The meanings of modal verbs are extremely important for understanding how modal verbs work. This or that modal verb in one of its meanings can’t form the past tense; in another meaning it is used only with a negative; in still another meaning it can’t form a question or, on the contrary, is used only in the form of a question. The meanings of modal verbs are created by the context and by the grammatical structures in which they are used. If the context is not clear enough, it may be difficult to understand in which meaning a modal verb is used.
The meanings of modal verbs are a little difficult to single out and define clearly (especially if we try to define them in Ukrainian). For example, when speaking about the main meaning of the verb can, some linguists use the words “ability, possibility”, others speak about “physical and mental ability”, still others say “ability, power, skill, opportunity”. The importance of the given paper is connected with extended usage of modal verbs as means of expressing modality in Modern English language.
But the problem is that there are no modal verbs in Ukrainian or Russian and that’s why it is very difficult for non-native speakers to use modal verbs correctly. The object of the paper is study and systematization of the existing material concerning lexico-grammatical means of expressing modality in the English language. The subjects of the thesis are modal verbs as means of expressing modality in Modern English language. The aim of this thesis is to analyze and systematize modal verbs of the English language according to the functions they denote in the language.
For the investigation of the given work such methods as statistical and distributional are used. CHAPTER ONE. CATEGORY OF MODALITY AND MEANS OF ITS EXPRESSION • Notion of modality and history of its study Notion “modality” goes back to classical formal logic, from which linguistics borrows the classification of propositions into assertional (propositions of reality), problematical (propositions of possibility) and apodictical (propositions of necessity), and besides into reliable and probable propositions.
Thereby in a general way was specified semantic notional sphere of modality. In West-European linguistics Sh. Ballie’s conception of modality was widely spread. In his opinion, in any utterance/expression we can single out basic content (dictum) and modal part (modus), in which is expressed intellectual, emotional and volitional consideration of the speaker concerning dictum. He distinguishes explicit and implicit modus. The main form of expression of the explicit modus is the main clause consisting of compound sentence with object clause. Thus, in Sh.
Ballie’s interpretation modality is presented as syntactic category, in the expression of which the modal verbs play the main role. German scholars follow this conception. The authors of academic edition, following Ballie, single out as modal the meanings of reality/unreality, possibility/impossibility, certainty/uncertainty (supposition, probability). In Russian linguistics modality was also a subject of interest for many scholars. Here it is worth mentioning a prominent academician V. V Vinogradov. He was one of the first who gave very broad interpretation of the category of modality.
V. V. Vinogradov first of all refers modality to “the fundamental structural characteristic of any sentence” and characterizes it as “the speaker’s evaluation of the relation of utterance content to the reality”. (Vinogradov 1947) Another Russian scholar V. Z. Panfilov distinguishes two types of modal meanings: objective modality and subjective modality. In his opinion objective modality “reflects a character of objective connections, which take place in this or that situation, to which cognitive act refers, namely, a possible, real and necessary connections”.
Subjective modality “expresses the evaluation of the degree of knowledge of these connections from the point of view of the speaker, they point out the credibility value of idea, which surrounds a particular situation”. (Panfilov 1971) Some scholars emphasize other aspects of modality, not denying its evaluative character. G. A. Zolotova for example distinguishes 3 meanings of modality: 1/ an attitude of the person to the reality from the speaker’s point of view; 2/ speaker’s attitude to the content of the expression; 3/ agent’s attitude to the action.
L. S. Yermolaeva distinguishes two main modalities – “internal” and “external”. By the “internal” modality she understands an agent’s attitude to action performed; by the “external” modality – an attitude of the contents of the sentence to the reality. In spite of differences in determination of the notion modality there are clashes of opinions on the categorical belonging of this notion. For example scholar R. A. Budagov speaks about modality as grammatical category; L. S.
Yermolaeva considers modality as syntactic category, mentioning that lexical means remain beyond the bounds of syntactic modality. Modality as semantic category is distinguished by V. V. Vinogradov, G. V. Kolshanskiy, I. B. Khlebnikova. English scholar F. R. Palmer notes that modality is concerned with our opinions and attitudes, and most linguists accept the existence of at least two types of modality, with one more type needed in order to account for the auxiliaries. Modal, then, refers to the formal properties of a certain class of words, while modality refers to the eanings of those words (and others). (Palmer 2001) One type of modality, epistemic (Greek episteme, meaning ‘knowledge’) is concerned with the speaker’s judgment of the truth of the proposition embedded in the statement. e. g. They {should, ought to} be in Brussels by now. The second primary category of modality is deontic modality. Deontic modality (Greek: deon, meaning ‘duty’) is concerned with “influencing actions, states, or events”; in other words, it is oriented towards performing speech acts – doing things with words. e. g. They {should, ought to} leave at once.
In deontic modality, the speaker does something such as giving permission or advice. With epistemic modality, the speaker comments on the probability of the truth of the proposition, perhaps saying that he is certain that it is false (can’t) or that it is reasonable to assume that it is true (should)(Palmer 2003: 1-17). • Modal verbs as means of expressing modality In Modern English, both modal verbs and grammatical mood express linguistic modality. Grammatical mood may be loosely defined as a set of inflected verb forms that express modality of an action or state.
Although some grammarians interchange mood and modality as synonyms, mood more accurately describes a subset of modality. Mood is a grammatical category, which R. L. Trask defines as any one of the various categories which may be present in particular languages and which, when present, oblige all the words in a relevant class always to appear in one of two or more distinct grammatical forms, depending on the grammatical environment. ” All verb phrases functioning as predicates must inflect for mood.
But, whereas mood specifically describes the modality expressed by verbs via inflection, modality may be expressed through any number of grammatical forms or functions such as verbs, adverbs, adjectives, nouns, and particles or other language features such as intonation and inflection. However, because of the form of the verb phrase in which a modal verb occupies the initial position, grammatical mood is intrinsically connected to the modality expressed by English modal verbs. (Trask 1997) Three grammatical moods exist in the verb system of Modern English: indicative, imperative, and subjunctive.
The indicative mood expresses assertions, denials, and questions of actuality or strong probability; the imperative mood direct commands, requests, and granting or denial of permission; and the subjunctive mood commands, requests, suggestions, wishes, hypotheses, purposes, doubts, and suppositions that are contrary to fact at the time of the utterance. As auxiliary verbs, modal verbs never function as the head of a verb phrase. Unlike with other auxiliaries, however, the verb phrase that contains a modal verb is always conjugated into a present subjunctive form.
Therefore, in comparison to the seventeen forms into which a verb phrase without a modal verb may be conjugated, only eight possible combinations exist for verb phrases in which a modal verb occupies the initial position as illustrated in: a. modal + active simple present subjunctive b. modal + active present progressive subjunctive c. modal + active present perfect subjunctive d. modal + active present perfect-progressive e. modal + passive simple present subjunctive f. modal + passive present progressive subjunctive g. modal + passive present perfect subjunctive . modal + passive present perfect-progressive Setting aside the imperative mood because modal verbs cannot appear in conjunction with a verb conjugated into the imperative, the major difference between the indicative mood and the subjunctive mood is that the indicative mood expresses real modality (true to fact) and the subjunctive mood expresses unreal modality (contrary to fact) (Coates 1983). Thus, verb phrases that contain modal verbs inherently express unreal modality. However, the specific type of unreal modality expressed depends on the modal verb and the context of the utterance.
Epistemic Modality Modal verbs first express epistemic modality, which, as a subcategory of propositional modality, is the “expression of the judgment of possibility or necessity of a proposition by a speaker” (Palmer 1990) explains the epistemic modal verbs in terms of the paraphrases in: a. It is possible that b. It is a possible conclusion that c. It is the only possible conclusion that d. It is a reasonable conclusion that The modal verbs may, must, and might and the negated modal verb can most frequently express epistemic modality in English as illustrated in: a.
The applicant may be overeducated. b. It is possible that the applicant is overeducated. c. The leaf pile might have still been on fire. d. It is a possible conclusion that the leaf pile had still been on fire. e. This restaurant must not be very good. f. It is a reasonable conclusion that this restaurant is not very good. g. That man cannot be the father. h. It is the only possible conclusion that that man is not the father. Although less frequently, the modal verbs can, could, and would also express epistemic modality as illustrated in: a. Modality can be defined as the opinion of the speaker. . It is possible that modality is defined as the opinion of the speaker c. That man cannot be the father. d. It is the only possible conclusion that that man is not the father. e. I would be lucky if I won the lottery. f. It is a reasonable conclusion that I am lucky if I won the lottery. Evidential Modality The English language lacks an extensively developed system of evidential modality, which is a subcategory of propositional modality that allows a speaker to offer evidence for the “truth-value of the proposition” rather than the judgment on possibility or necessity.
However, epistemic modal verbs whose paraphrase is “It is a reasonable conclusion that” express evidential modality in conjunction with epistemic modality. The modal verbs may, will, and would most frequently express evidential modality as illustrated in: a. John must be in his office. b. It is a reasonable conclusion that John is in his office. c. That would be James calling. d. It is a reasonable conclusion that James is calling. Distinguishing between evidential modality and epistemic modality in English requires an understanding of the context of the utterance.
With the evidential modal verbs, the verbal or nonverbal context provides the evidence for the truth-value of the proposition. Deontic Modality Unlike the limited set of modal verbs that express propositional modality, the majority of English modal verbs express deontic modality, which is a subcategory of event modality that expresses “the judgment of possibility including permissibility or necessity including obligation of an action, state, or event by a speaker” in which control of the action, state, or event is external to the subject of the clause.
The deontic modal verbs may be explained in terms of the paraphrases in: a. It is obligatory for b. It is necessary for c. It is permissible for d. It is requested for e. It is suggested for f. It is advisable for g. It is preferable for In English, the central deontic modal verbs are the modal verbs can, could, may, must, should, and will and the quasi-modal verbs ought to and had better (had best) as illustrated in: a. You can go to the mall tomorrow. b. It is permissible for you to go to the mall tomorrow. c.
Could you please pass the salt? d. It is requested that you pass the salt. e. Student workers may leave through the back door. f. All passengers must have tickets. g. It is obligatory for all passengers to have tickets. j. Employees must wash their hands. k. It is obligatory for employees to wash their hands. Three modal verbs—might, shall, and would—also marginally express deontic modality as illustrated in: a. You might help your mother with the laundry. b. It is suggested that you help your mother with the laundry. c. Shall we eat dinner now? . It is requested for us to eat dinner now. e. Would you take the turkey out of the oven in an hour? f. It is necessary for you to take the turkey out of the oven in an hour. Dynamic Modality Related to the deontic modal verbs are the modal verbs that express dynamic modality, which also expresses the judgment of possibility of an action, state, or event by a speaker but in which control of the action, state, or event is internal to the subject of the clause. The dynamic modal verbs may be explained in terms of the paraphrases in: a.
It is possible for b. It is probable for c. It was possible for In English, the modal verbs can, could, will, and shall and the quasi-modal verb used to most often express dynamic modality as illustrated in: a. A custodian will clean up the mess tomorrow. b. It is probable for a custodian to clean up the mess tomorrow. c. We shall pick flowers today. d. It is probable for us to pick flowers today. Dynamic can, could, and used to express ability while dynamic will and shall express futurity. (Palmer 2001; Palmer 2003) Conclusions to Chapter One
Modality is a grammatico-semantic category, which expresses the speaker’s attitude towards the expression, his evaluation of the attitude input towards objective reality. As it is well known, it becomes traditional to divide modality into two types: objective modality and subjective modality. Modality is the grammaticalized expression of the subjective attitudes and opinions of the speaker including possibility, probability, necessity, obligation, permissibility, ability, desire, and contingency. Their syntactic function is that of the parenthetic part of the sentence. Modal verbs are defective and neutral.
Modal verbs are sometimes called defective verbs, because they do not have all the functions of main verbs or auxiliary verbs. They can’t be used without a main verb, can’t form gerunds or participles, and do not have any endings to show person, number, or tense. Modal verbs form questions without the help of the other auxiliary verbs. Some modal verbs are rarely used in questions. Modal verbs also have quite a few peculiarities in the formation of tenses. A lot of scientists worked on this topic, so there are a lot of different approaches in classification of modal verbs.
CHAPTER TWO. LEXICO-GRAMMATICAL MEANS OF EXRESSING MODALITY 2. 1. Modal verbs as means of expressing possibility and probability Modal verbs of probability are used to express an opinion of the speaker based on information that the speaker has. e. g. He must be at work, it’s 10 o’clock. In this case, the speaker is 100 % sure that the person is at work based on the speaker’s knowledge that the person in question usually works at during the day. Modal verbs of probability are often tricky for non-native speakers of the English Language for a number of reasons.
First, there is the notion that these words somehow express a percentage, or degree, of probability. There is no percentage of certainty that something is, or isn’t, given the use of a certain modal verb. If to say “It must be him,” “it ought to be him,” and “it should be him,” – depending on the situation – it is, in fact, said the exact same thing. To the mind of the native speaker, we are certain that it is him. The modal verbs of probability are cannot, (can’t,) must, ought, should, and will. Ought to, should, will, are used to express certainty. Should or ought to express less certainty.
Should is followed by the base form of a verb, or bare infinitive, while ought is followed by the full infinitive (to). e. g. We should arrive by noon. We ought to arrive by noon. We will arrive by noon. When it is said that you are fairly certain that something has happened, it is used should have or ought to have followed by a past participle. e. g. He should have heard from them by now, it’s been a week. They ought to have arrived by now, their plane landed two hours ago. Should have or ought to have are used to say that you expected something to happen – but it didn’t. e. g. Yesterday should have been the start of the basketball season.
She ought to have been made manager by now. Must is used to show that we are fairly certain about something. e. g. Hello, you must be John’s wife. Mustn’t is not used in the same way, we use can’t, or cannot. e. g. Hello, you can’t be John’s wife. 2. 2. Modal verbs as means of expressing advice The word “advice” is a general term that is used in describing the modal verbs should, ought to, had better. The verb should, the main modal verb in this group, can express mild or insistent advice of all kinds, such as advice, recommendation, advisability, desirability, suggestion, obligation, duty, responsibility.
The modal verb ought to is a close synonym for should, and had better expresses advice with a warning of a possible unpleasant result if indicated advice is not followed. The modal verbs of this group form two tenses: the present and the past. (had better is not common in the past. ). The idea of the future is expressed by the present tense with the help of the adverbs of time that refer to the future (e. g. , tomorrow, soon, next week), or without them, because advice, naturally, is given for the future (Internet source). The modal verb should is very common. Using should is a preferred way of giving advice for many native speakers.
The modal verb should in the meaning “advice” is used in affirmative and negative statements and questions referring to the present, future, and past. e. g. Children should eat plenty of fruit. It is eleven o’clock. You should be sleeping now. You shouldn’t leave on Friday. We are having a party, and you are invited. The modal verb ought to is a close synonym for should. It is used in giving all kinds of advice too, but should is much more common than ought to. In American English, should is generally used instead of ought to in questions, in negative statements, and in the past. e. g. You ought to write him a letter soon. You should write him a letter soon. She oughtn’t smoke so much. / She shouldn’t smoke so much. The modal verb had better expresses advice with a warning of possible unpleasant consequences or results if indicated advice is not followed. Had better is mostly used in conversational English, in affirmative and negative statements in the present. Should is used instead of had better in the past. e. g. You’d better come back on Friday. Your cough is becoming worse. You had better see a doctor. 2. 3. Modal verbs as means of expressing necessity The modal verbs of necessity show obligations in the past, present, or future.
It can be a necessary action that was required over and over again, or something that occurred just once. The word “necessity” is a general term used for describing the main meaning of the modal verb must and its substitutes have to, have got to, need. The modal verb must express strong necessity to do something, with such shades of meaning as necessity, obligation, duty, responsibility, requirement. The phrase have to is the most common substitute for must in the meaning “necessity”. The modal verb must in the meaning “strong necessity” forms only the present tense.
The idea of the future is expressed by the present tense with the help of the context and/or adverbs of time that refer to the future, for example, “tomorrow, soon, next week”. e. g. I must see the doctor right now. I must help him with his report. There is a difference between must and have to when expressing necessity for yourself or others. e. g. I must be careful not to upset him. They have to be in Charlotte before Thursday. Must is stronger, stricter, and more categorical than have to. Must implies that the action expressed by the infinitive is absolutely necessary.
Have to in the meaning “necessity” is used in affirmative statements and questions in the present, past, and future. Negative questions with have to are also possible in this meaning. Have to is used in both formal and informal English in speech and writing, and many native speakers use have to instead of must in many cases, especially in American English. We normally use have to for things that happen repeatedly with adverbs of frequency like always, often, and regularly. e. g. I always have to do the shopping on Saturdays. You often have to wait in line at the grocery store.
In some cases the difference between must and have to is bigger than “strong necessity” vs. “necessity”. Must shows that the speaker thinks that the action specified by the main verb is necessary to do, and it’s the right thing to do (i. e. , the speaker expresses personal opinion), while have to just states the fact that this action is necessary. e. g. Children must go to school. (It’s obligatory, and it’s the right thing to do. ) I must help him. (It’s necessary, and it’s the right thing to do. ) Must not, or mustn’t, shows that it is important for something not to happen or take place. e. g. You mustn’t talk during church service.
Must not and don’t have to mean different things. Must not means that it is important that you don’t do something. Don’t have to means that it isn’t necessary to do, but you can. e. g. You mustn’t give me flowers because I’m allergic. You don’t have to give me flowers but you can if you like. Must is only used in the present or future, but never for necessities in the past. Also, we use the auxiliary verb ‘do’ for questions with the ‘have to’ modal. e. g. How often do you have to buy milk for your children? Must is never used with other modals, the ‘ing’ form, the full infinitive ‘to’ form, or a past participle.
These all require the have to form. e. g. They may have to be sent out of the classroom. I would have had to go through Leeds to reach Manchester. He doesn’t like to have to do his homework after football practice. The modal verb should can be used instead of must if the speaker wants to sound less categorical. e. g. You must do it today. (strong necessity, obligation) You should do it today. (advice, recommendation) You must tell the boss about it. (strong necessity, obligation) You should tell the boss about it. (advice, recommendation) 2. 4.
Modal verbs as means of expressing permission and request Requests in English are usually made in the form of general questions with the help of the modal verbs may, can, could, will, would. Requests are pronounced with rising intonation at the end of the question. Adding “please” to a request makes it more polite. As a rule, polite requests are not asked in the form of negative questions. The modal verbs may, could, will, would are used in making polite requests in speech and writing, in communication with strangers and with people you know. Can in requests is considered to be less polite than the other modals in this group.
Can is generally used in informal requests, mostly in conversation with friends and family. In requests, may is used in the form “May I”; will and would are used in the forms “Will you” and “Would you”; could and can are used in both variants. The modal verbs of permission, ‘can,’ or ‘ could,’ are used to indicate whether someone has permission to do something or not. e. g. May I speak to Tom Lee, please? Can I borrow your pen, please? The structures “Could you, Can you, Will you, Would you” are used in requests to do something, while “May I, Could I, Can I” are used in making a request and asking for permission.
Asking for permission to do something is also a request. Permission is asked in the form of affirmative questions with the help of may, could, can. May asks for formal permission, could is less formal, and can asks informal permission. May and could are more polite than can. Permission is given with the help of typical responses to requests mentioned above or with the help of may (formal permission) and can (informal permission). If permission is not given, “can’t” is generally used. “May not” is used in formal situations: e. g. Formal style: Mrs. Brown, may I stay at your house till Wednesday? 1. Yes, you may. 2. No, you may not. / I’m afraid it’s not possible. Less formal: Could I stay here till Wednesday? – 1. Yes, of course. / Certainly. / Yes, you can. 2. I’m afraid it’s not possible. / Sorry, you can’t. Informal: Can I stay here till Wednesday? – Sure. Could is also used to say that someone was allowed to do something in the past. Could not or couldn’t are used to say that they were not allowed to do it. e. g. We could go to any shop in the mall we wanted to. Both staff and students could use the ice rink. We couldn’t study in the library after 6 pm.
Be allowed to is used when talking about permission but not in the sense that you are asking for it or granting it. For instance, we would say “I was allowed backstage after my third attempt. ” Or, “you are not allowed to use your calculator on your math’s exam. ” The modal verb should can be used instead of must if the speaker wants to sound less categorical. Conclusions to Chapter Two Modal verbs (can, could, must, should, ought to, had better, may, might, will, would, shall) are auxiliary verbs that add the idea of ability, necessity, request, permission, advice, desire, probability, etc. , to the action expressed by the main verb.
In other words, modal verbs describe the speaker’s attitude to the action expressed by the main verb. Modal verbs of probability are used to express an opinion of the speaker based on information that the speaker has. The word “advice” is a general term that is used in describing the modal verbs should, ought to, had better. The modal verbs of this group form two tenses: the present and the past. (had better is not common in the past. ). The idea of the future is expressed by the present tense with the help of the adverbs of time that refer to the future or without them, because advice, naturally, is given for the future.
The modal verbs of necessity show obligations in the past, present, or future. It can be a necessary action that was required over and over again, or something that occurred just once. Requests in English are usually made in the form of general questions with the help of the modal verbs may, can, could, will, would. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS Modality is a grammatico-semantic category, which expresses the speaker’s attitude towards the expression, his evaluation of the attitude input towards objective reality. As it is well known, it becomes traditional to divide modality into two types: objective modality and subjective modality.
Modality is the grammaticalized expression of the subjective attitudes and opinions of the speaker including possibility, probability, necessity, obligation, permissibility, ability, desire, and contingency. Their syntactic function is that of the parenthetic part of the sentence. Modal verbs are defective and neutral. Modal verbs (can, could, must, should, ought to, had better, may, might, will, would, shall) are auxiliary verbs that add the idea of ability, necessity, request, permission, advice, desire, probability, etc. , to the action expressed by the main verb.
In other words, modal verbs describe the speaker’s attitude to the action expressed by the main verb. Modal verbs of probability are used to express an opinion of the speaker based on information that the speaker has. The word “advice” is a general term that is used in describing the modal verbs should, ought to, had better. The verb should, the main modal verb in this group, can express mild or insistent advice of all kinds, such as advice, recommendation, advisability, desirability, suggestion, obligation, duty, responsibility. The modal verb ought to is a close synonym for should, and had better expresses advice with a warning of possible unpleasant result if indicated advice is not followed. The modal verbs of necessity show obligations in the past, present, or future. It can be a necessary action that was required over and over again, or something that occurred just once. Requests in English are usually made in the form of general questions with the help of the modal verbs may, can, could, will, would. Requests are pronounced with rising intonation at the end of the question. Adding “please” to a request makes it more polite. As a rule, polite requests are not asked in the form of negative questions.
The modal verbs may, could, will, would are used in making polite requests in speech and writing, in communication with strangers and with people you know. The modal verbs may, could, will, would are used in making polite requests in speech and writing, in communication with strangers and with people you know. Can in requests is considered to be less polite than the other modals in this group. Can is generally used in informal requests, mostly in conversation with friends and family. Permission is given with the help of typical responses to requests with the help of may (formal permission) and can (informal permission).
LIST OF REFERENCE MATERIALS • Bhat, D. N. The prominence of tense, aspect, and mood / D. N. Bhat. – Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Shankara. 1999. • Longman grammar of spoken and written English/ Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, & Edward Finegan. – London: Longman, 1999 • Blokh M. Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar/ M. Y. Blokh. – М. : Высшая школа, 2003. • Bybee Joan Mood and modality. In The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world/ Bybee Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1994 p. 176-242. • Chalker Sylvia Scope. In The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar/ Chalker Sylvia & Edmund Weiner, 1998, http://www. oxfordreference. com/views/ENTRY. html? subview=Main&entry=t28. e1320. (4 Oct. 2010. ) • Coates, Jennifer The semantics of the modal auxiliaries (Croom Helm Linguistics Series) / Jennifer Coates. – London: Croom Helm, 1983. • Hopper, Paul J. 1999. A short course in grammar / Paul Hopper. – New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1983. • Huddleston, Rodney Introduction to the grammar of English. Rodney Huddleston. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984 • Ilyish B. A. The Structure of Modern English. / B. A. Ilyish. – Л. : Просвещение, 1971. • Iofik L. L. Readings in the Theory of English Grammar. / L. L. Iofik L. P. Chakhoyan, A. G. Pospelova. – Л. : Просвещение, 1981. • Morokhovskaya E. J. Fundamentals of Theoretical Grammar/ E. J. Morokhovskaya. – Kiev: Vysca Skola, 1984. • Palmer, F. R. Modality and the English modals/ F. R. Palmer (Longman Linguistics Library), 2nd edn. London: Longman, 1990 • Palmer, F. R.
Mood and modality (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics)/ F. R. Palmer. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2nd edn, 2001 • Palmer, Frank. Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive, and typological issues/ Frank Palmer. – Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 2003, p. 1-17. • Trask, R. L. A student’s dictionary of language and linguistics/ R. L. Trask. – London: Arnold, 1997 • Volkova L. M. Theoretical Grammar of Modern English/ L. M. Volkova. – Kyiv: KNLU, 2007. • Volkova L. M. Theoretical Grammar of English: Modern Approach / L. M. Volkova. – К. : Освіта України, 2009. •
