Шпоры по теоретической грамматике английского языка — страница 8

  • Просмотров 30202
  • Скачиваний 1912
  • Размер файла 134
    Кб

presents another layer of modality, built over the primary modality. It' does not always find an explicit expression in the sentence. Secondary modality is not homogeneous. It contains two layers and we can differentiate between two types of secondary modality. The first type expresses the relations between the subject of the sentence and the action. The action may be presented as possible, permissive, obligatory, necessary, desirable or unnecessary for the subject. It is expressed by the modal verbs in their verb-oriented meanings: ability, possibility, permission, necessity, obligation etc. E.g. Children must be seen but not heard. I can jump puddles. You may be free for today. The second type of secondary modality expresses the attitude of the speaker to the contents of the

utterance or the speaker's evaluation of the event presented in the utterance. This type of modality can be expressed by: 1)modal words and modal adverbs and modal particles: maybe, probably, certainly, of course, perhaps, sure, evidently, supposedly, luckily, fortunately etc. ( E.g. This is probably the best chance you have ever had); 2) by modal verbs in their sentence-oriented meanings: probability, doubt, supposition, certainty, disbelief (E.g. She couldn't have done it alone) ;3) by modalized verbs seem, to appear, happen, chance (She appeared to be holding something back from him); 4) by the so called performative verbs and phrases which name speech and mental acts: think, suppose, guess, doubt, be certain, be sure etc. (e.g. I guess you are right; I am afraid this is

true); 5) by special syntactic structures like 'tag questions' (This is true, isn't it?), as well as 6) by intonation and word order. As we can see the modal verbs participate in the expression of two kinds of secondary modality. 56. The problem of analytical forms in the system of English Moods Most analytical forms of the subjunctive mood are built by means of the auxiliaries which developed from the modal verbs should and would, plus the infinitive of the notional verb(indefinite or perfect). The auxiliaries, generally called mood auxiliaries, have lost their lexical meaning and are used in accordance with strict rules in certain patterns of sent-s or clauses. Ex. I wish you would stay with us some days more.; If he had known, he would have come. Some linguist think that

besides these 2 mood auxiliaries, analytical forms of the subjunctive mood may be built up with the help of mood auxiliaries may, might and less frequently shall and will. Ex. I went to London that I might see June.; Though he may be tired he will go to the concert. But it should be noted that not any combination of should and would with the infinitive is the subjunctive mood. When the verbs should and would preserve their lexico-modal meaning (should- obligation, would- volition) they form modal phases (compound verbal predicate): Ex. You should consult a doctor (= you ought to); He would come and sit with us for hours (repetition of the action). Analytical forms may be divided into 3 groups, according to their use and function.

1)                            the forms should+infinitive (for the first person singular & plural) and would+infinitive (for the other persons). This system coincides in firm with the future in the past and is parallel to the future indef.tense in the indicative mood. There is a strong tendency in Modern English to use would for all persons. These forms denote hypothetical actions, either imagined as resulting from hypothetical conditions, or presented as a real possibility. Ex. I shouldn’t praise the boy so much, he may get spoiled.; Would you help me if I need your help?

2)                            The form would+infinitive for all persons, both singular & plural. This form is highly specialized in meaning; it expresses a desirable action in the future. Ex. I wish you would go there too. 3)                            The form should+infinitive for all persons. This form stands apart in the system of the verb, as contrary to the general tendency to use either 2 forms –shall/should and will/would, or else to use 1 form- will/would for all persons. Some linguists (prof.