There is no doubt that the overall picture of the modals is extremely “messy” and untidy and that the most the linguist can do is to impose some order, point some regularities, correspondences, parallelisms…This subject is not one that lends itself to any simple explanation.
(Palmer, 1979.cited in Lewis, 1986, p.99)
Is this true of your experience, either as a teacher or as a learner (or both)? Can you give examples of any difficulties you have experienced?
It is true because I used to teach modal verbs to students. I found that it hard to explain the degree of possibility embeded in the present forms and past forms of the modal verbs, for example can, could, may might. Sometimes I got stuck by the students' questions because the lack of the context in which the modal verbs were used. For example, John enjoys going to the sea and he always go there during holidays. He ......(can, could, may, might) swim without the life guard. The answers can vary. Anyway, iIn case of must and have to, or has to, it is hard to explain explicitly how to use them interchangably. Some grammarians give a connection to the inside influence and the outside influence of the speakers. For example, "I have to wear a uniform to school." and "I must wear a uniform to school." cannot be interpreted using the above regulations. Is "I must wear a uniform to school." is the the speaker's proposition to do that? It may not, and it may be the outside influence to make him/her to do so. Thus, the use of the modal verbs is not static because it depends on the speaker's intention and the context involved. Any comments or any counterarguments are welcomed.
ReplyDeleteSo have you found the distinction between "internal" and "external" obligation to be unhelpful?
ReplyDeleteThanks for responding, Kriang. I'm going to follow up on your comment with a separate post. Please feel free to start your own posts (click "new post" in the top-right corner of the screen). You can write about any topic you're interested in.