Course paper_Expression of Necessity in English language

Document Sample
Course paper_Expression of  Necessity in English language Powered By Docstoc

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 2

MODAL VERBS .......................................................................................................................................................... 4

LANGUAGES............................................................................................................................................................. 28

CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................................ 39

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................................................... 40
      This Course Paper is devoted to the study of modal verbs that express
necessity in English and Romanian languages.
      The notion of modality (latin word ―modus‖ means ―measure‖, ―method‖) was
introduced into logic by Aristotel, then was developed in Kant‘s work, and passed to
the classical philosophical systems, lately the notion was applied into linguistic, and
mathematical logic.
       In linguistics modality is one of the most important feature of the sentence
V.V.Vinogradova, E.A. Zvereva, E.I.Belaeva, E.M.Gordon and other linguists
define modality as a wide category, inherent to any sentence and showing the
relation between the statement affirmed in the sentence and reality established by
     During a long time investigators study of modality but there are not unity
among them as to the nature of modality, its structure and meaning. Is modality the
category of morphology, syntax or semantics? In its turn, it influences the definition
of interdependency of such categories as mood, predictability and modality. Not all
the authors of scientific grammars differentiate logical and grammatical modality.
More detailed definition of modality gives G.A.Zlotova. This definition includes 3
1. The attitude of the statement to reality from the speaker‘s point of view.
2.    The     speaker‘s     attitude    to    the        content   of   the   statement.
3. The attitude of the action‘s subject to the action.
      In the realm of grammar, teaching the modal system of English can be
compared to walking a tightrope. Each modal can have more than one meaning and
each meaning is a member of an inter-related system. When a speaker chooses to use
one modal, s/he is deciding not to use any of the other modals, thereby indicating the
degree of emphasis. (Byrd, 1995) "The problem lies not in the surface positioning of

modals nor in their wide range of meanings, but in associating the right modal with
the right meaning." (Cook, 1978)
       Taking into consideration the above mentioned, the main goal of this paper
was set in the following way: to give a general characteristics of modal verbs and
especially of modal verbs that express necessity. :
       The objectives of the paper are the following:
   - to study the linguistic literature on the general and special problems of modal
   -   to   discuss   syncronic    and   diacronic      phenomena   in   the   English
       language which are related to 'mood and to determine and systematize all the
       modal verbs;
   - to present the characteristics and the usage of the modal verbs that express
        The language material for the investigation was taken from British,
American and Romanian lexicographical sources.
       The course paper consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion, a
       In the introduction, the main goal, objectives, the importance of the topic, the
material of the research are formulated and the methods of the analysis are
       In Chapter One, a number of essential theoretical problems (various
definitions and concepts) and development of modal verbs.
       Chapter Two is devoted to the analysis of modal verbs that deal with necessity
and translation them from English into Romanian.
       In the conclusion, the results of the research are mentioned, and the
conclusions are drawn. In the bibliography, the quoted and reference literature is

                                    Chapter One.
      Theoretical approach to the development and essence
                                of modal verbs
      Historical survey: the ancestors of modal verbs
      When using the terms ``historical survey‘‘, we intend to sum up what the
situation of the preterite-present verbs is from a diachronic and a synchronic point
of view.
      We use the word ancestors of modal verbs for many of them have become
modal verbs in contemporary English. The status of the preterite-presents is the
same whoever the different authors or grammarians are. Let us briefly sum up what
has been written about them, by Anglo-saxon writers.
      In his grammar of Old English, dealing with the different classes of verbs,
Alistair Campbell added:
      There is also a class of verbs known as the preterite-present verbs: they are not
numerous, but most of them are very common (Campbell (1959).
      Furthermore, Cynthia Allen considered that there existed no class nor category
for modal verbs:
      There is no justification for including the category ``modal‘‘ in the grammar
of Old English unless it can be demonstrated that modal verbs behave differently
from other verbs (Allen (1975) : 92).
      As for Ian Roberts, he drew a parallel between Old English, Middle English
and contemporary English:
      (...) modals were formerly much closer in distribution to main verbs than they
are in present-day English.
      (...) we assume that at least some of the premodals [les perfecto-presents] were
θ-assigning verbs base-generated in V. Since we have no evidence that a given
premodal was not base-generated in V, we extend this account to all premodals. So

we treat the ME [and OE premodals as a class as main verbs with sentential
complements (...).
      Anthony Warner finally concluded that:
      In OE, all [the preterite-presents] shared major properties with the rest of the
class of verbs, and were clearly to be identified as members of this class ([72] : 97).
      (...) the ancestors of today‘s modals and other auxiliaries share a range of
properties with verbs throughout Old and Middle English. And though some of these
properties (like the possession of a distinct subjunctive inflection) weaken, other
develop. Thus, there is evidence that these words continue to be rather closely
related to verbs even in late ME (Idem : 102).
      Following the quotations that have just been made, one has to remember that
the preterite-present verbs have always been considered as verbs so far, the same
way we consider strong and weak verbs.
      Preterite-present verbs thus display both the features of strong verbs (lack of
suffix and apophony) and of weak verbs (addition of a dental suffix in the past). To
this class of verbs should be added the anomal verb WILLAN. An anomal verb is an
athematic verb ending in *-mi, meaning the ending is directly added to the root
without the addition of a thematic vowel. In the Indo-European language (and later
on in Germanic), the endings for the first person singular in the indicative present
were *-mi, as in Greek ϵ ι-μι `I am‘ ; in Gothic, we have i-m and in Old English we
have bio-m `I am‘.
      The (morphological) structure of these verbs is thus: root + endings (case,
number, gender, person), whereas thematic verbs display the following structure:
root + thematic vowel + endings.
      The history of English modals. Let us continue with the standard assumption
that in the present-day language, modals are auxiliaries, verbal function words.
They occur as finite forms only, and in conjunction with an infinitive form without

to, as in I will do my homework; she might be going to the party; you can go to the
         Syntactically, they function essentially as sentence modifiers: I in I will do my
homework is the thematic subject of the predicate do my homework, not the subject
of will. Will expresses future time reference, which is evidence that it is not a lexical
verb. In the present-day language, modals lack inflections for person (first, second,
third) or number (sg, pl), and although they have forms which reflect a present/past
tense distinction historically, like will/would; can/could; may/might, these do not
now necessarily mark a present/past distinction: for instance, the choice of can/could
and may/might may reflect degrees of politeness, as in can/could you pass me the
salt? or degrees of confidence of a positive reply as in may/might I borrow your gold
fountain pen?
         In the Old English period, modals had many more characteristics typical of
lexical verbs. Evidence for this is that they could have objects and tensed clause
complements, and, though they were part of the special class of so-called preterite-
present verbs, they had a wider range of verbal inflections, including endings for the
subjunctive mood. Lightfoot (1979) discusses the chain of events through which the
Old English ‗premodals‘, as he calls them, changed to the present-day modals as a
paradigm case of a catastrophic change, a grammar change from one generation to
the next. This account has been the subject of much criticism, not all of it justified:
for instance, Plank (1984) argues that the history of the modals is a case of all
graduality, but Warner (1990; 1993) shows that there is an abrupt shift in the
behaviour of the modals in the early sixteenth century, although this is not a case of
grammar change in the sense of a parameter of grammar being reset. Rather, to the
extent that there is an abrupt change, it is a change in the lexical properties of modal
verbs, the modal verbs being reanalysed from main verbs of sorts to auxiliaries, i.e.
grammatical markers of mood.

        The account in Lightfoot (1979) recognizes the following changes affecting
the modals: 1
        (1) a. Modals lost the ability to take a direct object. According to Lightfoot,
this seems to have been complete in Middle English (fifteenth century) with the
exception of can, which was a good deal more resistant (seventeenth century).
        Most premodals belonged to the inflectional class generally known as
‗preterite presents‘. The notable thing about this class is that the third person sg did
not have the usual -e ending. Gradually, all the nonpremodals of this class were lost.
As a result, the premodals became a morphologically unique class.
        c. Because of phonological similarities in the endings, the opposition between
present and past as one of tense, and indicative and subjunctive as one of mood
became increasingly opaque, so that the present and past forms and levelled
subjunctive forms acquired separate modal meanings.
        d. There were changes connected with the rise of the to-infinitive. In Old
English, the premodals were never followed by to. The to-infinitive was firmly
established in the course of the fourteenth century, except with premodals. Lightfoot
concludes from this that at this stage the premodals were already beginning to be
recognized as a separate class.
        Following these changes, the premodals came to function as a separate class
inflectionally, syntactically and semantically. Evidence for this is that the premodals
(now modals) ceased to display a number of typically (main) verbal characteristics:2
        (2) a. They ceased to occur as infinitives.
        b. They could no longer occur with -ing-affixes.
        c. They could no longer occur in clusters.

  Lightfoot adds a fifth change to this list, based on a highly theory-internal word order argument. We have omitted
this for the sake of clarity.
   The changes listed in (2) should be seen in perspective: the four changes reduce to one, i.e. the loss of nonfinite
forms. But it is not the case that the modals before the reanalysis occurred in nonfinite forms on a large scale, and
some of them (e.g. may, must) never had any nonfinite forms, as discussed in Warner (1983).

      d. They could no longer occur with have and with -en-affixes.
      According to Lightfoot, the modals have now acquired too many exception
features to be learnable as lexical verbs. The Transparency Principle then predicts a
reanalysis; the form of this reanalysis is constrained by other principles of grammar,
and in this case the premodals changed into a different word category: that of
auxiliaries, grammatical function words. In this view of the history of modals, the
premodals were verbs and in one fell swoop underwent a radical categorial
reanalysis, changing into modal auxiliaries.
      While much of the ideology of Lightfoot‘s approach (1979) still stands, the
Transparency Principle has proved to be an undesirable and superfluous addition to
the theory of grammar. It is undesirable because it has no possible formal
characterization like other principles of grammar, as it is not clear what opacity in a
derivation really is. Also, it is implicit in the way Lightfoot illustrates the
Transparency Principle that reanalyses are only forced as the result of accumulating
exception features. This is not necessarily correct, as we will see below. Roberts
(1985) argues that the Transparency Principle is superfluous in that its results are
incorporated in the parameter-setting approach to language acquisition formulated in
Chomsky (1981).
      General characteristics of modal verbs
      The definition of the modal verbs
      In this part we give the definition of the modal verbs and describe their
peculiarities and functions. For all this we have looked through many books and
views of different authors to find the weightiest definition of the modal verbs.
According to the traditional point of view modal verbs are historically established
group of verbs. They are: ―can‖, ―may‖, ―must‖, ―ought to‖, ―shall‖, ―dare‖ and
since XVI cent. — ―need‖ and ―will‖. They differ from regular verbs and have the
auxiliary functions. Some linguists remove from this group some verbs, for example,
I.B. Khlebnikova excludes ―shall‖ and ―will‖, but others, contrary, introduce ―have‖

and ―be‖. I. Hakutany counts 19 modals, including such verbs and word phrases as
―have‖, ―be‖, ―used to‖, ―had better‖, ―had best‖, ―be going to‖, ―be about to‖, etc.
E.A. Zvereva, L.V. Kansanskaya, E.M. Gordon give the following definition: modal
verbs are used to show the speaker‘s attitude toward the action or state indicated by
the infinitive, i.e. they show that the action indicated by the infinitive is considered
as possible, impossible, probable, improbable, obligatory, necessary, advisable,
doubtful, uncertain, etc.
      As to L.G. Longman, verbs like ―can‖ and ―may‖ are called modal auxiliaries
though we often refer to them simply as modal verbs or modals. We frequently use
modals when we are concerned with our relationship with someone else. We may,
for example, ask for permission to do something; grant permission to someone; give
or receive advice; make or respond to requests and offers, etc. We can express
different levels of politeness both by the forms we choose and the way we say
    The bluntest command:
      E.g.: ―You must see a doctor.‖
      With a certain kind of stress, might be more kindly and persuasive than the
most complicated utterance:
      E.g.: ―I think it might possibly be advisable for you to see a doctor‖.
So, we can say that modals are a class of auxiliary verbs that combine with the base
form of a following verb to make verb phrases with a wide variety of meanings. The
modal exist in one form only. None of them has an -s-form or an - ing-form, and
although ―could‖, ―might‖, ―should‖ and ―would‖ are usually considered to be the
past tense of ―can‖, ―may‖, ―shall‖ and ―will‖, respectively, it is more convenient to
treat each modal as a separate item. However, these words do not always mean
―past‖ of anything, but have independent meanings of their own. Modals in the
affirmative are usually pronounced with weak stress. ―Will‖ contracts to ―11‖ and
―would‖ to ―d‖ after subject pronoun.

        Modals are followed by the infinitive without the article ―to‖ (with the
exceptions of ―ought to‖). Their interrogative and negative forms are built up
without the auxiliary ―do‖.
        In addition to the groups of modal verbs, ―to have‖ and ―to be‖ are widely
used to express modal meanings. In this case they are followed by the infinitive with
the particle ―to‖.
        L.G. Alexander defines two major functions of the modals. They are primary
and secondary. In their primary function, modal verbs closely reflect the meanings
often         given         first       in        most        dictionaries,        so      that:
-         ―can‖        /      ―could‖         -      relate       mainly          to     ability
E.g.: ―Can you drive?‖
        - ―may‖ / ―might‖ - relate mainly to permission
        The main uses of modals
          Modals are mainly used when we want to indicate our attitude towards what
we are saying, or when we are concerned about the effect of what we are saying on
the person we are speaking or writing to.
                 Attitude to information
        When we are giving information, you sometimes use modals to indicate how
certain      we      are   that     what     we    are   saying      is    true    or   correct.
For example, if we say ‗Mr. Wilkins is the oldest person in the village‘,
        We are giving a definite statement of fact.
          If we say ‗Mr. Wilkins must be the oldest person in the village‘, the modal
‗must‘ indicates that we think Mr. Wilkins is the oldest person, because we cannot
think of anyone in the village who is older than Mr. Wilkins. If we say ‗Mr. Wilkins
might be the oldest person in the village‘, the modal ‗might‘ indicates that we think
it is possible that Mr. Wilkins is the oldest person, because he is very old.
                 Attitude to intentions

        We can use modals to indicate our attitude towards the things we intend to do,
or intend not to do.
        For example, if we say ‗I won‘t go without Simon‘, we are expressing strong
unwillingness to do something. If we say ‗I can‘t go without Simon‘, we are
expressing unwillingness, but at the same time, we are indicating that there is a
special reason for our unwillingness. If we say ‗I couldn‘t go without Simon‘, we are
indicating that we are unwilling to go without Simon, because to do so would be
unfair or morally wrong.
             Attitude to people
        When we use language, we are affecting and responding to a particular person
or audience. Modals are often used to produce a particular effect, and the modal we
choose depends on several factors, such as the relationship you have with our
listener, the formality or informality of the situation, and the importance of what we
are saying.
        For example, it would normally be rude to say to a stranger ‗Open the door‘,
although we might say it in an emergency, or we might say it to a close friend or a
child. Normally, we would say to a stranger ‗Will you open the door?‘, ‗Would you
open the door?‘, or ‗Could you open the door?‘ depending on how polite we want to
             Use in complex sentence
        Modals have special uses in three kinds of complex sentence:
        1.    they are used in reported clauses
        Wilson      dropped        a       hint     that    he         might    come.
      I felt that I would like to wake her up.
        2.    they are used in conditional structures
             If the bosses had known that he voted liberal, he would have got the

             If only things had been different, she would have been far happier with
      1.       They are used in purpose clauses.
             He stole under the very noses of the store detectives in order that he
might be arrested and punished.
             They marched us through the town, so that they could say to the people.
Look at the great British army.
   Special features of modals
      1. Modals are followed by the base form of a verb.
             I must leave fairly soon.
             I think it wilt be rather nice.
             The rich ought to pay the tuition fees of their sons and daughters.
       Note that ‗ought‘ is sometimes regarded as a modal, rather than ‗ought to‘.
‗Ought‘       is   then       said   to     be     followed   by    a    ‗to‘-infinitive.
Sometimes a modal is followed by the base form of one of the auxiliary verbs
‗have‘ or ‗be‘ followed by a participle.
      When a modal is followed by ‗be‘ and a present participle, this indicates that
you are talking about the present or the future.
             People may be watching.
             You ought to be doing this.
             The play will be starting soon.
      When a modal is followed by have‘ and a past participle, this indicates that we
are talking about the past.
             You must have heard of him.
             She may have gone already.
             I ought to have sent the money.
      In passive structures, a modal is followed by ‗be‘ or ‗have been‘ and a past

            The name of the winner will be announced.
            They ought to be treated fairly.
            Such charges may have been justified.
      A modal is never followed by the auxiliary verb ‗do‘. or by another modal.
      2. Modals do not inflect. This means there is no ‗-s‘ form in the third
inflections person singular. and there are no ‗-ing‘ or -ed‘ forms.
            There‘s nothing I can do about it. lam sure he can do it.
            I must leave fairly soon. She insisted that Jim must leave.
      ‗Could‘ is sometimes thought to be the past tense of ‗can‘.
      3. Negatives are formed by putting a negative word such as ‗not‘ immediately
after the modal. In the case of ‗ought to‘, we put the negative word after ‗ought‘.
‗Can not‘ is usually written as one word. ‗cannot‘.
            You must not worry.
            He ought not to have done so.
            I cannot go back.
      After ‗could‘. ‗might‘, ‗must‘, ‗ought‘, ‗should‘, and ‗would‘, ‗not‘ is often
shortened to ‗-n‘t‘ and is added to the modal.
            You mustn‘t talk about Ron like this.
            Perhaps I oughtn‘t to confess this.
      ‗Shall not‘, ‗will not‘, and ‗cannot‘ are shortened to ‗shan‘t‘, ‗won‘t‘, and
‗can‘t‘. ‗May not‘ is not shortened at all.
            I shan‘t get much work done tonight.
            He won‘t be finished for at least another half an hour.
            I can‘t go with you.
      4. Questions are formed by putting the modal in front of the subject. In the
case of ‗ought to‘, you put ‗ought‘ in front of the subject and ‗to‘ after it.
            Could you give me an example
            Ought you to make some notes about it?

            Mightn‘t it surprise people?
           Why could they not leave her alone?
           There are many questions we cannot answer, but must we not at least
ask them?
      5. Modals are used in question tags.
           They can‘t all be right, can they?
           You won‘t forget the canary, will you?
      With a negative tag, the shortened form of the negative is used.
           It would be handy, wouldn‘t it?
           It‘ll give you time to think about it, won‘t it?
      6. In spoken English, when ‗will‘ and ‗would‘ are used after a pronoun,
they are often shortened to ‗-‗Il‘ and ‗-‗d‘ and added to the pronoun.
           I hope you‘ll agree.
            She‘ll be all right.
           They‘d both call each other horrible names.
           If I went back on the train, it‘d be better,
      ‗Will‘ and ‗would‘ cannot be shortened like this when they are used on their
own, without a following verb. For example, we can say ‗Paul said he
would come, and I hope he will‘, but we cannot say ‗Paul said he would
come, and I hope he‘ll‘.
      7. We sometimes use a modal on its own, without a following verb.
we do this when we are repeating a modal. For example, if someone says ‗I expect
Margaret will come tonight‘, we can say ‗I hope she will‘, meaning ‗I hope she will
      ‗I must go. ‗—‗I suppose you must.‘
      ‗You should have become an archaeologist. ‗—‗You‘re dead right. I should.‘
If you can‘t do it, we‘ll find someone who can.

      We can also omit the verb following a modal when this verb has just been
used without a modal, or with a different modal. For example, if someone says
‗George has failed his exam‘, you can say ‗I thought he would‘, meaning ‗I thought
he would fail his exam‘
       You     learned     to    deal       with   each      other.     We   never      will.
They had come to believe that it not only must goon for ever but that it
      However, we cannot omit the verb ‗be‘ after a modal when we have just used it
without a modal. For example, if someone says ‗Is he a teacher?‘
you cannot say ‗I think he might‘. We must say ‗I think he might be‘.
       Linguistics    is   not   yet    a    science   and    perhaps    never   will    be.
The Board‘s methods are not as stringent as they could be.
      Relations between the two countries have not been as smooth as they
might have been.
      The feature of language in which you omit certain words to avoid repeating
them is called ellipsis.
      Must / have to / need

      The use of must
      1. To express obligation, command, necessity. In this case its substitute is to
have to:
            Today is Thursday, so Mike must go to school. He had to go to school
yesterday and he will have to go there tomorrow, too. (obligation)

          In socially—oriented (root) uses, there is a range of imposition from strong
obligation, which can be interpreted in terms of an order or even a legal requirement,
as in the following example:
               a. You must wear a seat belt when driving.
               b. You must concentrate on one thing at a time;
      This is to weak obligation, which comes simply from the speaker‘s sense of
the importance of some action, as in [b]. The weak obligation sense of ‗necessity‘
allows speakers to express self-imposed obligations with first person subjects.
          a. I must remember to feed the cat later.
          b. I must try harder next time.
      Conceptually, the imposition of an obligation rends to apply to present and
future actions (rather than states). It also involves animate subjects (typically
humans) who are capable of performing those actions. The obligation meaning of
must is often found in non-personal warnings and rules of the type shown in
     a. Door must be closed when machine is in operation.
      b. Students must pay course fees before attending classes.
      An interesting development in contemporary English is the use of must in
statements that indicate a desire to meet some social obligation, but which are
actually interpreted as vague arrangements rather than fixed events. As illustrated in
the examples below, these expressions seem to carry the meaning that the social
obligation is recognized as necessary, but the actual occurrence of the event that will
fulfill the obligation is not to be fixed. The social obligation is being met by
expressing            awareness             of           the           social        obligation.
     a.       You      must     come        to     see      us     one     of     these   days.
     b.        We        must       get          together        for      lunch       sometime.
English is not alone in having expressions of social obligation (without specific
arrangements) and learners can quickly recognize the use of these types of
expressions once they are explained or clearly illustrated.

            You must show me your identity card. (command)
            They must write all the exercises if they want to understand this theorem
well. (necessity)
      Must expresses an obligation imposed by the speaker. But, when this
obligation is external, that is it is imposed by external authority or circumstances
which the speaker cannot control, to have to is employed:
            I have to tell my little daughter a story whenever she asks me.
      The negative form, must not, expresses prohibition, an obligation not to do
            Cars must not stop at the crossings.
      The absence of obligation is never rendered by must not, but by don‘t have to,
haven‘t (got) to or needn‘t:
            Pupil: ―Must we do exercise 5, too?‖
Teacher: a) ―Yes, you must.‖
            b)      ―No,   you    don‘t     have     to/haven‘t       got   to/needn‘t.‖
In Indirect Speech must expressing obligation remains as such or changes to had to
when the introductory verb is in the Past Tense or Past Perfect Tense:
            ―I must learn all these new words,‖ the boy explained.
            The boy explained that he must/had to learn all those new words.
      The negative form, must not, remains unchanged in Indirect Speech
            ―You must not cross the street when the traffic light is red;‖ mother
advised her son.
            Mother advised her son that he must not cross the street when the traffic
light was red.
      2. To express deduction, a logical conclusion, probability:
            If she left home at 7, she must be at the airport now.
            It is very cold; it must have snowed in the mountains.

      The negative deduction is expressed by can’t/couldn’t + Present/Perfect
             If she hasn‘t learnt anything up to now, she can‘t pass/can‘t have
passed such a difficult exam.
      Must expressing probability in such a sentence as:
             She          must              be                at       school            now.
can be replaced by:
             I‘m sure/certain/positive she is at school now.
             Certainly/Obviously she is at school now.
             It‘s likely/probable that she is at school now.
             Probably she is at school now.
             She is likely to be at school now.
      In its knowledge—oriented (epistemic) uses, must indicates that some
conclusion is necessary, given the speaker‘s assessment of what is known. That
conclusion has the status of an inference and signals an assumption that no other
explanation is available. Conceptually that conclusion tends to be about past and
present stares, as well as actions. It can refer to non-animate subjects and can
involve events viewed retrospectively (with perfect aspect) or internally (with
progressive                aspect),                    as              shown               in.
       a. Oh no, a traffic jam. There must have been an accident.
       b.     The   computer      is   on,        so        someone   must   be   using     it.
                           The meanings of must

      As noted in the table, the negative form, mustn‘t or must not, is used to
communicate an obligation, that is, with root meaning. It is not typically used with
epistemic meaning.
      1. Must, must not and need not compared to the other forms.
      a. Must, must not and need not express the speaker's authority:
      You must do your homework before you watch tv.
      You must not turn the tv till you have done your homework.
      You needn't do your homework tonight. You can leave it till tomorrow.
      b. The other forms have to/will have to/had to and won't/don't/didn't need to
express external obligation:
      TOM'S SISTER: Tom is starting work next week. He'll have to get up early.
He'll hate that.
      Sometimes MUST and NEED NOT can be used for external obligation also.
      is quite often used in this way, especially in the first person.
      2. Must not and need not compared.
      a. MUST NOT expresses negative obligation or the speaker's emphatic advice:
      You must not tell anyone
      ZOO NOTICE: Visitors mustn't feed the giraffes.
      RAILWAY NOTICE: Passengers must not walk on the railway line.

      a. Obligation.
      Must can be used to give strong advice or orders to oneself or other people.
      I really must stop smoking.
      You must be here by eight o'clock at the latest.
      When must is used the obligation comes from the speaker. If the obligation
comes from
      outside must is possible but HAVE TO is more common.
      I have to work from 9.00 a.m. till 5.00 p.m.
      In questions, must is used to ask about the wishes or intentions of the person
one is speaking to.
      Must I clean all the rooms?
      Why must you always leave your dirty clothes in the bathroom?
      In negative sentences, DON'T NEED TO, NEEDN'T or DON'T HAVE TO, is
used to say that there is no obligation; MUSTN'T is used to tell people no to do
      You needn't work tomorrow if you don't want to.
      You mustn't move any of the papers on my desk.
      Must can only be used to refer to present and future obligation. To talk about
the past, had to is used.
      I had to leave early because I wasn't feeling well.
      b. Deduction.
      Must can be used to say that we are sure about something (because it is
logically necessary)
      Mary must have some problem: she keeps crying.
      I'm in love. That must be nice.

      There's the doorbell. It must be Roger.
      Must is only used in this way in affirmative sentences. In questions and
negatives we use can or can't instead.
      That can't be the postman. It's only seven o'clock.
      What do you think this letter can mean?
      Must is used with the perfect infinitive for deductions about the past. (can and
can't for questions and negatives)
      We went to Majorca. That must have been nice.
      The lights have gone out. A fuse must have blown.
      I don't think he can have heard you. Call again.
      Where can John have put the matches?
      He can't have thrown them away.
      In reported speech, must can be used after a past reporting verb as if it were a
past tense.
      (Only in that case, must refers to the past).
      I decided that I must stop smoking.
      I felt there must be something wrong.
      HAVE TO
      Have to is used, with a following infinitive, to express the idea of obligation.
      How often do you have to travel on business?
      Sorry I have to go now.
      We make a distinction between habitual or repeated obligation, and non-
habitual obligation. When there is the idea of repetition we use ordinary verb-forms,
with do in questions and negatives.
      I don't usually have to work on Sundays.
      Do you often have to speak French in your job?
      When we are talking about one thing that we are obliged to do, it is more
usual to use got-forms.

      I haven't got to work tomorrow.
      Have you got to do any interpreting this week?
      Got-forms are unusual in the past, and are replaced by ordinary verb-forms of
infinitive and participles.
      Did you have to go to Church on Sundays when you were a child?
      To talk about the future, both have to and will have to are common.
      I've got to get up early tomorrow. We're going to Devon.
      1. Both of these verbs are used to talk about obligation.
      Must is most often used to talk about an obligation that depends on the person
speaking or listening: if I say that you or I must do something, I probably mean that I
feel it is necessary.
      Have to is generally used to talk about obligations that come from "outside".
      I must stop smoking (I want to).
      You must try to get to work on time (I want you to)
      I must make an appointment with the dentist (I've got toothache)
      This is an awful party, we really must go (I want us to go).
      You've got to go and see the boss (he wants you to).
      Catholics have to go to Church on Sundays (their religion tells)
      I've got to see the dentist tomorrow (I have an appointment).
      This is a lovely party, but we've got to go because of the baby-sitter.
      2. Must, in questions, asks about the wishes of the person one is speaking to.
      Do your homework. Oh, must I?
      3. Must has no past form; past obligation is usually expressed by using had to
(except in reported speech)
      When I was your age I had to get at 5 every morning.
      I told him he mustn't make a decision.

      4. The negative forms mustn't and don't have to have quite different meanings.
      You mustn't tell George (Don't tell him)
      You don't have to tell George (You can if you want but it isn't necessary)
      5. Instead of don't have to and haven't got to, needn't is often used in British
      You needn't tell George.
      NEED. Use.
      a. The ordinary forms of need are much more common than the modal
auxiliary forms. The only modal form which is often used is needn't.
      You needn't try to explain.
      Do you need to stay this evening?
      When the modal forms are used, they usually refer to immediate necessity;
they are often used to ask for or give permission -usually permission not to do
something. Ordinary verb forms are more common when we talk about habitual,
"general" necessity. Compare:
      (1) We needn't book a table. The restaurant won't be full.
      Need I do the washing up? I'm in a hurry.
      (2) Do you need to get a visa if you go to Mexico?
      b. Present tense forms of need can be used to talk about the future, but will
need to is often used to give advice. Compare:
      (1) Need I come in early tomorrow? (Or, Do I need to come in...)
      I need to get the car service soon.
      (2) You'll need to star work soon if you want to pass your exams
      c. Affirmative modal forms are possible after negative verbs, and in sentences
which express doubt or negative ideas.
      I wonder if we need take sleeping-bags.
      I don't think he need go just yet.

      The only thing you need do is fill in this form.
      (You don't need to do anything else)
      Note that these affirmative modal forms are mainly used in a formal style. In
informal usage we would probably use the ordinary forms.
      I wonder if we need to take sleeping-bags.
      I don't think he needs to go just yet.
      The only thing you need to do is fill in this form.
      d. Note the difference between needn't and mustn't. Needn't is used to say that
there is no obligation; mustn't expresses an obligation not to do something.
      You needn't tell Jennifer. She already knows.
      You mustn't tell Margaret. I don't want her to know.
      NEEDN'T + perfect infinitive.
      If you say that somebody needn't have done something, it means that he did,
but that it was unnecessary:
      You needn't have woken me up: I don't have to go to work today.
      I needn't have bought all that wine. Only three people came.
      The ordinary past (didn't need to) is not quite the same. Compare:
      She needn't have hurried (It wasn't necessary but she did)
She didn't need to hurry (It wasn't necessary. We don't know if she did).
      Handling modal forms
      As we have mentioned modality is a semantic category indicating the degree
of factuality that the speaker ascribes to hit message. A message can be presented by
its author as a statement of facts, a request or an order, or something that is
obligatory, possible or probable but not an established fact. Modal relationships
make up an important part of one piece of information conveyed in the message.
There is a world of difference between asserting that something is and suggesting
that it should be or might be.

       Obviously a translation cannot be correct unless it has the same modality as
the source text. The translator must be able to understand various modal
relationships expressed by different means in Source Language and to choose the
appropriate means in Target Language.
       English makes use of three main types of language units to express modal
relationships: modal verbs, modal words and word groups, and mood forms.
       Modal verbs are widely used in English to express various kinds of modality.
The translator should be aware of the fact that an English modal verb can be found
in some phrases the Romanian equivalents of which have no particular modal forms.
As example may serve the following sentences:
              - She can speak and write English.
       Ea ştie să vorbească şi să scrie în Engleză.
              - I can see the English coast already.
       Eu văd deja ţărmul Angliei.
              - Why should you say it?
       De ce spui asta?
       There is no direct correspondence between the English and Romanian modal
verbs and the translator should choose the appropriate word which fits the particular
context. The meaning of the verb ―should‖, for example, in the sentence ―You should
go and see him‖ may be rendered in various circumstances by one of the Romanian
verbs expressing obligation: a) Tu trebuie să-l vizitezi; b) Tu ar trebui să-l vizitezi;
c) ar fi de dorit să-l vizitezi.
       Most English modal verbs are polysemantic. So ―must‖ can express obligation
or a high degree of probability. ―May‖ implies either probability or moral possibility
(permission). ―Can‖ denotes physical or moral possibility, etc.
       But when a modal verb is used with a Perfect Infinitive form, it loses, as a
rule, its polysemantic character. Thus, ―must have been‖ always implies certainty,
―may have been‖, probability, while ―can‘t have been‖, improbability. It should also

be noted that the Perfect Infinitive may indicate either a prior action (after ―must‖,
―may‖, ―cannot‖) or an action that has not taken place (after ―should‖, ―ought to‖,
―could‖, ―to be to‖).
             e.g. He must have told her about it yesterday.
      Probabil că el i-a spus ei despre asta ieri.
             e.g. He should have told her about it yesterday.
      El trebuia să-i spune ei despre aceasta ieri.
      Special attention should be given to the form ―might have been‖ where the
Perfect Infinitive can have three different meanings: a prior action, an action that has
not taken place and an imaginable action.
             I might have spoken too strongly.
      Posibil (probabil) că am fost prea crunt.
             You might have done it yourself.
      Tu ai putea să faci asta de sinestătător (singur).
             To hear him hell his stories he might won the war alone.
      (Dacă să asculţi) După spusele lui, poţi să-ţi imaginezi că el a învins în război.
      Among other means of expressing modality mention should be made of
paranthetical modal words: ―certainly‖, ―apparently‖, ―presumably‖, ―allegedly‖,
―surely‖, ―of course‖, ―in fact‖, ―indeed‖, ―reportedly‖ and the like as well as similar
predicative structures: ―it is reported‖, ―it is presumed‖, ―it is alleged‖, etc. They
may all express various shades of modal relationships and the translator cannot be
too careful in selecting appropriate Romanian equivalents. For instance, ―indeed‖
may be rendered as ―mai mult ca atît, într-adevăr‖; ―in fact‖ – ―într-adevăr‖, ―above
all‖ – ―mai întîi de toate, mai mult ca orice‖.
      - He was never a useful assistant to me. Indeed, he was rather a nuistance.
      El niciodată nu mi-a fost de ajutor. Mai mult ca atît, el mai degrabă mă

      The English mood forms give relatively little trouble to the translator since he
can, as a rule make use of the similar moods in Romanian. Note should be taken,
however, of those forms of the English Subjunctive which purely structural and
express no modal meanings that should be reproduced in translation.
            - It is important that everyone should do his duty.
      E important ca fiecare să-şi facă datoria.
            I suggest that we all should go home.
      Eu propun să plecăm cu toţii acasă.
      While handling modal forms the translator should not forget that while the
English language has practically no modal particles, the Romanian language has.
Whenever necessary, Romanian particles (doar, măcar, de, ş.a.) should be used to
express modality which is expressed in the source text by other means or only
            e.g. After us the deluge.
      După noi măcar potop.

    Chapter Two. Expression of necessity in English and
                       Romanian modern languages
      Modality is a category of linguistic meaning having to do with the expression
of possibility and necessity. A modalized sentence locates an underlying or prejacent
proposition in the space of possibilities (the term prejacent was introduced by
medieval logicians).
       Sandy might be home says that there is a possibility that Sandy is home.
Sandy must be home says that in all possibilities, Sandy is home.
     The counterpart of modality in the temporal domain should be called
―temporality‖, but it is more common to talk of tense and aspect, the prototypical
verbal expressions of temporality. Together, modality and temporality are at the
heart of the property of ―displacement‖ (one of Charles F. Hockett‘s design features
of human language) that enables natural language to talk about affairs beyond the
actual here and now.
      There are numerous kinds of expression that have modal meanings, the
following is just a subset of the variety one finds in English:
      (1) Modal auxiliaries
       Sandy must/should/might/may/could be home.
       (2) Semimodal Verbs
       Sandy has to/ought to/needs to be home.
       (3) Adverbs
       Perhaps, Sandy is home.
       (4) Nouns
       There is a slight possibility that Sandy is home.
       (5) Adjectives
       It is far from necessary that Sandy is home.
       (6) Conditionals

       If the light is on, Sandy is home.
      It is traditional to use English modal auxiliaries or semimodal verbs as the
primary source of illustrative examples. This is in spite of the fact that these
elements have a rather curious set of grammatical properties. Indeed, it appears that
modal meanings are part of a natural logical vocabulary and thus elements with
modal meanings easily become part of the inventory of grammatical or functional
morphemes, which are typically associated with idiosyncratic, nonproductive
grammatical characteristics.
      Speaking about Romanian language, we can state that there are not modal
verbs in it, as a substitute we have modal constructions. They have the following
functions in the sentence: possibility, necessity, willingness, etc.
      For example: ar trebui să demareze.
      They appear clearly in constructions where they show time, mode, person,
      They form close ties with the verb they are followed. Moreover, they create an
impression that they are single meaningful unit but not two different actions.
      External Necessity (Necesitatea externă) in English is determined by the
external factors and is represented by the modal verb must, used as a form of
Present Indicative and in Subordonate clauses. Modal verb must, as we have
mentioned before, doesnt have past forms that‘s why in the past tenses is substituted
by to have (to). It is important to mention that modal verb must express the
necessity from the point of view of speaker, but its synonim to have to does not
have such feature.
    you must pay attention to what the teacher says – trebuie să fii atent la ceea
      ce spune profesorul - (altfel voi dojeni etc.)
    you have to pay attention to what the teacher says) - trebuie să fii atent la
      ceea ce spune profesorul - (nu ai încotro etc.)

    he said that I must go in for the competition - spunea că trebuie să mă prezint
        la concurs, după părerea lui trebuia să mă prezint la concurs - (pentru că
        aveam toate şansele să cîştig etc.
    he said that I had to go in for the competition – spunea că trebuie să mă
        prezint la concurs - (ca să nu se supere directorul etc);
    we must leave now - trebuie să plecăm acum - (ca să nu întîrziem la cinema
    we have to leave now - trebuie să plecăm acum - (cît încă nu a început
        ploaia etc.).
        Forms of Present Perfect, I have got (to), you have (to) etc. - trebuie (să), am
(să), am (de) and form of mai-mult-ca-perfect I had got (to) etc – trebuia (să),
aveam (să), am avut (să), aveam (de), am avut de are used usually in colloquial style
insteed of to have (to) în the present (I have (to)) and respectively in the past I had
    we have/we've got to leave now = we have to leave now;
    had/we'd got to leave = we had to leave.
    As a modal verb, (I) need - e nevoie (ca eu), e necesar, este cazul etc, is a
synonim of modal verb must and is used not only in affirmative sentences but also
in those that contain negative words, for example ( hardly - de abia etc), in negative
and as well as in interrogative sentences (directe and indirecte).
    I need hardly speak to him - nu cred că e cazul/că trebuie să vorbesc cu el;
    need I go there? - trebuie/e nevoie/e cazul să mă duc acolo?
   Some british linguists recommend that in intterogative sentences we should use:
   a) formele must /...? have 1 (got) to...? need /...? pentru o situaţie unică,
   b) formele do 1 have to... ? do 1 need to...? pentru situaţiile repetate, obişnuite:
         must you/haveyou (got) to/needyou rehearse the play to-night? -
           trebuie/este nevoie etc. să repeţi piesa diseară? dar:

        do you have/ need to rehearse the play every evening? - trebuie/ este nevoie
          etc. să repeţi piesa în fiecare seară?
        am (to) - urmează (să), trebuie (să), exprimă necesitatea externa, mai ales
          în legătură cu un plan sau program fixat dinainte:
        he is to return at nine - urmează/trebuie să se înapoieze la nouă.
        I shall - trebuie - este astăzi un sinonim arhaic al verbelor/Ce exprimă
          necesitatea externă. Se întîlneşte adeseain funcţie de semi-auxiliar al
          viitorului, în texte oficiale, documente, legi etc, ca în.
        whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous punishment
          etc. - oricine se va face vinovat de furt va fi pedepsit sever etc.
       Finally, here we can mention the construction (I) needs must - trebuie
neapărat, that undreline the idea of external necesity or obligation:
/ needs must help him - trebuie să-1 ajut neapărat.
       Prin inversarea adverbului needs, construcţia capătă d*e cele mai multe ori un
înţeles sarcastic:
    he must needs caii on usjust when we wanted to leave - a trebuit să treacă pe
       la noi tocmai cînd voiam să plecăm.,
   The folowing verbs express the idea of external necessity depending on the
context and emphasize:
    to be asked to do something - a i se cere să facă ceva
    to be expected to do something - a trebui să facă ceva (ad litt. "a aştepta ca
       cineva să facă ceva")
    to be supposed to do something - a trebui să facă ceva (ad litt. "a presupune că
       cineva va face ceva")
    to be obliged to do something - a fi silit/obligat să facă ceva
    to be bound to do something -a trebui să facă ceva, a fi obligat să facă ceva
    to be compelled/forced to do something - a fi constrîns/silit/forţat să facă ceva

    to insist on somebody's doing something, to insist that somebody should do
       something - a stărui/insista ca cineva să facă ceva to be necessary at
       somebody should do
    to demand of somebody to do something - a                   something - a fi necesar ca
       cineva să facă ceva. cere/pretinde/stărui ca cineva să facă ceva
                                                                                              Table 1.
   Moodal verbs that express the idea of external necessity
Verb          Meaning perculiarities         Grammar perculiarities                  Style
(/) must     exprimă ideea de necesitate e folosit ca prezent şi, mai ales în        neutru
             externă, mai ales din punctul subordonate, ca preterit; la diferite
             de vedere al vorbitorului     timpuri se înlocuieşte cu to have
                                           (to); must [...?- mai ales în situaţii
to have      nu exprimă ideea de           have I to...? - mai ales în situaţii      neutru
(to)         necesitate din punctul de     particulare;</o//iavefo....;'mai ales în
(conjugabil) vedere al vorbitorului        situaţii repetate
(/) have got sinonim al lui to have (to)   have I got to... ? - mai ales în situaţii familiar
(to)                                       particulare
(I) need (şi sinonim al Iui must           e folosit ca prezent în prop.             neutru
cu to)                                     interogative şi în cele cu hardly etc.;
                                           need /...? - mai ales în situaţii
                                           particulare; do I need to...? - mai
                                           ales în situaţii repetate
([) am (to) implică mai ales un program                                              neutru
şi (I) was   prestabilit
(I) shall    se apropie de funcţia de                                                arhaic;       se
             auxiliar a viitorului
                                                                                     întîlneşte în acte
(I) must   subliniază puternic         e folosit ca prezent şi, mai ales în          neutru
needs (I)  necesitatea idem, implicînd subordonate, ca preterit
needs must de obicei sarcasmul

       Absence of External Necessity

      Verbele modale nedefective exprimă "absenţa necesităţii externe" prin
folosirea formelor negative:
      it is not necessary that you should write the lefter now - nu e nevoie/necesar să
scrii scrisoarea acum etc.
      Cît despre verbele modale-defective, lucrurile se prezintă astfel:
      a) formele negative ale verbelor to have (to), (I) have got (to), (I) am (to) şi
(1) shall sunt antonime ale formelor afirmative, deci exprimă "absenţa necesităţii
      he hasn't to go to the dentist's - nu trebuie să se ducă la dentist (de asemenea,
he doesn't have to go to the dentist's),
      she is not to come earlier - nu urmează să vină mai devreme;
      b) construcţia must needs nu se foloseşte la forma negativă;
      c) antonimul lui must este need not şi (/) do not need to - nu trebuie, nu e
necesar, nu e nevoie şi nu must not, carp exprimă interdicţia (nu e voie, nu trebuie,
nu e permis):
      "Must I write down the whole text?" "No, you needn't." - Trebuie să copiez tot
textul? - Nu, nu trebuie.
      he didn't need to be reminded of it - nu era nevoie să i se reamintească despre
      Need not se foloseşte şi ca negativ al lui to have (to), mai frecvent chiar decît
not to have (to) (v. punctul a).
      Internal Necessity
      Verbul modal-defectiv care exprimă mai frecvent decît altele ideea de
necesitate internă în sensul de îndatorire morală, socială etc, considerată ca atare mai
cu seamă de către vorbitor (ceea ce face ca în anumite situaţii acesta să dea, de fapt,
sfaturi sau recomandări) este should- ar trebui, s-ar cădea, s-ar cuveni, ar fi bine, ar fi
indicat, ar fi cu cale. Istoriceşte, should derivă din shall, reprezentînd astăzi doar

condiţionalul prezent al acestuia (după unii autori, a devenit un verb independent).
Se foloseşte şi în propoziţii subordonate după un timp trecut în principală. Exemple:
      you should help him - ar trebui să-1 ajuţi (e de datoria ta s-o faci - aşa cred eu),
      / should pay them a visit as soon as I can - ar trebui să le fac o vizită de îndată
ce am să pot (nu am mai fost de mult pe la ei etc),
      he said he should learn driving a car - spunea că ar trebui să înveţe să
conducă o maşină (după părerea lui, este util etc).
      împreună cu un infinitiv perfect, should exprimă o acţiune care ar fi trebuit să
aibă loc într-un moment diri trecut (dar care nu a avut loc):
      you should have heiped him - ar fi trebuit sărl ajuţi, (dar nu ai făcut-o).
      Şi ought (to) poate exprima ideea de necesitate internă ca şi should, dar, spre
deosebire de acesta, o condiţionează nu de părerea, mai mult sau mai puţin
subiectivă a vorbitorului, ci de o situaţie de fapt, de logica firească a lucrurilor. Se
foloseşte şi în propoziţii subordonate după un timp trecut în principală:
      / know what I ought to do - ştiu ce s-ar cuveni să fac (potrivit normelor de
conduită socială etc),
      you ought to know how to handle this mechanism, you're an engineer - ar
trebui să ştii cum să mînuieşti mecanismul ăsta - doar eşti inginer.
      Cu un infinitiv perfect, ought (to) exprimă o acţiune care ar fi trebuit să aibă
loc într-un moment din trecut, dar care nu a avut loc Deosebirea faţă de should +
infinitiv perfect stă în implicaţiile semantice amintite, precum şi în sublinierea
      / know what I ought to have done - ştiu ce ar fi trebuit/s-ar fi cuvenit să fac
(dar nu ani făcut, în pofida normelor de conduită socială etc).
      Puternic accentuat (fonetic), în anumite contexte şi
      must poate exprima ideea de necesitate internă, nu însă fgră o anumită
interferenţă cu aceea de necesitate externă, specifică verbului:

       you must help htm, Victor! - trebuie să-1 ajuţi, Victor! (este de datoria ta, nu te
poţi eschiva etc.).     De asemenea:
       you could do sau could have done it for them -puteai (sau) ai fi putut face asta
pentru ei!
       Sfatul şi recomandările se pot exprima şi prin construcţiile had better + un
infinitiv nedefinit scurt -aş face mai bine să + conjunctivul prezent pentru viitor şi
had better + un infinitiv perfect - aş fi făcut mai bine să + conjunctivul prezent
pentru trecut:
       you had better send for the doctor -. ai face mai bine să chemi doctorul, mai
bine ai chema doctorul;
       you had better have sent/or the doctor - ai fi făcut mai bine să chemi doctorul,
mai bine chemai doctorul.
       Dintre verbele modale nedefective care exprimă necesitatea internă pot fi
       to be obliged/bound to do something - a fi obligat (moraliceşte) de a face ceva;
       tobe in duty bound to do something - a fi de datoria cuiva să facă ceva.
       Absenţa necesităţii interne se exprimă prin formele negative ale verbelor
menţionate în prezentul paragraf (inclusiv must not):
       you shouldn't behave like that - n-ar trebui să te porţi aşa;
       you shouldn't have behaved like that - n-ar fi trebuit să te porţi aşa (dar te-ai
purtat aşa - e punctul meu de vedere);
       you oughtn't to have behaved like that - nu s-ar fi cuvenit să te porţi aşa (dar
te-ai purtat aşa, într-un fel în care nu se poartă oamenii civilizaţi etc);
       you must not do that! - nu trebuie să faci asta! (este obligaţia ta morală să nu
faci asta etc);
       you can't hurt her! - nu poţi s-o jigneşti! (nu trebuie s-o jigneşti, e de datoria ta
să n-o jigneşti etc);

       he'd better not mind otherpeople's business - mai bine nu s-ar băga în
treburile altora.
       Logical Necessity and Probability
       Verbul must păstrează ceva din sensul său de bază (este, prin excelenţă, verbul
"necesităţii externe") atunci cînd, în funcţie de context, exprimă "necesitatea logică
şi probabilitatea": "a trebui", "a fi foarte probabil"., "a fi aproape sigur" etc. (potrivit
împrejurărilor logice, date etc):
       it must be rather late - trebuie să fie destul de tîrziu, se pare că e destul de
tîrziu, e, probabil, destul de tîrziu (pentru că am aşteptat mult pînă acum etc).
       Verbele cu care se asociază sunt adesea la forma de infinitiv aspectul
continuu, atunci cînd se pot conjuga la acest aspect:
       the children must be playing in the garden - copiii se joacă, probabil, în
grădină, cred că se joacă în grădină etc. (Cf. forma neliterară romînească: "trebuie
       she must like tulips - probabil că-i plac lalelele; sînt convins că-i plac lalelele;
       she must be what he asked - asta trebuie să fie ceea ce a întrebat, asta trebuie
să fi întrebat etc.
       însoţit de un infinitiv perfect, must exprimă necesitatea logică şi probabilitatea
săvîrşirii unei acţiuni în trecut (să se reţină, totodată, că, în asemenea combinaţii,
must nu poate exprima alte idei):
       he must have been very tired after the performance - trebuie să fi fost foarte
obosit după spectacol;
       it's a novel you must have read - e un roman pe care trebuie să-1 fi citit, e un
roman pe care, probabil, l-ai citit.
       Ought (to) - ar trebui, trebuie - se apropie de must în exprimarea unei "mari
posibilităţi" întrucît implică o concluzie obiectivă determinată de logica situaţiei etc,
dar nu se foloseşte decît cu infinitive la aspectul nedefinit, mai ales cu be, respectiv

have been. Totodată, el se foloseşte de preferinţă atunci cînd premisa (condiţia) este
       did he leave at ten ? Then he ought to be in Braşov
       - a plecat la zece? Atunci ar trebui/trebuie să fie la Braşov;
       ifwhat you say is true, she ought to have become an actress- dacă e adevărat
ce spui, trebuia să se fi făcut actriţă.
       Should - ar trebui, trebuie, implică de obicei o concluzie personală a
vorbitorului, determinată de premise exprimate. Ca şi ought (to), precedă infinitive
la aspectul nedefinit, mai ales be, respectiv have been:
       judging byyour accent, you should be aforeigner
       - judecînd (eu) după accent, trebuie să fii străin/probabil că eşti străin;
       judging by his accent, he should have been a foreigner- judecînd (eu) după
accent(ul lui), trebuie să fi fost străin.    -
       Verbul will - trebuie, e probabil, cu preteritul său would, exprimă ideea de
probabilitate - atenuată în comparaţie cu verbele precedente - precum şi pe cea de
presupunere. Will se poate asocia şi cu infinitivul perfect:
       somebody's knocking at the door. It will be John -bate cineva la uşă. Probabil
că e/ Se poate să fie/ Cred/ Bănuiesc că e John;
       it would befrosty when they left - probabil/cred că era ger cînd au plecat;
       the second team will have gone another way - cea de-a doua echipă a plecat,
probabil/ presupunem/ bănuim, pe un alt drum.
       Ideea de probabilitate se poate exprima şi prin:
       - expresia / daresay sau / dare say (exclusiv persoana I singular) - probabil,
pe semne, cred etc:
       he's rather old, 1 daresay - e destul de bătrîn, probabil/cred;
       / dare say you had a jolly good time - probabil/ bănuiesc etc. că v-aţi distrat de

      - construcţia to be going (to) - probabil, după cîte se pare etc, mai ales cu
subiecte exprimate prin substantive neînsufleţite sau pronumele it.
      the library is going to close by the end of the month - probabil că biblioteca se
va închide către sfîrşitul lunii;
      - to be likel/probable - a fi probabil:
      he is likely to come later - e probabil să vină mai tîrziu.

      Having studied different works of the Russian and English linguists we can
conclude that modality is a wide category, inherent to any sentence and showing the
relation between the statement affirmed in the sentence and reality as established by
the speaker. In this work, we followed the opinion by B.I. Rogovskaya and B.S.
Khaimovich that lexical modality deals with the group of modal verbs and words
and           grammatical         modality           deals          with          mood.
      In the Chapter One we have considered all the peculiarities and functions of
modal verbs, their primary and secondary functions. We know that modal verbs
followed by the infinitive can express a great variety of feelings, such as: ability,
permission,     prohibition,   offers,   requests,   suggestions,     deduction     etc.
In Chapter Two we have presented the modal verbs that express necessity.
Modality is an integral part of English grammar. It is used in speech, both in
everyday language and in literature. Very often the speaker does not, suspect that
he/she uses modality. In addition, modality covers almost all grammatical
categories. Moreover, modality emotionally colours the language. Using it the
speaker can convey all the slightest shades of feelings, spirits and emotions.

1. Leech, G. 1987. Meaning and the English Verb. (2nd edn.) Chapter 5.
   London: Longrnan.
2. Palmer, E 1988. The English Verb. (2nd edo.) Chapters 6 and 7. London:
   Longman theoretical discussions
3. Bybee, J. and S. Fleischman. (eds.) 1995. Modality in Grammar and
   Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
4. Coates, J. 1983. The Semantics of the ModalAuxiliaries. London: Croom
5. Palmer, F. 1990. Modality and the English Modals. (2nd edn.) London:
6. Perkins, M. 1983. Modal Exp ressions in English. London: Prances Pinter.
   On epistemnic and root modality
7. Hofmann, T. 1993. Realms of Meaning. Chapter 6. London: Longman.
   9. Traugott, E. 1989. ‗On the rise of epistemic meanings in English.‘
   65: 31—55.
   11. Bolinger, D. 1989. Extrinsic possibility and intrinsic potentiality: 7 on
   MAY and CAN.‘ 1—23.
   12. Groefsema, M. 1995. ‗Can, may, must, and should: A Relevance theoretic
   account,‘ Journal of Linguistics 3—79.
   13. Haegeman, L. 1989. ‗a pragmatic account.‘ Journal of Linguistics 25:
   14. Tanaka, T. 1990. ‗Semantic changes of can and may: differentiation and
   implication.‘ Journal of‘ Liniguistics 89—I 23.
   15. Tregidgo, P. 1982 may: demand and permission.‘ Lingua: 75—92.
   16. Walton, A. 1991 . ‗The semantics ,and pragmatics of CAN.‘ 135: 325—


8. Frawley,W. 1992. LinguisticSemantics. Chapter 9. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
9. Gibbs, D. 1990. ‗Second language acquisition of the English modal
  auxiliaries can, could, may, and might.‘ Applied Linguistics 297—3
10.DeCarrico,J. 1986. ‗Tense, aspect and time in English modality. TESOL
  Quarterly, 665—8 2.
11.Holmes, J. 1988. ‗Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks.‘ Applied
  Linguistics, 21—44

                           Bibliography Chapter II
        A. Quoted literature
        1.    Bantaş Andrei ―Dicţionar Englez-Român, Român-Englez‖, Bucureşti,
        2.    Bell Roger ―Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice‖,
Longmoen, London and New York, 1991.
        3.    Catford J.C. ―A Linguistic Theory of Translation‖, London, 1969.
        4.    Croitoru Elena ş.a. ―Culegere de texte pentru traducere, VI‖, Brăila,
        5.    Croitoru Elena ş.a. ―Interpretation and Translation‖, Galaţi,
Porto-Franco, 1996.
        6.    Dijk T. ―Text and Context‖, Longman, London, 1977.
        7.     Leviţchi Leon ―Îndrumar pentru traducătorii din limba engleză în
limba română‖, Bucureşti, 1975.
        8.    Oxford Advanced Learner‘s Dictionary, Oxford, 1995.

        B: Recommended Literature
        1.    Baker M. ―In Other Words, a Coursebook in Translation‖ Rountledge,
London and New York, 1992.
        2.    Berezin F.M. ―Lectures on Linguistic‖, Moscow, 1969.
        3.    Crystal David ―Introducing Linguistics‖, London, 1992.
        4.    Delishe J. ―Translation: An Interpretative Approach‖ Ottawa and
London, 1988.
        5.    Duff ―Translation‖, Oxford, 1977.
        6.    Gentzler Edwin ―Contemporary Translation Theory‖, Rountledge,
London and New York, 1993.
        7.    Graur Al. ―Despre traduceri‖, România, 1980.

        8.    Hartmann R.R.K., Stork F.C. ―Dictionary of Language and Linguistics‖
London, 1976.
        9.    Jakobson Ronan ―On Translation‖, Cambridge, 1959.
        10.   Leviţchi Leon ―Manualul traducătorului de limba engleză‖, Bucureşti,
        11.   Newbert A. ―Text and Translation‖ Leipzig, 1985.
        12.   Newmark Peter ―A Textbook on Translation‖, Oxford, 1988.
        13.   Foury G. ―In Search of a theory of Translation‖, Tel Aviv, 1980.

1. Battistella, E. 1991. The treatment of negation in double modal
   constructions. Linguistic Analysis 21, 49-65.
2. Benincа, P., and C. Poletto. 1997. The diachronic development of a
   modal verb of necessity. In A. van Kemenade and N. Vincent, eds., 94-
3. Beths, F. 1999. The history of dare and the status of unidirectionality.
   Linguistics 37, 1069-1110.
4. Beukema, F.     and W. van der Wurff. 2000. Modals, objects and
   negation in Late Middle English. To appear in F. Beukema (ed.)
   Modality in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
5. Brown, K. 1992. Double modals in Hawick Scots. In Dialects of
   English: Studies in grammatical variation, ed. P. Trudgill and J.K.
   Chambers, 74-103. London: Longman.
6. Bybee, J., R. D. Perkins, and W. Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of
   grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world.
   Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7. Kemenade van, A. 1993. The history of the English modals: a
   reanalysis. Folia Linguistica Historica XIII/1-2:143-66.
8. Lightfoot, D. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: CUP.
9. Lightfoot, D. 1999. The development of language: acquisition, change,
   and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.
10.Plank, F. 1984. The modals story retold. Studies in Language 8, 305-
11.Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the
   structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365-424.

12.Roberts, I. 1985. Agreement parameters and the development of
   English modal auxiliaries. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3,
13.Roberts, I. 1993a. Verbs and diachronic syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
14.Roberts, I. 1994. Two types of head movement in Romance. In Verb
   Movement, ed. David Lightfoot and Norbert Hornstein, 207-242.
   Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.Roberts, I. 1999. Verb movement and markedness. In Language
   creation   and   language   change:   Creolization,    diachrony,    and
   development, ed. Michel de Graff, 287-327. Cambridge, MA: MIT
16.Vikner, S. 1995. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the
   Germanic languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.Warner, A. 1993. English auxiliaries: Structure and history.
   Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.Warner, A. 1983. Review of Lightfoot 1979. Journal of Linguistics 19,


Shared By: