UNIT 9
DESCRIPTIVE GRAMMAR
Modal auxiliaries and related verbs /1-43:
General characteristics of modal auxiliaries
Uses of modals to express ability
Uses of modals to express permission and prohibition
Uses of modals to express certainty and possibility
Uses of modals to express deduction
Uses of modals for offers, requests, suggestions
Expressing wishes with 'wish', 'if only', etc.
General characteristics of modal verbs
- Which verbs are modal auxiliaries and what do they do?
Verbs like can and may are called modal auxiliaries, though we often refer
to them simply as modal verbs or modals. We frequently use modals when we
are concerned with our relationship with someone else. We may, for example,
ask for permission to do something; grant permission to someone; give or receive
advice; make or respond to requests and offers, etc. We can express different
levels of politeness both by the forms we choose and the way we say things.
The bluntest command (You must see a doctor), with a certain kind of stress,
might be more kindly and persuasive than the most complicated utterance (I
think it might possibly be advisable for you to see a doctor).
Modals sharing the same grammatical characteristics are:
can - could
may - might
will - would
shall - should
must - -
ought to - -
Verbs which share some of the grammatical characteristics of modals are: need,
dare, used to .
By comparison, need to and dare to are full verbs.
Modals have two major functions which can be defined as primary and secondary.
- Primary function of modal verbs
In their primary function, modal verbs closely reflect the meanings often
given first in most dictionaries, so that:
- can/could relate mainly to ability: I can lift 25 kg/I can type.
- may/might relate mainly to permission: You may leave early.
- will/would relate mainly to prediction : It will rain soon.
- shall after I/We relates mainly to prediction: Can we find our way home?
- I'm sure we shall.
- should/ought to relate mainly to escapable obligation or duty: You should
do (or ought to do) as you're told.
- must relates mainly to inescapable obligation: You must be quiet.
- needn't relates to absence of obligation: You needn't wait.
- Secondary function of modal verbs
In their secondary function, nine of the modal auxiliaries (not shall) can
be used to express the degree of certainty/uncertainty a speaker feels about
a possibility. They can be arranged on a scale from the greatest uncertainty
(might) to the greatest certainty (must). The order of modals between might
and must is not fixed absolutely. It varies according to situation. For example,
one arrangement might be:
< might > very uncertain
< may >
< could > |
< canY > |
You < should > be right. |
< ought to > have been right. |
< would > V
< will >
< must > almost certain
You are right. certain
Can requires qualification to be used in this way :
He can hardly be right.
Do you think he can be right?
I don't think he can be right.
- Primary and secondary functions of 'must' compared
This example of must shows that it is 'defective':
- In its primary function it requires another full verb (have to) to
make up its 'missing parts'. (In the same way can, for example, in its
primary function requires the full verb be able to to make up its missing
parts.)
- In its secondary function must has only two basic forms: a form which
relates to the present and a form which relates to the perfect or past
primary (inescapable obligation) secondary (certainty)
infinitive: to have to leave -
-ing form: having to leave -
present They must leave. They must be right.
future: They must leave tomorrow. -
perfect: They have had to leave. >
past: They had to leave. > They must have been right.
past perfect: They had had to leave. >
future perfect: They will have had to leave. -
'conditional': They would have had to leave. -
- Some ways in which modals resemble 'be', 'have', 'do'
Structurally, modal auxiliaries resemble the auxiliaries be, have and do in
some ways and differ completely from them in others.
- The negative
The negative is formed (as it is for be, have and do) by the addition
of not after the modal. In informal spoken English not is often reduced
to the unemphatic n't:
be (is) not (is)n't
have (have) not (have)n't
do (do) not (do)n't
can cannot can't
could could not couldn't
may may not mayn't
might might not mightn't
will will not won't
would would not wouldn't
shall shall not shan't
should should not shouldn't
must must not mustn't
ought to ought not to oughtn't to
need need not needn't
dare dare not daren't
The full form cannot is written as one word.
Mayn't is rare, but does occur. For used not and usedn't .
- Questions
Yes/No questions are formed as for be, have and do. We begin with the
modal, followed by the subject and then the predicate:
May we leave early?
In question-word questions, the question-word precedes the modal:
When may we leave?
With Yes/No questions, the modal used in the answer is normally the same
as the one used in the question :
Can you come and see me tomorrow? - Yes, I can./No, I can't.
Modals also behave like be, have and do in tag questions :
You can do it, can't you?
- Negative questions
As with be, have and do, the full form of negative questions with modals
requires not after the subject (Can you not help me?). This is formal
and rare. Contracted forms are normally used:
Can't you help me?
Shouldn't (you)_? is usually preferred to Oughtn't (you) to_? perhaps
because the latter is more difficult to pronounce.
Negative questions with Used? on the above patterns are rare .
- Some ways in which modals differ from 'be', 'have', 'do'
- 'Defective verbs'
Modals are sometimes called defective verbs because they lack forms ordinary
full verbs have . For example:
- Modals cannot be used as infinitives (compare to be, to have, to
do). If ever we need an infinitive, we have to use another verb: If
you want to apply for this job, you have to be able to type at least
60 words a minute. (Not *to* before can or can alone)
- We do not use a to-infinitive after modals (compare be to, have
to). Only the bare infinitive can be used after modals (except ought,
which is always followed by to):
You must/mustn't phone him this evening. (Not *to phone*)
- Modals have no -ing form (compare being, having, doing). Instead
of -ing, we have to use another verb or verb-phrase:
I couldn't go/I wasn't able to go home by bus, so I took a taxi.
(= Not being able to go_)
- Modals have no -(e)s in the 3rd person singular (compare is, has,
does):
The boss can see you now. (No -s on the end of can)
- Each modal has a basic meaning of its own. By comparison, as auxiliaries,
be/have/do have only a grammatical function .
- Contracted forms
Unlike be and have (but not do), modals in the affirmative do not have
contracted forms, except for will and would . In speech, can, could and
shall are 'contracted' by means of unemphatic pronunciation:
I, (etc.) can , I, (etc.) could , I/We shall
- One modal at a time
Only one modal can be used in a single verb phrase:
We may call the doctor. >
> but not may and must together.
We must call the doctor. >
If we wish to combine the two ideas in the above sentences, we have to
find a suitable paraphrase:
It may be necessary (for us) to call a doctor.
By comparison, we can use e.g. be and have together:
It has been necessary to call a doctor.
- Form of modal auxiliaries compared with future tenses
Each of the modals fits into four patterns for future tense forms:
I will see simple future
I will be seeing future progressive
I will have seen future perfect simple
I will have been seeing future perfect progressive
active passive
modal + (bare infinitive): I may see I may be seen
modal + be + present participle: I may be seeing -
modal + have + past participle: I may have seen I may have been seen
modal + have been + present participle: I may have been seeing -
#9
- Forms and uses of modals compared with verb tenses
The labels we use to describe the verb tenses (e.g. present, progressive,
past, perfect) cannot easily be applied to modals.
- 'Present'
All modals can refer to the immediate present or the future, therefore
'present' is not always a reliable label:
I can/may (etc.) phone now. I can/may (etc.) phone tomorrow.
- 'Progressive'
There is no progressive form for modals.But we can put the verb that follows
a modal into the progressive form:
Meg is phoning her fianc_. (present progressive)
Meg may be phoning her fianc_. (modal + be + verb-ing)
Meg may have been phoning her fianc_. (modal + have been + -ing)
It is the phoning that is or was in progress, not 'may'.
- 'Past'
Would, could, might and should can be said to be past in form, but this
usually has little to do with their use and meaning. They can be called
'past' when used in indirect speech :
He says you can/will/may leave early. (present)
He said you could/would/might leave early. (past)
Might can have a past reference in historical narrative:
In the 14th century a peasant might have the right to graze
pigs on common land.
However, might usually expresses more uncertainty than may:
I might see you tomorrow.
is less certain than:
I may see you tomorrow.
Could sometimes expresses ability in the past :
He could (or was able to) swim five miles when he was a boy.
but could is not possible in:
I managed to/was able to finish the job yesterday.
However, couldn't and wasn't able to are usually interchangeable:
I couldn't/wasn't able to finish the job yesterday.
The other main use of could, as a more polite alternative to can in requests,
has nothing to do with time:
Could you help me please?
Would expresses the past in :
When we were young we would spend our holidays in Brighton.
Otherwise, would and should have special uses
Must can express past time only in indirect speech ; otherwise it has
to be replaced by have to, etc. :
He told us we must wait (or we had to wait) until we were called.
She asked her boss if she must work (or had to work) overtime.
- 'Perfect' and 'past'
Forms with modal + have + past participle or with modal + have been +
progressive are not necessarily the equivalent of the present perfect.
The modal refers to the present, while have + past participle refers to
the past. So, depending on context,
You must have seen him can mean:
I assume (now) you have seen him. (i.e. before now; equivalent to the
present perfect)
I assume (now) you saw him. (i.e. then; equivalent to the past)
I assume (now) you had seen him. (i.e. before then; equivalent to the
past perfect)
- Modal + verb and modal + 'be/have been' + progressive
Two observations need to be made here:
- Modal + be/have been + progressive is not always possible in the primary
function. For example:
He can't leave yet. (= it's not possible for him to leave yet) is quite
different from the secondary function:
He can't be leaving yet. (= I don't think he is)
But compare the primary and secondary functions of must in:
primary: You must be working when the inspector comes in.
(i.e. it is necessary (for you) to be working.)
secondary: You must be joking!
(i.e. I'm almost certain you are joking.)
- Occasionally, in the primary function, a modal + be + progressive has
a 'softening effect' similar to the use of the future progressive . So:
We must/may/should (etc.) be leaving soon.
is more polite and tentative than:
We must/may/should (etc.) leave soon.
Uses of modals, etc. to express ability
- Form of modals and related verbs expressing ability
can/could
Can/could express ability, which may be natural or learned:
present reference I/You/He (etc.) can/can't hear music.
past or perfect reference I/You/He (etc.) could/couldn't play chess.
I/You/He (etc.) could have/couldn't have danced all night.
future reference None. We use will be able to .
Verbs and verb phrases related in meaning to can (ability):
be (un)able to: I am (not) able/I am unable to attend the meeting.
be (in)capable of: He is (not) capable/He is incapable of doing the job.
manage to: We managed/didn't manage to persuade him to accept.
succeed in: They'll succeed/won't succeed in getting what they want.
#9
- 'Can' = ability: the present
- 'Can' + verb (natural ability)
Natural ability can be expressed as follows:
Can you run 1500 metres in 5 minutes?
(= Are you able to run? Are you capable of running?)
I can/cannot/can't run 1500 metres in 5 minutes.
Can and am/is/are able to are generally interchangeable to describe natural
ability, though able to is less common:
Billy is only 9 months old and he can already stand up.
Billy is only 9 months old and he is already able to stand up.
However, am/is/are able to would be unusual when we are commenting on
something that is happening at the time of speaking:
Look! I can stand on my hands!
- 'Can' + verb (learned ability or 'know-how')
Learned ability can be expressed as follows:
Can you drive a car?
(= Do you know how to? Have you learnt how to?)
I can/cannot/can't drive a car.
Verbs such as drive, play, speak, understand indicate skills or learned
abilities. Can, and to a lesser extent, am/is/are able to, often combine
with such verbs and may generally be used in the same way as the simple
present tense:
I can/can't play chess. (= I play/don't play chess.)
- 'Could/couldn't' = ability: the past
- Past ability (natural and learned) expressed with 'could'
Could, couldn't or was/were (not) able to can describe natural and learned
ability in the past, not related to any specific event:
Jim could/couldn't run very fast when he was a boy.
Barbara could/couldn't sing very well when she was younger.
Jim was able to/was unable to run fast when he was a boy.
We also often use used to be able to to describe past abilities:
I used to be able to hold my breath for one minute under water.
Could and was (or would be) able to occur after reporting verbs:
He said he could see me next week.
For 'unreal past' could (= was/were able to) after if .
- The past: 'could' + verb: achievement after effort
Could and was/were able to can be interchangeable when we refer to the
acquisition of a skill after effort:
I tried again and found I could swim/was able to swim.
- Specific achievement in the past
Could cannot normally be used when we are describing the successful completion
of a specific action; was/were able to, managed to or succeeded in + -ing
must be used instead:
< were able to rescue >
In the end they < managed to rescue > the cat on the roof.
< succeeded in rescuing >
If an action was not successfully completed, we may use couldn't;
They tried for hours, but they couldn't rescue the cat.
(or weren't able to, didn't manage to, etc.)
Could can be used when we are asking about a specific action (as opposed
to describing it):
Could they rescue the cat on the roof? (= did they manage to?)
- No, they couldn't. It was too difficult.
However, an affirmative response requires an alternative to could:
- Yes, they managed to. (Not *could*)
- 'Can/could' + verbs of perception
Verbs of perception , like see, hear, smell, rarely occur in the progressive.
Can, and to a lesser extent, am/is/are able to, combine with such verbs to
indicate that we can see, hear, etc. something happening at the moment of
speaking. In such cases can has a grammatical function equivalent to the simple
present in statements and to do/does in questions and negatives:
I can smell something burning. (= I smell something burning.)
I can't see anyone. (= I don't see anyone.)
Could can be used in place of the simple past in the same way:
I listened carefully, but couldn't hear anything.
(= I listened carefully, but didn't hear anything.)
Can/could can be used with verbs suggesting 'understanding':
I can/can't understand why he decided to retire at 50.
I could/couldn't understand why he had decided to retire at 50.
Can't/couldn't cannot be replaced by the simple present or simple past when
conveying the idea 'beyond (my) control' (impossible):
I can't (couldn't) imagine what it would be like to live in a hot climate.
(Not *I don't/I didn't imagine*)
- 'Could' and 'would be able to'
We can use could as an 'unreal past' in the sense of 'would be able to'. When
we do this, an if-clause is sometimes implied:
I'm sure you could get into university (if you applied).
Could + never has the sense of 'would never be able to':
I could never put up with such inefficiency if I were running an office. (i.e.
I would never be able to)
Could is often used to express surprise, anger, etc. in the present:
I could eat my hat! I could slap your face!
- 'Could have' and 'would have been able to'
We do not use can/can't have + past participle to express ability or capacity.
We use them for possibility or conjecture (He can't have told you anything
I don't already know)
However, in conditional sentences and implied conditionals we may use could
have + past participle (in place of would have been able to) to refer to ability
or capacity that was not used owing to personal failure or lack of opportunity
:
If it hadn't been for the freezing wind and blinding snow, the rescue party
could have reached the injured man before nightfall.
For could have (= had been able to) in conditions .
- Ability in tenses other than present and past
If we need to express ability in other tense combinations (e.g. the future
or the present perfect), then the appropriate forms of be able to, manage
to or succeed in must be used:
I'll be able to pass my driving test after I've had a few lessons.
I've been trying to contact him, but I haven't managed to.
Can, referring to ability, skill, or perception, is usable in clauses after
if and when to refer to the future:
If you can pass (or are able to pass) your driving test at the first attempt,
I'll be very surprised.
- Expressing ability with 'can' and 'could' in the passive
Passive constructions with can and could, indicating ability, are possible
where the sense allows:
This car can only be driven by a midget.
The lecture couldn't be understood by anyone present.
The injured men could have been reached if heavy equipment had been available
during the rescue operation.
- 'Can/could' = capability/possibility
Can + be + adjective or noun has the effect of 'is sometimes' or 'is often'
and refers to capability or possibility. It can be replaced by be capable
of + -ing, but not by am/is/are able to:
It can be quite cold in Cairo in January.
(= it is sometimes - or often - quite cold.)
He can be very naughty. (or 'a very naughty boy')
(When used for people, the effect is generally negative, even when the adjective
is favourable: She can look quite attractive when she wants to - which implies
she doesn't usually look attractive.)
Could has the same effect in the past:
It could be quite cold in Cairo in January when I lived there.
(= It was sometimes - or often - quite cold.)
He could be very naughty when he was a little boy.
Could can also have a future reference in this kind of context:
It could be quite cold when you get to Cairo.
Uses of modals, etc. to express permission and prohibition
- Form of modals and related verbs: permission/prohibition
can/could/may/might :
Can I stay out late? > You (etc.) can/can't/mustn't stay out late.
Could I stay out late? >
May I stay out late? > You (etc.) may/may not/mayn't/mustn't stay out late.
Might I stay out late? >
can/could (= be free to)
present or future reference
I can see him now/tomorrow.
I could see him now/tomorrow.
Verbs and verb phrases related in meaning to can/could/may/might/mustn't.
(not) be allowed to: You're (not) allowed to stay out late.
(not) be permitted to: You're (not) permitted to stay out late.
be forbidden to: You're forbidden to stay out late.
be prohibited: Smoking is (strictly) prohibited.
be not to: You're not to smoke.
negative imperative: Don't smoke!
- Asking for permission/responding: 'can/could/may/might'
Requests for permission can be graded on a 'hesitancy scale', ranging from
a blunt request to an extremely hesitant one. Requests for permission can
refer to the present or future. The basic forms are:
Can >
Could > I borrow your umbrella (please)?
May >
Might >
- Can is the commonest and most informal:
Can I borrow your umbrella (please)?
A few (old-fashioned) native speakers still hold that can is the equivalent
of am/is/are able to and therefore may must be used instead. The idea
of e.g. asking for a favour is less strong in can than in could/may/might.
- Could is more 'hesitant' and polite than can. We often use it when
we are not sure permission will be granted:
Could I borrow your umbrella (please)?
- May is more formal, polite and 'respectful' than can and could:
May I borrow your umbrella (please)?
- Might is the most hesitant, polite and 'respectful' and is rather less
common than the other three:
Might I borrow your umbrella (please)?
In practice, can, could and may are often interchangeable in 'neutral' requests.
Common responses with modals are: e.g.
- affirmative: Of course you can/may. (Not *could*/*might*)
- negative: No, you can't/may not. Not *could not*/*might not*)
Numerous non-modal responses are possible ranging from the polite Of course
(affirmative), I'm afraid not, I'd rather you didn't (negative), to blunt
refusal like Certainly not. A polite refusal is usually accompanied by some
kind of explanation (I'm afraid you can't because_).
Permission to ask an indiscreet question may be requested with the formulas
if I may ask and (more tentative) if I might ask:
How much did you pay for this house if I may/might ask?
- Asking for permission with 'can't' and 'couldn't'
Can't and couldn't are often used in place of can and could when we are pressing
for an affirmative answer:
Can't >
> I stay out till midnight (please)?
Couldn't >
May I not_? is old-fashioned.
Mayn't I_? is unlikely.
Might I not_? is rare, but all these forms occur in formal style.
- Very polite requests: 'can/could/may/might'
There are numerous variations on straightforward request forms to express
degrees of politeness. Possibly is commonly added to make requests more polite.
Requests may be hesitant:
Can/Could I (possibly) >
Do you think I could/might > use your phone?
I wonder if I could/might >
Or they may be over-cautious or obsequious:
Might I (possibly) be allowed to_?
- Granting and refusing permission
Permission can be granted or refused as follows:
< can (not) > (not *could*)
You < > watch TV for as long as you like.
< may (not) > (not *might*)
You may/may not carries the authority of the speaker and is the equivalent
of 'I (personally) give you permission'. You can/cannot is more general and
does not necessarily imply personal permission. Permission issuing from some
other authority can be granted or withheld more emphatically with be allowed
to, be permitted to, and be forbidden to, as follows:
You can/cannot > or You're allowed to/not allowed to >
You can/cannot > or You're permitted to/not permitted to > smoke here.
You mustn't > or You're forbidden to >
Granting/refusing permission is not confined to 1st and 2nd persons:
< can/can't >
Johnny/Frankie < > stay up late.
< may/may not/mustn't >
This can be extended to:
- rule-making e.g. for games: Each player may choose five cards.
- other contexts: Candidates may not attempt more than three questions.
Permission may also be given by a speaker with shall in the 2nd and 3rd persons
(formal and literary):
You shall do as you please. (i.e. You have my permission to.)
He shall do as he pleases. (i.e. He has my permission to.)
Permission may also be denied with shan't in BrE only
If you don't behave yourself, you shan't go out/be allowed out.
If he doesn't behave himself, he shan't go out/be allowed out.
Numerous alternative forms are available to express anything from mild refusal
(I'd rather you didn't if you don't mind) to strong prohibition (I forbid
you to_). Formal and strong statements with non-modal forms are often found
in public notices :
Thank you for not smoking. (i.e. please don't)
Passengers are requested to remain seated till the aircraft stops.
Trespassing is strictly forbidden.
- Permission/prohibition in other tenses
The gaps in the 'defective' verbs may and must can be filled with the verb
phrases be allowed to and the more formal be permitted to. Examples of other
tenses:
present perfect: Mrs James is in hospital and hasn't been allowed
to have any visitors.
past: We were allowed to stay up till 11 last night.
Could can only express past 'permission in general' :
When we were children we could watch (or were allowed to watch) TV whenever
we wanted to.
- Conditional sentences with 'could' and 'could have'
Could may imply 'would be allowed to':
I could have an extra week's holiday if I asked for it.
Could have + past participle can be used in place of would have been allowed
to to show that permission was given but not used:
You could have had an extra week's holiday. You asked for it.
I said you could have it, but you didn't take it.
- 'Can/could' = 'am/is/are free to': present or future
'Being free to' is often linked to the idea of 'having permission'. Can, in
the sense of 'am/is/are free to', can be used to refer to the present or the
future:
I can see him now. (= I am free to)
I can see him tomorrow. (= I am/will be free to)
Could expresses exactly the same idea, but is less definite:
I could see him now. (= I am free to)
I could see him tomorrow. (= I am/will be free to)
Compare can/could (= ability) which cannot be used to refer to the future
Uses of modals, etc. to express certainty and possibility
- Certainty, possibility and deduction
If we are certain of our facts, we can make statements with be or any full
verb :
Jane is (or works) at home. (a certain fact)
If we are referring to possibility, we can use combinations of may, might
or could + verb:
Jane may/might/could be (or work) at home. (a possibility)
We may draw a distinction between the expression of possibility in this way
(which allows for speculation and guessing) and deduction based on evidence.
Deduction , often expressed with must be and can't be, suggests near-certainty:
Jane's light is on. She must be at home. She can't be out.
- Forms of tenses (certainty) versus modals (possibility)
certain possible/less than certain
(expressed by verb tenses) (expressed by may, might and could)
He is at home. He may/might/could be at home (now).
He will be at home tomorrow. He may/might/could be at home tomorrow.
He was at home yesterday. He may/might/could have been at home yesterday.
He leaves at 9. He may/might/could leave at 9.
He will leave tomorrow. He may/might/could leave tomorrow.
He has left. He may/might/could have left.
He left last night He may/might/could have left last night.
He will have left by 9. He may/might/could have left by 9.
He is working today. He may/might/could be working today.
He will be working today. He may/might/could be working today.
He was working today. He may/might/could have been working today.
He has been working all day. He may/might/could have been working all day.
He will have been working all day. He may/might/could have been working all
day.
- Notes on modal forms expressing possibility
- Should be and ought to be to express possibility
In addition to the above examples, we can also express possibility with
should be and ought to be:
John should be/ought to be at home.
John should be working/ought to be working.
John should have left/ought to have left by tomorrow. etc.
However, because should and ought to also express obligation they can
be ambiguous, so are not used as much as may/might/could to express possibility.
For example, He should have arrived (ought to have arrived) yesterday
could mean 'I think he probably has arrived' or 'He failed in his duty
to arrive yesterday'.
- Questions about possibility
When we are asking about possibility, we may use Might_?, Could_? and
sometimes Can_? and rarely May_?. (We do not normally use should and ought
to in affirmative questions about possibility because of the risk of confusion
with obligation):
Might/Could/Can this be true?
Might/Could he know the answer?
Might/Could/Can he still be working? (or be still working)
Might/Could he be leaving soon?
Might/Could/Can he have been waiting long?
Might/Could he have left by tomorrow?
Can is not always possible in questions like these, probably because of
the risk of confusion with can = ability . However, in questions like Can
this be true?, can often indicates disbelief. Can is possible in some indirect
questions:
I wonder where he can have left the key?
- Negative questions about possibility
Negative questions about possibility can be asked with Mightn't and Couldn't.
May not (Not *Mayn't*) can sometimes be used, as can Shouldn't and Oughtn't
to:
Mightn't he be at home now? etc.
Couldn't he know the answer? etc.
- Negative possibility
Negative possibility is expressed with may not, mightn't, can't and couldn't,
but not usually with shouldn't and oughtn't to:
He may not be (or have been) here. etc.
He may not be (or have been) working late. etc.
Can't + be often suggests disbelief:
What you're saying can't be true! I can hardly believe it!
Can may be used in negative indirect questions:
I don't think he can have left home yet.
or in semi-negatives: He can hardly be at home yet. It's only 6.
- Modals on a scale of certainty
Degrees of certainty can be expressed on a scale:
He is at home. (= it's a certain fact: non-modal be)
He could be at home. (= doubtful possibility)
He should be at home. (= doubtful possibility)
He ought to be at home. (= doubtful possibility)
He may be at home. (= it's possible, but uncertain)
He might be at home. (= less certain than may)
He isn't at home. (= it's a certain fact)
He can't be at home. (= it's nearly certain)
He couldn't be at home. (= more 'tentative' than can't)
He may not be at home. (= possible, but uncertain)
He mightn't be at home. (= less certain than may not)
In speech, the element of doubt is increased with heavy stress:
He 'could be at home (i.e. but I very much doubt it).
Particular stress is also used in exclamations:
It 'can't be true! You 'can't 'mean it! You 'must be mistaken!
- Certain and uncertain responses to questions
Yes/No answers to questions can reflect varying degrees of certainty felt
by the speaker. For example, a 'certain' question may elicit an 'uncertain'
answer:
Does he like ice-cream? (direct question)
- Yes, he does. No, he doesn't. ('certain' response)
- He might (do). He may (do). He could (do). (possibility)
- He mightn't. He may not. (uncertainty)
Similarly, an 'uncertain' question may elicit a 'certain' answer:
Can he still be working? (disbelief)
Mightn't he be working? (possibility)
- Yes, he is. No, he isn't. ('certain' response)7
- He might (be). He may (be). (possibility)
- He may not be. I don't think he can be. (possibility)
- He can't be. He couldn't be. (disbelief)
Of course, any other answer, not necessarily involving the use of a modal
verb, may be available, depending on circumstances:
- I don't know. I'm not sure. I don't think so. etc.
Be and have been are normally used in answers to questions with be:
Is he ill? - He may be.
Was he ill? - He may have been.
Do often replaces other verbs:
Will you catch an early train? - I may do.
Has he received my message? - He could have/could have done.
Uses of modals to express deduction
- Examples of modal forms for deduction
must and can't
present reference:
Certainty expressed by verb tenses:
He is here. He lives here. He is leaving.
He isn't here. He doesn't live here. He isn't leaving.
Deduction expressed by must be and can't be:
He must be here. He must live here. He must be leaving.
He can't be here. He can't live here. He can't be leaving.
perfect and past reference:
Certainty expressed by verb tenses:
He was here. He has left/He left early. He has been/was working late.
Deduction expressed by must have been and can't/couldn't have been:
He must have been here. He must have left early. He must have been working
late.
He can't have been here. He can't have left early. He can't have been working
late.
He couldn't have been here. He couldn't have left early. He couldn't have
been working late.
- Expressing deduction with 'must be' and 'can't be', etc.
The distinction between possibility (often based on speculation) and deduction
(based on evidence) has already been drawn. The strongest and commonest forms
to express deduction are must and can't. For teaching and learning purposes,
it is necessary to establish the following clearly:
- can't be (Not *mustn't be*) is the negative of must be.
- can't have been (Not *mustn't have been*) is the negative of must have
been.
Have to/have got to be (affirmative) can express deduction in AmE:
This has to be/has got to be the most stupid film I have ever seen.
Compare deduction :
He can't be thirsty. He must be hungry.
He can't have been thirsty. He must have been hungry.
with inescapable obligation in:
He mustn't be careless. He must be careful.
He didn't have to be at the dentist's. He had to be at the doctor's.
We also use may/might/could and should/ought to for making deductions (as
well as for expressing possibility); and, when we are almost certain of our
evidence, we may use will and won't:
That will be Roland. I can hear him at the door.
That will have been Roland. He said he'd be back at 7.
That won't be Roland. I'm not expecting him yet.
That won't have been Roland. I'm not expecting him till 7.
Again , it is possible to give varying responses to a question:
Is Roland in his room?
- Yes, he is. No, he isn't. (certainty)
- Yes, he must be. I heard him come in. (deduction)
- No, he won't be. He had to go out. (near-certainty)
- No, he can't be. There's no light in his room. (deduction)
Uses of modals for offers, requests, suggestions
- General information about offers, requests and suggestions
Modal verbs are used extensively for 'language acts' or functions such as
offering, asking for things, expressing preferences. Fine shades of meaning
are conveyed not only by the words themselves, but particularly by stress,
intonation, and gesture. (Note that we can also make suggestions, etc. with
non-modal forms, e.g. Have a drink, Let's go to the zoo). In this section,
offers, requests, etc. are considered from six points of view under two headings:
- Things and substances
- Offering things and substances + appropriate responses.
- Requests for things and substances + appropriate responses.
- Actions
- Making suggestions, inviting actions + appropriate responses.
- Requesting others to do things for you + appropriate responses.
- Offering to do things for others + appropriate responses.
- Suggestions that include the speaker.
- Things and substances: offers with modals
- Typical offers inviting Yes/No responses
Can/Could I offer you >
Will/Won't you have > a sandwich/some coffee?
Would/Wouldn't you like >
- Typical responses
There are many non-modal forms (Yes please, No thank you, etc.) and a
few modal ones:
Yes, I'd like one/some please. Yes, I'd love one/some please.
However, we don't usually repeat the modal when we refuse an offer. A
reply like No, I won't in answer to Will you have_? could sound rude
- Typical offers with 'What'
What will you have? What would you like to have?
What would you prefer? What would you rather have?
- Things and substances: requests with modals
- Typical requests inviting Yes/No responses
Can/Could/May/Might I have a sandwich/some coffee (please)?
- Typical responses
Of course you can/may. (Not *could/might* )
No, you can't/may not (I'm afraid).
(These answers with modals would be likely where e.g. a parent is addressing
a child. Adult responses would be e.g. Certainly or I'm afraid there isn't
any, etc.)
- Actions: suggestions/invitations with modals
- Typical suggestions inviting Yes/No responses
Will you/Won't you >
Would you/Wouldn't you like to > come for a walk (with me)?
- Typical responses
(Yes,) I'd like to. I'd love to.
(No,) I'd prefer not to, thank you.
Note that to must follow like, love etc. Negative responses like No, I
won't are not appropriate .
- Typical inquiry with 'What' to invite suggestions
What would you like to do?
- Actions: using modals to ask someone to do something
- Typical requests inviting Yes/No responses
Will you_?, Would you_? in these requests refer to willingness. Can you_?,
Could you_? refer to ability.
Will you (please) >
Can/Could you (please) >
Would you (please) > open the window (for me)?
Would you like to >
Would you mind opening the window (for me)?
Will/Would you sounds even more polite with the addition of kindly, and
can/could with the addition of possibly :
Will/Would you kindly_? Can/Could you possibly_?
We cannot use May you_? in requests for help.
- Typical responses
Yes, of course (I will). No, I'm afraid I can't (at the moment).
- Actions: using modals to offer to do things for others
- Typical offers to do things
Offers beginning Shall I_? Shall we_? are very common:
Can I/Could I/Shall I open the window (for you)?
Would you like me to open the window (for you)?
That's the phone. I'll get it for you, (shall I)?
What shall/can I do for you?
And note very polite offers with may in: e.g.
May I take your coat?
- Typical responses
The usual responses are Yes please, No thank you, or tag responses like
Can/Could/Would you? - that's very kind, but not Yes, you can/No, you
can't, which could sound rude.
- Actions: suggestions that include the speaker
- Typical suggestions inviting Yes/No responses
Shall we go for a swim? We can/could/might go for a swim.
- Typical responses
Yes, let's, (shall we)?
No, I'd rather we didn't./No, I'd rather not.
- Typical inquiries with 'What'
What shall/can/could we do this afternoon?
Expressing wishes with 'wish', 'if only', etc.
- The expression of wishes
The verb wish can be followed by to and can be used like want to in formal
style to express an immediate desire:
I wish to (or want to) apply for a visa.
In addition, we can express hypothetical wishes and desires with:
- the verb wish: often for something that might happen.
- the phrase if only: often to express longing or regret.
- the phrases it's (high) time and it's about time to express future wishes
and impatience that a course of action is overdue.
After wish, if only, it's (high) time, it's about time, we use:
- the past tense to refer to present time.
- the past perfect tense to refer to past time.
- would and could to make general wishes or refer to the future. In other
words, we 'go one tense back' .
Though wish and if only are often used interchangeably, if only expresses
more strongly the idea that the situation wished for does not exist, whereas
wish is used for something that might happen. Details follow.
- The verb 'wish' and the phrase 'if only'
- Present reference: 'wish/if only' with 'be' + complement
After wish and if only we may use:
- the simple past of be:
I wish/if only Tessa was here now.
- the subjunctive of be, i.e. were after all persons.
This is formal and has the effect of making a wish more doubtful:
I wish/if only Tessa were here now.
Wish and if only can also be followed by the past progressive:
I wish/If only the sun was (or were) shining at this moment.
Compare hope + simple present or future for an immediate 'wish':
I hope he is on time. I hope he won't be late. (Not *I wish*)
- Present reference: 'wish/if only' + verbs other than 'be'
I wish/If only I knew the answer to your question.
I wish/If only I didn't have to work for a living.
If only (but not wish) will also combine with the simple present:
If only he gets this job, it will make a great deal of difference.
Here, if only functions like if in Type 1 conditionals and that is why
the present (which has a future reference) can be used.
- Past reference with 'wish' and 'if only'
- be + complement: I wish/If only I had been here yesterday.
- verbs other than be: I wish/If only you had let me know earlier.
I wish/If only we had been travelling
I yesterday when the weather was fine.
In sentences like the above, if only particularly expresses regret:
If only I had been here yesterday. The accident would never have happened.
Compare:
I wish I had been here yesterday. You all seem to have had such a good
time, (a simple wish, not the expression of regret)
- 'Would' and 'could' after 'wish' and 'if only'
I wish you would/wouldn't often functions like a polite imperative. Because
the wish can easily be fulfilled, if only is less likely:
I wish you would be quiet.
I wish you wouldn't make so much noise.
We must use could and not would after I and We:
I wish I could be you.
If only we could be together.
I wish I could swim. I wish I could have been with you.
Would expresses willingness; could expresses ability:
I wish he would come tomorrow. (i.e. I don't know if he wants to)
I wish he could come tomorrow. (i.e. I'm sure he can't)
I wish Tessa could have come to my party. (i.e. she wasn't able to)
Wishes expressed with would at the beginning of a sentence have either
become obsolete (Would that it were true!) or have become fossilized idioms
(Would to God I knew! Would to God I had known!)
- The position of 'only' after 'if'
Only can be separated from if and can be placed:
- after be: If he was/were only here now!
- before the past participle: If I had only known!
- after the modal: If you would only try harder!
Though the separation of only from if is common in exclamations (as above),
it is also possible in longer sentences:
If more people were only prepared to be as generous as you are, many children's
lives would be saved. (If only more people_)
- The use of 'wish' and 'if only' in short responses
Short responses can be made with wish and if only:
It would be nice if Tessa was/were/could be here now!
- I wish/If only she was!/she were!/she could be!
You should have come with us. - I wish/If only I had!
I can help you with that box. - I wish/If only you would!
- 'It's (high) time' and 'It's about time'
These expressions are used with the past tense or the subjunctive to refer
to the present and future:
It's (high) time he was (or were) taught a lesson.
It's about time he learnt to look after himself.
(= the time has come)
Could (but not would) is sometimes possible:
Isn't it about time our baby could walk?
Negatives are not used after it's (high) time and it's about time
Short responses are possible with these expressions:
I still haven't thanked Aunt Lucy for her present.
- It's time you did. (you're taking too long over it)
Compare the use of it's time in:
We've enjoyed the evening, but it's time (for us) to go.
(i.e. the time has now arrived for us to go)
We've enjoyed the evening, but it's time we went.
(i.e. we should probably have left before this)
STUDY GUIDE
Modals: should, ought to, will, would, used to, may, might,
can, could
Reference: EG: 28, 29, 30, 33, 34; PEG: 12, 15, 22; PEGE: 6-9, 23.
- Complete these sentences with should/ought to + infinitive (or
a passive form) or should/ought to have + past participle using one
of these verbs. In which one is ought to not possible?
Check, include, keep, listen, meet, plan, receive, refrigerate, stay
- You ... my reply by now.
- his medicine ... in a cool place. (from a medicine bottle label)
- Here is someone you really ... .
- If you are feeling ill, I ... at home today, if I were you.
- To have got a better mark, you ... your answers more thoroughly.
- According to the label, the jam ... after opening.
- I think you ... to him. He knew what he was talking about.
- The results were completely wrong. As a scientist she ... the experiment
more carefully.
- The information you send ... details of courses taken at university.
(from a job application)
- In which sentences can you put should or must and in which
can you put only must?
- A timetable ... be set for withdrawing the army.
- Les isn't home yet. He ... have been held up at work.
- 'I wonder how old Mike is?' 'Well, he went to school with my mother,
so he ... be well over 50.'
- If you smell gas, you ... phone the emergency number.
- You ... try to visit Nepal - it's a beautiful country.
- 'I only live a couple of minutes from the town centre.' 'It ...
be handy having shops nearby.
- Correct the sentences if necessary
- I had to work late on Friday, so my mother would pick up Sue from school.
- Mary wouldn't sing for me, even though I often asked her to.
- The moment I asked Steve, he would agree to lend me the car for the
day.
- When I phoned, the receptionist wouldn't let me have an apointment
with Dr Johnson before next week.
- At the interview they wouldn't tell me how much travelling was involved
in the job.
- Yesterday he would make me sandwiches and would bring me a cup of coffee.
- Complete these sentences with will, would or used
to. If more than one answer is possible, write them both
- Around 2 o'clock every night, Sue ... talking in her sleep. It' very
annoying. (start)
- As soon as he woke up he ... things ready for breakfast. (get)
- He ... work in 1963 as an assistant to the managing director. (begin)
- After I read about the place in a magazine, I ... to visit Madagascar
myself. (want)
- When I was younger I ... hours just kicking a ball around the garden.
(spend)
- Even when it's freezing cold, some people ... just jeans and a T-shirt.
(wear)
- The country now known as Myanmar ... called Burma. (be)
- I ... going to pop concerts when I was a teenager. (like)
- Where necesary, suggest a correction for these sentences
- I think I saw her go out, so shemightn't be at home.
- It mightn't be true. There must be some mistake.
- It's snowing heavily in Scotland so it can take Hugh a long time to
get here.
- If we don't get to the market soon they can't have any flowers left.
They will all have been sold.
- If you are free at the moment, we may have job for you.
- May you be given the job permanently?
- I thought they were on holiday - but I can be wrong, of course.
- I might go out later if the weather improves.
- Children may enter only when accompanied by an adult.
- 'I've had this birthday card, but it doesn't say who sent it.' 'May
it be from Ron?'
READING COMPREHENSION
Word meanings from context
1. Use the context of the paragraphs to determine the meanings of the highlighted
words.
We walked slowly down the trail with great trepidation. No one who had
gone this way had ever been heard from again. Had they simply found a better
place to settle on this dark planet? We doubted that.
- Which word is a synonym of "trepidation"?
- movement
- worry
- enjoyment
- laughter
Only an hour or so had passed before a tremendous roar shook the ground. At
that very moment, a strange grey creature materialized before our eyes.
It resembled a lizard in shape. It was about ten feet high at the shoulders
and at least fifty feet long.
- What did the creature do?
- It whipped its tail back and forth.
- It stamped its feet.
- It showed its sharp teeth.
- It appeared.
Kathy was looking for a strong but light material to use for making her water
jugs. Unfortunately, she chose noodelite. It proved to too porous to
hold jelly.
- A porous material _____.
- is good for holding things that you pour
- protects you in pouring rain
- allows liquids to flow through it
- is necessary for making bowling balls
We have rather lofty expectations for you, son. You will attend college.
You will become rich and famous. You will be elected president of the United
States before you turn forty.
- Which word is a synonym of "lofty"?
- high
- shaky
- small
- lowly
2. Use the context of the selections to choose the correct meanings of the
underlined words.
- Ashlee was not happy with her friend Samantha. "I've been waiting
here for an hour!" she growled into her cell phone. "You'd better
hie yourself over here," she continued, "or we'll leave without
you.
- hurry, or hasten
- stroll, or walk slowly
- float above the trees
- greet in an unfriendly manner
- When Beth and Donna were fighting over a boy who didn't like either one
of them, Shana stepped in as a mediator. She sat them both in a corner
and kept them talking to each other. Finally, Shana's efforts resulted in
her two friends making up.
- troublemaker
- peacemaker
- witness
- competitor
- No one suspected that Jerry was a spy. On the surface he behaved like any
normal citizen. When his covert activity was discovered and announced
to the world, we were all shocked.
- friendly
- helpful
- loud
- hidden
- The workers stood in front of the factory and wondered what to do next.
The doors were locked and the windows were boarded up. They doubted that they
would even collect their final pay checks now that the company was insolvent.
- broke, or out of money
- hiring new workers
- changing a name
- making too much money
- key to Unit 9 -
LITERATURE
19th century English Literature: Introduction
I. THE ROMANTIC AGE
Extending from about 1789 until 1837, the romantic age stressed
emotion over reason. One objective of the French
Revolution (1789-1799) was to destroy an older tradition that had come to
seem artificial, and to assert the liberty, spirit, and heartfelt unity of the
human race. To many writers of the romantic age this objective seemed equally
appropriate in the field of English letters. In addition, the romantic age in
English literature was characterized by the subordination of reason to intuition
and passion, the cult of nature much as the word is now understood and not as
Pope understood it, the primacy of the individual will over social norms of
behavior, the preference for the illusion of immediate experience as opposed
to generalized and typical experience, and the interest in what is distant in
time and place.
A. The Romantic Poets
The first important expression of romanticism was in the Lyrical
Ballads (1798) of William
Wordsworth) and Samuel
Taylor Coleridge, young men who were aroused to creative activity by the
French Revolution; later they became disillusioned with what followed it. The
poems of Wordsworth in this volume treat ordinary subjects with a new freshness
that imparts a certain radiance to them. On the other hand, Coleridge's main
contribution, "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," masterfully creates
an illusion of reality in relating strange, exotic, or obviously unreal events.
These two directions characterize most of the later works of the two poets.
For Wordsworth the great theme remained the world of simple,
natural things, in the countryside or among people. He reproduced this world
with so close and understanding an eye as to add a hitherto unperceived glory
to it. His representation of human nature is similarly simple but revealing.
It is at its best, as in "Tintern Abbey" or "Ode on Intimations
of Immortality," when he speaks of the mystical kinship between quiet nature
and the human soul and of the spiritual refreshment yielded by humanity's sympathetic
contact with the rest of God's creation. Not only is the immediacy of experience
in the poetry of Wordsworth opposed to neoclassical notions, but also his poetic
style constitutes a rejection of the immediate poetic past. Wordsworth condemned
the idea of a specifically poetic language, such as that of neoclassical poetry,
and he strove instead for what he considered the more powerful effects of ordinary,
everyday language. Coleridge's natural bent, on the other hand, was toward the
strange, the exotic, and the mysterious. Unlike Wordsworth, he wrote few poems,
and these during a very brief period. In such poems as "Kubla Khan"
and "Christabel," the beauties and horrors of the far distant in time
or place are evoked in a style that is neither neoclassical nor simple in Wordsworth's
fashion, but that, instead, recalls the splendor and extravagance of the Elizabethans.
At the same time Coleridge achieved an immediacy of sensation that suggests
the natural although hidden affinity between him and Wordsworth, and their common
rejection of the 18th-century spirit in poetry.
Another poet who found delight in the far distant in time was
Sir
Walter Scott, who, after evincing an early interest in the ancient ballads
of his native Scotland, wrote a series of narrative poems glorifying the active
virtues of the simple, vigorous life and culture of his land in the Middle Ages,
before it had been affected by modern civilization. In such of these poems as
The Lady of the Lake (1810) he employed a style of little originality.
His work, however, was the more popular among his immediate contemporaries for
that very reason, long before the full stature of Wordsworth's more impressive
poetry was recognized. Some of Scott's Waverley novels, a series of historical
works, have given him a more permanent reputation as a writer of prose.
A second generation of romantic poets remained revolutionary
in some sense throughout their poetic careers, unlike Coleridge, Wordsworth,
and Scott. George
Gordon, Lord Byron, is one of the exemplars of a personality in tragic revolt
against society. As in his stormy personal life, so also in such poems as Childe
Harold's Pilgrimage (1812) and Don Juan (1819-1824), this generous
but egotistical aristocrat revealed with uneven pathos or with striking irony
and cynicism the vagrant feelings and actions of great souls caught in a petty
world. Byron's satirical spirit and strong sense of social realism kept him
apart from other English romantics; unlike the rest, he proclaimed, for example,
a high regard for Pope, whom he sometimes imitated.
The other great poet-revolutionary of the time, Percy
Bysshe Shelley, seems much closer to the grandly serious spirit of the other
romantics. His most thoughtful poetry expresses his two main ideas, that the
external tyranny of rulers, customs, or superstitions is the main enemy, and
that inherent human goodness will, sooner or later, eliminate evil from the
world and usher in an eternal reign of transcendant love. It is, perhaps, in
Prometheus Unbound (1820) that these ideas are most completely expressed,
although Shelley's more obvious poetic qualities-the natural correspondence
of metrical structure to mood, the power of shaping effective abstractions,
and his ethereal idealism-can be studied in a whole range of poems, from "Ode
to the West Wind" and "To a Skylark" to the elegy "Adonais,"
written for John
Keats, the youngest of the great romantics.
More than that of any of the other romantics, Keats's poetry
is a response to sensuous impressions. He found neither the time nor the inclination
to elaborate a complete moral or social philosophy in his poetry. In such poems
as "The Eve of St. Agnes","Ode on a Grecian Urn," and "Ode
to a Nightingale," all written about 1819, he showed an unrivaled awareness
of immediate sensation and an unequaled ability to reproduce it. Between 1818
and 1821, during the last few years of his short life, this spiritually robust,
active, and wonderfully receptive writer produced all his poetry. His work had
a more profound influence than that of any other romantic in widening the sensuous
realm of poetry for the Victorians later in the century.
B. Romantic Prose
Certain romantic prose parallels the poetry of the period in
a number of ways. The evolution of fundamentally new critical principles in
literature is the main achievement of Coleridge's Biographia literaria
(1817), but like Charles
Lamb (Specimens of English Dramatic Poets, 1808) and William
Hazlitt (Characters of Shakespeare's Plays, 1817), Coleridge also
wrote a large amount of practical criticism, much of which helped to elevate
the reputations of Renaissance dramatists and poets neglected in the 18th century.
Lamb is famous also for his occasional essays, the Essays of Elia (1823,
1833). An influential romantic experiment in the achievement of a rich poetic
quality in prose is the phantasmagoric, impassioned autobiography of Thomas
De Quincey, Confessions of an English Opium-Eater (1821).
II. THE VICTORIAN ERA
The Victorian era, from the coronation of Queen
Victoria in 1837 until her death in 1901, was an era of several unsettling
social developments that forced writers more than ever before to take positions
on the immediate issues animating the rest of society. Thus, although romantic
forms of expression in poetry and prose continued to dominate English literature
throughout much of the century, the attention of many writers was directed,
sometimes passionately, to such issues as the growth of English democracy, the
education of the masses, the progress of industrial enterprise and the consequent
rise of a materialistic philosophy, and the plight of the newly industrialized
worker. In addition, the unsettling of religious belief by new advances in science,
particularly the theory of evolution and the historical study of the Bible,
drew other writers away from the immemorial subjects of literature into considerations
of problems of faith and truth.
A. Nonfiction
The historian Thomas
Babington Macaulay, in his History of England (5 volumes, 1848-1861)
and even more in his Critical and Historical Essays (1843), expressed
the complacency of the English middle classes over their new prosperity and
growing political power. The clarity and balance of Macaulay's style, which
reflects his practical familiarity with parliamentary debate, stands in contrast
to the sensitivity and beauty of the prose of John
Henry Newman. Newman's main effort, unlike Macaulay's, was to draw people
away from the materialism and skepticism of the age back to a purified Christian
faith. His most famous work, Apologia pro vita sua (Apology for His Life,
1864), describes with psychological subtlety and charm the basis of his religious
opinions and the reasons for his change from the Anglican to the Roman Catholic
church.
Similarly alienated by the materialism and commercialism of
the period, Thomas
Carlyle, another of the great Victorians, advanced a heroic philosophy of
work, courage, and the cultivation of the godlike in human beings, by means
of which life might recover its true worth and nobility. This view, borrowed
in part from German idealist philosophy, Carlyle expressed in a vehement, idiosyncratic
style in such works as Sartor resartus (The Tailor Retailored, 1833-1834)
and On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History (1841).
Other answers to social problems were presented by two fine
Victorian prose writers of a different stamp. The social criticism of the art
critic John
Ruskin looked to the curing of the ills of industrial society and capitalism
as the only path to beauty and vitality in the national life. The escape from
social problems into aesthetic hedonism was the contribution of the Oxford scholar
Walter
Pater.
B. Poetry
The three notable poets of the Victorian Age became similarly
absorbed in social issues. Beginning as a poet of pure romantic escapism, Alfred,
Lord
Tennyson, soon moved on to problems of religious faith, social change, and
political power, as in "Locksley Hall," the elegy In Memoriam
(1850), and Idylls of the King (1859-1885). All the characteristic moods
of his poetry, from brooding splendor to lyrical sweetness, are expressed with
smooth technical mastery. His style, as well as his peculiarly English conservatism,
stands in some contrast to the intellectuality and bracing harshness of the
poetry of Robert
Browning. Browning's most important short poems are collected in Dramatic
Romances and Lyrics (1841-1846) and Men and Women (1855). Matthew
Arnold, the third of these mid-Victorian poets, stands apart from them as
a more subtle and balanced thinker; his literary criticism (Essays in Criticism,
1865, 1888) is the most remarkable written in Victorian times. His poetry displays
a sorrowful, disillusioned pessimism over the human plight in rapidly changing
times (for example, "Dover Beach," 1867), a pessimism countered, however,
by a strong sense of duty. Among a number of lesser poets, Algernon
Charles Swinburne showed an escapist aestheticism, somewhat similar to Pater's,
in sensuous verse rich in verbal music but somewhat diffuse and pallid in its
expression of emotion. The poet Dante
Gabriel Rossetti and the poet, artist, and socialist reformer William
Morris were associated with the Pre-Raphaelite
movement, the adherents of which hoped to inaugurate a new period of honest
craft and spiritual truth in property and painting. Despite the otherworldly
or archaic character of their romantic poetry, Morris, at least, found a social
purpose in his designs for household objects, which profoundly influenced contemporary
taste.
C. The Victorian Novel
The novel gradually became the dominant form in literature
during the Victorian Age. A fairly constant accompaniment of this development
was the yielding of romanticism to literary realism,
the accurate observation of individual problems and social relationships. The
close observation of a restricted social milieu in the novels of Jane
Austen early in the century (Pride and Prejudice, 1813; Emma,
1816) had been a harbinger of what was to come. The romantic historical novels
of Sir
Walter Scott, about the same time (Ivanhoe, 1819), typified, however,
the spirit against which the realists later were to react. It was only in the
Victorian novelists Charles
Dickens and William
Makepeace Thackeray that the new spirit of realism came to the fore. Dickens's
novels of contemporary life (Oliver Twist, 1838; David Copperfield,
1849-1850; Great Expectations, 1861; Our Mutual Friend, 1865)
exhibit an astonishing ability to create living characters; his graphic exposures
of social evils and his powers of caricature and humor have won him a vast readership.
Thackeray, on the other hand, indulged less in the sentimentality sometimes
found in Dickens's works. He was also capable of greater subtlety of characterization,
as his Vanity Fair (1847-1848) shows. Nevertheless, the restriction of
concern in Thackeray's novels to middle- and upper-class life, and his lesser
creative power, render him second to Dickens in many readers' minds.
Other important figures in the mainstream of the Victorian
novel were notable for a variety of reasons. Anthony
Trollope was distinguished for his gently ironic surveys of English ecclesiastical
and political circles; Emily
Brontë, for her penetrating study of passionate character; George
Eliot, for her responsible idealism; George
Meredith, for a sophisticated, detached, and ironical view of human nature;
and Thomas
Hardy, for a profoundly pessimistic sense of human subjection to fate and
circumstance.
A second and younger group of novelists, many of whom continued
their important work into the 20th century, displayed two new tendencies. Robert
Louis Stevenson, Rudyard
Kipling, and Joseph
Conrad tried in various ways to restore the spirit of romance to the novel,
in part by a choice of exotic locale, in part by articulating their themes through
plots of adventure and action. Kipling attained fame also for his verse and
for his mastery of the single, concentrated effect in the short story. Another
tendency, in a sense an intensification of realism, was common to Arnold
Bennett, John
Galsworthy, and H.
G. Wells. These novelists attempted to represent the life of their time
with great accuracy and in a critical, partly propagandistic spirit. Wells's
novels, for example, often seem to be sociological investigations of the ills
of modern civilization rather than self-contained stories.
D. 19th-Century Drama
The same spirit of social criticism inspired the plays of the
Irish-born George
Bernard Shaw, who did more than anyone else to awaken the drama from its
19th-century somnolence. In a series of powerful plays that made use of the
latest economic and sociological theories, he exposed with enormous satirical
skill the sickness and fatuities of individuals and societies in England and
the rest of the modern world. Man and Superman (1903), Androcles and
the Lion (1913), Heartbreak House (1919), and Back to Methuselah
(1921) are notable among his works. His final prescription for a cure, a philosophy
of creative evolution by which human beings should in time surpass the biological
limit of species, showed him going beyond the limits of sociological realism
into visionary writing.
BRITISH HISTORY
The Industrial Revolution
The most far-reaching, influential transformation of human
culture since the advent of agriculture eight or ten thousand years ago, was
the industrial revolution of eighteenth century Europe. The consequences of
this revolution would change irrevocably human labor, consumption, family structure,
social structure, and even the very soul and thoughts of the individual. This
revolution involved more than technology; to be sure, there had been industrial
"revolutions" throughout European history and non-European history.
In Europe, for instance, the twelfth and thirteenth centuries saw an explosion
of technological knowledge and a consequent change in production and labor.
However, the industrial revolution was more than technology-impressive as this
technology was. What drove the industrial revolution were profound social changes,
as Europe moved from a primarily agricultural and rural economy to a capitalist
and urban economy, from a household, family-based economy to an industry-based
economy. This required rethinking social obligations and the structure of the
family; the abandonment of the family economy, for instance, was the most dramatic
change to the structure of the family that Europe had ever undergone-and we're
still struggling with these changes.
In 1750, the European economy was overwhelmingly an agricultural
economy. The land was owned largely by wealthy and frequently aristocratic landowners;
they leased the land to tenant farmers who paid for the land in real goods that
they grew or produced. Most non-agricultural goods were produced by individual
families that specialized in one set of skills: wagon-wheel manufacture, for
instance. Most capitalist activity focused on mercantile activity rather than
production; there was, however, a growing manufacturing industry growing up
around the logic of mercantilism.
The European economy, though, had become a global economy.
In our efforts to try to explain why the Industrial Revolution took place, the
globalization of the European economy is a compelling explanation. European
trade and manufacture stretched to every continent except Antarctica; this vast
increase in the market for European goods in part drove the conversion to an
industrial, manufacturing economy. Why other nations didn't initially join this
revolution is in part explained by the monopolistic control that the Europeans
exerted over the global economy. World trade was about making Europeans
wealthy, not about enriching the colonies or non-Western countries.
Another reason given for the Industrial Revolution is the substantial
increase in the population of Europe; this is such an old chestnut of historians
that we don't question it. Population growth, however, is a mysterious affair
to explain; it most often occurs when standards of production rise. So whether
the Industrial Revolution was started off by a rise in population, or whether
the Industrial Revolution started a rise in population is hard to guess. It's
clear, though, that the transition to an industrial, manufacturing economy required
more people to labor at this manufacture. While the logic of a national economy
founded centrally on the family economy and family production is more or less
a subsistence economy-most production is oriented around keeping the family
alive, the logic of a manufacturing economy is a surplus economy. In
a manufacturing economy, a person's productive labor needs to produce more
than they need to keep life going. This surplus production is what produces
profits for the owners of the manufacture. This surplus economy not only makes
population growth possible, it makes it desirable.
While it's hard to pinpoint a beginning to the Industrial Revolution,
historians generally agree that it basically originated in England, both in
a series of technological and social innovations. Historians propose a number
of reasons. Among the most compelling is the exponential increase in food production
following the enclosure laws of the eighteenth century; Parliament passed a
series of laws that permitted lands that had been held in common by tenant farmers
to be enclosed into large, private farms worked by a much smaller labor force.
While this drove peasants off the land, it also increased agricultural production
and increased the urban population of England, since the only place displaced
peasants had to go were the cities. The English Parliament, unlike the monarchies
of Europe, was firmly under the control of the merchant and capitalist classes,
so the eighteenth century saw a veritable army of legislation that favored mercantile
and capitalist interests.
Because of the strong role of Parliament in English government
and the incredible influence of capitalists and mercantilists, social values
had also been steadily shifting in England. In continental Europe, the aristocracy
represented the fullest embodiment of social values. They believed that they
were born with higher virtues than the common people, who, because of their
birth would never attain these virtues to the same level. They also believed
that the pursuit of money was a characteristic of common people; the mercantile
and capitalist revolutions throughout Europe, in England, was achieved by the
non-aristocratic classes-it was a middle-class or bourgeois revolution.
The diminished role of the aristocracy in English government
and society, however, allowed for a steady shift in values; the values of the
mercantile and capitalist classes slowly became the norm-the most important
of these values was the pursuit of wealth. Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations
proposed that the only legitimate goal of national government and human activity
is the steady increase in the overall wealth of the nation. This is not an idea
that would have flown two hundred years earlier.
Mercantilism had thrived in England in ways that it hadn't
on the continent. In particular, the English had no internal tariffs or duties
on commerce, which wasn't true of any of the continental European states. Moving
goods around in continental Europe was an expensive affair as you had to pay
taxes and duties every hundred miles or so; moving goods around in England was
cheap, and profits soared. In addition, England had come to monopolize overseas
trade. Every time England fought a war in the eighteenth century it always acquired
new overseas territory. It completely monopolized trade with the North American
colonies-in fact, one-half of all British exports went to America in the 1780's-but
it also began to control the South American and, most importantly, the Indian
trade. All this trade produced the largest merchant marine in the world as well
as a navy to protect this merchant marine fleet. Like Periclean Athens, England
shot to the forefront of the new capitalist economy primarily through its navy.
The technological innovations followed these social and economic
changes. The first major technological innovation was the cotton gin. Cotton
is a plant grown in America and India; it was a small industry through much
of the seventeenth century but exploded in the middle of the eighteenth. Most
cotton was produced in British colonies; because it was a labor-intensive agriculture,
it fueled the traffic in African slaves to the colonies-the cotton shroud that
fell over the history of Africa. The first innovation in cotton manufacture
was the fly-shuttle, which greatly speeded up the process of weaving cotton
threads into cloth. That wasn't enough, though, for cotton had to be stretched
out or spun into threads to begin with; this process was done slowly, one thread
at a time, by a machine called a spinning wheel. This slow process was mechanized
by James Hargreaves, a carpenter, in what is usually pointed to as one of the
typological major technological innovations of the Industrial Age: the "spinning
jenny." Patented in 1767, the spinning jenny was a series of simple machines
rather than a single machine, and it spun sixteen threads of cotton simultaneously.
These two qualities: multiple machines in a single machine as well as a machine
that was designed not just to speed up work, but to do the work of several laborers
simultaneously, was the hallmark of all subsequent technological innovations.
In 1793, the American, Eli Whitney, invented the cotton gin which mechanized
the separating of seeds from cotton fibers. These innovations made cotton incredibly
cheap and infinitely expandable; since cotton clothing was tougher than wool,
the manufacture of cotton clothing shot through the roof. By the end of the
eighteenth century, the manufacture of thread and cloth was slowly moving out
of the family economy and into large factory mills, though this transition would
not be fully realized until the middle of the nineteenth century.
While the spinning jenny is frequently pointed to as the first,
major technological innovation of the industrial revolution, the invention that
really drove the revolution in the eighteenth century was invented several decades
earlier: the steam engine. Along with the growth in the cotton industry, the
steel industry began to grow by leaps and bounds. This was largely due to a
quirk in English geography: England sits on vast quantities of coal, a carbon
based mineral derived from ancient life forms. Coal burns better and more efficiently
than wood and, if you have lots of coal, is infinitely cheaper. The English
figured out that they could substitute coal for wood in the melting of metals,
including iron, and blissfully went about tearing coal from the ground while
manufacturers in Europe looked on jealously.
Mining coal, however, was not an easy task. As you drew more
and more coal out of the ground, you had to mine deeper and deeper. The deeper
the mine, the more it fills with water. In 1712, Thomas Newcomen built a simple
steam engine that pumped water from the mines. It was a single piston engine,
and so it used vast amounts of energy. Because of its inefficiency, nobody could
think of any use for it besides pumping water.
Until a Scotsman named James Watt added a separate cooling
chamber to the machine in 1763; this cooling chamber condensed the steam so
the cylinder itself didn't have to be cooled. Patented in 1769, Watt's steam
engine had the efficiency to be applied to all kinds of industries. He was not,
however, good at doing busines and it was only when he had teamed up with the
businessman, Matthew Boulton, that the steam engine began to change the face
of English manufacture. By 1800, Watt and Boulton sold 289 of these new engines;
by the middle of the next century, the steam engine replaced water as the major
source of motive power in England and Europe. The changes that the steam engine
wrought, however, is a story for another day.
And it is here, with 289 steam engines pumping and steaming
around England that we'll leave the story of the Industrial Revolution-half-completed,
you might say. The nineteenth century saw the exporting of the Industrial Revolution
to Europe in the decades after 1830, and the explosion of factory-based, technology
driven manufacture. The Age of Absolutism and the waning years of the Enlightenment
saw Europe just beginning a new phase in its history, one that would irreperably
severe it from the traditions and certainties of the past.
Richard Hooker
- Contest 9 -
- back to Weekly Plan -