The document discusses the uses of modal verbs such as should, ought to, must, and shall. It explains that should and ought to are used to express advice or recommendation. Must can express obligation or necessity, either from the speaker's authority or as something inevitable. Shall is used to make predictions after I or we, and was used more commonly in the past to express obligation or insistence with other subjects.
presupposition
types of presuppostion
properties of presupposition
implicature
types of implicature
properties of implicature
Grice's theory of implicature
Coperative principle
conversational Maxims
Relevance theory
Grice proposed the Cooperative Principle and conversational maxims to explain how implicatures arise in conversation. The maxims include Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner. Violations or "floutings" of the maxims allow listeners to infer meanings beyond what is literally said, known as implicatures. Experimental evidence shows that comprehenders rapidly integrate contextual information to derive implicatures, supporting the view that language processing involves general assumptions of cooperation rather than being driven solely by linguistic form.
This document discusses the logic of conversation based on the work of philosopher H.P. Grice. It outlines two types of "irrationalities" in communication - inherent irrationalities in language and conversational irrationalities. Grice proposed the Cooperative Principle as the logical basis for inferences made in conversation. This principle involves making one's contribution according to the purpose of the exchange. Grice also proposed maxims of Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner to explain how meaning is derived beyond what is literally said through implicature. By assuming these maxims are followed, speakers can determine another's intended meaning.
1. In the first conversation, the Quality maxim is being flouted.
2. In the second conversation, the Quantity maxim is being flouted.
3. In the third conversation, the Relevance maxim is being flouted.
4. In the fourth conversation, the Manner maxim of avoiding ambiguity is being flouted.
2. Yes, the implicatures are successful in each case because the hearer recognizes that a maxim is being flouted and is able to infer the implicated meaning.
This document provides an overview of conversational implicature including:
- Grice's contributions to implicature through his cooperative principles and how flouting them leads to implicature.
- Types of implicature such as generalized, particularized, and scalar.
- The difference between conversational and conventional implicature.
- Examples of implicature derived from flouting the Gricean maxims of quality, quantity, relation, and manner.
The document discusses various linguistic concepts related to sentence semantics and truth, including entailment, presupposition, situations, tense, aspect, modality, and evidentiality. It provides examples and definitions for each concept. Entailment relates whether one sentence is necessarily true if another is true. Presupposition involves assumptions made in a sentence. Situations are classified as stative, dynamic, accomplishments or achievements. Tense and aspect relate situations to time. Modality expresses degrees of belief or commitment. Evidentiality qualifies statements based on the source of information.
This document discusses several linguistic concepts related to context and inference in language including:
- Deixis which refers to words whose meaning depends on context like pronouns, demonstratives, and spatial terms.
- How speakers estimate a listener's knowledge and package their utterances accordingly using information structure signals like focus, topic, and definiteness.
- How listeners can infer implicit meanings through implicature, inference, and contextual information not explicitly stated.
- How the meanings of words can be broadened or narrowed depending on specific contexts in a process called lexical pragmatics.
Grice's theory of conversational implicatureLahcen Graid
Grice's theory of implicature examines how speakers imply meanings beyond what is literally said through utterances. It distinguishes between what is said, based on literal meaning of words, and what is implicated or suggested. Grice provides an example where a speaker implies something different by saying "he hasn't been to prison yet." His theory also differentiates between conventional implicatures from literal meanings of words and conversational implicatures derived from cooperation between speakers. Grice proposes a cooperative principle and maxims like quality and quantity that speakers generally follow but can flout to generate implicatures. When maxims are flouted, hearers can infer additional intended meanings or implicatures.
presupposition
types of presuppostion
properties of presupposition
implicature
types of implicature
properties of implicature
Grice's theory of implicature
Coperative principle
conversational Maxims
Relevance theory
Grice proposed the Cooperative Principle and conversational maxims to explain how implicatures arise in conversation. The maxims include Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner. Violations or "floutings" of the maxims allow listeners to infer meanings beyond what is literally said, known as implicatures. Experimental evidence shows that comprehenders rapidly integrate contextual information to derive implicatures, supporting the view that language processing involves general assumptions of cooperation rather than being driven solely by linguistic form.
This document discusses the logic of conversation based on the work of philosopher H.P. Grice. It outlines two types of "irrationalities" in communication - inherent irrationalities in language and conversational irrationalities. Grice proposed the Cooperative Principle as the logical basis for inferences made in conversation. This principle involves making one's contribution according to the purpose of the exchange. Grice also proposed maxims of Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner to explain how meaning is derived beyond what is literally said through implicature. By assuming these maxims are followed, speakers can determine another's intended meaning.
1. In the first conversation, the Quality maxim is being flouted.
2. In the second conversation, the Quantity maxim is being flouted.
3. In the third conversation, the Relevance maxim is being flouted.
4. In the fourth conversation, the Manner maxim of avoiding ambiguity is being flouted.
2. Yes, the implicatures are successful in each case because the hearer recognizes that a maxim is being flouted and is able to infer the implicated meaning.
This document provides an overview of conversational implicature including:
- Grice's contributions to implicature through his cooperative principles and how flouting them leads to implicature.
- Types of implicature such as generalized, particularized, and scalar.
- The difference between conversational and conventional implicature.
- Examples of implicature derived from flouting the Gricean maxims of quality, quantity, relation, and manner.
The document discusses various linguistic concepts related to sentence semantics and truth, including entailment, presupposition, situations, tense, aspect, modality, and evidentiality. It provides examples and definitions for each concept. Entailment relates whether one sentence is necessarily true if another is true. Presupposition involves assumptions made in a sentence. Situations are classified as stative, dynamic, accomplishments or achievements. Tense and aspect relate situations to time. Modality expresses degrees of belief or commitment. Evidentiality qualifies statements based on the source of information.
This document discusses several linguistic concepts related to context and inference in language including:
- Deixis which refers to words whose meaning depends on context like pronouns, demonstratives, and spatial terms.
- How speakers estimate a listener's knowledge and package their utterances accordingly using information structure signals like focus, topic, and definiteness.
- How listeners can infer implicit meanings through implicature, inference, and contextual information not explicitly stated.
- How the meanings of words can be broadened or narrowed depending on specific contexts in a process called lexical pragmatics.
Grice's theory of conversational implicatureLahcen Graid
Grice's theory of implicature examines how speakers imply meanings beyond what is literally said through utterances. It distinguishes between what is said, based on literal meaning of words, and what is implicated or suggested. Grice provides an example where a speaker implies something different by saying "he hasn't been to prison yet." His theory also differentiates between conventional implicatures from literal meanings of words and conversational implicatures derived from cooperation between speakers. Grice proposes a cooperative principle and maxims like quality and quantity that speakers generally follow but can flout to generate implicatures. When maxims are flouted, hearers can infer additional intended meanings or implicatures.
This document defines and compares presupposition and entailment. Presupposition refers to information assumed to be true prior to an utterance, whereas entailment logically follows from what is asserted. There are different types of presupposition such as existential, factive, and lexical. Entailments are logical implications of an utterance, but presuppositions can be canceled in certain contexts. The projection problem refers to presuppositions not necessarily carrying over when a sentence becomes more complex.
The document discusses Grice's theory of conversational implicature and speech acts. It explains that Grice proposed a cooperative principle with four maxims - quality, quantity, relation, and manner. Speakers imply meanings indirectly through implicatures by following or flouting the maxims. Standard implicatures arise from following the maxims, while flouting the maxims allows signals for non-literal meanings. Examples are provided to illustrate direct and indirect speech acts, presuppositions, and how implicatures can arise through standard or flouted uses of the maxims.
This document discusses semantics and pragmatics, implicature, and Grice's theory of implicature. It defines semantics as the study of literal meaning and pragmatics as the study of intended meaning. Pragmatics considers what is meant rather than solely what is said. Grice's theory proposes that speakers follow a cooperative principle with maxims of quantity, quality, relation, and manner to ensure conversations are cooperative and successful. Implicature is the additional meaning implied rather than stated. There are different types of implicature including scalar, conversational, conventional, generalized, and particularized.
Kelompok 6 semprag (cooperation and implicature)donawidiya
The document discusses semantics and pragmatics, specifically cooperation and implicature. It defines cooperation as how components of a system work together, and implicature as something inferred from an utterance that is not necessary for its truth. Implicatures can be canceled or strengthened based on context. The cooperative principle and Grice's maxims are explained, along with conversational implicature, scalar implicature, particularized implicature, and properties of implicature like defeasibility. Hedges are also defined as devices that lessen impact.
This document provides an overview of a presentation on reference and inference. It will cover four layers:
1. Setting the background - This layer provides context on micropragmatics and how reference and inference relate.
2. Reference - This layer defines reference, discusses the different types of referring expressions, and how context influences reference.
3. Inference - This layer defines inference, provides examples of inferring, and how it relates to and completes the purpose of reference.
4. Differences between reference and inference - This final layer will outline the differences between reference and inference.
The presentation will include activities to demonstrate concepts and allow questions. It aims to build understanding of reference and inference in language
The document summarizes Grice's theory of conversational implicature, which proposes that conversations are generally cooperative endeavors governed by a cooperative principle and four maxims: quality, quantity, relation, and manner. It provides definitions and examples of each maxim, and explains how apparent violations of the maxims, known as floutings, can imply additional meanings through implicature.
The document provides an overview of key concepts in pragmatics including explicit vs implicit meaning, presupposition and entailment, Grice's cooperative principles and maxims, implicature, proposed distinctions in meaning and use, and subareas of pragmatics such as speech acts and conversational structure. It discusses Grice's view that implicit meaning involves what is implicated rather than entailed from conventional meaning. Various types of implicatures are also outlined such as scalar, conventional, and conversational implicatures.
The document discusses Paul Grice's cooperative principle of conversation. It explains that Grice analyzed the cooperative principle into four maxims: quality, quantity, relation, and manner. For each maxim, it provides the definition and an example to illustrate how the maxim can be violated in conversation. It also discusses how the cooperative principle and its maxims can be applied to other languages, using examples in Arabic. The key points are that Grice's cooperative principle proposes that conversation depends on cooperation between speakers and listeners, and it identifies four maxims that are usually observed to maintain that cooperation.
The document discusses Grice's Cooperative Principle and its four maxims of conversation: quality, quantity, relation, and manner. It explains how speakers can flout or violate these maxims to convey implied meanings known as conversational implicatures. Examples are provided to illustrate how maxims can be flouted through exaggeration, metaphor, irony, sarcasm, and banter. It also discusses how maxims can be violated by providing insufficient information or being deliberately unclear or insincere. The document concludes by differentiating between infringing on maxims due to lack of ability versus opting out of maxims intentionally.
The document discusses Paul Grice's theory of conversational implicature and how speakers imply meanings beyond what they literally say through observations of the cooperative principle and its maxims of quality, quantity, relation and manner. It provides examples of how implicatures can be inferred from utterances that seem to violate these maxims. The cooperative principle aims to explain how listeners can understand a speaker's intended meaning, even when the utterance appears untrue, unrelated or absurd on the surface.
The document discusses the concepts of presupposition and entailment in language. Presuppositions are assumptions that speakers convey through their use of language, such as assuming information is already known by listeners. Entailments are logical implications that follow from what is directly stated. The key differences are that presuppositions do not change under negation, while sentences rather than speakers have entailments. Examples are provided to illustrate presuppositions conveyed through lexical items, structures, and types of verbs.
The document discusses Grice's Cooperative Principle, which states that communication involves cooperation between participants to establish meaning. It consists of four maxims: quality, quantity, relation, and manner. Conversational implicatures refer to implied meanings derived through inference rather than what is literally stated. Speakers can implicate additional meanings by observing or flouting the maxims, such as providing less information than required to imply uncertainty. The document provides examples of how speakers can flout different maxims to convey extra meanings.
Implicatures are inferred assumptions that cannot be directly derived from linguistic forms. There are two types: conventional implicatures which are conventionally attached to linguistic forms, and conversational implicatures which are assumptions not fully encoded in what is said. Conversational implicatures are context dependent, defeasible, non-detachable, and calculable based on meaning and context. Approaches to explaining implicatures include the coding hypothesis, restricted coding mechanism, maxim-based accounts, and relevance-based accounts.
Rachel and Ross infringe the maxims of quantity and manner due to drunkenness, leading to unclear and overly verbose speech. Joey seeks their help in a serious matter but they are unable to cooperate due to their impaired state.
Grice proposed the Cooperative Principle to describe how conversation participants generally follow conversational rules to be cooperative and make their intended meanings clear. He outlined four conversational maxims - quality, quantity, relation, and manner - that participants typically observe. However, maxims can be failed or flouted, allowing for conversational implicatures where a meaning is implied but not directly stated. Grice's theory explains how listeners infer meanings and intentions even when maxims are not strictly followed, demonstrating how conversations can still achieve cooperation through implicature.
Pragmatics presupposition and entailnmentphannguyen161
The document discusses presupposition and entailment, defining presupposition as implicit assumptions in an utterance and entailment as logical implications. It identifies different types of presupposition triggers including existential, factive, lexical, and structural presuppositions. Entailment is characterized as a relationship between propositions where the truth of one implies the truth of the other based on word meanings.
Implicature refers to what a speaker implies rather than literally says. There are two main types: conversational implicature which is derived from cooperative conversation principles, and conventional implicature which is associated with specific words. Conversational implicature includes generalized implicature which does not depend on context, and particularized implicature which does. Scalar implicature also falls under conversational implicature and is implied when a weaker term on a scale is used. Particularized implicature provides more contextual information than generalized implicature. Implicatures can intentionally or unintentionally impact understanding in conversations.
The document discusses various types and theories of presupposition. It defines presupposition as information that a speaker assumes is already known by listeners. There are different types of presuppositions triggered by lexical items and grammatical constructions, such as existential, factive, and structural presuppositions. Theories view presupposition as either a property of sentences (semantic view) or of speaker beliefs (pragmatic view). Presuppositions are assumed to be part of the common ground between speakers but can be introduced through accommodation.
Cooperation and implicature are fundamentally linked in conversation. Cooperation means that speakers and listeners do not intend to confuse or mislead each other, but rather convey true and relevant statements. Implicatures are inferred based on assumptions that the speaker is observing principles of cooperation, such as providing enough information (quantity), truthful information (quality), and clear, unambiguous information (manner and relation). Implicatures are part of what is communicated implicitly rather than explicitly stated.
The document summarizes Paul Grice's theory of conversational implicature. It explains that Grice proposed that speaker meaning arises from both sentence meaning and what is implicated based on assumptions of cooperation between conversation participants. Grice's cooperative principle consists of four maxims - quality, quantity, relation, and manner. The document provides examples of how conversational implicatures can arise from observing, violating, or flouting the maxims in context.
Uvod u morfosintaksu, lecture 08, 12 13Alen Šogolj
The document discusses various aspects of tense and aspect in English grammar. It describes how time is conceptualized as past, present and future. It defines tense as a grammatical category realized through verb inflection, distinguishing between the present and past tense in English. It also discusses aspect, the progressive and perfect aspects. Finally, it examines different ways of expressing future time in English using modal verbs, the going to construction, simple present and present progressive tenses.
Uvod u morfosintaksu, lecture 06, 12 13Alen Šogolj
This document discusses the meanings and uses of modal auxiliaries in English. It explains that modals have root meanings involving ability, permission, and obligation, and epistemic meanings involving possibility and necessity. Each modal has both root and epistemic uses. The document then examines individual modals such as can, may, must, and should, outlining their core meanings and how they are used to indicate ability, permission, possibility, obligation, and other concepts in different tenses and constructions. It provides many examples to illustrate the nuanced meanings and appropriate uses of each modal verb.
This document defines and compares presupposition and entailment. Presupposition refers to information assumed to be true prior to an utterance, whereas entailment logically follows from what is asserted. There are different types of presupposition such as existential, factive, and lexical. Entailments are logical implications of an utterance, but presuppositions can be canceled in certain contexts. The projection problem refers to presuppositions not necessarily carrying over when a sentence becomes more complex.
The document discusses Grice's theory of conversational implicature and speech acts. It explains that Grice proposed a cooperative principle with four maxims - quality, quantity, relation, and manner. Speakers imply meanings indirectly through implicatures by following or flouting the maxims. Standard implicatures arise from following the maxims, while flouting the maxims allows signals for non-literal meanings. Examples are provided to illustrate direct and indirect speech acts, presuppositions, and how implicatures can arise through standard or flouted uses of the maxims.
This document discusses semantics and pragmatics, implicature, and Grice's theory of implicature. It defines semantics as the study of literal meaning and pragmatics as the study of intended meaning. Pragmatics considers what is meant rather than solely what is said. Grice's theory proposes that speakers follow a cooperative principle with maxims of quantity, quality, relation, and manner to ensure conversations are cooperative and successful. Implicature is the additional meaning implied rather than stated. There are different types of implicature including scalar, conversational, conventional, generalized, and particularized.
Kelompok 6 semprag (cooperation and implicature)donawidiya
The document discusses semantics and pragmatics, specifically cooperation and implicature. It defines cooperation as how components of a system work together, and implicature as something inferred from an utterance that is not necessary for its truth. Implicatures can be canceled or strengthened based on context. The cooperative principle and Grice's maxims are explained, along with conversational implicature, scalar implicature, particularized implicature, and properties of implicature like defeasibility. Hedges are also defined as devices that lessen impact.
This document provides an overview of a presentation on reference and inference. It will cover four layers:
1. Setting the background - This layer provides context on micropragmatics and how reference and inference relate.
2. Reference - This layer defines reference, discusses the different types of referring expressions, and how context influences reference.
3. Inference - This layer defines inference, provides examples of inferring, and how it relates to and completes the purpose of reference.
4. Differences between reference and inference - This final layer will outline the differences between reference and inference.
The presentation will include activities to demonstrate concepts and allow questions. It aims to build understanding of reference and inference in language
The document summarizes Grice's theory of conversational implicature, which proposes that conversations are generally cooperative endeavors governed by a cooperative principle and four maxims: quality, quantity, relation, and manner. It provides definitions and examples of each maxim, and explains how apparent violations of the maxims, known as floutings, can imply additional meanings through implicature.
The document provides an overview of key concepts in pragmatics including explicit vs implicit meaning, presupposition and entailment, Grice's cooperative principles and maxims, implicature, proposed distinctions in meaning and use, and subareas of pragmatics such as speech acts and conversational structure. It discusses Grice's view that implicit meaning involves what is implicated rather than entailed from conventional meaning. Various types of implicatures are also outlined such as scalar, conventional, and conversational implicatures.
The document discusses Paul Grice's cooperative principle of conversation. It explains that Grice analyzed the cooperative principle into four maxims: quality, quantity, relation, and manner. For each maxim, it provides the definition and an example to illustrate how the maxim can be violated in conversation. It also discusses how the cooperative principle and its maxims can be applied to other languages, using examples in Arabic. The key points are that Grice's cooperative principle proposes that conversation depends on cooperation between speakers and listeners, and it identifies four maxims that are usually observed to maintain that cooperation.
The document discusses Grice's Cooperative Principle and its four maxims of conversation: quality, quantity, relation, and manner. It explains how speakers can flout or violate these maxims to convey implied meanings known as conversational implicatures. Examples are provided to illustrate how maxims can be flouted through exaggeration, metaphor, irony, sarcasm, and banter. It also discusses how maxims can be violated by providing insufficient information or being deliberately unclear or insincere. The document concludes by differentiating between infringing on maxims due to lack of ability versus opting out of maxims intentionally.
The document discusses Paul Grice's theory of conversational implicature and how speakers imply meanings beyond what they literally say through observations of the cooperative principle and its maxims of quality, quantity, relation and manner. It provides examples of how implicatures can be inferred from utterances that seem to violate these maxims. The cooperative principle aims to explain how listeners can understand a speaker's intended meaning, even when the utterance appears untrue, unrelated or absurd on the surface.
The document discusses the concepts of presupposition and entailment in language. Presuppositions are assumptions that speakers convey through their use of language, such as assuming information is already known by listeners. Entailments are logical implications that follow from what is directly stated. The key differences are that presuppositions do not change under negation, while sentences rather than speakers have entailments. Examples are provided to illustrate presuppositions conveyed through lexical items, structures, and types of verbs.
The document discusses Grice's Cooperative Principle, which states that communication involves cooperation between participants to establish meaning. It consists of four maxims: quality, quantity, relation, and manner. Conversational implicatures refer to implied meanings derived through inference rather than what is literally stated. Speakers can implicate additional meanings by observing or flouting the maxims, such as providing less information than required to imply uncertainty. The document provides examples of how speakers can flout different maxims to convey extra meanings.
Implicatures are inferred assumptions that cannot be directly derived from linguistic forms. There are two types: conventional implicatures which are conventionally attached to linguistic forms, and conversational implicatures which are assumptions not fully encoded in what is said. Conversational implicatures are context dependent, defeasible, non-detachable, and calculable based on meaning and context. Approaches to explaining implicatures include the coding hypothesis, restricted coding mechanism, maxim-based accounts, and relevance-based accounts.
Rachel and Ross infringe the maxims of quantity and manner due to drunkenness, leading to unclear and overly verbose speech. Joey seeks their help in a serious matter but they are unable to cooperate due to their impaired state.
Grice proposed the Cooperative Principle to describe how conversation participants generally follow conversational rules to be cooperative and make their intended meanings clear. He outlined four conversational maxims - quality, quantity, relation, and manner - that participants typically observe. However, maxims can be failed or flouted, allowing for conversational implicatures where a meaning is implied but not directly stated. Grice's theory explains how listeners infer meanings and intentions even when maxims are not strictly followed, demonstrating how conversations can still achieve cooperation through implicature.
Pragmatics presupposition and entailnmentphannguyen161
The document discusses presupposition and entailment, defining presupposition as implicit assumptions in an utterance and entailment as logical implications. It identifies different types of presupposition triggers including existential, factive, lexical, and structural presuppositions. Entailment is characterized as a relationship between propositions where the truth of one implies the truth of the other based on word meanings.
Implicature refers to what a speaker implies rather than literally says. There are two main types: conversational implicature which is derived from cooperative conversation principles, and conventional implicature which is associated with specific words. Conversational implicature includes generalized implicature which does not depend on context, and particularized implicature which does. Scalar implicature also falls under conversational implicature and is implied when a weaker term on a scale is used. Particularized implicature provides more contextual information than generalized implicature. Implicatures can intentionally or unintentionally impact understanding in conversations.
The document discusses various types and theories of presupposition. It defines presupposition as information that a speaker assumes is already known by listeners. There are different types of presuppositions triggered by lexical items and grammatical constructions, such as existential, factive, and structural presuppositions. Theories view presupposition as either a property of sentences (semantic view) or of speaker beliefs (pragmatic view). Presuppositions are assumed to be part of the common ground between speakers but can be introduced through accommodation.
Cooperation and implicature are fundamentally linked in conversation. Cooperation means that speakers and listeners do not intend to confuse or mislead each other, but rather convey true and relevant statements. Implicatures are inferred based on assumptions that the speaker is observing principles of cooperation, such as providing enough information (quantity), truthful information (quality), and clear, unambiguous information (manner and relation). Implicatures are part of what is communicated implicitly rather than explicitly stated.
The document summarizes Paul Grice's theory of conversational implicature. It explains that Grice proposed that speaker meaning arises from both sentence meaning and what is implicated based on assumptions of cooperation between conversation participants. Grice's cooperative principle consists of four maxims - quality, quantity, relation, and manner. The document provides examples of how conversational implicatures can arise from observing, violating, or flouting the maxims in context.
Uvod u morfosintaksu, lecture 08, 12 13Alen Šogolj
The document discusses various aspects of tense and aspect in English grammar. It describes how time is conceptualized as past, present and future. It defines tense as a grammatical category realized through verb inflection, distinguishing between the present and past tense in English. It also discusses aspect, the progressive and perfect aspects. Finally, it examines different ways of expressing future time in English using modal verbs, the going to construction, simple present and present progressive tenses.
Uvod u morfosintaksu, lecture 06, 12 13Alen Šogolj
This document discusses the meanings and uses of modal auxiliaries in English. It explains that modals have root meanings involving ability, permission, and obligation, and epistemic meanings involving possibility and necessity. Each modal has both root and epistemic uses. The document then examines individual modals such as can, may, must, and should, outlining their core meanings and how they are used to indicate ability, permission, possibility, obligation, and other concepts in different tenses and constructions. It provides many examples to illustrate the nuanced meanings and appropriate uses of each modal verb.
Uvod u morfosintaksu, lecture 09, 12 13Alen Šogolj
The document discusses the different uses of the present perfect tense in English, including:
1) The state present perfect which refers to a state that began in the past and continues to the present.
2) The event present perfect which refers to one or more past events within a period leading to the present, reported either as recent news or more remote past events.
3) The habitual present perfect which refers to past events that repeatedly occur up to and including the present.
Uvod u morfosintaksu, lecture 11, 12 13Alen Šogolj
This document discusses conditional clauses and how they are used to express different types of conditions. It begins by explaining that conditional clauses can convey either a direct or indirect condition. It then describes the different types of conditional clauses: Type 0 expresses cause and effect, Type 1 expresses an open condition, and Types 2 and 3 express tentative, hypothetical, or unreal conditions. It provides examples for each type and discusses the typical verb tenses and structures used. The document also covers variations, indirect speech, backshifting, and other changes that can occur when converting direct to indirect speech.
Uvod u morfosintaksu, lecture 05, 12 13Alen Šogolj
The document discusses various categories related to verbs in English grammar, including finite and nonfinite verb phrases, tense, aspect, mood, and voice. It provides examples and explanations of each category. Finite verb phrases can occur as the main verb of independent clauses and show tense, person and number agreement. Nonfinite verb phrases do not normally head independent clauses and include infinitives, -ing and -ed participles.
Uvod u morfosintaksu, lecture 04, 12 13Alen Šogolj
The document discusses the major classes of verbs in English: full verbs, primary verbs, and modal auxiliary verbs. Full verbs can act only as main verbs, modal auxiliaries can act only as auxiliary verbs, and primary verbs like "be" and "have" can act as either main verbs or auxiliary verbs. The functions of different verb forms like the base form, -s form, -ing participle, and -ed participle are also outlined. Operators like auxiliary verbs can carry tense, negation, and questioning.
Uvod u morfosintaksu, lecture 12, 12 13Alen Šogolj
The document discusses various types of multi-word verbs in English including phrasal verbs, prepositional verbs, and phrasal-prepositional verbs. It provides examples and explains the differences between these types of multi-word verbs. Key points include: phrasal verbs consist of a verb and particle, which can be an adverb or preposition; prepositional verbs include a verb and prepositional object; and phrasal-prepositional verbs have a verb, adverb, and preposition. The document also covers active and passive voice constructions for these multi-word verbs.
Uvod u morfosintaksu, lecture 10, 12 13Alen Šogolj
This document discusses the progressive aspect in English grammar. It begins by explaining that the progressive focuses on an event or situation as being in progress at a particular time, implying it has limited duration and may not be complete. It then examines how stative verbs are generally not used progressively, but can be to indicate temporary behavior or attitudes. Various uses of the progressive are explored, including the event progressive, habitual progressive, and special uses like referring to anticipated future events. The document also discusses how certain verb types like verbs of bodily sensation can be used progressively or non-progressively. Finally, it analyzes non-progressive verbs in more depth.
This document discusses different types of verbs in the English language including:
- Lexical verbs which show actions or states and auxiliary verbs which provide additional information like tense.
- Dynamic verbs which show physical actions and stative verbs which show mental states.
- Modal auxiliary verbs which indicate possibility or probability.
- Tenses which locate verbs in time through aspects like simple, progressive, and perfective.
- Voice including active voice where the subject performs the action and passive voice where the subject receives the action.
Pragmatics is the study of meaning beyond the words themselves. It examines speaker meaning, contextual meaning, and how more is communicated than is said through things like deixis, inference, presupposition, speech acts, and politeness. Pragmatics helps explain how context, both linguistic and physical, affects meaning and allows people to communicate indirectly. Understanding pragmatics is important for comprehending intentions and avoiding cross-cultural misunderstandings in communication.
Pragmatics is the study of meaning beyond the words themselves. It examines speaker meaning, contextual meaning, and how more is communicated than is said through things like deixis, inference, presupposition, speech acts, and politeness. Pragmatics helps explain how context, both linguistic and physical, affects meaning and allows people to communicate indirectly. Understanding pragmatics is important for comprehending intention and avoiding cross-cultural misunderstandings in communication.
Pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning, speaker meaning, and how more is communicated than what is explicitly said. It involves the study of invisible meaning, deixis, reference, inference, presupposition, speech acts, and politeness. Pragmatics examines how context, both linguistic and physical, affects meaning, and how language is used to manage social relationships and interactions.
Pragmatics is the study of meaning beyond the words themselves. It examines speaker meaning, contextual meaning, and how more is communicated than is said through things like deixis, inference, presupposition, speech acts, and politeness. Pragmatics helps explain how context, both linguistic and physical, affects meaning and allows people to communicate indirectly. Understanding pragmatics is important for comprehending intentions and avoiding cross-cultural misunderstandings in communication.
Pragmatics is the study of meaning beyond the words themselves. It examines how context, including linguistic context, physical context, and cultural context, influence meaning. Some key aspects of pragmatics include deixis, which examines words that depend on context like pronouns; inference, which is how listeners understand implied meaning; presupposition, which are assumptions in language; and politeness, which looks at how language is used to maintain social relationships and self-image. Understanding pragmatics is important for comprehending intention and avoiding cross-cultural misunderstandings.
Pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning and how more is communicated than what is explicitly said. It examines invisible meanings, inferences, and assumptions that arise from linguistic and physical context. Key aspects of pragmatics include deixis, which are expressions like pronouns that depend on context to be understood, and speech acts, such as requests, that depend on context and politeness conventions. Politeness aims to save face by mitigating threats to people's self-image and sense of independence or belonging.
This document provides an overview of pragmatics from a lecture. It defines pragmatics as the study of speaker meaning, contextual meaning, and how more is communicated than what is said. It discusses key concepts in pragmatics including invisible meaning, context, deixis, reference, inference, anaphora, presupposition, speech acts, and politeness. Politeness involves face-saving acts that minimize threats to people's self-image and independence or connection to others. The appropriate interpretation of language depends on context and can differ across cultures.
The document defines the future tense and discusses how it is formed in English using helping verbs like "will" and "going to". It notes that English does not have inflected future verb forms like other languages. The key uses of "will" are outlined as predicting the future, making quick decisions, and making promises. The future tense of "will" is also described. Examples are provided to illustrate the differences between using "will" and "going to" for predictions and planned events.
This document discusses negation in syntax. It begins by defining negation as a grammatical construction that contradicts or negates a sentence's meaning. Negation is a universal linguistic category that exists in all languages. The document then discusses three types of negation: sentential negation, which negates the whole clause; constituent negation, which has narrow scope over parts of a sentence; and meta-negation, which has the widest scope above the clause level. The rest of the document provides examples and tests to distinguish between these negation types and establish sentential negation as a key topic.
This document discusses various grammatical constructions in English that can be used to express future time. It notes that while English has no distinct future tense, there are a number of ways to denote futurity including the use of modal auxiliaries like will and shall, the present progressive, and the simple present tense under certain circumstances. Specific constructions like will/shall + infinitive, be going to + infinitive, and be to + infinitive are explained in terms of their meanings and appropriate uses for indicating future events, intentions, predictions and obligations. Contextual examples are provided to illustrate the different options for expressing future time in English.
The document summarizes the main auxiliary and modal verbs in English:
Auxiliary verbs like be, have, and do are used to form tenses, voices, questions, and negatives of other verbs. Modal verbs like can, may, will express meanings like permission, possibility, certainty, and necessity. Modals are often included in the group of auxiliaries. [END SUMMARY]
This document provides a lesson plan on teaching adverbs to students. It includes objectives, warm-up exercises, categories of adverbs with examples, and follow-up exercises. The lesson plan aims to help students identify, classify, and properly place adverbs in sentences. It covers adverbs of manner, frequency, time and place, degree, quantity, and focusing. Examples are provided to illustrate each category. Follow-up activities include identifying adverbs in sentences, determining their category, and discussing alternative positions.
Pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning and speaker meaning. It examines how context contributes to meaning. Some key concepts in pragmatics include deixis, which examines words like I, you, here, and now that depend on context; presupposition, which are assumptions in language; speech acts, which are actions performed through language like requests or promises; and politeness, which is using language to respect face or self-image. Pragmatics analyzes how people communicate beyond just the words themselves.
The document discusses the differences between using "will" and "be going to" to express future tense in English. It provides examples of how each is used:
- "Will" is used to express voluntary actions, promises, and predictions. It implies futurity when used with conditional clauses.
- "Be going to" expresses plans and intentions. It refers to actions over which the subject has some control.
- Both can be used to make general predictions about the future when the subject has little control.
The document also covers the future continuous tense and its uses for interrupted actions, parallel actions, and describing atmospheres in the future.
The document discusses linguistic meaning and context. It provides examples showing how speakers can intend different meanings for the same words depending on context, like the Scottish boy referring to the war with England rather than World War 2. It also discusses how listeners use context and inference to understand intended meanings, not just dictionary definitions, like recognizing a sign advertising parking rather than heated attendants. Pragmatics is the study of intended meaning and how context contributes to understanding beyond the literal meaning of words.
The document discusses speech acts and related concepts in pragmatics. It defines speech acts as actions performed through utterances, beyond just grammatical structures. There are three types of related acts: locutionary (literal meaning), illocutionary (social function), and perlocutionary (effect on listener). Illocutionary force indicates the main action of an utterance. Indirect speech acts convey meaning through implied functions rather than direct structure-function relationships. A speech event involves utterances between participants with a shared context, topic, and goal.
The document discusses speech acts and related concepts in pragmatics. It defines speech acts as actions performed through utterances, beyond just grammatical structures. There are three types of related acts: locutionary (literal meaning), illocutionary (social function), and perlocutionary (effect on listener). Illocutionary force indicates the main action of an utterance. Indirect speech acts can imply illocutionary forces through utterance structures like declaratives. Felicity conditions require appropriate context for speech acts to be recognized. A speech event involves utterances between participants with a shared goal or topic.
1. The document provides lessons on various grammar topics for the TOEFL exam, including using the continuous aspect, determiners like "the", adjectives vs adverbs, relative pronouns, tense usage in time/conditional clauses, the present perfect tense, embedded questions, and subject-verb inversion.
2. Each lesson defines the grammar point, provides examples of correct usage, and includes an exercise for practice. The answers to the exercises are also provided.
3. The goal is to help TOEFL exam takers improve their understanding and mastery of English grammar structures that are important for the exam. Lessons cover topics like tense, aspect, determiners, adjectives, relative pron
Similar to Uvod u morfosintaksu, lecture 07, 12 13 (20)
Uvod u morfosintaksu, lecture 03, 12 13Alen Šogolj
The document discusses the complexity of noun phrases and their structure. It notes that noun phrases can include entire sentences restructured as a single complex subject. It then outlines the four main components of a noun phrase: the head, determiners, premodification (adjectives, participles before the head), and postmodification (clauses, phrases after the head). Various examples are provided to illustrate each component.
Uvod u morfosintaksu, lecture 02, 12 13Alen Šogolj
The document discusses three fundamental ideas in syntax: constituent structure, syntactic categories, and grammatical functions. It provides examples to illustrate:
1) Sentences are made up of constituents which can themselves contain constituents in a hierarchical structure.
2) Constituents are classified into syntactic categories such as noun phrases and verb phrases.
3) Within a construction, constituents play specific grammatical functions, such as subject or object.
Uvod u morfosintaksu, lecture 01, 12 13Alen Šogolj
Traditional definitions of parts of speech based on meaning are criticized by linguists. Notional definitions assume a direct link between grammatical form and semantic meaning, but the relationship is complex. For example, "rejection" and "rejected" have similar meanings but different grammatical functions. Satisfactory definitions must identify grammatical properties that distinguish parts of speech. Words are classified according to their properties in phrases and clauses, not their meanings. Parts of speech fall into closed classes that are finite and stable, or open classes that constantly change.
This document discusses English verb tenses, aspects, and moods. It provides examples to illustrate concepts like finite and non-finite verb phrases, auxiliary vs main verbs, progressive and perfect aspects, and root vs epistemic meanings of modal verbs. Questions are included for students to analyze verb forms in example sentences, compare sentences using different verb constructions, discuss ambiguity, and translate a sentence into English. The document aims to teach students to properly identify and explain verb-related grammar points in English.
The document discusses various types of variations in figurative expressions and idioms between British and American English. It provides examples of expressions that have similar meanings but different words or phrases depending on the variant, such as "flog a dead horse" versus "beat a dead horse". It also examines expressions that have related but distinct meanings depending on whether they use British or American terminology.
The document discusses variations that exist in fixed expressions and idioms (FEIs). Around 40% of FEIs have lexical variations and 14% have two or more variations. Variations can occur in the verb, noun, adjective, particle, conjunction, or through specificity/amplification and truncation. There are also variations between British and American English FEIs. While some variation is expected in FEIs, especially metaphorical ones, the degree of variation challenges the assumption that FEIs have fixed forms.
This document discusses the inflectability of verbs, nouns, and other lexical items within fixed expressions or idioms (FEIs). It notes that verbs in FEIs normally inflect, while nouns are more restricted and their inflectability depends on factors like whether the FEI is metaphorical or contains body parts. The document also examines how FEIs can undergo transformations like negation, passivization, nominalization, and changing to other parts of speech while maintaining aspects of their meaning.
The document discusses different categories of fixed expressions or idioms (FEIs), including those involving hyperbole and absurdity, truisms, irony, and conceptual metaphors. It provides examples for each category. Many FEIs involve exaggeration rather than impossibilities. Truisms state the obvious through understatement. A few FEIs are always used ironically. Conceptual metaphors are embedded in language and can be seen through related FEIs involving domains like gambling, fire, vehicles, and clothing.
This document discusses different types of linguistic phenomena that can cause words or phrases to have multiple meanings:
1) Homonymy occurs when a word has distinct, unrelated meanings. The example given is "bank" meaning a financial institution or the side of a river.
2) Polysemy occurs when a word has multiple closely-related meanings. "Mouth" is used to describe the mouth of an animal or river.
3) Fixed expressions can also be polysemous, with meanings that are either anomalous collocations or metaphors of each other. Examples include "abandon ship" and "out of one's depth."
4) Metonymy is when one entity refers to a
The document discusses the lexical and grammatical forms of fixed expressions and idioms (FEIs). It notes that FEIs have vocabularies that are different from general language and contain "cranberry collocations" or words and phrases unique to FEIs. It examines different types of FEIs, including those that are ill-formed, contain unusual word classes or syntactic behaviors, and function as predicates, nominals, modifiers, adjuncts, and sentence adverbials. The document also covers FEI conventions, exclamations, and subordinate clauses.
This document discusses the typology and categorization of fixed expressions and idioms. It identifies three main categories: anomalous collocations, formulae, and metaphors. Anomalous collocations are problematic in terms of lexicogrammar, formulae are problematic in terms of pragmatics, and metaphors are problematic in terms of semantics. Each category has further subcategories that provide more specific classifications based on the nature of the anomaly or problem. The document also discusses related concepts like collocation, processing of idioms, and how fixed expressions become institutionalized over time through the process of lexicalization.
This document discusses fixed expressions in English. It notes there is no agreed upon terminology and definitions can vary. Idioms are defined as multi-word phrases whose meanings are not fully predictable from the individual words. Idioms typically have both a literal compositional meaning and a non-compositional idiomatic meaning. Fixed expressions include idioms and other phrases like proverbs and collocations that vary in their degree of compositionality. Institutionalization, fixedness, and non-compositionality are identified as the main factors in defining fixed expressions, though there is variability. Other criteria mentioned include orthography, syntactic integrity, and phonological properties. Examples of common English idioms and fixed expressions are provided.
1. Expectation or probability; inference and logical
conclusion; belief and conjecture; characteristic
behaviour; inherent capacity; prediction
2. Expectation or probability: should,
ought to
Should and ought to are often used to indicate what is
regarded as probable or what may be reasonably expected:
(1) The introduction of new machinery should contribute
greatly to better profits next year.
Should and ought to + perfect infinitive refer to
expectations in past time and may indicate that
expectations were not realized or fulfilled:
(2) He should have passed the examination easily.
Sentence (2) has 2 interpretations:
(a) Perhaps he has passed – this, at least, is what i
expected (said, probably, before the results are known)
(b) He didn’t pass – this is not what I expected (said,
probably, after the results are known)
3. Inference (zaključivanje) and
logical conclusion: must, can’t
We use must to assert that we infer or conclude to be the
most likely interpretation of a situation or events:
(3) You must be one of Rosemary's friends.
We don’t know for a fact that this is true, but taking
everything into account, we think that it is almost
certainly so.
The opposite of must in this sense is can’t:
(4) John: He must be at least sixty.
Peter: Oh, no! He can’t be anything like as old as that.
John is almost certain that ‘He’ is 60, and Peter is equally
certain that ‘He’ is not.
4. Inference and logical conclusion:
must, can’t
In reported speech, must does not change, whereas
can becomes could:
(5) John said he must be at least sixty, but Peter
thought he couldn’t be anything like as old as that.
To refer to past time, we use must and can’t (or
couldn’t) with the perfect infinitive:
(6) There must have been something about my
appearance.
(7) You can’t (or couldn’t) have understood what he
said. (= “It seems clear that you didn’t understand”)
5. Belief and conjecture (nagađanje,
pretpostavljanje)
Will and would are used to express belief and
conjecture.
They lack the assertive force of must and can’t (in the
sense of inference and logical conclusion). However,
they do not necessarily indicate any less certainty on
the part of the speaker. Indeed, the truth of what is
asserted is more or less taken for granted.
When will and would are used with the present
infinitive, they refer to present time:
(8) You will already be familiar with this subject. =
“You are, I feel sure, already familiar with this subject”
6. Belief and conjecture
Would is used as the tentative form of will, and is
more commonly used than will in questions (which
necessarily indicate some lack of certainty):
(9) He wouldn’t be a friend of yours, I suppose?
(10) Would your name be Smith, by any chance?
To refer to past time, we use will and would with the
perfect infinitive:
(11) John: I met a charming girl at your party last night.
Peter: Ah, yes! That will/would have been my cousin
Sarah.
7. Characteristic behaviour
Will may be used to refer to a characteristic or
persistent patter of behaviour or of events:
(12) When he has a problem to solve, he will work at it
until he fins an answer.
This is not a prediction about a future event, but a
statement having general current validity.
Would is used in this sense to refer to a similar
situation in past time:
(13) When he had a problem to solve, he would work at
it until he found an answer.
8. Characteristic behaviour
In sentences (12) and (13), we could use the simple
present tense instead of will and the simple past tense
(or used to) instead of would, with little change except
that there would be no emphasis:
(12a) When he has a problem to solve, he works at it
until he finds an answer.
(13a) When he had a problem to solve, he worked (or
used to work) at it until he found an answer.
9. Characteristic behaviour
If will and would are stressed, it indicates that the
speaker finds a persistent pattern annoying:
(14) (The one thing I dislike about him is that) he will
borrow my things without asking.
(15) (The one thing I disliked about him is that) he
would borrow my things without asking.
10. Inherent capacity (inherentno
svojstvo): will, would
Will for present time and would for past time may
refer to the possession of an inherent quality or a
capacity in relation to things (as opposed tom
people):
(16) The pound in your pocket will buy far less today
than it would ten years ago.
Such sentences are half statement of fact and half
prediction, and they often suggest that the fact or
prediction can be put to the test and verified.
11. Inherent capacity (inherentno
svojstvo): will, would
The use of will and would may even suggest that an object
is capable of co-operation or willingness (or absence of co-
operation or willingness):
(17) This suitcase will hold everything.
(18) The car wouldn’t start. = “The car refused to start”
Used in the sense of being capable or not of co-operation
or willingness, will and would may appear in the ‘if’ clause
of a conditional sentence:
(19) If one suitcase will hold everything, we shan’t have so
much luggage to carry.
Will and would are not used with the verb be in a
conditional clause. We do not say:
(20) *If this suitcase will be big enough for everything…
12. Prediction: shall, will
There are many ways of referring to future events in
English. The use of shall and will is among the many
means at our disposal.
All modal verbs can refer to future time. However,
they carry some additional implication (e.g. ability,
permission, possibility).
Similarly, shall and will often carry some additional
implication as well (e.g. promise, refusal,
determination), and their use in purely predictive
function, i.e. simply to state what lies in store in the
future, is only one of their several uses.
13. Prediction: shall
In the restricted use of ‘pure’ future, shall is used only after I or
we, and is often replaced by will or ‘ll, especially in speech.
When used with other pronouns, shall does not have a purely
predictive meaning, and is not interchangeable with will. The
following sentences are still occasionally heard in spoken
English:
(21) You shall know tomorrow.
(22) He shall do it again. (the speaker promises to enforce
action)
However, the use of shall in this sense appears to be common
only with a relatively small number of verbs, e.g. have:
(23) You/he shall have it as soon a I’ve finished with it.
Shall in this sense is nowadays commonly found only in highly
formal or legalistic written English.
14. Prediction: shall in interrogatives
The interrogative shall I? or shall we? used with an active
verb does not normally occur with a ‘pure’ future meaning.
However, it may be used in this sense with verbs denoting
action or events which do not depend on the speaker for
their performance:
(24) Shall I hear from you soon? (or Will I hear from you
soon?)
Shall I? is also used in a ‘pure’ future sense with verbs in
passive, since the speaker is not in this case asking about
his own future activities;
(25) Shall I be told what to do? (or Will I be told what to
do?)
15. Prediction: shall in interrogatives
However, in most cases shall I? used with an active
verb form represents a request on the part of the
speaker to know the wishes or opinion of the person
being addressed, or asks for consent, and in this sense
it is never replaced by will:
(26) Shall I order a taxi for you?
(27) Shall we sit down?
(28) So, shall we say six o’clock, providing this
afternoon's conference doesn’t run late?
16. Prediction: shall in reported
speech
For reporting I shall, a choice between should and
would arises only when the speaker reports his own
words (29a). In fact, we tend increasingly to use only
would. Also, if the report is made by a person other
than the original speaker, only would is used (29b,
29c):
(29) ‘I shall be able to come.’
(29a) I said I would (or should) be able to come.
(29b) You said you would be able to come.
(29c) He said he would be able to come.
17. Prediction: shall in reported
speech
These remarks also apply when we report ‘pure’
future questions beginning with Shall I?:
(30) ‘Shall I hear from you soon?’
(30a) I asked if I would (or should) hear from him
soon.
(30b) You asked if you would hear from him soon.
(30c) He asked if he would hear from him soon.
18. Prediction: will
After the pronouns you, he, she, it, and they, only will is
used in a purely predictive sense.
However, in many cases will may carry an additional
implication, particularly after the pronoun you.
In statements, you will may represent an instruction rather
than a prediction:
(31) ‘You will arrive punctually in future,’ the manager told
him.
In questions, will you? may represent either a request for
information (32) or a request for action (33):
(32) Will you know the result soon?
(33) Will (or would) you go and see the manager, please?
19. Prediction: will
In some cases, the meaning of a sentence may be
ambiguous:
(34) Will you tell him what I said?
(34a) “Are you going to tell him what I said?”
(34b) “Will you tell him what I said, (please)?”
Such problems of meaning are often only theoretical,
since the speaker usually puts the question in a way
that makes his meaning clear – he will probably say
either (34a) or (34b), or Would you tell him, please,
which is clearly a request.
20. Prediction: will
The predictive use of will is most commonly seen
after he, she, it, they, and after nouns generally:
(35) I'm sure it will be published.
(36) In another for weeks, with schools closed across
the nation, the great all American summer safari will
be under way.
21. Advice and recommendation: shall,
should, ought to, had better
Shall I? generally represents a request on the part of the
speaker to know the wishes or opinion of the person being
addressed:
(37) Shall I try this number again?
Shall I? is much stronger than Should I? and calls for a firm
response such as Yes, please do, rather than Yes, you
should. Nevertheless, shall I? and should I? are clearly
related.
In the reported speech version of such questions, shall
always becomes should, and not would:
(37a) I/you/he asked if I/you/he should try his number
again.
22. Advice and recommendation: shall,
should, ought to, had better
Should and ought to express advice or
recommendation. The advice or recommendation
may relate to everyday or practical matters, or to what
is morally desirable:
(38) You should/ought to read that book. You’d enjoy
it.
(39) You should/ought to see a doctor if you’re still
feeling ill tomorrow.
(40) You shouldn’t/oughtn’t to tell lies.
All these sentences have a present or future time
reference.
23. Advice and recommendation: shall,
should, ought to, had better
Which is the stronger – should or ought to?
No absolute answer to this question, but it is worth
noting that should has a strong and a weak form
phonetically, whereas ought to has only the strong
form, and may appear to be more emphatic when
compared with the weak form of should.
24. Advice and recommendation: shall,
should, ought to, had better
Had better (‘d better) is used to suggest the wisest course
of action in a particular situation:
(41) You’d better see a doctor if you’re still feeling ill
tomorrow.
In affirmative negative sentences, the negative particle not
comes after the complete phrase:
(42) You’d better not make a mistake next time.
In interrogative negative sentences n’t comes after had:
(43) Hadn’t you better see who that is at the door?
Had better is used almost exclusively with the present
infinitive, and refers to present or future time.
25. Advice and recommendation: shall,
should, ought to, had better
Should and ought to are used with the perfect
infinitive to refer to past time, and in this case the
sentences always imply that the opposite was in fact
true:
(44) He should/ought to have been a little more
tactful. = “But in fact, he wasn’t tactful”
26. Other uses of should
In a conditional clause – in that case, should has the effect of
making it seem less likely that the condition will be fulfilled
(putative should):
(45) If he should come while I’m at lunch, tell him I’ll be back at
two. (or Should he come while I’m at lunch, tell him I’ll be back at
two.)
Putative should is also often used in a that-clause after verbs
like suggest, recommend, require, decide, insist. Putative should
is preferred in BrE, while subjunctive is preferred in AmE. In
BrE, indicative is also used:
(46) We insisted that they should leave/leave at once.
(47) People are demanding that he should leave/leave/leaves.
(48) I suggested that he should take/take/takes legal advice.
27. Other uses of should
Putative should is also used in a that-clause after
adjectives expressing pleasure, surprise, shock,
disapproval, or after adjectives like important,
essential, vital:
(49) I’m surprised that they should feel/feel lonely.
(50) I’m horrified that he should have told/told anyone.
(51) It’s vital that you should be/be/are there to meet
him.
28. Other uses of should
Putative should is sometimes used in adverbial
clauses of purpose and conditional clauses, after the
conjunctions so that, in order that, lest, in case:
(52) I have put everything in writing so that you should
know exactly how things stand.
29. Obligation and necessity: must,
mustn’t, have to
Must can express different nuances of obligation and
necessity: instruction or what is obligatory (53), sense of
inner compulsion (54), what is necessary or inevitable in
the speaker’s opinion (55), pressing advice (56):
(53) Candidates must attempt all the questions.
(54) I simply must tell you what happened.
(55) You must make an early start tomorrow.
(56) You must see the film if you get a chance.
In every sentence must expresses the authority of the
speaker, or a decision or firm opinion on the speaker’s
part.
30. Obligation and necessity: must,
mustn’t, have to
If obligation or necessity is imposed by a person other
than the speaker, or by force circumstance, we use have to:
(57) You have to answer all the questions. (The teacher
explains to students the requirements of the examiners)
(58) I have to tell you what happened. (Those are the
instructions I’ve been given)
(59) We have to make an early start tomorrow.
(Circumstances or arrangements make it necessary)
(60) You’ll have to see the film tomorrow if you don't want
to miss it. (It won’t be showing any longer)
31. Obligation and necessity: must,
mustn’t, have to
Must can be used with adverbs having a present or
future time reference:
(61) We must discuss that question. (now/later/next
week)
However, the obligation or necessity is felt by the
speaker to exist now, and it is the activity denoted by
the main verb (discuss) that lies in the future.
In cases where the obligation or necessity will exist
only eventually, or where it is dependent on some
other event, we use will/shall have to:
(62) If we miss the bus, we’ll have to walk.
32. Obligation and necessity: must,
mustn’t, have to
The simple present tense of have to is used to indicate
what is habitual (63) or what is already planned or
arranged for the future (64):
(63) I have to get up at seven every morning.
(64) We have to be there at ten tomorrow.
Have got to is commonly used in sentences like (64),
and reinforces the idea or external authority:
(65) We’ve got to be there at ten tomorrow.
33. Obligation and necessity: must,
mustn’t, have to
The interrogative form in the present tense is generally
formed with do:
(66) What time do you have to get up?
(67) What time do we have to be there?
OR What time have we got to be there?
Must is left unchanged in reported speech:
(68) ‘You must tell me how to do it.’
(68a) I said he must tell me how to do it.
However, must cannot be used to refer to obligation or
necessity before the time of speaking. Instead, we use had
to:
(69) I had to shout to make myself heard above the noise.
34. Obligation and necessity: must,
mustn’t, have to
We also use forms of have to in the situations where
must lacks the necessary verb forms (progressive and
perfect aspect, infinitive, -ing form).
Since the forms of have to are sometimes the only
ones available, a distinction in meaning between must
and have to is not always rigidly maintained in those
cases where both verbs are possible grammatically.
35. Obligation and necessity: be to
Be to sometimes expresses a command or instruction
issuing from the speaker, or imposed on the speaker by
external authority:
(70) You are to give this letter to the manager.
(71) We are to be there by ten o’clock.
Such sentences always have a future time reference. In
reported speech, and to refer to past time, we use
was/were to.
Was/were to + perfect infinitive generally implies that
instructions were not carried out:
(72) You were to have given the letter to the manager. =
“But you didn’t”
36. Obligation and necessity: must,
mustn’t, have to
If must is followed by the perfect infinitive, it nearly
always indicates an inference on the part of the
speaker:
(73) It must have been a great shock to him.
However, there are occasional examples where must
+ perfect infinitive is equivalent in meaning to “It is
essential that this should already have been done”
(74) To be eligible for a full pension, an employee must
have contributed to the fun d for at least twenty years.
37. Obligation and necessity: must,
mustn’t, have to
To express the necessity for non-action, we use
mustn’t, be not to:
(75) You mustn’t say anything about it.
(76) You are not to say anything about it.
Although the negative particle not is often attached
to must in the form n’t (=mustn’t), it does not cancel
the obligation, but instead relates to the main verb.
(77) You must TELL him.
(78) You must NOT TELL him.
38. Absence of obligation or necessity:
needn’t, not need to, not have to
The use of the three forms mentioned above has several parallels with
the use of must and have to:
(a) needn’t generally expresses the authority of the speaker, while the
other two verbs denote the external authority, or circumstances,
remove the obligation or necessesity fo action;
(b) needn’t + present infinitive has only a present or future time
reference, although it can be left unchanged in reported speech (79a):
(79) You needn’t come if you dodn’t want to.
(80) You don’t need to see a doctor. You’re perfectly healthy.
(81) I don’t have to work on Saturdays.
(79a) I told him he needn’t come if he didn’t want to.
39. Absence of obligation or necessity:
needn’t, not need to, not have to
If the absence of obligation or necessity will exist only
eventually or is dependent on some other event, we use
one of the other two verbs, with will and shall:
(82) When you get an assistant, perhaps you won’t have to
work quite so hard yourself.
The simple present tenses don’t have to and don’t need to
express what is habitual (83), or what is already planned or
arranged for the future (84):
(83) I don’t need to get up till eight to get to work on time.
(84) We don’t have to be there till ten tomorrow.
OR We haven’t got to be there till ten tomorrow.
40. Absence of obligation or necessity:
needn’t, not need to, not have to
We use negative forms of have to and need to in the many
situations where needn’t lacks the necessary verb forms.
Providing the fact that the ‘deficiencies’ of needn’t are
supplied by other verbs, distinction in meaning between
the three verbs is not always maintained.
The distinction in meaning for the sentences (79-81) can
be paraphrased as follows:
(85) “You can please yourself what you do.”
(86) “It isn’t necessary for you to see a doctor.”
(87) “I am not obliged to work on Saturdays.”
41. Absence of obligation or necessity:
needn’t, not need to, not have to
A more important distinction is a grammatical one
between don’t need to and needn’t:
Need in don’t need to is a lexical verb need. Negative
and interrogative sentences are formed using do, as
with other lexical verbs, and there is a full range of
verb tenses. To need may be followed by a noun (88),
or infinitive (89) or –ing form (90):
(88) He needs your help.
(89) I need to see him immediately.
(90) My pen needs filling.
42. Absence of obligation or necessity:
needn’t, not need to, not have to
The modal aux verb need is always used in negative
and interrogative sentences , which are made by
adding not to the aux verb, and by inversion of the
subject and aux:
(91) He needn’t come. Need he?
The interrogative forms must I? and need I? are more
or less synonymous, althoug need I? often suggests
that the speaker hopes for a negative answer. The
positive answer to both of these forms is Yes, you
must, and the negative one is No, you needn’t.
43. Absence of obligation or necessity:
needn’t, not need to, not have to
The positive form of the modal aux need is found in sentences that
already contain a negative verb or adverb:
(92) I don’t think that need worry us unduly.
(93) You need study only the first two chapters.
Needn’t + perfect infinitive indicates the absence of necessity or
obligation in the past:
(94) He needn’t have come.
Needn’t + perfect infinitive always expresses unreal past, and contrasts
with didn’t need to, which nearly always expresses real past:
(95) I needn’t have gone. (but I went)
(96) I didn’t need to go. (so presumably I didn’t go)