UNIT 20

AUXILIARY AND MODAL VERBS: FORM AND

FUNCTION

0. INTRODUCTION.
1. A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR AUXILIARY VERBS
1. 1. LINGUISTIC LEVELS INVOLVED
1.2. GRAMMAR CATEGORIES INVOLVED: OPEN VS. CLOSED CLASSES
2. A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO AUXILIARY VERBS: PRIMARY AND MODAL
2.1. A CLASSIFICATION OF AUXILIARY VERBS
2.1.1. Primary auxiliaries
2.1.2. Modal auxiliaries
2.1.3. Semi-auxiliaries. Catenative verbs. Modal idioms
2.2. MODAL VS. PRIMARY AUXILIARIES: MAIN DIFFERENCES
3. MAIN STRUCTURAL FEATURES OF AUXILIARY VERBS: FORM AND FUNCTION
3.1. FORM: MORPHOLOGICAL FEATURES
3.1.1. Modal auxiliaries
3.1.2. Primary auxiliaries
3.2. FORM: PHONOLOGICAL FEATURES
3.3. FUNCTION: SYNTACTIC FEATURES
3.3.1. Main syntactic constructions
3.3.2. General features of auxiliary verbs as operators.
3.3.3. Specific features of auxiliary verbs as lexical verbs
3.3.4. Other specific types of verbs: syntactic function
3.4. SEMANTICS: MEANING
3.4.1. Modal auxiliaries
3.4.1.1. Ability: can, could, be able to
3.4.1.2. Permission: can, may, could, be allowed to
3.4.1.3. Possibility: may, might, can, could
3.4.1.4. Impossibility, certainty and deduction: can't, must
3.4.1.5. Necessity: must, have to, needn't
3.4.1.6. Obligation: must, have to, need
3.4.1.7. Advice: ought to, should, had better, be supposed to
3.4.1.8. Suggestions, offers and invitations: can, could, shall, will,
would
3.4.1.9. Predictions: will, would
3.4.2. Marginal auxiliaries
3.4.3. Primary verbs
3.4.4. Other types of auxiliaries
3.5. ON USE: EVERYDAY USAGE AND IDIOMATIC EXPRESSIONS
4. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Unit 20 www.oposicionestandem.com Pg.1

0. INTRODUCTION

The aim of this unit is to carry out an in depth analysis of auxiliary and modal verbs in terms
of form and function, namely achieved by means of verbs and other specific structures. It is
relevant to mention at this point that the category of auxiliary verbs (in opposition to
lexical/ordinary/full verbs) encloses a further classification into primary auxiliary verbs and
modal auxiliary verbs. The former are commonly known as auxiliaries and the latter, as
modal verbs as those in the title. Then, when primary and modal auxiliaries are mentioned
as a whole in this study, we shall refer to them as auxiliary verbs.
In order to so we shall divide our paper into four distinct parts. Thus, part 1 provides a
theoretical framework for this verb class, first, by answering questions such as, first, which
linguistic levels are involved; second, which grammar categories are involved in its
description at a functional level regarding open and closed classes; third, what major verb
classes are concerned regarding lexical vs. auxiliary verbs; and finally, what the closed class
of auxiliary verb describes and how.
Once we have set up the linguistic framework, we shall offer a general introduction to
auxiliary verbs in part 2 regarding primary and modal auxiliary verbs by reviewing a
1
classification of auxiliary verbs into primary, modal, semi-auxiliaries, catenative and modal
idioms; and finally, we shall present the main differences between modal and primary
auxiliary verbs.
Part 3 will offer a descriptive account of the main structural features of auxiliary verb in
terms of form and function, following morphological, phonological, syntactic and semantic
guidelines. Thus, we shall examine form regarding morphology (verbal structures) and
phonology (pronunciation), whereas function will be approached in terms of syntax (verb
phrase structure) and semantics (differences in meaning). Also, we shall analyze how
auxiliaries work at the level of everyday use regarding everyday speech and idiomatic
expressions.
In order to offer an insightful analysis and survey on auxiliary and modal verbs in English, we
shall deal with the most relevant works in the field, both old and current, and in particular,
influential grammar books, such as the work of Flor Aarts and Jan Aarts in English Syntactic
Structures (1988), Thomson & Martinet, A Practical English Grammar (1986); another
essential work is that of Rodney Huddleston, English Grammar, An Outline (1988). Other
classic references which offer an account of the most important and central grammatical
constructions and categories in English regarding auxiliary and modal verbs include Quirk &
Greenbaum, A University Grammar of English (1973) and A Student's Grammar of the
English Language (1990).

1. A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR AUXILIARY VERBS

1. 1. Linguistic levels involved

Yet, although there is no consensus of opinion on the number of levels to be distinguished,
the usual description of a language comprises four major components: phonology,

1
Verbs that combine with a following non-finite verb are often called 'catenative verbs' (where the term 'catenative'
means 'chaining' - Latin catena, 'chain'). This term includes verbs like get, keep, start, help as well as the traditional auxiliary
verb: She was/got chosen for the job. She was/kept talking. She ought/started to talk. She will/helped wash up.

Unit 20 www.oposicionestandem.com Pg.2

grammar, lexicon, and semantics, out of which we get five major levels: phonological,
morphological and syntactic, lexical, and semantic.
First, phonology describes the sound level, that is, how to pronounce this type of verbs (i.e.
weak and strong forms). Secondly, the morphological level describes how this type of verbs
are formed (i.e. can, could, be able to) and the syntactic level refers to how to place auxiliary
and modal verbs in a sentence. Third, the lexicon, or lexical level, deals with lists of
vocabulary items which, for our purposes, are different types of auxiliary verbs: primary and
modal verbs. Finally, another dimension between the study of linguistic form and the study
of meaning is semantics, or the semantic level, to which all four of the major components
are related in this study. We must not forget that a linguistic description which ignores
meaning is incomplete, and in particular, when dealing with the auxiliary and modal verb
semantics, since it is from this linguistic field that we get the major differences among them
(i.e. I can swim =I have the ability to do it vs. I may swim = I am likely to do it).

1.2. Grammar categories involved: open vs. closed classes.

In order to confine the auxiliary verbs to particular grammatical categories, we must review
first the difference between open and closed classes. Following Quirk and Greenbaum
(1973) and Aarts (1988), the two major types of verb classes, lexical and auxiliary verbs,
belong to two different grammatical categories, for instance, the former (lexical) constitute
an open class where the latter (auxiliary) constitute a closed class.

2. A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO AUXILIARY VERBS: PRIMARY AND MODAL

2.1. A classification of auxiliary verbs

As mentioned repeatedly along this study, we may distinguish two major types of verb
classes according to their function within the vp: lexical verbs (also called full or ordinary)
and auxiliary verbs which are further subclassified into primary auxiliaries and modal
auxiliaries. We shall also distinguish three more subclassifications, semi-auxiliaries, modal
idioms and catenative verbs, which are intermediate between auxiliaries and main verbs on
expressing modal or aspectual meaning.

2.2.1. Primary auxiliaries

The first subclassification, primary auxiliaries, comprises the items: do, have and be where
2
'do' differs from 'have' and 'be' in that it usually co-occurs with lexical verbs only . This
means that verb phrases with 'do' contain only two verb forms, since verb phrases cannot
have more than one lexical verb (i.e. Do you believe him?/Do come, John!). Moreover, it
could be stated that it is used as an auxiliary of periphrasis (i.e. He does not realize what he
is doing/ Only then did he realize his position) and of emphasis (i.e. I DID lock the door).
On the other hand, 'have' and 'be' co-occur not only with lexical verbs but also with modal
auxiliaries, always following the latter (i.e. He may have escaped; you must be crazy). Both
function as auxiliaries of aspect. Thus, 'have' is auxiliary of the perfective aspect when
followed by the -ed participle of another verb (i.e. He has written a new article), and 'be' is
auxiliary of the progressive aspect when it combines with the -ing participle of another verb
(i.e. He is writing a new article ). Moreover, 'be' is also used as auxiliary of the passive voice
2
It must be borne in mind that when 'be', 'have' and 'do' behave as lexical or ordinary verbs, they may be seen as transitive
verbs because of their syntactic features. Thus, 'be' would function as a copulative verb with an attributive complement (i.e.
He is a teacher) whereas 'have' and 'do' would function as transitive verbs (i.e. I have some birds; He does his homework).

Unit 20 www.oposicionestandem.com Pg.3

 i
when followed by the -ed participle of a transitive (lexical) verb as in The theatre was built
in 1909'.

2.2.2. Modal auxiliaries

The second subclassification of auxiliary verbs, modal auxiliaries, comprises the following
items: can, could, may, might, must, shall, should and will. Other marginal members (or
semi-modals according to Thomson & Martinet, 1986) are 'dare, need, ought (to) and used
(to)’ because they can be used both as auxiliaries and as lexical verbs (i.e. He needs to be
careful vs He needn't be careful), and also because unlike the other auxiliaries 'ought' and
'used' are followed by a to-infinitive. However, 'used' may co-occur with 'do' in negative and
interrogative sentences (i.e. Did he use(d) to drive a car?).

2.2.3. Semi-auxiliaries. Catenative verbs. Modal idioms

Thirdly, semi-auxiliaries are said to be 'a set of verb idioms which are introduced by one of
7
the primary verbs have and be (Greenbaum & Quirk, 1990). This type of auxiliary verbs has
non-finite forms (bare infinitive) and, consequently, can occur in combination with
preceding auxiliaries or in sequence. For instance, 'be able to', 'be about to', 'be due to', 'be
bound to', 'be going to', 'be likely to', 'be supposed to' and 'have to'.
3
Moreover, catenative verbs , just like auxiliaries, have meanings similar to those for the
aspectual and modal auxiliaries (perfect and progressive tenses) and comprise the following
items: 'appear to', 'seem to' and 'happen to'. Note that some catenatives are followed by
the non-finite forms -ing or -ed participles rather than by infinitives, for instance, 'start
(working)', 'go on (talking)', 'keep (on) (smoking)', 'get (dressed)'.
And finally, modal idioms are defined by Greenbaum & Quirk (1990) as 'a combination of
auxiliary and infinitive or adverb'. Their main characteristic is that none of them have non-
finite forms and, as a result, they are always the first verb in the verb phrase, for instance,
'had better', 'would rather', 'have got to', and 'be to'.

2.3. Modal vs. primary auxiliaries: main differences

The further distinction of modal auxiliaries (i.e. can, could, may, might, will, would, shall,
should) and primary auxiliaries (i.e. have, be, do) show important differences as follows:
1) Modal auxiliaries are finite (showing tense, mood, aspect and voice), whereas the
primary auxiliaries 'have' and 'be' have finite as well as non-finite forms (an infinitive,
an —ing participle or an -ed participle).
2) Moreover, in English modal auxiliaries are mutually exclusive, that is, they cannot be
combined with other auxiliaries (i.e. I shall come BUT NOT: I shall can come),
whereas primary auxiliaries are not exclusive and can be mixed (i.e. She has been
playing).
3) Finally, it is worth distinguishing the primary auxiliary 'do' from the primary
auxiliaries 'have' and 'be' since it always occurs initially (i.e. Do you dare to do it? ), is
invariably finite, does not generally co-occur with other auxiliaries (i.e. She does her
homework) and, finally, it is used for emphasis (i.e. She does write ) and periphrasis
(i.e. Do you..).

3 Verbs that take other verb forms as objects are called catenatives (from a word that means to link, as in a chain). Catenatives
can be found at the head of a series of linked constructions, as in "We agreed to try to decide to stop eating between meals."
Catenatives are also characterized by their tendency to describe mental processes and resolutions. (Kolln)

Unit 20 www.oposicionestandem.com Pg.4

3. MAIN STRUCTURAL FEATURES OF AUXILIARY VERBS: FORM AND FUNCTION

With respect to the main structural features of auxiliary verbs, we shall analyze them in
terms of form and function following morphological, phonological, syntactic and semantic
guidelines. Thus, we shall examine form regarding morphology (verbal structures) and
phonology (pronunciation), whereas function will be approached in terms of syntax (verb
phrase structure) and semantics (differences in meaning and use) in order to get an overall
view of this type of verbs working at the sentence level in assertive and non-assertive
contexts (affirmative, negative and interrogative forms). Moreover, we shall analyze how
auxiliaries work at the level of everyday use regarding everyday speech and idiomatic
expressions.

3.1. Form: morphological features

Generally, from a structural point of view, the verb forms operate in finite and non-finite
verb phrases. Yet, it should be borne in mind that modal auxiliaries (will, shall, can, might)
are always finite, whereas primary auxiliaries (have, be) have finite as well as non-finite
4
forms.

3.1.1. Modal auxiliaries

As for he morphological characteristics which are specifically applied to finite forms and in
particular to modal auxiliaries, we can distinguish three: first, that modal auxiliaries are
morphologically marked for the categories of tense, aspect and mood but not concord (no -s
form for the 3rd person singular of the present tense); and second, modal verbs are
followed by an infinitive without a preceding 'to' (i.e. He might go/I will buy it).
Hence, the form 'he can' is marked by the category of tense because it contrasts with 'he
could' (present vs. past tense). The rest of tenses are usually to be found in semi-auxiliary
verbs, which paraphrase the base form, for instance, 'he can', 'he could' vs. 'he is able to' or
'he has been able to'. They may, in addition, be marked for the categories of mood in
contrast with I don't think he can (indicative vs. subjunctive), and aspect in contrast with She
could have lifted it (simple vs. perfect).
However, concord is not included since in most lexical verbs, concord is restricted to a
contrast between the third person singular present and other persons or plural number (i.e.
You go/He goes), but not at all with modal auxiliaries (i.e. You may go/He may go).
Moreover, it would be incorrect to apply non-finite forms to modal auxiliaries, either
following the base form of the verb to say He can to walk nor preceding it since the verb
form 'can' cannot be preceded by 'to'.

4 Then, let us briefly review some of the finite and non-finite verbal characteristics in order to better understand modal and primary auxiliaries
main features. Thus, finite verb phrases are characterized because (1) they can occur as the verb phrase of independent clauses;
(2) have tense distinction; (3) as well as mood, which indicates the factual, nonfactual, or counterfactual status of the predication (indicative,
subjunctive, imperative); and (4) generally, there is person concord and number concord between the subject of a clause and the finite verb
phrase.
On the other hand, nonfinite verb phrases are characterized because (1) they contain a non-finite form: an infinitive (speak or
to speak), an -ing participle (speaking) or an -ed participle (spoken/called); (2) they appear as the first or only verb in the
verb phrase (disregarding the infinitive marker 'to'); and (3) because alike finite verb phrases, non-finite phrases do not
normally occur as the verb phrase of an in dependent clause (i.e. 'To dance like that deserves an award', 'I found him
dancing like crazy' or 'Having been insulted before, he was more sensitive than ever').

Unit 20 www.oposicionestandem.com Pg.5

 3.1.2. Primary auxiliaries
Similarly, primary auxiliaries also take finite verbal features and, therefore, share some of
them with modal auxiliaries but not all of them. For instance, they can occur as the verb
phrase of independent clauses (i.e. When he came, I ran out); have tense distinction (i.e. He
is vs. He was; He has vs. He had; He does vs. He did); as well as mood and aspect but in their
case, there is person concord and number concord between the subject of a clause and the
finite verb phrase, that is, between the third person singular present and other persons or
plural number (i.e. You do/He does), but particularly clear with the present tense of 'be' (i.e.
I am, you are, he/she/it is, we are, they are).
Thus, the form 'he drives', for example, is marked for all three categories. It is marked for
tense because it contrasts with 'he drove', for mood because it contrasts with 'he drive', for
aspect because it contrasts with 'he has driven' or 'he is driving' and for concord because it
contrasts with 'I/you/we/they write'. As we can see, one of the main characteristics of
primary auxiliaries is that they may combine in order to construct perfective and progressive
forms (i.e. He has gone, He was talking too loud).

3.2. Form: phonological features

When dealing with pronunciation of modal and auxiliary verbs, the notions of phonological
reduction (weak and strong forms) and that of contracted forms (short and long forms) must
be addressed. These are closely related to each other since short forms are pronounced
differently from long forms, that is, by means of weak and strong forms respectively. We
must not forget that morphological features such as contractions in both speech and writing
(i.e. I am vs. I'm) give way to phonological changes in the same word or chain of words.

3.3. Function: syntactic features

When dealing with the syntactic function, we shall address the main syntactic features of
auxiliary verbs:

3.3.1. Main syntactic constructions

As a rule an auxiliary verb cannot stand on its own since it must be followed by a lexical verb
(i.e. He may come tonight), except in cases where the lexical verb is understood, as it is the
case of other sentence constituents such as 'question tags' or short answers in 'Can Anthony
7
come? Yes, he can (come) . Moreover, regarding present syntactic features, Aarts (1988)
states that the verbal phrase may be constituted by a sequence of one or more verbs where
5
the maximum number of verbal forms is five .

3.3.2. General features of auxiliary verbs as operators

With respect to the general features of both types of auxiliary verbs (modal and primary
auxiliaries) we must say that they share certain functions in a verb clause at the level of

5
Note that this type of construction is achieved by means of maximum four auxiliaries + a lexical verb (i.e. the e-mail was
sent, someone was sending it, anyone can send it, it may be sent, it has been being sent, it may have been being sent -this
latter is rare) depending on the semantic feature we intend to express, that is, tense (verbal tense), aspect (progressive or
perfect) or mood (indicative, subjunctive, imperative).

Unit 20 www.oposicionestandem.com Pg.6

affirmative, negative and interrogative sentences when functioning as operators. For
instance,
1) In affirmative sentences, they become operators when they occur as the first
verb of a finite verb phrase (i.e. You can lift that heavy box; you are able to do
it).
2) In negative sentences, the negative adverb 'not' (or its enclitic form n't) is
added immediately after the operator as in 'He may swim vs. He may not
swim' and 'She is tall vs. She is not/isn't tall'. Note that 'can' has a special
negative form since 'not' is not separated from the operator (i.e. cannot).
3) In interrogative sentences, we find an inversion of subject and operator, that
is, the operator is placed in front of the subject (i.e. They will tell us the truth
vs. Will they tell us the truth?). This inversion construction also occurs in
sentences with introductory negatives or semi-negatives, as in 'Had I known, I
would have gone'...
4) In elliptical clauses, the role of operators is present when the rest of the
predication is omitted, as in the case of short answers (i.e. Did you like the
play?-Yes, I did), question tags (i.e. She is joining us, isn't she?) or additions to
remarks (i.e. We enjoyed the film and so did they).
5) Regarding phonology, the operator will function as an emphatic form in
finite positive clauses (rather than negative) by means of nuclear stress in
order to deny a negative which has been stated before (i.e. Won't you give it
back?- Yes, I will do it). Moreover, note that when there is no operator in an
assertive sentence, the primary verb 'do' is introduced as a substitute of the
lexical verb in any other kind of clause (i.e. You drive a car=Do you drive a
car?) or as an emphatic element (i.e. You never listen to me but you do listen
to your tutor).
6) No imperative forms are realized in this type of function since they are not
lexical verbs, for instance, we cannot say 'Can!' or 'Be!'

3.3.3. Specific features of auxiliary verbs as lexical verbs

The previous general rules are quite different when we deal with auxiliary verbs functioning
as lexical verbs since clause patterns change. In this section, we shall deal with the primary
verbs 'be', 'have' and 'do' which are the ones that may change at this point from the general
rules stated above, whereas modal auxiliaries do not change their syntactic function since
they always form their affirmative, negative and interrogative according to the pattern
stated above (i.e. You must, you mustn't, must you?).
The primary verbs 'be', 'have' and 'do', when used as auxiliaries, require a participle or
infinitive in order to have full meaning. However, when used as ordinary verbs they are the
only verb in the sentence, 'be' keeps its auxiliary pattern (i.e. He is nice; he isn't nice; is he
nice?), whereas 'do' takes auxiliaries for negative and interrogative (i.e. You don't do it
properly/Do you do it properly?) and 'have' may be conjugated in either way (i.e. You haven't
a house/You don't have a house/Have you (got) a house?/Do you have a house?).
Thus, as an auxiliary, 'be' has two functions: first, to form the progressive aspect and second,
the passive. On the other hand, as a lexical verb, it also has two functions: first, as a copular
verb (i.e. She is a nurse) and second, as an intransitive verb (i.e. She is in the office). Similarly,
'have' functions both as an auxiliary and as a main verb. As the former, it helps form the
perfect aspect in combination with an -ed participle in complex verb phrases (i.e. I
Unit 20 www.oposicionestandem.com Pg.7
have studied/You must have done it very quickly) and as the latter, it normally takes a direct
object (i.e. He has no idea).
Finally, 'do', like 'be' and 'have', can be both an auxiliary and a main verb. As an auxiliary,
'do' has no non-finite forms, but only present and past forms, whereas as a main verb they
work as a transitive verb, especially in informal speech (i.e. Let's do the washing up!).

3.3.4. Other specific types of verbs: syntactic function

Here we shall also examine the syntactic function of other specific types of verbs which are
said to share all the features of modal auxiliaries but which are often functioning as ordinary
verbs, such as marginal modal auxiliaries, semi-auxiliaries, catenative verbs and modal
idioms. Yet, assertive contexts (affirmative sentences) usually share the same forms for both
types, whereas non-assertive contexts (negative and question sentences) differ in sentence
patterns.
Thus, marginal modal auxiliary verbs (need, dare, used to, ought to) can be both auxiliary
and ordinary verbs. For instance, 'need' as an auxiliary is a semi-modal with the
6
corresponding sentence patterns (i.e. He need go/He needn't go, need he go?/needn't he
go?) but as an ordinary verb, the negative and interrogative forms change, taking the full
infinitive (i.e. He needs to go/He doesn't need to go/Does he need to go?). As an ordinary
verb, it is considered to be transitive (i.e. They need a new car). Similarly, 'dare' is also a
semi-modal and it can take both auxiliary and ordinary forms, though the ordinary verb
construction is more commonly used. Note that in the affirmative 'dare' is conjugated like an
ordinary verb both for ordinary or auxiliary verbs (i.e. You dare/he dares/he dared), while in
the negative and interrogative it can be conjugated either like an ordinary verb or like an
auxiliary (i.e. You do not dare/he does not dare vs. You dare not/He dares not; Do you dare?/
Does he dare? Vs. Dare you?/ Dare he?). 'Dare' is also an ordinary transitive verb followed by
object + full infinitive (i.e. He dared me to jump from a plane).
As seen, 'dare' and 'need' can be used either as modal auxiliaries (with bare infinitive and
without the inflected forms) or as main verbs (with to-infinitive and with inflected -s, -ing,
and past forms). The modal construction is restricted to non-assertive contexts (negative
and interrogative sentences), whereas the main verb construction can always be used, and is
more common.
Similarly, 'used to' is used in both auxiliary and ordinary sentence patterns. As the past tense
of a defective verb, 'used' has no present tense and it always takes the to-infinitive. The
affirmative forms take 'used' for all persons, whereas in non-assertive contexts, it may
function as both auxiliary and ordinary verb. For instance, in the negative, we may find 'He
used not to play chess' or 'He didn't use(d) to play chess' and in the interrogative 'Did he use
to play everyday?/He used to play, didn't he?\
Surprisingly, 'ought to' does not follow the general pattern in non-assertive contexts and
applies the auxiliary pattern to all its forms. It is also considered to be a semi-modal which
normally takes the to-infinitive although it is optional in elliptical cases (i.e. Yes, I think he
ought (to)).
Semi-auxiliaries such as 'be able to', 'be about to', 'be due to', 'be bound to', 'be going to',
'be likely to', 'be supposed to' and 'have to' are said to be under the pattern of the primary
verbs 'be' and 'have', whereas catenative verbs such as 'appear to', 'seem to', 'happen to'
and also 'start (working)', 'go on (talking)', 'keep (on) (smoking)' and 'get (dressed)' shall

6
Note that as a modal, 'need' takes the forms 'need' or 'need not/needn't' for all persons in the present.

Unit 20 www.oposicionestandem.com Pg.8

follow the sentence patterns for ordinary verbs. Finally, modal idioms such as 'had better',
'would rather', 'have got to', and 'be to' function as auxiliary verb patterns.

3.4. Semantics: meaning

Here we shall examine the different meanings they have and their use in everyday speech. It
must be borne in mind that meaning and use are closely interrelated to syntax since they
are used in the English language to form complex structures such as perfective, progressive,
passive, the future and conditional tense.
However, we shall analyse the meaning of modal auxiliaries and primary auxiliaries
separately since, despite of the fact that they share many morphological, phonological and
syntactic features, they show relevant differences in significance, and in particular modal
auxiliaries when dealing with people's attitude or personal point of view about events or
facts. Moreover, other types of auxiliaries will be analyzed, such as marginal auxiliaries,
semi-auxiliaries, catenative verbs and modal idioms.

3.4.1. Modal auxiliaries

Modal auxiliaries are traditionally defined as auxiliaries of lexical (or main) verbs which
express different modalities in meaning and, therefore, use (possibility, ability, permission,
etc.) by means of a reduced group of auxiliary verbs and other marginal verbs. Within the
field of semantics, modals are said to show people's attitude and intention towards other
people or events through a wide range of ideas, nuances and concepts within different
contexts of formality or informality.
For instance, the meaning and therefore the usage of different modal auxiliaries in order to
express someone's attitude or intention depends to a great extent on three main factors: (1)
the relationship speaker and listener has, that is, the level of acquaintance with each other
(just introduced, friends, family, educational links (student-teacher) or any other such as
criminal lawyer, shop-assistant-customer, etc.); (2) the speaker's intention towards other
people or actions, that is, the intention to suggest, invite, advise, order, etc. when dealing
with people or, on the other hand, the intention to express a variety of circumstances when
dealing with situations, for instance, deduction, probability, certainty, truth/falsehood,
internal or external obligation, moral or legal principles, and so on; and finally, (3) the
context of the situation, that is, formal or informal (i.e. Can/May/Could I open the window,
please?).
Then, modals are included as part of the verbal form system to express those concepts that
verbal tenses are unable to express since the sentence meaning is not clear enough. Thus,
modal verbs show people's attitude in terms of ability; permission; possibility; impossibility,
certainty and deduction (positive and negative); necessity; obligation (absence or presence);
advice; suggestions, offers and invitations; and predictions.

3.4.1.1. Ability: can, could, be able to.

Ability is expressed by can, could and be able to when we say that something is possible in
terms of ability or inability (i.e. Christine can/can't swim) or opportunity (i.e. Christine can go
to the concert). Moreover, in order to suggest a possible future action, we normally use 'can'
(i.e. Let's go to the theatre tonight. We can go together).
On the other hand, in order to express ability or opportunity in the past, we use 'could' and
'was/were able to' (i.e. She could/was able to play the violin). When meaning that the ability
or opportunity resulted in a particular action, something that really happened, or implying
Unit 20 www.oposicionestandem.com Pg.9
some kind of difficulty, we use 'be able to' but not 'could' (i.e. He could swim when he was
three vs. He was able to swim 200 km in the competition). In non-assertive contexts, we can
use either form (i.e. It was snowing so the aeroplane couldn't/wasn't able to take off).
Moreover, we normally use 'could' and not 'be able to' with verbs of senses (seeing, hearing,
etc.) and with verbs of thinking (i.e. She could see the film/she could smell gas/she could
hear everything/and so on).

3.4.1.2. Permission: can, may, could, be allowed to.

Permission is expressed by can, may, could and be allowed to in order to convey the
meaning of (1) giving and refusing permission and (2) asking for and about permission in
present and past situations.
First of all, (1) to give permission in the present we normally use 'can', 'may' or 'could' (i.e.
You can/may/could sit here) and even, some authors include 'might' as an indicator of
permission (i.e. He might go in) although it is not very common in normal speech but
indirect speech and indicates hesitation. Note that 'may' is the most formal and is often used
in impersonal statements concerning authority and permission (i.e. A police officer may
arrest you). Both 'can' and 'could' are used in colloquial speech as an informal alternative to
'may' but note that 'can' implies the idea of having permission whereas 'could' implies the
idea of condition (i.e. You could use my phone if you need it).
Generally, for permission in the past, we use 'could' and 'be allowed to' (i.e. When I was a
child I could/was allowed to spoil things). However, when a particular action was permitted
and performed we use 'was/were allowed to' instead of 'could' (i.e. I had my passport so I
was allowed to cross the frontier). On the other hand, to refuse permission in the present,
we use 'can't' or 'may not' (i.e. I'm afraid you can 't/may not sit here) but not 'couldn't'
which is used in the past (i.e. We couldn't bring our dog into the pub). It is worth noting that
sometimes we can also use 'must not' (i.e. Dogs must not be brought into this pub).
Secondly, when talking about permission, we sometimes talk about rules made by someone
else, and then we need (2) to ask for permission and ask about permission by means of
requests.
Following Thomson & Martinet (1986), to ask for permission, we can use can I?, could I?,
may I? and might I? as possible requests for permission in the present and future. For
instance, can I? is the commonest and most informal of the four; could I? and may I? are the
most useful as they can express both formal and informal requests. However, the latter
(may I?) is a little more formal than the previous one (could I?); might I? is more diffident
than may I? and indicates greater uncertainty about the answer.
The negative interrogative forms can't I? and couldn't I? show the speaker's hope for an
affirmative answer (i.e. Couldn't I pay by credit card?- (Yes, of course you can)) but when the
answer is negative, we replace a direct negative by a milder expression (i.e. I'd rather you
didn 't/I'm afraid not). On the other hand, with respect to questions about permission, these
are expressed by 'can' or 'am/is/are allowed to' (i.e. Can he take a photo of you? = Is he
allowed to take a photo of you?).

3.4.1.3. Possibility: may, might, can, could

We use may, might, can, could to express possibility in general. Thus, regarding the first
pair, although 'may' and 'might' normally express possibility, the latter slightly increases the
doubt. Again, although both of them are used for present and future (i.e. She may/might tell
her husband), 'might' must be used in the conditional when the expression is introduced by
Unit 20 www.oposicionestandem.com Pg.10
a verb in the past tense (i.e. If you invited them they might come) and in indirect speech (i.e.
He said he might visit us).
Moreover, 'may' and 'might' can be used in conditional sentences instead of 'will' and
'would' just to indicate the 'possibility' or 'certainty' of a result (i.e. If they see you they will
smile at you=certainty vs. If they see you they may smile at you=possibility). When we say
that something was possible in the past, we can use either 'may/might' + perfect infinitive
(i.e. Where is Tom? - He may/might have gone already). 'Could' + perfect infinitive can also
mean that something was possible but didn't happen (i.e. The police could have caught him
= but they didn't catch him yet).
As we can see, 'may' and 'might' present no problems in the affirmative and negative form,
but they do with the interrogative forms since we must use the constructions 'be + likely'
(infinite form) or 'think', which are more usual than 'may' and 'might' (i.e. Do you think/Is it
likely that the plane will land on time?). Moreover, this pair can be used in speculations
about past actions using the structure 'may/might' + perfect infinitive (i.e. They may/might
have been here).
Secondly, regarding 'could' we can say it is an alternative to 'may' and 'might' (i.e. She
may/might/could be at the bank=Perhaps she is at the bank ) in the affirmative form. In the
negative, though, there a difference of meaning between 'may/might' and 'could' since the
former express possibility, whereas the latter expresses negative deduction. For instance,
7
observe: 'He may/might not eat that sandwich meaning that perhaps he is not hungry any
more vs. 'He couldn't eat that sandwich ' meaning that perhaps it is impossible for him to eat
it because of its size, taste, or whatever reason. In the interrogative we can use either 'could'
or 'might' (i.e. Could/Might she be studying?= Do you think/Is it likely that she is studying?).
Note that in the past, we use the construction 'could' + perfect infinitive to express that
something was totally impossible (i.e. He couldn't have eaten that sandwich). Moreover, we
often use the continuous form 'may/might/could + have been + -ing' to talk about a past
possibility (i.e. He didn't come to the party. He may/might/could have been sleeping).

3.4.1.4. Impossibility, certainty and deduction: can't, must

In the present, we normally use 'can't' when we realize that something is impossible (i.e.
Patrick can't be in Greece now. I saw him at work this morning) and 'must' when we realize
that something is certainly true or we make deductions (i.e. Nobody answered the phone.
They must be out). Note the short answers, for instance, 'Do you dare to jump?- Do not
insist. She can't do it' and 'Is she in? - She must be. Note that in both cases we increase the
notions of impossibility or certainty by stressing 'can't' and 'must'.
Similarly, in the past we may also use 'can't' + perfect infinitive when we think something
was impossible (i.e. Someone took my money from the drawer. Nicky can't have done it) and
'must' + perfect infinitive when we feel certain something was true in the past (i.e. The
window was broken. Children must have done it when playing).

3.4.1.5. Necessity: must, have to, needn't

The notion of something 'being necessary' or 'not being necessary' is expressed in English by
the affirmative forms must and have to and the negative form needn't. Note that the
absence of necessity is also expressed by the negative form don't have to (both in present
and past forms), though usually discussed under the notion of 'absence of obligation' as we

Unit 20 www.oposicionestandem.com Pg.11

shall see later. Note that the use of 'need' is not as common as the other two verbs since it
may be both an auxiliary and ordinary verb.
Yet, the verb 'need' as an auxiliary verb, far from denoting 'necessity', it implies 'obligation'
and is seldom used in the affirmative except when a negative or interrogative sentence is
preceded by an expression which changes the negative or interrogative verb into an
affirmative (i.e. I don't suppose I need wear a coat = I needn't wear a coat). It is however
sometimes used in fairly formal English with the frequency adverbs 'hardly, scarcely, only'
(i.e. You need only touch one bottom to start watching the video). However, 'need' actually
means 'require' as an ordinary verb and takes the normal regular forms, but no continuous
tense. Moreover it is usually used with an infinitive (i.e. You need to know the exact size to
buy him a shirt).
'Must' and 'have to' also indicate that something is necessary (i.e. She'll finish school soon so
she must think about her future / We're very busy at the shop. We have to work on Sunday
morning too). When we use the past, or the future with 'will', we need a form of 'have to'
(i.e. Agatha will have to/had to do a lot of work) and also in other structures such as to-
infinitive (i.e. She doesn't want to have to wait for such a long time); after a modal verb (i.e.
He has a sore throat. He may have to go to the doctor's); and with present perfect (i.e.
Stephen has had to drive all the way up to North Spain alone).
However, when used in the negative form, we find differences in meaning. For instance,
'mustn't' means that something is a bad idea (i.e. You mustn't drop the soup), whereas
'needn't' indicates that something is not necessary (i.e. You needn't apologize for being late).
Similarly, 'don't have to' and 'don't need to' indicate that something is not necessary (i.e.
You don't have to/don't need to do the washing up tonight). Moreover, compare with 'must
not' when it expresses 'a negative obligation imposed by the speaker or very emphatic
advice' (i.e. You mustn't say this to anyone) (Thomson & Martinet, 1986).
The form 'needn't' can be used for present and future. As stated before, 'need not' far from
expressing absence of necessity, it expresses 'absence of obligation' or the notion of 'not
being necessary'. That means the speaker gives permission for an action not to be
performed or sometimes merely states that an action is not necessary (i.e. You needn't make
so many copies. One will do/ You needn't change your colour hair. I like you just the way you
are).
In the past, we use the structure 'needn't + perfect infinitive' to express an unnecessary
action which was
nevertheless performed (i.e. You needn't have given me so many presents = thus spending so
much money). If we compare this structure with those of 'didn't have/need (to do)' we
observe that the latter express no obligation, and therefore no action (i.e. I didn't have to
translate that difficult passage from Latin to English).
When needn't + perfect infinitive is compared with other forms, we find (1) needn't +
perfect infinitive vs. didn't need to and (2) needn't + perfect infinitive vs. could/should +
perfect infinitive. Regarding the former, 'didn't need to' refers to something that was not
necessary and, therefore, no action took place (i.e. We didn't need to hurry. We had lots of
time) although sometimes the action did take place even though it was not necessary (i.e.
We didn't need to hurry, but we drove at high speed). However, needn't + perfect infinitive
indicates something we did which we now know was not necessary (i.e. We needn't have
hurried because anyway we arrived late).
Secondly, when compared with could/should + perfect infinitive there is also a difference in
meaning. For instance, when we use could/should + perfect infinitive we imply criticism (i.e.
Unit 20 www.oposicionestandem.com Pg.12
You shouldn't have gone to that concert = It was wrong, foolish or dangerous) whereas with
needn't + perfect infinitive we do not (i.e. You needn't have gone to that concert).

3.4.1.6. Obligation: must, have to, need

Apart from denoting 'necessity', the forms must, have to and need also express the notion of
'obligation' in their affirmative (i.e. I must/have to/need go to the doctor's) and, more
specifically, in their interrogative forms (i.e. Must I/do I have to/Need I go to the doctor's?).
Note that their negative forms have different meanings, for instance, mustn't means
'something is prohibited', 'don't have to' means 'absence of obligation' and finally, 'needn't'
means 'absence of necessity'.
The subtle difference in meaning between 'must' and 'have to' is so insignificant that in
everyday speech it is never taken into account and both forms are used indistinctively (i.e.
You must/have to come at six o 'clock tomorrow). However, some more grammarians claim
that both verbs show relevant differences depending on the person who speaks, that is,
first, second or third person singular and the rest of persons in affirmative sentences.
Thus, (1) the general dichotomy 'must vs. have to' in first person examples shows that the
difference is almost insignificant and very often either form is possible (i.e. I must/have to
buy some butter). Generally, 'must' expresses obligation imposed by the speaker (i.e. A boy
says: I must tidy up my room), whereas 'have to' expresses external obligation (i.e. Mother
to boy: You have to tidy up your room). Yet, we must take into account that 'have to' is more
used for habits (i.e. I have to do exercise three times a week), whereas 'must' is better when
the obligations are urgent or seem important to the speaker (i.e. I must tell you a secret).
(2) In second person examples, 'must' shows the speaker's authority drawn from family,
professional or any other kind of relationship (i.e. Mother to daughter: You must wear a
black dress tonight=you can't go in jeans to that party/Teacher to student: You must use a
dictionary to do this exercise=you can't do it alone/Doctor to patient: You must eat less
fat=or you'll get obesity), whereas 'have to' indicates external authority as fixed and well-
known rules to follow (i.e. You must wear a black dress tonight=at the President's party/You
must use this moisturizing cream at night=you will see greater effects in 10 days/You have to
arrive in time to an important job interview).
(3) Furthermore, third person examples show that 'must' is used in written orders or
instructions (i.e. Passengers must check in two hours before at the airport/A car must have
two extra rear lamps) whereas we use 'have to' just to state or comment on another
person's obligations (i.e. In this office even the senior staff have to be working by 8.00
am/They'll have to send an inspector to investigate the case).
(4) Other cases include all persons in a wide range of different situations. For instance,
casual invitations (i.e. You must come and see us in Madrid); strong authority (i.e. This mess
must stop now!); suggestions (i.e. You must write to Anthony and thank him for his present);
notices or advertisements (i.e. Everything must go!=Closing down sale ); and so on. Similarly,
for affirmative obligations in the past, we use 'had to' and in this case, the distinction
between the speaker's authority and external authority cannot be expressed and there is
only one form (i.e. I had to borrow some money from Chris). With other tenses, we use
'have to', for instance, the future with 'will' (i.e. Anne will have to work tonight) and also in
other structures such as to-infinitive (i.e. She didn't have to cook); after a modal verb (i.e. He
may have to go to London); and with present perfect (i.e. Sarah has had to travel alone).
In the interrogative form, both 'need' and 'must' imply that the person addressed is the
authority concerned, that is, when asking for authority (i.e. Need/Must I go?) in opposition
Unit 20 www.oposicionestandem.com Pg.13
to 'Do I have to go' or 'Have I got to go?' which implies external authority. Moreover, 'need'
also implies that the speaker is hoping for a negative answer (i.e. Need I really go? - No, you
mustn't).
Other specific verbs referring to 'obligation' are 'ought to' and 'should'. These verbs, apart
from denoting 'advice', can also express the subject's obligation or duty as in 'You must/have
to/should practice at least three hours a day' or to indicate a correct or sensible action as in
'This T-shirt is too small. There must/should be another'. One more similarity is that they all
can be used in formal notices and on information sheets (i.e. Candidates must/have
to/should be prepared to answer questions on Science).
However, note that there are relevant differences in use, such as that they do not show
neither the speaker's authority as with 'must' or external authority as with 'have to' but a
matter of conscience or good sense. Another difference between 'ought to/should vs.
must/have to' is that with 'must' and 'have to' we have the general impression that the
obligation is being fulfilled or that it will be soon whereas with 'ought/should' it is the
opposite. This often happens with the first person but quite often applies to the other
persons too (i.e. I ought/should go slowly here =but he is not going to go slowly vs. I
must/have to go slowly here =he is really intended to go slowly).

3.4.1.7. Advice: ought to, should, had better, be supposed to

Generally, we use ought to, should, had better and be supposed to express 'advice',
'convenience' or 'supposition' although, as seen above, 'ought to and should' may express
'obligation' sometimes. First of all, 'should' and 'ought to' imply 'advice' and are used to say
what is the best thing or the right thing to do with no difference in meaning (i.e. You look
pale. Perhaps you should/ought to see a doctor). However, they are often compared but the
only relevant difference we find is drawn from their syntactic structure and everyday use,
for instance, first, 'ought' is followed by 'to-infinitive', whereas 'should' is not and secondly,
'ought to' is less frequent in everyday speech than 'should'. 'Should', apart from denoting
'advice', has another use, that of being a conditional auxiliary (i.e. I'd like a cup of tea=I
should like/I would like). Among other less frequent uses, we find the subjunctive tense (i.e.
It is unnecessary that he should get worried) which is turned into another structure, thus 'It's
unnecessary for him to get worried'; causality (i.e. If you should see her, tell her she is
wrong); formal instructions (i.e. This bread should be heated in the oven); suppositions (i.e.
He should be here by now, I think); rhetoric questions (i.e. How should I know?); and direct
and indirect speech (i.e. Shall I go?- He asked if he should go).
On the other hand, 'had better' + bare infinitive indicates 'convenience' and is used to say
what is the best thing to do in a situation (i.e. It's cold. You had better wear a coat). Actually,
we could also use 'should' and 'ought to' in this example but 'had better' has a stronger
reference to 'convenient decisions'. In addition, 'be supposed to' indicates 'supposition' and
is used when we are talking about the normal or correct way of doing things (i.e. How am I
supposed to live without you?).

3.4.1.8. Suggestions, offers and invitations: can, could, shall, will, would
In English, suggestions, offers and invitations are namely expressed by can, could, shall, will
and would. First of all, suggestions are generally given by 'can', 'could' and more specifically
by 'shall', for instance, to ask for a suggestion we may use 'can' and 'shall' (i.e. What
can/shall I get Tom for his birthday?) and even 'should' (i.e. I'll tell you how you should do it).

Unit 20 www.oposicionestandem.com Pg.14

Similarly, we may use 'could' (i.e. We could invite a few friends for our party on Saturday)
but the most usual way of making a suggestion is by means of 'Shall I + infinitive?(=Let's +
infinitive) for first person suggestions (i.e. Shall I close the window? ) and 'Shall we +
infinitive?(=Why don't we...?)' for second person suggestions (i.e. Shall we go to the theatre
tonight?).
Offers are, on the other, hand expressed by 'will' or 'can' to offer to do something 10(i.e. I'll
take your luggage/We can take it home). Also, we can use question forms with 'shall' or 'can'
(i.e. Shall we give you the presents now?/Can we give you our presents now?).
Moreover, to offer food or drink, we use 'would like' (i.e. Would you like a drink?) or
'Will/Won't you have...?' (i.e. Will you have a spare pen?). Note that in informal speech we
can use the imperative (i.e. Have a taste - Oh, thanks). On the contrary, if we want to refuse
the offer, we would use 'won't' as a way of strong refusal (i.e. I won't listen to you any
more).
Finally, invitations are expressed by 'would' and similar verbs used in offers of food and
drink, for instance, 'Would you like to have dinner with us tonight? Or 'Will you join us
tonight?' Similarly, we may use the imperative mood to invite someone in informal speech,
7
as in 'Come and see us soon or 'Please, take a sit'.

3.4.1.9. Predictions: will, would

Predictions are mainly expressed by 'will' and 'would', for instance, we use 'will' for future
predictions (i.e. 'I guess she will be tired tomorrow. We have been running for two hours'),
whereas we use 'would' for a past prediction (i.e. It was so late and Sarah was still working.
She would be really tired the following day) or a prediction about a possible situation (i.e.
Will you join us on Saturday? - That would be nice). Note that we can use 'shall' instead of
'will' and 'should' instead of 'would', but only in the first person, after 'I' and 'we' (i.e. I
will/shall be thirty on January/We would/should like to meet your husband). Both forms,
'shall' and 'should', would be considered to be more formal than 'will' and 'would'.

3.4.2. Marginal auxiliaries

As we know, apart from modal auxiliaries (i.e. can, could, may, might, must, shall, should
and will) we may find other modals which are considered to be marginal members (dare,
need, ought (to) and used (to)) because they can be used both as auxiliaries and as lexical
verbs (i.e. He needs some friends vs. He needn't be loved), functioning respectively as
intransitive or transitive verbs.
Semantically speaking, when they function as auxiliary verbs, 'dare' expresses indignation
(i.e. How dare you?), 'need' expresses 'obligation' (i.e. Need I go to the library?), 'ought to'
expresses 'obligation' or 'advice' (i.e. You ought to go now/You ought to take care of you),
and finally 'used to' expresses 'a discontinuous habit or a past situation in contrast with the
present' (i.e. He used to smoke so much but now he has given up smoking).
On the contrary, when they function as ordinary verbs, they have different meanings or in
some cases subtle differences. Thus, 'dare' as an ordinary transitive verb is followed by
object + full infinitive and means 'challenge' but only to deeds requiring courage (i.e. This
competitor dared me to run faster); 'dare' may have idiomatic uses but we shall see in next
section. Moreover, 'need' means 'require' (i.e. I need a computer); 'ought to' stands for the
formal way of saying 'should' (i.e. You ought to start studying soon); and 'used to' is used to
express a past routine or pattern by describing someone's routine during a certain period
(i.e. Every morning Tom used to read the newspaper while having breakfast).
Unit 20 www.oposicionestandem.com Pg.15
Note that it is often used to describe a succession of actions where 'used to' is replaceable
by 'would' but 'would' cannot replace 'used to' for a discontinued habit, as above. We must
remember that 'used' has no present form so we use the present simple for present habits
and routines (i.e. He often reads the newspaper in the morning). In addition, 'used' may
function as an adjective in the structures 'to be/become/get used to + gerund' with the
meaning of 'accustomed' (i.e. I am used to noise/I am used to working in a noisy place)
referring to a psychological statement. Note in the first, 'used' is an adjective and 'to' is a
preposition, whereas in the second, 'used' is a verb and 'to' is part of the following verbal
form. To finish with, we must not confuse these forms with the regular verb 'to use'
meaning 'employ' (i.e. I use my computer to work).

3.4.3. Primary verbs

When dealing with the semantics of primary verbs, we must address the meaning they have
as ordinary verbs since, as stated before, they are meaningless in their auxiliary function
because they require a participle or infinitive in order to have full meaning. Thus, following
the main uses of 'be' as an ordinary verb are:
1) To give personal information about people or things (i.e. I am an
architect/New York is exciting).
2) To express physical or mental condition (i.e. Tom is being foolish/ The children
are quiet today) by means of a wide range of paired adjectives: quiet/noisy,
good/bad, cheap/expensive, generous/mean and so on;
3) To denote age (i.e. How old is this Scottish castle? - It's 600 years old).
4) To denote weight and size (i.e. I am 74 kilos and I am 1.76 meters).
5) To indicate prices (i.e. This car is 60.000 euros).
On the other hand, 'have' as an ordinary verb may mean 'possess' (i.e. My grandma has a
diamond necklace*); 'take' (food) (i.e. He always has a cup of coffee at five*); and 'give' (a
party, a speech) (i.e. He is having a party next week).
Moreover, 'do' means 'perform' at the very moment of speaking (i.e. What are you doing?
*), as a near future (i.e. What are you doing tonight?*), as a habit (i.e. What does she do at
weekends??) or in the past (i.e. What did Markus do last Friday?). These verbs, as ordinary
verbs, may transitive within the sentence structure.

3.4.4. Other types of auxiliaries

When dealing with the semantics of other types of auxiliary verbs, we shall deal with semi-
auxiliaries (be able to', 'be about to', 'be due to', and so on), catenative verbs ('go on
(talking)', 'keep (on) (smoking)', and so on) and modal idioms ('had better', 'would rather',
and so on). Because of their specific syntactic features, their meaning is more related to
everyday use than to merely the semantic field, so we shall analyse them in the following
section on everyday usage.

3.5. On use: everyday usage and idiomatic expressions

When dealing with modal and auxiliary verbs in everyday use, we cover the field of specific
structures used in everyday speech and idiomatic expressions as fixed sentences in
informal/formal speech. For instance, the idiomatic meaning of 'Shall I take your bags?' as
an offer instead of referring to future; 'Would you like something to eat? as an invitation
and not a conditional verbal form; 'May I come in?' as a way of asking for permission rather

Unit 20 www.oposicionestandem.com Pg.16

than 'possibility'; or asking for information 'Could you tell me the way to the airport,
please?'.
Yet, everyday usage is clearly expressed by certain types of auxiliaries, such as semi-
auxiliaries, and catenative verbs, whereas idiomatic expressions are particularly drawn by
modal idioms because of their specific syntactic structures. Thus, semi-auxiliaries are
defined as a set of verb idioms, for instance, 'be able to' meaning 'capable of doing anything'
(i.e. I am able to run 20 kilometers in an hour); 'be about to' meaning 'close to doing
something (i.e. I was just about to get asleep in the meeting); 'be going to' meaning 'the
intention of doing something soon' (i.e. I was going to call you but you called before); 'be
likely to' meaning 'it is probable that' (i.e. She is likely to win next Olympic Games), and so
on.
On the other hand, catenative verbs have meanings similar to those for the aspectual and
modal auxiliaries through such items as 'appear to', 'seem to' and 'happen to'. Note that
some catenatives are followed by the non- finite forms -ing or -ed participles rather than by
infinitives, for instance, 'start (working)', 'go on (talking)', 'keep (on) (smoking)', 'get
(dressed)'.
And finally, modal idioms are those that comprise a long list of idiomatic expressions which
have no literal translation but idiomatic use. Thus, 'had better' meaning 'It is better for you
to...' (i.e. You'd better go now or he will get angrier); 'would rather' meaning 'prefer' (i.e. He
would rather drink wine than beer=He prefers wine to beer); 'have got to' meaning
'obligation' (i.e. He's got to sit two exams in one week); and 'be to' which was explained
above, as a means to convey orders or instructions (i.e. No one is to leave this room=no one
must leave).
Moreover, marginal verbs may also have idiomatic meanings, for instance, 'dare' with the
expressions 'I dare say or I dare say'. It presents two different meanings: first, as 'I suppose'
(i.e. I dare say you are pregnant) or second, as 'I accept what you say' (i.e. In England we
drive on the left. - Yes, I dare say you do, but in Spain we drive on the right).

4. CONCLUSION

Both auxiliary and modal verbs have embraced the scope of this study; auxiliary verbs have
proved to work as 'helping verbs', i.e., they do not make up a verb phrase on their own, but
must usually be accompanied by a following main verb. We have also brought up that
auxiliary verbs are a small class of words, made up of primary auxiliaries (be, do, have) and
modal auxiliaries (can, could...). Auxiliary verbs are structurally necessary for certain
construction (especially negative and question clauses), and these constructions enable us
to distinguish them from main verbs.
All in all, we have examined in great detail auxiliary and modal verbs in terms of form and
function for their great value within the foreign language class.

5. BIBLIOGRAPHY

AARTS, F., AND J. AARTS. English Syntactic Structures. Functions & Categories in Sentence
Analysis. Prentice Hall Europe, 1988.

EASTWOOD, J. Oxford Practice in Grammar. Oxford University Press, 1999.

GREENBAUM, S. AND R. QUIRK. A Student's Grammar of the English Language.
Longman Group UK Limited, 1990
Unit 20 www.oposicionestandem.com Pg.17
 
GREENBAUM, S. The Oxford Reference Grammar. Edited by Edmund Weiner. Oxford University
Press, 2000.

HUDDLESTON, R. English Grammar, An Outline. Cambridge University Press, 1988.

HUDDLESTON, R. AND G.K. PULLUM. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.
Cambridge University Press, 2002.

NELSON, G. English: An Essential Grammar. London. Routledge, 2001.

QUIRK, R. & S. GREENBAUMA University Grammar of English. Longman, 1973.

SÁNCHEZ BENEDITO, F. Gramática Inglesa. Editorial Alhambra, 1975.

THOMSON, A.J. AND A.V. MARTINET. A Practical English Grammar. Oxford University Press,
1986.

Unit 20 www.oposicionestandem.com Pg.18