Modal Verbs In English And German a Comparison Between Must And Mussen

=== 993af080095c3558c7bfd2638f927e59551d677d_587428_1 ===

UNIVERSITATEA BUCUREȘTI

FACULTATEA DE LIMBI ȘI LITERATURI STRĂINE

SPECIALIZAREA: ENGLEZĂ-GERMANĂ

LUCRARE DE LICENȚĂ

Coordonator Științific,

Prof. Univ. Dr.

Candidat/ă,

2018, București

UNIVERSITATEA BUCUREȘTI

FACULTATEA DE LIMBI ȘI LITERATURI STRĂINE

SPECIALIZAREA: ENGLEZĂ-GERMANĂ

Modal Verbs in English and German: a comparison between "must" and "mussen"

Verbele modale în limba engleză și germană: o comparație între´´MUST´´ și ´´MÜSSEN’’

Coordonator Științific,

Prof. Univ. Dr.

Candidat/ă,

2018, București

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5

CHAPTER 1: MOOD AND MODALITY: ON MODAL VERBS IN ENGLISH AND GERMAN……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6
1.1. Modal auxiliaries in English……………………………………………………………………………..6
1.2. On modal verbs in German………………………………………………………………………………………….10

1.2.1. Explaining the concept of modalality as speaker judgment……………………………………………..11

1.2.2.Methodology……………………………………………………………………………………………………….13

1.2.3.Modal verbs as means of marking modality……………………………………………………………………15

1.2.4 Morpho-syntactical properties of modalities……………………………………………………………………16

1.2.5 Types of modality………………………………………………………………………………………………………..18

1.3.Modal verbs between Control and Raising…………………………………………………………………….19

1.3.1. Modals as Raising verbs……………………………………………………………………………….19
CHAPTER 2. THE MORPHO-SYNTACTIC PROPERTIES OF ENGLISH AND GERMAN………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….20

2.1 Modal verbs in English…………………………………………………………………………………………………..22

2.1.1 Auxiliary verbs vs. Lexical verbs…………………………………………………………………………………..24

2.1.2 Modal Verbs vs. Lexical verbs………………………………………………………………………………………27

2.1.3 Modal verbs vs. Auxiliary verbs……………………………………………………………………………………29

2.2 Morpho-syntactic properties of modals in German…………………………………………………………….31

2.3 Establishing modal verbs as raising verbs………………………………………………………………………….32

CHAPTER 3 : “MÜST” IN ENGLISH AND “MUSSEN” IN GERMAN ……………………………33
3.1 MUST IN ENGLISH………………………………………………………………………………………………..33
3.1.1 Deontic MUST…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..36
3.2.2. Epistemic MUST……………………………………………………………………………………………………….39 
3.2 MÜSSEN in German…………………………………………………………………………………………………….42 
CHAPTER 4. CONSLUSIONS…………………………………………………………………………………………46
BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….48

11, 10, 6, 6, 5

Modal Verbs in English and German: a comparison between "must" and "mussen"

INTRODUCTION

This work is essentially based on grammaticalization theory – a branch of linguistics which has gained prominence since the 1980s. It focuses on the interaction between diachrony and synchrony, langue and parole or, for that matter, competence and performance, I-language and E-language, It does not see these levels as distinct linguistic domains, as much structurally oriented work does. It is important for the present purposes that such an interactionist view entails that performance effects may over time cause new grammatical code relations. Hence the importance of statistical empirical research,, which led me to adopt a predominantly corpus-based approach. This paper deals with the task of modality, especially the modal verb must. The roots of modality can be found in the classical Greek philosophy. Modaity derived from the fact lhai human beings often categorize their attitudes and experience in terms of the way things might or must be. or night have been or must have been. So modal verbs are fundamental in everyday life, they are used n every conversation. With modals one can construct a possible world that defers from the actual world a lot (Avram, 2006, http://www.diacronia.ro/ro/indexing/details/A9876/pdf). On aggregate, the evidence will allow for generalizations as regards historical and ongoing change in the English auxiliary system. As will be seen, grammatical ization theory helps to abstract away from a number of seemingly disparate individual developments and reveals a number of striking parallels for the items under investigation. This approach facilitates their integration into a dynamic model of categorization, which supports the assumption that we are witnessing the rise of a new class of English verbs: that of emerging modals.

CHAPTER 1: MOOD AND MODALITY: ON MODAL VERBS IN ENGLISH AND GERMAN

1.1. Modal auxiliaries in English

Modal Auxiliary Verb for 'Modal Verb' or ‘Modal Auxiliary’ is a verb that is used with another verb (not a modal verb) to express abilily, Intantian, necessity, obligation, opinion, permission, possibility, probability, prohibition, and speculation. The term ´´periphrastic´´will be used to denote a complex verb that, ideally, displays the semantic related ness to a central modal auxiliary. Semantic relatedness is the basic constraint here. Establishing truth- conditional equivalence should he an appropriate way of showing whether an M-P pair are semantically equivalent; and the possibility of doing this will now be explored. It will be shown that while adequate demonstration of equivalence can be very difficult to achieve, an informal assumption of such equivalence between M-P pairs and sets is a necessary condition for any such investigation (and in the literature this is standardly taken as self-evident). I shall start with the items must and have got to, commonly taken to be roughly equivalent (must and have to have already been noted as, effectively, the paradigm case for the investigation of M-P relatedness; for convenience, have got to rather than have to is used in the present discussion) (Skwire and Wiener, 2007: 63). One test for such equivalence checks compatibility in two conjoined clauses; conjunction will be indicated by a dash between the clauses in question (and is not used for this purpose here since it contributes to oddity in the sentences):

1.1. This work’s got to be finished by April – it must be.

1.2. This work must be finished by April – it’s got to be.

Both (1.1) and (1.2) appear fine, suggesting compatibility between musf and have got to. Compatibility in both directions is required here, as the following data for have got to and ought to show:

2.1. This work ought to be finished by April – it has got to be.

2.2. This work has got to be finished by April – it ought to be.

Here, (2.5) is fine, but (2.6) is odd. The oddity of (2.5), but not of (2.4), arises from the fact that in a pair of semantically related conjoined clauses, the second can either repeat or increase the value of the first, but not reduce it, unless with a qualifier such as at least. Since has got to is ‘stronger’ than, or has a higher scalar value than, ought to, but not vice versa, 2.3, is normal, since the second clause can be seen as reinforcing the first, but

Is not, since the second clause is neither equivalent to, nor stronger than, the first. As a further test, assertion of one item should not be compatible with negation of the

Other:

This work must be finished by April, but it hasn’t got to be.

This work has got to be finished by April, but it mustn’t be.

I ignore the complication that negation works in different ways in these sentences – in (2.5) the modality is negated, but in (2.6 it is the proposition.) To complete this picture, we can consider the effect of negation with have got to and ought to conjoin:

This work has got to be finished by April, but it oughtn’t to be.

This work ought to be finished by April, but it hasn’t got to be.( (Johannesson , 1976: 119)

Figure number 1. The auxiliary verb in English, main verb scale

Modal Auxilary Verbs In English Language Are As Follows:

[Negative forms have also been given along with their contractions.]

1. May – may not [or mayn't {rarely used)]

Might – might not [or mightn't (rarely used)]

Can –can not or cannot [can't]

Could — could nut [or couldn't]

Will will riot [or won't]

Would – would not [or wouldn't]

Shall – shall not [or shan't]

3. Should — should not [or shouldn’t]

3. Must –must not [or mustn't]

Need – need not [or needn't]

Used to – didn't use lo [or used not to or usedn't to (these forms are old fashioned)]

Ought to – ought not to [or oughtn't to]

Dare – Dare Not [or Daren't]( (Collins, 2009:79)

It is not that easy with modal verbs. They are used to express that things are expected to happen or that events are possible, necessary, improbable or impossible Tney are also used to say that things did not happen or that one is not sure whether hey happened.

—i Laura must be in Tokio.

I may come tomorrow if have time.

Based on synchronic and diachronic analyses, 1 will propose that structures like BE GOING TO, have got to, have to and want to are currently changing their categorial status- More specifically, I will claim that several quasi-modals arc assuming some, but not all, features that are typical of the core members of the English modal paradigm. Let me illustrate some facets of this process: common reduced pronunciations that in writing are rendered as gonna, gotta, hafia and wanna arc indicative of change in progress. The observable synchronic variation can be exploited methodologically to the extent that coexisting variants are seen as reflecting diachronic change. This perspective has become standard in lexicalization and grammatical! zation studies. The following examples of univerbation (or contraction, coalescence, fusion) may help to illustrate this point:

I shall argue that (1) to (3) are instances of ongoing grammaticalization – more exactly, auxili (ariz) ation – and that the above phonological variants represent different stages in the evolution of new auxiliaries. Change, however, is by no means restricted to the phonological level. It is immediately obvious that morphology too is involved when an erstwhile autonomous morpheme (to) criticizes on a verbal host as in (1) to (3). That change is not restricted to phonology comes as no surprise, though, since grammatical ization theory predicts that grammaticalizing elements undergo concomitant changes in semantics, morphology, syntax and pragmatics. Important aspects to be dealt with in the present work include therefore: syntactic reanalysis; phonological erosion; cliticization; increase in discourse frequency. (Achani-Talafheh and Castagné-Véziès, 2005: 38) Lexical verbs are used to tak about things which definitely happened or are definitely happening. One can clearly say whether these things happened or not. Whether they are true or false.- He is walking down the street — She likes to play soccer.

Lexical verbs are used to talk about thirgs which definitely happened or are defintely happening. One can clearly say whether these things happened or not, whether they are true or false.

He is walking down the street.

She likes to play soccer.

The situation with modality is rather different, because there is no simple, clearly definable, semantic category, such as time and enumeration. Nevertheless, modality is concerned with the 'opinion and attitude’ of the speaker seems a fairly helpful preliminary definition, it is certainly the case that investigation has shown that there are very different formal systems, such as the modal verbs in English, the subjunctive mood in both modem and classical languages of Europe and the system of clitics or particles in Australian and American Indian languages that have much in common in terms of the meanings that they express. (Leech2014:167).

1.2. On modal verbs in German

A significant body of research has grown around the phenomenon of aspectual influence on modality. Some linguists studying aspect and modality in Russian argue that a clear connection usually docs not exist. In fact, they argue that the influence of aspect in the modal domain is perceivable only in certain verbs or in certain structures aspect does not play an important role for modality and aspect alone cannot articulate modal expressions. Yet, despite complex combinations between aspect and modality and despite disagreements in interpretation, aspect and modal auxiliaries do form regular patterns in language. Languages with a pronounced aspect system tend to have a small number of modal verbs because aspect takes over modal functions. The research on modal verbs in Germanic languages often focuses on the gram- maticalization path from root modality to epistemic modality. In German, the core modal verbs like müssen "must”, sollen "should”, wollen "want”, konnen "can”, diirfen "may”, mogen “to like”, and mochte “would like” are unique because they form a close, autonomous group. German modals developed historically from preterit present and express possibility, necessity, volition, and permission. In comparison with full verbs, they are grammatically abnormal because they lack imperative and passive forms. The infinitive, when used with a modal verb, does not need zu “to”. (Dodd , 2003,:54).

There are the six modal verbs in German:

All modal verbs are quite irregular and often have a stem vowel change in the present tense.

Miissen ‘must, to have to’

The modal miissen means ‘must or ‘to have to in English;  (Donaldson:2007, 127)

Ich muss jetzt gehen. I must/have to go now.

Er muss morgen arbeiten. He miist/has to work tomorrow.

When used with the negative nicht, miissen does not convey the meaning of prohibition, as in English, but means ‘don t have to’:

Du musst nicht gehen. You don't have to go,

Du musst dich nicht Tou don't have to entschuldigen, apologise.

1.2.1. Explaining the concept of modalality as speaker judgment

I will define modality as a mental system – or sub-system – based on the mutually related concepts possibility and necessity. This is obviously a “narrow” definition, which excludes what is sometimes called sentence modality (notably assertion and interrogation), but not negation, which is part of the relation between possibility and necessity. It also excludes irrealis, which may be associated with modality, but always remains distinct from it and such categories as evidential boulomaic or optative modality, which could and perhaps should be included in a wider definition (Korb and Jannach, 2009: 62).

Figure number 2. Types of modality

Figure 2 is a schematic representation of the typology of modality proper (as distinct from modalization) proposed in sections 1.1-1.3 of this paper. The terms that appear in the tree diagram will be defined in these sections. Concerning problematic modality and implicative modality, however, a brief commentary may be useful at this stage: both He must be tired (used to express certainty) and You have to be mad to do that have to do with the attribution of some kind of truth-value to a proposition through some type of inference, but the inference is “stronger” in the latter case than in the former. In contrast, epistemic modality often does surface as an inflection. Though some reasons for this are mentioned later , we should remark here that this difference in inflectional coding for epistemics is understandable from the nature of this kind of modality. Epistemic modality encodes the speaker’s judgment of the factual status of an event, not the judgment of its execution (Bachmair and Meyer, 1811: 99). Therefore, epistemic modality is more strictly event-oriented, or speaker-oriented. It is not surprising then that epistemic modality should surface as an inflection because its semantic content is more compatible with the semantic content of inflection as a whole. Deontic modality is infrequently realized as an inflection. To understand this claim, we must also understand the inflection(Baciu, 2011). An inflection is an obligatory grammatical marking on a verb whose semantic content directly affects the semantic content of the verb: that is, its status as an event. By this definition, aspect is an inflection because it is obligatory and its meaning affects the nature of the event encoded by the verb. Given this definition, dcontic modality generally does not appear as an inflection because its semantic content does not affect the status of the event as an event. Deontic modality is agent-oriented it bears on how an event is to be carried out by an agent, not on the event proper. Deontic modality thus more particularly expresses a relation between the speaker and the agent of the proposition expressed. In this way, deontic modality is very much like so-called dynamic modality, or ability, like English ´´can ´´ (´´be able to´´) which indicates a condition on the agent of the event, not a condition on the event expressed. Curiously, dynamic modality does not frequently appear as an inflection, either. There are some languages, eg German, that have both modal verbs and a subjunctive mood, ie two formal exponents of modality. This is not true of English, except in a very minimal sense (Nau, 1995: 32). What is sometimes identified as the subjunctive in English is either the past tense being used for unreality, especially in conditional sentences, or the rather formal use of the simple, un in fleeted, form of the verb in subordinate clauses.

(…)If he came tomorrow.

I suggest he come tomorrow.

Even a cursory glance at a few traditional grammars will confirm that, in the past, grammarians spenL much time reflecting on i/wo major topics relating to English modal verbs: first, the meanings attaching to each verb; and second, the role of the modal a in the expression of speakers' attitudes and judgments. The situation has changed little today; and it is further complicated by the vagueness of the term "modality", which has been used to cover modal meanings and speakers' attitudes both separately and jointly, and occasionally includes within its scope even the grammatical category of "'mood"(Herrmann, 2012: 76).

1.2.2.Methodology

In this section, we provide a methodological review to aid the reader in gaining an overview of studies in this domain, we need to summarize the research questions, methods, participants, and findings of a selection of psycholinguists studies on signed languages, but givin the fact the limits of this paper, we will research just a general approch of the subject in this section. Psycholinguistic studies of signed languages have provided significant insights into language comprehension and production. A central outcome of psycholinguistic research is that we can now better distinguish modality-specific and modality-independent aspects of language processing. In all domains of language processing, commonalities across signed and spoken languages have been found; however, some of the most insightful findings on signed languages to date concern how language processing is impacted by modality differences(Nordström, 2010: 200). Critically, research findings on the comprehension and production of signed languages have deepened our understanding of the nature of all human language(Leiss and Abraham,2008, 83). Conducting studies of signed languages has challenged psycholinguists to revise traditional research methods, for instance by adapting materials and paradigms to the visual modality and by taking prior linguistic analyses of signed languages into account. Modality, on the other hand, is the semantic domain pertaining to elements of meaning that languages express It covers a broad range of semantic nuances—jussive, desidcrative, intentive, hypothetical, potential, obligative, dubitalivo, hortatory, exclamative, etc.—whose common denominator is the addition of a supplement or overlay of meaning to the most neutral semantic value of the proposition of an utterance, namely factual and declarative(Sabir ,2012:73). Modality is expressed in language in a variety of ways: morphological, lexical, syntactic, or via intonation. These arc not mutually exclusive. Thus in the Spanish sentence dudo que haya ganado el premia ‘I doubt (that) he won the prize’, the ‘dubrtativie’ modality is conveyed redundantly by both the lexical meaning of the main verb and the subjunctive mood of the subordinate-clause verb. In this volume we will be concerned primarily with grammatical (morphological and syntactic) expressions of modality, including forms that may be currently undergoing grammaticalization. In order to avoid confusion with the traditional conception of the dimension of subjectivity. thent We will hence forth use the terms 'subjective’ vs. ‘inte subjective' evidentially (rather than subjective vs. objective modality) to name the categories in this domain. Clearly, in this reanalysis of the matter our definition of epislemic modality remains unaffected, and our paradigmatic approach is not in danger. Here arc a few further considerations in support of this reanalysis. Although the range of the dimension of subjectivity requires further investigation, it appears to go well beyond epistemic modality (VanPatten and Jegerski , 2017: 45). Turning to modality, ASL is a language that is almost universally rendered in the visual-gestural modality. On the other hand, English (and other spoken languages) are rendered primarily in the auditory-spoken modality. However, in the case of written languages, spoken words arc given visual form through a writing system. Some writing systems employ an alphabet to convey the sound-based phonological information encoded in the written words (as in the case of English), while others are logo graphic (for instance, Chinese characters) – that is, they convey the semantics or the ideas of the words through their symbols.  (Hansen and Haan, 2015). There are ongoing efforts to develop writing systems for conveying ASL; this is a seemingly logical progression in the evolution of a language, especially given the visual nature of the sign and the possibility for logographic representation of is phonology, morphology, and syntax on the written language. Confusions arise in understanding and describing the nature of ASL/English bilingualism, particularly with respect to issues surrounding modality. Written words arc encountered in the visual modality, yet their close association with the sound-based phonology of the spoken words they represent has led many to believe that successful reading requires knowledge of these sound—grapheme associations.

1.2.3.Modal verbs as means of marking modality

In the ease of cross-linguistic influence, the foe us has been on the effect of the learners LI, both in relation to the emergence and use of aspectuo-temporal markers at less advanced proficiency levels, as well as at more advanced and nearnative levels. For example, there is greater typological similarity between German compared to English. In particular, the effect of inherent lexical aspect on the use of (im) perfective morphology differs between both source language groups. The findings indicate the positive effect of the German learners’ LI insofar as the (im) perfective distinction was not problematic for them in the same way as it was for the English learners. (Blom and Unsworth, 2010:59) They were also less influenced by the inherent lexical aspect of the verb predicate to be marked. Given differences between the tense-aspect systems of German and English, where English marks the (non-)progressive distinction morphologically on the verb, but German does not, we could explore how such differences affect the learners acquisition of the (im)perfective distinction in English. A further property shared by all German modal is that they govern the bare infinitive (rather than the infinitive with zu /to). In modern German, this has become quite a marked property since with most verb classes; the bare infinitive has been replaced by the zw-infinitive in the history of the language. Apart from modal verbs, only Exceptional Case Marking (i.e. accusative-with-infinitive) verbs and motion verbs with purpose/consecutive readings still have bare infinitival complements in modem German. There is a one-way correlation between government of the bare infinitive and obligatory coherence: all verbs that govern the bare infinitive are obligatorily coherent verbs. However, not all obligatorily coherent verbs govern (his bare infinitive: there is also a class of verbs which governs the zu-infinitive and is obligatorily coherent, namely (almost all) raising verbs (e.g. scheinen 'secin’ and versprecheti promis tfidrohen 'threaten in their non-agentjve, so-called semi-modal variants). The latter class of verbs exhibits a less strong form of coherence than the class of verbs (the modal verbs) that construes obligatorily coherently and governs the bare infinitive (= “strong coherence"). “Strong coherence” is the syntactic correlate of the root/epistemic poly functionality(Martin,1983: 35). The differences between English and German originals are highly significant. The most obvious difference between the two sets of data is that English originals most frequently use lexical verbs to express epistemic meanings, while this option is fairly uncommon in the German originals, the German originals, on the other hand, prefer longer lexical constructions (House, 2015: 47). Although translators obviously do not take over source language expressions uncritically adaptations (e.g. they sometimes use sente nee-internal connectives instead of sentence initial but, or translate epistemic modal markers is low modal strength with markers of high modal strength), they still make a number of translation choices that lead to features in the translated text which make it different from target language texts produced monolingually. We can therefore conclude that German popular scientific texts translated from English are indeed more interactional. (Abraham and Leiss ,2012: 91) As far as we concerned, German original popular science texts will also increasingly adopt Anglophone conventions, we find, however, that the evidence to support this view is not very strong. Only the case study on the sentence-initial concessive conjunctions (but, aber, doth) furnishes results that dearly support the hypothesis.

1.2.4 Morpho-syntactical properties of modalities

Auxiliaries have some properties, which lexical verbs do not. These constitute the standard syntactic arguments that auxiliaries and full lexical verbs are two distinct types of syntactic entities. Many approaches to English grammar identify two “be verbs” – one a lexical or cupular verb and the other an auxiliary. The expression ol non-epistemic modality (unlike that of epislemic modality) sometimes triggers changes in clause structure, in particular change in case marking, or even deletion, of specific arguments, in addition to the voice-like structures and possession-!ike structures, we also find non-can on ical case marking of core arguments related to neither of them. These are in partieu lar dative-subject constructions, which are common in South Asia, and impersonal constructions, which are widespread cross-linguistically. Agents marked with adpositions or with a general object marker are common in these constructions. Another central question concerns the emergence of morphosyntactic devices in the expression of sentence types, such as verb mood inflections, word order, and the use of specific morphemes. In many languages, young children use verbs in the indicative and imperative present forms to express facts and requests, respectively (however, these forms often differ only by the presence/absence of subject pronouns). Imperative verb forms are one of the earliest grammatical features acquired by children in various languages. They occur as early as age 1,2 in Italian children and are also reported early in English- and Greek-speaking children. The two earliest devices used in French lo mark sentence mood at were interjections (oh!t ah!) serving an exclamatory funcction, and imperative verb forms (tiens! ‘hold!’, dontiel give!] regarde! ‘look!’), serving an injunctive function. At about the other devices were consistently added: expressions in the indicative and the first interrogative morphemes (qu’est-ce que? ‘what?’, oii? ‘where?'). However, most ol these morphosyntaclic devices were rudimentary and tended to be used in syncretic formulations and stereotyped situations, as can be expected from these early stages of language development. If a language replicates a modal as a form-function unit, the meaning of the replica can either (a) completely or (b) partially coincide with the source item. The first case can again be illustrated by the replication of German miissen. In semantics and in the main syntactic parameters, the Polish, Czech, and Slovak modals overlap with German miissen: syntactically, the replicas feature a subject encoded in nominative case, a lexical verb in the infinitive, and they carry inflection and show subject agreement; and semantically, they show the same polyfunctionality as the source element, featuring dynamic, deontic, and epis- temic meanings. This constructional and semantic equivalence notwithstanding, there may be differences in frequency and distribution among genres, the epistemic use of the Slavonic replicas of German miissen, for example, has been claimed to be less frequent than in the model language where we could compare auxiliary and adverb strategies for the expression of epistemic possibility in the Slavonic translations of a Harry Potter book, encountered big frequency differences in the preference for verbs or adverbs between the individual languages: for example, languages spoken at the Eastern periphery of Europe prefer epistemic adverbs(Gergel,2009). As mentioned above, there are cases where the replication of a modal involves semantic shifts leading only to a partial semantic overlap between model and replica. For example, report that the Romanian modal trebue is specialized for weak obligation, although its source modal, Romanian trebui, has a more general meaning.

1.2.5 Types of modality

Epistemic modality is concerned solely with the speaker’s attitude to status of the proposition. Thus in the examples above the speaker makes the judgements that it is possible or necessary (necessarily the case that) that they are in the office. (Dittmar and Reich, 1993). Verbs: can, may, must, ought, will, will, and partial need and form the group of modal verbs. These verbs do not form infinitive with the 'to' particle. can – can, with the understanding of being able. In current speech, especially in questions, it is used in place of 'may' (see below) (it means to conserve and 'to can' = to conserve) may – can, with the intent of being allowed. (also means May). In addition, it is used in wishes, for example it can be translated by 'either'. must – must, be necessary (also must-grape juice), can be translated sometimes and probably (or 'must') it ought to be the case will – is a hardening of an order if pressed. Otherwise it forms the future of the first person. In the latter case it is usually replaced with 'will' (see below). will – form the future, the particle 'you' of the Romanians. I will come = I will come. It is also used in the formation of the future. (It also means will. need – to have, with the sense of need giving – dare, provoke someone.

1.3.Modal verbs between Control and Raising

1.3.1. Modals as Raising verbs

Figura nr. 3

A common view concerning modal constructions is that different modal interpretations correspond to different syntactic structures. Root modals are transitive (i.e., assign two theta-roles—an internal theta-role for the infinitive and a subject role), whereas epistemic modals are intransitive (i.e., they assign only a theta-role to the infinitive). Similarly, epistemic modals do not assign a subject theta-role, but deontic modals assign a(n adjunct). The second argument for a raising structure of modal constructions comes from the passive properties in these constructions (Palmer ,2016: 73). A well- known property of modal constructions is that modal verbs cannot be passivized. Note that the prohibition against passive arises under all modal interpretations; that is, rot only epistemic modals but also root/deontic modals block passivization (furthermore, we will see below that dynamic modal constructions also prohibit passive when the modal is not used as a main verb). Turning now to modal constructions, a raising structure for modal constructions makes the prediction that—as in jce/n-type raising structures—two positions should be available in which the subject can be interpreted. The predicted scope ambiguity extends straightforwardly to epistemic modal constructions which are uncontroversial raising contexts. A modal statement is ambiguous. If the subject is interpreted in the higher position, it takes scope over the modal. The perhaps pragmatically more natural interpretation, however, is the interpretation in which the subject takes lower scope. We conclude that the assumption that epistemic and root/deontic modal constructions are represented by raising structures (and hence involve two positions for the subject which are accessible) accounts naturally for the scope interactions between a modal and the subject as well as between the subject and an embedded object in modal constructions(Barbiers, Beukema and Wurff, 2002). In the next subsections, we will discuss passive in modal constructions and the thematic properties of modal verbs, which will provide further support for a raising structure and against a control structure of modal constructions.

CHAPTER 2. THE MORPHO-SYNTACTIC PROPERTIES OF ENGLISH AND GERMAN

Modal verbs used epidemically in German, Dutch and Spanish, for example, seem to share the conceptual structure with English epistemic modal verbs but not their morphosyntactic properties. The status of grounding predication should be considered as something purely conceptual rather than structural. Second, it has been suggested that the differences between deontic and epistemic uses of modal verbs are larger both conceptually and grammatically Mental predicates have a conceptually similar or equal status to modal verbs(Alagbe, 2009:35). It is not clear yet how to accept these modifications, but it would seem that they bring his model closer to a pragmatically oriented model. Modal verbs as a replacement of verbal mood are commonly assumed that the modal verbs in English and German in the course of history functionally replaced verbal mood. Verbal mood inflections were already fairly reduced in Germanic as compared to what is reconstructed for proto-Indo-European. Out of various marked inflectional forms only the subjunctive survived, assuming the form of the Optative. The mood and modal verb shows that the functions of this subjunctive were broad, comprising deontic (request), boulomaie (wish), and epistemic (potentiality) notions, but use in subordinate clauses was already more Common than use in main clauses. The use of the mood forms was in fact decreasing considerably even during the OH period, There was an increasing preference for using (pre-) medals such as wiltan, mag fin etc. under exactly the same circumstances which formerly had called for synthetic subjunctives,’ This is first of all true for the use in main clauses.

The modal verbs in Dutch, on all readings, share a number of properties with raising verbs. Most notably, the infinitival complement of a modal verb lacks a complementizer and is invariably integrated with the matrix clause:

Tasman van de VOC het Zuidland

Tasman of defjCG.sg VOC dei’.n.sg South Land

These postural verbs express durativity. They combine wiih an infinitive with fie, except when they are themselves nonfinite, in which Case Te may he left out. From this perspective it makes sense to think of the modal verbs in Dutch as being generated in tile middle field, US the heads of adverbial phrases, But modal verbs appear in the right-bracket verb cluster fin embedded clauses, which the other adverbial phrases on the hypothesis that Dutch is a head-initial language(Allen, 1964:149). Another problem of the analysis of Dutch as a head-initial language is thai material moving out of a transparent infinitival clause into the middle field includes not just objects and small-clause predicates (i.e, particles and secondary predicates, including directional and resuitative IT’s), hut in fact everything that belongs to the embedded clause, including selected (nonpredicative) PPs, selected adjuncts, and depletives:

Like raising and control verbs, modal verbs select an infinitival complement with a missing subject. See appendix 3 for a complete list of modal verbs in Dutch. The properties of modal verbs are illustrated here using the verb moeten 'must,’ representing both deontie modality

The only deontic modal verb allowing is volitional wiilen ‘want,’ but then the subject of the embedded clause need not be coreferential with the subject of wiilen, suggesting we have moved away from its modal use, is not allowed on the volitional deontie reading of other modal verbs. Finally, if deontie and epistemic modal verbs are to be distinguished in terms of control vs. rising, one expects only deontie modal verbs to allow fronting and pronomrealization of their infinitival complements, illustrates fronting and pronomrealization with deontie modal verbs.

2.1 Modal verbs in English

The modality is for the enunciator to make a change of meaning to the content of a statement. If he wishes to express that a thing is possible, necessary, probable, obligatory, desirable, hypothetical or certain, he interposes a modal between the subject and the verb (and its possible complements). Modals are auxiliary operators.

Shall and will are wrongly regarded as marks of the future, when they are not. Being hypothetical and subject to unpredictable hazards, the future, in the sense that it is understood in French, does not exist in English, which modalizes an action as "that can occur after the statement" and is expressed by shall / will / to be to / to be about / the progressive form of the present / the simple present supplemented by a circumstantial of time.

The use of shall is rare in the United States, where will is almost always used.

In English grammar, modal or auxiliary modal verbs are auxiliaries that give the enunciator's point of view on the utterance. This is can, could, may, must, must, should, should, should, had better, as well as dare and need (in some of their jobs).

Shall also expresses his own will, the personal will coming into conflict with the external obligation. English is based on the premise that only the addressee of the order is willing to oblige himself to do something. Shall (in the first-person job) indicates that I'm imposing something on myself (it's my own will that asks me to do that). With the modal will (used for other people), the one who states the order can not substitute for the will of the recipient of that order, so Will you do that can translate to "Will you have the will to do that? "- Moreover the tag of the obligation in the present takes again this modal: Close the door, will you (" So close this door, do you want?) "(Batko, 2004:217).

Modal characteristics:

• They are directly followed by the verb base (modal + infinitive without to) (except ought, which is directly followed by the infinitive with to), or an adverb that is followed by the verb base. In short answers, the verbal basis (the infinitive without to) is implied.

– Yes, she can / No, he will not

In a verbal group, there can only be one modal (except in the southern United States).

They are operators. They serve to form interrogative statements and carry negation. They are not compatible with the auxiliary do.

Two of them bear the mark of time (present or past): can (could) and will (would).

They have no infinitive, no form in -ing, no past participle, no form in -s, so they are also traditionally called "defective verbs".

Must is a present, it has no form in the past.

Negative form: must not – Contracted negative form: must not.

Must serves to express a necessity, an obligation:

I must finish this assignment today ("I must finish this assignment today")

You must read this book; you will enjoy it ("You have to read this book, you will like it") (the speaker gives his opinion)

Must serves to express a high probability, a near certainty:

-He has not turned up; he must be ill ("He does not show up, he must be ill")

In the negative form, must not express the prohibition or the certainty of the negative situation, but the absence of necessity goes to the help of need not and the absence of obligation with the help of do not have to:

You must not go out ("You must not go out") (contrary to You may go out)

It must be true ("I'm sure it's not true")

You need not go out ("You do not have to go out") (contrary to You must go out)

You do not have to do it ("Nothing forces you to do it")

With a progressive form:

He must be working ("He must (probably) work") (but He must work = "He must work", "He must work")

We express a near-certainty of a past situation with must have + past participle:

– He must have arrived yesterday ("He must have arrived yesterday")

But we express an obligation in the past using had to + infinitive:

– He had to help him ("He had to help him", "he had to help him")(Blackstone, 2003:54)

Negative form: may not, might not – Negative form contracted: might not.

• May serves to express the uncertainty, the eventuality (it is then accentuated):

– Do not disturb your dad, he may be busy ("Do not disturb your father, he may be busy" (equivalent: perhaps he is busy)

The uncertain action may be in the future also:

– They may arrive tomorrow; who knows? ("They may arrive tomorrow, who knows?")

Might, the historical past of May, express a greater part of doubt or a present or future risk:

– It might rain tomorrow ("It may well be rain tomorrow")

He can also express a suggestion, even a reproach:

– You might at least help us) • May is used to express permission to the 1st and 2nd person (it is then unaccented, as a rule): – May I use your bathroom? ("Can I use your toilets?") – You can smoke if you like ("You can smoke if you want") In the passive voice, permission is expressed rather with to be allowed to: – I was notallowed to smoke until I was 16 ("I was not allowed to smoke before I was 16") To indicate uncertainty (but not permission) on the past, we use may have: – He may have come yesterday ("Maybe he came yesterday") Examples of verbal groups formed with a modal: – She can swim ("She knows how to swim") – Can he swim? No, he can not ("Can he swim?") – Will he play football on Saturday? Yes, he will ("Will he be playing football on Saturday?")

2.1.1 Auxiliary verbs vs. Lexical verbs

Words that describe an action or state are grammatically grouped into a group called the verbal group. The verbal group can be complex and contain from 1 to 5 auxiliary verbs all placed before the lexical verb. Auxiliary verbs provide other information to the verbal group. Auxiliary verbs can express four additional pieces of information: modality, perfectness, gradualness, and liability. If there are several auxiliaries in the verbal group, it is necessary to respect a certain order of placement of the verbs. The BE, HAVE and DO verbs are the three main English verbs. They can be auxiliary and lexical. A verbal group can be simple and contain only one verb. This verb is the lexical verb. The lexical verb represents the real nature of the action. The first auxiliary verb is the director verb. In addition to four information mentioned above, it expresses several other ideas for managing the verbal group. Among these additional meanings, we find:

• Polarity (negative or positive)

• Reversal (questions)

• Emphasis (Chavez, 2011: 83)

The formation of the simple preterite differs according to whether the verb is regular or irregular. In bold is indicated the mark of the preterite. The form of the verb changes only in the affirmative. In the interrogative and the negative, it is the auxiliary who takes the mark of the preterite. The mark of the preterite must be worn only once by the verbal basis .. Orally, it says I did not know instead of I did not know. . Formerly called continuous or progressive past, it is actually the verbal form BE + ING in the past. This expresses an action that "was taking place" and that has no connection with the present (because of the simple past). It is also constructed in the same way as in the present, that is to say that the verb keeps its verbal base followed by -ing and that it is preceded by the auxiliary to be this time conjugated to the past tense. Regular verbs take the ending -ed or d in the past. Irregular verbs each have a particular form: one must memorize the list of irregular verbs with their form in preterite (and past participle). The three main auxiliaries conjugate in the past in a particular way that does not follow the general rule. We will only present here the affirmative forms, the negative and interrogative forms operating on the same principle as that of the present except that the auxiliaries are in the past. By associating the concept of operation with the class of auxiliaries (see operators, metaoperators, etc.), the enunciatigist currents have generally taken for granted the concept underlying the notion of auxiliary. Thus, in the absence of the "generic" concept of opirator or mitaoperator (aspect, modality, etc.), there is a certain lack of labeling which, beyond the advantage of avoiding the danger of compartmentalization taxonomy, often conceals a certain discomfort that Eon finds again in the framework of formal (and even descriptive) approaches in linguistics(Chomsky, 2015:301).To speak of the auxiliary in the context of linguistic formalism undeniably amounts to resuming itself in terms of generative grammar as it was formulated by Chomsky in the late fifties. In this perspective, it makes sense to consider the ins and outs of four decades of generative formalization around the ancillary. It should be noted that there are also other perspectives of formal analysis that derive more or less from the generativists approach.Thus, from a study of the class of auxiliaries, argues that it behaved as a modal verb in Old English and Middle English (Chomsky, 2010:215). He testifies that the existence of modal auxiliaries in English is imprecise, but we know that they were constructed with irinfinitive without all, while DO admitted and built them even with past participles, and so on. The lexical verb get also occurs in passive constructions in the same syntactic position as be, which, together with its lexical morphology: Similarly, the verb GO, in its present participle form plus a preceding form of be plus a following to is in competition with will, and could therefore also be included in the auxiliary verbs, there are, however, strong syntactic arguments not to include them in the class of auxiliaries, as they behave like lexical verbs in crucial syntactic tests like question formation and negation. Morphologically, nothing unexpected happens with these verbs either. The future-oriented construction with GO can be seen as an idiomatic use of the present participle of this verb, and passive get enjoys the same full paradigm as in other syntactic constructions. Hie two candidates get and go also lack a specific morphological property that all finite auxiliary verb forms share and that distinguishes auxiliaries from lexical verbs, namely that they can act as a morphological host for the suffixed negator n't. Future-marking GO and passive get cannot. The two verbs are thus syntactically and morphologically not distinct from (other) lexical verbs and will not be treated as auxiliaries here. Similar arguments would hold for some apparent auxiliaries as used in certain dialects of English, such as she want (as in this car wants washed). The kinds of deviations from the regular pattern which we find with irregular verbs are manifold and have been the source of diverse attempts at categorizing the verbs into different classes. All classifications refer exclusively to properties of and relations between three forms—the plain form, the preterite, and the past participle—as the other two forms, the vd singular and the present participle, are nicely predictable for all lexical verbs, with the exception of be, have, do, and say, as discussed above. Many irregular verbs have the suffix -eti, which has the allomorph /n/ after base-final vowels (and base-final /r/ in rhotic varieties), and /an/ elsewhere. Finally, there is some debate about the role of semantics in verbal inflectional patterning (Copley, 2011:101). Contrary to standardly expressed views that the distinction between regular and irregular verbs is one of form only; there is robust empirical evidence that regular and irregular verbs may differ in their semantic properties. Evidence for semantic effects on verb inflection has emerged from production experiments: Controlling for frequency, the authors show that the number of synonyms is larger for irregular verbs. Furthermore, sets of synonyms for irregular verbs are much more likely to contain other irregular verbs than sets of synonyms of regular verbs are to contain other regular verbs. This means that irregulars tend to live in a semantically more densely populated space, having more semantic relations to other words and being more similar to each other than regulars. Incidentally, this may have contributed to the survival of the many irregular forms in the history of the language, as forms with stronger semantic ties to other words tend to have stronger lexical representations in memory.

2.1.2 Modal Verbs vs. Lexical verbs

The consideration of modal verbs as full verbs clarifies better their behavior in these uses than their consideration as auxiliary verbs. However, the consideration of modal verbs as full verbs can hardly explain all the characteristics that modal verbs have as auxiliary elements and that we have studied before. So, while one posture enhances certain aspects of the modal verbs, the other emphasizes the opposites. But, anyway, none manages to highlight the morphosyntactic behavior of modal verbs in their entirety. And it does not succeed because it is impossible to do so, since in the modal verbs of contemporary English they coexist, as we have seen, characteristics of two different periods; some characteristics related to the period in which the modal verbs had a character clearly of lexical verb, and others that have to do with a more recent period in which the modal verbs, after undergoing a process of grammaticalization, become auxiliary verbs . As the process has not been perfect and has not yet been completed, both facets are still valid.  We hope, finally, that it has become clear that in the field of modality we find two structures that do not fit perfectly into the new system of contemporary English (Dehé, Nicole, 2002:93). On the one hand, we have certain push-ups that are nothing more than remnants of the old English inflectional system. On the other, there are some modal verbs that are already part of the new verbal system of the English language, but whose grammaticalization process has not yet been completed, since the desemantization that all grammaticalization processes entails has not occurred with all its consequences. Any description of the modal category in English must take these facts into account. To ignore these facts can only lead us to descriptions or artificially conventional or clearly distorted descriptions, and this is why we want to conclude that the explanation of all these idiosyncrasies can only be done if we contemplate the idea of ​​the conflagration of antagonistic systems and opposed. If they are contemplated from a single and uniform system, the theoretical contradictions will make their description hardly credible.

The lexical variables present a picture that resembles that of the phonological variables. The four groups are stratified in a pattern which shows the mutual influence of speakers of different ethnic groups who come into meaningful contact, thus there is a striking assymmetry in the linguistic behavior of blacks and whites who move in each other's social circles. for the phonological and lexical variables, whites who move in black circles show considerable variation in the extent to which they match blacks, but for each of them there is good agreement with characteristics of the black vernacular on some points. of the five measures used, split infinitives and auxiliaries was the only variable that did not load meaningfully on either function and thus contributes negligibly to the differentiation of the text types in this sample. Similarly, we are not certain why type/token ratio loads on function together with contractions and that deletion, since the latter two features represent measures of reduced expression while the former, which measures lexical variety, is a gauge of fullness of expression. we suspect that this lexical variety is attributable to the fact that the london-lund corpus packages several shorter telephone conversations within a single ''text," thereby creating a large number of apparent topic shifts with attendant lexical variety. To be used grammatically in a normal declarative clause, lexical verbs require one or more ‘arguments’: a subject, sometimes called the ‘external argument’ (because it does not belong to the predicate constituent), and possibly one or more ‘internal arguments’, usually called complements, such as a direct object (c. g. 1 hit him), indirect object (e.g. i gave him a kite), subject complement (e.g. bill is ill), object complement (e.g. we called him a fool), prepositional object (e.g. i looked into the question carefully). (Finegan, 1987:61)verbs that can only take a subject argument are called ‘intransitive verbs’. verbs that also take one or more nominal complements are called ‘transitive verbs’, except if th e complement in question is a subject complement (e.g. bill is a nurse), in which case the verb is a ‘copula’ or ‘linking verb’ (see immediately below).

The term ‘transitive verb’ does not cover one-complement verbs like he, seem, become, etc. w hich are unking verbs or copulas or copui \u verbs. these verbs are not followed by a direct object. something about the referent of the subject, it either describes a characteristic to that referent or identifies the person or entity in question.

John is a plumber.

He seems a reliable mail.

The chairman is that man over there.

This wine tastes sour.

2.1.3 Modal verbs vs. Auxiliary verbs

English distinguishes between two kinds of verbs, lexical and auxiliary. The distinction is based on a variety of diagnostic criteria, most of them syntactic in nature. Thus, auxiliary verbs precede lexical verbs in the same clause, have certain types of complement, and behave in a peculiar way in a number of syntactic constructions, such as negation, inversion, ellipsis, and emphasis. 'Ilie particulars of the syntactic behaviour of this class of words are well described in the standard grammars and will not concern us here in great detail since we focus on the morphological side of the matter It should be noted, however, that with regard to their syntactic behaviour, the auxiliaries do not show a completely uniform behaviour across all syntactic constructions, and we will see that their morphological behaviour is also not necessarily identical across ditferent lexemes.We turn now to an important division within the category of verbs between roughly a dozen auxiliary verbs and all the rest, which we call lexical verbs (Honegger, 2005: 374). The auxiliary verbs (or more briefly, auxiliaries) differ sharply in grammatical behaviour from lexical verbs, and figure crucially in a number of common constructions. Within the auxiliaries there are also major differences between the special subclass known as modal auxiliaries and the rest of the class, which we will call non-modul.Interrogative clauses with lexical verbs have to be constructed in a different way, to form the interrogative of rakes the money we add the auxiliary verb do. This has no meaning of its own – it simply permits compliance with the grammatical requirement that this kind of interrogative clause should contain an auxiliary verb, We refer to it therefore as the dummy auxiliary do. It cannot be used in combination with another auxiliary verb, so the example in is ungrammatical(Wu, 2008:47). The present tense is marked on do: take is a plain form.A few verbs belong to both auxiliary and lexical verb classes, exhibiting auxiliary behaviour under certain circumstances and lexical verb behaviour elsewhere. The main ones are do, have, need and dare. In the uses illustrated in the following examples, the three underlined verbs bear some semantic and/or syntactic similarity to the modal auxiliaries, though syntactically they’re not similar enough to modals to be included in the class. We have to ask what’s best for the child, they don't like it. Determine whether the underlined verb- forms in the following examples are instances of the auxiliary lexemes have, need and dare or instances of the corresponding lexical verbs.They had better hurry or they’ll miss it. They had their house burgled. We will start our discussion of the morphological differences between the two major classes of verb with the lexical verbs as a reference point. The number of different forms in the inflectional paradigms of lexical verbs in standard varieties of English ranges from eight for a single verb (be, with the forms hr, am, are, is, was, were, being, been) to only three for some 40 verbs (e.g. put, puts, putting). If we implement an analysis that recognizes morp ho syntactic contrasts in the system as soon as at least two verbs show this contrast (that is, we ignore some of the categories that arc found only with be), wc can distinguish the six morphosyntactic categories, illustrated with three different verbs, with, five, four, and thre. Given that the morphological and syntactic facts do not dearly map onto each other, it is not clear whether a lexical distinction between auxiliary dare and lexical dark is warranted at all. Rather, we find variant forms expressing the same morp ho syntactic property. However, we do find a neat complementary distribution of structural properties. The linguistic commentary test of a text consists of an explanation of language facts(Teschner, 2007:109). To pass this test supposes two things: on the one hand, to be able to adequately describe the facts that we are going to explain, and on the other hand to possess a theory that makes it possible to explain them. Experience shows that many candidates try (vainly, needless to say) to master a theory without sufficiently knowing the basic grammatical facts. How, for example, could they make significant manipulations on V-ING or TO + V following a verb if they do not know the usual constructions of this verb? How could they comment on the jobs of some in a statement if they do not know if, in this statement, some say? For this reason, this handout begins with the grammatical facts for which it proposes an explanatory theory(Kakzhanova, 2013: 2533). It has, however, seemed useful to recall basic syntactic facts in the complex domain of modal grammar. The presupposition possesses in the language its own forms: lexical forms (see the opposition between I hope he will come back and I fear he will come back), syntactic forms (examples of presupposing forms: the article the, the auxiliary do, the morpheme -ed – on the latter, see box below), prosodic forms (see the opposition between John wrote the letter and John wrote the letter). First of all, we must not forget the following principle: the time marker carried by the modal (the present in the case of the form can) marks the temporal reference of the modality, and not that of the event: this He can work in the present is the possibility (expressed by can) and not the event (which corresponds to the verb work). In the case of material capacity / possibility, however, the event is in most cases also situated in the present. To describe the can / may opposition in this area, it can not be enough to say that may belongs to a more sought-after language level. If, in some of its jobs, may appear as sought after, it is essentially linked to its strongly enunciative character. (We find the same phenomenon with shall, and, to a lesser extent, with must and need.) It can be noted that the use of permission may be much less "sought after" in the interrogative form than in the declarative form; if one asks permission in the form May I …? (and not Can I …?), we simply show a certain deference to the interlocutor (we implicitly recognize a certain "power"); on the other hand, if one uses may to grant or refuse a permission (You may sit down, You may not smoke), it is oneself that one places in position of "power", and the statement will be able seem condescending. However, the context is much more clearly epistemic(Lambert, 2010:52). This is seen, for example, in the statements below. We note the parallelism between could mean and must mean – must expressing a higher degree of probability, the word surely and the question mark leave no doubt that modalisation involves an inference operation – whose starting point is "it's far too late". It should also be noted that, in a form such as He can not be at home, can not / can not express a degree of probability that borders on the absolute (certainty or near-certainty relating to a negative fact), unlike the epistemic form must not (found only in certain varieties of English – v. must).

2.2 Morpho-syntactic properties of modals in German

While morphology deals with the internal structure of words and explores the smallest meaningful and / or functional elements of a morpheme-related language, morphosyntactics examines the relationships between morphemes and sentence construction. An example of the morphosyntaxes viewpoint is the rendering of syntactic functions by morphological means. In languages ​​that mark cases morphologically, these are the flexivendions. Further, other parts of speech (eg, adverbs) or syntactic constructions serve to express modality. The modal verbs of the German occur in connection with an infinitive without to and show as a group also a number of peculiarities in their formation (flexion). Modal verbs are characterized in the present by identical forms of the 1st and 3rd person singular, as is the case with other verbs only in the past tense: I should – he should come as I came – he came(Jalis, Farhana, Rahim, 2014:268). Modal verb (Latin verbum modal ) is in linguistics a name for certain verbs that express a modality – d. H. in essence: concepts of necessity or possibility – serve. In German, the six verbs are usually allowed, can, like, must, should, and want to be listed as modal verbs. (Must, should, want to designate necessities of various kinds and may, may, like possibilities of various kinds). In grammatical German, modal verbs often appear as a distinct subspecies of the verb next to auxiliary verbs, function verbs, copula verbs and full verbs. But they are often referred to as modal auxiliary verbs. Also in the grammar of English it is common to call modal verbs as auxiliary verbs (modal auxiliaries). However, there are also languages ​​in which modal verbs can not be readily distinguished from full verbs. Modal verbs are a typical but not the only way to express modality. In addition, there are also many languages ​​that modality by an affix (ie, for example, an ending) to a full verb denote(Beedham, 1989:183). The field of morphosyntactics is described with the reproduction of syntactic functions and relations by word parts or bound morphemes. Morphosyntactics is actually word formation and refers to the syntactic-functional content of morphemes.Also know the verb has this feature (I know – he knows), but does not count to the modal verbs. According to their type of education, knowledge and the modal verbs (except wanting) are summarized under the name of preteritopresentia. In addition to the "classical" modal verbs, may, may, must, should, and want there are other verbs or usage variants of verbs that can act as modal verbs. Thus, the verb is needed in conjunction with a negative used as a modal verb; the construction then means "do not have to" (Ryan, Wray, 1997:39).

2.3 Establishing modal verbs as raising verbs

Raising means "increase" in English and is used as a term in linguistics. It concerns a sentence in which a part of the sentence is syntactically part of the main sentence, while semantically it is part of the content of a subordinate clause / clause. The phrase in question is, as it were, "raised" from a lower (subordinate) part of the sentence to a higher part (main sentence). One might consider this as a metonymy / meaning shift from the verb "to shine"(M'Cartney, 2008:122).In a more simple sense with the verb "shine", this verb only means "the view is that" when it is impersonally used – with "it" as the subject. With a "real" subject, "shine" in a simpler sense means "in the eyes of someone else being equal to X": "At our first meeting, Alexander the Great seemed rather small to me".Something or someone seems to be something to someone else, with the only corresponding phrases a subject and a nominal part of the saying. If you stick an infinitive construction to the verb "shine", you use the verb in a new way, that is to say: it gets a different predicate frame and thus a different meaning.Semantically, the announcement is made that some people think Alexander had great courage. The sentence "that Alexander the Great had great courage" is clearly the content of the communication "it seems".(Moruzi, 2005:132) In the second sentence, "Alexander" is brought forward ("raised") and plucked from the content of the communication: now it seems as if "Alexander is shining" is a whole, of which "having had a great courage" as a second unit dependent. This is less exactly the same as the semantic structure that we intuitively see, namely that "Alexander" should not be in the main sentence but in the subordinate communication. 

CHAPTER 3 : “MÜST” IN ENGLISH AND “MUSSEN” IN GERMAN

3.1 MUST IN ENGLISH

Modal verbs are considered anomalous because they do not follow the general rules of ordinary verbs (-s for the third person singular of the simple present, -ed for the formation of the simple past of regular verbs, formation of negative and interrogative sentences with verbs auxiliaries, etc.). Manners have a restricted number of verb forms, follow them in negative sentences and simply reverse the order of the subject and the verb in interrogative sentences. The form must be used for all people, both for the present and for the future: I must, you must, he / she / it must, we must, you must, they must For the negations post not (the contraction of must and not is must not): I must not / must not, you must not / must not … For the interrogatives the order of the subject and the verb is inverted: Must I? , must you? , must he / she / it? …….. Must has neither infinitive nor past, but you can follow the infinitive without to another verb. The verb must serves to express: 1) Obligation (affirmative and interrogative sentences). "You must work hard". "Must I?" , "Yes, you must". 2) Deduction or supposition (affirmative sentences). This church must be very old –– (This church must be very old) To express the deduction about a past event, the construction can be used: MUST + HAVE + PAST PARTICIPLE.

Example: I must have worked very fast in order to finish these exercises so quickly. 3) Prohibition (negative sentences). Example: You must not drive fast along this road. The modal verb must be used for obligations, prohibitions or to express things that are 100% certain, formulated above all to oneself in the present (Amery, King and Osthecker 1982). It must be differentiated from the expression "have to", because while in the denials with the have to suppose that something is not necessary, when we formulate a negation with Must, it supposes a prohibition. I have a couple of articles there on the other page about the auxiliary verbs, and a purpose for the new year of doing more listenings around here. So let's do some recycling: the old articles on my other page will become new audios here. Today the theme will be the modal auxiliaries must and have to. I know you're thinking, "But Daniel, technically have to is not a modal verb, it's nosécosa!" And of course, dear reader, you're right. But since it is such a common expression and is used to express obligation, we will treat it like a modal verb. In general, modal verbs or modal verbs are auxiliary verbs that can not function as a main verb. These express ability, possibility, need or other condition. In this case we will refer to those who express OBLIGATION. "Must" and "to have to" are modal verbs that are frequently confused, since both "must" and "to have to" express obligation, in some cases a strong obligation according to the tone of voice, however, there are slight differences between their uses. Characteristics of modal verbs

• They will always appear in their simple form.

• They will be accompanied by an infinitive in an affirmative sentence.

• They do not conjugate. No "is" or "s" is added to the third person singular.

• They can be used as auxiliary verbs.

Must

Must is also a modal verb. Indicates an obligation, prohibition or need. In some cases it may indicate probability(Barkow, Mayo and Barkow 2002)

• You must read this book, it's fantastic. (You have to read this book, it's fantastic.)

• You must brush your teeth twice a day. (You have to brush your teeth twice a day.)

• Peter is not here. He must be sick because he is never absent. (Pedro is not here, he must be sick because he is never absent.) (Probability)

• All auxiliary verbs except "to be", "have" and "do" are called modal verbs or "modal verbs".

• Unlike auxiliary verbs "to be", "have" and "do", modalities only exist as help verbs, that is, they can not be the main verb in a sentence. They need another verb to make sense of the sentence.

•We use "must" and "to have to" to express that something is necessary or mandatory. When the phrase is affirmative, it does not matter much which one you choose.

For example:"I must go to the bank before it closes", "I have to go to the bank before it closes"

These two phrases use practically synonymous "must" and "to have to". We say practically, because "must" indicates an obligation somewhat greater than "to have to".

In negative phrases there is a very important difference: we use "must not", or its contraction "must not", to express something obligatory. In contrast, "do not have to" or "does not have to", or the contractions "do not have to" and "does not have to", serve to say that something is not necessary, that there is no obligation. "Must not" and "do not have to" have very different meanings. Important not to confuse them. "You must not leave the gas on! It's dangerous "(You must not leave the gas on! It's dangerous)" (Belloc 2010). You do not have to do the dishes, we have a dishwasher! "(You do not have to do the dishes, we have a dishwasher) The modal verb" must " "Must" is a modal verb. What does that mean? Modal verbs are used to indicate many different things, and other verbs precede. The third person singular does not end in -s as often happens with the other verbs. And the modal verbs in infinitive also do not go with the "to" to which we are accustomed. Finally, modal verbs do not require auxiliary verbs to make negative sentences or questions. Examples: "We must phone Janet to tell you the meeting is canceled" (We have to call Janet to tell her that the meeting has been canceled) "If you have backache, you must go to the physiotherapist "(If your back hurts, you should go to the physiotherapist) Among the verbal elements that a student of GBS you will need to master at the level of grammatical knowledge, there are the rules and forms of anomalous finite verbs and the perfecti¬ve and progressive aspects of ordinary verbs. Of these two Ultimos is, undoubtedly, the progressive aspect that is of a greater relief at the basic level of learning the English language. Experience once again confirms that the verbal element of English that reserves the greatest number of "problems" to a student of GBS, is the modal system.

3.1.1 Deontic MUST

Deontic modals interact differently. They have no past tense forms for past time reference. Neither the modality nor the event (see 2-4.2) can be in the past and so, again, adjuncts with past time reference are automatically excluded: Could you please go the baker’s yesterday?

Deontic modals are performative and initiate action by the speaker or by others; they are exclusively related to the future: ‘At the time of speaking a speaker can get others to act or commit himself to action only in the future' It is significant that when MUST operates dynamically it is rarely if ever modified. There are in fact no examples in the Survey of what Palmer (1990: 130f) refers to as ‘characteristic' MUST taking an adverbial collocate. The interpolation of an adverbial conveying modal or temporal constraints, CERTAINLY or SOMETIMES for instance, in any of the above examples, is anomalous. Not even the common emphasizer REALLY is comfortable in these contexts (De Vries and Herrmann 1972).

Where MUST relates to obligation and involves human control of events the picture is clearer. And there is marked tolerance of adverbial modification even though tliis is mostly restricted to instances of co-occurrence with emphasizers and intensifiers,

All of us reason about and understand what people

necessarily must be; we dream about, arc bewildered by, what thev accidentally and incomprehensibly are.-One clear runner must alwavs be left behind shelves. '

Deontic MUST sets an obligation or a requirement which demands compliance on the part of the addressee, Speaker involvement in relation to epistemic MUST IS constant but with deontic MUST (as with deontic MAY) there are degrees. The speaker may be totally involved, totally uninvolved or partially involved as the ‘ representative ’ of a collective or group:

-We really must get on with the project,

-Withdrawals must not exceed £200.

-Candidates for positions with our organisation must be EC nationals.

The context may make the degree of involvement clear or give only a vague indication of the extent to which the speaker identifies himself as the source of authority. We have also suggested that the speaker may have reason for not wishing to be identified as the source of deontic authority consistent with the use of unmodified modal forms, and any number of underlying motives.

Where the context gives little or no indication of speaker involve men l, it is arguable whether deontic modality is involved at all. For this reason. Palmer (1979: 36) proposed the recognition of dynamic modality as a third modal category. He cites, among others, the following example from the Survey:

-If the ratepayers should be consulted, so too must the council tenants.

Without knowing the wider context, it is impossible to argue the case of speaker involvement either way. Yet it seems hardly possible that MUST here is ‘neutral1 (see Palmer 1979: 1l3f; 1986; 102f); there are vestiges or overtones ot at least some degree of speaker association with the source of authority for why else would the speaker use MUST in the first place? The use of MUST to express noncpistemic necessity was mentioned above. However, there are contexts which have not yet been discussed in which MUST occurs and where there is no or little implication of human control; the sense conveyed is clearly paraphrasable by: ‘It is essential/necessary for (Dorian 1989).

To be healthy, a plant must receive a good supply of both sunshine and moisture.

Here MUST seems to refer to a necessary condition, ‘plants need sunshine and moisture in order to be healthy\ which .applies generally to the class of things referred to. The noun phrase ‘a plant’ is being used genetically, of course. The Survey reveals a number of similar examples, such as this one quoted in Palmer (1990:129)-

-Protoplasm, the living substance of all plants, contains nitrogen and the rose tree must absorb this nitrogen in the form of nitrates.

– In such contexts MUST affirms the intervention of natural not human laws, similar in force and meaning to the use of WILL in such contexts as:

Oil will float on water.

The use of MUST to refer to defining or necessary characteristics of the subject represents its dynamic use because the deotitic source does not in any way derive from the speaker or auv entity with which the speaker can be identified (see Palmer 1990: 113f),

An external authority is either advocating a certain form of behaviour or imposing some kind of obligation. Even though the source of authority remains unspecified, there is always the implication of human control; this helps distinguish the central deontic use of MUST from its other nonepistemic sense of necessity. Where the subject is T or We’ as in (109) and (107) the obligation appears to be self-imposed, Palmer (1990: 113) observes that ‘Generally speaking we do not lay obligations upon ourselves’ and argues that such uses of MUST with first person subjects should be treated rather in terms of ‘neutral’ or ‘dynamic' necessity Clearly, however, there is speaker involvement and the notion that the speaker can exercise authority over himself is consistent with the meaning of self-admonishment; the speaker is appealing to his own sense of duty or code of conduct. The force of Ins moral imperative is regularly captured by the co¬occurrence of REALLY as in the phrases form above (Engels 2012).

In their nonepistemic uses, SHOULD and OUGHT TO are mostly concerned with senses related to obligation and duty but they are weaker in force than MUST and there is frequently the implication that the recommended course of action will not actually be carried out. They should/ought to leave met her at the station.

This implies that they did not, whereas:

They must have met her at the station,

implies that they almost certainly did but now, of course, the modality has shifted into the cpistemic domain (Greenbaum 1969).

Occasionally, there seem to be cases of nonepistemic use which are difficult to treat in terms of deontic modality, although the suggestion of obligation is not altogether absent. Palmer (1990: 123) quotes these examples from the Survey and suggests that they are dynamic, but others might well disagree:

The common-sense argument for distinguishing between the epistemic uses of WILL and MUST is vague. It is true that, generally, WILL Is less epistemically marked for inference than MUST, and does have a ‘mattcr-of-fact’ quality about it, but sometimes collocation may elaborate the inferential dimension, regardless. Like CAN and COULD , WILL and WOULD are sometimes used where there is no implication of the speaker’s judgement (epistemic modality) or attitude (deontic modality); in other words, the modality concerned docs not refer to truth or likelihood, or social, ethical or moral constraints. This is once again the domain of dynamic modality, involving meanings to do with so-called pure futurity on the one hand, and volition and related senses on the other (Klein 1998).

3.2.2. Epistemic MUST

The modal verb must deserves a separate discussion since it can have an epis- temic or a deontic meaning. Of course, only the epistemic must is a marker of the Believing/Uncertain position, since it can be paraphrased as 1 believe that…:

Also the costumes must have a particular meaning.

The music must probably have a ritual or symbolic meaning.

Non-verbs (adjectives, adverbs, nouns, noun expressions) are grouped in one and the same category:

Adjectives like probabile, possibile, plausibile… / likely, possible, plausible…:

Divinatory or propitiatory purposes are plausible.

Adverbs like /, perhaps, presumably, maybe…:

– Probably the dance had a precise meaning.

-There were some specific words maybe Russian or maybe Indian.

-l saw a dance, presumably a popular dance.

The epistemk and decnlie modal verbs are shown in the Answer key. These are not, however, the only resources lor mating modal meanings, and you may have noticed the use of is essential, is possible, and is required in this text. The table below Indicates how some modal verbs correspond to some modal adjectives:

Semi-modal verbs do not share all these grammatical restrictions; for example, they may be combined with tnodais, as in you may haw, to write ct few apologias. But, like modal verbs, they also refer, not to facts, but to the speaker's attitude or stance towards what he or she says (Laenzlinger 1998). Modal and semimodal verbs have a range of meanings, which can be broadly grouped under two main headings:

Epistemlc modality concerns Lhe speaker’s assessment oi the validity of what they are saving. It involves logical meanings such as certainty., logical necessity, probability, and possibility:

We should see temperatures climbing to around 1.-1 degrees.

Deoirifc modal concerns the speaker's assessment of the desirability of art event or situation. It Involves meanings such as obligation, desirability, inclination, and permission.

Adverbial expressions involving epistemic MUST often reflect the confidence—inference axis. The adverb satellite may focus primarily on the inferential nature of the auxiliary, or the speakers degree of confidence, but ultimately both features blend and are reinforced:

-As prices go on rising and the value of money declines (as, it seems to me, must inevitably happen) .

In his typological survey of epistemic modality, two subsystems can be distinguished, one involving ‘Judgements’ (which is the only system we have discussed so far) and the other ‘Evidential:, In English, the speaker indicates the degree of his commitment to what he is saying in terms of possibility and necessity, and this involves making relatively weak or strong epistemic judgments, MIGHT/ MAY, and MUST are the formal co-ordinates of the epistemic system in English, But in some languages, speakers have other means of indicating that there is no guarantee to the truth of their statements; the epistemic system is formally based not on judgements but on evidential, where the type of evidence available to the speaker, be it visual, non-visual, hearsay and so forth, is actually encoded formally by the modal system. In his treatment of modality in English, Palmer (1990: 12) points out that the English epistemic system consists only of judgements. However, he goes on to argue that ‘epistemic MUST usually not merely makes a judgement, but also bases that judgement upon the evidence available, and to that extent is evidential’. The range of adverb collocates epistemic MUST attracts (Pfeffer 1984).

The evidential quality of these collocates also suggests that, in combination with MUST, the resulting expressions constitute an evidential subsystem which is a refinement of the modal’s epistemic potential, even though the nature of the evidence itself is not formally encoded. A factor is subjectification. For Langacker this is a crucial ingredient in the semantic make-up of the present-day modal auxiliaries of English; it is this subjectification that turns them into ‘grounding predications. Although a detailed account of how must develops into a subjectified item is outside the scope of this paper, I would like to confirm the basic correctness of the claim that subjectification played a part in the rise of epistemic musk More particularly, it can be argued that it is subjectification in the deontic area which paved the way for epistemic must, which, as we have defined the category, is necessarily subjectified (it reflects the speaker's subjective inference). The rise of epistemic must took place against the background of a gradual meaning development of must from a general necessity sense to the expression of inferable necessity, which amounts to an objective, non-defeasible inference. Early instances which are transitional to epistemic must still show elements of an objective inference. On the other hand, another type of transition is found in instances where a deontic and an inferential interpretation are possible simultaneously. In those cases, however, must is prospective and parapharasable by present-day English will, rather than must. Although they must have contributed to the rise of epistemic must .

An initial analysis of the deontic/necessity uses in our data revealed that, although speaker-backed deontic uses are already firmly established in the ME samples, it is not until we reach that those subjectified deontic instances begin to outnumber the non-subjectified ones in this category, and that in EMOE3, where the first clear instances of epistemic must occur, the ratio is roughly 75% (for the speaker-backed deontic uses) as opposed to 25% (for the ‘not-speaker-backed’ deontic/necessity instances). There is no doubt, it seems to me, that the increase and, finally, the predominance of subjectified uses in the deomic area, made the rise of an essentially subjectified epistemic/ inferential must possible (Prado-Alonso 2011).

3.2 MÜSSEN in German

According to its name, an adverbial sentence is an adverbial determination in the form of a (minor) sentence. By definition, since an adverbial clause is a clause, it would result that an adverbial clause would have to be a clause, that is, a subordinate clause that forms part of its corresponding main clause. In practice, however, this strict sense of designation is sometimes deviated from, and some types of sentences are traditionally counted among the adverbial sentences that are syntactically not phrases, and thus were not adverbials (this applies above all consecutive sentences). This problem occurs because subordinate clauses may differ in how they are connected to the main clause. In particular, there is also the type of secondary clause, that is to say a subordinate clause which follows the main clause only in a relatively loose connection; this appearance has no equivalent in other types of adverbials (Prado-Alonso, Pastor-Gómez and Gómez-García 2011). In the deutsch grammar a narrower version of the term is used, which restricts the term adverbial clause to limb sentences. Additionally, a broader set of ratios is defined there, summarizing adverbial sentences (in this narrow sense) and related subordinate clauses resembling them. In other grammars, however, the term ratio set is used as synonymous with adverbial sentence (Hummel and James 1986).

The adverb category may have a particular proximity to the adjective category. In many languages, adverbs can be derived from special adjective endings (eg English beautiful – beautifully). In German, on the other hand, there are very few clear cases of adverbs that are derived from a word formation rule (but, for example, wisely – wisely). For non-derived words, adverbs are usually juxtaposed with the adjectives as adverbial expressions. In German also a few adverbs can be increased.Adverb (from lat. Adverbium, plural: adverbs), German also maternity word or (now rare) secondary word, in the grammar of many languages ​​is a part of speech, which typically has a fixed form, that is not is inflexible, and whose main function is that of an adverbial determination, d. h. to give details of events or to express statements. However, adverbs also occur in other functions, namely as a companion of adjectives, in a predicative function, or in special cases (in German and English) even as an attribute. In traditional grammar, it is often tried to determine the part of speech adverb by specifying content-related functions, for example, that they are words that specify "place, time, modality (here: = manner), reason. These functions are the same as those found in prepositions and subordinate clauses or subordinate conjunctions, all of which are indicative of adverbial determinations. In this overlapping of contents, the adverbs' characteristic remains that they are words which, in contrast to prepositions and subordinate conjunctions, do not require any grammatical additions. The result is a definition of the adverb as "adverbial single word".(Traupman and Traupman 1997).

In more recent representations of German grammar, a syntactic determination is preferred: adverbs could be characterized as (1) inflexible part of speech, whose representatives (2) can form a single phrasing on their own. In contrast to a traditional definition of the adverb as an "adverbial single word" and in contrast to the literal meaning of the term "ad verb", inflexible words that appear to be nouns are also called adverbs. They still differ from adjectives in that they appear unfixed according to the noun: in German, the adverbs with over 1000 members form a relatively large, open class. Since the determination of adverbs is predominantly negative (not inflexible, not attributively usable), this may result in an inconsistent residual class that is not easy and exhaustive to classify. Often, cross classifications encounter alternating content and grammatical criteria. meaning classes (Durrell, Kohl and Loftus 2011)

The substantive meaning classes of adverbs are the same as those that can generally be given for adverbial determinations.

• Local adverbs (here, outside, right, there) denote places.

• Temporal adverbs (also: time adverbs) (then, after, later, tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, yesterday) indicate the time to which a fact applies.

• Causal adverbs (namely, otherwise, therefore,) indicate causes of a fact, or act at the level of the text, in order to signal reasoning relationships between sentences (see also: conjunctive adverb). The concessive adverbs have similar meanings as well, nonetheless.

• Modal adverbs (quick, like) denote the manner of a process (not the modality), or related categories. (Many adverbials of the way, however, are adjectives).

• Speaker-oriented adverbs (also: comment adverbs, sentence adverbs, modal words) (probably, unfortunately, frankly) designate the speaker's attitudes to the sentence content expressed.

Syntactic classes

In general, adverbials can be classified according to their position in the sentence, i. H. especially after how close to the verb they are. Two extreme cases can be distinguished:

• adverbials that must be closer to the verb than all kinds of direct objects; They often refer to the results of an action: "She has beautifully painted the cabinet." – For this type, there may only be words in the adjective category.

• adverbials that must be on the outer edge of the sentence, especially outside the negative; this applies z. For example, for spokesman-related adverbs ("likely, unfortunately") or for place and time adverbs when they provide a framework for the entire message (see "… because nothing has happened since then").

• Other position classes can be identified between these two in the midfield of the German sentence. In a different classification one can adverbs different. (Foster, Christensen and Fox 2012)

The adverb is called in German also Umstandswort. An adverb is a word that makes a more precise statement about properties or events. Adverbs are not inflectible, so they do not change their form.

CHAPTER 4. CONSLUSIONS

In German, a group of modal Verbs emerges at roughly the same time – namely during the transition from Old High German to Middle High German. These modal verbs are mostly made up of former preterite- presents that started expressing modal meanings. Out of the Old High German prole rite-presents wizzun, heigCtn, unnan, kunnan, lhurjun,giturran, sculan, mugan, muozzan and ganah and the modal verb wellen, only mugen, soln, muezen, kunnen, durfen and wellen are used as modal verbs in Middle High German.1 All six verbs share the same characteristics: They express modal meanings, exhibit a special inflection that distinguishes them from other verbs2 and combine with infinitives instead of zu-infinitives. Modal verbs modify the main verb in the sentence. It could be composed throught a plain old verb or phrase like eat, sleep, walk, plant a garden, play tennis, learn how to play chess, or do nothing. Then you think about your atti-tude toward these activities, and you decide you want to say I like to eat, I must sleep more, I would like to walk every day, I should plant a garden, f can play tennis well, / want to learn how to play chess, or / may do nothing. The underlined modal verbs offer you a wide range of ways to express your attitude toward actions such as eat, sleep, play, and learn.The finite auxiliary forms of be/sein, verden and have/haben (plus English do) can invert in both languages, as can the modals can/konnen, must/miissen, etc. The real contrast involves the finite forms of non-auxiliary and non-mod al verbs, whose inversion in English is extremely limited, to just two rules with highly reduced and idiosyncratic triggers: Subject-Simple Verb Inversion and Inversion after Locative Phrase Preposing, As a result, the highly productive X – V – Subj … structure of Germain (where V comprises all non¬auxiliary and non-modal verbs, c,g. gestern salt derjunge den Film ‘yesterday saw the boy the film:) is essentially limited in English to verbs which can take directional or locative verbs, and to reported speech verbs; whereas the X – Aux – Subj – V structure of English (never have I seen such a thing) comprises the identical set of auxiliary and modal verbs that one finds in German verb-second structures, phis the supporting auxiliary do winch surfaces in inversion structures precisely when a non-auxiliary verb would otherwise have to invert, under no circumstances sees my boy this no circumstances docs my bay see this film (Klein 1998). In effect, the class of auxiliaries and modals which can invert in English has not only not been reduced, it has been expanded, whereas the class of inverting non-auxiliary and non-modal verbs.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abraham, Werner, and Elisabeth Leiss. Covert Patterns Of Modality. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Pub., 2012. Print.

Larisa Avram, Perfectivity might not scope over modality, disponibil la http://www.diacronia.ro/ro/indexing/details/A9876/pdf.

Achani-Talafheh, Fatima, and Clotilde Castagné-Véziès. Modal Auxiliaries In English Statutes. London: Routledge, 2005. Print.

Ileana Baciu , The Functional categories of the Verb- Spring Term 2011.

Bachmair, John James, and Jacob Meyer. A Complete German Grammar. Philadelphia: Johnson & Warner, Kimber & Conrad, 1811. Print.

Blom, Elma, and Sharon Unsworth. Experimental Methods In Language Acquisition Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub. Co., 2010. Print.

Collins, Peter. Modals And Quasi-Modals In English. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2009. Print.

Dodd, Bil. Modern German Grammar. London: Taylor & Francis Books Ltd, 2003. Print.

Donaldson, Bruce. German: An Essential Grammar. Taylor and Francis, 2016. Print.

Hansen, Björn, and Ferdinand de Haan. Modals In The Languages Of Europe. Berlin [u.a.]: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009. Print.

Herrmann, Annika. Modal And Focus Particles In Sign Languages. Berlin: Routledge, 2012. Print.

House, Juliane. Translation Quality Assessment. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2015. Print.

Johannesson, Nils-Lennart. The English Modal Auxiliaries. Stockholm: Almqvist och Wiksell, 1976. Print.

Korb, Richard Alan, and Hubert Jannach. Jannach's German For Reading Knowledge. Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.

Leech, Geoffrey. Meaning And The English Verb. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2014. Print.

Leiss, Elisabeth, and Werner Abraham. Modality-Aspect Interfaces: Implications And Typological Solutions (Typological Studies In Language, 0167-7373 ; V. 79). John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2008. Print.

Martin, Richard Milton. Mind, Modality, Meaning, And Method. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983. Print.

Nau, Nicole. Möglichkeiten Und Mechanismen Kontaktbewegten Sprachwandels Unter Besonderer Berücksichtigung Des Finnischen. München: Lincom Europa, 1995. Print.

Nordström, Jackie. Modality And Subordinators. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2010. Print.

Sabir, Paiman Hama Salih. Syntactic And Semantic Mastery Of English Auxiliaries By Kurd Learners At College Level. Berlin: Elsevier, 2012. Print.

Skwire, David, and Harvey S Wiener. Student's Book Of College English. New York: Pearson Education, 2007. Print.

VanPatten, Bill, and Jill Jegerski. Research Methods In Second Language Psycholinguistics. London: Routledge, 2017. Print.

Barbiers, Sjef, Frits Beukema, and Wim van der Wurff. Modality And Its Interaction With The Verbal System. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2002. Print.

Dittmar, Norbert, and Astrid Reich. Modality In Language Acquisition. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1993. Print.

Gergel, Remus. Modality And Ellipsis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009. Print.

Palmer, F. R. Mood And Modality. London: Taylor & Francis, 2016. Print.

Alagbe, AA. "The English Primary Auxiliary Verbs: A Linguistic Theoretical Exercise." African Research Review 3.2 (2009):

Allen, Harold B. Readings In Applied English Linguistics. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1964. Print.

Batko, Ann. When Bad Grammar Happens To Good People. Franklin Lakes, NJ: Career Press, 2004. Print.

Beedham, Christopher. "Investigating grammar through lexical exceptions: tense and irregular verbs in english, german and russian." Journal of Literary Semantics 18.3 (1989):

Blackstone, William, and Thomas McIntyre Cooley. Commentaries On The Laws Of England. Clark, N.J.: Lawbook Exchange, 2003. Print.

Chavez, Monika. "German Grammar In The Students' Words: The Essentialization Of German Grammar By American College-Level Learners." Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 44.2 (2011): 83-97.

Chomsky, Noam et al. Of Minds And Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print.

Chomsky, Noam. Syntactic Structures. Mansfield Centre, Conn.: Martino, 2015. Print.

Copley, Bridget. The Semantics Of The Future. New York: Routledge, 2011. Print.

Dehé, Nicole. Particle Verbs In English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub., 2002. Print.

Finegan, Edward. Attitudes Toward English Usage. New York, NY [u.a.]: Teachers College Press, 1987. Print.

Honegger, Mark. "Book Review: Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, And Adjectives." Journal of English Linguistics 33.4 (2005): 374-381.

Kakzhanova, Fazira A. "What Modals Are: Modal Verbs, Modal Words, And Auxiliary Modals." European Researcher 61.10-2 (2013): 2530-2535.

Lambert, Deborah G. Verbs. New York: Weigl Publishers, 2010. Print.

M'Cartney, William. An Illustration Of A Design For Teaching The English Language, In Three Parts: I. The Grammar, Idioms, And Other Peculiarities. II. Readiness In The Command Of A Pure Extemporary Phraseology. III. Ease And Accuracy In The Practice Of Writing. By William M'cartney. Edinburgh: Printed for T. Duncan, 2008. Print.

Moruzi, Lucreţia. Modal Verbs. Iaşi: Performantica, 2005. Print.

Muslim Mohd Jalis, Farhana, and Normaliza Abd Rahim. "Contrastive Analysis Of German And Malay Modal Verbs." Asian Social Science 10.6 (2014)

Ryan, Ann, and Alison Wray. Evolving Models Of Language. Clevedon, England: British Association for Applied Linguistics in association with Multilingual Matters, 1997. Print.

Teschner, Richard V, and Eston Earl Evans. Analyzing The Grammar Of English. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2007. Print.

Wu, Hui. "A Study Of Two Functions Of Modal Auxiliary Verbs In English, With Special Reference To Can, May And Must." English Language Teaching 1.2 (2008):

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/have-got-to-and-have-to

http://www.hausarbeiten.de/faecher/vorschau/40716.html

http://www.grin.com/en/e-book/40716/the-modal-verb-must

References

Amery, Heather, Colin King, and Sonja Osthecker. 1982. The Word Detective In German. London: Usborne.

Barkow, Henriette, Diana Mayo, and Nick Barkow. 2002. German & English. London: Mantra.

De Vries, Louis, and Theo M Herrmann. 1972. English – German Technical And Engineering Dictionary. New York…[etc.]: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Dorian, Angelo Francis. 1989. English – German. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Durrell, Martin, Katrin Kohl, and Gudrun Loftus. 2011. Practicing German Grammar. London: Hodder Education.

Engels, Eva. 2012. Optimizing Adverb Positions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Foster, Wendy, Paulina Christensen, and Anne Fox. 2012. German Essentials For Dummies. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley Publishing.

Greenbaum, Sidney. 1969. Studies In English Adverbial Usage. London: Longmans.

Hummel, Robert D., and Charles J. James. 1986. "German Verbs And Essentials Of Grammar". Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German 19 (2): 279. doi:10.2307/3530731.

Klein, Henny. 1998. Adverbs Of Degree In Dutch. Amsterdam [u.a.]: Benjamins.

Laenzlinger, Christopher. 1998. Comparative Studies In Word Order Variation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co.

Pfeffer, J. Alan. 1984. Studies In Descriptive German Grammar. Heidelberg: Groos.

Prado-Alonso, Carlos, Iria Pastor-Gómez, and Lidia Gómez-García. 2011. New Trends And Methodologies In Applied English Language Research. Bern: Peter Lang AG, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften.

Prado-Alonso, Carlos. 2011. Full-Verb Inversion In Written And Spoken English. Bern: Peter Lang.

Traupman, John C, and John C Traupman. 1997. The New International Webster's German & English Dictionary. [Naples, FL]: Trident Press International.