Modal verbs of speculation - In the past

Introduction
Modal verbs tend to be quite messy as each of them has several functions and
there might be subtle differences between them which might occasionally be
expressed by intonation and tone of voice to help make the meaning clear
(Parrot, 156). From my experience students tend to use a very narrow range of
modal verbs and when speculating and deducing they tend to use adverbs such
as maybe, perhaps or phrases e.g. it seems like to avoid using more complex
modal structures.
Meaning
We can indicate how sure we are about a speculation by choosing an appropriate
modal verb. The modal verbs of deduction about the present highlighted below
typically appear in course material.
must

very strong possibity

should

strong possibility if everything is as we

expect

may, might, could

cant, couldnt

some possibility
weak probability

Most grammar books agree that there is a little or no difference between using
may, might, or could even though Lewis suggests that sometimes the contrast
between may and might might resemble that between could and can. Can
always refers to different kinds of possibility. Could is also about possibility, but is
more remote than can. (Lewis, 112)For example in these sentences:
He may be French. vs. He might be French.
They can be French vs. They could be French
They may have lost their way. Vs. They might have lost their way.
They can have lost their way. Vs. They could have lost their way.
These verbs, followed by perfect infinitive, can be used to make deductions about
the past with little or no change in meaning compared to the present form.
For example:
You: Where was Julie last night?
David:

She must have forgotten about our date. (strong conclusion)

She might have worked late. (weak conclusion)

She could have taken the wrong bus. (weak conclusion)

She may have felt ill. (weak conclusion)

She can't have stayed at home. (strong conclusion)

Note that cant have and couldnt have have synonymous meaning and are both
opposites of must have. The negative form mustnt or must not can be used to
express conclusion as illustrated in the example below (Yule, 109):
She musnt have much money. = conclude (NOT have much money)
However this usage is commonly replaced by cant have (ibid.). Swan mentions
that must not is used in this way especially in American English (359).
Shift in function
When making a deduction about the present should can be used as a weaker
form of must ( Swan, 335). Compare:
Ann must be at home by now (=I think shes certainly at home)
Ann should be at home by now (= I think shes very probably at home)
To describe what we believe has probably happened or failed to happen we can
use should + perfect infinitive (Grammar in Context, 69):
They should have arrived in London by now.
However this can be confusing for the students as the fact that should used with
a perfect infinitive can also function as advice, or criticism in the past as Lewis
explains:
You should have brought your swimming things. Could be paraphrased as I think
it is desirable that... (p. 124)

Could
We can use could + infinitive to talk about a general possibility in the past
(compare with the use of 'can' above):
Prices could be high in the sixteenth century.
This is not used to talk about specific possibilites in the past (instead we use
could + have + past participle):

He could have been working late (not: 'could be'. As this is a specific
possiblity, 'could be' is present tense)

Could have is very often used to talk about unrealised past ability or
opportunities to say that somebody was able to do something but did not try to
do it or that something was possible but did not happen (Swan, 123).
(a) He could have won.
We can compare this to
(b) He might have won.
The latter might indicate lack of certainty whereas the former is sometimes used
to imply that something didnt happen.

Form
One of the ways to speculate or make deductions about past is by using modal
verbs
Modal verbs are always used in conjunction with another (main) verb, which is
always in infinitive form, and are thus called modal auxiliaries by some
grammarians. Parrott divides modal verbs into pure (can, could, may, might,
must, shall, should, will and would) and semi-modal verbs (ought to, have to, had
better, and be able to) based on their different characteristics (155-156).
We can use most of the pure modal verbs (and also ought to) to refer to past time
by adding have + past participle (perfect infinitive).
Question form:
Can is used in questions and negatives:
Where can John have put the matches?

Pronunciation
Can and could have both strong forms and weak forms (/kn/ and /kn/ and /kd/
and /kd/). Weak forms can (generally not stressed - /kn/) and cant (generally
stressed /ka:nt/ in standard British English and /knt/ in standard American
English). If learners inappropriately stress can, people may understand that they
have said can t (Parrot, 165).
Auxiliary have is typically not stressed which might lead to spelling problems
e.g. should have should of and have might pass unnoticed in listening.