.e. non-factually remote” (Lewis 1986: 122).

Thus Lewis explains the use of would in conditional sentences: would is “associated with events

which are ‘hypothetical’ for the speaker”; in this context ‘hypothetical’ means “true in certain

circumstances, not those currently prevailing.” Such circumstances are usually described in a

clause beginning with when, if or unless (1986: 122). In addition, questions (requests) starting

with Would you…? are considered “polite forms”. They differ from Do you…? because they “are

distanced ‘from the speaker’” and “refer to the perception of the listener at the moment of

speaking” (Lewis 1986: 123).

Quirk et al. (1985) present the use of would for prediction in the past (228). Also

according to Biber et al. (1999), would marks logical prediction and personal volition. However,

the meaning of prediction is more frequent than the meaning of volition (496). Yule (1998)

confirms Lewis’s idea of remoteness. He sees in would the “combination of remoteness and

likelihood … In many cases, remote likelihood is interpreted as not very likely at all (i.e.

hypothetical). … Quite often, the sense of remoteness comes from reported versions of what was

said or thought” (104). Close talks abut the use of would instead of will in past indirect speech

(1992: 97). Parott (2000) describes the use of would to express “future in the past” (129). The

psychological remoteness of would can be explained as remoteness in time or remoteness of the

inevitability of the situation.

Yule (1998) differentiates past habitual behaviour which consists of “remoteness in time

(i.e. past) … with predictability of action”, and conditional use in sentences about hypothetical

situations consisting of “remoteness in possibility … with ‘prediction’” (105). Close (1992) adds

to the idea of conditional would, “In conditional sentence … the past tense in the if-clause attracts

would in the main” (97). Eastwood adds that, “with would, there is often a phrase or clause

explaining the situation that the speaker is imagining” (2005: 116). According to Close (1992),

would allows “the speaker to make a statement but with less certainty than … with will” (99).

Parott (2000) observes that we use would to “speculate, express hypothetical meaning, describe

what we are imagining” (126-27). When the speakers consider the situation as hypothetical, their

prediction about the inevitability of the future action is less certain than, and thus remote from,

that with will.


Most other meanings of would can be ranked as lexical expressions or functions in social

conversation. Palmer (1988) mentions the following uses: would as “a past tense form of will for

volition”, would as “the tentative form of will when used for suggestions”, and also as requests in

questions (139-40). Eastwood (2005) presents various lexical combinations of would, e.g. would

like, would mind, and would rather. Would like has the same meaning as want but it is used more

often when we ask for things. It is also used in questions containing offers and invitations. With

combinations of would with love, hate or enjoy, we express what we want or do not want to do.

Would mind is used in negatives and questions. Would rather (not) (+ infinitive without to or a

clause) means ‘prefer’ or ‘would prefer’ and its synonym is would sooner (116-17).

5.6.3 Coursebooks

The only use of would in Lewis’s meaning of remote inevitability of actions appears in

Inside Out Intermediate. Unit Eleven focuses on the meaning of would which shows that we are

talking or writing about a situation that is imaginary or improbable. The exercise offers the idea

of various exotic places, e.g. Siberia, Hawaii, and students describe the place. They, in fact,

predict the state and actions that happen in such, for them, hypothetical places.

Often, would appears in coursebooks in conditional sentences. In New Headway Pre-

Intermediate Unit Twelve, would is part of the second conditional. It expresses a probable result

of an unreal or improbable condition in the present or future. The introduction outlines the

unreality in a text about a girl who dreams about being a princess. Students practise sentences in

which they connect unreal situations and their results; later they say what they would do in

certain unreal situations. Giving advice using If I were you, I’d… follows. Intermediate book

includes would in the outline of conditional sentences which express unreal or improbable

situations. It stresses the difference between first conditional (using will) and second conditional

(using would): it lies not in time but probability. Next, the use of would in conditionals appears in

Unit Seventeen Inside Out Pre-Intermediate. An example sentence If you were an animal, what

animal would you like to be? makes students realize that we describe an unreal situation. The

following exercise always describes a real situation and students must reverse it into unreal and

complete it. They also discuss moral dilemmas concerning money, stealing or partnership and say

what they would do in such situations. Inside Out Intermediate Unit Fourteen and Fifteen

introduce unreal conditionals, including the unreal past with would have, and students practise

them in completing sentences or commenting unreal past situations presented to them in short

texts. Thus, in conditional sentences, Lewis’s remoteness is present in the other clause which sets

the situation as hypothetical. Students then use would and predict the action in such situation.

Further use of would is in lexical expressions rather than in grammatical structures. The

first mention of would is in New Headway Elementary Unit Nine in the expression would like for

offers and requests. Not much about the structure of the verb would is mentioned. The topic of

this unit is ‘Food’ and would like is used and practised in conversations offering and requesting

food and beverages. Thus the main use of would for prediction is neglected in favour of its

volitional meaning. However, it seems more important for students of English to know the usage

of this modal verb in everyday conversation. It enriches their stock of polite social phrases

without overloading them with complex grammatical issues. Like Headway, Inside Out

Elementary first introduces would like in a conversation between a shop assistant and a customer.

No grammar is explained – students just complete the dialogue and then practise it. Inside Out

Elementary Unit Twelve focuses on expressions of future and includes ‘d (would) like to to talk

about dreams or desires for the future. In these cases, the function of would in lexical phrases

(would like) proves more important and useful for students than grammar exercises.

Inside Out Intermediate Unit Five, surprisingly, uses would to talk about regular or

repeated past actions. It stresses that it suggests a feeling of nostalgia and is often used for

personal reminiscences. It is contrasted with used to which can be used not only for past actions

but also for past states. Students transform simple past sentences into sentences with would or

used to and change them so that they are true for them. Here, Lewis’s remoteness lies in time.

Inside Out presents Lewis’s central meaning of would better than New Headway – the

basic meaning of remote inevitability is practised here on its own. In their other exercises, both

coursebooks cover would in the second conditional. For this usage, unreal situations such as

travelling to Africa, being an animal, president, and the opposite sex, having or finding a lot of

money, are chosen similarly in both coursebooks. Students also learn to use would like to express

their wishes and offers in polite conversations – would is treated as a lexical expression enriching

their social skills.

5.7 SHALL


The central meaning of shall is personal conclusion of inevitability. Lewis (1986)

defines shall: “According to my perception of the present situation, if it’s anything to do with me,

it’s inevitable that…” (120). Although will and shall are similar in meaning, they are not

identical: “shall has the meaning of will and the additional meaning “if it’s anything to do with

me (the speaker)”.” Similarly, in questions it concerns you – the listener (Lewis 1986: 120).

According to Biber et al. (1999), shall is the least common modal in English (486). However, it is

an important part of written legal and religious English, e.g. the Ten Commandments (Lewis

1986: 120). Lewis denies the fossil character of the verb and explains that shall contains “the

explicit involvement of the speaker in the creation of the “inevitability”.” He quotes the song We

Shall Overcome which expresses “the personal commitment of each individual singer to the

objectives of the group” (1986: 120-21). Close (1992) points out that “shall as a modal is also a

mark of decision or determination on the part of the speaker(s) with regard to the actions of

others” – he stresses the “private colouring” of shall and its ability to express “the speaker’s

deference to the wishes of the audience” (99-100). Yule (1998) agrees that “there is often a

general element of ‘determination’ on the speaker’s part in first person uses of shall” and also “a

strong obligation interpretation associated with the use of shall” (103). Lewis suggests that

students should only know that shall is used in questions and in the phrase Let’s…, shall we?

(1986: 121).

According to Quirk et al. (1985), shall is used only in the first person and is rather formal.

It is used for prediction and volition. In questions containing shall I/we, shall “consults the

wishes of the addressee, and thus moves from a volitional towards an obligational meaning”

(229-30). The common use in the first person results from Lewis’s definition ‘if it has anything to

do with me’ and in questions ‘if it has anything to do with the listener’. Leech agrees with

Lewis’s idea of the personal concept of shall - “shall implicates the will of the speaker” which

differentiates it from will (1971: 80). In all his three meanings of shall – willingness, insistence

and intention – he stresses “the part of the speaker.” In strong volition, “the listener’s will is

entirely subservient to that of the speaker.” Leech stresses that, unlike will, “shall signifies the

speaker’s volition, not the subject’s” (1971: 81-82). It is thus the speaker who feels responsible

for, or in control of, the action. In Palmer’s view, “with shall the speaker gives an undertaking,

guarantees that an action will take place.” Unlike may or must which “permit or oblige someone

else”, shall “guarantees that the speaker will act.” It is also used formally “after verbs of insisting,

etc., where the speaker’s involvement is made quite explicit” (1988: 141). The personal

involvement of the speaker and hearer are present in the meaning of shall and differentiates it

from other expressions of future inevitability such as will.


According to Biber et al. (1999), shall is typically used as volitional modal to express

offers and suggestions (497). Palmer (1988) also mentions the use of shall in first person

questions “to make a suggestion or offer” (142). Leech describes in more detail the three

volitional meanings of shall: willingness on the part of the speaker (weak volition) is used

rarely, mainly to pets and young children; insistence on the part of the speaker (strong volition)

has “very restricted use, and carries strong overtones of imperiousness”, nowadays can be found

in legal documents; and, finally, intention on the part of the speaker (intermediate volition)

(1971: 81).

5.7.3 Coursebooks

The presentation of shall in coursebooks reflects its rare use in English and also follows

Lewis’s recommendation. The modal shall is mentioned in the Everyday English section ‘Making

suggestions’ in New Headway Elementary Unit Twelve. It is used in questions to ask for and

make suggestions. This volitional function is the main function of the verb and is concerned with

the wishes of the speakers. Personal involvement emerges when students ask What shall we do?

and Shall we…? and suggest activities for nice and bad weather. The Grammar Reference in New

Headway Intermediate describes the use of shall in questions with the first person expressing an

offer, a suggestion or a request for advice. It appears in the Post Script sections which deal with

conversational expressions – Unit Four presents requests and offers (Shall I…?), and Unit Eight

suggestions (Shall we…?). Inside Out Pre-Intermediate includes shall in Shall I…? as a way to

ask someone if we can do something for them – an offer. Practical examples of the usage of shall

in social English teach students how to use it in conversations.

5.8 SHOULD


The central meaning of should is personal conclusion of remote inevitability. Lewis

(1986) considers should the problematic modal verb. It does not have only one use and it is

difficult to find one central meaning. However, Lewis lists some characteristics of the meaning of

should: it expresses “a non-factual state, psychologically remote or distant from the speaker at

the moment of speaking”; it includes the “hypothetical idea” and the idea “if it’s anything to do

with me”; it expresses “two states in contrast with each other” (123-24). Although Lewis does not

supply a clear definition of should, in his view, should means ”this would happen if it was

anything to do with me” or “I think it is desirable that…” or – involving directly the speaker – “as

far as I can see, it is reasonable to assume…” (1986: 124). Close (1992) supports Lewis’s ideas:

“should suggests obligation (that is escapable) or action that is advisable.” In his view, should

“makes a supposition” and the speaker expresses hesitation but, at the same time, “supposes the

statement (s)he is making to be true.” This he calls ‘suggestive’ or ‘putative’ should (100-101).

Yule’s conception of should reflects Lewis’s definition ‘I think it is desirable that…’: he

sees the basic meaning of should in ‘requirements’ which demand appropriate behaviour. Such

obligations are weaker than must and are interpreted as the speaker’s “advice or … suggestion”.

Should also expresses “the speaker’s reasonable assumptions” and “what is most probably the

case” (1998: 106-7). This agrees with Lewis’s ‘it is reasonable to assume…’. Quirk et al. (1985)

claim the same: should expresses ‘tentative inference’ – it characterizes the ‘noncommitted

necessity’ – “the speaker does not know if his or her statement is true, but tentatively concludes

that it is true” (227). Palmer (1988) stresses the difference between must and should: must is

discourse oriented and it lays “an absolute obligation” – it “does not allow that the event will not

take place” – whereas should is subject oriented and expresses “less absolute obligation” and

does not “exclude non-compliance” (132).

Various uses of should gravitate around the meanings suggested by Lewis. According to

Biber et al. (1999), the hedging modal should provides more polite expression of obligation than

must and seldom expresses logical necessity (495). John Eastwood (2005) observes, “we can also

use should to say that something is probable, either in the present or the future.” Moreover,

“should has the additional meaning of ‘if all goes well’” (111). Palmer (1988) agrees that should

also means “‘It is likely or probable that…’” (134). He adds that “should is often used in

subordinate clauses after expressions of surprise and similar feelings” and “quite often should

occurs after the word reason” (134-5).

Furthermore, Lewis (1986) mentions some particular uses of should: to express weak

probability; use in subordinate clauses introduced by ‘that’; in fixed phrases such as I should

say/think/imagine; and with ‘how’ and ‘why’ (irritation showing sentences How should I know!

and Why should I…). However, he finds one combining element in all these and that is “reference

to “in circumstances other than those prevailing at the moment””, i.e. hypothetical situations

(124-5). For Parott, hypothetical situations bring a greater degree of uncertainty in should.

Moreover, he expands Lewis’s examples of use to “subordinate clauses, where it has no

connotations of obligation or logical deduction” and usage after conjunctions “in case and if;

adjectives such as: anxious (that), concerned (that), delighted (that), etc.; verbs such as: demand

(that), insist (that), recommend (that), request (that); nouns such as: (the) fact (that), (the) idea

(that)” (2000: 127, 129). Finally, Lewis warns teachers not to contrast would and should in their

classes (1986: 126).

5.8.2 Coursebooks

In coursebooks, the most common function of should is to give advice or offer

suggestion. It combines in itself all the main points that Lewis makes: it involves the speaker

who expresses the desirable action. Also, it is only a hypothetical action because the listener is

not in any way obliged to fulfil it. New Headway Elementary Unit Eight comprises the basic

introduction to the forms of modal verbs and one of those that are presented here is should. It is

used to express what the speaker thinks is right or the best thing to do – mild obligation or advice.

It is contrasted with must which expresses a strong obligation. An exercise presents some

problems and students give advice. I (don’t) think is added to make the advice more personal.

Another exercise asks students to give advice to a foreigner who wants to visit the student’s

country. The structure is also used in a reading exercise called “Problem page” in which students

read the readers’ problems and suggested advice. They complete the text with expressions most

of which contain should. Intermediate Unit Four contrasts must (mother’s instructions) and

should (friendly advice). Students complete sentences with I think you should… or I don’t think

you should… according to their meaning in a conversation of two friends who want to travel.

Then they practise the structure in giving advice in situations described in an exercise and they

are encouraged to ask the class for advice with their own problems.

Inside Out Elementary introduces should in Unit Fourteen as a tool for giving advice.

After students complete sentences with too and (not) enough to express a problem, they put

words in the correct order to make sentences with should to give advice. Then, they personalize

them. Pre-Intermediate Unit Nine puts together must and should. Students read an extract from a

book called The Rules which contains rules for dating using must or mustn’t. Students then are

invited to discuss their opinions and write advice using should and shouldn’t. They also give

advice to a person from a listening activity. Intermediate book again contrasts must and should in

Unit Ten. The exercise shows the difference between higher or lesser importance of tasks.

Students then write their list of “things to do” and talk about their priorities. The Language

reference describes should as weaker (than must), used for less important obligation, or one that

is not respected.

As with some previous modal verbs, should is again contrasted with another modal –

must. The difference in strength is highlighted – should is the milder version which does not

order but only gives advice. Both coursebooks offer similar contexts for presenting should as a

tool to suggest or advise – problems and difficult situations. Students learn how to express their

own opinions and politely offer help and suggestions in such situations.

5.9 MUST


The central meaning of must is necessity. Lewis (1986) defines must: “I assert that it is

necessary that… … The necessity may be of different kinds, for example, legal, moral, practical

or logical” (114). The necessity is subjective, and its source is “the speaker’s own volition of

perception” (Lewis 1986: 105). Yule (1998) supports Lewis, “the core concept [of must] is

‘necessity’, with socially-oriented (root) necessity being interpreted as an obligation, and

knowledge-oriented (epistemic) necessity being interpreted as a conclusion.” The deontic use of

must ranges from strong obligation (i.e. order, legal requirement) to weak obligation (i.e. the

speaker finds some action important). The verbs following must refer to present or future actions

and they take animate (human) subjects. Moreover, “the obligation meaning of must is often

found in non-personal warnings and rules” (97-98). Parott (2000) views must as expression of

“‘internal’ obligation (obligation which is imposed by the speaker)” (127).

Other grammarians’ explanations support necessity as Lewis’s central meaning of must.

According to Quirk et al. (1985), must expresses (logical) necessity: “It implies that the speaker

judges the proposition expressed by the clause to be necessarily true, or at least to have a high

likelihood of being true. … The speaker has drawn a conclusion from things already known or

observed” (224-25). Leech’s meaning of must is that of logical necessity which he further

weakens to ‘logical assumption’ – it is “knowledge arrived at by inference or reasoning rather

than by direct experience” (1971: 72). This corresponds to Lewis’s subjective judgement of

necessity. In Close’s view, “must suggests that the truth of the speaker’s statement is

inescapable. The speaker feels no doubt about it” (1992: 105). Thus speakers express their

opinion that something is necessary.

Must is also used to express obligation and compulsion. Quirk et al. (1985) explain that

the speaker is “advocating a certain form of behaviour” and is also exercising his or her authority

(225). Leech agrees, “the usual implication of must … is that the speaker is the person in

authority” (1971: 72). This complies with Lewis’s definition – the speaker from his position

asserts necessity. Leech adds, when used with the first person, must conveys “the idea of self-

compulsion: the speaker exerts power over himself, perhaps through a sense of duty, through

self-discipline, or merely through a sense of expediency” (1971: 72). Also according to Palmer

(1988), “must is the modal used for necessity” (122). He denies the definition ‘It is necessary

that…’ and instead favours ‘The only possible conclusion is that…’ which “specifically indicates

a judgement by the speaker” (Palmer 1988: 122-3). The notion of conclusion suggests the human

element in the expression of necessity and thus complies with Lewis’s definition. Biber et al.

(1999) justify the prevailing use of must in its extrinsic meaning to mark logical necessity: they

explain that “the relative rarity of must marking personal obligation in conversation is probably

due to the strong directive force this modal has when used in face-to-face interactions” (495).


Besides necessity, must also expresses certainty. In Parott’s view, “we also use must to

express 100% certainty” (2000: 127). Also according to Eastwood (2005), “must can express

certainty … The speaker sees it as necessarily and logically true.” He differentiates the use of

must with simple and continuous tenses – the former expresses obligation, whereas the latter

expresses certainty of an action (110-11). Palmer (1988) introduces other uses of must: “issuing

invitations or making offers in a host/guest situations,” and idiomatic expressions such as “I must

say…, I must confess…, I must admit…, I must agree… etc.” (125-6). Moreover, “we sometimes

use must to recommend something enjoyable” (Eastwood 2005: 105).

5.9.3 Coursebooks

In the coursebooks, must is never presented alone. It is always accompanied by, compared

with, and contrasted to, other verbs such as should or have to. The differences between the verbs

are highlighted and practiced in exercises. New Headway Pre-Intermediate Unit Eight mentions

must for the first time. Students learn that must expresses strong obligation which comes from

inside the speaker. Students are warned to be careful with the use of must, especially You must…,

to express obligation because it expresses authority and sounds bossy. More polite synonymic

expressions are offered instead (e.g. Could you help me?). You must… also expresses strong

suggestion. In this unit, must is compared with should (mild obligation or advice) and have to

(obligation which comes from outside – an authority, law, or regulation). However, the practice

neglects must and focuses on the other two expressions. Further, must appears in New Headway

Intermediate Unit Four. Again, it is contrasted with should: an example of a mother giving orders

to her son is given as opposed to advice received by a friend. Another exercise stresses the

difference between must and have to: students decide in certain situations if the obligation is

personal – originated from the speaker – or impersonal – originated from an external authority.

Unfortunately, any further free practice neglects must.

Inside Out Pre-Intermediate presents must in Unit Nine. The introduction is in the form of

The Rules – an extract from a book that dictates its women readers what they must do to win the

dating game. Strong orders with must and mustn’t slightly surprise with their strictness. Students

complete similar rules for men with must(n’t). However, when they try to create their own rules,

they are recommended to use should and shouldn’t instead. Inside Out Intermediate Unit Ten

contrasts must, which is defined as a simple, strong obligation, and should again. The difference

in the importance of tasks helps students to choose between these two modals. The exercise uses

a list of “things to do” and students discuss priorities.

New Headway Intermediate Unit Nine looks at modals and their use to express possibility

and probability: must expresses the logical conclusion of a situation and it means logically

probable. In the scale of several modal verbs, must implies the most certain inference. Exercises

offer some facts and students make conclusions according to the possibility or probability of

actions and states (also in the past). In Unit Eleven of Inside Out Intermediate, must appears in

speculations and deductions about which students are absolutely sure. The definition is “I’m sure

it is”. In both cases, must represents an extreme on the scale from total positive certainty through

uncertainty to total negative certainty. Moreover, New Headway Intermediate demonstrates the

difference between past obligation (had to) and conclusion about the past (must have + past

participle). The use of translation to show the difference (e.g. určitě x muset) is highly

recommendable.

Both coursebooks teach must together with other modal or semi-modal verbs – either in

contrast or in a scale. The contrast lies in internal (must) and external (have to) obligation. Here

the personal (internal) character of must proves too strong for the obligation and is therefore

discouraged. Next, the strength of the obligation contrasts must with should. Again, should is

favoured because the inevitability of the order makes must very strong and undesirable for

communication. The coursebooks also pay attention to the meaning of logical necessity of must –

speakers make undoubted conclusion about real situations.

6 SEMI-MODALS AND OTHERS

Some verbs cannot be recognized as modals but they are often mentioned along with them

because they share similarities. They are called semi-modals. These verbs cannot be ranked as

modals because they lack their grammatical characteristics. Unlike ‘pure’ modals, “we can use

[semi-modals] … in full range of tense forms. We can also use [them] after other modal verbs”

(Parott 2000: 123). Palmer (1988) specifies, semi-modals are “closely related to modals,

moreover, sometimes seeming to have the same meanings, sometimes indicating specific

contrasts” (106). According to Lewis (1986), these “marginal modals” are “relatively rare and

they do not always behave similarly” (101). Biber et al. (1999) show that the most common

semi-modals are have to, be going to, (had) better, (have) got to, used to and need to (489).

Others that belong to this group are ought to, need, dare, be supposed to, be to, and be able to.

6.1 Have to

The meaning of the most common semi-modal have to expresses necessity. The

difference between have to and must originates from the source of this necessity. All

grammarians agree that this source is “external to the speaker” (Lewis 1986: 105). They describe

the meaning of have to as: obligation “independent of the speaker” (Palmer 1988: 129);

obligation without the authority of the speaker (Leech 1971: 73); “obligation by external forces”

which lacks “the implication that the speaker is in authority” (Quirk et al. 1985: 226); and

obligation coming “from some uncontrollable external source” which can be “some authority,

regulation, or … unavoidable circumstances” (Yule 1998: 100,103). Next, the negatives of both

verbs differ completely. The negative don’t have to expresses “objective non-necessity. The

negation belongs to the necessity” (Lewis 1986: 106). In other words, the obligation is absent. On

the other hand, the negation mustn’t “expresses an obligation not to do something” (Parott 2000:

126). Lewis (1986) explains the use of had to as the past of both have to and must: “If the speaker

looks back on a past event and refers to necessity, that necessity will be objective” (106). Being

objective the past necessity cannot be expressed by any modal auxiliary.

As has been described in section 5.9.3 above, coursebooks mostly contrast have to with

must and exercises teach students to differentiate between internal and external obligation. They

also practice have to and don’t have to as presence of obligation and lack of it. Most exercises

contain rules, regulations, traffic signs and public notices.

6.2 Be going to

Be going to is often compared to will in its meaning of future actions. According to Yule

(1998), be going to is “used to express the ‘willingness’ associated with will” and can replace it

to express ‘intention’ and ‘prediction’. However, it “has an implication that the future action is

related to the present and will occur relatively soon after the time of speaking.” The literal

meaning of the progressive aspect in this construction suggests “that the subject is currently on a

path moving towards a goal. This sense of currently ‘being on a path’ can also create an

implication that the action with be going to was already planned or decided.” Yule also adds that

in the epistemic uses, “the event is predicted to occur right after the time of speaking” (105-6). In

Palmer’s view, be going to “can be interpreted in terms of current orientation in that it relates to

the future from the standpoint of the present or, if the verb is past, of the past. It is thus a ‘future

in the present’ or a ‘future in the past’.” It includes decision or intention, sense of inevitability,

and refers to the immediate future (1988: 146-7).

As has been described in section 5.5.3 above, be going to is usually included in the

coursebooks together with will and other future time expressions. Exercises offer suitable

contexts and encourage students to choose the correct form depending on spontaneity or

premeditation of the future actions.

6.3 Ought to

Quirk et al. (1985) ascribe to ought to meaning similar to should (227). However, it is

“associated with what is externally, objectively, desirable”, not the “speaker’s perception” of

should. “It carries connotations of right and wrong, of abstract desirability” (Lewis 1986: 127-8).

Moreover, “ought to suggests an obligation the fulfilment of which is overdue or may be

delayed” (Close 1992: 102). Leech compares ought to to must the only difference being “lack of

full confidence in the fulfilment of the happening described by the main verb” (1971: 94). Ought

to is sometimes ranked as a modal (e.g. by Eastwood) and it can be used both as a full verb and

an operator. Eastwood (2005) suggests that “in negatives, questions, and short answers we

normally use should” (107). The reason may dwell in speakers’ hesitation whether to use ought to

as an operator or as a full verb (with do for questions and negatives).

Ought to does not appear in the coursebooks as a grammar topic. It may appear as a

lexical item, however, remains unnoticed.

6.4 Need

Lewis (1986) places need close to the group of modal verbs because it “is about necessity,

and necessity is a modal concept.” On one hand, it is treated as a full verb, on the other hand, in

“lexical items or ‘linguistic fossils’” it is used as an operator. Lewis (1986) recommends

considering it a full verb and teach expressions with the operator need as lexical items (128).

Also according to Quirk et al. (1985), need expresses (logical) necessity and is thus synonymous

with must. It is used for obligation or compulsion (226). Leech places the meaning of need to

“half way between must and ought to” (1971: 95). In Parott’s view, “we generally use need as a

modal verb when we are in a position of authority and able to give permission or remove

obligation” (2000: 121). Palmer (1988) contradicts, “need expresses a need or requirement …

without in any way suggesting that it implies obligation imposed by the speaker.” He presents

examples to show the difference between must and need: Must I go? … Do you oblige me to go?

vs. Need I go? ... Is there any need for me to go? (126-28).

Close (1992) stresses the use of need “with negative or interrogative meanings” (94).

Parott observes the difference between needn’t to/don’t need to and don’t have to which lies in

the lack of ‘internal’ vs. ‘external’ obligation (similar to the difference between must and have

to). There is also difference between needn’t have and didn’t have (need) to – the former “refers

to something which took place but was unnecessary” whereas the latter “refers to something

which was unnecessary and so didn’t take place” (2000: 121, 125-6).

Need does not appear in the coursebooks as a grammar topic. It may appear as a lexical

item, however, remains unnoticed.

6.5 Dare

Lewis (1986) admits that dare is so rare in English that it could be ignored in teaching.

Similarly to need, dare can be used in two forms: as a full verb (followed by to), or as an

operator. Expressions featuring dare as an operator are rare and considered close to lexical items

(128-9). Close (1992) points out the uses of dare “with negative or interrogative meanings” (94).

Palmer (1988) defines dare as “have the courage to…” (135). Eastwood (2005) explains the

meaning of dare in more detail: “If you dare to do something, you are brave enough to do it. If

you daren’t, then you are too afraid to do it.” He mentions some common usage: we can use dare

with would, and in a phrase How dare…? when we want to protest angrily (119).

Dare does not appear in the coursebooks as a grammar topic. It may appear as a lexical

item, however, remains unnoticed.

6.6 Others

First, Yule (1998) considers be supposed to a weaker version of should – used for

obligation. Its implication lies in the fact that “the social requirement being mentioned is external

to the speaker and may be one that the speaker feels is being ignored” (108). Eastwood (2005)

states that it is used “when we say what should happen because it is the rule, or it is the normal

way of doing things, what people are expected to do”, “for something that is arranged or

intended”, and also “when we talk about what people in general say or believe.” The negative is

used “when something isn’t allowed”, and, when used in the past, “for something that happened

without permission” (108).

Close (1992) defines another semi-modal be to as follows, “I am to (do something) means

that I am obliged to do it by a plan, agreement, timetable or instruction, or something similar,

which I am not free to ignore” (103). Leech compares this construction to have (got) to and ought

to – it “includes the specific idea of ‘ordering’ or ‘commanding’.” It can also be “part of an

official programme.” Moreover, it appears in newspaper articles and headlines as ‘Plan for the

future’, often with the verb to be omitted (1971: 96-8).

Next, the basic use of had better (not) is to give advice (similar to should) (Parott 2000:

122). Close (1992) states shortly, “had better suggests a course of action that seems advisable”

(110). Eastwood (2005) suggests that we use “had better to say what is the best thing to do in a

particular situation” and it is often accompanied by “unpleasant consequences if the action is not

taken.” Moreover, it is stronger than should or ought to, and used more in speech than in writing

(108). In colloquial English, it is often shortened to better (Leech 1971: 98).

Another phrase – be able to – is similar to can in that it expresses ability (Parott 2000:

123). Close (1992) sees the advantages of be (un)able to in “expressing the idea of can in the

infinitive, present participle and present perfect” (107). Moreover, it “may concur with other

modals or other verbs” (Palmer 1988: 121). Yule (1998) admits that, although less common, “be

able to is often presented as a substitute for can, particularly when an ‘ability’ interpretation is

clear” (94). The reason may be that it is more formal than can and thus found in written texts

more often (Palmer 1988: 122). According to Eastwood (2005), “we can use [could and was/were

able to] to talk about a general ability in the past. But we use was/were able to (and not could) for

an action in a particular situation.” Lexical phrases succeeded in doing and managed to do are

synonyms to be able to (115).

And finally, there are other ways of expressing modal meanings (ability, possibility etc.).

Parott mentions “a range of adjectives, nouns and adverbs”; for example possible, necessity,

perhaps (2000: 130). Eastwood (2005) offers still other lexical means, e.g. it’s essential/vital, you

are obliged to/required to, it was necessary, is not allowed/permitted, is prohibited, No picnics

(mainly written), be sure to, be bound to, be (un)likely to (104,109-11). Close (1992) adds

several other expressions which can be found in everyday conversation: might/may as well,

would rather/sooner. He also mentions some other devices both verbal and non-verbal, e.g. seem

or so called ‘disjunct’ adverbials such as apparently (95, 110). Yule (1998) enumerates so-called

modal adverbs, which express a kind of modality, e.g. certainly, maybe, perhaps, probably,

clearly, hopefully, likely, obviously, seemingly, and surely. Moreover, he points out that “modal

meaning seems to be inherent in a number of English verbs: Advise, assume, believe, claim,

forbid, guess, imagine, order, permit, prohibit, seem, suggest, suppose, think, want, warn” (113).

Expressions in this section are treated in the coursebooks as lexical items, not in any way

associated with, or incorporated into, the modal verbs.

7 OTHER OBSERVATIONS

Lewis describes the epistemic uses of modal verbs (possibility, necessity and prediction)

rather than the deontic uses. However, Huddleston and Pullum (2002) claim that the deontic uses

are more basic (178). Close (1992) supports them – he attributes primary function to the deontic

uses of modal verbs (95). Therefore, it sounds natural to look for the central meaning among

these uses of permission, obligation and volition. However, Lewis’s approach comprises certain

logic. The fact that in his definitions of modals he focuses on their epistemic/secondary uses does

not mean that he neglects or even ignores their root function. To make the explanation of modals

easier for the students, slight abstraction and generalization is necessary. In other words,

epistemic uses that Lewis stresses in his definitions are at the basis of deontic uses. Permission

requires possibility, obligation presupposes necessity and prediction establishes volition.

Moreover, Biber et al. (1999) support Lewis’s approach and prove that epistemic uses are more

frequent for most of the modals (491-96).

Not only Lewis, but other grammarians consider the students’ effort to learn modal verbs.

Parott (2000) approves of coursebooks that associate modal verbs to “particular communicative

function,” so-called “meaning and function ‘labels’.” He gives examples: requesting – can,

would; offering – may, would; asking for or granting permission – can, can’t; advising – ought

to/should/had better; suggesting – could; inviting – would. He considers it “a helpful way of

identifying the different uses of modal verbs for learners” (120,124). Yule (1998) sees the most

important role in teaching the meanings of modal verbs in context: “In helping language learners

to make sense of modals, it is important to encourage them to notice the context or circumstances

in which those modal forms are used.” He stresses the need for patience and support of teachers

and “lots of contextualized examples of these forms” (91, 111). There has been sufficient

illustration how the coursebooks employ context for explanation and practise of modal verbs:

should predominantly follows problems, might indecisiveness, and shall appears in asking for

suggestions. The contextual situations in both sets of coursebooks are very similar. For more

ideas, Yule’s Explaining English Grammar supplies common contexts and useful exercises for

teaching modal verbs (111-17).

The last comment refers to the summaries and multiple presentations of modals that

appear in the coursebooks. Lewis suggests explaining the contrast between modal verbs and their

explorations as a group for advanced students (1986: 126-127). However, in the coursebooks

(with the highest level Intermediate), they are often presented together at earlier stages.

Sometimes two or more (semi-)modals at the same time are introduced for the first time and,

simultaneously, their nuances and specific uses depicted. For instance, must, should and have to,

or will and going to. It appears from my experience that students find it difficult to learn

something new and immediately understand its subtleties and particularities. Learners cannot

concentrate on everything at the same time. A thorough practice of individual modals in relevant

contexts before further comparisons or complex summaries is highly desirable.

8 CONCLUSION

To conclude, modal verbs constitute a complex issue in the English grammar. Epistemic,

or extrinsic, modality is rather impersonal and expresses various degrees of logical likelihood.

Deontic, or intrinsic, modality regulates interpersonal relations and expresses desirable

behaviour. Modal or semi-modal verbs are often near synonyms in their meanings but differ in

intensity and formality.

Learners of English want to speak English well, master the language in a very short time,

learn as easily as possible and avoid ambiguities and obscurities. They expect teachers to help

them with all imaginable obstacles. Modal verbs prove to be one of such stumbling blocks.

Michael Lewis’s definitions of the central meanings of modal verbs contribute to the

simplification of both teaching and learning. As he says, “even in the complex area of the modal

auxiliaries, there are powerful patterns which may be seen and understood, and which lead to a

deeper understanding in individual examples” (1986: 104). The central meanings that he assigns

to individual modals help teachers and students to see them in more positive ways.

The coursebooks of English as a second language – New Headway and Inside Out –

mostly take advantage of Lewis’s approach and present the modals in their central meanings with

numerous examples of relevant contexts and situations and exercises that stress the main uses.

Almost all meanings of the nine modal and several semi-modal verbs are gradually covered in the

coursebooks. Sometimes, their explanation is reduced in favour of practical conversational

phrases which use these verbs. The endeavour to clarify the system of modal verbs to students

leads to simplification: various phrases with modals are taught for situations of requests, offers,

suggestions, etc. However, this may encourage students to use modal verbs in conversation,

which is one of the most important aims for all learners of English.

9 WORKS CITED

Primary sources

Kay, Sue and Vaughan Jones (2003). Inside Out Elementary: Student’s Book. Oxford:

Macmillan.

Kay, Sue and Vaughan Jones (2000). Inside Out Intermediate: Student’s Book. Oxford:

Macmillan.

Kay, Sue, Vaughan Jones, and Philip Kerr (2002). Inside Out Pre-Intermediate: Student’s Book.

Oxford: Macmillan.

Soars, Liz, and John Soars (2002). New Headway English Course Elementary: Student’s Book.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Soars, Liz, and John Soars (2000). New Headway English Course Intermediate: Student’s Book.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Soars, Liz, and John Soars (2002). New Headway English Course Pre-Intermediate: Student’s

Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Secondary sources

Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan (1999).

Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Longman.

Close, R.A. (1992). A Teachers’ Grammar: The Central Problems of English. Hove: LTP.

Eastwood, John (2005). Oxford Learner’s Grammar: Grammar Finder. Oxford: OUP.

Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English

Language. Cambridge University Press.

Leech, Geoffrey N. (1971). Meaning and the English Verb. London: Longman.

Leech, Geoffrey N. (1969). Towards a Semantic Description of English. London: Longmans.

Lewis, Michael (1986). The English Verb: An Exploration of Structure and Meaning. Hove: LTP.

Palmer, Frank Robert (1988). The English Verb. Harlow: Longman.

Parott, Martin (2000). Grammar for English Language Teachers. Cambridge: CUP.

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik (1985). A

Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.

Saeed, John I. (1997). Semantics. Blackwell.

Yule, George (1998). Explaining English Grammar. Oxford: OUP.

Internet sources

New Headway. Oxford University Press. 2 November 2006

<http://www.oup.com/elt/catalogue/isbn/3068/?cc=cz#cef>

Inside Out. Macmillan. 2 November 2006 <http://www.insideout.net/course/profile.htm>

Diploma Thesis

Documents

oxford university

primary semantic

intermediate

intermediate

lewiss central

perfect infinitive

confirms lewiss

headway intermediate