There are three pairs of basic English function words that aren’t meant for statements dealing with simple facts or absolute certainties: “will” and “would,” “shall” and “should,” and “can” and “could.” They are alert signs that not all the assertions we make or hear or read are necessarily established truths.
These three word-pairs belong to a distinct grammatical form called modal auxiliaries or modals, which work with verbs to convey various shades of necessity, advice, ability, expectation, permission, possibility, or conditionality. Let’s review them so we can use them with greater confidence.
“Will” and “would.” We all know that “will” usually functions as a verbal auxiliary for expressing simple futurity, as in “Evelyn
will go to Tokyo tomorrow.” As a modal, however, “will” works to convey choice, willingness, intention, consent, and habitual or customary action.
Choice: “I
will take the train instead of the bus.”
Willingness: “I
will go if you wish.”
Intention: “I
will prove you wrong.”
Consent: “Yes, the school
will admit you.”
Habitual or customary action: “She
will get angry over trivial things.”
The modal “will” inflects to “would” in the past tense.
Choice: “That year, I
would fly first-class rather than economy.”
Willingness: “In my mid-twenties, I
would go wherever I was assigned.”
Habitual or customary action: “After breaking up with her fiancé, Joanna
would get angry over trivial things.”
In conditional sentences, the modal “would” works to denote probability or presumption in both past and present, as in “The marathon runner
would have won if he had not stumbled right before the finish line” and “That overambitious politician
would win hands down if not for the serious corruption allegations against him.”
The modal “would” likewise conveys politeness and deference in expressing one’s intent or desire, as in “
Would you consider my daughter for that overseas job?” The statement becomes a rather pointed request when the modal “will” is used: “
Will you consider my daughter for that overseas job?”
“Shall” and “should.” In American English, the modals “shall” and “should” are used sparingly to state polite questions (suggestive of asking permission) in the first-person, as in “
Shall we leave now, gentlemen?” and “
Should I get a taxi for you now, ma’am?” More commonly, the modal “shall” is used in formal directives and records of corporate proceedings, as in “All workers
shall be responsible for the upkeep of their respective work areas” and “The Corporate Secretary
shall lead the Company’s compliance efforts to regulatory mandates.”
When used in present-tense questions, the modals “should” and “shall” basically mean the same thing, with “should” tending to be consultative and “shall” tending to be suggestive. But the speaker could very well use those modals the other way around: “
Shall we yield to his demand or
should we wait until his last week in office?” We really shouldn’t lose sleep over the distinction.
“Can” and “could.” These modals convey the idea of ability, possibility, permission, or potential—“can” is the present-tense form and “could” the past-tense form.
Ability: “She
can write novels.” “By then she
could no longer write novels.”
Possibility: “The team
can win if its members are more disciplined.”
Permission: “
Can I go out with my playmates now?”
Potential: “With his political acumen, he
can be presidential timber.”
The modal “could” can also be used to make a deferential or polite request, offer, or suggestion: “
Could you tell me how to leave the Christmas party now without offending the boss?” But among social, age, or professional coequals, “can” is more suitable: “
Can you tell me how to leave the victory party now without offending the boss?”
This ends our review of the modals “will” and “would,” “shall” and “should,” and “can” and “could,” which I trust has made you more confident in using them.
(Next:
Wrong word usage and verbosity in journalism) January 21, 2021
This essay, 2,028th of the series, appeared in the column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in the Campus Press section of the January 14, 2021 Internet edition of The Manila Times
,© 2021 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.Read this article online in
The Manila Times:
“Not all our assertions can be established truths”To listen to the audio version of this article, click the encircled double triangle logo in its online posting in
The Manila Times.
ERRATUM:Due to a copyediting oversight on my part, in the online version of this column in
The Manila Times, an erroneous double negative was committed. The statement “They are alert signs that
not all the assertions we make or hear or read are
not necessarily established truths” should have been corrected to read “They are alert signs that
not all the assertions we make or hear or read are necessarily established truths”—without the second “not” in the phrase “are
not necessarily established truths.” My profuse apologies for the error.
– Jose A. Carillo
