Diploma Thesis

Masaryk University Faculty of Arts
Department of English and American Studies
Ing. Veronika Ubrov
Central and Other Meanings of English Modal Verbs in Theory and Coursebooks of ESL Master Thesis
Supervisor: Mgr. Jan Chovanec, Ph.D.
2006
1 INTRODUCTION
This diploma thesis will deal with the meanings of English modal verbs, the theory and teaching to students of English as a second language. For teaching purposes, the complex system of modal verbs can be simplified by reducing their meanings to one central key meaning from which the others can be easily derived. The main focus of this diploma thesis will be on looking for such central meanings and discussion of ways how course books of ESL do and can make use of them. Geoffrey Leech explains, What makes it so difficult to account for the use of these words (which may be called modal auxiliaries or modals for short) is that their meaning has both a logical and a practical (or pragmatic) element (1971: 66). However, I have encountered the approach of Michael Lewis, which I find positively motivating for both teachers and students. Lewis (1986) does not see modals as defective verbs but believes that the language behaves much more consistently than is often believed (108, 114). He suggests focusing on the basic meaning which underlies each modal verb. Other grammarians (Yule, Leech) concepts and explanations of the modal verbs show considerable agreement with Lewiss views. First, modal verbs in general will be explored and their functions, uses, frequency, and various divisions described. Next, the ideas of Michael Lewis regarding the central meanings of the modals will be studied. The studied material will be also briefly introduced: two sets of coursebooks New Headway English series and Inside Out. Then, individual modals will be dealt with and their central meanings as presented by Lewis discussed. There will follow a comparison of other grammarians interpretations and their agreement with Lewiss central meanings. Other meanings which deviate from Lewiss concept will be mentioned they either modify or extend it. For each verb, attention will be focused on the practical use of the key
meanings of modals in teaching English. The modals in the coursebooks will be traced and studied how their meanings and usage are presented, explained and practised. Special attention will be paid to the possibility of using Lewiss theory to enable students better and easier learning of modal verbs. Semi-modals will be also touched upon. Finally, some other observations which were made during the research will be discussed. In the conclusion, the contribution of Lewiss approach to better teaching and learning of English modal verbs will be summarized.
2 MODAL VERBS
Modality consists of the speakers comments on what they are saying about the real world. According to Saeed (1997), modality allows speakers to express varying degrees of commitment to, or belief in, a proposition. Modal systems signal stronger or weaker commitment to the factuality of statements (125). Yule (1998) says that English modals typically convey some indication of the speakers perspective or attitude with respect to the situation or state of affairs being described (88). There are several ways of expressing modality and auxiliary verbs, so-called modal verbs, are one of them. Biber et al. (1999) list nine central modals can, could, may, might, will, would, shall, should and must marginal auxiliary verbs, which exist mainly in British English, and fixed phrases which function similarly to modals. These latter two groups are called semi-modals (483-84). Moreover, modals are often associated with particular pragmatic uses, e.g. in requests and offers, where the past forms tend to have implications of tentativeness and politeness (Quirk et al. 1985: 220). Modality can be divided into two types and sometimes one and the same linguistic form can have two different meanings. Epistemic modality also called extrinsic signals degree of knowledge (Saeed 1997: 126); in Yules words, to indicate what is known (1998: 88). It refers to the logical status of events or states, usually relating to assessments of likelihood: possibility, necessity, or prediction (Biber et al. 1999: 485). Yule (1998) remarks that
epistemic uses often sound like deductions or conclusions made by the speaker and that it is the speakers or writers perspective that is being presented (88-9). Deontic modality also called intrinsic usually refers to actions and events that humans (or other agents) directly control: meanings relating to permission, obligation, or volition (Biber et al. 1999: 485). This root modality in Yules terminology is not based on the speakers knowledge of facts, but on
the speakers awareness of what is socially determined. Root modals are typically used interpersonally and are based on social power [which] is often based on some established social relationship (1998: 89). Close (1992) describes these two kinds of modality as two main functions of modal verbs primary and secondary. The primary function corresponds to the deontic use and express[es] some degree of freedom, or lack of freedom, to act from complete liberty to inescapable prohibition; and this freedom, or lack of it, can apply to the speaker, or to the person(s) being addressed, or to some person(s) to whom the speaker is referring. The secondary function of the modal verbs (except shall) includes the epistemic use they allow the speaker to give a personal evaluation of the truth of the statement the speaker is making (95). So what is the difference between the two meanings? Quirk et al. (1985) state that all modals have both intrinsic and extrinsic meanings and that these often overlap (219). Biber et al. (1999) specify that modals with intrinsic meaning tend to be accompanied by a subject which refers to a human being, and a full dynamic verb which describes controllable activity or event. On the other hand, modal verbs with extrinsic meaning occur with non-human subjects and/or with main verbs having stative meaning (485). Saeed (1997) sees the difference between deontic and epistemic modals in the fact that epistemic modals express judgment about the way the real world is, whereas deontic modals express judgment about how people should behave in the world (127). In his view, the use of deontic modals is connected with social knowledge, morality, legality, power and authority. They contain various degrees of strength, politeness and formality of relationship between people (127). Huddleston and Pullum (2002) see the difference in temporal circumstances: epistemic modality concerns the speakers attitude to the factuality of past or present time situations while deontic modality concerns the speakers attitude to the actualisation of future situations. They also point out that deontic uses are more basic (178). Yule (1998) explains that the parallel between the epistemic and deontic modality in English
is based on what is necessary and what is possible. The epistemic uses are knowledge-based and can be paraphrased as necessary that (must) and possible that (may). On the other hand, the deontic modality is socially-based. In these examples, the modals can be paraphrased as necessary for (must) and possible for (may) (89-90). Palmer (1988) makes distinction between kinds of modality (epistemic, deontic and dynamic) and degrees of modality (possibility and necessity). He explains that epistemic modals express a judgement, deontic have influence on the behaviour of the addressee, and dynamic modals predict something about the subject of the sentence (97-98). Whatever definition or explanation, modal verbs have definitely more than just one meaning, which makes their system complex and difficult for English learners. Finally, here is the presentation of the modals and their organization in a simple overview. Biber et al. (1999) present tables and charts which describe the distribution of modals and semimodals in the Longman Spoken and Written English Corpus (483-97). The following table sums up the nine central modals and other semi-modals and their meanings:
Epistemic/extrinsic Deontic/intrinsic Central modals meaning meaning Possibility Necessity Permission Obligation Can, could, may, might Must, should
Semi-modals
(Had) better, have (got) to, need to, ought to, be supposed to Be going to
Prediction
Volition
Will, would, shall
Source: Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Longman, p. 485.
The order of modals according to frequency is: will, would, can, could, may, should, must, might
and shall. Since Biber et al. (1999) study modals according to register, modals and semi-modals are most frequent in conversation because they convey stance-type meanings. The most used modal and semi-modal verbs in conversation are will, can, would, be going to, could, and have to. Moreover, can, could, may and might are used predominantly in their extrinsic meaning (489). Making a survey of modals and semi-modals and charts of their frequency can help us to get a better idea of their meanings. However, other modifications such as negation can bring an unwanted confusion. Regarding negation, Palmer (1988) sees two problems: firstly, different modals may express the same kind of modality; secondly, not all theoretically possible negative forms exist (100). Yule (1998) explains, the action or state (main verb) can be considered as negative or the modality (modal verb meaning) can be treated as negative (109). Palmer (1988) talks about modality expressed by the modal verb and proposition, which is all that follows, including the main verb (98-99). We can negate both modality and proposition with epistemic and deontic modality with the exception of possibility in which only modality can be negated but only modality with dynamic modality (which is prediction in Palmers conception) (100-101). Yule (1998) expresses certain reservations, for some modals in knowledge-oriented (epistemic) functions, it is the action that is affected. In socially-oriented (root) functions, it is the modality that is affected by the negation much more (109). To sum up, general and theoretical introduction to the modal verbs has been delineated. Modals describe the speakers understanding of the world and their several meanings help them to express their views. However, at times, these multiple meanings can confuse students of English in understanding and using the modal verbs.
3 CENTRAL MEANING
This chapter will aim at exploring Michael Lewiss concept of narrowing modal verbs to one central meaning. Grammarians study modal verbs from different angles and various approaches differ even though the meanings remain constant. Palmer finds the system of modals extremely messy and the only thing linguists can do is to try to impose some order and focus on regularities, correspondences, parallelism. He admits that there exists a fairly generalized common meaning which is, however, unrealistic and fails when we want to explore modal verbs in more detail (qtd. in Lewis 1986: 99). On the other hand, Lewis (1986) is more optimistic and talks about a large central area which is systematic and relatively easy understood (99). He presents the basic outline of modals: there are nine modal verbs can, could, may, might, shall, should, will, would, and must which can be put into four pairs and one odd word. They share the same grammatical characteristics they are followed by an infinitive without to, they have the same forms for all persons and numbers, they cannot co-occur, they are used as operators in questions and negatives. The modals will and shall are often considered temporal markers expressing the future tense instead of modals. However, their grammatical features classify them as modals (Lewis 1986: 100). Modal verbs share semantic similarities. Lewis (1986) defines modal auxiliaries: they allow the speaker to express an attitude to the non-factual and non-temporal elements of the situation. (s)he can introduce elements of possibility, necessity, desirability, morality, doubt, certainty, etc. (101). Therefore, speakers choose a modal according to how they view the reality. This choice is intensely personal and reflects the speakers speculations, guesses, estimates, idealisations (Lewis 1986: 101-2). Lewis agrees with other grammarians, such as Yule, Saeed, and Close, that modals, besides giving information about the subject of the statement, also reveal
the speaker, or, in questions, the listener (1986: 102). He stresses the role of the speaker when he says that modals involve the speakers judgement, or, perhaps better expressed in this contexts, the speakers judgement. The difference between I have to get the 8 oclock train and I must get the 8 oclock train, which he discusses as an example, lies in the speakers involvement (Lewis 1986: 104-5). Lewis concludes that phrases with modal verbs are not only about facts but also about two people and their judgement at the moment of speaking (1986: 102). Lewis presents the argument that there is a single meaning in each modal verb which describes such judgement. As the meanings of words often depend on the context, it must be admitted that to define a single meaning is not very much possible. However, some abstraction and generalization can be useful, especially for students of ESL. According to Palmer, although we can look for a set of closely related meanings, a unique meaning of a modal verb does not, and cannot, exist (qtd. in Lewis 1986: 99). Unfortunately, a range of meanings hinders communication because the listener may be confused and must decode which of the possible meanings the speaker meant. Lewis (1986) criticizes various grammarians and authors of grammar books for their unnecessary complications. He suggests, the best approach is to look for a single central meaning while at the same time accepting that this may involve recognising a number of marginal examples (103). Here comes into question the context which influences the meanings of modal verbs. Lewis believes that the communicative meaning will be different in different contexts. Communicative meaning differs from basic meaning and is a combination of the primary semantic characteristics of a form and other factors. Besides context, these factors include the speakers and listeners pre-knowledge (Lewis 1986: 103-4). However, based on my experience, students seem to accept with confusion the fact that words have more than just one meaning which differs according to situation and context. They like things and meanings simple and clear.
That is why Lewis (1986) suggests starting with the assumption that each individual modal has a single meaning, though perhaps with an occasional eccentric or historical use (103). He defines each modal verb: in the present circumstances, it seems to me XXX that and the XXX differs according to individual modal (Lewis 1986: 111). Consequently, various meanings are united in one definition which covers the basic meaning and leaves enough space for other uses and explanations. Although with different approaches, other grammarians (for example Geoffrey Leech) end up with the same meanings of the modals. Leech himself admits that we may go so far as to claim, in fact, that possibility and necessity logically include permission and obligation that permission is a particular kind of possibility, and obligation a particular kind of necessity (1969: 218). I believe that this simplification is highly desirable for teaching purposes. Lewiss idea offers solution to teachers of English: first, students learn one main meaning of the modal verb preferably the most common and frequent one and, only at higher levels, continue with other derived meanings. Lewis supports his ideas with examples. The following three sentences containing the verb can show ambiguities: (1) Im afraid I cant tell you. (2) Spaniards cant play football. (3) John can come. The first sentence does not tell us if the speaker cannot tell because (s)he does not know or because of the promise not to tell. The second one may describe the Spaniards lack of skill in playing football or the prohibition to play because of a ban or unsuitable condition of the pitch. However, according to Lewis, despite variety of meanings in various contexts, a constant underlying non-contextual meaning can be discerned. For instance, in sentence (3) can has the underlying, general meaning associated with possibility which can be of various kinds:
physical (John is able to walk on his legs), possibility of permission (John has permission by the speaker) or possibility of non-restriction (John has a free day) (1986: 104). We can apply the possibility meaning of can to sentences (1) and (2): the speaker cant tell since it is not possible because of his ignorance or promise of reticence; it is not possible for Spaniards to play because they are not trained or allowed to play for any reason. These examples lead us to conclude that Lewiss support of one key meaning contributes to easier learning and understanding of English modal verbs. Lewis suggests using central meanings with students at early stages. He claims, many difficulties are generated by teachers bringing together unsuitable areas, thereby creating confusion (1986: 126). So the main task of the teacher is to avoid this. Modern communicative approaches and functional presentations, which simplify and contextualize the modals, make their study easier. Lewis highlights the presentation of particular uses of modal verbs. Only later, with upper-intermediate students, we can collect all uses of one modal and together try to find an underlying central meaning. Advanced students can also contrast modals, look at the boundaries between their meanings, and explore them as a group (1986: 126-127). Parott (2000) confirms, at lower levels, learners often prefer to concentrate on only one meaning or function of a particular modal verb at one time (119). However, the common problem of learners is that when they later add another meaning to the one already mastered, they find it confusing and suddenly make mistakes in the first meaning as well. Nevertheless, progress from basic meanings to more complex ones is a desirable process. Grammarians vary in their understanding of modals and some consider could, should, would and might past tenses of can, shall, will and may. As was mentioned above, according to Lewis (1986), modal verb phrases contain the peoples judgement of facts at the moment of speaking each modal auxiliary is fundamentally grounded in the moment of speaking, at the
point Now (102). This fact explains the present forms of modal verbs. That means that we should not understand the forms could, should, would and might as past tense forms of the verbs can, shall, will and may. The concept of the past tense collides with the basic characteristics of modals: the speakers judgement is exercised precisely at the moment of speaking (Lewis 1986: 111). The role of the context is also highlighted: the same modal verb form can refer to the present or the future, and it is the context that clarifies which temporal setting is meant (Eastwood 2005: 101). Lewis bases his claim on the fact that when the speaker recalls an event in Past Time [it] becomes objective and loses its subjective judgement (1986: 111). Leech supports Lewiss idea that the basic meanings of modals can be only in the present tense we should call the present tense modals non-past because they refer to both future and present time. If we want to talk about the past, the Perfect Infinitive following a modal auxiliary assigns past time to the meaning of the main verb. Moreover, the Past Tense auxiliaries have various other functions (Leech 1971: 67, 92). To express the past, Eastwood (2005) suggests other expressions such as had to, was able to, or was allowed to (102). To conclude, the search for the central meanings of modals reduces to meanings related to the present or future.
4 COURSEBOOKS FOR LEARNING ENGLISH

In this chapter, the material analyzed according to theoretical findings will be introduced briefly. I have chosen two sets of coursebooks of English as a second language: New Headway English Course published by Oxford University Press and Inside Out which is a product of Macmillan. The choice is based on the fact that these textbooks belong to the most widely used coursebooks in English courses. Moreover, two different sets eliminate one-sidedness and allow simple comparison. As I have been using these materials in class with my students, I have been acquainted with both their strengths and weaknesses regarding the explanation and practise of modal verbs.
4.1 NEW HEADWAY ENGLISH COURSE

The New Headway English Course, written by Liz and John Soars, presents itself as successful material for acquisition of accurate and fluent English and its use for communicative purposes. This course is a multi-level course which provides students with the structure of the language and teaches grammar, vocabulary and functions of English. On the Internet, the textbooks present the methodology as follows: their approach to grammar is clear and structured; grammar is presented in context and students are encouraged to discover the rules for themselves; integrated skills work is an important feature of the course and activities in every unit contextualize and bring together much previously introduced language. The present analysis focuses on levels two to four (Elementary to Intermediate). Level one Beginner has been omitted so that the set matches the choice of Inside Out coursebooks which lack the beginner level. 1 The coursebook New Headway English Course Elementary is for both true and false
beginners and provides the basic knowledge of the structure of English. Only four modal verbs are introduced here - can, could, would and shall and most of them are presented in functional approach in conversation. 2 New Headway English Course Pre-Intermediate continues in widening and extending the students abilities of understanding and using English for communicative purposes. In summary, students learn four additional modals will, should, must and might and two semi-modals be going to and have to. The more modal verbs they get to know, the more information they acquire about the system of modality and interrelations in it. Unfortunately, parallel presentation of several verbs (must, have to, should) contributes to the intricacy of the learning process. 3 The fourth level coursebook New Headway English Course Intermediate starts with the summary of auxiliary verbs including modals in the first unit. In this textbook, the explanation of modal verbs is completed and all the modals are grouped according to their meanings. These meanings include possibility, probability, attitudes, opinions and judgements of events. The epistemic meanings of possibility (may, might, could), necessity (must) and prediction (will) are depicted. Practical examples of the use of modality to express offers, requests and suggestions are practised in short conversations of social English. At the end of the fourth level, students end up with a complex survey of modals and practice of some of their uses. However, the attempt to systematize modal verbs seems to shatter the students knowledge so far because it only partly builds on what they already know about individual modals. Also different grouping adds confusion and disorganization.
4.2 INSIDE OUT

The Macmillan course Inside Out presents itself as a tool to develop real-life communicative skills and powers of self-expression. On the Internet, these textbooks are marketed as a material that is built around structured work on grammar and lexis, planned speaking tasks, and motivating reading and listening texts. The coursebook provides a fullyintegrated grammar syllabus together with entertaining practice. Speaking skills and their development are seen as the key area but students also require a solid grammatical framework to make progress. The authors encourage students to discover new grammar themselves and they present it in contexts where the meaning is clear. Students get a lot of opportunities to manipulate the new language: they try it out in different situations through a rich variety of engaging practice and personalised activities. Three levels have been chosen for analysis, matching the levels of New Headway Elementary to Intermediate. 1 Inside Out Elementary seems to neglect modals among the grammar topics of individual units. However, they are present and presented to the students in a rather unusual way: in lexis and conversation exercises. The coursebooks presents will and might in a conversation about the weather forecast; would (would like) in a shopping conversation and later among expressions about the future (including the semi-modal be going to). Should appears as a tool to give advice, and can(t) and (dont) have to in the discussion of possibilities and necessities of rich film stars. 2 Inside Out Pre-Intermediate extends the students knowledge of modals from five to seven (must and could) and practises their uses to express advice, obligation and permission (must(nt), couldnt, should(nt), (dont) have to). Some of them (can, could, would, shall) are covered in polite questions of offers and requests, opinions, advice and suggestions.
Similar to Headway, simultaneous practice of more verbs (must, should) shows their differences in use but can overburden students with excessive new knowledge without their prior absorption of individual meanings. 3 A summary of the forms, but not the meanings, of modals appears in the first unit of Inside Out Intermediate. Some units discuss the contrasts of modals and other verbs, i.e. would vs. used to, will vs. going to vs. present continuous tense for future, must(nt), can(t), should(nt), (dont) have to for obligation, prohibition and permission; use of modals for deduction and speculation and in conditional sentences. In contrast to Headway, Inside Out does not bring a complete survey of modals, their meanings and uses. Again, context and practical usage play an important role in the students acquisition of English modals.
5 INDIVIDUAL MODALS
This section will deal with individual modals. First, central meanings as suggested by Lewis will be discussed. Other grammarians opinions will be added, particularly those which support Lewiss ideas. Then, other meanings that differ from the central one will be mentioned. Finally, the coursebooks will be analyzed if, and how, they make use of the central meanings to simplify the learning of modals for students of English as a second language.
5.1 CAN
5.1.1 Central meaning
The central meaning of can is possibility. Lewis (1986) defines can: I assert that it is possible that (112). He interprets one sentence with can in four different ways, all of which contain the meaning of possibility. This possibility ranges from physical, objective, logical, possibility decided by the rules, to requests and offers. Only the knowledge of the context permits us to interpret the sentence correctly (Lewis 1986: 112). Biber et al. (1999), who present charts of frequency of use, support Lewis: although it is sometimes difficult to determine which of its three meanings ability, possibility or permission can expresses, it is mainly used in the meaning of possibility and ability (491-92). Other grammarians highlight the meaning of possibility among the three above-mentioned meanings of can. Yule (1998) sees the core concept of can in potential and explains that its three meanings result from the way in which that potential is perceived in different circumstances (92). I believe that his ideas concur with those of Lewis because in Yules view, the possibility interpretation of can is the most common and general one and the potential does not require a specified source in terms of an animate agent or a social authority (1998: 92-93).
Also Leech suggests a similar view: can in the meaning of possibility does not need any further specification and is the only one that does not require human or animate subject. It can be used in the passive voice as well (1971: 71). So it seems that the possibility meaning of can is the most general one and represents the cornerstone for other derived meanings. Possibility is inherent in the permission meaning. If permission is to be granted, it presupposes the possibility of the action or state. The same holds true for ability, which is the possibility of physical, mental or another kind. According to Palmer (1988), can is used in cases of dynamic possibility, which predicate the possibility to the subject of the sentence and are thus subject-oriented (112). Moreover, can often seems to have a neutral sense, to say that something is possible without suggesting that this depends on anyones ability. Or, perhaps, it is circumstantial in that the circumstances make it possible. This is particularly true where there is a passive (Palmer 1988: 112-13). Leech observes, with can the notion of possibility is general and theoretical, which means that I have nothing to do with the statement I simply state or assert it (1971: 221). Eastwood (2005) supports him, we use can to say that something is generally possible. In these sentences can means sometimes (114). Leech adds that colloquial English uses can in the possibility sense to express a suggestion for future action. In fact with second- and third-person subject, it has come to be a familiar though tactful imperative (1971: 71). Parott (2000) explains that cant is the opposite of must to express logical deduction (127). Again, he contributes to the central meaning of can we logically deduce that something is not happening because it is not possible under given circumstances.
5.1.2 Other meanings

Yule (1998) gives further specifications regarding an agent or dynamicity of the verb for
the potential in other meanings of can. Can expresses ability when the circumstances involve an animate agent [mostly human], having the potential to perform [physical] actions or activities (92). Quirk et al. (1985) offer the synonyms be capable and know how to (222). Leech points out that the ability meaning of can (=be able to/capable of) does not have a special modal meaning because it does not express a special speakers judgement (1971: 69-70). Can is also used to express permission. According to Yule (1998), the permission meaning of can is tied to circumstances where social relationships, particularly social authority, are involved. The source of th[e] potential [for some social transaction to take place] is the social power of one individual relative to another. In reality, requests for permission are addressed to, and granted by, the one with social power at that moment (92). According to Quirk et al. (1985), can meaning be allowed to is used for polite requests and is less formal than may when used to express permission (222). Can is more often used for granting permission than may because it has the less specific meaning you have permission rather than I give you permission (Leech 1997: 70). Close (1992) also mentions the use of can with verbs of perception (see, hear, remember): In such examples, the meaning is almost identical with that of [without can]. However, in I can see etc. we are more concerned with the freedom to perceive, rather than with the result (105-6). I think that the freedom in Closes view corresponds to the possibility in Lewiss central meaning of can. On the other hand, Palmer (1988) does not see the ability of can in the use with verbs of sensation this use of can is subject-oriented in that the subject alone is involved. But it indicates that he does, in fact, experience the sensation rather than that he is able to experience it (113). Moreover, he mentions the use of can with other types of private verbs (remember, understand), and also verbs in a semi-idiomatic sense but only in non-assertive contexts with afford, bear, be bothered, stand (113-4). Some minor uses include so called
existential use, use for habitual or future time reference, characteristic behaviour of people (derogatory) and instruction often of a brusque or impolite kind (Palmer 1988: 107, 110, 113, 116).
5.1.3 Coursebooks
The coursebooks marginalize Lewiss central meaning of can - possibility. The only clear usage of can in this sense is in Unit Seven of Inside Out Elementary. It is presented together with the verb have to. The definition of can(t) is: It is okay for me to and Its not okay for me to. The exercises include examples of jobs and the possibilities they have or do not have, and interviews with two actors and what possibilities or lack of possibilities their fame has brought them. Students then practice can (together with have to) in discussing advantages and disadvantages of being rich and famous. The possibility meaning of can in New Headway appears briefly in Intermediate Unit Four. The presentation starts with the question What sort of problems can there be [between parents and teenagers]? which encourages students to come up with all possible problems. Hence they can use the verb can in the sense of possibility. However, the presentation and exercises shift their focus on the verb have to. Possibility is also involved in logical conclusions about reality. Opposed to must, cant means logically improbable (New Headway Intermediate Unit Nine). We conclude from our understanding of the situation that something is impossible. Cant with perfect infinitive expresses the same idea in the past. Inside Out Intermediate Unit Eleven refers to the use of cant for speculations and deductions about which students are absolutely sure in the negative sense. In both coursebooks, exercises comprise pictures or facts on which students base their conclusions.
All other uses deviate more or less from the meaning of can as possibility. Can is the first modal that students come across in New Headway Elementary. In the unit called Can you speak English?, its meaning of ability is introduced. Because its form differs from other verbs, students must learn the grammatical form of the verb first. Then, they practise how to use can when they want to express the capability of doing something. Although this use does not comply with Lewiss central meaning of can as expression of possibility, its meaning of ability rates high in frequency of use. The practice of can compares the abilities of people and computers the possibilities in the world of modern technologies and human mind underlie can. Can permeates all levels of New Headway course in social conversations: Unit Two Elementary contains a request Can I have? in a conversation at a caf; at the end of Unit Nine Elementary, in the section of Everyday English called Polite requests, the idiomatic expressions Can/Could I? to ask for things and Can/Could you? to ask other people to do things for us are highlighted. Unfortunately, no difference is made in the degree of politeness between can and could. We could speculate that these phrases involve logical possibility. Asking for a favour presupposes that the action desired is possible. However, the function of can for requests is more important here than its proper meaning. And the last meaning of can that appears in New Headway is to express permission (Unit Four Intermediate). The exercise that practises modals, including can, uses public notices which command, prohibit, or allow. We could again manipulate permission into possibility: the logic shows that when something is prohibited (You cant do it), it means that it is impossible for you to do it. In all occurrences of can in both coursebooks, possibility is at the core. Only Inside Out fully covers and practises its central meaning. Also logical possibility is dealt with at higher levels of both coursebooks. However, it seems easier and more useful for students to practise can as a lexical expression for permission or in the meaning of ability.
5.2 COULD
The central meaning of could is remote possibility. Lewis (1986) defines could: I assert that it is remotely possible that. The possibility of could is more remote than the possibility of can. This remoteness can be in time, social relationship, or likelihood (112). Palmer (1988) agrees with Lewis: could expresses a lower degree of possibility (119). Also Yule (1998) supports them, the relationship between can and could is one of relative remoteness from the point of utterance. Like Lewis, Yule sees the remoteness in time or likelihood. Moreover, remote potential in social terms creates an impression of less imposition and hence greater politeness (93). However, Lewis (1986) warns teachers that the idea of could as a polite form can cause confusion without the framework provided by the concept of remote relationship (126). Could thus expresses possibility that is in any way distant from the basic possibility of can. The distance proves also in slight variations of could. In Parotts view, the remoteness of could results in express[ing] hypothetical meaning (2000: 127). According to Biber et al. (1999), could expresses greater degree of uncertainty and tentativeness (493). Eastwood (2005) disputes the fact that the remoteness in time embraces only the past. He claims, we use could to suggest possible future actions (113). Lewis concludes that contextual meaning [of both can and could] may differ greatly. At the same time, the primary semantic characteristics of the forms remain constant (1986: 112).

Some grammarians see could as the past tense of can with the meaning of ability. According to Parott (2000), could is the only pure modal verb that we can normally use on its own to refer to past time. We use could to refer to the past only for general abilities (128). Also Close (1992) depicts that could does not refer to the past accomplishment itself but only to the ability (106). Yule (1998) talks about the potential implied by could (94). Palmer (1988) agrees with these grammarians: he considers could the past tense form of can especially with dynamic verbs. However, he denies its use in positive sentences if actuality (i.e. the fact that the event really took place) is implied (117-18). Lewiss meaning of possibility explains why, with could, the past action was not accomplished: there was only the possibility for it to be accomplished. When we want to talk about the accomplishment itself we need to use verbs such as managed to, or was able to. Several other uses of could are common. According to Eastwood (2005), we can also use [could + perfect infinitive] for a possible action when we know that the action did not happen or to express criticism (114). Palmer (1988) adds other uses: could is also found in reported speech; it may be accompanied by expressions such as hardly, little, no-one; or with almost or just that imply limited or difficult success; with deontic meaning, could is almost entirely restricted to the use of the interrogative for a polite request and with dynamic modality for suggestions and requests (117-19).
5.2.3 Coursebooks
Both coursebooks practise could in its central meaning. Similarly to can, could in the meaning of remote possibility is presented together with have to in Inside Out Pre-Intermediate
Unit Nine. The definition is it was(nt) possible for me to. The remoteness of could lies in time. Students read a text about the childhood of a rock star and complete gaps with these expressions. Then, they discuss the (im)possibilities of their own schooldays. Headway Intermediate presents could in Unit Nine as an expression of logical possibility or probability. Students infer from two letters facts about their authors. Could is here synonymous with might and is rated as 45% certainty the definition is possible, but less probable. It means hypothetical assumption. We infer from given information the possibility of actions and states in reality. Opposed to must or cant, our certainty is vague. Students then practise using these expressions in exercises in which they read, or listen to, a piece of information or short conversations, and guess what possible situations there may be. Could with the perfect infinitive expresses the same idea in the past. Likewise, Intermediate Unit Eleven acquaints students with tools for speculating and deducing. Could is ranked as Im not really sure and synonymous with may and might. Students learn how to express the possibility of actions and states in situations which do not clearly show reality. In New Headway Elementary, the first presentation of could is just after the presentation of can in Unit Six. The form could/couldnt is introduced with the same meaning of ability in the past. Here we can see the remoteness in time. An exercise practising could uses four geniuses and their abilities when they were children. Students then apply the same structure to describe their own abilities in their childhood. As was already mentioned above, Headways Everyday English section of Unit 9 (Elementary) Polite requests, highlights the idiomatic expressions Can/Could I? to ask for things and Can/Could you? to ask other people to do things for us. The difference in the degree of politeness between the verbs can and could can be clarified by the teacher and discussed over the sentences in the exercise asking for a favour. The remoteness of could shows the distance that we take in situations which are inconvenient for the addressee (e.g.
asking for money). The coursebooks follow Lewiss conception in two ways: first, remoteness of could lies in time students discuss the possibilities in the past; second, remoteness includes greater uncertainty when expressing conclusions about possible actions and states. Moreover, students practise could as a lexical expression of asking for permission in social conversations.
5.3 MAY
The central meaning of may is personal possibility. Lewis (1986) defines may: If I have anything to do with it, it is possible that. He stresses the speakers, or, in questions, listeners, explicit involvement in the possibility (114). The meaning of may seems similar to the meaning of can. However, they differ in the personal engagement of the speaker. Lewis shows the difference between two questions: Can I smoke here? and May I smoke here? He paraphrases the first as: Is it allowed? and the other as Do you permit me? In the second question, the speaker is volitionally involved in the creation of a possibility (1986: 113-4). Yule (1998) agrees with Lewis, the core concept of may has to do with some event being possible (or not). The different interpretations of may result from the ways in which possibility is perceived in different circumstances. He explains that the event is judged to have an equal possibility of occurring or not (94-5). Also according to Quirk et al. (1985), may denotes the [epistemic] possibility of a given propositions being or becoming true (223). Leechs comments on the modal may admit Lewiss definition. He mentions three meanings which narrow down to the central meaning of possibility: permission is less used
because of its association with the authoritarianism of the Victorian schoolmaster, and benediction and malediction are very formal and rarely found in modern English. Moreover, he asserts, the permission and possibility meanings are close enough to one another for the distinction to be blurred on occasions the difference lies in stress which, for instance, cannot be recognized in writing (1971: 68-9). Furthermore, Leech sees may as more particular and practical kind of possibility and he ascribes it a slightly stronger meaning than can (1969: 221). This stronger meaning seems to stem from the involvement of the speaker. Other grammarians support the central meaning of may as well. According to Palmer (1988), may again indicates possibility: It can be paraphrased possible that but with the suggestion that the speaker makes a judgment about what may be. When it occurs with adverbs such as perhaps and possibly, the adverb does little more than reinforce the notion of possibility (107). Finally, Biber et al. (1999) also confirm Lewiss central meaning because when we look at the frequency of may in English, its use for logical possibility overweighs its use for permission (491). To conclude, may is not common in English and Lewis recommends it to be taught in two stages: as a request May I? different from Can I? in the personal decision of the listener; and in statements meaning as far as I am concerned it is possible that (Lewis 1986: 126).

Some grammarians assert that may is also used for permission. It is more formal and less common than can [and] is particularly associated with permission given by the speaker (Quirk et al. 1985: 223-24). However, Yule (1998) explains permission as some social authority having the power to create or prevent the possibility of an event (95). So again, we get Lewiss
central meaning of may. Palmer (1988) sees ambiguity in the use of may with the simple form of a verb it may be interpreted as giving permission. However, he admits that may is mostly literary, formal or old-fashioned (107-09). This formal expression contributes to greater politeness and thus is commonly used for polite requests in questions; similar to the question May I? is the expression if I may (Palmer 1988: 111). Palmer (1988) also introduces so called concessive use. May indicates that the speaker entertains a proposition: he merely accepts it for consideration (108). This use of may is becoming more common in English. In Yules view, the speaker wishes to acknowledge the possibility of some event or state of affairs being the case, but not necessarily relevant for the current discussion. He adds that it is often followed by a but clause [and] can usually be paraphrased by a clause beginning with although (1998: 95). Moreover, We use may to say that something is possibly true. We can also use may for an uncertain prediction of intention (Eastwood 2005: 112).
5.3.3 Coursebooks
With some exceptions, may is neglected in both sets of coursebooks. The only mention of may as expression of possibility is in New Headway Intermediate Unite Nine Grammar Reference presents may as an expression of possibility in the present or future. However, it does not appear in any exercise in the unit. Next, we can find it in Inside Out Intermediate Unit Eleven it is mentioned alongside might, perhaps, could, maybe for deductions and speculations with the meaning of Im not really sure. Moreover, may appears in New Headway Intermediate Grammar Reference of Unit Four: it expresses permission, together with can and be allowed to. On the other hand, it is totally
ignored in Inside Out Intermediate Unit Ten which deals with obligation, prohibition and permission. The teaching of may obviously corresponds to its rare use. Lewiss recommendation is observed: expressions of possibility and polite questions of permission are mentioned briefly. It is only natural that the permission use of may is scarce because of its formal character.
5.4 MIGHT
The central meaning of might is remote personal possibility. Lewis (1986) defines might: If I have anything to do with it, it is remotely possible that. The relationship between may and might is similar to the relationship between can and could might is the remote form of may (113). Although all four forms: can, could, may and might imply possibility, the difference is that with can/could the speaker perceives the existence of a possibility; with may/might the speaker is volitionally involved in the creation of a possibility (Lewis 1986: 113) the possibility is more personal because of the speakers involvement. Yule (1998) confirms Lewiss idea of remoteness the difference between may and might is based on relative remoteness from the point of utterance. The remoteness of possibility interpretation of might results in a sense of uncertainty about the likelihood of an event taking place, or a request being granted. He adds, when a possibility is marked as being remote, it can also receive a hypothetical or unreal interpretation. The remoteness associated with might also results in the concessive uses being marked as even less likely, or less relevant, in the speakers view (96). Parott (2000) agrees that might refers to possibility and we use [it] to express hypothetical
meaning (127). Lewiss remoteness of might is reflected in the weakening of the possibility in Palmers view: might is used as tentative form of epistemic may in all its possible environments, to express a lower degree of possibility (1988: 119). Also according to Quirk et al. (1985), might is often preferred to may as a modal verb of epistemic possibility. In this pair, might is more tentative and polite (223). Finally, Biber et al. (1999) show in their frequency charts that might is used solely for possibility (491). For teaching purposes, Lewis highlights the one use of might it is quite likely that and mentions also the lexical item Might I suggest (1986: 126).

Some grammarians mention other minor and marginal uses of might. In Closes view, might expresses the maximum degree of hesitancy in requests for permission (1992: 109). Palmer (1988) agrees that this use is less common and might is used solely in polite requests (119). In Eastwoods view, We can use a statement with might to make a suggestion and it can also express criticism that something is not done (2005: 112). Palmer (1988) mentions the use of might for suggestions and reproaches as well (120). Moreover, might is used in the concessive sense, in reported speech as the past tense of may, and to describe habitual activities in literary contexts (Palmer 1988: 117, 119, 121). And finally, we can also use might for an uncertain prediction of intention (Eastwood 2005: 112).
5.4.3 Coursebooks
Both sets of coursebooks teach might in its central meaning of possibility. Both present them in contrast with other modals. Students first come across might in Unit Twelve in New
Headway Pre-Intermediate. In this unit, might expresses future possibility. Two texts about young people contrast the certainty of will/be going to/Present Continuous to express future plans with might to describe the possibilities a person has in life. Might is here synonymous with perhapswill. Students practice consists of exercises in which they choose between will and might according to the degree of certainty about the future activities, and express two possibilities between which they have not decided yet. Then they talk about their possible plans for the future evening, weekend, or holiday. Inside Out includes might even earlier in Unit Nineteen Elementary. Sentences forecasting the weather contrast might with will and an axis is presented with a scale from will happen to wont happen, in the middle of which appears might for states which are possible but not certain. Students then rewrite the sentences so that they are true for the weather in their area. In Inside Out Intermediate Unit Eleven, might is introduced as a synonym to may, perhaps, and maybe meaning Im not really sure. Students use it for deductions and speculations. The same use can be found in New Headway Intermediate. Unit Nine discusses the use of might to express degrees of probability might is defined as possible, but less probable. It is placed on the same level as could 45% sure. As I mentioned above, students are encouraged to use might and other modal verbs to infer from given facts about the possibility of a situation. With the use of the Perfect Infinitive, they do the same about the past. Students learn how to use might to express possibility according to Lewiss interpretation its quite likely that. The possibility concerns the speakers so it is often used to express their possible future plans. The remoteness consists of lesser probability and hypothetical
understanding of the reality.
5.5 WILL
The central meaning of will is inevitable truth. Lewis (1986) defines will: Given my perception of the immediate situation, it is inevitably true that (116). According to Lewis, will relates to a state which is not factual for the speaker at the moment of speaking. The moment of speaking and the state, which the speaker refers to, are inevitably linked; this other state mostly differs in time and is seen as non-factual and psychologically immediate for the speaker at the moment of speaking (1986: 115). This psychological immediacy and lack of factuality exclude the past or present states and actions and contribute to the future meaning of will. Besides future, Lewis (1986) offers another meaning the other state may refer to logical inevitability of which the speaker does not have direct factual knowledge. Such inevitability of the situation may be temporal or logical. The former is much the more frequent (115-17). This supports the usage of will to express future states and activities. Other grammarians support Lewis. According to Quirk et al. (1985), will is used for prediction: it expresses what the speaker thinks will happen (228). Close (1992) states, will allows the speaker to make a statement, not asserting that it is true but suggesting that it will prove to be so (97). The speakers describe the action that they believe will happen. Close adds that will is often preceded by phrases such as I suppose or I expect (1992: 97). Yule sees the core concept of will in likelihood; its interpretations differ in different circumstances. All three meanings that he presents intention, willingness and prediction are only refinements of Lewiss concept of will: the speaker considers some action or state inevitable. In Yules view, intention covers planned future events reported by the speaker. When future actions are part of some social transaction and are limited to animate agents and physical actions, he speaks of
willingness. And the last meaning prediction is done by the speaker, often about his or her own future actions, but the subjects of such predictions are frequently non-animate, third person forms (1998: 101-2). Next, Leech presents four uses of will: three of them are various ranges of volition and only the fourth one, predictability, corresponds to Lewiss concept. Predictability is more closely related to the future meaning of will/shall. The speaker makes a forecast about the present (in so far as such a thing is possible) concerning an event not directly observable. Leech compares this meaning of will to must in the sense of logical necessity (1971: 78-80). Palmer (1988) paraphrases will as A reasonable conclusion is that (137). In his view, will is often used to refer to the future where there is clear reference to a future that is envisaged, planned, etc., and not simply in future time. In this sense there is a modal rather than a real (tense) future (Palmer 1988: 143-4). According to Biber et al. (1999), will is frequently ambiguous between marking logical prediction and personal volition. However, it is more common in prediction than volition (496). In addition, Lewis (1986) explains the difference between the use of will and be going to for Future Time reference. The important part of the definition of will is the perception of the immediate situation [emphasis added] the speaker judges the situation and makes prediction on the basis of an immediate, instantaneous, perception of the situation at the moment of speaking. With be going to, the speaker has thought about the situation before the moment of speaking (117).

According to Quirk et al. (1985), will conveys volition, which ranges from weak volition
of willingness through intention to strong volition of insistence (229). Leech (1971) describes these kinds of volition in more detail: willingness (weak volition) is used in second-person requests; insistence (strong volition) has strong emotional overtones and is not very common; intention (intermediate volition) conveys a promise, a threat, or a corporate decision and the volitional element of meaning is reinforced by a feeling that in the act of speaking, a decision has been made, and that the fulfilment of the intention is guaranteed. These volitional meanings are limited because they require human or animate subjects (78-80). In Palmers (1988) view, will is used to express volition or willingness on the part of the subject. It is thus clearly subjectoriented and dynamic. This volition use, however, always carries with it the meaning of futurity (138). Inevitability also appears as certainty in assuming and deducing. Parott (2000) states, In its weak or contracted form we use will (ll) to express logical deduction when we are 100% certain (127). In this case, Eastwood talks about assumption (2005: 110). Palmer (1988) observes that will is used with reference to present states and activities [and] to habitual actions. Jespersen calls this use of will for such typical or habitual behaviour habit (Palmer 1988: 136-39). Will is also used in questions to make requests, to give instructions or guidance, to make suggestions (especially for the benefit of the addressee), and also in conditional sentences referring to the future (Palmer 1988: 138-39, 142-44).
5.5.3 Coursebooks
Will belongs to modals which are thoroughly and frequently dealt with in both coursebooks. It is quite interesting that will is not included among the future forms in Unit Twelve of Inside Out Elementary. Neither is it present when discussing the future in Unit Eight
of Inside Out Pre-Intermediate. The prediction meaning of will appears for the first time in talking about the weather forecast in Elementary Unit Nineteen alongside might. Students
modify sentences and insert will and wont to make predictions about the weather. Similar predictions about the future are presented and more thoroughly explored in Pre-Intermediate Unit Sixteen. Expression such as I hope, I (dont) think, definitely and probably accompany will. Students make predictions on various topics, such as family, children, money, house, job, etc. Prompts are given and the task is to complete sentences with students own ideas. The prediction will is mentioned in New Headway Intermediate Unit Nine: Grammar Reference defines will as an expression of what we believe to be true about the present: we make guesses based on what we know about people and things, their routines, characters, and qualities. However, no practice is done in this unit at all. Will is mostly presented as a tool for expressing future actions and states. It is often contrasted to other ways that are used for the same purpose. New Headway Pre-Intermediate practises the modal will in Unit Five. This unit introduces two uses of will: expressing a future decision or intention made at the moment of speaking (contrasted with going to for decisions made before the moment of speaking) and expressing an offer. Students match sentences with will and going to to pictures according to the immediacy of the decisions they have to decide whether the intentions are spontaneous or premeditated. There follows a very entertaining exercise called Lets have a party! In the first round, students offer help with the party, saying Ill bring the music or Ill buy some crisps, etc. Their decisions are impulsive and unpremeditated. In the second round, the teacher who pretends that he has not heard what the students have said repeats their sentences. Respective students must correct the teacher with No, Im going to bring some music realizing at the same time that they have already decided in the first round and their decisions are planned and determined. Again, will is discussed in detail in
New Headway Intermediate Unit Five under future forms. It expresses a future fact or prediction, decision, intention or offer made at the moment of speaking. Will is contrasted, both in theory and exercises, with going to and this time also Present Continuous which is used for personal arrangements in the future. Will is preceded by I (dont) think which stresses the speakers involvement in the assessment of the future. Eventually, Inside Out Intermediate includes will among the future forms in Unit Seven. The definition of its use is: to state a new decision, to make promises and offers. The use at the moment of making a decision is stressed. It is, of course, contrasted with the uses of going to and Present Continuous. Students read a conversation and choose among these forms the correct one in the particular sense. Completion of short conversations with own ideas and replies makes students think about the meanings and uses of the three forms they choose from. Intermediate Unit Nine focuses on will for the future and its connection with continuous and perfect forms. First, the Language reference sums up the use of will for prediction, promises and offers, refusals and requests. Then, will with be + -ing is used for an action around a time in the future the action starts before and finishes after a specific point. The structure will + Past participle describes a future event from the point of view of a later time. Timelines accompany the explanations and show examples. Lexical time expressions help students to talk about the future. The exercise contains a womans timetable and students complete sentences with suitable structures. Then they write similar sentences about themselves and make predictions about themselves, their partner and their country. Moreover, will forms part of conditional sentences (first conditional). It expresses a probable result after a possible condition is fulfilled. In Unit Nine of New Headway PreIntermediate, students make chains of conditional sentences. Similar focus is in Intermediate Unit Eight.
The use of will for prediction is well depicted in Inside Out better than in New Headway where practise is neglected. Often, will is presented in comparison with other expressions that are used to talk about the future such as be going to and the present continuous. The advantage is that students can see the differences in meanings and uses of these forms. On the other hand, not enough practice of individual structures on their own can be seen as a disadvantage, especially when they are introduced for the first time.
5.6 WOULD
The central meaning of would is remote inevitable truth. Lewis (1986) defines would: Given the (hypothetical) situation which I perceive at the moment of speaking, the action described is also inevitably true. Would is related to will it is its remote form and it expresses an event which is psychologically remote for the speaker. Such psychological remoteness explains sentences such as We would go there a lot when I was a child to which Lewis ascribes the feeling of nostalgia (1986: 121-2). Eastwood (2005) specifies, would is sometimes used to talk about past habits in formal and written English (117). Palmer (1988) agrees that would refers to habitual actions or activities in the past (139). Like with will, the speaker assesses two situations. However, with would, the first perceived state is, at the moment of speaking, remote from the speaker, in a non-factual way. The speaker, at the moment of speaking, conceptualizes the action as hypothetical, i.e. non-factually remote (Lewis 1986: 122). Thus Lewis explains the use of would in conditional sentences: would is associated with events which are hypothetical for the speaker; in this context hypothetical means true in certain
circumstances, not those currently prevailing. Such circumstances are usually described in a clause beginning with when, if or unless (1986: 122). In addition, questions (requests) starting with Would you? are considered polite forms. They differ from Do you? because they are distanced from the speaker and refer to the perception of the listener at the moment of speaking (Lewis 1986: 123). Quirk et al. (1985) present the use of would for prediction in the past (228). Also according to Biber et al. (1999), would marks logical prediction and personal volition. However, the meaning of prediction is more frequent than the meaning of volition (496). Yule (1998) confirms Lewiss idea of remoteness. He sees in would the combination of remoteness and likelihood In many cases, remote likelihood is interpreted as not very likely at all (i.e. hypothetical). Quite often, the sense of remoteness comes from reported versions of what was said or thought (104). Close talks abut the use of would instead of will in past indirect speech (1992: 97). Parott (2000) describes the use of would to express future in the past (129). The psychological remoteness of would can be explained as remoteness in time or remoteness of the inevitability of the situation. Yule (1998) differentiates past habitual behaviour which consists of remoteness in time (i.e. past) with predictability of action, and conditional use in sentences about hypothetical situations consisting of remoteness in possibility with prediction (105). Close (1992) adds to the idea of conditional would, In conditional sentence the past tense in the if-clause attracts would in the main (97). Eastwood adds that, with would, there is often a phrase or clause explaining the situation that the speaker is imagining (2005: 116). According to Close (1992), would allows the speaker to make a statement but with less certainty than with will (99). Parott (2000) observes that we use would to speculate, express hypothetical meaning, describe what we are imagining (126-27). When the speakers consider the situation as hypothetical, their
prediction about the inevitability of the future action is less certain than, and thus remote from, that with will.

Most other meanings of would can be ranked as lexical expressions or functions in social conversation. Palmer (1988) mentions the following uses: would as a past tense form of will for volition, would as the tentative form of will when used for suggestions, and also as requests in questions (139-40). Eastwood (2005) presents various lexical combinations of would, e.g. would like, would mind, and would rather. Would like has the same meaning as want but it is used more often when we ask for things. It is also used in questions containing offers and invitations. With combinations of would with love, hate or enjoy, we express what we want or do not want to do. Would mind is used in negatives and questions. Would rather (not) (+ infinitive without to or a clause) means prefer or would prefer and its synonym is would sooner (116-17).
5.6.3 Coursebooks
The only use of would in Lewiss meaning of remote inevitability of actions appears in Inside Out Intermediate. Unit Eleven focuses on the meaning of would which shows that we are talking or writing about a situation that is imaginary or improbable. The exercise offers the idea of various exotic places, e.g. Siberia, Hawaii, and students describe the place. They, in fact, predict the state and actions that happen in such, for them, hypothetical places. Often, would appears in coursebooks in conditional sentences. In New Headway PreIntermediate Unit Twelve, would is part of the second conditional. It expresses a probable result of an unreal or improbable condition in the present or future. The introduction outlines the
unreality in a text about a girl who dreams about being a princess. Students practise sentences in which they connect unreal situations and their results; later they say what they would do in certain unreal situations. Giving advice using If I were you, Id follows. Intermediate book includes would in the outline of conditional sentences which express unreal or improbable situations. It stresses the difference between first conditional (using will) and second conditional (using would): it lies not in time but probability. Next, the use of would in conditionals appears in Unit Seventeen Inside Out Pre-Intermediate. An example sentence If you were an animal, what animal would you like to be? makes students realize that we describe an unreal situation. The following exercise always describes a real situation and students must reverse it into unreal and complete it. They also discuss moral dilemmas concerning money, stealing or partnership and say what they would do in such situations. Inside Out Intermediate Unit Fourteen and Fifteen introduce unreal conditionals, including the unreal past with would have, and students practise them in completing sentences or commenting unreal past situations presented to them in short texts. Thus, in conditional sentences, Lewiss remoteness is present in the other clause which sets the situation as hypothetical. Students then use would and predict the action in such situation. Further use of would is in lexical expressions rather than in grammatical structures. The first mention of would is in New Headway Elementary Unit Nine in the expression would like for offers and requests. Not much about the structure of the verb would is mentioned. The topic of this unit is Food and would like is used and practised in conversations offering and requesting food and beverages. Thus the main use of would for prediction is neglected in favour of its volitional meaning. However, it seems more important for students of English to know the usage of this modal verb in everyday conversation. It enriches their stock of polite social phrases without overloading them with complex grammatical issues. Like Headway, Inside Out Elementary first introduces would like in a conversation between a shop assistant and a customer.
No grammar is explained students just complete the dialogue and then practise it. Inside Out Elementary Unit Twelve focuses on expressions of future and includes d (would) like to to talk about dreams or desires for the future. In these cases, the function of would in lexical phrases (would like) proves more important and useful for students than grammar exercises. Inside Out Intermediate Unit Five, surprisingly, uses would to talk about regular or repeated past actions. It stresses that it suggests a feeling of nostalgia and is often used for personal reminiscences. It is contrasted with used to which can be used not only for past actions but also for past states. Students transform simple past sentences into sentences with would or used to and change them so that they are true for them. Here, Lewiss remoteness lies in time. Inside Out presents Lewiss central meaning of would better than New Headway the basic meaning of remote inevitability is practised here on its own. In their other exercises, both coursebooks cover would in the second conditional. For this usage, unreal situations such as travelling to Africa, being an animal, president, and the opposite sex, having or finding a lot of money, are chosen similarly in both coursebooks. Students also learn to use would like to express their wishes and offers in polite conversations would is treated as a lexical expression enriching their social skills.
5.7 SHALL
The central meaning of shall is personal conclusion of inevitability. Lewis (1986) defines shall: According to my perception of the present situation, if its anything to do with me, its inevitable that (120). Although will and shall are similar in meaning, they are not
identical: shall has the meaning of will and the additional meaning if its anything to do with me (the speaker). Similarly, in questions it concerns you the listener (Lewis 1986: 120). According to Biber et al. (1999), shall is the least common modal in English (486). However, it is an important part of written legal and religious English, e.g. the Ten Commandments (Lewis 1986: 120). Lewis denies the fossil character of the verb and explains that shall contains the explicit involvement of the speaker in the creation of the inevitability. He quotes the song We Shall Overcome which expresses the personal commitment of each individual singer to the objectives of the group (1986: 120-21). Close (1992) points out that shall as a modal is also a mark of decision or determination on the part of the speaker(s) with regard to the actions of others he stresses the private colouring of shall and its ability to express the speakers deference to the wishes of the audience (99-100). Yule (1998) agrees that there is often a general element of determination on the speakers part in first person uses of shall and also a strong obligation interpretation associated with the use of shall (103). Lewis suggests that students should only know that shall is used in questions and in the phrase Lets, shall we? (1986: 121). According to Quirk et al. (1985), shall is used only in the first person and is rather formal. It is used for prediction and volition. In questions containing shall I/we, shall consults the wishes of the addressee, and thus moves from a volitional towards an obligational meaning (229-30). The common use in the first person results from Lewiss definition if it has anything to do with me and in questions if it has anything to do with the listener. Leech agrees with Lewiss idea of the personal concept of shall - shall implicates the will of the speaker which differentiates it from will (1971: 80). In all his three meanings of shall willingness, insistence and intention he stresses the part of the speaker. In strong volition, the listeners will is entirely subservient to that of the speaker. Leech stresses that, unlike will, shall signifies the
speakers volition, not the subjects (1971: 81-82). It is thus the speaker who feels responsible for, or in control of, the action. In Palmers view, with shall the speaker gives an undertaking, guarantees that an action will take place. Unlike may or must which permit or oblige someone else, shall guarantees that the speaker will act. It is also used formally after verbs of insisting, etc., where the speakers involvement is made quite explicit (1988: 141). The personal involvement of the speaker and hearer are present in the meaning of shall and differentiates it from other expressions of future inevitability such as will.

According to Biber et al. (1999), shall is typically used as volitional modal to express offers and suggestions (497). Palmer (1988) also mentions the use of shall in first person questions to make a suggestion or offer (142). Leech describes in more detail the three volitional meanings of shall: willingness on the part of the speaker (weak volition) is used rarely, mainly to pets and young children; insistence on the part of the speaker (strong volition) has very restricted use, and carries strong overtones of imperiousness, nowadays can be found in legal documents; and, finally, intention on the part of the speaker (intermediate volition) (1971: 81).
5.7.3 Coursebooks
The presentation of shall in coursebooks reflects its rare use in English and also follows Lewiss recommendation. The modal shall is mentioned in the Everyday English section Making suggestions in New Headway Elementary Unit Twelve. It is used in questions to ask for and make suggestions. This volitional function is the main function of the verb and is concerned with
the wishes of the speakers. Personal involvement emerges when students ask What shall we do? and Shall we? and suggest activities for nice and bad weather. The Grammar Reference in New Headway Intermediate describes the use of shall in questions with the first person expressing an offer, a suggestion or a request for advice. It appears in the Post Script sections which deal with conversational expressions Unit Four presents requests and offers (Shall I?), and Unit Eight suggestions (Shall we?). Inside Out Pre-Intermediate includes shall in Shall I? as a way to ask someone if we can do something for them an offer. Practical examples of the usage of shall in social English teach students how to use it in conversations.
5.8 SHOULD
The central meaning of should is personal conclusion of remote inevitability. Lewis (1986) considers should the problematic modal verb. It does not have only one use and it is difficult to find one central meaning. However, Lewis lists some characteristics of the meaning of should: it expresses a non-factual state, psychologically remote or distant from the speaker at the moment of speaking; it includes the hypothetical idea and the idea if its anything to do with me; it expresses two states in contrast with each other (123-24). Although Lewis does not supply a clear definition of should, in his view, should means this would happen if it was anything to do with me or I think it is desirable that or involving directly the speaker as far as I can see, it is reasonable to assume (1986: 124). Close (1992) supports Lewiss ideas: should suggests obligation (that is escapable) or action that is advisable. In his view, should makes a supposition and the speaker expresses hesitation but, at the same time, supposes the
statement (s)he is making to be true. This he calls suggestive or putative should (100-101). Yules conception of should reflects Lewiss definition I think it is desirable that: he sees the basic meaning of should in requirements which demand appropriate behaviour. Such obligations are weaker than must and are interpreted as the speakers advice or suggestion. Should also expresses the speakers reasonable assumptions and what is most probably the case (1998: 106-7). This agrees with Lewiss it is reasonable to assume. Quirk et al. (1985) claim the same: should expresses tentative inference it characterizes the noncommitted necessity the speaker does not know if his or her statement is true, but tentatively concludes that it is true (227). Palmer (1988) stresses the difference between must and should: must is discourse oriented and it lays an absolute obligation it does not allow that the event will not take place whereas should is subject oriented and expresses less absolute obligation and does not exclude non-compliance (132). Various uses of should gravitate around the meanings suggested by Lewis. According to Biber et al. (1999), the hedging modal should provides more polite expression of obligation than must and seldom expresses logical necessity (495). John Eastwood (2005) observes, we can also use should to say that something is probable, either in the present or the future. Moreover, should has the additional meaning of if all goes well (111). Palmer (1988) agrees that should also means It is likely or probable that (134). He adds that should is often used in subordinate clauses after expressions of surprise and similar feelings and quite often should occurs after the word reason (134-5). Furthermore, Lewis (1986) mentions some particular uses of should: to express weak probability; use in subordinate clauses introduced by that; in fixed phrases such as I should say/think/imagine; and with how and why (irritation showing sentences How should I know! and Why should I). However, he finds one combining element in all these and that is reference
to in circumstances other than those prevailing at the moment, i.e. hypothetical situations (124-5). For Parott, hypothetical situations bring a greater degree of uncertainty in should. Moreover, he expands Lewiss examples of use to subordinate clauses, where it has no connotations of obligation or logical deduction and usage after conjunctions in case and if; adjectives such as: anxious (that), concerned (that), delighted (that), etc.; verbs such as: demand (that), insist (that), recommend (that), request (that); nouns such as: (the) fact (that), (the) idea (that) (2000: 127, 129). Finally, Lewis warns teachers not to contrast would and should in their classes (1986: 126).
5.8.2 Coursebooks
In coursebooks, the most common function of should is to give advice or offer suggestion. It combines in itself all the main points that Lewis makes: it involves the speaker who expresses the desirable action. Also, it is only a hypothetical action because the listener is not in any way obliged to fulfil it. New Headway Elementary Unit Eight comprises the basic introduction to the forms of modal verbs and one of those that are presented here is should. It is used to express what the speaker thinks is right or the best thing to do mild obligation or advice. It is contrasted with must which expresses a strong obligation. An exercise presents some problems and students give advice. I (dont) think is added to make the advice more personal. Another exercise asks students to give advice to a foreigner who wants to visit the students country. The structure is also used in a reading exercise called Problem page in which students read the readers problems and suggested advice. They complete the text with expressions most of which contain should. Intermediate Unit Four contrasts must (mothers instructions) and should (friendly advice). Students complete sentences with I think you should or I dont think
you should according to their meaning in a conversation of two friends who want to travel. Then they practise the structure in giving advice in situations described in an exercise and they are encouraged to ask the class for advice with their own problems. Inside Out Elementary introduces should in Unit Fourteen as a tool for giving advice. After students complete sentences with too and (not) enough to express a problem, they put words in the correct order to make sentences with should to give advice. Then, they personalize them. Pre-Intermediate Unit Nine puts together must and should. Students read an extract from a book called The Rules which contains rules for dating using must or mustnt. Students then are invited to discuss their opinions and write advice using should and shouldnt. They also give advice to a person from a listening activity. Intermediate book again contrasts must and should in Unit Ten. The exercise shows the difference between higher or lesser importance of tasks. Students then write their list of things to do and talk about their priorities. The Language reference describes should as weaker (than must), used for less important obligation, or one that is not respected. As with some previous modal verbs, should is again contrasted with another modal must. The difference in strength is highlighted should is the milder version which does not order but only gives advice. Both coursebooks offer similar contexts for presenting should as a tool to suggest or advise problems and difficult situations. Students learn how to express their own opinions and politely offer help and suggestions in such situations.
5.9 MUST
The central meaning of must is necessity. Lewis (1986) defines must: I assert that it is necessary that The necessity may be of different kinds, for example, legal, moral, practical or logical (114). The necessity is subjective, and its source is the speakers own volition of perception (Lewis 1986: 105). Yule (1998) supports Lewis, the core concept [of must] is necessity, with socially-oriented (root) necessity being interpreted as an obligation, and knowledge-oriented (epistemic) necessity being interpreted as a conclusion. The deontic use of must ranges from strong obligation (i.e. order, legal requirement) to weak obligation (i.e. the speaker finds some action important). The verbs following must refer to present or future actions and they take animate (human) subjects. Moreover, the obligation meaning of must is often found in non-personal warnings and rules (97-98). Parott (2000) views must as expression of internal obligation (obligation which is imposed by the speaker) (127). Other grammarians explanations support necessity as Lewiss central meaning of must. According to Quirk et al. (1985), must expresses (logical) necessity: It implies that the speaker judges the proposition expressed by the clause to be necessarily true, or at least to have a high likelihood of being true. The speaker has drawn a conclusion from things already known or observed (224-25). Leechs meaning of must is that of logical necessity which he further weakens to logical assumption it is knowledge arrived at by inference or reasoning rather than by direct experience (1971: 72). This corresponds to Lewiss subjective judgement of necessity. In Closes view, must suggests that the truth of the speakers statement is
inescapable. The speaker feels no doubt about it (1992: 105). Thus speakers express their opinion that something is necessary.
Must is also used to express obligation and compulsion. Quirk et al. (1985) explain that the speaker is advocating a certain form of behaviour and is also exercising his or her authority (225). Leech agrees, the usual implication of must is that the speaker is the person in authority (1971: 72). This complies with Lewiss definition the speaker from his position asserts necessity. Leech adds, when used with the first person, must conveys the idea of selfcompulsion: the speaker exerts power over himself, perhaps through a sense of duty, through self-discipline, or merely through a sense of expediency (1971: 72). Also according to Palmer (1988), must is the modal used for necessity (122). He denies the definition It is necessary that and instead favours The only possible conclusion is that which specifically indicates a judgement by the speaker (Palmer 1988: 122-3). The notion of conclusion suggests the human element in the expression of necessity and thus complies with Lewiss definition. Biber et al. (1999) justify the prevailing use of must in its extrinsic meaning to mark logical necessity: they explain that the relative rarity of must marking personal obligation in conversation is probably due to the strong directive force this modal has when used in face-to-face interactions (495).

Besides necessity, must also expresses certainty. In Parotts view, we also use must to express 100% certainty (2000: 127). Also according to Eastwood (2005), must can express certainty The speaker sees it as necessarily and logically true. He differentiates the use of must with simple and continuous tenses the former expresses obligation, whereas the latter expresses certainty of an action (110-11). Palmer (1988) introduces other uses of must: issuing invitations or making offers in a host/guest situations, and idiomatic expressions such as I must say, I must confess, I must admit, I must agree etc. (125-6). Moreover, we sometimes
use must to recommend something enjoyable (Eastwood 2005: 105).
5.9.3 Coursebooks
In the coursebooks, must is never presented alone. It is always accompanied by, compared with, and contrasted to, other verbs such as should or have to. The differences between the verbs are highlighted and practiced in exercises. New Headway Pre-Intermediate Unit Eight mentions must for the first time. Students learn that must expresses strong obligation which comes from inside the speaker. Students are warned to be careful with the use of must, especially You must, to express obligation because it expresses authority and sounds bossy. More polite synonymic expressions are offered instead (e.g. Could you help me?). You must also expresses strong suggestion. In this unit, must is compared with should (mild obligation or advice) and have to (obligation which comes from outside an authority, law, or regulation). However, the practice neglects must and focuses on the other two expressions. Further, must appears in New Headway Intermediate Unit Four. Again, it is contrasted with should: an example of a mother giving orders to her son is given as opposed to advice received by a friend. Another exercise stresses the difference between must and have to: students decide in certain situations if the obligation is personal originated from the speaker or impersonal originated from an external authority. Unfortunately, any further free practice neglects must. Inside Out Pre-Intermediate presents must in Unit Nine. The introduction is in the form of The Rules an extract from a book that dictates its women readers what they must do to win the dating game. Strong orders with must and mustnt slightly surprise with their strictness. Students complete similar rules for men with must(nt). However, when they try to create their own rules, they are recommended to use should and shouldnt instead. Inside Out Intermediate Unit Ten
contrasts must, which is defined as a simple, strong obligation, and should again. The difference in the importance of tasks helps students to choose between these two modals. The exercise uses a list of things to do and students discuss priorities. New Headway Intermediate Unit Nine looks at modals and their use to express possibility and probability: must expresses the logical conclusion of a situation and it means logically probable. In the scale of several modal verbs, must implies the most certain inference. Exercises offer some facts and students make conclusions according to the possibility or probability of actions and states (also in the past). In Unit Eleven of Inside Out Intermediate, must appears in speculations and deductions about which students are absolutely sure. The definition is Im sure it is. In both cases, must represents an extreme on the scale from total positive certainty through uncertainty to total negative certainty. Moreover, New Headway Intermediate demonstrates the difference between past obligation (had to) and conclusion about the past (must have + past participle). The use of translation to show the difference (e.g. urit x muset) is highly recommendable. Both coursebooks teach must together with other modal or semi-modal verbs either in contrast or in a scale. The contrast lies in internal (must) and external (have to) obligation. Here the personal (internal) character of must proves too strong for the obligation and is therefore discouraged. Next, the strength of the obligation contrasts must with should. Again, should is favoured because the inevitability of the order makes must very strong and undesirable for communication. The coursebooks also pay attention to the meaning of logical necessity of must speakers make undoubted conclusion about real situations.
SEMI-MODALS AND OTHERS
Some verbs cannot be recognized as modals but they are often mentioned along with them
because they share similarities. They are called semi-modals. These verbs cannot be ranked as modals because they lack their grammatical characteristics. Unlike pure modals, we can use [semi-modals] in full range of tense forms. We can also use [them] after other modal verbs (Parott 2000: 123). Palmer (1988) specifies, semi-modals are closely related to modals, moreover, sometimes seeming to have the same meanings, sometimes indicating specific contrasts (106). According to Lewis (1986), these marginal modals are relatively rare and they do not always behave similarly (101). Biber et al. (1999) show that the most common semi-modals are have to, be going to, (had) better, (have) got to, used to and need to (489). Others that belong to this group are ought to, need, dare, be supposed to, be to, and be able to.
6.1 Have to
The meaning of the most common semi-modal have to expresses necessity. The difference between have to and must originates from the source of this necessity. All grammarians agree that this source is external to the speaker (Lewis 1986: 105). They describe the meaning of have to as: obligation independent of the speaker (Palmer 1988: 129);
obligation without the authority of the speaker (Leech 1971: 73); obligation by external forces which lacks the implication that the speaker is in authority (Quirk et al. 1985: 226); and obligation coming from some uncontrollable external source which can be some authority, regulation, or unavoidable circumstances (Yule 1998: 100,103). Next, the negatives of both verbs differ completely. The negative dont have to expresses objective non-necessity. The negation belongs to the necessity (Lewis 1986: 106). In other words, the obligation is absent. On the other hand, the negation mustnt expresses an obligation not to do something (Parott 2000: 126). Lewis (1986) explains the use of had to as the past of both have to and must: If the speaker
looks back on a past event and refers to necessity, that necessity will be objective (106). Being objective the past necessity cannot be expressed by any modal auxiliary. As has been described in section 5.9.3 above, coursebooks mostly contrast have to with must and exercises teach students to differentiate between internal and external obligation. They also practice have to and dont have to as presence of obligation and lack of it. Most exercises contain rules, regulations, traffic signs and public notices.
6.2 Be going to
Be going to is often compared to will in its meaning of future actions. According to Yule (1998), be going to is used to express the willingness associated with will and can replace it to express intention and prediction. However, it has an implication that the future action is related to the present and will occur relatively soon after the time of speaking. The literal meaning of the progressive aspect in this construction suggests that the subject is currently on a path moving towards a goal. This sense of currently being on a path can also create an implication that the action with be going to was already planned or decided. Yule also adds that in the epistemic uses, the event is predicted to occur right after the time of speaking (105-6). In Palmers view, be going to can be interpreted in terms of current orientation in that it relates to the future from the standpoint of the present or, if the verb is past, of the past. It is thus a future in the present or a future in the past. It includes decision or intention, sense of inevitability, and refers to the immediate future (1988: 146-7). As has been described in section 5.5.3 above, be going to is usually included in the coursebooks together with will and other future time expressions. Exercises offer suitable contexts and encourage students to choose the correct form depending on spontaneity or
premeditation of the future actions.
6.3 Ought to
Quirk et al. (1985) ascribe to ought to meaning similar to should (227). However, it is associated with what is externally, objectively, desirable, not the speakers perception of should. It carries connotations of right and wrong, of abstract desirability (Lewis 1986: 127-8). Moreover, ought to suggests an obligation the fulfilment of which is overdue or may be delayed (Close 1992: 102). Leech compares ought to to must the only difference being lack of full confidence in the fulfilment of the happening described by the main verb (1971: 94). Ought to is sometimes ranked as a modal (e.g. by Eastwood) and it can be used both as a full verb and an operator. Eastwood (2005) suggests that in negatives, questions, and short answers we normally use should (107). The reason may dwell in speakers hesitation whether to use ought to as an operator or as a full verb (with do for questions and negatives). Ought to does not appear in the coursebooks as a grammar topic. It may appear as a lexical item, however, remains unnoticed.
6.4 Need
Lewis (1986) places need close to the group of modal verbs because it is about necessity, and necessity is a modal concept. On one hand, it is treated as a full verb, on the other hand, in lexical items or linguistic fossils it is used as an operator. Lewis (1986) recommends considering it a full verb and teach expressions with the operator need as lexical items (128). Also according to Quirk et al. (1985), need expresses (logical) necessity and is thus synonymous
with must. It is used for obligation or compulsion (226). Leech places the meaning of need to half way between must and ought to (1971: 95). In Parotts view, we generally use need as a modal verb when we are in a position of authority and able to give permission or remove obligation (2000: 121). Palmer (1988) contradicts, need expresses a need or requirement without in any way suggesting that it implies obligation imposed by the speaker. He presents examples to show the difference between must and need: Must I go? Do you oblige me to go? vs. Need I go? ... Is there any need for me to go? (126-28). Close (1992) stresses the use of need with negative or interrogative meanings (94). Parott observes the difference between neednt to/dont need to and dont have to which lies in the lack of internal vs. external obligation (similar to the difference between must and have to). There is also difference between neednt have and didnt have (need) to the former refers to something which took place but was unnecessary whereas the latter refers to something which was unnecessary and so didnt take place (2000: 121, 125-6). Need does not appear in the coursebooks as a grammar topic. It may appear as a lexical item, however, remains unnoticed.
6.5 Dare
Lewis (1986) admits that dare is so rare in English that it could be ignored in teaching. Similarly to need, dare can be used in two forms: as a full verb (followed by to), or as an operator. Expressions featuring dare as an operator are rare and considered close to lexical items (128-9). Close (1992) points out the uses of dare with negative or interrogative meanings (94). Palmer (1988) defines dare as have the courage to (135). Eastwood (2005) explains the meaning of dare in more detail: If you dare to do something, you are brave enough to do it. If
you darent, then you are too afraid to do it. He mentions some common usage: we can use dare with would, and in a phrase How dare? when we want to protest angrily (119). Dare does not appear in the coursebooks as a grammar topic. It may appear as a lexical item, however, remains unnoticed.
6.6 Others
First, Yule (1998) considers be supposed to a weaker version of should used for obligation. Its implication lies in the fact that the social requirement being mentioned is external to the speaker and may be one that the speaker feels is being ignored (108). Eastwood (2005) states that it is used when we say what should happen because it is the rule, or it is the normal way of doing things, what people are expected to do, for something that is arranged or intended, and also when we talk about what people in general say or believe. The negative is used when something isnt allowed, and, when used in the past, for something that happened without permission (108). Close (1992) defines another semi-modal be to as follows, I am to (do something) means that I am obliged to do it by a plan, agreement, timetable or instruction, or something similar, which I am not free to ignore (103). Leech compares this construction to have (got) to and ought to it includes the specific idea of ordering or commanding. It can also be part of an official programme. Moreover, it appears in newspaper articles and headlines as Plan for the future, often with the verb to be omitted (1971: 96-8). Next, the basic use of had better (not) is to give advice (similar to should) (Parott 2000: 122). Close (1992) states shortly, had better suggests a course of action that seems advisable (110). Eastwood (2005) suggests that we use had better to say what is the best thing to do in a
particular situation and it is often accompanied by unpleasant consequences if the action is not taken. Moreover, it is stronger than should or ought to, and used more in speech than in writing (108). In colloquial English, it is often shortened to better (Leech 1971: 98). Another phrase be able to is similar to can in that it expresses ability (Parott 2000: 123). Close (1992) sees the advantages of be (un)able to in expressing the idea of can in the infinitive, present participle and present perfect (107). Moreover, it may concur with other modals or other verbs (Palmer 1988: 121). Yule (1998) admits that, although less common, be able to is often presented as a substitute for can, particularly when an ability interpretation is clear (94). The reason may be that it is more formal than can and thus found in written texts more often (Palmer 1988: 122). According to Eastwood (2005), we can use [could and was/were able to] to talk about a general ability in the past. But we use was/were able to (and not could) for an action in a particular situation. Lexical phrases succeeded in doing and managed to do are synonyms to be able to (115). And finally, there are other ways of expressing modal meanings (ability, possibility etc.). Parott mentions a range of adjectives, nouns and adverbs; for example possible, necessity, perhaps (2000: 130). Eastwood (2005) offers still other lexical means, e.g. its essential/vital, you are obliged to/required to, it was necessary, is not allowed/permitted, is prohibited, No picnics (mainly written), be sure to, be bound to, be (un)likely to (104,109-11). Close (1992) adds several other expressions which can be found in everyday conversation: might/may as well, would rather/sooner. He also mentions some other devices both verbal and non-verbal, e.g. seem or so called disjunct adverbials such as apparently (95, 110). Yule (1998) enumerates so-called modal adverbs, which express a kind of modality, e.g. certainly, maybe, perhaps, probably, clearly, hopefully, likely, obviously, seemingly, and surely. Moreover, he points out that modal meaning seems to be inherent in a number of English verbs: Advise, assume, believe, claim,
forbid, guess, imagine, order, permit, prohibit, seem, suggest, suppose, think, want, warn (113). Expressions in this section are treated in the coursebooks as lexical items, not in any way associated with, or incorporated into, the modal verbs.
7 OTHER OBSERVATIONS
Lewis describes the epistemic uses of modal verbs (possibility, necessity and prediction) rather than the deontic uses. However, Huddleston and Pullum (2002) claim that the deontic uses are more basic (178). Close (1992) supports them he attributes primary function to the deontic uses of modal verbs (95). Therefore, it sounds natural to look for the central meaning among these uses of permission, obligation and volition. However, Lewiss approach comprises certain logic. The fact that in his definitions of modals he focuses on their epistemic/secondary uses does not mean that he neglects or even ignores their root function. To make the explanation of modals easier for the students, slight abstraction and generalization is necessary. In other words, epistemic uses that Lewis stresses in his definitions are at the basis of deontic uses. Permission requires possibility, obligation presupposes necessity and prediction establishes volition. Moreover, Biber et al. (1999) support Lewiss approach and prove that epistemic uses are more frequent for most of the modals (491-96). Not only Lewis, but other grammarians consider the students effort to learn modal verbs. Parott (2000) approves of coursebooks that associate modal verbs to particular communicative function, so-called meaning and function labels. He gives examples: requesting can, would; offering may, would; asking for or granting permission can, cant; advising ought to/should/had better; suggesting could; inviting would. He considers it a helpful way of identifying the different uses of modal verbs for learners (120,124). Yule (1998) sees the most important role in teaching the meanings of modal verbs in context: In helping language learners to make sense of modals, it is important to encourage them to notice the context or circumstances in which those modal forms are used. He stresses the need for patience and support of teachers and lots of contextualized examples of these forms (91, 111). There has been sufficient
illustration how the coursebooks employ context for explanation and practise of modal verbs: should predominantly follows problems, might indecisiveness, and shall appears in asking for suggestions. The contextual situations in both sets of coursebooks are very similar. For more ideas, Yules Explaining English Grammar supplies common contexts and useful exercises for teaching modal verbs (111-17). The last comment refers to the summaries and multiple presentations of modals that appear in the coursebooks. Lewis suggests explaining the contrast between modal verbs and their explorations as a group for advanced students (1986: 126-127). However, in the coursebooks (with the highest level Intermediate), they are often presented together at earlier stages. Sometimes two or more (semi-)modals at the same time are introduced for the first time and, simultaneously, their nuances and specific uses depicted. For instance, must, should and have to, or will and going to. It appears from my experience that students find it difficult to learn something new and immediately understand its subtleties and particularities. Learners cannot concentrate on everything at the same time. A thorough practice of individual modals in relevant contexts before further comparisons or complex summaries is highly desirable.
8 CONCLUSION
To conclude, modal verbs constitute a complex issue in the English grammar. Epistemic, or extrinsic, modality is rather impersonal and expresses various degrees of logical likelihood. Deontic, or intrinsic, modality regulates interpersonal relations and expresses desirable behaviour. Modal or semi-modal verbs are often near synonyms in their meanings but differ in intensity and formality. Learners of English want to speak English well, master the language in a very short time, learn as easily as possible and avoid ambiguities and obscurities. They expect teachers to help them with all imaginable obstacles. Modal verbs prove to be one of such stumbling blocks. Michael Lewiss definitions of the central meanings of modal verbs contribute to the simplification of both teaching and learning. As he says, even in the complex area of the modal auxiliaries, there are powerful patterns which may be seen and understood, and which lead to a deeper understanding in individual examples (1986: 104). The central meanings that he assigns to individual modals help teachers and students to see them in more positive ways. The coursebooks of English as a second language New Headway and Inside Out mostly take advantage of Lewiss approach and present the modals in their central meanings with numerous examples of relevant contexts and situations and exercises that stress the main uses. Almost all meanings of the nine modal and several semi-modal verbs are gradually covered in the coursebooks. Sometimes, their explanation is reduced in favour of practical conversational phrases which use these verbs. The endeavour to clarify the system of modal verbs to students leads to simplification: various phrases with modals are taught for situations of requests, offers, suggestions, etc. However, this may encourage students to use modal verbs in conversation, which is one of the most important aims for all learners of English.
9 WORKS CITED
Primary sources
Kay, Sue and Vaughan Jones (2003). Inside Out Elementary: Students Book. Oxford: Macmillan. Kay, Sue and Vaughan Jones (2000). Inside Out Intermediate: Students Book. Oxford: Macmillan. Kay, Sue, Vaughan Jones, and Philip Kerr (2002). Inside Out Pre-Intermediate: Students Book. Oxford: Macmillan. Soars, Liz, and John Soars (2002). New Headway English Course Elementary: Students Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Soars, Liz, and John Soars (2000). New Headway English Course Intermediate: Students Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Soars, Liz, and John Soars (2002). New Headway English Course Pre-Intermediate: Students Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Secondary sources
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Longman. Close, R.A. (1992). A Teachers Grammar: The Central Problems of English. Hove: LTP. Eastwood, John (2005). Oxford Learners Grammar: Grammar Finder. Oxford: OUP. Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press. Leech, Geoffrey N. (1971). Meaning and the English Verb. London: Longman.
Leech, Geoffrey N. (1969). Towards a Semantic Description of English. London: Longmans. Lewis, Michael (1986). The English Verb: An Exploration of Structure and Meaning. Hove: LTP. Palmer, Frank Robert (1988). The English Verb. Harlow: Longman. Parott, Martin (2000). Grammar for English Language Teachers. Cambridge: CUP. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Saeed, John I. (1997). Semantics. Blackwell. Yule, George (1998). Explaining English Grammar. Oxford: OUP.
Internet sources
New Headway. Oxford University Press. 2 November 2006 <http://www.oup.com/elt/catalogue/isbn/3068/?cc=cz#cef> Inside Out. Macmillan. 2 November 2006 <http://www.insideout.net/course/profile.htm>

Diploma Thesis

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Diploma Thesis

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

Ing. Veronika Ubrov

Supervisor: Mgr. Jan Chovanec, Ph.D.

Will, would, shall

4 COURSEBOOKS FOR LEARNING ENGLISH

4.1 NEW HEADWAY ENGLISH COURSE

4.2 INSIDE OUT

5.1.2 Other meanings

5.2.2 Other meanings

5.3.2 Other meanings

5.4.2 Other meanings

understanding of the reality.

5.5.2 Other meanings

5.6.2 Other meanings

5.7.2 Other meanings

5.9.2 Other meanings

use must to recommend something enjoyable (Eastwood 2005: 105).

SEMI-MODALS AND OTHERS

premeditation of the future actions.

Potrebbero piacerti anche