Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:25:26.147Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is should a weaker must?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Claude Rivière
Claude Rivière
Affiliation:
D.R.L. and Institut d'Anglais Charles V, Université de Paris VII
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The modal auxiliary should, when it is used to express ‘probability’, is generally considered as a weaker equivalent of must (see for instance Leech & Svartvik, 1975: 131 and Hornby, 1962: 223). Although this informal assumption contains a fair degree of truth, this paper will show first, that it requires qualification and secondly, that it gains strength once it has been qualified. In other words, there is more truth in the assumption than is suspected by its casual users.

The method I will use is to consider the compatibilities between must and should and their environment. Though the relevant kind of environment cannot be defined in a purely syntactic way, it can be accurately specified in simple semantic terms, many of which have syntactic correlates. Verbal contexts are generally available but situational contexts will occasionally have to be used. It will then appear that the diversity of situational contexts can be reduced to very few elementary relations.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , September 1981 , pp. 179 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Close, R. A. (1975). A reference grammar for students of English. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Gauthier, A. (1977). ‘La forine progressive’. Bulletin pédagogique des I. U. T. 49. 35–56.Google Scholar
Hornby, A. S. (1962). A guide to patterns and usage in English. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1971). Meaning and the English verb. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. & Svartvik, J. (1975). A communicative grammar of English. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1965). A linguistic study of the English verb. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar