http://www.shakespeare.uk.net/journal/jllearn/2_2a/knoch.pdf

Corpus linguistics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Corpus linguistics is the study of language as expressed in samples (corpora) or "real world" text. This method represents a digestive approach to deriving a set of abstract rules by which a natural language is governed or else relates to another language. Originally done by hand, corpora are now largely derived by an automated process, which is corrected.

The corpus approach runs counter to Noam Chomsky's view that real language is riddled with performance-related errors, thus requiring careful analysis of small speech samples obtained in a highly controlled laboratory setting.

The problem of laboratory-selected sentences is similar to that facing lab-based psychology: researchers do not have any measure of the ethnographic representativity of their data.

Corpus linguistics does away with Chomsky's competence/performance split; adherents believe that reliable language analysis best occurs on field-collected samples, in natural contexts and with minimal experimental interference. Within CL there are divergent views as to the value of corpus annotation, from John Sinclair^[1] advocating minimal annotation and allowing texts to 'speak for themselves', to others, such as the Survey of English Usage team (based in University College, London)^[2] advocating annotation as a path to greater linguistic understanding and rigour.

Linguistics

Language

Theoretical linguistics

Generative linguistics

Phonology

Morphology

Syntax

Lexis

Semantics

Pragmatics

Descriptive linguistics

Phonetics

Historical linguistics

Comparative linguistics

Etymology

Sociolinguistics

Corpus linguistics

Applied linguistics

Language acquisition

Language assessment

Language development

Language education

Psycholinguistics

Neurolinguistics

Linguistic anthropology

Cognitive linguistics

Computational linguistics

Stylistics

Prescription

History of linguistics

List of linguists

Unsolved problems

v • d • e

Contents [hide] 1 History 2 Methods 3 References 3.1 Journals 3.2 Book series 3.3 Other 4 See also 5 External links

[edit] History

A landmark in modern corpus linguistics was the publication by Henry Kucera and Nelson Francis of Computational Analysis of Present-Day American English in 1967, a work based on the analysis of the Brown Corpus, a carefully compiled selection of current American English, totalling about a million words drawn from a wide variety of sources. Kucera and Francis subjected it to a variety of computational analyses, from which they compiled a rich and variegated opus, combining elements of linguistics, language teaching, psychology, statistics, and sociology. A further key publication was Randolph Quirk's 'Towards a description of English Usage' (1960)^[3] in which he introduced The Survey of English Usage.

Shortly thereafter, Boston publisher Houghton-Mifflin approached Kucera to supply a million word, three-line citation base for its new American Heritage Dictionary, the first dictionary to be compiled using corpus linguistics. The AHD made the innovative step of combining prescriptive elements (how language should be used) with descriptive information (how it actually is used).

Other publishers followed suit. The British publisher Collins' COBUILD monolingual learner's dictionary, designed for users learning English as a foreign language, was compiled using the Bank of English. The Survey of English Usage Corpus was used in the development of one of the most important Corpus-based Grammars, the Comprehensive Grammar of English (Quirk et al. 1985)^[4].

The Brown Corpus has also spawned a number of similarly structured corpora: the LOB Corpus (1960s British English), Kolhapur (Indian English), Wellington (New Zealand English), Australian Corpus of English (Australian English), the Frown Corpus (early 1990s American English), and the FLOB Corpus (1990s British English). Other corpora represent many languages, varieties and modes, and include the International Corpus of English, and the British National Corpus, a 100 million word collection of a range of spoken and written texts, created in the 1990s by a consortium of publishers, universities (Oxford and Lancaster) and the British Library. For contemporary American English, work has stalled on the American National Corpus, but the 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) (1990-present) is now available.

The first computerized corpus of transcribed spoken language was constructed in 1971 by the Montreal French Project ^[5], containing one million words, which inspired Shana Poplack's much larger corpus of spoken French in the Ottawa-Hull area ^[6]

Besides these corpora of living languages, computerized corpora have also been made of collections of texts in ancient languages. An example is the Andersen-Forbes database of the Hebrew Bible,^[7] developed since the 1970s,^[8] in which every clause is parsed using graphs representing up to seven levels of syntax,^[9] and every segment tagged with seven fields of information.^[10]

[edit] Methods

Corpus Linguistics has generated a number of research methods, attempting to trace a path from data to theory. Wallis and Nelson (2001)^[11] first introduced what they called the 3A perspective: Annotation, Abstraction and Analysis.

• Annotation consists of the application of a scheme to texts. Annotations may include structural markup, POS-tagging, parsing, and numerous other representations.

• Abstraction consists of the translation (mapping) of terms in the scheme to terms in a theoretically motivated model or dataset. Abstraction typically includes linguist-directed search but may include e.g., rule-learning for parsers.

• Analysis consists of statistically probing, manipulating and generalising from the dataset. Analysis might include statistical evaluations, optimisation of rule-bases or knowledge discovery methods.

Most lexical corpora today are POS-tagged. However even corpus linguists who work with 'unannotated plain text' inevitably apply some method to isolate terms that they are interested in from surrounding words. In such situations annotation and abstraction are combined in a lexical search.

The advantage of publishing an annotated corpus is that other users can then perform experiments on the corpus. Linguists with other interests and differing perspectives than the originators can exploit this work. By sharing data, corpus linguists are able to treat the corpus as a locus of linguistic debate, rather than as an exhaustive fount of knowledge.

[edit] References

[edit] Journals

There are several international peer-reviewed journals dedicated to corpus linguistics, for example, Corpora, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, ICAME Journal and the International Journal of Corpus Linguistics.

[edit] Book series

Book series in this field include Language and Computers, Studies in Corpus Linguistics and English Corpus Linguistics

5.0 Corpus linguistics

Corpora are collections of computer-readable texts that in fact have become a central part of learner dictionaries published by Longman, Collins-COBUILD, Oxford University Press, and Cambridge University Press (Tribble 1997a: 253). Corpus linguists focus on the results of observations made based on large data banks of texts. The corpora are used to describe varieties of language. These linguistic examples and generalizations can be used to make dictionaries, syllabuses and teaching material or even by learners themselves to investigate relevant facts about native speakers' language use (Chapelle 2001: 37).

Corpus research has other applications in class or for teachers to see which words go together. Large general corpora are only available to researchers who have access to powerful workstation computers but a smaller one, such as COBUILD on CD-ROM (1995) can be searched using its own software. Concordances can sort the contexts from the right or left of a word to help learners develop vocabulary as well as raise their awareness of grammar. Students can see actual examples of language used and sorted into manageable chunks.

AuthorMr. Kevin. Landry

http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/march03.sub6.php

Helping verbs or auxiliary verbs such as will, shall, may, might, can, could, must, ought to, should, would, used to, need are used in conjunction with main verbs to express shades of time and mood. The combination of helping verbs with main verbs creates what are called verb phrases or verb strings. In the following sentence, "will have been" are helping or auxiliary verbs and "studying" is the main verb; the whole verb string is underlined:

• As of next August, I will have been studying chemistry for ten years.

Students should remember that adverbs and contracted forms are not, technically, part of the verb. In the sentence, "He has already started." the adverb already modifies the verb, but it is not really part of the verb. The same is true of the 'nt in "He hasn't started yet" (the adverb not, represented by the contracted n't, is not part of the verb, has started).

Shall, will and forms of have, do and be combine with main verbs to indicate time and voice. As auxiliaries, the verbs be, have and do can change form to indicate changes in subject and time.

• I shall go now.
• He had won the election.
• They did write that novel together.
• I am going now.
• He was winning the election.
• They have been writing that novel for a long time.

Uses of Shall and Will and Should In England, shall is used to express the simple future for first person I and we, as in "Shall we meet by the river?" Will would be used in the simple future for all other persons. Using will in the first person would express determination on the part of the speaker, as in "We will finish this project by tonight, by golly!" Using shall in second and third persons would indicate some kind of promise about the subject, as in "This shall be revealed to you in good time." This usage is certainly acceptable in the U.S., although shall is used far less frequently. The distinction between the two is often obscured by the contraction 'll, which is the same for both verbs. In the United States, we seldom use shall for anything other than polite questions (suggesting an element of permission) in the first-person: "Shall we go now?" "Shall I call a doctor for you?" (In the second sentence, many writers would use should instead, although should is somewhat more tentative than shall.) In the U.S., to express the future tense, the verb will is used in all other cases. Shall is often used in formal situations (legal or legalistic documents, minutes to meetings, etc.) to express obligation, even with third-person and second-person constructions: The board of directors shall be responsible for payment to stockholders. The college president shall report financial shortfalls to the executive director each semester." Should is usually replaced, nowadays, by would. It is still used, however, to mean "ought to" as in You really shouldn't do that. If you think that was amazing, you should have seen it last night. In British English and very formal American English, one is apt to hear or read should with the first-person pronouns in expressions of liking such as "I should prefer iced tea" and in tentative expressions of opinion such as I should imagine they'll vote Conservative. I should have thought so. (The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996. Used with the permission of Oxford University Press. Examples our own.)

Uses of Do, Does and Did In the simple present tense, do will function as an auxiliary to express the negative and to ask questions. (Does, however, is substituted for third-person, singular subjects in the present tense. The past tense did works with all persons, singular and plural.) I don't study at night. She doesn't work here anymore. Do you attend this school? Does he work here? These verbs also work as "short answers," with the main verb omitted. Does she work here? No, she doesn't work here. With "yes-no" questions, the form of do goes in front of the subject and the main verb comes after the subject: Did your grandmother know Truman? Do wildflowers grow in your back yard? Forms of do are useful in expressing similarity and differences in conjunction with so and neither. My wife hates spinach and so does my son. My wife doesn't like spinach; neither do I. Do is also helpful because it means you don't have to repeat the verb: Larry excelled in language studies; so did his brother. Raoul studies as hard as his sister does. The so-called emphatic do has many uses in English. To add emphasis to an entire sentence: "He does like spinach. He really does!" To add emphasis to an imperative: "Do come in." (actually softens the command) To add emphasis to a frequency adverb: "He never did understand his father." "She always does manage to hurt her mother's feelings." To contradict a negative statement: "You didn't do your homework, did you?" "Oh, but I did finish it." To ask a clarifying question about a previous negative statement: "Ridwell didn't take the tools." "Then who did take the tools?" To indicate a strong concession: "Although the Clintons denied any wrong-doing, they did return some of the gifts." In the absence of other modal auxiliaries, a form of do is used in question and negative constructions known as the get passive: Did Rinaldo get selected by the committee? The audience didn't get riled up by the politician. Based on descriptions in Grammar Dimensions: Form, Meaning, and Use 2nd Ed. by Jan Frodesen and Janet Eyring. Heinle & Heinle: Boston. 1997. Examples our own.

Uses of Have, Has and Had Forms of the verb to have are used to create tenses known as the present perfect and past perfect. The perfect tenses indicate that something has happened in the past; the present perfect indicating that something happened and might be continuing to happen, the past perfect indicating that something happened prior to something else happening. (That sounds worse than it really is!) See the section on Verb Tenses in the Active Voice for further explanation; also review material in the Directory of English Tenses. To have is also in combination with other modal verbs to express probability and possibility in the past. As an affirmative statement, to have can express how certain you are that something happened (when combined with an appropriate modal + have + a past participle): "Georgia must have left already." "Clinton might have known about the gifts." "They may have voted already." As a negative statement, a modal is combined with not + have + a past participle to express how certain you are that something did not happen: "Clinton might not have known about the gifts." "I may not have been there at the time of the crime." To ask about possibility or probability in the past, a modal is combined with the subject + have + past participle: "Could Clinton have known about the gifts?" For short answers, a modal is combined with have: "Did Clinton know about this?" "I don't know. He may have." "The evidence is pretty positive. He must have." To have (sometimes combined with to get) is used to express a logical inference: It's been raining all week; the basement has to be flooded by now. He hit his head on the doorway. He has got to be over seven feet tall! Have is often combined with an infinitive to form an auxiliary whose meaning is similar to "must." I have to have a car like that! She has to pay her own tuition at college. He has to have been the first student to try that. Based on the analysis in Grammar Dimensions: Form, Meaning, and Use 2nd Ed. by Jan Frodesen and Janet Eyring. Heinle & Heinle: Boston. 1997. Examples our own.

Modal Auxiliaries

Other helping verbs, called modal auxiliaries or modals, such as can, could, may, might, must, ought to, shall, should, will, and would, do not change form for different subjects. For instance, try substituting any of these modal auxiliaries for can with any of the subjects listed below.

There is also a separate section on the Modal Auxiliaries, which divides these verbs into their various meanings of necessity, advice, ability, expectation, permission, possibility, etc., and provides sample sentences in various tenses. See the section on Conditional Verb Forms for help with the modal auxiliary would. The shades of meaning among modal auxiliaries are multifarious and complex. Most English-as-a-Second-Language textbooks will contain at least one chapter on their usage. For more advanced students, A University Grammar of English, by Randolph Quirk and Sidney Greenbaum, contains an excellent, extensive analysis of modal auxiliaries.

The analysis of Modal Auxiliaries is based on a similar analysis in The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers by Maxine Hairston and John J. Ruszkiewicz. 4th ed. HarperCollins: New York. 1996. The description of helping verbs on this page is based on The Little, Brown Handbook by H. Ramsay Fowler and Jane E. Aaron, & Kay Limburg. 6th ed. HarperCollins: New York. 1995. By permission of Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc. Examples in all cases are our own.

Uses of Can and Could The modal auxiliary can is used to express ability (in the sense of being able to do something or knowing how to do something): He can speak Spanish but he can't write it very well. to expression permission (in the sense of being allowed or permitted to do something): Can I talk to my friends in the library waiting room? (Note that can is less formal than may. Also, some writers will object to the use of can in this context.) to express theoretical possibility: American automobile makers can make better cars if they think there's a profit in it. The modal auxiliary could is used to express an ability in the past: I could always beat you at tennis when we were kids. to express past or future permission: Could I bury my cat in your back yard? to express present possibility: We could always spend the afternoon just sitting around talking. to express possibility or ability in contingent circumstances: If he studied harder, he could pass this course. In expressing ability, can and could frequently also imply willingness: Can you help me with my homework?

Can versus May Whether the auxiliary verb can can be used to express permission or not — "Can I leave the room now?" ["I don't know if you can, but you may."] — depends on the level of formality of your text or situation. As Theodore Bernstein puts it in The Careful Writer, "a writer who is attentive to the proprieties will preserve the traditional distinction: can for ability or power to do something, may for permission to do it. The question is at what level can you safely ignore the "proprieties." Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, tenth edition, says the battle is over and can can be used in virtually any situation to express or ask for permission. Most authorities, however, recommend a stricter adherence to the distinction, at least in formal situations. Authority: The Careful Writer by Theodore Bernstein. The Free Press: New York. 1998. p. 87.

Uses of May and Might Two of the more troublesome modal auxiliaries are may and might. When used in the context of granting or seeking permission, might is the past tense of may. Might is considerably more tentative than may. May I leave class early? If I've finished all my work and I'm really quiet, might I leave early? In the context of expressing possibility, may and might are interchangeable present and future forms and might + have + past participle is the past form: She might be my advisor next semester. She may be my advisor next semester. She might have advised me not to take biology. Avoid confusing the sense of possibility in may with the implication of might, that a hypothetical situation has not in fact occurred. For instance, let's say there's been a helicopter crash at the airport. In his initial report, before all the facts are gathered, a newscaster could say that the pilot "may have been injured." After we discover that the pilot is in fact all right, the newscaster can now say that the pilot "might have been injured" because it is a hypothetical situation that has not occurred. Another example: a body had been identified after much work by a detective. It was reported that "without this painstaking work, the body may have remained unidentified." Since the body was, in fact, identified, might is clearly called for.

Uses of Will and Would In certain contexts, will and would are virtually interchangeable, but there are differences. Notice that the contracted form 'll is very frequently used for will. Will can be used to express willingness: I'll wash the dishes if you dry. We're going to the movies. Will you join us? It can also express intention (especially in the first person): I'll do my exercises later on. and prediction: specific: The meeting will be over soon. timeless: Humidity will ruin my hairdo. habitual: The river will overflow its banks every spring. Would can also be used to express willingness: Would you please take off your hat? It can also express insistence (rather rare, and with a strong stress on the word "would"): Now you've ruined everything. You would act that way. and characteristic activity: customary: After work, he would walk to his home in West Hartford. typical (casual): She would cause the whole family to be late, every time. In a main clause, would can express a hypothetical meaning: My cocker spaniel would weigh a ton if I let her eat what she wants. Finally, would can express a sense of probability: I hear a whistle. That would be the five o'clock train.

Uses of Used to

The auxiliary verb construction used to is used to express an action that took place in the past, perhaps customarily, but now that action no longer customarily takes place:

• We used to take long vacation trips with the whole family.

The spelling of this verb is a problem for some people because the "-ed" ending quite naturally disappears in speaking: "We yoostoo take long trips." But it ought not to disappear in writing. There are exceptions, though. When the auxiliary is combined with another auxiliary, did, the past tense is carried by the new auxiliary and the "-ed" ending is dropped. This will often happen in the interrogative:

• Didn't you use to go jogging every morning before breakfast?
• It didn't use to be that way.

Used to can also be used to convey the sense of being accustomed to or familiar with something:

• The tire factory down the road really stinks, but we're used to it by now.
• I like these old sneakers; I'm used to them.

Used to is best reserved for colloquial usage; it has no place in formal or academic text.

uthority: A University Grammar of English by Randolph Quirk and Sidney Greenbaum. Longman Group: Essex, England. 1993. Used with permission. (examples our own)

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/auxiliary.htm

nglish verbs ~ Modal verbs

Modal verbs, also called modal auxiliaries or simply modals, are a type of auxiliary verb or helping verb. English has ten modal verbs:

can		could
may		might
shall		should
will		would
must		ought to

Modals express the mood a verb, such as ability, possibility, necessity, or another condition. They are used with a main verb to form a sentence or a question. Modals are not conjugated, have no tense, and cannot be used without a main verb.

When used with modal verbs (except ought), main verbs always remain in the infinitive without to.

In a statement the word order is subject + modal + main verb.

subject	modal	main verb
They	can	come.
Mike	should	walk.

In questions, the word order changes to modal + subject + main verb.

yes-no questions
modal	subject	main verb
Can	they	come?
Should	Mike	drive?

wh- questions
wh- word	modal	subject	main verb
When	can	they	come?
How	could	he	know?

Can

The modal can indicates possibility or ability:

Tom can help you.

Wild animals can be dangerous.

Dining out can be costly.

In questions, the modal can requests permission to do something or to ask about possibilities:

Can I help you?

Can Mike come over for dinner?

Who can answer the next question?

When can we get back the results?

Could

Could indicates possibility or ability in the past:

I could have told you that.

It could have been a disaster.

When I was young, I could run very fast.

Could speculates about future posibilities. In the following examples could and might are synonomous.

It could / might rain tonight.

That could / might be dangerous.

In yes-no questions, could speculates about present posibilities:

Could she be the murderer?

Could this be a mistake?

It can also make a request. In these examples could and can are synonomous, but could is more polite.

Could / Can you open your window?

Could / Can you help me move this sofa?

Could indicates an option:

We could go see a movie.

I could become a doctor.

The modal could is also used to form the conditional. The conditional contains an if clause and a result clause. Could is placed in the result clause.

In these examples, could expresses hypothetical situations:

If I had time, I could play tennis with you.

We could study together, if you want to.

If it weren't raining, we could go on a picnic.

Could mentions something that didn't happen because a certain condition was not met:

If we had left sooner, we could have taken the train.

I could have passed the exam if I had studied more.

I'm glad we took umbrellas. We could have gotten soaked.

Shall and Will

The modals shall/will + main verb are used to create future tenses. These modals indicate an intention or an action that is expected to happen in the future.

When used in statements, there is no difference in meaning between these two modals; however, shall is rarely used in American English.

I will / shall close the door for you.

Tom will / shall meet us at the train station.

They will / shall leave tomorrow at 8:00.

In wh- questions, shall and will ask about options.

Who will / shall drive the car?

When will / shall I see you again?

How will / shall you get here?

What time will / shall we meet?

In yes-no questions, shall and will have different meanings.

Will asks a favor.

Will / Shall you turn off the TV?

Will / Shall you stop whining?

Will / Shall you go with me?

Will also asks for information or knowledge about somebody or something.

Will / Shall Tom ever pay you back?

Will / Shall Mars be visited by humans within twenty years?

Will / Shall you be finished soon?

Shall asks about a preference. In these examples, shall and should are synonomous. In American English, shall is rarely used; when it is, it's only in the first person singular and plural.

Should / Shall I close the door?

Should / Shall he close the door?

Should / Shall they come back later?

Should / Shall Tom bring food to the party?

Should / Shall we stay here?

May and Might

The modals may and might indicate an uncertain future action. These two modals are synonymous.

I may / might go to the park, or I may / might stay home.

This may / might be a bad idea.

It may / might rain tonight.

iMay or can gives instructions or permission.

You may / can now board the airplane.

You may / can begin the exam in ten minutes.

In yes-no questions that make a request, you can use may or can. May is more polite.

May / Can I see your driver's license?

May / Can we have some more water, please?

You can might in place of may or can, but this is extremely rare in American English.

May / Can / Might I be of some assistance?

May / Can / Might we offer you a suggestion?

Must

The modal must indicates an obligation.

You must see this movie.

Tom must see a doctor immediately.

Must also indicates an assumption or probability.

My watch must be broken.

He must have done that before moving to Spain.

In wh- questions, must is an obligation and can be replaced with the modal should. In American English, should is much more common in these types of questions.

When should / must we be there?

Who should / must I talk to?

Must can sometimes form rhetorical questions, when you want the person to stop doing something.

Must you make so much noise?	=	Please be quiet.
Must he ask so many questions?	=	I hope he stops asking questions.

Should and Ought (to)

The modals should and ought to indicate an obligation. These two modals are synonymous.

You should / ought to call your mother.

I should / ought to go home now.

When used in questions, should asks if an obligation exists. Ought is never used in questions in American English.

Should he call her?

Should we pay now?

When should we leave?

What should I wear?

Would

Would followed by like is a polite way of stating a preference.

I would like white wine with my fish.

We would like a room with a view.

In questions, would + subject + like is a polite request for a choice to be made.

Would you like soup or salad with your meal?

Where would you like to eat dinner?

When would Tom like this delivered?

Would can make a request sound more polite.

Come here!	Would you come here?
Stop making that noise!	Would you stop making that noise?

Would explains an action as a result of a supposed or real condition.

I would go with you if I didn't have to work.

If I had not had to work, I would have gone with you.

She would be surprised if you came to the party.

Tom would drive, but he doesn't have a license.

Would introduces habitual actions in the past.

When I was a student, I would go swimming every day.

When Tom lived in France, he would write me long letters.

http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/esl/grammar/modalverbs.html

Modals are verbs that modify other verbs. The most common modals are:

Can
Should
Must

Note that all subjects take the same form of the modal.

Positive

Subject + Modal + Base Form of Verb + Objects

Examples

He can play the piano.
I must leave soon.

Negative

Subject + Modal + Not + Base Form of Verb + Objects

Examples

They can't visit next week.
You shouldn't go to that film.

Question

Modal + Subject + Base Form of Verb + Objects

Examples

Can you help me?
What should I do?

Giving Advice with Should

'Should' is used when asking for or giving advice. It is also used when asking for suggestions.

Examples

I think you should see a doctor.
What type of job should I get?

Expressing Ability with Can

'Can' is used to speak abilities.

Examples

He can speak Japanese.
Can you play golf?

Asking for Permission with May

'May' is used to ask for permission.

Examples

May I help you?
May I visit you this afternoon?

NOTE: In spoken English, 'Can I ...?' is often used instead of 'May I ...?'

Test your understanding with this short quiz.

future (will, going to)

The future with 'Will' is used in a variety of situations discussing the future. Use the following forms with 'will'. Notice that 'will' or 'won't' is used for ALL subjects.

Positive

Subject + will + base form of verb + object(s)

Negative

Subject + will + not + base form of verb + object(s)

Question

(Question Word) + will + subject + base form of verb?

Used for spontaneous decisions. Spontaneous decisions are decisions made AT the moment of speaking.

Examples

Jack's hungry. I'll make her a sandwich.
That's difficult! I'll help you with the problem.

Used for predictions:

Examples

It will snow tomorrow.
She won't win the game.

Used for scheduled public events

Examples

The concert will begin at 8 o'clock.
When will the train leave?
The class won't start next week.

Used for promises

Examples

Will you marry me?
I'll help you with your homework after class.

Future with 'Going to'

The future with 'going to' is used to speak about future intentions or plans made before the present moment. Use the following forms with 'going to'.

Positive

Subject + to be + going to + base form of verb + object(s)

Negative

Subject + to be + not + going to + base form of verb + object(s)

Question

(Question Word) + to be + subject + going to + base form of verb?

Examples We are going to study French next semester.
Where are you going to stay in France?
She isn't going to take a vacation this year.

Used for planned decisions. Planned decisions are decisions made BEFORE the moment of speaking.

Examples

I'm going to study Languages at university next year.
We're going to stay at the Hilton in New York next week.

Used for predicting an action that you see is about to happen:

Examples

Watch out! You're going to hit that car!
Look at those clouds. It's going to rain.

Used for future intentions:

Examples

I'm going to be a policeman when I grow up.
Katherine is going to study English when she goes to University.

Test your understanding with this short quiz.

English modal verb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

English grammar series
English grammar Contraction Disputes in English grammar English compound English honorifics English personal pronouns English plural English relative clauses English verbs English conjugation tables English irregular verbs English modal verb Gender in English
This box: view • talk • edit

In the English language, a modal verb is an auxiliary verb that can be used to change the grammatical mood of a sentence. The key way to identify a modal verb is by its defectiveness (they have neither participles nor infinitives).

The modal verbs in English are as follows, paired as present and preterite forms:

• shall and should
• will and would
• may and might
• can and could
• mote (Archaic) and must

The following are not modal verbs but may be used for a similar purpose:

• ought to and had better
• used to
• dare and need (Archaic use)
• do
• going to

Although historically referring to past time, the preterite forms have come to be used in many cases with no such meaning.

Contents [hide] 1 Syntax 2 Past time use of preterite forms 3 Conditionals 4 Shall and will 5 Should 6 Would 7 May and might 8 Can and could 9 Must 10 Words with a similar function to the modal verbs 10.1 Have to 10.2 Ought to and had better 10.3 Used to 10.4 Dare and need 10.5 Do 11 Double modal 12 References 13 External links

[edit] Syntax

If a verb is preceded by multiple auxiliary verbs including a modal, as in "it could have been eaten," the modal will always appear before the other auxiliary verbs. A verb or auxiliary verb following a modal always appears in its basic form (for example, "could have gone" instead of "could had gone").

[edit] Past time use of preterite forms

Preterite forms may be used when referring to situations seen from the perspective of an earlier time. For example, would is originally the past tense of will, and it can still be used in that sense. The statement "People think that we will all be driving hovercars by the year 2000", in the context of the 1960s, can be represented in the present by replacing the verbs in italics by the appropriate preterite forms: "In the 1960s, people thought we would all be driving hovercars by the year 2000." Likewise, "I can do that" may become "I could do that when I was younger, but not anymore."

[edit] Conditionals

The preterite forms can also be used in the apodosis in the conditional mood, such as in counterfactual conditionals: "If they wanted to do it, they would have done it by now." "If you bought a bus pass, you could catch as many buses as you liked without worrying about the cost of the fares." "If he were more polite, he might be better liked."

There is not always an explicit protasis ("if" clause) in this use: "Someone who likes red and hates yellow would probably prefer strawberries to bananas" means the same as "If someone who liked red and hated yellow were offered a choice of fruit, he or she would probably prefer strawberries to bananas." "I could help you with your work" gives a more tentative sense of ability to help than, say, "I can help you with your work" would. The implied protasis could, depending on the context, be along the lines of "If I wanted to".

[edit] Shall and will

Shall is used in many of the same senses as will, though not all dialects use shall productively, and those that use both shall and will generally draw a distinction (though different dialects tend to draw different distinctions). In standard, perhaps old-fashioned English, shall in the first person, singular or plural, indicates mere futurity, but in other persons shows an order, command or prophecy: "Cinderella, you shall go to the ball!" It is, therefore, impossible to make shall questions in these persons. Shall we? makes sense, shall you? does not.

Shall derives from a main verb meaning to owe, and in dialects that use both shall and will, it is often used in instances where an obligation, rather than an intention, is expressed.

Shall is also used in legal and engineering language to write firm laws and specifications as in these examples: "Those convicted of violating this law shall be imprisoned for a term of not less than three years nor more than seven years," and "The electronics assembly shall be able to operate within its specifications over a temperature range of 0 degrees Celsius to 70 degrees Celsius.

[edit] Should

Should is commonly used, even in dialects where shall is not. The negation is "should not" (or the contraction "shouldn't").

Should can describe an ideal behaviour or occurrence and imparts a normative meaning to the sentence; for example, "You should never lie" means roughly, "If you always behaved perfectly, you would never lie"; and "If this works, you should not feel a thing" means roughly, "I hope this will work. If it does, you will not feel a thing." In dialects that use shall commonly, however, this restriction does not apply; for example, a speaker of such a dialect might say, "If I failed that test, I think I should cry," meaning the same thing as, "If I failed that test, I think I would cry."

In some dialects, it is common to form the subjunctive mood by using should: "It is important that the law should be passed" (where other dialects would say, "It is important that the law be passed") or "If it should happen, we are prepared for it" (or "Should it happen, we are prepared for it"; where early Modern English would say, "If it happen, we are prepared for it," and many dialects of today would say, "If it happens, we are prepared for it").

[edit] Would

The contracted form of would is "'d". The negation is either "would not" or "wouldn't".

Would can be used in some forms that are viewed as more formal or polite. For example, "I would like a glass of water" compared with "I want a glass of water"; and "Would you get me a glass of water?" compared with the bare "Get me a glass of water."

[edit] May and might

May and might do not have common negative contractions (equivalents to shan't, won't, can't, couldn't etc), although mightn't can occur in asking questions. ("Mightn't I come in if I took my muddy boots off?" as a reply to "Don't come in here! You'll get the floor dirty!")

Both forms can be used to express a present time possibility or uncertainty ("That may be."). Might and could can also be used in this sense with no past time meaning. Might and may would carry the same meaning in "John is not in the office today, and he could be sick."

May is also used to express irrelevance in spite of certain or likely truth: "He may be taller than I am, but he is certainly not stronger" may mean roughly, "While it is true that he is taller than I am, that does not make a difference, as he is certainly not stronger." (However, it may also mean, "I am not sure whether he is taller than I am, but I am sure that he is not stronger.") This is the meaning in the phrase "Be that as it may." Might can be used in this sense as well.

Might can be used in the first person to express that future actions are being considered. "I might go to the mall later" means that the speaker is thinking about going to the mall.

May or might can be used in a question to ask for permission. One who is saying "May I use your phone?” is asking for permission to use the phone of the person being spoken to. 'Can' or 'could' can be used instead, although formal American English prefers 'may'. In both cases the preterite form is viewed as more hesitant or polite.

[edit] Can and could

The negation of can is the single word "cannot" or the contraction "can't". The negation of could is "could not", or "couldn't".

Can is used to express ability. "I can speak English" means "I am able to speak English", or "I know how to speak English".

It is also used to express that some state of affairs is possible, without referring to the ability of a person to do something: "There can be a very strong rivalry between siblings" can have the same meaning as "There is sometimes a very strong rivalry between siblings".

Cannot and can't can be used to express beliefs about situations: "He cannot have left already; why would he want to get there so early?" expresses with less certainty the same proposition as "He has not left already" does.

Both can and could can be used to make requests: "Can you pass me the cheese?” means "Please pass me the cheese". Could can be used in the same way, and might be considered more polite.

Can can also be used to ask for permission in a similar way to May. This is because of a pragmatic implication where one requires the ability to do something, before one can do it. For example, when someone asks "Can you pass the salt" they don't mean are you able to, but rather "please pass the salt".

[edit] Must

Must has no corresponding preterite form. The negation is "must not" or "mustn't". An archaic variant is the word mote, as used in the expression "so mote it be".

Must and have to are used to express that something is obligatory ("He must leave"). It can be used to express a prohibition such as "You must not smoke in here", or a resolution such as "I mustn't make that mistake again".

There is a distinction between must and have to in the negative forms. In the sentence "You must not go", it is being expressed that it is obligatory for the person being spoken to not to go; whereas in the sentence "You do not have to go" it is being expressed that it is not obligatory for the person to go.

Have to can be used for an ongoing obligation, such as "he has to be careful".

Must and have to are used to express beliefs (the epistemic rather than deontic use), such as "It must be here somewhere" or "It has to be here somewhere", with the same meaning as "I believe that it very likely that it is here somewhere."

[edit] Words with a similar function to the modal verbs

[edit] Have to

Have to is used in a similar way to must, as discussed above.

[edit] Ought to and had better

Ought to and had better are used to express an ideal behavior or occurrence or suggested obligation, in a similar way to should. The negations are, respectively, ought not to (or rarely, oughtn't to) and had better not. The "had" in "had better" can be contracted, such as "You'd better shut up." In informal American usage, the had in had better is sometimes omitted.

[edit] Used to

Used to is used to express past states that were habitual but which are no longer. For example, "I used to go to college" suggests that the speaker no longer goes to college. Negative constructions exist in expressions such as "She used to not like me", or if the speaker is trying to avoid the split infinitive, "She used not to like me".

In some non-standard dialects, used to can follow did not (or didn't), as in "She didn't use to like me".

[edit] Dare and need

Dare and need are not commonly used as auxiliaries nowadays, but formerly they were both were. Dare is rare with the exception of "How dare you!". "He dare not do it" is equivalent to "He does not dare to do it", while "It need not happen today" is equivalent to today's "It does not need to happen today" or "It might not happen today." However, in the sentence "I need to lose weight," need is not being used as an auxiliary, as takes the infinitive "to lose" as the head of the verb phrase rather than the bare infinitive "lose" that occurs in a phrase like "I can lose weight".

[edit] Do

As an auxiliary, do is essentially a "dummy"; that is, it does not generally affect the meaning. It is used to form questions and negations when no other auxiliary is present: "I do not (don't) want to do it." It is also sometimes used for emphasis: "I do understand your concern, but I do not think that will happen." Also, do sometimes acts as a pro-verb: "I enjoy it, I really do [enjoy it], but I am not good at it." (Other auxiliaries do this as well: "I can do it, I really can [do it], it just takes me longer"; but it bears particular note that in the case of do, it is often used as a pro-verb when it would be absent if the verb were present.) Because it does not affect the meaning of its verb, not all grammarians acknowledge do as a modal auxiliary. In a sense, it indicates a lack of modal auxiliary. (Do is also different in that it has a distinct third-person singular form, does, and in that its past tense, did, is used exactly as a past tense, not as a more general remote form).

[edit] Double modal

In standard English usage, it is rare to use more than one modal verb consecutively, with a few exceptions such as might have to or may have used to. A greater variety of double modals appears colloquially in some regional or archaic dialects. In Southern American English, for example, phrases such as might could or ought to should are sometimes used in conversation.^[1][2] The double modal may sometimes be redundant, as in "I ought to should do something about it", where ought to and should are synonymous and either one could be removed from the sentence. In other double modals, the two modal verbs convey different meanings, such as "I might could do something about it tomorrow", where might indicates the possibility of doing something and could indicates the ability to do it.

Double modals also occur in the closely related Germanic language Scots.

An example of the double modal used to could can be heard in country singer Bill Carlisle's 1951 song "Too Old to Cut the Mustard":

I used to could jump just like a dear,

But now I need a new landing gear.

I used to could jump a picket fence,

But now I'm lucky if I jump an inch.^[3]

These kind of double modal phrases are generally not regarded as correct grammar,^[1] although other double modals may be used instead. "I might could do something about it" is more often expressed as "I might be able to do something about it", which is considered more grammatical. Similarly used to could is usually expressed as used to be able to. Double modals can also be avoided by replacing one of the modal verbs with an appropriate adverb, such as using probably could or might possibly in place of might could.^[2]

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• Verbs in English Grammar, wikibook
• modal auxiliaries Website/Project that collects phrases containing modal auxiliaries on the web (in German and English)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_modal_verb