20.ok

UNIT 20 AUXILIARY AND MODAL VERBS: FORM AND FUNCTION. OUTLINE 1.

INTRODUCTION. 1.1. Aims of the unit. 1.2. Notes on bibliography.

2.

A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR AUXILIARY VERBS. 2.1. Linguistic levels involved. 2.2. Grammar categories involved: open vs. closed classes. 2.3. Major verb classes involved: lexical vs. auxiliary verbs. 2.4. The closed class of auxiliary verbs: what and how.

3. A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO AUXILIARY VERBS: PRIMARY AND MODAL. 3.1. The historical source of auxiliary verbs. 3.1.1. Phonological and morphological changes. 3.1.2. Syntactic tendencies in ME verb phrases. 3.2. A classification of auxiliary verbs. 3.2.1. Primary auxiliaries. 3.2.2. Modal auxiliaries. 3.2.3. Semi -auxiliaries. 3.2.4. Catenative verbs. 3.2.5. Modal idioms. 3.3. Modal vs. primary auxiliaries: main differences. 4.

MAIN STRUCTURAL FEATURES OF AUXILIARY VERBS: FORM AND FUNCTION. 4.1. On form: morphological features. 4.1.1. Modal auxiliaries. 4.1.2. Primary auxiliaries. 4.2. On pronunciation: phonological features. 4.2.1. Modal auxiliaries. 4.2.2. Primary auxiliaries. 4.3. On function: syntactic features. 4.3.1. Main syntactic constructions. 4.3.2. Simple and complex verb phrases. 4.3.3. General features of auxiliary verbs as operators. 4.3.4. General features of auxiliary verbs as lexical verbs. 4.3.5. Other specific types of verbs: syntactic function. 4.4. On semantics: meaning . 4.4.1. Modal auxiliaries. 4.4.1.1. Ability: can, could, be able to. 4.4.1.2. Permission: can, may, could, be allowed to. 4.4.1.3. Possibility: may, might, can, could. 4.4.1.4. Impossibility, certainty and deduction: can’t, must. 4.4.1.5. Necessity: must, have to, needn’t. 4.4.1.6. Obligation: must, have to, need.

1/33

4.4.1.7. Advice: ought to, should, had better, be supposed to. 4.4.1.8. Suggestions, offers and invitations: can, could, shall, will, would. 4.4.1.9. Predictions: will, would. 4.4.2. Marginal auxiliaries. 4.4.3. Primary auxiliaries. 4.4.4. Other types of auxiliaries. 4.5. On use: everyday usage and idiomatic expressions. 5. 6. 7. 8.

THE RELEVANCE OF CO-OCCURRENCE PATTERNS. EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS. CONCLUSION. BIBLIOGRAPHY.

2/33

1. INTRODUCTION. 1.1. Aims of the unit. Unit 20 is primarily aimed to examine in English auxiliary and modal verbs in terms of form and function, namely achieved by means of verbs and other specific structures. It is relevant to mention at this point that the title may lead us to a misunderstanding since the category of auxiliary verbs (in opposition to lexical/ordinary/full verbs) encloses a further classification into primary auxiliary verbs and modal auxiliary verbs. Hence the former are commonly known as auxiliaries and the latter, as modal verbs as in the title. Then, when primary and modal auxiliaries are mentioned as a whole, we shall refer to them as auxiliary verbs. Then, the study will be divided into seven chapters. Thus, Chapter 2 provides a theoretical framework for this verb class, first, by answering questions such as, first, which linguistic levels are involved; second, which grammar categories are involved in its description at a functional level regarding open and closed classes; third, what major verb classes are involved regarding lexical vs. auxiliary verbs; and finally, what the closed class of auxiliary verb describes and how. Once this key terminology is defined, the reader is prepared for the descriptive account in subsequent chapters. Once we have set up the linguistic framework, we shall offer a general introduction to auxiliary verbs in Chapter 3 regarding primary and modal auxiliary verbs by reviewing (1) the historical origin of auxiliary verbs regarding phonological, morphological and syntactic changes; (2) a classification of auxiliary verbs into primary, modal, semi-auxiliaries, catenative and modal idioms; and finally, we shall present (3) the main differences between modal and primary auxiliary verbs. Chapters 4 will offer a descriptive account of the main structural features of auxiliary verb in terms of form and function. With respect to the main structural features of auxiliary verbs, we shall analyse them in terms of form and function namely following morphological, phonological, syntactic and semantic guidelines. Thus we shall examine form regarding morphology (verbal structures) and phonology (pronunciation) whereas function will be approached in terms of syntax (verb phrase structure) and semantics (differences in meaning) in order to get an overall view of this type of verbs working at the sentence level in assertive and nonassertive contexts (affirmative, negative and interrogative forms). Moreover, we shall analyze how auxiliaries work at the level of everyday use regarding everyday speech and idiomatic expressions. Chapter 5 presents some general considerations about the relevance of coocurrence patterns of auxiliary and lexical verbs at the syntactic and semantic level since thanks to the combination of all these paradigms, we get all the verbal forms we know today. Then Chapter 6 provides an educational framework for the structural features of modal and auxiliary verbs within our current school curriculum, and Chapter 7 draws on a summary of all the points involved in this study. Finally, in Chapter 8 bibliography will be listed in alphabetical order.

3/33

1.2. Notes on bibliography. In order to offer an insightful analysis and survey on auxiliary and modal verbs in English, we shall deal with the most relevant works in the field, both old and current, and in particular, influential grammar books which have assisted for years students of English as a foreign language in their study of grammar. For instance, a theoretical framework for this type of verbs is namely drawn from the field of sentence analysis, that is, from the work of Flor Aarts and Jan Aarts (University of Nijmegen, Holland) in English Syntactic Structures (1988), whose material has been tested in the classroom and developed over a number of years; Thomson & Martinet, A Practical English Grammar (1986); and also, another essential work is that of Rodney Huddleston, English Grammar, An Outline (1988). Other classic references which offer an account of the most important and central grammatical constructions and categories in English regarding auxiliary and modal verbs, are Quirk & Greenbaum, A University Grammar of English (1973); Sánchez Benedito, Gramática Inglesa (19759; and Greenbaum & Quirk, A Student’s Grammar of the English Language (1990). More current approaches to notional grammar are David Bolton and Noel Goodey, Grammar Practice in Context (1997); John Eastwood, Oxford Practice in Grammar (1999); Sidney Greenbaum, The Oxford Reference Grammar (2000); Gerald Nelson, English: An Essential Grammar (2001); Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (2002); and. Angela Downing and Philip Locke, A University Course in English Grammar (2002).

2.

A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR AUXILIARY VERBS.

Before examining in detail auxiliary verbs (primary and modal) in English in terms of form and function, it is relevant to establish first a theoretical framework for this verb class in order to fully understand the descriptive chapters about them. In fact, this theoretical chapter aims at answering questions such as, first, which linguistic levels are involved; second, which grammar categories are involved in its description at a functional level regarding open and closed classes; third, what major verb classes are involved regarding lexical vs. auxiliary verbs; and finally, what the closed class of auxiliary verb describes and how. Once this key terminology is defined, the reader is prepared for the descriptive account in subsequent chapters.

2.1. Linguistic levels involved. In order to offer a linguistic description of the main auxiliary verbs, we must confine it to particular levels of analysis so as to focus our attention on this particular aspect of language. Yet, although there is no consensus of opinion on the number of levels to be distinguished, the

4/33

usual description of a language comprises four major components: phonology, grammar, lexicon, and semantics, out of which we get five major levels: phonological, morphological and syntactic, lexical, and semantic (Huddleston, 1988). First, the phonology describes the sound level, that is, how to pronounce this type of verbs (i.e. weak and strong forms). Secondly, the morphological level describes how this type of verbs are formed (i.e. can, could, be able to) and the syntactic level (i.e. how to place auxiliary and modal verbs in a sentence). Third, the lexicon, or lexical level, deals with lists of vocabulary items which, for our purposes, are different types of auxiliary verbs: primary and modal verbs. Finally, another dimension between the study of linguistic form and the study of meaning is semantics, or the semantic level, to which all four of the major components are related in this study. We must not forget that a linguistic description which ignores meaning is obviously incomplete, and in particular, when dealing with the auxiliary and modal verb semantics, since it is from this linguistic field that we get the major differences among them (i.e. I can swim =I have the ability to do it vs. I may swim = I am likely to do it).

2.2. Grammar categories involved: open vs. closed classes. So far, in order to confine the auxiliary verbs to particular grammatical categories, we must review first the difference between open and closed classes. Traditionally, the open classes are verbs, nouns, adjectives and adverbs, and are said to be unrestricted since they allow the addition of new members to their membership, whereas the closed classes are the rest: prepositions, conjunctions, articles (definite and indefinite), numerals, pronouns, quantifiers and interjections, which belong to a restricted class since they do not allow the creation of new members. However, following Quirk and Greenbaum (1973) and Aarts (1988), the two major types of verb classes, lexical and auxiliary verbs, belong to two different grammatical categories, for instance, the former constitute an open class where the latter constitute a closed class. Moreover, since auxiliary verbs fall into the further distinction of primary auxiliaries and modal auxiliaries, both subclassifications also belong to the small closed class, according to Quirk and Greenbaum (1990). Therefore, when dealing with auxiliary verbs at sentence level, we shall namely deal with closed word classes within two specific types: primary auxiliary verbs (be, have, do) and modal auxiliary verbs (can, could, may, might, shall, will, could, ...). Moreover, we also find closed classes such as prepositions since certain auxiliary and modal verb constructions need of periphrastic forms to be realized (i.e. He is going to record a CD; you have to clean your car). It is worth noting that apart from grammatical categories, we may find other specific clause structures, such as ‘You’d better go now’ or ‘I am used to getting up early’.

5/33

2.3. Major verb classes involved: lexical vs. auxiliary verbs. Then, the two major verb classes, lexical and auxiliary verbs, are said to work together at sentence level. First of all, lexical verbs constitute the principal part of the verb phrase (i.e. come, believe, think, go, speak, sing, etc) which can be accompanied by auxiliaries (i.e. Sarah may come next week/Sarah may be coming next week) or not (i.e. Sarah came last week ) since they can also occur in verb phrases that do not contain any other verbal forms. As we will see, auxiliary verbs may be subclassified first in modal auxiliaries, which namely comprise the following items: can, may, must, shall, and will. Other marginal members such as ‘dare, need, ought (to) and used (to)’ are also included because they can be used both as auxiliaries and as lexical verbs (i.e. He needs to be careful vs. He needn’t be careful), and also because unlike the other auxiliaries ‘ought’ and ‘used’ are followed by a to-infinitive. However, ‘used’ may co-occur with ‘do’ in negative and interrogative sentences (i.e. Did he use(d) to drive a car?).

2.4. The closed class of auxiliary verbs: what and how. On defining the closed class category of auxiliary verbs, we must link this notion (what it is) to the grammar categories which express it (how it is showed). Then, on examining this type of verbs, it is relevant to consider the ordinary verb class (lexical verbs) since most of its tenses are formed with auxiliaries, hence the name. Actually, on answering What is it? auxiliaries are defined as those closed class verbal items which help ordinary verbs form a tense or an expression, for instance, by combining with present or past participles or with infinitives (i.e. She is singing; they have listened; we didn’t see you, respectively). An ordinary verb then is defined as ‘a grammatically distinct word class in a language’ having two main properties, for instance, first, that (1) they are morphologically simplest words ‘denoting actions, processes or events’ which are usually in predicative position and may be transitive or intransitive, and that (2) the members of this class carry inflections of tense, aspect and mood if the language has these as inflectional categories. Similarly, it must be borne in mind that all primary and not all modal auxiliary verbs have inflectional forms (be, have, do; can, must, might, could , except ‘have to’: He has to pay for his meal) (Huddleston, 1988). Regarding how this type of verbs is expressed, we shall namely deal with two types: primary and modal auxiliaries which, on showing specific morphological, phonological, syntactic and semantic features, will be broadly examined in next sections.

3.

A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO AUXILIARY VERBS: PRIMARY AND MODAL.

Once we have set up the linguistic framework, we shall offer a general introduction to auxiliary verbs, that is, primary and modal auxiliary verbs, regarding (1) the historical origin of auxiliary verbs regarding phonological, morphological and syntactic changes; (2) a classification of

6/33

auxiliary verbs into primary, modal, semi-auxiliaries, catenative and modal idioms; and finally, we shall present (3) the main differences between modal and primary auxiliary verbs.

3.1. The historical source of auxiliary verbs. In order to introduce the historical background of auxiliary verbs, we must trace back to the period from Old English (OE) to Middle English (ME) in which certain changes taking place in verb morphology affected the paradigms of weak and strong verbs 1 and, therefore, auxiliary verbs. We refer to (1) phonological and morphological changes; and (2) general syntactic tendencies in ME verb phrases regarding (a) the function of tenses and moods, (b) the development of periphrastic or compound tenses and (c) the auxiliarization of preterit-present and modal verbs.

3.1.1. Main phonological and morphological changes. The main phonological and, therefore, morphological changes were: first, the levelling of final unstressed vowels to schwa and the adoption of the dental suffix –ed in order to avoid ambiguity in the distinction of present and preterit tenses; and in the second place, the unstable quality of inflectional /-n/ in infinitive forms (i.e. knowen) which favoured the general tendency of grade reduction (i.e. know) by, first, levelling the singular preterit under the vowel of the 1st /3rd person singular; and second, by eliminating the number opposition within the past2 . So, as a result, many ME strong verbs became weak due to the analogical adoption of the distinctive dental suffix for the preterit and past participle, typical of the weak paradigm (i.e. help(en), helped, helped, helped) while others escaped the process of analogical le velling due to their high occurrence in everyday speech (i.e. know(en), knew/knew(en), knowen). Yet, in late ME all remaining strong verbs were affected by grade reduction and the original correlation of four vowels and four grades was reduced to three (infinitive/present, preterit system, past participle). As a result, with this background in mind, we shall find the origin of our two main types of verbs: first, the preterit-present verbs (modern modal auxiliary verbs) and second, anomalous or suppletive verbs (primary auxiliary verbs). So, first of all, we find a few Old English verbs that were originally strong but whose strong preterit came to be used in a present-time sense. Consequently, they had to form new weak preterits which, still today, retain a dental suffix (i.e. coude, schoulde). 1

Old English verbs were either weak, adding a –d or –t to form their preterits and past participles (as in modern love, loved), or strong, changing their stressed vowel for the same purpose (as in modern sing, sang). Note that the vowel change in strong verbs is called gradation or Grimm’s ablaut (i.e. drifan, draf, drifon, gedrifen; infinitive, preterit singular, preterit plural, and past participle respectively), perhaps due to Indo-European variations in pitch and stress, which must not be confused with mutation (umlaut) which is the approximation of a vowel in a stressed syllable to another vowel in a following syllable (i.e. Mann-Männer in German, and man-men in English). 2

It must be borne in mind that, originally, the usual correlation of a verb corresponds to four vowels and four grades (infinitive/present, preterit singular, preterit plural and past participle).

7/33

This special group of verbs are to be called preterit-present verbs or, in other words, the main source for the group of some modal verbs in Modern English which survive in their infinitive, present and preterit forms (i.e. agan ‘owe’, ah, ahte (ought); cunnan ‘know how’, cann (can), cude (could); magan ‘be able’, maeg (may), meahte (might); motan ‘be allowed’, mot, moste (must); sculan ‘be obliged’, sceal (shall), sceolde (should).3 On the other hand, another group of commonly used verbs developed irregularities and presented to some extent a mix of alternative present indicative forms from several different roots (i.e. I am/was, you are/were, he is/was, they are/were). This group of verbs was known as anomalous or suppletive verbs since they combined historically unrelated forms and included verbs such as ‘to be’ (OE beon), ‘go’ (OE gan), ‘do’ (OE don) and ‘willen’ (will, want). For instance, the Old English verb for ‘be’, like its Modern English counterpart, combined forms of what originally were four different verbs (be, am, are, was).

3.1.2. Syntactic tendencies in ME verb phrases. Regarding general syntactic tendencies in ME verb phrases which affect to our current auxiliary verbs, we shall deal with the development from OE to ME syntax which was characterized by the tranformation of an originally synthetic system into an analytic one, that is, that the language could not simply rely on case endings (synthetic means) but needed of prepositions or a fixed word order in the sentence (analytic means). Therefore, as far as verb phrases are concerned, we must highlight (1) the function of tenses and moods which underwent the reorganization of historical categories (weak and strong verbs) into new regular and irregula r classes as well as the reduction of tenses into three (present/infinitive, preterit, past participle) in the indicative, subjunctive and imperative moods; (b) the development of periphrastic or compound tenses involving modal and auxiliary verbs in order to express the perfect and progressive aspects together with the increasing use of prepositions, and eventually, the development and establishment of passive progressive constructions as the alternative to the active voice up to present days. And finally, (c) the auxiliarization of preterit-present and modal verbs together with the development of auxiliaries, such as the verb ‘to do’, which was considered as an auxiliary verb empty of meaning in the 15th and 16th centuries. Yet, it was not untio the late 17th and 18th centuries that the use of ‘do’ became compulsory in negative and interrogative sentences, particularly when there were no other auxiliaries in the sentence. Other uses of ‘do’ were its causative function (to cause, to make someone do somethin g) and the emphatic function (do + infinitive).

3

The verb ‘willan’ (wish, want) and its preterit ‘wolde’ (the Modern English ‘will’ and ‘would’) also became a part of the present -day modal system although they did not belong to the mentioned group in Old English.

8/33

3.2. A classification of auxiliary verbs. As seen before, according to Greenbaum and Quirk (1973) and Aarts (1988), we may distinguish two major types of verb classes according to their function within the verb phrase: lexical verbs (also called full or ordinary verbs) and auxiliary verbs, the latter category falling into a further distinction: primary auxiliarie s and modal auxiliaries (see Appendix 1). Note that in this section we shall also distinguish three more subclassifications, semi-auxiliaries, modal idioms and catenative verbs (Quirk & Greenbaum, 1990) which are intermediate between auxiliaries and main verbs on expressing modal or aspectual meaning.

3.2.1.

Primary auxiliaries.

The first subclassification, primary auxiliaries, comprises the items: do, have and be, where ‘do’ differs from ‘have’ and ‘be’ in that it usually co-occurs with lexical verbs only 4 . This means that verb phrases with ‘do’ contain only two verb forms, since verb phrases cannot have more than one lexical verb (i.e. Do you believe him?/ Do come, John!). Moreover, it is used as an auxiliary of periphrasis (i.e. He does not realize what he is doing/Who did he see?/ Only then did he realize his position) and of emphasis (i.e. He DOES know what he is saying/ I DID lock the door). On the other hand, ‘have’ and ‘be’ co-occur not only with lexical verbs but also with modal auxiliaries, always following the latter (i.e. He may have escaped; you must be crazy). Both function as auxiliaries of aspect. Thus, ‘have’ is auxiliary of the perfective aspect when followed by the –ed participle of another verb (i.e. He has written a new article ), and ‘be’ is auxiliary of the progressive aspect when it combines with the –ing participle of another verb (i.e. He is writing a new article ). Moreover, ‘be’ is also used as auxiliary of the passive voice when followed by the –ed participle of a transitive (lexical) verb as in ‘The theatre was built in 1909’.

3.2.2.

Modal auxiliaries.

The second subclassification of auxiliary verbs, modal auxiliaries, comprises the following items: can, could, may, might, must, shall, should and will. Other marginal members (or semimodals according to Thomson & Martinet, 1986) are ‘dare, need, ought (to) and used (to)’ because they can be used both as auxiliaries and as lexical verbs (i.e. He needs to be careful vs. He needn’t be careful), and also because unlike the other auxiliaries ‘ought’ and ‘used’ are followed by a to-infinitive. However, ‘used’ may co-occur with ‘do’ in negative and interrogative sentences (i.e. Did he use(d) to drive a car?). 4

It must be borne in mind that when ‘be’, ‘have’ and ‘do’ behave as lexical or ordinary verbs, they may be seen as transitive verbs because of their syntactic features. Thus, ‘be’ would function as a copulative verb with an attributive complement (i.e. He is a teacher) whereas ‘have’ and ‘do’ would function as transitive verbs (i.e. I have some birds; He does his homework).

9/33

3.2.3.

Semi-auxiliaries.

Thirdly, semi-auxiliaries are said to be ‘a set of verb idioms which are introduced by one of the primary verbs have and be’ (Greenbaum & Quirk, 1990). This type of auxiliary verbs has nonfinite forms ( bare infinitive) and consequently can occur in combination with preceding auxiliaries or in sequence. For instance, ‘be able to’, ‘be about to’, ‘be due to’, ‘be bound to’, ‘be going to’, ‘be likely to’, ‘be supposed to’ and ‘have to’.

3.2.4.

Catenative verbs.

Moreover, catenative verbs, like auxiliaries, have meanings similar to those for the aspectual and modal auxiliaries (perfect and progressive tenses) and comprise the following items: ‘appear to’, ‘seem to’ and ‘happen to’. Note that some catenatives are followed by the nonfinite forms –ing or –ed participles rather than by infinitives, for instance, ‘start (working)’, ‘go on (talking)’, ‘keep (on) (smoking)’, ‘get (dressed)’.

3.2.5.

Modal idioms.

And finally, modal idioms are defined by Greenbaum & Quirk (1990) as ‘a combination of auxiliary and infinitive or adverb’. Their main characteristic is that none of them have nonfinite forms and as a result, they are always the first verb in the verb phrase, for instance, ‘had better’, ‘would rather’, ‘have got to’, and ‘be to’.

3.3. Modal vs. primary auxiliaries: main differences. Yet, the further distinction of modal auxiliaries (i.e. can, could, may, might, will, would, shall, should ) and primary auxiliaries (i.e. have, be, do) show important differences as follows: 1. the former are always finite (showing tense, mood, aspect and voice) whereas the latter ‘have’ and ‘be’ have finite as well as non-finite forms (an infinitive, an –ing participle or an –ed participle); 2. the former invariably occur as the first element of the verb phrase (i.e. John will travel to Paris) whereas the second and may occur in initial as well as in medial position in the verb phrase (i.e. She has travelled / Has she travelled?); 3. moreover, in English modal auxiliaries are mutually exclusive, that is, they cannot be combined with other auxiliaries (i.e. I shall come BUT NOT: I shall can come) whereas primary auxiliaries are not exclusive and can be mixed (i.e. She has been playing). 4. finally, it is worth distinguishing the primary auxiliary ‘do’ from the primary auxiliaries ‘have’ and ‘be’ since it always occurs initially (i.e. Do you dare to do it? ), is invariably finite, does not generally co-occur with other auxiliaries (i.e. She does her homework) and finally, it is used for emphasis (i.e. She does write ) and periphrasis (i.e. Do you smoke?).

10/ 33

4. MAIN STRUCTURAL FEATURES OF AUXILIARY VERBS: FORM AND FUNCTION. With respect to the main structural features of auxiliary verbs, we shall analyse them in terms of form and function namely following morphological, phonological, syntactic and semantic guidelines. Thus we shall examine form regarding morphology (verbal structures) and phonology (pronunciation) whereas function will be approached in terms of syntax (verb phrase structure) and semantics (differences in meaning and use) in order to get an overall view of this type of verbs working at the sentence level in assertive and nonassertive contexts (affirmative, negative and interrogative forms). Moreover, we shall analyze how auxiliaries work at the level of everyday use regarding everyday speech and idiomatic expressions.

4.1. On form: morphological features. Generally, from a structural point of view, the verb forms operate in finite and nonfinite verb phrases. Yet, it should be borne in mind that modal auxiliaries (will, shall, can, might) are always finite whereas primary auxiliaries (have, be) have fin ite as well as non-finite forms. Then, let us briefly review some of the finite and nonfinite verbal characteristics in order to better understand modal and primary auxiliaries main features. Thus, finite verb phrases are characterized because (1) they can occur as the verb phrase of independent clauses; (2) have tense distinction; (3) as well as mood, which indicates the factual, nonfactual, or counterfactual status of the predication (indicative, subjunctive, imperative); and (4) generally, there is person concord and number concord between the subject of a cla use and the finite verb phrase. On the other hand, nonfinite verb phrases are characterized because (1) they contain a nonfinite form: an infinitive (speak or to speak), an –ing participle (speaking) or an –ed participle (spoken/called); (2) they appear as the first or only verb in the verb phrase (disregarding the infinitive marker ‘to’); and (3) because alike finite verb phrases, nonfinite phrases do not normally occur as the verb phrase of an in dependent clause (i.e. ‘To dance like that deserves an award’, ‘I found him dancing like crazy’ or ‘Having been insulted before, he was more sensitive than ever’).

4.1.1. Modal auxiliaries. So, with respect to the morphological characteristics which are specifically applied to finite forms and in particular to modal auxiliaries, we can namely distinguish three: (1) first, that modal auxiliaries are morphologically marked for the categories of tense, aspect and mood but not concord (no –s form for the 3rd person singular of the present tense); and (2) second, modal verbs are always followed by an infinitive without a preceding ‘to’ (i.e. He might go/I will buy it). Hence, the form ‘he can’ is marked by the category of tense because it contrasts with ‘he could’ (present vs. past tense). The rest of tenses are usually to be found in semi-auxiliary verbs, which

11/ 33

paraphrase the base form, for instance, ‘he can’, ‘he could’ vs. ‘he is able to’ or ‘he has been able to’. They may, in addition, be marked for the categories of mood in contrast with ‘I don’t think he can’ (indicative vs. subjunctive), and aspect in contrast with ‘She could have lifted it’ (simple vs. perfect). However, concord is not included since in most lexical verbs, concord is restricted to a contrast between the third person singular present and other persons or plural number (i.e. You go/He goes), but not at all with modal auxiliaries (i.e. You may go/He may go). Moreover, it would be incorrect to apply nonfinite forms to modal auxiliaries, either following the base form of the verb to say ‘He can to walk’ nor preceding it since the verb form ‘can’ cannot be preceded by ‘to’.

4.1.2. Primary auxiliaries. Similarly, primary auxiliaries also take finite verbal features and therefore, share some of them with modal auxiliaries but not all of them. For instance, they can occur as the verb phrase of independent clauses (i.e. When he came, I ran out); have tense distinction (i.e. He is vs. He was; He has vs. He had; He does vs. He did); as well as mood and aspect but in their case, there is person concord and number concord between the subject of a cla use and the finite verb phrase, that is, between the third person singular present and other persons or plural number (i.e. You do/He does), but particularly clear with the present tense of ‘be’ (i.e. I am, you are, he/she/it is, we are, they are). Thus, the form ‘he drives’, for example, is marked for all three categories. It is marked for tense because it contrasts with ‘he drove’, for mood because it contrasts with ‘he drive’, for aspect because it constrasts with ‘he has driven’ or ‘he is driving’ and for concord because it contrasts with ‘I/you/we/they write’. As we can see, one of the main characteristics of primary auxiliaries is that they may combine in order to construct perfective and progressive forms (i.e. He has gone, He was talking too loud).

4.2. On pronunciation: phonological features. When dealing with pronunciation of modal and auxiliary verbs, the notions of phonological reduction (weak and strong forms) and that of contracted forms (short and long forms) must be addressed. As we shall see, they are closely related to each other since short forms are pronounced differently from long forms, that is, by means of weak and strong forms respectively. We must not forget that morphological features such as contractions in both speech and writing (i.e. I am vs. I’m) give way to phonological changes in the same word or chain of words. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that (1) short vs. long forms correspond respectively to institutionalized simplified forms and full forms both in speech and writing and (2) weak vs. strong forms are respectively used in the speech chain when pronounced at high speed and when

12/ 33

pronounced clearly and separately. Yet, these notions shall be examined in affirmative, negative and interrogative sentences in contracted and uncontracted versions.

4.2.1. Modal auxiliaries. With respect to the pronunciation of primary auxiliaries in affirmative (or assertive) sentences, we shall deal with both dualit ies, that is, short vs. long forms and weak vs. strong forms 5 . Thus the verbal forms ‘can’ /kaen, k6n/, ‘could’ /kud, k6d/, ‘shall’ /Sael, S6l/, ‘should’ /Sud, S6d/ and ‘must’ /m^st, m6st/ present double pronunciation for weak and strong forms but cannot be contracted; similarly, ‘may’ /mei/ and ‘might’ /mait/ cannot be contracted either but only have strong pronunciation. On the other hand, ‘will’ /wil/ and ‘would’ /wud/ can be contracted as in ‘ll /6l/ and ‘d /6d/ and also present weak and strong forms. Note that the contraction ‘d may represent either ‘had’ or ‘would’. We must bear in mind that agreements with affirmative remarks are made with yes/so/of course + affirmative modal auxiliary, for instance, ‘There may be a party’- Yes, there may’. Similarly, agreements with negative remarks are made with no + negative modal auxiliary, for instance, ‘I haven’t paid you yet. – No, you haven’t’. Moreover, additions to remarks can be made by subject + auxiliary + too/also (i.e. Bill could do it and Cristine could too) or by so + auxiliary + subject (i.e. Bill would enjoy it and Cristine would so). When both remarks are made by the same person, both subjects are usually stressed whilel when made by different people, the second subject is much more stressed than the first. Moreover, negative (or non-assertive) forms are formed when the enclitic particle n’t is attached to most operators as a contraction of the negative word not and therefore we may find uncontracted and contracted forms which sometimes show differences in pronunciation. Note that the final /t/ in the negative contractions is commonly not sounded. For instance, can not/cannot vs. BrE can’t /ka:nt/ and AmE /kaent/; could not vs. couldn’t /kudnt/; may not vs. mayn’t6 /meint/; might not vs. mihtn’t /maitnt/; shall not vs. shan’t /Sa:nt/; should not vs. shouldn’t /Sudnt or S6dnt/; will not/’ll not vs. won’t /w6unt/; would not/’d not vs. wouldn’t /wudnt/; and must not vs. mustn’t /m^snt/. And finally, regarding interrogative (and also exclamative) forms, we must address to the syntactic functions of ‘question tags’ or ‘additions to remarks’, since in this environment modals are presented in their full forms and pronounced as strong forms, for instance, ‘You can do it, can’t you?’ or ‘If the girls can cheat, so can I!’ Note that when question tags are said with falling intonation as statements because the speaker merely expects agreement. However, if the speaker does want information, the question tag is said with a rising intonation.

5

Since the symbol for schwa is not available in this computer writing, we shall use number six ‘6’ instead from now on. 6

According to Greenbaum & Quirk (1990), we find nonexistent forms of mayn’t and shan’t in AmE while in BrE both forms are becoming rare.

13/ 33

4.2.2. Primary auxiliaries. With respect to the pronunciation of modal auxiliaries in affirmative (or assertive) sentences, we shall deal again with both dualities, that is, short vs. long forms and weak vs. strong forms7 in their finite and nonfinite forms. Thus the verbal forms of ‘be’ are: (a) for present, full and short forms in first person singular: ‘am’ /aem/ and /6m/ or ‘m /m/; second person singular: ‘are’ /a:/ or ‘re /6/; and third person singular: ‘is /iz/ or ‘s /z/, /s/. (b) for past forms: first and third person singular: ‘was’ /woz/ or /w6z/; and ‘were’ /we:/ or /w6/ for second person singular and first and third person plural; (c) for nonfinite forms, such as the base infinitive ‘be’ /bi:/ and /bi/; the –ing form ‘being’ /bi:in/; and the –ed participle ‘been’ /bi:n/ or /bin/. Similarly, we find the verb ‘have’ and ‘do’. For instance, (a) the finite forms of ‘have’ for the present tense, such as the full forms ‘has’ /haez/ or /h6z/ and ‘have’ /haev/ or /h6v/, and their respective contracted forms ‘s /z/ or /s/ and ‘ve /v/ or /f/; and for the past tense ‘had’ /haed/, /h6d/ or /d/. Moreover, we also find (b) the nonfinite forms such as the base infinitive ‘have’, the –ing fomr ‘having’ /haevin/ and the –ed participle ‘had’ /haed/ and /h6d/. Note that the contraction ‘s may represent either ‘is’ or ‘has’. With respect to the verbal forms of ‘do’, we also find (a) finite forms for present tenses ‘do’ /du:/ and /d6/ and for third person singular ‘does’ /d^z/, /d6z/, /z/ or /s/; and for past tenses: did /did/. Moreover, we find (b) nonfinite forms, such as the base form ‘do’, the –ing form ‘doing’ /du:in/ and the –ed participle ‘done’ /d^n/. As we may note, ‘does’ can be informally pronounced /z/ as in ‘When does the show start? ’ or /s/ ‘What does it mean?’. We must bear in mind that agreements with affirmative remarks are made with yes/so/of course + affirmative primary auxiliary, for instance, ‘There is a party’- Yes, there is’. Similarly, agreements with negative remarks are made with no + negative primary auxiliary, for instance, ‘I didn’t pay you. – No, you didn’t’. Moreover, additions to remarks can be made by subject + auxiliary + too/also (i.e. Bill had it and Cristine had it too) or by so + auxiliary + subject (i.e. Bill was here and Cristine was so). When both remarks are made by the same person, both subjects are usually stressed while when made by different people, the second subject is much more stressed than the first. Moreover, negative (or non-assertive) forms are formed when the enclitic particle n’t is attached to most operators as a contraction of the negative word not and therefore we may find uncontracted and contracted forms which sometimes show differences in pronunciation 8 . Note that the final /t/ in the negative contractions is commonly not sounded. For instance, am not/’m not; are not/’re not vs. aren’t /a:nt/; is not/’s not vs. isn’t /izn’t/; was not vs. wasn’t /woznt/; were not vs. weren’t /we:nt/; have not/’ve not vs. haven’t /haevnt/; has not/’s not vs. hasn’t /haeznt/; had not/’d not vs. hadn’t /haednt/; do not vs. don’t /d6unt/; does not vs. doesn’t /d^znt/; did not vs. didn’t /didnt/. 7

Since the symbol for schwa is not available in this computer writing, we shall use number six ‘6’ instead from now on. 8 We may also find nonstandard contractions in some of these forms, especially in AmE. For instance, Ain’t instead of am not, is not, are not, has not and have not, and the special use of aren’t as the standard contraction for am not in questions (i.e. Aren’t I tired?).

14/ 33

And finally, regarding interrogative (and also exclamative) forms, we must address to the syntactic functions of ‘question tags’ or ‘additions to remarks’, since in this environment modals are presented in their full forms and pronounced as strong forms, for instance, ‘You are doing it again, aren’t you?’ or ‘The girls cheated and so did you!’ Note that when question tags are said with falling intonation as statements because the speaker merely expects agreement. However, if the speaker does want information, the question tag is said with a rising intonation.

4.3. On function: syntactic features. When dealing with the syntactic function, we shall address the main syntactic features of auxiliary verbs by reviewing (1) the ir main syntactic constructions; (2) the difference between simple and complex clauses regarding their finite and nonfinite verbal forms; (3) general features of auxiliary verbs when functioning as operators; and other (4) specific features for both types of auxiliaries when functioning as lexical verbs; finally, we shall review (5) the syntactic function of some specific types of verbs such as marginal modal auxiliaries, semiauxiliaries, catenative verbs and modal idioms.

4.3.1. Main syntactic constructions. As a rule an auxiliary verb cannot stand on its own since it must be followed by a lexical verb (i.e. He may come tonight), except in cases where the lexical verb is understood, as it is the case of other sentence constituents such as ‘question tags’ in ‘Can Anthony come? Yes, he can (come)’. Moreover, regarding present syntactic features, Aarts (1988) states that the verbal phrase may be constituted by a sequence of one or more verbs where the maximum number of verbal forms is five. Note that this type of construction is achieved by means of maximum four auxiliaries + a lexical verb (i.e. the e-mail was sent, someone was sending it, anyone can send it, it may be sent, it has been being sent, it may have been being sent -this latter is rare-) depending on the semantic feature we intend to express, that is, tense (verbal tense), aspect (progressive or perfect) or mood (indicative, subjunctive, imperative). In fact, the given answers would provide, respectively, details about the ‘exact point of time’ in which the situation happens (i.e. He can do it: present vs. He could do it: past); grammatically, the appropriate verbal tense form; details about the duration of the action, that is, in progress or completed (i.e. He is writing vs. He has written); and finally, semantic details about the speakers’ attitude in their speech, such as advice, obligation, ability, possibility, etc (i.e. You should go and see her = advice vs. You have to go and see her = obligation).

15/ 33

4.3.2. Simple and complex verb phrases. But, let us focus on some syntactic features of simple and complex verb phrases. For instance, the simple finite verb phrase consists of only one word without ellipsis whereas the complex one consists of two or more words. When dealing with verb phrase, we deal with finite and nonfinite verbal forms, that is, combining together to form the modal, perfective, progressive and passive auxiliaries which follow a strict order in the complex verb phrase. It should be borne in mind that, while modal auxiliary verbs (or modals) only have a unique set of finite forms in the auxiliary function, the primary verbs be, have and do have both finite and nonfinite verbal forms and, therefore, they may function as lexical and auxiliary verbs, having then other auxiliary functions such as (1) perfective forms with the auxiliary ‘have’ (i.e. He has gone, he must have gone); (2) progressive forms with the verb ‘be’ (i.e. He is talking too loud) and (3) passive forms with the verb ‘be’ (i.e. He was visited). However, although the above order is strictly followed, we find some exceptions, such as with (4) modal + progressive (i.e. may be visiting); (5) perfect + passive (i.e. has been built); and (6) modal + passive (i.e. may be visited).

4.3.3. General features of auxiliary verbs as operators. With respect to the general features of both types of auxiliary verbs (modal and primary auxiliaries) we must say that they share certain functions in a verb clause at the level of affirmative, negative and interrogative sentences when functioning as operators. For instance, (1) in affirmative sentences, they become operators when they occur as the first verb of a finite verb phrase (i.e. You can lift that heavy box; you are able to do it). (2) in negative sentences, the negative adverb ‘not’ (or tis enclitic form n’t) is added immediately after the operator as in ‘He may swim vs. He may not swim’ and ‘She is tall vs. She is not/isn’t tall’. Note that ‘can’ has a special negative form since ‘not’ is not separated from the operator (i.e. cannot). (3) in interrogative sentences, we find an inversion of subject and operator, that is, the operator is placed in front of the subject (i.e. They will tell us the truth vs. Will they tell us the truth?). This inversion construction also occurs in sentences with introductory negatives or semi-negatives, as in ‘Had I know, I would have gone’, ‘At no time was the seat free’. (4) in elliptical clauses, the role of operators is present when the rest of the predication is omitted, as in the case of short answers (i.e. Did you like the play?-Yes, I did), question tags (i.e. She is joining us, isn’t she?) or additions to remarks (i.e. We enjoyed the film and so did they). (5) regarding phonology, the operator will function as an emphatic form in finite positive clauses (rather than negative) by means of nuclear stress in order to deny a negative which has been stated before (i.e. Won’t you give it back?- Yes, I will do it). Moreover, note that when there is no operator in an assertive sentence, the primary verb ‘do’ is introduced as a substitute of the lexical verb in any other kind of clause (i.e. You drive a

16/ 33

car=Do you drive a car?) or as an emphatic element (i.e. You never listen to me but you do listen to your tutor). (6) No imperative forms are realized in this type of function since they are not lexical verbs, for instance, we cannot say ‘Can!’ or ‘Be!’ (Thomson & Martinet, 1986).

4.3.4. Specific features of auxiliary verbs as lexical verbs. However, these general rules are quite different when we deal with auxiliary verbs functioning as lexical verbs since clause patterns change. In this section, we shall namely deal with the primary verbs ‘be’, ‘have’ and ‘do’ which are the ones that may change at this point from the general rule s stated above whereas modal auxiliaries do not change their syntactic function since they always form their affirmative, negative and interrogative according to the pattern stated above (i.e. You must, you mustn’t, must you?). The primary verbs ‘be’, ‘have’ and ‘do’, when used as auxiliaries, require a participle or infinitive in order to have full meaning. However, when used as ordinary verbs they are the only verb in the sentence, ‘be’ keeps its auxiliary pattern (i.e. He is nice; he isn’t nice; is he nice?) whereas ‘do’ takes auxiliaries for negative and interrogative (i.e. You don’t do it properly/Do you do it properly?) and ‘have’ may be conjugated in either way (i.e. You haven’t a house/You don’t have a house/Have you (got) a house?/Do you have a house?). Thus, as an auxiliary, ‘be’ has two functions : first, to form the progressive aspect and second, the passive. On the other hand, as a lexical verb, it also has two functions: first, as a copular verb (i.e. She is a nurse) and second, as an intransitive verb (i.e. She is in the office). Similarly, ‘have’ functions both as an auxiliary and as a main verb. As the former, it helps form the perfect aspect in combination with an –ed participle in complex verb phrases (i.e. I have studied/You must have done it very quickly) and as the latter, it normally takes a direct object (i.e. He has no idea). And finally, ‘do’, like ‘be’ and ‘have’ can be both an auxiliary and a main verb. As an auxiliary, ‘do’ has no nonfinite forms, but only present and past forms whereas as a main verb, it can function as a pro-predicate (i.e. Why are you doing that?) and as a transitive verb, especially in informal speech (i.e. Let’s do the washing up!).

4.3.5. Other specific types of verbs: syntactic function. In this section, we shall also examine the syntactic function of other specific types of verbs which are said to share all the features of modal auxiliaries but which are often functioning as ordinary verbs, such as marginal modal auxiliaries, semi-auxiliaries, catenative verbs and modal idioms. Yet, assertive contexts (affirmative sentences) usually share the same forms for both types whereas nonassertive contexts (negative and affirmative sentences) differ in sentence patterns.

17/ 33

Thus, (1) the first type, marginal modal auxiliary verbs (need, dare, used to, ought to) can be both auxiliary and ordinary verbs. For instance, ‘need’ as an auxiliary is a semi-modal with the corresponding sentence patterns 9 (i.e. He need go/He needn’t go, need he go?/needn’t he go?) but as an ordinary verb, the negative and interrogative forms change, taking the full infinitive (i.e. He needs to go/He doesn’t need to go/Does he need to go?). As an ordinary verb, it is considered to be transitive (i.e. They need a new car). Similarly, ‘dare’ is also a semi-modal and it can take both auxilia ry and ordinary forms, though the ordinary verb construction is more commonly used. Note that in the affirmative ‘dare’ is conjugated like an ordinary verb both for ordinary or auxiliary verbs (i.e. You dare/he dares/he dared). while ‘in the negative and interrogative it can be conjugated either like an ordinary verb or like an auxiliary’ (i.e. You do not dare/he does not dare vs. You dare not/He dares not; Do you dare?/Does he dare? Vs. Dare you?/ Dare he?). ‘Dare’ is also an ordinary transitive verb followed by object + full infinitive (i.e. He dared me to jump from a plane). As seen, ‘dare’ and ‘need’ can be used either as modal auxiliaries (with bare infinitive and without the inflected forms) or as main verbs (with to-infinitive and with inflected –s, -ing, and past forms). The modal construction is restricted to nonassertive contexts (namely negative and interrogative sentences) whereas the main verb construction can always be used, and is more common. Similarly, ‘used to’ is used in both auxiliary and ordinary sentence patterns. As the past tense of a defective verb, ‘used’ has no present tense and it always takes the to-infinitive. The affirmative forms take ‘used’ for all persons whereas in nonassertive contexts, it may function as both auxiliary and ordinary verb. For instance, in the negative, we may find ‘He used not/usedn’t to play chess’ or ‘He didn’t use(d) to play chess’ and in the interrogative ‘Did he use to play everyday?/He used to play, didn’t he?’. Surprisingly, ‘ought to’ does not follow the general pattern in nonassertive contexts and applies the auxiliary pattern to all its forms. It is also considered to be a semi-modal which normally takes the to-infinitive although it is optional in elliptical cases (i.e. Yes, I think he ought (to)). Secondly, (2) the semi-auxiliaries such as ‘be able to’, ‘be about to’, ‘be due to’, ‘be bound to’, ‘be going to’, ‘be likely to’, ‘be supposed to’ and ‘have to’ are said to be under the pattern of the primary verbs ‘be’ and ‘have’ whereas (3) catenative verbs such as ‘appear to’, ‘seem to’, ‘happen to’ and also ‘start (working)’, ‘go on (talking)’, ‘keep (on) (smoking)’ and ‘get (dressed)’ shall follow the sentence patterns for ordinary verbs. Finally, (4) modal idioms such as ‘had better’, ‘would rather’, ‘have got to’, and ‘be to’ function under the scope of auxiliary verb patterns.

18/ 33

4.4. On semantics: meaning. In this section we shall examine the function of semantics within the auxiliary verbs, that is, the different meanings they have and their use in everyday speech. It must be borne in mind that meaning and use are closely interrelated to syntax since they are used in the English language to form complex structures such as perfective, progressive and passive forms as well as the future and conditional tense. Moreover, as stated before, they are used to construct negative and interrogative sentences, short answers, question tags, elliptical phrases and even, emphatic answers. However, we shall analyse the meaning of modal auxiliaries and primary auxiliaries separately since, despite of the fact that they share many morphological, phonological and syntactic features, they show relevant differences in significance, and in particular modal auxiliaries when dealing with people’s attitude or personal point of view about events or facts. Moreover, other types of auxiliaries will be analyzed, such as marginal auxiliaries, semi-auxiliaries, catenative verbs and modal idioms.

4.4.1. Modal auxiliaries. Following Sánchez Benedito (1975), modal auxiliaries, are traditionally defined as auxiliaries of lexical (or main) verbs which express different modalities in meaning and therefore, use (possibility, ability, permission, etc) by means of a reduced group of auxiliary verbs and other marginal verbs. Within the field of semantics, modals are said to show people’s attitude and intention towards other people or events through a wide range of ideas, nuances and concepts within different contexts of formality or informality. For instance, the meaning and therefore the usage of different modal auxiliaries in order to express someone’s attitude or intention depends to a great extent on three main factors: (1) the relationship speaker and listener has, that is, the level of acquaintance with each other (just introduced, friends, family, educational links (student-teacher) or any other such as criminallawyer, shop-assistant-customer, etc); (2) the speaker’s intention towards other people or actions, that is, the intention to suggest, invite, advise, order, etc when dealing with people or on the other hand, the intention to express a variety of circumstances when dealing with situations, for instance, deduction, probability, certainty, truth/falsehood, internal or external obligation, moral or legal pr inciples, and so on; and finally, (3) the context of the situation, that is, formal or informal (i.e. Can/May/Could I open the window, please?). As we can see, modals are included as part of the verbal form system in order to express those concepts that verbal tenses are unable to express since the sentence meaning is not clear enough. Therefore, modal verbs will show people ’s attitude in terms of ability; permission; possibility; impossibility, certainty and deduction (positive and negative); necessity; obligation (absence or presence); advice; suggestions, offers and invitations; and predictions (Sánchez Benedito, 1975; Thomson & Martinet, 1986; Eastwood, 1999). 9

Note that as a modal, ‘need’ takes the forms ‘need’ or ‘need not/needn’t’ for all persons in the pres ent

19/ 33

4.4.1.1. Ability: can, could , be able to. Ability is namely expressed by can, could and be able to when we say that something is possible in terms of ability or inability (i.e. Cristine can/can’t swim) or opportunity (i.e. Cristine can go to the concert). In the present tense, ‘be able to’ is a little more formal and less usual than ‘can’ (i.e. Anne is quite good at computering and she can/is able to work on programming). Note that we always use ‘be able to’ and not ‘can’ in the context of certain structures such as to-infinitive (i.e. It’s good to be able to talk to you again); after a modal verb (i.e. She must be able to accept it); and with present perfect (i.e. In the end I’have been able to buy my favourite book ). Also, note that for the future and conditional sentences, we also use ‘be able to’ (i.e. You will be able to forgive her/I wouldn’t be able to do it). Moreover, in order to suggest a possible future action, we normally use ‘can’ (i.e. Let’s go to the theatre tonight. We can go together). On the other hand, in order to express ability or opportunity in the past, we use ‘could’ and ‘was/were able to’ (i.e. She could/was able to play the violin). When meaning that the ability or opportunity resulted in a particular action, something that really happened, or implying some kind of difficulty, we use ‘be able to’ but not ‘could’ (i.e. He could swim when he was three vs. He was able to swim 200 km in the competition). In nonassertive contexts, we can use either form (i.e. It was snowing so the aeroplane couldn’t/wasn’t able to take off). Moreover, we normally use ‘could’ and not ‘be able to’ with verbs of senses (seeing, hearing, etc) and with verbs of thinking (i.e. She could see the film/she could smell gas/she could hear everything/and so on).

4.4.1.2. Permission: can, may, could, be allowed to . In general, talking about permission is namely expressed by can, may, could and be allowed to in order to convey the meaning of (1) giving and refusing permission and (2) asking for and about permission in present and past situations. First of all, (1) to give permission in the present we normally use ‘can’, ‘may’ or ‘could’ (i.e. You can/may/could sit here) and even, some authors (Thomson & Martinet, 1986) include ‘might’ as an indicator of permission (i.e. He might go in) although it is not very common in normal speech but indirect speech and indicates hesitation. Note that ‘may’ is the most formal and is often used in impersonal statements concerning authority and permission (i.e. A police officer may arrest you). Both ‘can’ and ‘could’ are used in colloquial speech as an informal alternative to ‘may’ but note that ‘can’ implies the idea of having permission whereas ‘could’ implies the idea of condition (i.e. You could use my phone if you need it). Generally, for permission in the past, we use ‘could’ and ‘be allowed to’ (i.e. When I was a child I could/was allowed to spoil things). However, when a particular action was permitted and performed we use ‘was/were allowed to’ instead of ‘could’ (i.e. I had my passport so I was allowed to cross the frontier). On the other hand, to refuse permission in the present, we use and future and in indirect speech (Thomson & Martinet, 1986).

20/ 33

‘can’t’ or ‘may not’ (i.e. I’m afraid you can’t/may not sit here) but not ‘couldn’t’ which is used in the past (i.e. We couldn’t bring our dog into the pub). It is worth noting that sometimes we can also use ‘must not’ (i.e. Dogs must not be brought into this pub). Secondly, when talking about permission, we sometimes talk about rules made by someone else, and then we need (2) to ask for permission and ask about permission by means of requests. Following Thomson & Martinet (1986), to ask for permission, we can use can I?, could I?, may I? and might I? as possible requests for permission in the present and future. For instance, can I? is the commonest and most informal of the four; could I? and may I? are the most useful as they can express both formal and informal requests. However, the latter (may I?) is a little more formal than the previous one (could I?); might I? is more diffident than may I? and indicates greater uncertainty about the answer. The negative interrogative forms can’t I? and couldn’t I? show the speaker’s hope for an affirmative answer (i.e. Couldn’t I pay by credit card?- (Yes, of course you can)) but when the answer is negative, we replace a direct negative by a milder expression (i.e. I’d rather you didn’t/I’m afraid not). On the other hand, with respect to questions about permission, these are expressed by ‘can’ or ‘am/is/are allowed to’ (i.e. Can he take a photo of you? = Is he allowed to take a photo of you?)

4.4.1.3. Possibility: may, might, can, could . We use may, might, can, could to express possibility in general and in this section we will approach the slight differences among them. Thus, regarding the first pair, although ‘may’ and ‘might’ normally express possibility, the latter slightly increases the doubt. Again, although both of them are used for present and future (i.e. She may/might tell her husband), ‘might’ must be used in the conditional when the expression is introduced by a verb in the past tense (i.e. If you invited them they might come) and in indirect speech (i.e. He said he might visit us). Moreover, ‘may’ and ‘might’ can be used in conditional sentences instead of ‘will’ and ‘would’ just to indicate the ‘possibility’ or ‘certainty’ of a result (i.e. If they see you they will smile at you=certainty vs. If they see you they may smile at you=possibility). When we say that something was possible in the past, we can use either ‘may/might’ + perfect infinitive (i.e. Where is Tom? – He may/might have gone already). ‘Could’ + perfect infinitive can also mean that something was possible but didn’t happen (i.e. The police could have caught him = but they didn’t catch him yet). As we can see, ‘may’ and ‘might’ present no problems in the affirmative and negative form, but they do with the interrogative forms since we must use the constructions ‘be + likely’ (infinite form) or ‘think’, which are more usual than ‘may’ and ‘might’ (i.e. Do you think/Is it likely that the plane will land on time?). Moreover, this pair can be used in speculations about past actions using the structure ‘may/might’ + perfect infinitive (i.e. They may/might have been here). Secondly, regarding ‘could’ we can say it is an alternative to ‘may’ and ‘might’ (i.e. She may/might/could be at the bank=Perhaps she is at the bank ) in the affirmative form. In the

21/ 33

negative, though, there a difference of meaning between ‘may/might’ and ‘could’ since the former express possibility whereas the latter expresses negative deduction. For instance, observe: ‘He may/might not eat that sandwich’ meaning that perhaps he is not hungry any more vs. ‘He couldn’t eat that sandwich’ meaning that perhaps it is impossible for him to eat it because of its size, taste, or whatever reason. In the interrogative we can use either ‘could’ or ‘might’ (i.e. Could/Might she be studying?= Do you think/Is it likely that she is studying?). Note that in the past, we use the construction ‘could’ + perfect infinitive to express that something was totally impossible (i.e. He couldn’t have eaten that sandwich). Moreover, we often use the continuous form ‘may/might/could + have been + -ing’ to talk about a past possibility (i.e. He didn’t come to the party. He may/might/could have been sleeping). Finally, ‘can’ is also used to express general possibility in the present and past only, and chiefly in the affirmative. ‘Can’ makes reference to something that it is possible because circumstances permit it in opposition to the kind of possibility expressed by ‘may’ (i.e. You can go sailing = It is sunny, the sea is calm and therefore, it is safe). Moreover, ‘can’ can also express occasional possibility (i.e. Oysters can be quite dangerous = when eating them out of date ). ‘Could’ would be then used in the past (i.e. They could be quite understanding).

4.4.1.4. Impossibility, certainty and deduction: can’t, must. In the present, we normally use ‘can’t’ when we realize that something is impossible (i.e. Patrick can’t be in Greece now. I saw him at work this morning) and ‘must’ when we realize that something is certainly true or we make deductions (i.e. Nobody answered the phone. They must be out). Note the short anwers, for instance, ‘Do you dare to jump?- Do not insist. She can’t do it’ and ‘Is she in? – She must be. Note that in both cases we increase the notions of impossibility or certainty by stressing ‘can’t’ and ‘must’. Similarly, in the past we may also use ‘can’t’ + perfect infinitive when we think something was impossible (i.e. Someone took my money from the drawer. Nicky can’t have done it) and ‘must’ + perfect infinitive when we feel certa in something was true in the past (i.e. The window was broken. Children must have done it when playing).

4.4.1.5. Necessity: must, have to , needn’t. The notion of something ‘being necessary’ or ‘not being necessary’ is namely expressed in English by the affirmative forms must and have to and the negative form needn’t. Note that the absence of necessity is also expressed by the negative form don’t have to (both in present and past forms), though usually discussed under the notion of ‘absence of obligation’ as we shall see later. Note that the use of ‘need’ is not as common as the other two verbs since it may be both an auxiliary and ordinary verb. Yet, the verb ‘need’ as an auxiliary verb, far from denoting ‘necessity’, it implies ‘obligation’ and is seldom used in the affirmative except when a negative or interrogative sentence is

22/ 33

preceded by an expression which changes the negative or interrogative verb into an affirmative (i.e. I don’t suppose I need wear a coat = I needn’t wear a coat). It is however sometimes used in fairly formal English with the frequency adverbs ‘hardly, scarcely, only’ (i.e. You need only touch one bottom to start watching the video). However, ‘need’ actually means ‘require’ as an ordinary verb and takes the normal regular forms, but no continuous tense. Moreover it is usually used with an infinitive (i.e. You need to know the exact size to buy him a shirt) (Eastwood, 1999). Similarly and meaning but not in form, ‘must’ and ‘have to’ also indicate that something is necessary (i.e. She’ll finish school soon so she must think about her future / We’re very busy at the shop. We have to work on Sunday morning too). When we use the past, or the future with ‘will’, we need a form of ‘have to’ (i.e. Agatha will have to/had to do a lot of work) and also in other structures such as to-infinitive (i.e. She doesn’t want to have to wait for such a long time); after a modal verb (i.e. He has a sore throat. He may have to go to the doctor’s); and with present perfect (i.e. Stephen has had to drive all the way up to North Spain alone). However, when used in the negative form, we find differences in meaning. For instance, ‘mustn’t’ means that something is a bad idea (i.e. You mustn’t drop the soup) whereas ‘needn’t’ indicates that something is not necessary (i.e. You needn’t apologize for being late). Similarly, ‘dont have to’ and ‘don’t need to’ indicate that something is not necessary (i.e. You don’t have to/don’t need to do the washing up tonight). Moreover, compare with ‘must not’ when it expresses ‘a negative obligation imposed by the speaker or very emphatic advice’ (i.e. You mustn’t say this to anyone) (Thomson & Martinet, 1986). The form ‘needn’t’ can be used for present and future. It has the same for all persons. As stated before, ‘need not’ far from expressing absence of necessity, it expresses ‘absence of obligation’ or the notion of ‘not being necessary’. That means the speaker gives permission for an action not to be performed or sometimes merely states that an action is not necessary (i.e. You needn’t make so many copies. One will do/ You needn’t change your colour hair. I like you just the way you are). In the past, we use the structure ‘needn’t + perfect infinitive’ to express an unnecessary action which was nevertheless performed (i.e. You needn’t have given me so many presents = thus spending so much money). If we compare this structure with those of ‘didn’t have/need (to do)’ we observe that the latter express no obligation, and therefore no action (i.e. I didn’t have to translate that difficult passage from Latin to English). So when needn’t + perfect infinitive is compared with other forms, we find (1) needn’t + perfect infinitive vs. didn’t need to and (2) needn’t + perfect infinitive vs. could/should + perfect infinitive. Regarding the former, ‘didn’t need to’ refers to something that was not necessary and therefore, no action took place (i.e. We didn’t need to hurry. We had lots of time) although sometimes the action did take place even though it was not necessary (i.e. We didn’t need to hurry, but we drove at high speed). However, needn’t + perfect infinitive indicates something we did which we now know was not necessary (i.e. We needn’t have hurried because anyway we arrived late).

23/ 33

Secondly, when compared with could/should + perfect infinitive there is also a difference in meaning. For instance, when we use could/should + perfect infinitive we imply criticism (i.e. You shouldn’t have gone to that concert = It was wrong, foolish or dangerous) whereas with needn’t + perfect infinitive we do not (i.e. You needn’t have gone to that concert).

4.4.1.6. Obligation: must, have to , need. As stated before, apart from denoting ‘necessity’, the forms must, have to and need also express the notion of ‘obligation’ in their affirmative (i.e. I must/have to/need go to the doctor’s) and, more specifically , in their interrogative forms (i.e. Must I/do I have to/Need I go to the doctor’s?). Note that their negative forms have different meanings, for instance, mustn’t means ‘something is prohibited’, ‘don’t have to’ means ‘absence of obligation’ and finally, ‘needn’t’ means ‘absence of necessity’. Following Sánchez Benedito (1975), the subtle difference in meaning between ‘must’ and ‘have to’ is so insignificant that in everyday speech it is never taken into account and both forms are used indistinctively (i.e. You must/have to come at six o’clock tomorrow). However, Thomson & Martinet (1986) and some more grammarians claim that both verbs show relevant differences depending on the person who speaks, that is, first, second or third person singular and the rest of persons in affirmative sentences. Thus, (1) the general dichotomy ‘must vs. have to’ in first person examples shows that the difference is almost insignificant and very often either for m is possible (i.e. I must/have to buy some butter). Generally, ‘must’ expresses obligation imposed by the speaker (i.e. A boy says: I must tidy up my room) whereas ‘have to’ expresses external obligation (i.e. Mother to boy: You have to tidy up your room). Yet, we must take into account that ‘have to’ is more used for habits (i.e. I have to do exercise three times a week ) whereas ‘must’ is better when the obligations are urgent or seem important to the speaker (i.e. I must tell you a secret). (2) In second person examples, ‘must’ shows the speaker’s authority drawn from family, professional or any other kind of relationship (i.e. Mother to daughter: You must wear a black dress tonight=you can’t go in jeans to that party/Teacher to student:You must use a dictionary to do this exercise=you can’t do it alone/Doctor to patient: You must eat less fat=or you’ll get obesity) whereas ‘have to’ indicates external authority as fixed and well-known rules to follow (i.e. You must wear a black dress tonight=at the President’s party/You must use this moisturizing cream at night=you will see greater effects in 10 days/You have to arrive in time to an important job interview). (3) Furthermore, third person examples show that ‘must’ is namely used in written orders or instructions (i.e. Passengers must check in two hours before at the airport/A car must have two extra rear lamps) whereas we use ‘have to’ just to state or comment on another person’s obligations (i.e. In this office even the senior staff have to be working by 8.00 am/They’ll have to send an inspector to investigate the case).

24/ 33

(4) Other cases include all persons in a wide range of different situations. For instance, casual invitations (i.e. You must come and see us in Madrid); strong authority (i.e. This mess must stop now!); suggestions (i.e. You must write to Anthony and thank him for his present); notices or advertisements (i.e. Everything must go!=Closing down sale ); and so on. Similarly, for affirmative obligations in the past, we use ‘had to’ and in this case, the distinction between the speaker’s authority and external authority cannot be expressed and there is only one form (i.e. I had to borrow some money from Chris). With other tenses, we use ‘have to’, for instance, the future with ‘will’(i.e. Anne will have to work tonight) and also in other structures such as to-infinitive (i.e. She didn’t have to cook); after a modal verb (i.e. He may have to go to London); and with present perfect (i.e. Sarah has had to travel alone). In the interrogative form, both ‘need’ and ‘must’ imply that the person addressed is the authority concerned, that is, when asking for authority (i.e. Need/Must I go?) in opposition to ‘Do I have to go’ or ‘Have I got to go?’ which implies external authority. Moreover, ‘need’ also implies that the speaker is hoping for a negative answer (i.e. Need I really go? – No, you mustn’t). Other specific verbs referring to ‘obligation’ are those under examination in next part, that is, ‘ought to’ and ‘should’. These verbs, apart from denoting ‘advice’, can also express the subject’s obligation or duty as in ‘You must/have to/should practise at least three hours a day’ or to indicate a correct or sensible action as in ‘This T-shirt is too small. There must/should be another’. One more similarity is that they all can be used in formal notices and on information sheets (i.e. Candidates must/have to/should be prepared to answer questions on Science). However, note that there are relevant differences in use, such as that they do not show neither the speaker’s authority as with ‘must’ or external authority as with ‘have to’ but a matter of conscience or good sense. Another difference between ‘ought to/should vs. must/have to’ is that with ‘must’ and ‘have to’ we have the general impression that the obligation is being fulfilled or that it will be soon whereas with ‘ought/should’ it is the opposite. This often happens with the first person but quite often applies to the other persons too (i.e. I ought/should go slowly here =but he is not going to go slowly vs. I must/have to go slowly here =he is really intended to go slowly).

4.4.1.7. Advice: ought to, should, had better, be supposed to. Generally, we use ought to, should, had better and be supposed to to express ‘advice’, ‘convenience’ or ‘supposit ion’ although, as seen above, ‘ought to and should’ may express ‘obligation’ sometimes. First of all, ‘should’ and ‘ought to’ imply ‘advice’ and are used to say what is the best thing or the right thing to do with no difference in meaning (i.e. You look pale. Perhaps you should/ought to see a doctor). However, they are often compared but the only relevant difference we find is drawn from their syntactic structure and everyday use, for instance, first, ‘ought’ is followed by ‘to-infinitive’ whereas ‘should’ is not and secondly, ‘ought to’ is less frequent in everyday speech than ‘should’.

25/ 33

‘Should’, apart from denoting ‘advice’ has another important use, such as being a conditional auxiliary (i.e. I’d like a cup of tea=I should like/I would like). Among other less frequent uses, we find the subjunctive tense (i.e. It is unnecessary that he should get worried) which is turned into another structure in everyday speech, thus ‘It’s unnecessary for him to get worried’; casuality (i.e. If you should see her, tell her she is wrong); formal instructions (i.e. This bread should be heated in the oven); suppositions (i.e. He should be here by now, I think); rethoric questions (i.e. How should I know?); and direct and indirect speech (i.e. Shall I go?- He asked if he should go). On the other hand, ‘had better’ + bare infinitive indicates ‘convenience’ and is used to say what is the best thing to do in a situation (i.e. It’s cold. You had better wear a coat). Actually, we could also use ‘should’ and ‘ought to’ in this example but ‘had better’ has a stronger reference to ‘convenient decisions’. In addition, ‘be supposed to’ indicates ‘supposition’ and is used when we are talking about the normal or correct way of doing things (i.e. How am I supposed to live without you?).

4.4.1.8. Suggestions, offers and invitations: can, could, shall, will, would . In English, suggestions, offers and invitations are namely expressed by can, could, shall, will and would. First of all, suggestions are generally given by ‘can’, ‘could’ and more specifically by ‘shall’ , for instance, to ask for a suggestion we may use ‘can’ and ‘shall’ (i.e. What can/shall I get Tom for his birthday?) and even ‘should’ (i.e. I’ll tell you how you should do it). Similarly, we may use ‘could’ (i.e. We could invite a few friends for our party on Saturday) but the most usual way of making a suggestion is by means of ‘Shall I + infinitive?(=Let’s + infinitive)’ for first person suggestions (i.e. Shall I close the window? ) and ‘Shall we+infinitive?(=Why don’t we...?)’ for second person suggestions (i.e. Shall we go to the theatre tonight?). Offers are on the other hand expressed by ‘will’ or ‘can’ to offer to do something 10 (i.e. I’ll take your luggage/We can take it home). Also, we can use question forms with ‘shall’ or ‘can’ (i.e. Shall we give you the presents now?/Can we give you our presents now?). Moreover, to offer food or drink, we use ‘would like’ (i.e. Would you like a drink?) or ‘Will/Won’t you have...?’ (i.e. Will you have a spare pen?). Note that in informal speech we can use the imperative (i.e. Have a taste – Oh, thanks). On the contrary, if we want to refuse the offer, we would use ‘won’t’ as a way of strong refusal (i.e. I won’t listen to you any more). Finally, invitations are namely expressed by ‘would’ and similar verbs used in offers of food and drink, as seen above. For instance, ‘Would you like to have dinner with us tonight? Or ‘Will you join us tonight?’ Similarly, we may use the imperative mood to invite someone in informal speech, for instance, ‘Come and see us soon’ or ‘Please, take a sit’.

26/ 33

4.4.1.9. Predictions: will, would. Predictions are mainly expressed by ‘will’ and ‘would’, for instance, we use ‘will’ for future predictions (i.e. ‘I guess she will be tired tomorrow. We have been running for two hours’) whereas we use ‘would’ for a past prediction (i.e. It was so late and Sarah was still working. She would be really tired the following day) or a prediction about a possible situation (i.e. Will you join us on Saturday? – That would be nice). Note that we can use ‘shall’ instead of ‘will’ and ‘should’ instead of ‘would’, but only in the first person, after ‘I’ and ‘we’ (i.e. I will/shall be thirty on January/We would/should like to meet your husband). Both forms, ‘shall’ and ‘should’ would be considered to be more formal than ‘will’ and ‘would’.

4.4.2. Marginal auxiliaries. As we know, apart from modal auxiliarie s (i.e. can, could, may, might, must, shall, should and will) we may find other modals which are considered to be marginal members (dare, need, ought (to) and used (to)) because they can be used both as auxiliaries and as lexical verbs (i.e. He needs some friends vs. He needn’t be loved), functioning respectively as intransitive or transitive verbs. Semantically speaking, when they function as auxiliary verbs, ‘dare’ namely expresses indignation (i.e. How dare you?), ‘need’ expresses ‘obligation’ (i.e. Need I go to the library?), ‘ought to’ expresses ‘obligation’ or ‘advice’ (i.e. You ought to go now/You ought to take care of you), and finally ‘used to’ expresses ‘a discontinuous habit or a past situation in contrast with the present’ (i.e. He used to smoke so much but now he has given up smoking). On the contrary, when they function as ordinary verbs, they have different meanin gs or in some cases subtle differences. Thus, ‘dare’ as an ordinary transitive verb is followed by object + full infinitive and means ‘challenge’ but only to deeds requiring courage (i.e. This competitor dared me to run faster); ‘dare’ may have idiomatic uses but we shall see in next section. Moreover, ‘need’ means ‘require’ (i.e. I need a computer); ‘ought to’ stands for the formal way of saying ‘should’ (i.e. You ought to start studying soon); and ‘used to’ is used to express a past routine or pattern by describing someone’s routine during a certain period (i.e. Every morning Tom used to read the newspaper while having breakfast). Note that is is often used to describe a succession of actions where ‘used to’ is replaceable by ‘would’ but ‘would’ cannot replace ‘used to’ for a discontinued habit, as above. We must remember that ‘used’ has no present form so we use the present simple for present habits and routines (i.e. He often reads the newspaper in the morning). In addition, ‘used’ may function as an adjective in the structures ‘to be/become/get used to + gerund’ with the meaning of ‘accustomed’ (i.e. I am used to noise/I am used to working in a noisy place) referring to a psychological statement. Note in the first, ‘used’ is an adjective and ‘to’ is a preposition whereas in the second, ‘used’ is a verb and ‘to’ is part of the following verbal form. To finish 10

We must take into account that ‘will’ may be also used to express instant decisions (i.e. (The phone is

27/ 33

with, we must not confuse these forms with the regular verb ‘to use’ meaning ‘employ’ (i.e. I use my computer to work).

4.4.3. Primary verbs. When dealing with the semantics of primary verbs, we must address directly to the meaning they have as ordinary verbs since, as stated before, they are meaningless in their auxiliary function because they require a participle or infinitive in order to have full meaning. Thus, following Thomson & Martinet (1986) the main uses of ‘be’ as an ordinary verb are: (1) To give personal information about people or things (i.e. I am an architect/New York is exciting). (2) to express physical or mental condition (i.e. Tom is being foolish/The children are quiet today) by means of a wide range of paired adjectives: quiet/noisy, good/bad, cheap/expensive, generous/mean and so on; (3) to denote age (i.e. How old is this Scottish castle? – It’s 600 years old ). (4) To denote weight and size (i.e. I am 74 kilos and I am 1.76 metres). (5) To indicate prices (i.e. This car is 60.000 euros). (6) To be mixed with other constructions such as ‘There is/There are’ to indicate existence as an indefinite person or thing (i.e. There is a fireman in the building/There is a fire). This structure is likely to be confused with that of ‘It is’. However, the former is followed by a noun (singular or plural) (i.e. There is much sun) whereas the latter is followed by an adjective (i.e. It is sunny). On the other hand, ‘have’ as an ordinary verb may mean ‘possess’ (i.e. My grandma has a diamond necklace); ‘take’ (food) (i.e. He always has a cup of coffee at five); and ‘give’ (a party, a speech) (i.e. He is having a party next week). Moreover, ‘do’ namely means ‘perform’ at the very moment of speaking (i.e. What are you doing?), as a near future (i.e. What are you doing tonight?), as a habit (i.e. What does she do at weekends?) or in the past (i.e. What did Markus do last Friday?). We must not forget that these verbs, as ordinary verbs, may may transitive within the sentence structure. Yet, we must highlight their use as idiomatic expressions which are part of our everyday speech. For instance, ‘be’ can be used as ‘be + infinitive construction’ to state a rather impersonal way of giving instructions and is chiefly used with the third person. This structure is extremely important to convey orders or instructions (i.e. No one is to leave this room=no one must leave). Yet, note that it disappears in indirect speech when there is a clause in front of the imperative (i.e. He told us to wait here).

ringing) – I’ll answer it) as a way of expressing an offer (i.e. I’ll wait for you if you don’t mind).

28/ 33

4.4.4. Other types of auxiliaries. When dealing with the semantics of other types of auxiliary verbs , we shall namely deal with semi-auxiliaries (be able to’, ‘be about to’, ‘be due to’, and so on), catenative verbs (‘go on (talking)’, ‘keep (on) (smoking)’, and so on) and modal idioms (‘had better’, ‘would rather’, and so on). Because of their specific syntactic features, their meaning is more related to everyday use than to merely the semantic field, so we shall analyse them in the following section on everyday usage.

4.5. On use: everyday usage and idiomatic expressions. When dealing with modal and auxiliary verbs in everyday use, we cover the field of specific structures used in everyday speech and idiomatic expressions as fixed sentences in informal/formal speech. For instance, the idiomatic meaning of ‘Shall I take your bags?’ as an offer instead of referring to future; ‘Would you like something to eat? as and invitation and not a conditional verbal form; ‘May I come in?’ as a way of asking for permission rather than ‘possibility’; or asking for information ‘Could you tell me the way to the airport, please?’. Yet, everyday usage is clearly expressed by certain types of auxiliaries, such as semi-auxiliaries, and catenative verbs whereas idiomatic expressions are particularly drawn by modal idioms because of their specific syntactic structures. Thus, semi-auxiliaries are defined as a set of verb idioms, for instance, ‘be able to’ meaning ‘capable of doing anything’ (i.e. I am able to run 20 kilometres in an hour); ‘be about to’ meaning ‘close to doing something (i.e. I was just about to get asleep in the meeting); ‘be going to’ meaning ‘the intention of doing something soon’ (i.e. I was going to call you but you called before); ‘be likely to’ meaning ‘it is probable that’ (i.e. She is likely to win next Olympic Games), and so on. On the other hand, catenative verbs have meanings similar to those for the aspectual and modal auxiliaries through such items as ‘appear to’, ‘seem to’ and ‘happen to’. Note that some catenatives are followed by the nonfinite forms –ing or –ed participles rather than by infinitives, for instance, ‘start (working)’, ‘go on (talking)’, ‘keep (on) (smoking)’, ‘get (dressed)’. And finally, modal idioms are those that comprise a long list of idiomatic expressions which have no literal translation but idiomatic use. Thus, ‘had better’ meaning ‘It is better for you to...’ (i.e. You’d better go now or he will get angrier); ‘would rather’ meaning ‘prefer’ (i.e. He would rather drink wine than beer=He prefers wine to beer); ‘have got to’ meaning ‘obligation’ (i.e. He’s got to sit two exams in one week); and ‘be to’ which was explained above, as a means to convey orders or instructions (i.e. No one is to leave this room=no one must leave). Moreover, marginal verbs may also have idiomatic meanings, for instance, ‘dare’ with the expressions ‘I daresay or I dare say’. It presents two different meanings: first, as ‘I suppose’ (i.e. I daresay you are pregnant) or second, as ‘I accept what you say’ (i.e. In England we drive on the left. – Yes, I daresay you do, but in Spain we drive on the right).

29/ 33

5. THE RELEVANCE OF SEMANTIC COOCURRENCE PATTERNS. So, as we have seen, the principal part of the verb phrase is the lexical or main verb. Since the lexical verb can occur on its own, but it may also co-occur with auxiliary verbs in patterns of varying degrees of complexity depending on the semantic feature we intend to express, that is, tense (verbal tense), aspect (progressive or perfect) or mood (indicative, subjunctive, imperative). Hence, thanks to the combination of all these paradigms, we get all the verbal forms we know today. We may find two co-occurrence patterns in the English verb phrase, thus a lexical verb + one or a lexical verb + two or more auxiliaries, out of which many grammarians distinguish a high number of tenses when grammatically examined (up to thirty two tenses). Thus, the possibility lexical verb + one auxiliary mainly depends on the meaning of the second element and from which we may find six main possibilities. For instance, it may be (a) a modal auxiliary (i.e. John can swim); (b) an auxiliary with ‘do’ 11 which may convey periphrasis (i.e. Does John swim?) or (c) an auxiliary with ‘do’ which conveys emphasis (i.e. John does swim); (d) the auxiliary ‘have’ for the perfective aspect (i.e. John has swum); (e) the auxiliary ‘be’ for the progressive aspect (i.e. John is swimming); and again (f) the auxilia ry ‘be’ for the use of passive voice (i.e. A car was bought by John). Regarding the second possibility, a lexical verb + two or more auxiliaries, it can range in complexity from three to maximally five verbal forms, including the lexical verb. Thus, with two auxiliaries (i.e. may have bought, may be buying, may be bought, has been buying, has been bought, is being bought); with three auxiliaries (i.e. may have been buying, may have been bought, may be being bought, has been being bought); and finally, with four auxiliaries + lexical verb (i.e. may have been being bought) although this type is quite rare. In those verb phrases which contain a combination of these categories, the suffix is invariably attached to the verb immediately following the auxiliary which, together with the suffix, realizes the category in question. It is worth remembering at this point that if there is only one verb in the verb phrase, it is the main verb (i.e. He believes in ghosts). On the other hand, if there is more than one verb, the final one is the main verb, and the one or more verbs that come before it are auxiliaries (i.e. The e-mail has been being (auxiliaries) written (main verb)).

6. EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS. The different verbal paradigms dealt with in this study are so relevant to the learning of a foreign language since differences between the vocabulary related to modal verbs of the learner's native language (L1) and that of the foreign language (L2) may lead to several problems, such as the incorrect use of verbal tenses, especially because of the syntactic, morphological, and semantic processes implied in these categories.

30/ 33

This study has looked at the structure of the auxiliary verb phrase in terms of form and function, that is, regarding morphological and phonological forms and syntactic and semantic functions, all those related by the relevance of usage in everyday speech. This study is mainly intended for teachers to help Spanish-speaking students establish a relative similarity between the two languages that would find it useful for communicating in the European framework we are living in nowadays. According to Thomson & Martinet (1986), a European student may find especially troublesome the use of verbal tenses, and particularly modal and auxiliary verbs, when communicating in English since, first, he has to know the specific constructions a verb needs or not (i.e. I must go / I musn’t go / He must have gone) and, second, which modal verb to use when certain situations are given depending on the context (possibility, deduction, advice, obligation, and so on) and on top of that, how to place adverbs in this type of structures (i.e. He can often play chess). This choice becomes problematic for our Spanish students when they deal with the wide range of modal and auxiliary verbs and their semantic offer. For instance, the most common mistakes for Spanish students, both at ESO and Bachillerato level, is to construct the negative and interrogative forms of English modal verbs as the ordinary verbs do (i.e. Does she be able to pay her debts?) or to place adverbs within the sentence with a nearby modal verb (i.e. He never must come alone) or sometimes by omitting certain elements (i.e. She is used to sing in contests). Often, they make serious grammatical mistakes. It has been suggested that a methodology grounded in part in the application of explicit linguistic knowledge enhances the second language learning process. In the Spanish curriculum (B.O.E. 2002), the use of modal and auxiliary verbs is envisaged from earlier stages of ESO in the use of simple modal verbs (can, must, should) to talk about their everyday life or any specific topic, up to higher stages of Bachillerato, towards more complex verbal forms, such as modal verbs + perfective infinitive for deductio ns (i.e. He must have gone out. No one answers the phone at home) , past habits (i.e. He got used to + gerund) and above all, idiomatic expressions in certain modal idioms (i.e. I’d rather stay with you tonight). So, the importance of how to handle these modal verbs cannot be understated since you can communicate but not successfully because of the relevant distinction of meaning between ‘can’ and ‘may’ or the way of asking for things. We must not forget that Spanish students are likely to use the imperative form to ask for things rather than using structures such as ‘Can I use the phone?’, ‘Could you tell me the way to the gym?’, ‘Shall I copy this?’ and so on. Current communicative methods foster the ‘teaching’ of this kind of specific linguistic information to help students recognize the main differences with the L2 words. Learners cannot do it all on their own. Language learners, even 2nd year Bachillerato students, do not automatically recognize similiarities which seem obvious to teachers; learners need to have these associations brought to their attention.

11

This structure with ‘do’ cannot contain a modal auxiliary nor an auxiliary of the perfective aspect, the progressive

31/ 33

So far, we have attempted in this discussion to provide a broad account of modal and auxiliary verbs by means of form, function and use within verb phrase morphology, phonology, syntax, semantics and usage in order to set it up within the linguistic theory, going through the localization of modal verbs in syntactic structures, to a broad presentation of the main grammatical categories involved in it. We hope students are able to understand the rele vance of handling correctly the expression of modal verbs to successfully communicate in everyday life.

7. CONCLUSION. All in all, although the question ‘What is an auxiliary verb?’ may appear simple and straightforward, it implies a broad description of the modal verb structure in terms of form, function and use so as to get to the paradigms of morphology, phonology, syntax, semantics and use which, combined, give way to the study we have presented here. The appropriate answer suitable for students and teachers, may be so simple if we are dealing with ESO students, using simple modal verbs or so complex if we are dealing with Bachillerato students, who must be able to handle more complex verb structures. So far, in this study we have attempted to take a fairly broad view of auxiliary verbs since we are also assuming that there is an intrinsic connexion between its learning and successful communication. Yet, we have provided a descriptive account of Unit 20 dealing with Auxiliary and modal verbs whose main aim was to introduce the student to the different paradigms that shape the whole set of verbal forms in English regarding their form and function. In doing so, the study provided a broad account these notions, starting by a theoretical framework in order to get some key terminology on the issue, and further developed within a grammar linguistic theory, described in morphological, phonological, syntactic, semantic and usage terms. Once presented, we discussed each paradigm individually but always in relation to each other not to lose track of it. In fact, the correct expression of auxiliary verbs (modal and primary), is currently considered to be a central element in communicative competence and in the acquisition of a second language since students must be able to use and distinguish these forms in their everyday life in many different situations. As stated before, the teaching of them comprises four major components in our educational curriculum: phonology, grammar, lexicon, and semantics, out of which we get five major levels: phonological, morphological and syntactic, lexical, and semantic. Therefore, it is a fact that students must be able to handle the four levels in communicative competence in order to be effectively and highly communicative in the classroom and in real life situations , now we are part of the European Union. The expression of these verbal paradigms in form and function, proves highly frequent in our everyday speech, and consequently, we must encourage our students to have a good managing of it. aspect or the passive voice. However, negative imperatives are an exception (i.e. Don’t be taken in).

32/ 33

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY. - Aarts, F., and J. Aarts. 1988. English Syntactic Structures. Functions & Categories in Sentence Analysis. Prentice Hall Europe. - B.O.E. RD Nº 112/2002, de 13 de septiembre por el que se establece el currículo de la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria/Bachillerato en la Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia. - Bolton, D. And N. Goodey. 1997. Grammar Practice in Context. Richmond Publishing. - Council of Europe (1998) Modern Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. A Common European Framework of reference. - Eastwood, J. 1999. Oxford Practice in Grammar. Oxford University Press. - Greenbaum, S. and R. Quirk. 1990. A Student’s Grammar of the English Language. Longman Group UK Limited. - Greenbaum, S. 2000. The Oxford Reference Grammar. Edited by Edmund Weiner. Oxford University Press. - Huddleston, R. 1988. English Grammar, An Outline. Cambridge University Press. - Huddleston, R. and G.K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press. - Nelson, G. 2001. English: An Essential Grammar. London. Routledge. - Quirk, R & S. Greenbaum. 1973. A University Grammar of English. Longman. - Sánchez Benedito, F. 1975. Gramática Inglesa. Editorial Alhambra. - Thomson, A.J. and A.V. Martinet. 1986. A Practical English Grammar. Oxford University Press.

33/ 33