The Modal Verb Should and the Variety of Its Functions

Home , English modal verbs, Modal verb

MASARYK UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF EDUCATION Department of English Language and Literature

The modal verb should and the variety of its functions

Bachelor thesis

Brno 2017

Author: Ing. Helena Budínová Supervisor: Mgr. Radek Vogel, Ph.D.

Abstrakt

Název: Modální sloveso should a všechny podoby jeho použití

Shrnutí:

Hlavním cílem této bakalářské práce je kompletní analýza informací o modálním slovese shall a should v daném vzorku anglických gramatik za účelem vytvořit ucelený soubor informací a současně identifikovat rozdílné informace uváděné k této problematice. Práce je členěna do kapitol od teoretického úvodu, přes jednotlivé problematiky výskytu modálního slovesa shall a should až k závěru shrnující výsledky analýzy a naplnění či vyvrácení hypotéz.

Klíčová slova: shall, should, modální sloveso, modalita

Abstract

Title: The modal verb should and the variety of its functions

Summary:

The main objective of this thesis is a complete analysis on the modal verb should in a given sample of English grammar books in order to create a comprehensive set of information and simultaneously identify different information presented on this issue. The work is divided into chapters of theoretical introduction, over various issues of occurence of modal verbs shall and should to a conclusion summarizing the results of the analysis and proving or disproving given hypotheses.

Key words: shall, should, modal verb, modality

Prohlášení

Prohlašuji, že jsem bakalářskou práci vypracovala samostatně, s využitím pouze citovaných pramenů, dalších informací a zdrojů v souladu s Disciplinárním řádem pro studenty Pedagogické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity a se zákonem č . 121/2000 Sb., o právu autorském, o právech souvisejících s právem autorským a o změně některých zákonů (autorský zákon), ve znění pozdějších předpisů. Souhlasím, aby práce byla uložena na Masarykově univerzitě v Brně v knihovně Pedagogické fakulty a zpřístupněna ke studijním účelům.

V Brně, 15.4. 2017 Ing. Helena Budínová………………..

Acknowledgements

Hereby I would like to express my big gratitude to my supervisor, Mgr. Radek Vogel,PhD., who always devoted his precious time and provided valuable advice and active encouragement as regards my writing this thesis. The most I would like to thank to my whole family for their immense moral support, especially to my lovely mother.

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. Introduction ...... 7 2. Modal verb and modality ...... 9 2.1. What is a modal verb? ...... 9 2.2. What is mood and modality? ...... 10 2.3. Types of modal verbs and types of moods they can represent ...... 13 2.4. Importance of knowledge of modals ...... 15 3. Modal verb should ...... 16 4. Objectives of the study and hypothesis ...... 18 5. Primary function of modal verbs shall ...... 19 5.1. Shall in legal documents ...... 21 6. Primary function of modal verb should ...... 24 6.1. Should in negative and interrogative clauses ...... 24 6.2. Should and the scope of the perfect ...... 25 6.3. Should according to the type of modality ...... 25 7. Uses of modal verb ought to instead of should...... 28 8. Modal verb should as alternative to the subjunctive ...... 30 8.1. If replaced by should ...... 31 8.2. Putative should ...... 31 9. Other uses of modal verb should ...... 36 10. Interpretation of findings ...... 38 11. Conclusion ...... 39 List of references ...... 40

List of abbreviations

AmE American English

BrE British English e.g. for example

Ex. example i.e. that is pl. plural sg. singular

1. INTRODUCTION

In English grammar, modal verbs are a special group of verbs that help to give a special meaning to a full verb and help to express the accurate mood of the information hidden within the utterance. They have many specific features that differentiate them from full verbs. Thanks to them the full verb indicate the right type of modality that is: ability, duty, obligation, possibility, suggestion, feeling, opinion, advisability or arrangement and the speaker is able to express a large scale of various smaller or bigger changes in temper as well as differentiate one´s state of mind.

The modal verb should is one of modal verbs that help to express large scale of emotions of the sender. What is fascinating, there is no such a modal verb that would have such a large scale of possible uses and would be able to help to create so many various couplings in terms of a morfological service on a syntactical level.

In some cases the modal verb should is still used just as the past form of shall. Or is replaced by modal verb ought to, or by would or could, or can be used as a marker of hypothetical or putative meaning. It is also used to express personal reactions to events, in questions expressing irritation or inability to understand, or with adjectives to express the idea that something must be done or is important. In negative form the modal verb ought to is not common and is often replaced by shouldn´t or should not.

In order to find out all these special cases of possible use of modal verbs shall and should and of their negative forms there will be an interesting survey into the grammatical world with its specific rules that nowadays retreat or collide with colloquial use in standard English, since the historical retrospective till the modern, often colloquial means of language of modern English.

The main aim of this survey is to collect all available information and sources that provide the various examples and explanations of use of the above mentioned modal verbs in order to submit a compact and complete review of possible applications of these modal verbs in modern English language. This thesis can also serve as a review or a supporting summary to lessons of syntax for teachers of English. It includes uncluttered contents with many examples, introducing observations in the field of grammatical and syntactical texts from respectable authors such as Rodney Huddleston, Geoffrey K. Pullum, Douglas Biber, Geoffrey Leech, Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greendbaum, Jan Svartvik, Visser, F.T., Michael Swan,A.J.

Thomson and A.V. Martinet. However, thesis draws on the latest surveys and thesis from young linguists, too.

The thesis is divided into two logical parts, though there is not a strict division. The theoretical part is providing general information about the grammatical phenomena i.e. definitions and specific features of modal verbs, list of modal verbs, existing types of linguistic modalities and moods of verbs as well as a brief overview of a historical development of modal verbs shall and should.

The practical part is an analysis of the findings from the survey into several grammar books that were chosen as representative sources of reliable and respectable information about English grammar on the market, printed or electronical, in order to provide the overal list of use of the modal verb in all possible moods, meanings and other unusual uses. The thesis also operates with results of two bachelor theses analysing modal verb shall in legal corpora and should in a form of putative should.

The final part includes interpretation of findings as well as the answers on the hypothetical questions and conclusion with summary of the findings.

2. MODAL VERBS AND MODALITY

2.1. WHAT IS A MODAL VERB?

Figure 1: Modal verbs. From Info de interés: Modal verbs FCE, Brickfield, centré de idiomes, retriever March 17, 2016 from http://www.brickfieldidiomas.com/info-de-interes-modal-verbs-fce/. Copyright 2016 by ProQuest LLC.

A modal verb is a special type of verb functioning as an essential linguistic device when the insertion of which into a non-modal environemt help to create a different understanding of the whole utterance. The modal verb alternatively called “modal auxiliary“ (Palmer 2001,15; Quirk et al. 1985, 96), “helping‘ verb“ (Quirk et al. 1985, 120) or “secondary auxiliary“ (Palmer 2001, 15) has “certain principal features in which it significantly differs from the full verb and also from its relative, the primary auxiliary verb. Those features are at both morphosyntactic and semantic levels. “(Palmer 2001, 15)

They do not need an additional auxiliary in negatives or questions. They do not agree in the third-person singular, as do other auxiliaries and lexical verbs. They are simply followed by a bare infinitive form of another verb. Most other verbs use the infinitive with to. Ought to is an exception to this rule. It does require a to-infinitive but otherwise behaves like other modal verbs. They have no non-finite forms (present participle, past participle or infinitive). Thus, “they cannot appear in places in the verb phrase where one of these forms would be required. “ (Palmer 2001, 100)

Using modal verb (also modal, modal auxiliary verb, or modal auxiliary) for an English student can be very tricky and sometimes very difficult in order to find out the most suitable type of modal verb to express the right modality – that is, likelihood/possibility, ability, permission, volition, willigness, necessity, prediction and obligation.

A modal verb gives information about the function of the main verb that helps to co- create different meanings or different mood in different situation. Precise knowledge of all modal verbs as well as their correct use is crucial to express the right modality within the transmission of the information in the discourse.

2.2. WHAT IS MOOD AND MODALITY?

“Modality is a kind of mood that the modal helps to create together with the main verb in order to change the communicative function.“ To be linguistically precise, modality covers the functions of modal verbs, and can be defined as the “manner in which the meaning of a clause is qualified so as to reflect the speaker‘s judgement of the likelihood of the proposition it expresses.“ (Palmer 2001, 33)

In addition, Palmer further explains term of “modality“ as a “semantic term related to the meanings that are usually associated with mood; the relation between mood and modality like that between tense and time. “ Moreover, various meanings of modal verbs can be further categorized, which, however, causes disputes among linguists. Some of them divide modality into two cathegories, the others into three main cathegories, according to the tense and aspect of the modal. (Palmer 2001,70)

Huddleston et al. further denotes that “the distinction between mood and modality is like that between aspect and aspectuality: mood is a category of grammar, modality a category of meaning. Mood is the grammaticalisation of modality within the verbal system. The term “mood“ is most usually applied to inflectional systems of the verb, as in the contrast between indicative, subjunctive, and imperative in such languages as Latin, French, and German.“ (Huddleston et al. 20012, 186)

Simply a personal attitude towards the information expressed by the sentence is accompanied by personal choice of words i.g. modals and verbs and stress pronounced. This all creates the original and individual way of speech act that has to be applied within the area of linguistics and syntax. Thus the information expressed in oral way is interpretable and intercepted in grammar books and later able to be studied and researched. 10

The study of modals is directly linked with modality and vice versa. According to Huddleston et al. (2002) modals differ according to communicative functions:

Modals have a wide variety of communicative functions, but these functions can generally be related to a wide scale of types, in terms of one of the following types of modality: • epistemic modality, concerned with the theoretical possibility of propositions being true or not true (including likelihood and certainty) • deontic modality, concerned with possibility and necessity in terms of freedom to act (including permission and duty) • dynamic modality, which may be distinguished from deontic modality, in that with dynamic modality, the conditioning factors are internal – the subject's own ability or willingness to act. (Hudleston et. al 20012, 66)

According to Bybee, J.et al.(1994), “epistemic usages of modals tend to develop from deontic usages. For example, the certainty sense of the English modal verb must has developed after the strong obligation sense; the probabilistic sense of should has developed after the weak obligation sense; and the possibility senses of may and can have developed later than the permission or ability sense“. Two typical sequences of evolution of modal meanings are: • internal mental ability → internal ability → root possibility (internal or external ability) → permission and epistemic possibility

• obligation → probability (Bybee et al. 1994, 192-193)

Therefore Bybee et. al. (1994) mention that there is no wonder that in English, as in many other languages, some of the same verbs are used for “deontic modality as for epistemic modality“, and the meaning is “distinguished from the context“: Ex.1 He must be there by now. (epistemic) versus He must be there tomorrow at noon (deontic). (193-194) Moreover, the subdivision of modality according to the exact nature of the two relata is of the modal relation. The speaker that is expressing the idea and makes the choice of the modality may or may not be part of the situation included by the sentence. If that speaker is a participant of the situation, modality expresses that the basis of the situation somehow depends on that speaker. However, in case “the source of the modality is not part of the situation implied, then it is typically – although not necessarily – the speaker; and the other relatum of the modal relation is not the situation implied, but rather the proposition. “ (Modality, 1)

If modality is a relation between an external referent and the statement, “it is subjective modality. If modality is the stright relation between the referent of the sentence subject and the predicate than it is objective modality“.(Modality, 1)

The main difference is depicted on the following examples:

Ex.2 He must be in the bathroom. Ex.3 He must go to the bathroom. (Modality, 1)

The best explanation of the modality of Ex. 2 would be that the speaker predicts, from some preceding experience or on deductive basis, that “He is in the bathroom“ is a reality of the moment. That is also the most typical example of subjective modality. The most apparent interpretation of Ex. 3 is that there is some physical condition that “he” has and forces “him“ to “go to the bathroom“ urgently. That is an example of objective modality. “Objective modality is based on the idea that it is grounded in the nature of things, especially of the referents taking part in the situation uttered. Subjective modality is called subjective as it is a result of predicting or a judgement of the referent, or of some other entity that has a subjective opinion on the situation. “ (Modality, 1) Nevertheless, the two statements collide in the following findings : • any modality is a kind of subjective, since the modalization is necessarily caused by the referent who expresses his attitude. • subjective modality is also called “propositional modality“ in some grammars. • modality that is based on the sentence-subject relation is not called subjective, but objective.

• objective modality is also called “dynamic modality“. (Modality, 1)

Accordingly, it is clear that the differentiantion of modalities and the attitudes of the referent is not always as stright as it could seem to be. In the situation of the modals shall and should the situation is also very complicated. To understand the right meaning and to interprete the idea the best possible way is mostly influenced by the context, the situational background as well as the knowledge of the basic types of modalities in order to provide the right expression of one´s own moods, feelings and ideas.

2.3. TYPES OF MODAL VERBS AND TYPES OF MOODS THEY CAN REPRESENT

Modal verbs are difficult to define in any language because of the wide range of pragmatic uses and types of modal verbs by native speakers. Some of the more common definitions of the modal verbs and modalities that they can help to create in English are:

• can – ability, permission, possibility, request • could – ability, permission, possibility, request, suggestion • may – permission, probability, request • might – possibility, probability, suggestion • must – deduction, necessity, obligation, prohibition • shall – decision, future, offer, question, suggestion • should – advice, necessity, prediction, recommendation • will – decision, future, intention, offer, prediction, promise, suggestion • would – habit, invitation, permission, preference, request, question, suggestion. (Modal verbs in English, 1)

Epistemic modals are used to indicate the possibility or necessity of some piece of knowledge. In the epistemic use, modals can be interpreted as indicating inference or some other process of reasoning involved in coming to the conclusion stated in the sentence containing the modal. Epistemic modals do not necessarily require inference, reasoning, or evidence. One effect of using an epistemic modal (as opposed to not using one) is a general weakening of the speaker's commitment to the truth of the sentence containing the modal.

In contrast, “deontic modality is concerned with possibility and necessity in terms of freedom to act (including ability, permission, and duty) “. (Linguistic modality, 1)

The following table lists the modal auxiliary verbs of standard English where most of them appear more than once based upon the distinction between deontic and epistemic modality with an example for each of them.

Table 1 English modal verbs Note. Adapted from Modal verb, (2016), Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_verb#cite_note-4

Meaning Modal auxiliary Example contribution

Can dynamic modality She can really sing.

Can epistemic modality That can indeed hinder.

Can deontic modality You can sing underwater.

Could dynamic modality He could swim when he was young.

Could epistemic modality That could happen soon.

May deontic modality May I stay?

May epistemic modality That may be a problem.

Might epistemic modality The weather might improve.

Must deontic modality Sam must go to school.

Must epistemic modality It must be hot outside.

Shall deontic modality You shall not pass.

Should deontic modality You should stop that.

Should epistemic modality That should be surprising.

Will epistemic modality She will try to lie.

Will deontic modality I will meet you later.

Would epistemic modality Nothing would accomplish that.

The verbs in this table all have fullfilled these conditions:

1. They are auxiliary verbs, which means they allow subject-auxiliary inversion and can take the negation not,

2. They provide functional meaning, 3. They are defective insofar as they cannot be inflected, nor do they appear in non- finite form (i.e. not as infinitives, gerunds, or participles), 4. They are nevertheless always finite and thus appear as the root verb in their clause 5. They subcategorize for an infinitive, i.e. to take an infinitive as their complement. (Modal verb, 1)

2.4. IMPORTANCE OF KNOWLEDGE OF MODAL VERBS

Using modal verbs is not very easy in order to find the right one for the meaning the speaker want to create and to interprete to the public. It is not only about the knowlege of all existing modal verbs or full verbs. The speaker needs to feel the differences and the slight nuances in meaning of the phrases. These slight differences can be unvisible for untrained speaker and bring him many misunderstandings as in English the same phrases used in different situations can mean a big difference. That is why it is extremely important to undertand the modalities of the modals and use them in the proper way.

3. MODAL VERB SHOULD

Modal verb should is not only used to refer to the past, or as a past form of shall. It can be used as a less definite, more „tentative“ form of shall, referring to the present or the future. In English grammar, should belongs into the group of modal auxiliaries that do not make up a verb phrase on its own but help to make up a verb phrase in combination with a main verb. In such combinations it is able to create a phrase of various modalities, such as obligation, suggestions, opinions, feeings and giving advices. (Swan 1980, 549)These are only the basic and most commonly known forms. But there are lots of other possible types of phrases in which the modal verb should help to create untypical ranges of form.

Historically, the modals of English, which are listed in (1), were derived from a special class of verbs in Germanic (the ancestor of English and the other Germanic languages). (1) can, could, may, might, must, shall, should, will, would Modals have always differed from ordinary verbs in Germanic, and in the course of the history of English, they have diverged from verbs even further, to the point where they now belong to a syntactic category of their own as respecting the general attitude to their development, researchers claim that the modal verbs each gained modal properties at a different time of the English history. For example, the historical predecesor of today´s form of modal shall, sculan, was relatively frequently used to express modality as early as in the early Old English period; however, cunnan, the historical counterpart of can, is considered to have been quite reluctant to drop its full-verb properties. Additionally, there is another widely recognized conclusion that any process of grammaticalization, along with its subordinate auxiliarization, is irreversible, that is, the modal verbs can never obtain their lexical meanings back. The fact that their development is not yet completely finished is also one of the common scholarly viewpoints. (Hogg and Denison 2008, 28) In Hogg and Denison the situation is even more complicated with the pairs shall/should and may/might. In earlier stages of the language, these verbs were once used systematically just as the other two pairs still are. Verb shall written as sceal had not the meaning of futurity as it has in present-day English, except in the occasional, and rather literal, translation of a Latin future. As in following example from Ælfric reflecting the Latin original:

“Ƅȃ dȇadan sceolon arῑsan / the dead shall arise“ Of course this example can also express, just as the present-day modal does, necessity with the future implication. Yet, in reported speech we find examples which do not look as if they are a copy of Latin and in which sceolde- should represents a future in the past, represented by would. “Hῑe ne wȇndon ðӕtte ǣfre menn sceolden swǣ reccelȇase weorðan./ They did not think that ever man would so reckless become.

In contemporary English, however, other factors make the relationship more complex. Shall, for example, is rare apart from formal contexts, and should has developed uses that are unrelated to its past-tense status. (Hogg and Denison 2008, 29)

4. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY AND HYPOTHESES

Traditionally, linguistic hypotheses are encoded as statements within a grammatical theory and tested by collecting relevant examples and manually verifying that the grammars correctly predict the grammaticality and linguistic structure of those examples. Even this survey is based on collecting as much relevant information as possible and later processed into a review of various examples proving or disproving the set hypotheses. The core problem of this analysis will be the modal verbs shall and should and the hypotheses are set on the basis of theoretical grammatical knowledge of facts. Below there are given three hypotheses that should be tested.

Hypothesis 1: There is only one possible use of modal verb shall, namely in a specific situation of polite questions and rather rare in Modern English.

Hypothesis 2: There are clear rules in different use of modals should and ought to in British and American English.

Hypothesis 3: Modal verb should used as putative should can be a complete substitute to subjunctive.

All three hypotheses are tentative and testable answers coming from general knowledge of both tested modals. The questions and discretions included are rather „ an educated guess“ that have to be proved.

In the final part of this thesis there is a conclusion including findings and outcomes of the survey regarding the hypotheses and explanations of the information acquired in various grammar books and analysis. The conclusions are results of the analysis of all the sources mentioned in the list of reference and thus corresponing with the given actual information.

5. PRIMARY FUNCTION OF MODAL VERB SHALL

In Oxford as well as in Cambridge dictionary modal verb shall is traditionally used as an auxiliary verb to create future tense structures mainly for the first person. It is also used to express that something is expected, to give a command or when asking for someone´s opinion. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language from Huddleston R. et al. (2002, 194- 195) differentiates usage of modal verb shall according to the type of modality it is tied with. The deontic modality includes use of shall for the “constitutive/ regulative“ use, for “speaker´s quarantee“ and “direction questions“. Non-deontic use of modal verb shall is connected with will as a variant of it in expressing futurity, consequences and volition. That is a completely different concept of differentiation from Quirk et al. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of English Language (Quirk et al. 1985, 213) introduces the chapter about future time with possibility of use will/shall + infinitive as one of the means of expressing future time. It also states that “shall is in present-day English, a rather rare modal verb and has only two uses, both with a 1st person subject, generally current“ and used to express these types of modalities (Quirk et al. 1985, 230): a) prediction The modal verb shall can be easily substituted with will according to the grammar of BrE. Its prescriptive traditions exclude use of will as a future auxiliary with I or we, but this contention is considered to be rather old-fashioned and is nowadays widely ignored Ex 4. According to the preliminary results, I shall/ will win quite easily. b) volition The intentional nature of an action with the idea of control. Shall used in this sense creates very formal sentences, usually with 1st person subjects (I, we) in (ex. 5). In questions containing structures shall I/ shall we, shall represents the wishes of the addressee and in such case the volitional meaning changes its character to the obligational, especially in offers (ex. 6). Ex. 5 We shall/will abide by our undertakings to find additional funds. Ex. 6 Shall I deliver your package to your office? (Do you want me to do it?) c) obligation According to Crystal, D. and Davy, D. (1969, 206) there is another possible usage of modal verb shall with a 3rd person subject, nevertheless it is restricted and it occurs mostly in legal documents. It occurs of a legal decision or a command. (206) 19

Ex. 7 The statesmen shall meet in Bruxelles. According to Swan, M. (1980) older English, shall was common in the 2nd and 3rd persons when the speaker wanted to express a strong emotion (for example, in promises or threats). Ex. 8 You shall have an answer by tomorrow. Ex. 9 If he´s good, he shall have a new watch for Christmas. Ex. 10 You shall suffer for this! This construction is still possible, but it often sounds rather old-fashioned, and we usually prefer the use of will or to find another way of expressing the idea (e.g. I´ll make sure you suffer for this!). (Swan 1980, 546) Biber, D. et al. (1999) states that shall helps to express volitional meaning rather than prediction in both academic writing and rarely in conversation. In this case it is generally used with a 1st person subject. (Biber, D. et. al. 1999, 496-497) Ex. 11 On this example I shall demonstrate ... According to Swan, M. (1980) older English, shall was common in the second and third persons when the speaker wanted to show a strong emotion (for example, in promises or threats). Ex. 9 You shall have an answer by tomorrow. Ex. 10 If he´s good, he shall have a new watch for Christmas. Ex. 11 You shall suffer for this! This construction is still possible and widely used however, it often sounds rather old-fashioned. (Swan, M. 1980, 546) According to Alexander, L.G. (1988, 2017) shall apart from its main use with I/we referring to the future, can be used for permissions and may also be given by a speaker in the 2nd and 3rd persons (formal and literary): Ex. 12 You shall do as you please. (i.e. You have my permission to.) Ex. 13 He shall do as he pleases. (i.e. He has my permission to.)(217) Permission may also be denied with shan´t in BrE only. Ex. 15 If you don´t behave yourself, you shan´t go for the disco tonight. Ex. 16 If he doesn´t behave himself, he shan´t go out/be allowed out.(217) Future time can be expressed by shall+infinitive. Though the most common way of expressing futurity according to Thomson, A.J. and Martinet, A.V. (1992, 178) and Huddleston, R. et al. (2002, 195) is the construction of will or ´ll

20 with the inifitive, shall is also sometimes used with the infinitive (especially in Southern BrE) to indicate futurity with a 1st person subject. Ex. 17 No doubt I shall see you in an hour. (Thomson, A.J.,Martinet, A.V. (1992, 178) Another use denotes “future as a matter of course“. (It avoids the interpretation of volition, intention, promise, etc. to which will, shall and be going to are liable. Ex. 18 We´ll be flying at 30 000 feet. (Thomson, A.J.,Martinet, A.V. (1992, 178) Spoken by the pilot of an aircraft to the passangers, the statement implies that 30 000 feet is the normal and expected altitude for the flight. This notion stands for the use of the construction to convey greater tact than with will/shall. In Thomson, A.J. and Martinet, A.V. (1960, 188) there is also information that shall is mostly used for determination. Determination is normally used expressed by will but sometimes public speakers feel that to express determination they need a “heavier“ word, a word not normaly used much, and so they say shall: Ex. 19 We shall fight and shall win. (The speaker is promising victory.) (188) Shall used in this way sometimes carries the idea of promise which we get in second person shall: Ex. 20 You shall have a sweet = I promise you a sweet. (188) Shall can be used in this way even in ordinary coversation. Ex. 21 I shall be there, I promise you. (188) But will here is also possible and probably more understandable for the student. Only Thomson, A.J. and Martinet, A.V. (1960, 188) mention another possible use of shall for speculations and requests for orders or instructions.

5.1. SHALL IN LEGAL DOCUMENTS

Considered rather old-fashioned, modal verb shall is getting less and less frequent in modern British English. It is hardly ever used often, rather rarely, mainly to express future or in polite questions. However, it is the most frequent used modal in language of the law. This fact was obvious in corpora analysis of modal verbs frequency in a bachelor thesis of Radovan Zelenka from the Zlín University, Faculty of Filology (2013). His research found out that since shall was the most frequent verb and occurred in all of the 20 analysed original English legal texts of both law and contract texts of approximately 2,600 words per text, together amounting to approximately 52,000 words. The research was focused on frequency and various meanings of particular modal verbs. Below is the whole text of his survey in legal corpora and usage of modal verb shall, highlighted. 21

Following pie chart shows frequency of positive and negative forms of shall within the analyzed documents. Shall ccurred in 384 cases in its positive form which represents 86% of total occurrences, negative form occurred 59 times (14%). (Zelenka 2013, 40)

Shall/ Shall not

59/ 13%

384/87% shall

shall not

Figure 3. Graph of shall in positive/negative form

Modal verb shall in today´s BrE and AmE is widely used to express obligation or to reflect commands in legal language and legal corpora. Below there are few examples from various international agreements, contracts and treaties.

❖ The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.(The North Atlantic Treaty, Article 5,1949)

❖ The action of the League under this Covenant shall be effected through the instrumentality of an Assembly and of a Council, with a permanent Secretariat. (Peace treaty of Versailles, Article 2, 1919)

Shall not is used in legal language to express prohibition modality:

❖ Recipient's obligations under Paragraph 2 hereof shall not apply or shall cease to apply to any Confidential Information.(Rayonier Confidentiality Agreement, www.rayonier.com)

As the graph (Fig. 3) depicts, the modal verb shall is the most frequently used modal verb in written legal language. The following examples represent different modalities of shall:

To grant a right:

❖ The furnishing Party shall retain all its rights with respect to Contractor Project Background Information agency. (CTIA: Consolidated Treaties and International Agreements, Vol. 3, 2010)

To explain the circumstances:

❖ The purpose of this Agreement shall define the terms and conditions according to which the Orderer processes the material as follows. (Service Agreement for external users, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Helsinki, http://research.med.helsinki.fi)

To express an obligation:

❖ The Student shall be obliged to keep secret all information that has come to his/her notice during his/her training period and of which he/she should reasonably recognise the confidential nature. (Internship Agreement, University of Twente, https://www.utwente.nl)

The previous chapter explains the primary functions of the modal verb shall. It is obvious that the tendency among legal writers is to omit, or replace shall with other appropriate modal verb to make legal language more understandable. Within the scope of these suggestions there are noted two examples of such changes in the meaning for comparison of the changed modalities.

Ex. 22 The Members shall make their contributions…

Ex. 23 The Members must make their contributions…

(both examples from Zelenka 2013, 42)

As a conclusion, it is clear that the sentences once changed by substituting of the verb shall or omitting it, get another modality and develop difference in meaning.

6. PRIMARY FUNCTION OF MODAL VERB SHOULD

Quirk, R. et al. (1985) states that central modal should is used to express two modal meanings. The necessity meaning of should can be found in statements where the speaker does not know if the statement is true, but claims that it is true, based on his findings or experiences. This meaning can be termed tentative inference. Obligational sense is similar to must, but the tone of the speaker is less emphasized. Ex. 24 You should do as he says. (231) According to Biber, D. et. al. (1999, 495) personal obligation is the most common meaning of should in both conversation and academic prose. It is often used in conversation instead of must to express obligation more politely. Huddleston, R. et al. (2002, 200) justifies should as the preterite counterpart of shall by the relationship between them in backshift and conditionals. Such as in these examples where Huddleston, R. et al (2002) displays four possible use: Ex. 25 I shall easily finish before she returns. /original utterance/ Ex. 26 I knew I should/shall easily finish before she returned. /backshifted report/ Ex. 27 If they offer met he job I shall certainly accept. /open conditional/ Ex. 28 If they offered met he job I should/shall certainly accept. /remote conditional/ Shall is inadmissible in ex. 25 constructions: it is replaced by should just as other present tense forms are replaced by uncontroversial preterites. Thus no general account of these constructions can be given unless should is analysed as a preterite form. (Ibid.,200-201)

6.1. SHOULD IN NEGATIVE AND INTERROGATIVE CLAUSES

Ex. 29 He shouldn´t go with them. /medium internal negation/ Huddleston, R. et al. (2002, 186-188) also introduces negative interrogatives, used as questions biased towards a positive answer, have external negation irrespective of the strength of the modality: Ex. 30 Shouldn´t you tell them we´ll be late? (186) The use of modal auxiliarities in interrogatives is in general predictable from their use in declaratives: only a few further points need be made, several of which relate to the common use of modalised questions as indirect speech acts. Should generally has a deontic interpretation in interrogatives: Ex. 31 Should he go by bus? (187)

Because should takes internal negation, the modality is effectively outside the scope of the question, which predicts that “he should do one of two things, go by bus or not go by bus“. There is a special epistemic use in open interrogatives, normally with why, as in : Ex. 32 Why should he have resigned? This is ambiguous between a deontic reading “Why was the right thing for him to do to resign?“ and an epistemic one not predictable from the use of should in declaratives, “ Why do you assume/think he resigned?“ (Huddleston et al. 2002, 188)

6.2. SHOULD AND THE SCOPE OF THE PERFECT

Both Huddleston and Pullum (2002, 186) and Thomson and Martinet (1960, 226) state that ought to/should in construction with the perfect infinitive is used to express an unfulfilled obligation or a sensible action that was neglacted. In the negative it expresses a wrong or foolish action in the past. Ex. 33 You ought to/ should have told him that the paint was still wet. (Thomson and Martinet 1960, 138)

6.3. SHOULD IN FORMAL NOTICES

Modal verb should can be used in formal notices or information sheets such as : Ex. 34 Candidates should be prepared to answer questions on… Ex. 35 Intending travellers should be in possession of the following documents… Ex. 36 On hearing the alarm bell, hotel guests should leave their rooms… (Thomson and Martinet 1960, 138)

6.4. SHOULD ACCORDING TO THE TYPE OF MODALITY

In its most frequent use, should expresses medium strength deontic or epistemic modality and is generally interchangeable with ought to: (Huddleston et al. 2002, 186)

Ex. 37 You should tell your mother. /deontic/ Ex. 38 The next road on the left should be King Street. /epistemic/ Ex. 39 He should do better this time. /ambiguous/ In the deontic interpretation of ex. 37 it is a mattar of what is expected of him, whereas in epistemic interpretation it is a matter of what I expect will happen. In the former case “I could add but I don´t suppose he will“, while a possible continuation for the latter is judging by the amount of training „he´s done“. Deontic should is usually subjective, indicating what the speaker considers ‘right’- whether morally (One should always tell the truth.) or as a matter 25 of expediency (We should buy now while the market is depressed.). The expression is weaker than must in what is allowed for non-actualisation (I should stop now but I´m not going to). With past or present time they are commonly used when it is known that the situation was/is not actualised, in which case they convey criticism (He shouldn´t have gone to bed so late; You should be doing your homework instead of watcing television). One difference between should and ought to is that only the former is normally used in issuing indirect directives, such as instructions (The right-hand column should be left blank) „Leave the right- hand column blank.“ (Huddleston, R. et al., 2002, 187)

Epistemic should/ought to, again usually subjective, has a strength comparable with probable, but differs from it in that it involves inference (compare the difference between epistemic must and certainty). This means that the concept of ‘right’ is also relevant here in Ex. 38.,.. if the next road is not King Street, then I shall have failed to make the right inference. (188)

The deontic use of should is more basic than the epistemic use. An epistemic reading is hardly possible with past time situations. Note, for example, the contrast between must/may and should/ ought to in (188) :

Ex. 40 She must/may have left yesterday. /epistemic/

Ex. 41 She should/ought to have left yesterday. / deontic/

More generally, there are many cases where the interpretation is purely deontic, but few where it is purely epistemic. If you ask where the key is and the reply would be, “It should be in the desk drawer“, there is an epistemic component in the meaning (“You´ll probably find it there“), but there is likely to be a deontic component, too (“ If it isn´t there, it´s not in its right place“). If sending a manuscript to a publisher the refering utterance would be, “They should accept it“, this can have a purely deontic reading (“It would be wrong of them not to accept it“), with no epistemic judgement as to whether they will or it can have an epistemic reading in my expectation that they will accept is inseparable from the judgement that that is the right thing for them to do. The primacy of deontic should/ought is also reflected in the fact that an epistemic reading is much less likely with unfavourable situations than with favourable ones.(188) Thus if we replace verb “accept“ by “reject“ in this last example the epistemic reading becomes very unlikely. The primacy of the deontic use (where the situation is characteristically in the future) may also explain why should/ought to is used epistemically in inferring consequences from cases but not the other way round, co that they could substitute for must

26 in “He´s better now: he must be able to return to work“, but not in He´s back at work now: he must be better.

Should/ought to normally take internal negation such as in a sentence You shouldn´t eat so much to refrain from eating so much. There are no equivalent items taking external negation, i.e. no items related to them as need is to must or can to epistemic may, but this is to be attributed to the fact that with medium strength modality there tends to be no pragmatic difference between external and internal negation.

There are several constructions, predominatly subordinate ones, where should (but not ought to) appears with low-degree modality, i.e. with little discernible modal meaning of its own:

Ex. 42 It is essential/ desirable that he should be told. /mandative/

Ex. 43 We invited her husband too, lest he should feel left out. /adversative/

7. USES OF MODAL VERB OUGHT TO INSTEAD OF SHOULD

According to Swan, M. (1980, 496) as well as Leech,G. and Svartvik, J. (2002) should and ought to have very similar meanings. Another important fact is that should is more frequent than ought to. However, ought to used instead of should sounds stronger, or that the intention of the given information wasn´t just the “fact“ but the stress is on the „tone“. Ex. 44 My mother should be here by now. (She usually arrives at this time.) Ex. 45 My mother ought to be here by now. (She usually arrives at this time and Iam annoyed she hasn´t arrived yet. Both modals are used to express obligation and duty, to give advice, and in general to say what we think it is right or good for people to do. Ex. 46 You ought to/ should go and see ´Daughter of the Moon´- it´s a great film. (Swan, M., 1980, 496) In most cases, both should and ought to can be used with more or less the same meaning. There is, however, a very slight difference. By using should, there is expressed one´s own subjective opinion; ought to has a rather more objective force, and is used in legal language most often in laws, duties and regulations (or when we want to make our opinion sound as strong as a duty or law). Let´s compare these two sentences: Ex. 47 You should/ought to go and see Mary some time. (Both modals possible.)(496) Ex. 48 We ought to go and see Mary tomorrow, but I don´t think we will. (Should doesn´t sound right here. It would be strange to give oneself advice and say that one was not going to follow it.)(496) Should and ought to can also be used to talk about logical probability. Ex. 49 I´ve bought three loaves- that should/ ought to be enough. (496) Ex. 50 That should/ought to be Janet coming upstairs now. (496) Should and ought to are here used to talk about the present and future, not the past. A big mistake would be: “The taxi should arrive at 8:30, but it didn´t turn up. “ As to talk about things which did not happen, although they were supposed to, we use should or ought to with the perfect infinitive, ort he was to construction. Ex. 50 The taxi should/ ought to have arrived at 8:30…(496) or Ex. 51 The taxi was to arrive/ have arrived at 8:30…(496)

However, according to Thomson, A.J. and Martinet, A.V. (1980, 99-100) should and ought to are used for obligation and normally have the same meaning but should is more usual form. In conversation should/ought to can often be used alone, the infinitive being understood but not mentioned: Ex. 52 A: You should paint/ ought to paint your door. B: Yes, I know I should/ I know I ought to. (100) Ought to and should can express advice as in:

Ex. 53 You ought to/should read this. It´s very good. (100)

But for more emphatic advice must is better:

Ex. 54 You must read this. It´s marvellous! (Thomson, A.J., Martinet, A.V., 1992, 100)

Ought to/ should with the continuous infinitive expresses the idea that the subject is not fulfilling his obligations or that he is acting foolishly, rashly etc. Or not acting sensibly, prudently etc.: Ex. 55 He ought to be studing for his exam. He shouldn´t be spending all his time on the beach. (100) To sum it up, ought to is used in three main ways to express that something is the right thing to do, because it is morally correct, polite, or it is someone´s duty. It is also used for predicting that something is likely or expected to happen, based on the logic. The last use is to offer or ask for advice or recommendations. Modal verb should can substitute ought to in all these possibilities, however use of ought to instead of should gives the utterance sense of strickness and in some cases a bigger stress leads to ironical colouring.

8. MODAL VERB SHOULD AS ALTERNATIVE TO THE SUBJUNCTIVE

Swan, M. (1980, 580) defines the subjunctive as the name of a special group of verb - forms (e.g. I were, she be, he return) which are used in a few cases to talk about events which are not certain to happen- which we hope will happen, or imagine might happen, or want to happen. Ex. 56 If I were rich I wouldn´t work at all. Ex. 57 It is vital that she be warned before it is too late. Ex. 58 The judge recommended that he not be released for at least three years. The subjunctive is not very common in modern British English, and is used mostly in formal style. Ideas of this kind are usually expressed in other ways. One of such ways is should + infinitive. (580) Ex. 59 The committee recommended that the company should invest in new property. And in conversational English, other structures would probably be used (e.g. …recommended the company to invest…). In American English, these subjunctive structures are quite common in a formal style, but in infomal conversation Americans would probably also find different ways of expressing the ideas. (580) Greenbaum, S. et. al (1990) states that the structure should + infinitive is equivalent to the “mandative subjunctive“, where the speaker entertains should as it were some “putative world“, recognizing that it may well exist or come into existence. And also states that putative should is more common in BrE than AmE, seems to be increasing in BrE (In BrE the alternatives are putative should and the indicative). Ex. 60 She insisted that we should stay.(67) Thomson, A.J. and Martinet, A.V. (1960) also states that in should + infinitive construction when the infinitive is be, the should is sometimes omitted: Ex. 61 He suggested that a petition (should) be drawn up. And the infinitive thus left alone becomes subjunctive itself. Very often used in poetry, either to express a wish or in clauses of condition or concession: Ex. 62 (Shakespeare) If this be error, and upon me proved… Ex. 63 (Byron) Though the heart be still as loving… Used only in formal BrE. (253)

8.1. IF REPLACED BY SHOULD

Greenbaum, S. et.al (1990, 318) denotes that there are two ways of expressing future hypothetical conditions occasionally used in formal contexts. They have overtones of tentativeness: a) was to or were to followed by the infinitive (subjunctive were): Ex. 64 If it was/ were to rain, the ropes would snap. They´re far too tight. b) should followed by the infinitive (putative should): Ex. 65 If a serious crisis should arise, the public would have to be informed of its full implications. (318) c) conditional clauses may have subject-operator inversion without a subordinator if the operator is were, should, and especially had: Ex. 65 Had I known, I would have written before. / If I had known,… Ex. 66 Should you change your mind, no one would blame you. Ex. 67 Should she be interested, I ´ll phone her. (with present subjunctive be)(318)

However, Thomson, A.J. and Martinet, A.V. (1992) states that if + should can be used in conditional sentences type 1 to indicate that the action, though possible, is not very likely. It is usually combined with an imperative and is chiefly used in written instructions than in daily conversations: Ex. 68 If you should have any difficulty in getting spare parts, ring this number.(21) Ex. 69 If these biscuits should arrive in a damaged condition, please inform the factory at once.(21) Should can be replaced first and the if omitted (in formal BrE): Ex. 70 Should these biscuits arrive in damaged condition,please….(21)

8.2 PUTATIVE SHOULD

Not many grammar books refer to the “putative should” as to a new grammar phenomenon. Probably it is because it is not a phenomenon for the native speakers but rather a way how foreign learners call the positioning of should into that-clauses expressing such a mood of the verb when the speaker does not have direct evidence of what he is referring about, but his relation to the information is based on something else. Actually, it is mostly interpreted as one of the possible use of modal verb should or it is given into connection with subjunctive and most grammarians incorporate constructions of that + should into other use of modal verb should helping to express various types of formalism. 31

This is also the case of A Practical English Grammar (Thomson, A.J., Martinet, A.V., 1985, 152) where is stated that “that - should is more formal than a gerund or infinitive construction and usually implies less direct contact between the advisers/organizers etc. and the people who are to carry out the action. Verbs which can be used with that - should include the following: advise, agree, arrange, ask, beg, command, decide, demand determine insist, order, propose, recommend, request, stipulate, suggest, urge.“ Authors of this grammar book don´t mention the term “putative should“ at all, the explanation is included in the Chapter 22

“Other uses of will/would, shall/ should“ . Although the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language from Huddleston, R. et al (2002, 187) talks about should used in “low-degree modality“ and use a term “mandative should“ where should is “grammaticalised in that it combines as readily with items of strong modality (necessary, essential, imperative, etc.) as with those of medium strength (desirable, advisable, right, etc.). It further adds a term of “emotive should” occuring in utterances “ with predicative lexemes indicating surprise or evaluation: odd, remarkable, surprising, good, a pity, etc.” And that this “emotive should” is used in “rhetorical questions” such as “I was walking in the park and who should I meet but Claire!” (188)

Neverheless, there are few authors that mention “putative should” and try to define it and give some examples. According to Greenbaum et. al (1990), the “putative should” is used “…in that-clauses to convey the notion of a ‘putative’ situation, which is recognized as possibly existing or coming into existence.” The specification putative originates from the Latin verb putare, and can be translated as considered. (67)

Ex. 71 She disputed (that) I should feel that way. Ex. 72 It`s quite suspect (that) you should mention that. Ex. 73 It´s funny that you should find this practice unfair since you used them too.

In ex. 71 and 72 the speaker didn´t believe the saying, however in ex. 73 the speaker “ironically” states the fact.

A Communicative Grammar of English (Leech, G., Svartvik, J., 2002, 149-150) claims that “putative should” is a type of a use of should when the speaker is more interested in the “idea” of the utterance than in the “ factual meaning ”. Similarly Greenbaum, S. et al. (1990) differentiates between two types of “putative should” utterances according to the expressions in the main clause. Either referring to some kind of “emotional reaction” (ex.74) or to expression of “… the notions of necessity, plan or intention for the future“ (75).

Ex. 74 Oh, it´s so surprising you should come. 32

Ex. 75 They have planned that our division should control finances.

Moreover, Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (2002) discuss the “emotional tone” given to the sentence similar to Huddleston, R. et al (2002, 187) mentioning “ emotional should” .

Ex. 76 Why should he have to leave the university? Ex. 77 He has urged that private guns should be banned.(Leech et al. 2002, 149)

Another explanation describes the pragmatics of the speech act: “In using should, the speaker entertains, as it were, some ‘putative’ world, recognizing that it may well exist or come into existence.” (Quirk et al. (1985)).

Although the Cambridge Grammar (Huddleston, R., 2002) mentions two types of should in that-clauses: referring to situations which might happen in the future as in ex. 78 and emotional comments on activity that already happened in ex. 79 and ex. 80:

Ex. 78 It seems good that it should work but Iam not sure about the quality. Ex. 79 I`m surprised that he should be promoted with his low education degree. Ex. 80 I`m sorry that she should think of me that way.

In ex. 78 the factual meaning of that+ should clause it refers into the future however it still can refer even into the past. However, ex. 79 includes the “emotional tone” in the clause “ I´m surprised that he should be promoted” and it refers into the future. The past could be expressed with the use of should+ have been +verb. The ex. 80 also includes the “emotional tone” but it states the present state or the possibility in the future. From all these examples there is obvious that the idea and the tone intended is based on the choice of the most suitable adjectives of emotional comments or expressions that are prospective for the future or are indicating the future plans.

The webpages grammar.about.com as well as thought.co offers rather detailed definition of the putative should though it is based on references and citations from various grammar books such as Quirk, R. (1985) or Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar (1994). In addition thought.co cites interesting examples of use of should in various historical texts or works of famous actors.

Ex. 81”It seems a great shame you should have to pay for what Albert and Clara did.” (Arnold Bennett, These Twain, 1915)

Ex. 82 “It is surprising that you should find this practice shocking, since you French cut off the heads of your King and Queen.” (Rebecca West, Black Lamb and Grey Falcon: A Journey Through Yugoslavia, 1941)

Ex. 83 "Peter Walsh, who had done just respectably, filled the usual posts adequately, was liked, but thought a little cranky, gave himself airs--it was odd that he should have had, especially now that his hair was grey, a contented look; a look of having reserves." (Virginia Woolf, Mrs. Dalloway, 1925)

All three examples above are excerpts from works where “putative should” are used in connection with various clauses or adjectives.“The adjectives anxious, eager, and willing are followed by a that-clause with putative should or the subjunctive. Adjectives with 'concepts concerned with modality or volition'“ (Quirk et al 1985: 1224) also belong to this group. The most commonly used verbs are appropriate, essential, important, vital. Adjectives which can be followed by a verb phrase in the that-clause with either an indicative verb phrase or one with putative should express emotions. Examples are afraid, angry, hopeful, inconceivable, odd, sad, sorry, surprised, surprising.“

To sum it up, “putative should” has still its position in BrE and is concistently used more frequently than the “mandative subjunctive” in AmE. However, the “mandative subjunctive” as a feature of AmE may displace the “putative should” in the far future as the AmE is very aggressive. According to Visser, F.T. (1966) “it was putative should that was used almost exclusively in the earlier period, and it was not until the years between 1930 and 1950 that the mandative subjunctive became more dominant than putative should, and that this subjunctive began to be used more frequently.” (843)

In recent years however, “the mandative subjunctive” has come to be used almost exclusively only in AmE, which, does not mean that “putative should“ is not used in current AmE. Visser, F.T. (1966) only mentions an interesting question “ why did the mandative subjunctive come to be used more frequently, seemingly all of a sudden in the twentieth century ?” The answer may be “ that in AmE the mandative subjunctive must have been preserved in spoken use, and that it revived in a written form in the United States at the beginning of the twentieth century, probably because at that time there existed many otber types of subjunctives than the mandative subjunctive“. (843)

Whatever was the real reason why the “putative should“ survived in BrE and the “mandative should“ is widely and likely used in AmE there are clear some tendencies coming from the characteristic concepts of both types of the languages. AmE tends to use simple forms, structures with immediate effect and without delay. It reflects the American way of life and economical principles. Qick response is more effective, more fashionable. On the other hand BrE refects the conservative attitudes of British culture and economy. The history is still a great part of every British and that is probably the reason why “putative should” will survive as a part of the tradition.

9. OTHER USES OF MODAL VERB SHOULD

Swan, M. (1980) states that should is often used in subordinate clauses after in case, and sometimes after if as it makes an event sound less probable. Ex. 84 I´ll get some beer in case Aunt Mary comes. (She may come.)(552) Ex. 85 I´ll get some beer in case Aunt Mary should come. (She might come.)(552) However, Thomson, A. J. and Martinet, A.V. (1960) denote that in case, which is more usual than lest, can be followed by should or by an ordinary present or past tense: Ex. 86 In case someone should ask/ someone asked. (210) Moreover, Thomson, A.J. and Martinet, A.V. (1960) add that in literary English lest…should is sometimes placed after expressions of fear or anxiety: Ex. 87 He was terrified lest he should slip on the icy rocks. (211) Swan, M. (1980) further states that in British English, the structure If+subject+should+verb is often replaced by should+subject+verb. Ex. 88 Should you see Harry, give him my regards. (552) Should is very common in sentences about the past with in case. (Swan, M., 552) Ex. 89 I took some meal, in case I should have been hungry. Should can be also used in subordinate clauses when expressing the idea that something must be done, or is important. This happens after verbs like command, order, insist, request, ask, suggest, advise, recommend (especially in past sentences), and after adjectives like important, vital, essential, necessary, eager, anxious, concerned. (555) Ex. 90 He insisted that he should bet he boss of the gang. Ex. 91 I recommended that she should take care of all children. Ex. 92 Was it necessary that you should shout at us? Ex. 93 Mom is anxious that nobody should be hungry. Ideas of this kind can also be expressed with the subjunctive (especially in American English), or in other, simpler ways. Ex. 94 Was it necessary that he should spend all his money? Ex. 95 Was it necessary to spend all his money? (Or:…for him to spend all his money?) Should is also used in subordinate clauses in sentences where we express personal reactions to events (for instance, with words like amazing, interesting, shocked, sorry, normal,

36 natural, it´s a shame). In these cases, too, should is more common in past sentences. The subjunctive is not possible here instead of should. (552)

Ex. 96 It´s astonishing that he should build his house himself. Ex. 97 They were shocked that their children shouldn´t have invited them on their wedding. Ex. 98 I´m sorry you should be sad about my accident. Sentences like these can be made without should. (I was shocked that she hadn´t invited Phyllis; I´m sorry you think…).(555) Only Swan, M. (1980) denotes that should is also used in past sentences with so that and in order that. Ex. 99 He turned the stereo down very low so that he shouldn´t disturb the old lady downstairs. (Or:…in order that he shouldn´t…) (561) Swan (1980) also states that should after why can express inability to understand. Ex. 100 Why should it get colder when you go up a mountain? You are getting nearer to the sun. Why should …? And How should…? can also express irritation and anger. (554) Thomson, A.J. and Martinet, A.V. (1960) however denotes that should is also used after can´t think why/ don´t know why/see no reason why etc. when the speaker queries the reasonableness or justice of an assumption: Ex. 101 I don´t know why you should go there when you hate it. Idiomatically, should is used with what, where and who in dramatic expressions of surprise: Ex. 102 What should she heard but nasty words! Quite often the surprise is embarrassing: Ex. 103 Who should get drunk but his own wife! Only Thomson, A.J. and Martinet, A.V. (1992) mentions that should is sometimes used in purpose clauses as an alternative to would/could: Ex. 104 He wore a mask so that no one should recognize him.(211)

10. INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS

This chapter summarizes the outcomes of the survey and displays the answers to three hypotheses given at the beginning of the survey. Hypothesis 1 There is only 1 possible use of modal verb shall, namely in a specific situation of polite questions and rather rare in Modern English. It was not confirmed, as the modal verb shall is still used not only in polite questions, but also in legal language as well as in legal documents, such as legal acts, treaties and agreements according to the analysis of legal corpora. Furthermore, shall is largely used for expressing of determination instead of modal will when public speakers need a “heavier“ word to sound more sharp or punchy. Shall is widely used in BrE, especially in Southern BrE, for expressing future time as a matter of course. Hypothesis 2 There are clear rules about different use of modals should and ought to in British and American English. The hypothesis was wrong, as in BrE should and ought to have very similar meanings. Both modals are usually used to express duty, obligation or to give advice, and in general to say what we think is right or good for people to do. The difference in should/ ought to is stated as “small“, however most of the grammariens state that by using should we give our own subjective opinion, whereas ought to has a rather more objective force, and mostly used when talking about laws, duties and regulations. However, in AmE ought to is not used any more or very rarely. Hypothesis 3 Modal verb should used as putative should can be a complete substitute to subjunctive. This hypothesis was not proven, as subjunctive is rather rarely used in modern BrE, especially in formal language. In AmE subjunctive structures are quite common in formal as well as in informal language; however, in AmE subjunctive structures in informal language tend to be omitted. In addition, putative should is more common in BrE than AmE and seems to have increasing tendency in BrE together with indicative.

11. CONCLUSION

The main aim of this thesis was to collect and summarize information about the modal verb should in few grammar books considered to be of the highest quality among grammarians. Furthermore, there were set 3 hypotheses to be confirmed or disproved. The findings from this compilation brought interesting facts and surprising conclusions. There have been inspected more than 14 grammar books and more than 6 well acknowledged web pages concerning English grammar with the main objective i.e. to compile a synoptical overview about all possible usage of modal verb should hereto explain its coherence and linkup with modal verb shall and ought to.

Not all grammar books offer more than the basic information about each of above mentioned modals thus were not considered for the further survey. On the contrary, few grammar books offer so many details they are mentioned more often throughout the whole analysis. There have been mentioned 2 bachelor theses whose topic deal with above mentioned modal verbs and provide valuable analysis thus were considered to be hight quality source for this thesis. These theses were included in chapters about putative should and shall in legal documents which added this thesis another perspective.

All books cited are used for everyday usage of students and teachers of English language and so even this thesis shouldn´t be just a compilation of theoretical facts but a cross-section of actual curriculum on the given topic. Just as the technology developes, the language evolves and many syntactic structures as well as linguistic features become rare or die out there are some that come into being and become usual or even typical and famous. This thesis is a nice example of this theory.

The survey shows how modal verb shall died out in an informal way of expressing in everyday life while in formal language of lawyers and politicians it is very usual and still in favour. Modal verb should is not only used as a past form of modal verb shall but found it´s assertion for expressing duty or obligation, necessity, future hypothetical condition and even futurity. It is the only modal verb that can be used in so many different and noncontinuous structures and help to express so many diverse moods as no other modal verb.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Alexander, L.G.(1988) Longman English Grammar. Harlow: Longman Group UK Limited.

Ampapa, P. Putative should and its translation equivalents. Brno, 2014. Bakalářská práce. Masarykova univerzita, Pedagogická fakulta, Katedra anglického jazyka a literatury, 2014-02- 14.

Biber, et.al. (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited

Bybee,J.; Perkins, R.; and Pagliuca, W. (1994) The Evolution of Grammar, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Characteristics Of Modal Verbs.(2016). Polysyllabic. Retrieved from http://www.polysyllabic.com/?q=navigating/auxiliary/mood/structure

Crystal, D., Davy, D. (1969) Investigating English Style. Harlow: Longman Group, Ltd.

Greenbaum, S. et al. (1990) A Students´s Grammar of the English Language. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Hogg, R. (2012) An Introduction to Old English. 2st edition, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Hogg, R., Denison, D. (2008) A History Of The English Language, 1st edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Huddleston, R. (2014) A Short Overview of English Syntax, Cambridge University Press.

Huddleston, R., et al. (2002). The Cambride grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Learners´s dictionary (2017). In An Encyclopedia Britannica Company. Retrieved from : http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/should.

Leech, G., Svartvik, J. (2002). A Communicative Grammar of English. Third Edition. London: Longman.

Linguistic modality.(2016) In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia , Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_modality

Modal verb. (2001). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_verb#cite_note-4

Modal verbs in English. (2012). In Bright Hub Education. Retrieved from http://www.brighthubeducation.com/esl-lesson-plans/37641-modal-verbs-in-english/

Modality. (2016). In Christian Lehmann blog. Retrieved from http://www.christianlehmann.eu/ling/lg_system/sem/index.html?http://www.christianlehmann.eu /ling/lg_system/sem/modality.html

Nordquist, R. Putative ″should″. About.com. Retrieved September, 2, 2013 from http://grammar.about.com

Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and Modality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Quirk, R. et al. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.

Rules for Modal Verbs. (2017). In English The Easy Way. Retrieved from http://english-the- easy-way.com/English_ESL/Rules_Modal_Verbs.html

Rayonier Confidentiality Agreement (2017). In Rayonier Ltd.. Retrieved from www.rayonier.com

Sinclair, J. et al. (1994): Collins Cobuild English Grammar. London: HarperCollins Publishers.

Swan, M. (1980) Practical English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thomson, A.J., Martinet, A.V. (1992). A Practical English Grammar. Fourth edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Visser, F.T. (1966) An Historical syntax of the English Language, Vol.2. Leiden: E.J. Brill

Zelenka, R. Modalita v jazyce právních textů. Zlín, 2013. Bakalářská práce. Univerzita Tomáše Bati ve Zlíně, Fakulta humanitních studií, Ústav anglistiky a amerikanistiky, 2013-2-6.