Contents

Introduction..................................................................................................... 1

Mood and modality.......................................................................................... 2

2.1

Epistemic modality....................................................................................3

2.2

Deontic modality...................................................................................... 5

Modal verbs..................................................................................................... 8
3.1

General features....................................................................................... 8

3.2

Modal verbs according to modal meaning..............................................11

3.2.1

Possibility: CAN, MAY, COULD, MIGHT...............................................11

3.2.2

Probability: WILL, MAY, MIGHT...........................................................11

3.2.3

Supposition: WILL, CANNOT, MUST...................................................12

3.2.4 Logical necessity: MUST, SHOULD, HAVE TO, OUGHT TO, NEED,
NEEDNT........................................................................................................ 12
3.2.5

Certainty: MUST, CANNOT.................................................................14

3.2.6

Willingness: WILL, SHALL, WOULD, CAN...........................................15

3.2.7

Volition: WILL, WOULD, SHALL..........................................................16

3.2.8

Intention: WILL, SHALL......................................................................16

3.2.9

Promise: SHALL, SHOULD..................................................................17

3.2.10 Insistence: WILL, SHALL....................................................................17

3.2.11 Permission: MAY, MIGHT, CAN, COULD..............................................18
3.2.12 Prohibition: MAY NOT, MUST NOT......................................................19
3.2.13 Obligation: MUST, HAVE TO, OUGHT TO, OUGHTNT TO, MUSTNT. . .19
3.3

Individual modals.................................................................................... 21

3.3.1
4

Central modals..................................................................................21

Semi-modals and others................................................................................ 26

4.1

Marginal modals...................................................................................... 26

4.1.1

Dare.................................................................................................. 26

4.1.2

Need................................................................................................. 27
1

4.1.3

Ought to............................................................................................ 28

4.1.4

Used to............................................................................................. 28

4.2

4.2.1

Had better......................................................................................... 29

4.2.2

Would rather/ sooner........................................................................29

4.2.3

Be to................................................................................................. 29

4.2.4

Have got to....................................................................................... 29

4.3

Semi- auxiliaries...................................................................................... 30

4.3.1

Have to............................................................................................. 30

4.3.2

Be bound to...................................................................................... 31

4.4
5

Modal idioms........................................................................................... 29

Catenatives............................................................................................. 31

Teaching modal verbs....................................................................................32

5.1

Course books for learning English...........................................................38

5.1.1

Way Ahead....................................................................................... 38

5.1.2

Pathway to English..........................................................................39

CONCLUSION................................................................................................. 41

Works cited.................................................................................................... 42

1 Introduction
The following thesis will approach the English modal verbs, the theory and teaching
modal verbs to students of English as a second language. In order to teach modal verbs
2

more efficiently, the complex system of modal verbs can be summarized by simplifying
the meanings to a main meaning from which other meanings can be derived.
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).
First, there will be an analysis of modal verbs in general, followed by a description of
modality from various view points. This will help set the context for the in-depth
analysis of English modals. Next there will be an individual analysis of modal verbs.
For each verb, attention will be focused on the practical use of the key meanings of
modals in English, but there will also be an addition of different perspectives upon the
topic. Moreover there will be a brief analysis according to modal meaning. Also, there
will be a presentation of semi-modals. Finally, attention is drawn on teaching modal
verbs to students of English as a second language.

2 Mood and modality

Whenever we communicate, the language we make use of can be interpreted in terms of
our commitment to the truth of what we are saying. For not only do we use language to
3

simply make an assertion of fact, but most of the time, in our statements and in the
questions we ask there is a personal attitude regarding the event contained in the
proposition.
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) adds that English
modals typically convey some indication of the speakers perspective or attitude with
respect to the situation or state of affairs being described (88). Palmer states that: a
clear distinction is made between mood and modality, the term modality being used for
a wider category and mood for just one of the sub- categories of modality () It is
made clear that () that the name used for the grammatical category is simply modality
and there are two sub-categories of modality: mood and modal system (Palmer, 20032)
It has been agreed that mood is a grammatical (and specifically, morphological) feature
of verbs, used to signal modality. That is, it is the use of verbal inflections that allow
speakers to express their attitude toward what they are saying (for example, whether it
is intended as a statement of fact, of desire, of command, etc.) Modal systems signal
stronger or weaker commitment to the factuality of statements.
There are several ways of expressing modality and modal verbs, are one of them. It is
agreed upon 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 semimodals. 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.
Modality can be divided into two types and sometimes one and the same linguistic form
can have two different meanings.

2.1 Epistemic modality

As far as the English modal system is concerned, epistemic modality is considered to be
the simplest modality to deal with. Zdrenghea(1994:38) considers that it is the kind of

modality that is most clearly distinct from others and has the greatest degree of internal
regularity and completeness.
Etymologically, the word comes from a Greek word meaning knowledge, thus
epistemic modality is said to express the speakers knowledge about a statement, the
degree of his commitment to the truth of what he says.
The degrees of a speakers certainty can be arranged as follows:
Certainty

Must

He must be single.

(almost certain, based on deduction)

Will

Hell be there by now.

(prediction,

based

on

common

sense)
Probability

Ought to

He ought to be at home.

(doubtful probability)

Should

He should be in the (doubtful probability)

yard.

Possibility

Can

Can this be true?

(doubtful possibility)

Could

This could be a lie.

(doubtful possibility)

Very

May

He may be at the office.

( its possible, but uncertain)

uncertain

Might

He might be at the (less certain than may)

office.

(Florea, Silvia- On English Modality- Sibiu, 2001- 50)

According to Palmer epistemic modality is concerned solely with the speakers attitude
to status of the preposition (2003,7). Yule (1998) remarks that epistemic uses often
sound like deductions or conclusions made by the speaker and that it is the speakers
or writers perspective that is being presented (88-9).
Generally, epistemic modality is the present , for the judgment and the act of speaking
are simultaneous; therefore, epistemic modals are usually performative. Normally, these
epistemic modal verbs are not used in their past time forms to refer to past time; their
past time forms are used with reference to present time. If we want to make judgments
about past events, we have to use the construction: modal+ have-ed. Another possibility
to refer to past time is to use the past tense form of the modal in reported speech:
e.g.

He said she might leave him.

5

F.R. Palmer presents epistemic modality under a different form. He divides epistemic
modality into two sub-systems, subdivided as follows:
(1) Judgments

(2) Evidentials

- speculative (opinion)
- deductive

(conclusion)

- quotative

(report)

Given suggests that there are three types of propositions that can be recognized within
epistemic modality:
(a) propositions that are taken for granted as unchangeable by the hearer and which
dont require no evidentiary justifications by the speaker (= declaratives)
(b) propositions that are asserted with relative confidence, are open to challenge by the
hearer and which require or admit justification (= evidentials)
(c) propositions that are asserted as hypothesis and are thus beneath both challenge and
evidentiary substantiation (=judgments) (1982:24)

2.2 Deontic modality

Palmer describes deontic modality as directive in that the event is controlled by
circumstances external to the subject of the sentence (more strictly person or persons
identified by the subject). (2003, 7).
Deontic modality is essentially performative : deontic modals always indicate that an
action is actually initiated by the speaker or by others and that they give or refuse
permission , give advice, lay an obligation , make promises or threats.
e.g.

You may not leave now.

You should quit smoking.
They must write that paper, otherwise he wont pass the exam.
You shall have it before Christmas.

In questions the use of deontic modals is non-performative. For example, in a question

like May I come in?, the speaker does not initiate the action of granting permission, but
6

asks if the person addressed gives permission. Palmer (1994:97) considers that deontinc
modality is both performative and subjective.
Deontic modals have no past tense forms for past time, and this is a consequence of
their performative nature. However, past tense forms may occur in reported speech to
refer to past time.
e.g.

She told him he could leave if he wanted to.

This refers to the fact that is reported that she gave him permission to leave. As Florea
notices: the past tense forms are used to refer to past time within dynamic modality,
that is why the past tense forms are the clearest indications of dynamic, as distinct from
deontic modality. (2001:89)
The performative nature of deontic modals is noticed by Palmer, when he considers that
they will always be related to the future, since only the future can be changed or
affected as a result of them being expressed.
The deontic interpretation is excluded by the progressive and the perfect.
e.g.

He may be jogging now. (not permission, but possibility= epistemic)

He must have left home. ( not necessity, but deduction= epistemic)

The deontic interpretation can occur in if- conditional clauses.

e.g.

If you must leave on such a weather, Ill give you my umbrella.

(necessity)
The deontic interpretation is not invariant under passive.
e.g.

John wont confess to the crime. (volition, not prediction)

The crime wont be confessed to. (not volition, but prediction= epistemic)

So what is the difference between the two meanings? It as been stated that all modals
have both intrinsic and extrinsic meanings and that these often overlap and also it has
been specified 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
7

non-human subjects and/or with main verbs having stative meaning . 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 speakers attitude to the
factuality of past or present time situations while deontic modality concerns the
speakers attitude to the actualization 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
judgment, deontic have influence on the behavior 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.
The following table sums up the nine central modals and other semi-modals and their
meanings:
Epistemic/extrinsi Deontic/intrinsi Central modals
c meaning

c meaning

Possibility

Permission

Semi-modals

Can, could, may,

might

Necessity

Obligation

Must, should

(Had) better, have (got) to,

need

to,

supposed to
Prediction

Volition

Will, would, shall

8

Be going to

ought

to,

be

Source: 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. 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. 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.
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 Modal verbs
3.1 General features
This chapter will include a list of modal auxiliaries and description of typical
characteristics of the modal verbs. As modal auxiliaries have a wide range of qualities,
only the most important features will be mentioned. To begin with, the list of the modal
auxiliaries should be stated. Many linguists, for instance Biber and Lewis, claim that
there are nine modal auxiliaries. As Lewis says, these particular modals can be
identified in this way: All verbs which can fill the space in this short sentence: He
9

come., belong to the list of the modal auxiliaries. These are can, could, shall, should,
may, might, will, would and must (Lewis, 1986, p. 100)
The next feature that all auxiliaries have in common is that they admit inversion of
subject and operator when making questions. Now, several morphological and syntactic
criteria which apply specifically to modal verbs will be introduced. The first and very
important feature is that modal verbs are followed by infinitive without to (bare
infinitive). Another important characteristic is that the modal verbs cannot occur in nonfinite forms. Modal verbs can basically occur in two, finite, forms and these are present
and preterite form. The infinitive and other forms are expressed by paraphrases, which
are generally known as be able to for can and be allowed to for may. Modal verbs also
do not form imperative and passive structures. Quirk points out that there are some
more specific features of the modal verbs, for instance there is no inflexion in 3 rd
person. The omission of s has historical origin (Quirk, 1985, p. 128). Quirk also states
the term abnormal time reference which means that not only the present forms, but also
past forms can refer to present or future as it is in the example I think he may/might
retire next May. (Quirk, 1985, p. 128)
Owing to their morphological peculiarities, modal verbs are characterized as defective
verbs since they lack certain forms. They have no analytical forms (no future and no
perfect tense). When future or past time reference is required, some of the modal verbs
can be replaced by equivalent verbal phrases.
to be able to for can

to be ones duty to for ought to

to be allowed to for may

to be willing to for will

to have to / to be obliged to for

There is not a substitute for shall.

must

(sometimes: to be determined to).

Modal verbs have no s inflection in the third person singular and they have not a past
tense form. Could, would and might are used with past meanings in some cases, but
never to say that particular events actually happened on definite occasions. Otherwise,
other expressions are used.

10

Taking into consideration the syntactic properties of the modal verbs, I shall say that
they are used in combined forms in which the main verb is a short infinitive. Exceptions
to this rule are ought and used which are followed by the to infinitive. For didactic
reasons they are presented as ought to and used to.
Modal verbs form the negative and interrogative constructions without the auxiliary
verb to do, but by adding not in the negative and through inversion, in the interrogative.
This behavior justifies the label auxiliary with reference to these verbs. Just like the
auxiliaries DO, BE and HAVE, they function as operators in interrogative and negative
constructions.
The following chapter will analyze modal verbs from two view points: first it will
approach modals according to their modal meaning:
1. Possibility: CAN, MAY, COULD, MIGHT
2. Probability: WILL, MAY, MIGHT
3. Supposition: WILL, CANNOT, MUST
4. Logical necessity: MUST, SHOULD, HAVE TO, OUGHT TO, NEED, NEEDNT
5. Certainty: MUST, CANNOT
6. Willingness: WILL, SHALL, WOULD, CAN
7. Volition: WILL, WOULD, SHALL
8. Intention: WILL, SHALL
9. Promise: SHALL, SHOULD
10. Insistence: WILL, SHALL
11. Permission: MAY, MIGHT, CAN, COULD
12. Prohibition: MAY NOT, MUST NOT
13. Obligation: MUST, HAVE TO, OUGHT TO, OUGHTNT TO, MUSTNT
11

Secondly, modals will be approached according to another criteria suggested by

Geoffrey Leech. Leech (1985:137) uses the criteria which will provide the framework
for this analysis, which were used in identifying the class of auxiliaries there are eight
criteria for auxiliaries, and four criteria which more narrowly apply to the central modal
auxiliaries.

3.2 Modal verbs according to modal meaning

3.2.1 Possibility: CAN, MAY, COULD, MIGHT
Can admits only that occurrence is a possibility. With may, however, the situation is
different; may suggests that the speaker takes the possibility for granted and is willing,
further, to speculate on its probability.
With can, with its meaning of more possibility can be roughly paraphrased by the use of
the adverb sometimes:
e.g. Even expert driver can make mistake = Even expert drivers sometimes
make mistakes. (Leech, 1971)
The meaning of past possibility is more usually expressed by could followed by a
Perfect Infinitive, which is of a slightly smaller degree than that expressed by can and a
Perfect Infinitive. The following example suggests this slight difference:
e.g. Darling, do stop worrying about Aunt Helen. Im sure nothing had
happened to her. She is so absent minded that she could easily have forgotten that weve
invited her for the weekend. (Ward, 1967)
Might , followed by a simple Infinitive expresses a smaller degree of future possibility
that the expressed by may. Might, followed by a simple Infinitive expresses the past
form of this smaller degree of possibility. The possible may-might frequently co-occurs
with the adverb possible which has an effect on intensification. (Zdrenghea, 1995, 160)

3.2.2 Probability: WILL, MAY, MIGHT

Will is used to indicate that something probably is happening. In this sense it may occur
with adverbials of present time.
May and might are also used in the sense of probability:
12

e.g. He may leave tomorrow. He might leave tomorrow.

The difference in meaning is observable in the fact that might, here, is associated
with some additional remark suggesting conditions or difficulties that reduce the
likelihood of the event.

3.2.3 Supposition: WILL, CANNOT, MUST

A supposition about something in the present can be expressed, in the second and third
persons only, with an unemphasized will:
e.g. Its Monday. If she has kept to her programme, she will be home now. (I
suppose that she is home now)
Supposition about the future cannot easily be expressed in the same way. A supposition
about something in the past can be expressed, in the second and third persons, with an
unemphasized will followed by a Perfect Infinitive:
e.g. Its Monday. If she has kept to her programme, she will have been home
yesterday.
Cannot may express present supposition or deduction:
e.g. For heavens sake, its only ten oclock! They cant be in bed yet. Ring the
bell again.
Deduction and supposition about something in the present (but not in the future) can be
expressed by must.
e.g. I dont think they will be at home. It is such a lovely day that they must be in
the country somewhere. (I suppose, because the day is so lovely, that they are out
somewhere in the country). (Zdrenghea, 1995, 160)

3.2.4 Logical necessity: MUST, SHOULD, HAVE TO, OUGHT TO, NEED,
NEEDNT
The unlikelihood of an event may arise out of any of a number of considerations, the
most prominent of which, perhaps, is the disapproval of unwillingness of the potential
performer of the event. A statement that an event is likely to take place, in the face of
13

the unknown unwillingness of its performer, suggests, that he has to do it, whether he
wants to or not. Hence:
e.g. Shed like to read but she cant; she must finish her homework. I really
should finish my homework.
This semantic meaning is produced only with must and should, which play their
meaning of a high degree of likelihood against the unlikelihood of the context.
The uses of must and have to, connected with the meaning of logical necessity convey
the certainty of logical inference. For example, the following rational process may be
supposed to lie behind the remark
e.g. That must be my brother, said by a man who has heard the telephone ring:
My brother said he would phone at this time I have just heard the phone therefore,
my brother is phoning now.
Must and have to are not used of facts known by direct observation, but of these known
by logical assumption. (Leech, 1971)
Ought to may also be used to express necessity but there is a difference between the
meanings of ought to and must in this respect. We may contrast the following examples:
e.g.
That must be her daughter.

That ought to be her daughter.

They must have finished their work by They ought to have finished their work by
now

now.
The first sentence of each pair the speaker commits himself to the certainty of the

proposition; but in the second sentence, he is not sure. Must here conveys the necessity
of logical inference. Ought to conveys the necessity given the premise, of the
conclusion, but doubt about the conclusion is based.
Must

expresses what can be described as an unexpected necessity, while have to

expresses a known necessity i.e. a necessity that the speaker has not just suddenly
realized:
14

e.g. Nearly seven oclock already! I must leave for school. I have to be there at
eight. The tendency nowadays, however is to prefer must to have to, even for known
necessity.
As a special verb expressing necessity, need can be followed either by an infinitive
without to or by an infinitive with to.
When it is followed by an infinitive When it is followed by an Infinitive with
without

to,

it

has

the

following to:

peculiarities:

(a) It has all tenses, forms, infinitives,

(a)It cannot be used in the affirmative participles, gerunds and it can be used in
only in the negative and interrogative; and the affirmative as well as the negative and
in the negative and interrogative it is not interrogative.
conjugated with the verb DO.

(b) It is inflected in the third person

(b)In the third person singular, need is not singular of its present tense.
inflected.

(c) In the negative and interrogative form

(c) It has no other tenses, no other forms, of its present and past tenses, it must be
no infinitives, no participles, and no conjugated with do, does or did.
gerunds.

Neednt may be interpreted in terms of necessity when used in a context such as:
You neednt bother about that. (Zdrenghea, 1995, 162)

3.2.5 Certainty: MUST, CANNOT

Conclusion or near certainty is expressed by must. It is not used in this sense with future
reference.
e.g.

There must be a hundred people there.

In the past time, the analogous form is must have and in the negative cant:
e.g.

There must have been a hundred people there.

There cant be a hundred people there.
15

3.2.6 Willingness: WILL, SHALL, WOULD, CAN

Willingness denotes a yielding to someone elses will. Will is only synonymous with
be willing if the subject of will and the implicit subject of the following non-finite
verb are the same: He will tell you the whole story. (He is willing)
Shall may also be used in the sense of willingness but there is a difference of meaning
between shall and will in this report. This difference is made clear by the following
paraphrases:
e.g. My chauffeur will help you (=My chauffeur is willing to help you).
My chauffeur shall help you (=I am willing for my chauffeur to help you).
With will , the subject of the auxiliary (i.e. the person who is willing) is also the
notional subject of the main verb (as mentioned before); but with shall, it is the speaker
who is the willing or insisting party.
Would is needed in the first person in reported speech if will was used to express a
special meaning:
e.g. I said I would lend you the money you want (i.e. from the expression of
willingness I will lend you etc.).
Another verb that can be used to express the meaning of willingness is can and its use
is very similar to that of will. In this case, can always refers to the future and can be
collocated with future time adverbials. Thats why it can be used instead of will when a
future expression of willingness is needed:
e.g. Can you help me tomorrow? (= Are you willing to help me tomorrow?)
(Zdrenghea, 1995, 163)

3.2.7 Volition: WILL, WOULD, SHALL

The semantic meanings of will and would that are produced as contextual variants of
the syntactic meaning hypothetical may be glossed as volition on the part of the
performer in the context of unlikelihood. The meaning of volition is seen in:
e.g. We warned him not to bring charges, but he would do so.
16

In this example, the unlikelihood of the event lies in the preference of other
parties concerned for other course of action, statements of this kind are typically
complaints.
When will is used with sense of volition, it usually refers to the future. This use of will
is very common, at least with all verbs that refer to activities that may be willed or
agreed.
Shall may also be used to express volition. First person questions with shall consult
the will of the listener, instead of declaring the will of the speaker: Shall I open a
window? (= Is it your will that I should) Shall we go to the theater this evening? (=
Is it your will that we should).
Volitional shalls very rarely found in questions with second-person or third-person
subject, but it seems at least a possibility in sentences like: Shall Virginia do your
shopping for you? (= Do you want?) in which (say) a mother offers her daughters
help to a third party. (Leech. 1991)

3.2.8 Intention: WILL, SHALL

The concept of intention may be placed somewhere between the concepts of willingness
and insistence:
e.g. I will celebrate this very night (= I have the intention to celebrate).
Occurring mainly with first-person subjects, will in this sense conveys, according
to the context, a promise, a threat, or corporate decision.
Shall also expresses intention on the part of the speaker:
e.g. I shall write tomorrow. With this meaning, shall occurs exclusively with
first-person subject. When it expresses intention, shall becomes interchangeable with
WILL. (Zdrenghea, 1995, 168)

3.2.9 Promise: SHALL, SHOULD

The verb that is most commonly used to express the meaning of promise is shall. This
use of shall covers a variety of meaning but may be formally established by the fact that
shall cannot, in this use, be replaced by will, and that it may occur in conditionals:
17

e.g.

You shall have it tomorrow.

He shall do it; If he shall do it,

In the second and third persons in reported speech, should is needed to express the
special meaning of promise:
e.g. I said (that) you should have and increase in salary on the first of January.
(i.e. from the idiomatic promise: I said: You shall have an increase in salary etc)
(Zdrenghea, 1995, 168)

3.2.10

Insistence: WILL, SHALL

Will may express insistence only if the subject of will and the implicit subject of
following non-finite verb are the same (as in the case of will

used to express

willingness): He will go swimming in dangerous waters (= He insists on going

swimming.). With second and third person subjects, the feeling of exasperation at
someone elses obstinacy is uppermost; with a first-person subject, the speaker makes
his own uncompromising determination felt, with a force the verbal equivalent of
banging ones fist on the table. (Leech, 1971) In no circumstance can a sentence
containing will with the meaning of insistence be emotionally neutral. Will in this sense
is always stressed and cannot be contracted to ll.
Shall may also express insistence: You shall obey my orders! (= I insist that
you obey). This meaning is of very restricted use, and carries strong overtones of
imperiousness. The difference between will and shall in the sense of insistence is made
clear by the following paraphrases: I will marry her. (= I insist on marrying her.) No
one shall stop me. (= I insist that no one stop me.). (Zdrenghea, 1995, 169)

3.2.11Permission: MAY, MIGHT, CAN, COULD

The meaning of permission is generally expressed by may. In colloquial English, may
characteristically signals permission given by the speaker:

You may smoke in this

room.(i.e. You are permitted (by me) to smoke in this room.).

In questions and if clauses, may typically indicates permission given not by speaker,
but by the person questioned: May I smoke? This means Will you allow me to smoke?
rather than Will I permit myself to smoke? which is a pretty odd question to ask. If we
take a sentence such as: You may go, Jones. (spoken, typically, by a schoolmaster in an
18

old fashioned schoolboy story), this is an instance of the strengthened, almost

imperative use of may. The suggestion is that so great is speakers authority that nearly
for him to grant permission for something is guarantee of its instant execution.
Might is used as the analogous tentative form only in request-questions: May I come in?
Might I come in? but not * You might go. But there is a situation when might may be
used to express permission, namely for the typical products of understatement-irony,
sarcasm and the like:
e.g. Well, if you really have nothing else to do, you might do your homework.
Also, might is used in Reported Speech:
e.g. She said I might go out to play when I had finished my homework.
Another verb that is used to express permission is can. Can is more widely used than
may

as an auxiliary of permission in colloquial English, having the less specific

meaning You have permission rather than I give you permission. You can smoke in
this room means simply the rules allow it.
Can may refer to the future:
e.g. He can come tomorrow.
Past permission is expressed by could:
e.g. We could have had breakfast in bed in that pension whenever we liked. (i.e.
We were permitted to have breakfast in bed whenever we liked).
Could when followed by a Perfect Infinitive also expresses past permission:
e.g. We could have had breakfast in bed if wed liked. (i.e. We were permitted
to have it in bed if wed liked but we didnt). (Zdrenghea, 1995, 169-171)

3.2.12

Prohibition: MAY NOT, MUST NOT

One of the modal auxiliaries that expresses prohibition is may not . However, its use is
ambiguous as it may express two meaning that are only differentiated by stress: He
may not go swimming with stress on may strongly favors the possibility sense, whereas
He may not go swimming suggests the permission sense, i.e. prohibition.
19

Interestingly may not and mustnt despite the diametrical opposition of their positive
meanings, are logical equivalents in negative sentences like:
e.g.

You may not go swimming.

You must not go swimming.

These are both prohibitions, and the only difference in their import is the more urgent
and positive tone of later. The reason for this curious equivalence is to be found in the
inversion rule change the place of the negative and the term of the inversion system,
and the meaning remains the same. (Leech, 1969).
There is an instance when only may not may be used to express prohibition and this is
the case of a prohibition that usually occurs in official context. An example for this use
could be found on the wall of public institutions, such as
e.g. Readers may not smoke in the library.
But we could never find must not with this use. (Zdrenghea, 1995, 171-172)

3.2.13
Obligation: MUST, HAVE TO, OUGHT TO, OUGHTNT TO,
MUSTNT
The most common used modal that expresses obligation is must:
I must go now. (I am obliged to go now).
Must is used with reference to knowledge arrived at through direct experience. In
sentences with must, one can postulate a chain of logical deductions. If we take into
consideration John goes out and John must go out we see that that the second
sentence adds to the meaning of the first sentence the idea of the existence of
obligation.
Have to also expresses obligation: You have to be back by ten oclock. (You are
obliged). The meaning of have to differs from the sense of must in that authority of
the speaker is not involved: have to conveys obligation generally, without specifying
who does the compelling.

20

A sentence that expresses obligation by using have to such as: You have to leave your
car here. carries the supposition and I fully count on you doing so.
In this respect, the meaning of have to differs from the auxiliary complex ought to
which is also used in a sense of obligation: You ought to leave your car here. does
not imply You will leave your car here. This means that ought to allows for the
possibility that the constraining authority will be disobeyed. Should may be used in all
persons synonymously with ought to in this sense:

You should visit him again.,

Mary should get a new car. , and He should not speak so much. (Zdrenghea, 1995,
172)

The second approach of modals belongs to Geoffrey Leech (1985:137).

(one verb

(a) Central

can, could, may, might, shall, should, will/'ll,

phrase)

modals

would/d, must

(b) Marginal

dare, need, ought to, used to

modals
(c) Modal idioms

had better, would rather sooner, BE to, HAVE got

to

(d) Semi-

HAVE to, BE about to, BE able to, BE bound to,

auxiliaries

BE going to, BE obliged to, BE supposed to, BE

willing to

(e) Catenatives

APPEAR to, HAPPEN to, SEEM to ,GET + -ed

participle, KEEP + -ing participle
21

(two verb

(f) Main verb

phrases)

+nonfinite
clause

HOPE + to-infinitive
BEGIN + -ing participle

3.3 Individual modals

3.3.1 Central modals

3.3.1.1 Can
Can with be is used to make criticism

You can be really annoying, you know!

with be is used to refer to capability Winter here can be really cold.

(Vince, 2003)

3.3.1.2 Could
Could

to express possibility or uncertainty

This could be the house.

Is used with comparative adjectives to

It could be better.

express possibility or impossibility:

Is used to make suggestions:

The situation couldnt be worse.

We could go to that new restaurant
opposite the cinema.

Is used to express unwillingness

I couldnt possibly leave Tim on his

own.

Could

Refers to past permission or past

When I was sixteen I could stay up

have

ability:

until 11.(I was allowed to)

Mary could swim when she was

three. (she actually did)
Mary could have swum when she
was three. (but she didnt)
Refers to past possibility and

David could have won the race if

uncertainty:

he had tried (possibility/ ability)

It could have been Sue, I suppose.
(uncertainty)
22

Unwillingness

She could have gone to the party.

(but she didnt)
We couldnt have let the dog on its
own. (so we didnt)
(Vince, 2003)

3.3.1.3 May
May

Can be used to express although clauses

She may be the boss, but thats

no excuse for shouting that way.

To express possibility or uncertainty in

The peace conference may find a

formal language

solution to the problem.

May/

This describes the last thing left to do,

Nobody else is going to turn up

might

something which the speaker is not

or the lesson, so we might as

as well

enthusiastic about

well go home.
(Vince, 2003)

3.3.1.4 Might
Might

In the expression try as I might

Try as I might I could not pass

the driving test.

Might have

Past

possibility

which

didnt You might have drowned!

happen
Express annoyance at someones You might have told me my
failure to do something

trousers were split!

I might have

Is an idiom by which the speaker

I might have known he would

known +

expresses ironically that an action

be late!

would

was typical of someone else

(Vince, 2003)

3.3.1.5 Shall
Shall Can be use with all persons to

I shall definitely give up smoking this

emphasize something which the speaker

feels is certain to happen or wants to
23

year.

happen
To form rules and regulations

No player shall knowingly pick up or

move the ball o another player.

3.3.1.6 Should
Should

After

in

case

to

emphasize Im taking an umbrella in case it

unlikelihood

should rain.

Expectation

This film should/ ought to be really

good.

Recommendation

I think you should/ ought to talk it over

with your

parents.

In writing should can be use to

Guests should vacate their rooms by

express a strong obligation

midday.

politely:
Criticism of an action

You shouldnt eat so much late at

night.

Uncertainty:

Should I leave these papers here on

your desk?

Should

To make an opinion less direct:

I should think the book would sell

and

quite nicely.

verbs of
thinking
Should

+ adjectives describing chance

Its strange that you should be staying

+ be

(odd, strange, funny and the

at the same hotel!

expression what a coincidence!)

Should

Refers to something that was

The parcel I sent you should have

have

supposed to happen (expectation):

arrived by now.

Criticism of an action

You shouldnt have eaten so much last

night.

+verbs o thinking- the past form

24

I should have thought you knew

knew in the example is an unreal

verb form and should have is used
according to sequence of verb
forms
+ be and adjectives describing It was strange that you should have
change

been staying in the same hotel last

year

As a polite expression o thanks on

receiving a gift or a favor

A: Ive done the washing up or you.

B: Oh, you shouldnt have!
(Vince, 2003)

3.3.1.7 Will
Will/

To express an assumption

A: the phones ringing.

wont

B: Thatll be for me.

Can be used emphatically to tell someone of the

A: Ill take the money

speakers intention, or forbid and action in

anyway, so there!

response to a will expression

B: You wont!
A: I will!

(Vince, 2003)

3.3.1.8 Would
Would is often used in situations where a
conditional sense is understood but not

Nobody would agree to that

idea.

stated
Would shows unwillingness in the past

Everyone was angry because

not

Sam wouldnt turn the TV off.

Would can refer to events in the past which did not

I would have accepted the job,

have

but I didnt want to move house.

actually happen
25

assumptions about the past

A: Someone called after you let

but didnt leave a message.
B: that would have been Sue,
probably
(Vince, 2003)

3.3.1.9 Must
Must not

Refers to an obligation not You must not leave the

to do something

room before the end of the

test.

Must and cant

Refer to present tome only. This must be our stop (Im

In expressing certainty , sure it is).
they are opposites

This cant be our stop( Im

sure it isnt)

Must have/ cant have-

refer

to

the

speakers Someone must have taken

certainty about a past action it( Im sure they did)

You cant have lost it( I am
sure you didnt)
(Vince, 2003)

4 Semi-modals and others

4.1 Marginal modals
According to Leech (1985:139), modal auxiliaries are positive for all criteria, where
main verbs like hope are negative and the marginal modals are verbs which closely
resemble the central modal auxiliaries. It can be argued, indeed, for dare and need that
these are proper modals, but that for each there is also a homomorphic verb (DARE,
NEED) constructed as a main verb. Ought, too, may be treated as a central modal if
speakers construct it with the bare infinitive.

26

4.1.1 Dare
Dare and need can be constructed either as main verbs (with to-infinitive and with
inflected -S, -ing and past forms), or, under restricted conditions, as modal auxiliaries
(with the bare infinitive and without the inflected forms). Leech (1985:140)
Dare

Without a following infinitive

Fight with him if you dare.

Followed by a short infinitive She dare

He dare not do so. (NOT He dares

not take such a risk. (NOT She dares not

not do so.)

to take such a risk.)

Dare she say that to him?

How dare he do such a thing?

I dare

Is no longer used with its original force.

I dare say he will agree to our

say

It now merely means perhaps.

proposal. (=Perhaps, he will agree

to our proposal.)
I dare say that she is correct.
(=Perhaps she is correct.)

As a modal, dare exhibits abnormal time reference in that it can be used, without
inflection, for past as well as present time:
e.g. The king was so hot-tempered that no one dare tell him the bad news.
Leech (1985:140)

4.1.2 Need
Need is a modal auxiliary and behaves like a normal verb:
e.g. Do you need to use the photocopier?
Need functions as a modal auxiliary, but mainly in questions and negative forms:
e.g. Need you make so much noise?
(Vince, 2003,178)
As a modal auxiliary, need has no tense contrast. To express past time, however, we can
place need before the perfective aspect:
27

e.g. You need not have done it. This is then approximately equivalent to the past
tense.
Need as a main verb: You did not need to do it. But the need to construction does not
have the counterfactual implication of the need have construction. For instance, in the
following the counterfactual meaning is inappropriate, and we could not therefore
replace did not need to say by need not have said:
e.g. Anne was too nervous to reply, but fortunately she did not need to say
anything.
Leech (1985:141)
Neednt have (done) refers to an unnecessary action which was actually done.
Didnt need to refers to an unnecessary action which was actually done:
e.g. I didnt need to go the dentist again, actually.
Vince (2003,178)

4.1.3 Ought to
It normally has the to-infinitive (although occasionally in familiar style the bare
infinitive occurs in nonassertive contexts):
e.g.

You ought to stop smoking.

You oughtn't to smoke so much.
Ought you to smoke so much?

The to is also optional following ought in ellipsis:

e.g. Yes, I think I ought (to).
Leech (1985:147)
Ought to Expectation
Recommendation

This film ought to be really good.

I think you ought to talk it over with your
28

parents.

4.1.4 Used to
Used to denotes a habit or a state that existed in the past and is therefore semantically
not so much a modal auxiliary as an auxiliary of tense and aspect. In formal terms,
however, it fits the marginal modal category.
It always takes the to-infinitive and only occurs in the past tense:
e.g.

She used to attend regularly. (was in the habit of attending)

I used to be interested in bird-watching. (I was formerly)

4.2 Modal idioms

This category contains the following four multi-word verbs, as well as some less
common verbal constructions: had better, would rather have, got to, be to.
They all begin with an auxiliary verb, and are followed by an infinitive (sometimes
preceded by to). Leech (1985:148)

4.2.1 Had better

Had better is a recommendation and refers only to the present or the future.
e.g. Youd better not phone her again.
Vince (2003,183)

4.2.2 Would rather/ sooner

Would rather has the volitional meaning 'would prefer to'.
Would rather differs from central modals and marginal modals in that it is incapable of
showing active-passive synonymy:
e.g. I'd rather rent the cottage. *The cottage would rather be rented by me.

4.2.3 Be to
Be to is an idiom expressing futurity, with varied connotations of 'compulsion', 'plan',
'destiny', etc, according to context. In the past, was to and were to express futurity from
29

the standpoint of past time orientation; in conditional clauses, the subjunctive were to
expresses hypothetical future meaning. Leech (1985:148)

4.2.4 Have got to

Have got to expresses necessity:
e.g. People have got to be on time if they want to get a seat in the crowded
theater.
Haven't got to refers to future obligation:
e.g. Haven't you got to finish that project today?
"Haven't got to" is primarily used to ask about future obligations. It can be used in
statements, but this is less common. Vince (2003,185)

4.3 Semi- auxiliaries

The semi-auxiliaries consist of a set of verb idioms which express modal or aspectual
meaning and which are introduced by one of the primary verbs have and be. The
boundaries of this category are not clear: they might be extended, for example, to
include the negative be unable to, be unwilling to, etc. All these constructions satisfy
the criteria for auxiliary verbs in the sense that, for example, be going to has be as an
operator in negation and inversion, rather than having do-support. Leech (1985:146)

4.3.1 Have to
Have to is the only semi-auxiliary beginning with have rather than be, but its inclusion
in this category is partly justified by its occurrence in the full range of nonfinite forms,
a respect in which it differs from the semantically parallel have got I may have to leave
early. (*I may have got to leave early.)
e.g.

People are having to boil their drinking water during this emergency.
The administration has had to make unpopular decisions.

As these examples show, have to can occur in modal, perfective, and progressive
constructions. It would be impossible to substitute have got to for have to in these cases.

30

In meaning, have to is similar to must and can stand in for must in past constructions
where must cannot occur:
These days you must work hard if you want to succeed. / In those days you had to work
hard if you wanted to succeed.
There must be some solution to the problem./ There had to be some solution to the
problem. Leech (1985:152)
Dont have to refers to an absence of obligation:
e.g. You dont have to work tomorrow.
Had not is the past form of must and refers to a past obligation:
e.g. Sorry Im late I had to post some letters
The negative form is didnt have to and refers to a past obligation.
Vince (2003,178)

4.3.2 Be bound to
Be bound to makes a future prediction of certainty:
e.g. Its bound to rain tomorrow

4.4 Catenatives
The term catenative will in practice be used to denote verbs in such constructions as
appear to, come to, fail to, get to, happen to, manage to, seem to, tend to , and turn out
to followed by the infinitive.

appeared
Sam came
to realize the importance of the problem.
failed
seemed
got

31

Such constructions have meanings related to aspect or modality, but are nearer to main
verb constructions than are semi-auxiliaries, patterning entirely like main verbs in
taking do-support.
e.g. Sam didnt appear/ seem to realize the importance of the problem.
Most of them do, however, resemble auxiliary constructions in satisfying the
'independence of subject' criterion.
Thus has the corresponding passive:

The importance of the problem

appeared
came
failed
got
seemed

to be realized by Sam.

This criterion, however, applies somewhat marginally to agentive verbs like fail and
manages, and does not apply at all to get.
Unlike main verb constructions such as expect (to), want (to), and attempt (to),
catenative constructions are in no way syntactically related to transitive verb
constructions in which the verb is followed by a direct object or prepositional object.
Compare:
John attempted/ appeared to attack the
burglar.

But:

John appeared/ attempted an attack

on the burglar.

We may also include among catenative verbs certain verbs which resemble the auxiliary
be in combining either with the -ing participle in progressive constructions, or with the
-ed participle in passive constructions:
e.g.

The girl kept (on) / went on working.

Our team got beaten by the visitors. Leech (1985:147)

5 Teaching modal verbs

English language learners are often confused by modal verbs because they are used
differently than other verbs and in a wide variety of situations such as asking for
permission and giving advice.
32

There are a couple methods you can use to teach students modal verbs. One is to
introduce only a few words at a time and complete several practice activities before
attempting to introduce additional vocabulary. Another way you can teach modal verbs
is to structure your lessons around their uses. You could leave all the modal verbs
written on the board for the whole chapter but use only the ones appropriate for giving
advice in one lesson and asking for permission in another for instance.
One of the most important problems when teaching grammar is our conviction that
grammar inputs helps or doesnt help students to learn the language. On the other hand,
we felt most comfortable using a broadly communicative methodology in our teaching,
and were disappointed to find that our course books provided very few ideas for
interesting, meaning and contextualized grammar practice. There are usually either
communicative activities designed to develop general fluency, or grammatical
exercises that are for most part based on uninteresting manipulation of forms. A few
books and periodicals suggest a number of good ideas for the kind of activities we
wanted, but there seemed to be no comprehensive, systematically.
In natural learning such as the learning of a first language by a child the amount of
time and motivation devoted to learning is so great that there is no necessity for
conscious planning of the learning process: sooner or later the material absorbed.
However, in a formal course of study, there is very much less time available, and often
less motivation, which means that learning time has to be organised for optimum
efficiency. This means preparing a programme of study -a syllabus- so that bits of the
total corpus of knowledge are presented one after other for gradual, systematic
acquisition, rather than all at once. And it also means preparing organized, balanced
plan of classroom teaching/learning procedures through which the learners will be
enabled to spend some of their time concerning which the learners will be enabled to
spend some of their time concentrating on mastering one or more of the components of
the target language on their way to acquiring it as a whole. These components may be
things like spelling or pronunciation or vocabulary or grammar.
Before planning the organisation of our teaching, we need to have clear in our minds
exactly what our subject-matter is: what sorts of things are included under the heading
grammar, and what is involved in knowing a structure?
33

Any generalisation about the best way to teach grammar (what kinds of teaching
procedures should be used, and in what order) will have to take into account both the
wide range of knowledge and skills that need to be taught, and the variety of different
kinds of structures subsumed under the heading grammar.
In what follows I will refer to teaching modal verbs in a usual grammar class. I usually
begin by presenting the class with the text in which the grammatical structure in our
case the modal verbs appears. The aim of the presentation is to get the learners to
perceive the modal verbs their forms and meanings- in both speech and writing and to
take them into short-term memory. Often a story or short dialogue is used which
appears in written form in textbook and is also about by the teacher and/or students.
At the isolation and presentation stage I move away from the context, and focus,
temporarily, on the grammatical items themselves: what they sound and look like, what
they mean, how they function in short, what rules govern them. The objective is that
the learners should understand these various aspects of the modal verbs. In some
classes we may need to make extensive use of the students native language to explain,
translate, make generalizations and so on. In more academic classes, or where the
structures may seem difficult for the students to grasp, this stage may take some time.
At this stage, it is very important for the students to understand very well the forms and
meanings of the modal verbs and that is why the explanations should be delivered very
carefully by the teacher. First, I start by presenting the main features of the modal verbs
in general, then I continue by taking them one by one and explaining their meanings,
providing the students with a lot of examples. So, presentation is the stage at which
students are introduced to the form, meaning and use of a new piece of language, in our
case the modal verbs. But, at the same time, it is very used since at the presentation
stage students learn the grammar that they will need for their most important
experience of the new language applying in to themselves. We can this experience
piece of grammar to say things that really mean something to the modal verbs, the
personalization stage is where they apply it to not do, what they have to do and so on.
Sometimes presentation takes place-using personalization immediately: the teacher
uses the students and their lives to introduce new language. Sometimes personalization
is the final part of a presentation that is done through the use of tents or pictures.
34

A good presentation should be clear and students should have no difficulty in

understanding the situation or what the new language means. A good presentation
should also efficient since the aim is to get the personalization stage as soon as students
can manipulate the new language. So, the more efficiently we can do this the better.
Moreover, a good presentation should be lively and interesting. We want students to get
interested and be involved during a presentation stage. With the help of a good
situation and language course. And if it is, there is a good chance that students will
remember the new grammar more easily. Appropriateness is another characteristic of a
good presentation. However interesting, funny or demonstrative a situation is, it should
be appropriate for the language that is being presented. In other words it should be a
good vehicle for the presentation of meaning and use. Lastly, a good presentation
should be productive. In other words the situation the teacher introduces should allow
students to make many sentences and/or questions with the new language.
As far as explanation is concerned, teachers frequently explain new grammar. The
explanation might well present problems to a lot of students, because of the technical
words being used, and because abstract grammar explanations are always quite difficult
to swallow. Of course, said in the students mother tongue it would be a lot more
comprehensible. But we will want to be careful about the amount of mother tongue that
we use in the English class. In general it seems that grammar explains for beginners
and elementary students are better handed with more obvious techniques, such as
isolation and demonstration. Of course this is not always the case, and where a rule is
easy to explain at the students level, then clearly an explanation would be appropriate.
In the case of modal verbs an explanation provided in the students mother tongue
would be appropriate since there is an important difference between the English modal
verbs and the Romanian moods.
Below I will refer the discovery techniques, another way of presenting efficiently the
new grammar structures. The discovery techniques are those where students are given
examples of language and told to find out how they work to discover the grammar
rules rather than be told them. The students are exposed to the new language, with no
focus, same time before it is presented. At a more conscious level, students can be
asked to look at some sentences and say how the meaning is expressed and what the
differences are between the sentences. As students puzzle through the information and
35

solve the problem in front of them, they find out grammar rule. The advantages of this
approach are clear. By involving the students reasoning processes in the task of
grammar acquisition, we make sure that they are concentrating fully, using their
cognitive powers. We are also ensuring that our approach is more student-centered: its
not just the teacher telling the students what the grammar is. They are actually
discovering information for themselves.
As a conclusion, encouraging students to discover grammar for themselves is one
valuable way of helping them to get to grips with the language. Very often this
discovering of grammatical facts involves students in a fairly analytical study of the
language. Teachers will have to decide how much of this kind of material is appropriate
for their students, but one thing is certain: the use of grammatical techniques can be
highly motivating and extremely beneficial for their students understanding of English
grammar. So then the question is whether these techniques are particularly timeconsuming. Obviously reading a text takes time, but teachers should remember that the
students will get reading practice as well as focusing on the grammar. So the time is not
really a problem. What is much more important is whether teachers feel happy with
these techniques and whether or not they suit the students.
After a period of grammar presentation the practice stage consists of a series exercises
done both in the classroom and for home assignments, whose aim is to cause the
learners to absorb the structures, that is to transfer what they know from short-term to
long-term memory. Obviously, not every grammar practice procedure can cover all
aspects of the structures, therefore we shall need to use a series of varied exercises
which will complement each other and together provide thorough coverage. Generally,
the activities are designed so that the students practise the language while at the same
time being involved in an enjoyable activity. Students need to practise their grammar a
lot. Where possible this will be done in pairs using interaction activities and so on. But,
where drills are used, the teacher must always remember that they are only a means to
an end. As soon as possible they should be abandoned in favour of one of the creative
activities.
Having presented the practice task, we then need to make sure that our students do in
fact perform it successfully and get through as much volume of language as possible
36

and maintain interest. There should be very little correction of mistakes if there has
been proper pre-learning, and if the exercise is really success-oriented. Teacher activity
in the course of the practice should therefore be largely directed towards supporting
and assisting the students in their production of acceptable responses rather than
towards assessing and correcting. Examples of such assistance are: simple giving extra
time to reread or think; repeating or simplifying a text; approving the beginning of an
utterance in order to encourage production of the whole; suggestions, hints, prompts.
All this means that we have to be very alert to sense when and where help is needed
and what form it should take. Again, there is a wider message: I, the teacher, am here to
help you, the learner, succeed and progress in your learning, not to judge, scold or
make you feel inferior.
It is very important to know that a well-designed grammar practice activity should be
based on a task that has clear objectives and entails active use of the structure being
practised; and it should maintain learner interest and motivation through careful choice
of topic, use of information-gap procedures, role play, personalisation etc.
But much of the effect of all this may be lost on a large proportion of the class if we do
not do something to ensure maximum, balanced participation of its members. The way
learners are activated when performing an exercise, moreover, may affect not only the
amount of participation, but also the level of motivation and involvement, and the
learning value of the practice given. We all know that the main techniques of learner
activation available to the teacher have both advantages and disadvantages for various
teaching situations or kinds of practice activities. Some techniques are based on
language reception with little or no learner response and it is the teacher who does
most, if not all, of the language production, and clearly controls what little learner
activity there is. In one-to-one teacher-student exchanges (probably the most common
form of classroom activation) the teacher is still dominant, but there is increasingly
active participation on the part of the learners. This participation increases still further
in brainstorming (the students are given a single stimulus which serves as the cue for a
large number of responses) or chain techniques (instruction and a initial cue are
given by the teacher, resulting in a large number of responses by the learners, but only
the first response is related to the original cue, the rest of the utterances being made in
response to the one before); and in the most forms of pair or group work, nearly all the
37

actual learning production is in the hands of the learners, the teacher merely providing
instructions and materials and acting as monitor and helper.
Finally, testing grammar is the last important part in the grammar teaching process.
Learners do tests in order to demonstrate to themselves and to the teacher- how well
they have mastered the material they have been learning. The main objective of tests
within a taught course is to provide feedback, without which neither teacher nor learner
would be able to progress very far. We have to know where we are in order to know
where to go next. Formal examinations, usually preceded by revision on the part of the
learners, and followed by written evaluation on the part of the teacher, are only one
kind of testing, useful for immediate teaching purposes. Most testing, however, is done
automatically and almost unconsciously by teacher and learners as the course proceeds,
the most valuable feedback on learning being supplied by the learners current
performance in class and in home assignments. Often practice exercises are used to
supply such informal feedback, in which case they may function virtually as tests.

5.1 Course books for learning English

In this chapter, the material analyzed according to theoretical findings will be
introduced briefly. I have chosen two sets of course books of English as a second
language: Way Ahead published by Macmillan and Pathway to English which is a
product of Oxford University Press. The choice is based on the fact that these textbooks
belong to the most widely used course books in English courses. Moreover, two
different sets eliminate one-sidedness and allow simple comparison.

5.1.1 Way Ahead

Way Ahead, written by Mary Bowen and Printha Ellis, 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
38

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 three to four (Elementary).
1. The course book Way Ahead 1 is for both true and false beginners and
provides the basic knowledge of the structure of English. Only one modal verb is
introduced here - can and it is e presented in functional approach in conversation.
2. Way Ahead 2 continues in widening and extending the students abilities of
understanding and using English for communicative purposes. In summary, students
learn two additional modals will, must. The more modal verbs they get to know, the
more information they acquire about the system of modality and interrelations in it.

5.1.2 Pathway to English

The Oxford University Press course Pathway to English 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 course book 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 personalized activities.
1. Pathway to English-English Factfile 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 course books
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 (dont) have to in the discussion of possibilities and necessities of rich film
stars.

39

2. Pathway to English English Scrapbook extends the students knowledge of

modals from five to seven (must and could) and practices their uses to express advice,
obligation and permission (must(nt), couldnt, should(nt), (dont) have to). Some of
them (can, could, would, shall) are covered in polite questions of offers and requests,
opinions, advice and suggestions.

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 Lewiss 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
40

(1986: 104). The central meanings that he assigns to individual modals help teachers
and students to see them in more positive ways.

7 Works cited
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan
(1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Longman.
Florea, Silvia (2001). On English Modality. Sibiu 2001
Harmer, Jeremy (1987). Teaching and Learning Grammar, Longman Group UK Limited,
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.
41

Palmer, Frank Robert, Krug, Manfred, Facchinetti, Roberta .(2003)Modality in

contemporary English- Mouton de Gruyter
Saeed, John I. (1997). Semantics. Blackwell.
Ur, Penny (1988) Grammar Practice Activities. A Practical Guide for Teachers,
Cambridge University Press
Vince, Michael (2003). Advanced Language Practice, Macmillan
Yule, George (1998). Explaining English Grammar. Oxford: OUP.

42