Scribd
Upload
11 views4 pages

Future Modal Verbs Explained

The document discusses future-referring expressions in English. It provides examples of various verb phrases that can refer to the future without using a future tense, such as "will/shall", "be going to", the present progressive, and the simple present. It also examines the differences in meaning between these expressions. Some key differences explained are: "be going to" indicates intention or prediction based on present evidence, while "will/shall" can indicate willingness, prediction or arrangement. The document then analyzes examples of future-referring expressions and discusses their use in different sentence types and contexts.

Uploaded by

tom
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
11 views4 pages

Future Modal Verbs Explained

The document discusses future-referring expressions in English. It provides examples of various verb phrases that can refer to the future without using a future tense, such as "will/shall", "be going to", the present progressive, and the simple present. It also examines the differences in meaning between these expressions. Some key differences explained are: "be going to" indicates intention or prediction based on present evidence, while "will/shall" can indicate willingness, prediction or arrangement. The document then analyzes examples of future-referring expressions and discusses their use in different sentence types and contexts.

Uploaded by

tom
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Future-referring expressions

No future tense in English, but various types of verb phrases refer to the future.

"Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is your captain speaking. We would like to welcome
you aboard."
a) "We are going to fly at twenty thousand feet."
b) "We'll be flying at twenty thousand feet."
c) "We'll fly at twenty thousand feet."

FORM MEANING EXAMPLES


I’m tired. I think I’ll (will/shall) go to bed.
WILL/SHALL + Neutral future prediction
The weather tomorrow will be mild and sunny.
BASE FORM Willingness
I’ll help with the dishes.
Confidence that something is
BE GOING TO I’m going to (I’m gonna) write an essay.
going to happen (because of
(GONNA) Look at the sky; it’s going to rain.
intention or present signs)
I’m meeting Joe in town and we’re going to the
PRESENT Arrangement/plan made by the
theatre.
PROGRESSIVE subject
Jack and Jill are getting married next week.
Already planned (but de-
WILL/SHALL + I’ll be waiting for you outside.
emphasizing the subject’s will
PROGRESSIVE She’ll be travelling to York in March.
and intention)
They will be standing up for quite a long time.
Ongoing in the future
Personal subject: decision by
sb. other than the subject She is to leave immediately.
BE TO
Non-personal subject: official The town hall is to be renovated next year.
plan
The next train leaves at two.
Fixed plan or schedule
It’s Saturday tomorrow.
SIMPLE Also used regularly as future-
John wants to be a pilot when he grows up.
PRESENT referring expressions in if-
If you help me, we’ll finish earlier.
clauses and time clauses
(cp. If you’ll help me, …)
BE ABOUT TO Immediate future She is about to leave.

Which future-referring expressions do the following sentence pairs contain, and what is the
difference in meaning?
1. a) They’re going to wait at the airport.
b) They’ll be waiting at the airport.
2. a) Next week, Blake and Sanders are to attend a meeting in Rome.
b) Next week, Blake and Sanders are attending a meeting in Rome.

FUTURE-REFERRING SIMPLE PRESENT IS MUCH MORE COMMON IN NORWEGIAN THAN ENGLISH


Jeg kommer snart igjen. I’ll be back soon.
Blir du med? Are you coming?
Det er sikkert til meg. That’ll be for me.

Future-referring expressions in the past tense: Seeing the future from a past point of view.
E.g. would + base form (but not should); was/were going to, was/were V-ing, was/were (about) to.
Note the possibility of non-realization, i.e. that the action/activity was never carried out.
English Grammar, Week 7

Modality
Definition: The expression of the speaker's opinions about present likelihood or about obligation:
(a) (narrowly) by means of a modal auxiliary verb; (b) (more widely) using any of the linguistic means
available. (The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar)

Modal meanings and their expressions


1) Root modality: Referring to an ability to control things
I can speak English. You must come here at once.
2) Epistemic modality: Referring to the speaker’s judgement about whether what s/he says is true
You may be right. That must be the worst book ever written.
You are probably right. Surely, that is the worst book ever written.
Modal auxiliaries proper: can, could, may, might, must, ought to, shall, should, will, would
Marginal modals: need, dare (sometimes used as auxiliaries, sometimes as catenatives)
Modal auxiliary equivalents (paraphrases of modal meanings): be able to, be willing to …
Modalizing catenatives: seem to, appear to, manage to … (see also lecture in week 5)
Other expressions of modal meaning:
a) Modal adverbs: She is probably / certainly in the library. (epistemic)
b) Anticipatory it and “modal adjective”:
It is likely / possible that she is in the library. (epistemic)
It was obligatory for students to do physical exercises before classes. (root)
c) Tags: She’s in the library, isn’t she? … don’t you think? (epistemic)
d) “I think/believe …”: I think/believe/assume/trust she is in the library. (epistemic)

Formal features of modal auxiliaries proper


• Are followed by a bare infinitive (without to): He can swim (*He can to swim.)
• No 3rd person inflection: He can swim (* He cans swim.)
• Occur without do-support in negative and interrogative sentences: Can he swim? He can’t swim.
(*Does he can swim? *He doesn’t can swim.)
• No non-finite forms: * to can/could, musting
• Cannot be preceded by other auxiliaries: * He had could do it.
• No proper past tense, as the “past tense” (remote) forms do not normally refer to past time.

Root meanings of modal auxiliaries


ABILITY (can/could): Can you swim?
PERMISSION (can/could, may/might): Can/may I leave the table?
OBLIGATION (must, ought to, shall/should): No, you must/ought to/should stay.
VOLITION (will/would): I will leave the table anyway. I would leave the table if I were you.
POSSIBILITY (may/might): These chemicals may cause environmental damage.
PREDICTION (will/shall): I won’t/shan’t be able to come, I’m afraid.
HABITUAL ACTIVITY (will/would): At such times he would stand and listen to the wind.

Epistemic meaning – degrees of (un)certainty


This is an important discovery Full certainty
This must be an important discovery. Stronger certainty
This should be an important discovery.
This could be an important discovery.
This may be an important discovery.
This might be an important discovery. Weaker certainty

2
English Grammar, Week 7

Which clauses have epistemic modality and which have root modality? Can you paraphrase them to bring
out the difference in meaning?
Frank must think of a good excuse. Sarah can’t be very good at this.
Frank must be thinking of a good excuse. Sarah can be very good at this.
He may have come in by now. We should arrive by midday.
You may come in now. a) ... in order to be there in time for lunch.
b) ... unless the car breaks down.

Marginal modals (need, dare)


Occur as auxiliaries without to, do-support and s-forms: He need not come to the meeting.
As catenatives they have to, do-support and s-forms: He does not need to come to the meeting.

Modal auxiliary equivalents


Examples: be able to ( can); be willing to ( will); be obliged to ( must)
Note: these are not auxiliaries, but convey the same type of meanings as modal auxiliaries and are
felt to be part of the same verb phrase as a following lexical verb.
Modal auxiliaries and aspect
• Since modal auxiliaries have no non-finite forms, they cannot be preceded by grammatical
auxiliaries signalling progressive or perfect aspect
• If a modal auxiliary is followed by a progressive/perfect verb phrase, the modal is usually
interpreted as epistemic.
The students must read the grammar book.
The students must be reading the grammar book. The students must have read the grammar book.
Modal auxiliaries and time reference
• Usually no difference in time reference between unmarked and remote forms:
Can you do me a favour? / Could you do me a favour?
Going on holiday in bad weather may/might be a trying experience.
• We see back-shift in indirect speech: He said: “It may rain.” → He said it might rain.
• When the reference is clearly to the past, the remote form is used:
I could speak the language then, and I think I still can.
Modality and unambiguous time reference
Catenatives and modal auxiliary equivalents can be used to mark tense (particularly past tense)
unambiguously:
I had to hand in my essay. (≠ I must hand in my essay.)
I was able to fix it. (Cf. I could fix it. – ambiguous)

Expressing more than one modal meaning in a clause


The modal auxiliaries proper have no non-finite forms, so they cannot be combined with each other
(only the first verb in a VP can be finite). They can be combined with catenatives and modal
auxiliary equivalents to express more than one modal meaning in the same clause:
They will have to hand in the essay very soon. (willingness + obligation)
They might need to come earlier. (possibility + necessity)
A professor ought to be able to do this. (necessity + ability)

Comparison with Norwegian


NON-FINITE FORMS AND COMBINATION OF MODALS
Han har aldri villet hjelpe meg. He has never been willing to help me.
Jeg har alltid måttet klare meg selv. I have always had to cope on my own.
Man må kunne forlange såpass. One must be allowed to demand as much.
Søkere vil måtte fylle ut dette skjemaet. Applicants will have to fill in this form.

3
English Grammar, Week 7

MODAL AS MAIN VERB IN NORWEGIAN


Jeg vil/må hjem. I want to / have to go home.
Skal du ut? Are you going out?
Petter kan mye engelsk. Peter knows a lot of English.
Sannheten skal fram! Truth will out! (set expression)
POTENTIAL FALSE FRIENDS AMONG THE MODAL AUXILIARIES
Skal vs. shall
• Shall is rare as a future marker and is not used epistemically.
Han skal komme i morgen. He will come / He is coming tomorrow.
Det skal ha vært tre ranere. Apparently/Allegedly, there were three robbers.
• In questions (offers) shall works as a correspondence of skal with first-person subjects.
Skal jeg hjelpe til med oppvasken? Shall I help with the dishes?
Skal vi begynne? Shall we start?
Skal du ta toget? Are you going to / Will you take the train?
• In declarative sentences, shall is sometimes used with first person subjects with the same meaning as
Norwegian skal. With other types of subjects, shall means strong obligation.
Jeg skal dra snart. I shall/will leave soon. (I’m leaving soon.)
Du skal ikke engste deg. You mustn’t worry.
Du skal ikke stjele. You shall not steal.
Skulle vs. should: Both can mean obligation. Only skulle can have reference to (future in) the past.
Du skulle (=burde) ikke ha gjort det. You shouldn’t have done it.
Han sa han skulle parkere bilen. He said he would park the car.
Jeg skulle bare åpne vinduet. I was just going to open the window.
Hun skulle senere bli kirurg. Later she was / would to become a surgeon.
Vil/ville vs. will/would: A stronger element of willingness in Norwegian. Will is more common as a neutral
future marker.
Hun vil bli forfatter. She wants to be a writer.
Han ville ikke jobbe der. He didn’t want to work there. (He wouldn’t work there.)

Mood
The form of the verb indicates whether the clause expresses a fact, command, hypothesis, etc.:
Mood Typical use Verb form Examples
indicative statements inflected for person, He throws the ball. I/they throw
number and tense the ball. He/they threw the ball.
imperative orders/commands base form Throw the ball!
subjunctive wishes, hypotheticals, base form (BE also has the I suggest that he throw the ball.
recommendations past subjunctive were) If I were you…
The imperative has you as implied subject, which is only sometimes overtly expressed:
Turn it down! You turn it down! Don’t (you) turn it down!
The expression let’s is also a kind of imperative marker – for “first-person” imperatives with we as
implied subject: Let’s turn it down.

The subjunctive is visible only in the third person singular (lack of s-form) and when the verb is
BE. It is rare, but used in:
1. certain set expressions
Long live the council tax! If he had to suffer to keep the dog, so be it.
Come what may. Well, I have three people I have to message as it were.
2. hypothetical if-clauses (optional)
Would she take the job if she were offered it? I’d spell it a different way if I were you.
3. that-clauses that express suggestions, recommendations or necessity (optional)
It is important that visitors be made welcome on the way in. She insisted that the company
present themselves at the hotel. A suggestion was that the students be given tours of the campus.
4

Common questions

Powered by AI

Modal auxiliaries like 'can,' 'must,' and 'will' directly convey modality through compact structures without additional grammatical markers, e.g., 'He can swim' . Paraphrased equivalents, such as 'be able to,' 'have to,' or 'be willing to,' provide similar meanings but use a more complex structure, which involves additional auxiliary verbs, creating potential for aspectual or tense modifications, as seen in 'I had to hand in my essay' . This flexibility allows for a broader expression of nuanced meanings related to tense and aspect.

Modal auxiliaries cannot combine directly with other grammatical auxiliaries to express tense, aspect, or additional modality, as they have no non-finite forms and do not use 'do-support' . This limitation prevents modal auxiliaries from participating in constructions that involve multiple auxiliary stages, necessitating the use of catenatives or auxiliary equivalents to fulfill roles like perfect aspect or past tense, for instance, 'He does not need to come' instead of '*He needs not come' . These constraints influence the straightforwardness and flexibility of modal meanings.

The indicative mood is used for factual statements, like 'He throws the ball,' providing information without additional interpretations . The imperative mood, indicative of commands or requests, uses the base form as in 'Throw the ball!' commanding action . The subjunctive mood, which is rare, conveys wishes, hypotheticals, or requirements, seen in 'She insisted that the company present themselves at the hotel,' implying a suggestion or necessity . Each mood sets a different expectation regarding the speaker’s intention and the statement's reality.

The subjunctive mood in English, though rare, retains importance for specific expressions involving hypotheticals, wishes, and formal recommendations. Its significance lies in contexts requiring formal tone or implied careful consideration, as in 'It is important that visitors be made welcome' . Despite its scarcity, the subjunctive marks clauses with a unique formality and detachment from reality, aiding precise expression of non-factual or speculative scenarios, thereby maintaining its utility in precise and formal English message constructions.

'Will/shall + base form' is used for neutral future predictions and to express willingness, as seen in the sentences 'The weather tomorrow will be mild and sunny' and 'I’ll help with the dishes' . In contrast, 'be going to + base form' indicates a higher confidence that something will happen due to intention or present signs, as in 'I’m going to write an essay' and 'Look at the sky; it’s going to rain' . The difference lies in the strength of intention and evidence for the future action.

In Norwegian, the future-referring simple present is more prevalent than in English, where specific future constructions like 'will' or 'shall' are mandatory. Expressions like 'Jeg kommer snart igjen' translate to 'I’ll be back soon' in English, demonstrating Norwegian's context-driven reliance on present constructions for future meanings . This reflects cultural tendencies in language economy and context dependency in Norwegian, contrasting with English's preference for grammatical predictability in representing future intentions, thus suggesting a significant impact of language-specific norms and contextuality on expression forms.

Combining modal auxiliaries with catenatives allows for expressing complex modal meanings, as modal auxiliaries alone do not occur in non-finite forms or combine directly with other auxiliaries. For instance, 'They might need to come earlier' combines possibility ('might') and necessity ('need'). Such combinations are achieved because catenatives can incorporate tense and modality within a clause, enabling nuanced expressions of actions.

In English, 'shall' is rarely used as a future marker and often indicates strong obligation or is used in formal first-person expressions as in 'I shall leave soon' . Meanwhile, 'skal' in Norwegian can signal both future actions and obligations, such as 'Han skal komme i morgen' translating to 'He will come tomorrow' . The English use of 'shall' is more prescriptive and context-specific, whereas 'skal' is more flexible in indicating future intent or duty.

Future-referring expressions in the past tense are used to express future actions as anticipated from a past perspective, such as 'was going to' or 'would' as in 'He said he would park the car' . These constructions introduce nuances of intention or planned actions that might not have been realized, adding layers of hypothetical or speculative context reflecting how past decisions or expectations have influenced anticipated future actions.

Epistemic modality involves the speaker's judgement about the truth of a proposition, reflected in the degree of certainty the speaker conveys, such as 'That must be the worst book ever written' indicating strong certainty . Root modality, however, refers to the necessity or permission, as shown in 'You must come here at once' expressing obligation . The core distinction is epistemic modality's focus on the speaker’s perspective on truth, while root modality concerns the control over actions.

You might also like