Issues to discuss:

1. General characteristics of modal verbs in English and Ukrainian.

2. Shade of meanings (nuances) expressed by the modals.

Terminology: necessity, obligation, permission, request, likelihood, certainty, possibility, ability, opportunity; epistemic/root modality

1. General characteristics of modal verbs in English and Ukrainian

Modal verbs add certain kinds of meaning connected with certainty or with obligation and freedom to act. We use modals, for instance, to talk about things which we expect, which are or are not possible, which we think are necessary, which we want to happen, which we are not sure about, which tend to happen. Notion ‘modality’ comprises various kinds of subjective attitude to an event, for instance, necessity, obligation, permission, request, possibility, ability, opportunity, etc.

Modal verbs are close by their function (and by their lexical meaning) to the auxiliary verbs. Their number is larger in English (allomorphism) than in Ukrainian. But in general, there is no differences between properties of modals in both contrasted languages.

English:

Group A	1 can	3 shall	5 will	7 may	9 must
	2 could	4 should	6 would	8 might	10 ought to
Group B	11 need	12 dare	13 used to

Ukrainian: вміти, могти, мусити, слід / треба, мати (маєш знати, він має бути), сміти, потребувати.

The first eight words in Group A are often treated as pairs, and analyzed as present and past of the same verb (e.g. can, could). But in fact the second words in these pairs have very limited past meanings and are mainly non-past in usage. In general could/might/should/would have present and future reference and are mostly used in reported speech and to express hypothesis, politeness or some other ‘social distancing’ (Could I borrow your car ? – polite

request). Group B verbs behave partly like modals and partly like lexical (main) verbs.

The modals are often described as defective verbs, because they lack a full set of forms.

1. Modal verbs can not be used as imperative or infinitive or participle. They are finite, but need a lexical (main) verb with them.

2. They do not have –s in the third-person singular. Questions, negatives and tags are made without do. She may know his address. Can you dive? You mustn’t worry. He shouldn’t be doing that, should he?

3. After modal verbs we use infinitive without TO (I should work hard. She can swim. I must water the flower).

d) Most of them have no past form. (e.g. Take must. A speaker cannot retrospectively lay an obligation. Stating now that an obligation existed in the past is a different concept, and requires a different verb have to, be able to, could, etc.)

e) However, ideas about the past can be expressed by modals followed by a perfect infinitive (have + past participle). After modals, progressive and passive infinitives are also possible:

I can’t find my keys. I must have left them at home. I may not be working tomorrow.

She was so angry she could have killed him. The kitchen ought to be paint one of these days. It’s annoying to have to get up early on Sundays. He’ll have to start coming on time.

She’s always had to work hard. We have to cut short our holiday because my mother was ill.

The simple modals such as can, may, must, will, and should have single forms, whereas the more complex structures known as periphrastic modals are formed with the verbs be and have, as in the be able to, have to, be allowed to. There is no such ’phrase-like’ forms in Ukrainian.

Both English and Ukrainian modals convey some indication of the speaker’s perspective or attitude with respect to the situation or state of affairs. That perspective can be based on what is known (epistemic modality) or what is socially determined in the situation (root modality).

a) Epistemic modality uses often sound like deductions or conclusions made by the speaker. For example, given a referent (Paul) and a description (be ill), speakers can express the relationship in a simple assertion (Paul is ill). However, they can add some indication of their perspective on the likelihood of that relationship being the case: Paul must be ill. Or Paul may be ill.

b) Root modality is based not on the speaker’s knowledge of facts, but on the speaker’s awareness of what is socially determined. Root modals are typically used interpersonally and have to do with obligation and permission. Creating an obligation and giving permission are acts that are based on social power of some kind. If a speaker has some socially-based power to control relationship, his perspective can be marked: Paul leaves before noon (simple observation). Paul must leave before noon (obligation). Paul may leave before noon (permission).