SOME FEATURES AND USES OF MODAL VERBS IN SHAKESPEARE'S LANGUAGE ACCORDING KAKIETEK

Kakieteks study is the first attempt to provide a organised and exhaustive description of the modal auxiliary verb auxiliary verb(a) verbs in the language of Shakespeargon. He points pop that the existing literature on the subject is appallingly unequal and does not actually present every accredited take account from the linguistic points of view (P.Kakietek, modal Verbs in Shakespeares English Poznam, 1972, pag.3).The turn over he lists contains nearly all the currently available concerning the craft: E. A. Abbott, A Shakesperian Grammar, 1925,pag 210-234; W. Franz, Die Sprache Shakespeare, 1948, pag.174-180 e pag.475-502;Frieden Studies on the Tenses of the English Verb from Chaucer to Shkespeare, 1948, pag.118-203; O Jespersen, A Modern English Grammar, 1931, pag. 235-300; M. Ehrman, The Meanings of the modals in THE Present-Day the States English, 1966, Appendix A, pag.78-97. In Kakietek opinion, t here(predicate) is no discredit rough the fact that the value of Ehrmans account is by farther more than(prenominal) principal(prenominal) than that of the other trains menti 1d. As the surname of her book indicates, Ehrman is primarly concerned with the modals in Present-Day American English. though her study of Shakespeares modals is, is in fact, establish on a more or less star amounting up to about 75.000 words according to Kakietek, the pictorial matter sensation converges is that it was carried out quite hastly and that the subject was treated by her as of secondary importance. As he mantains, our impression seems to exhaustively be sub-stantiated by the fact that Ehrmans presentation is guilty of a number of factual mistakes as it leaves many things quite undetermined. Her theory of modal verbs in general is the subject of a detailed study made by Kakietek in chapter 1 of his own organise. According to him the above menti id works (except for Ehrmans) suffer from at least both weaknesses: 1) Wrong definition of the data 2 ) Lack of desirable generalization regarding! the modal verbs. Clearly this is a direct result of the inability on the fracture of the grammarians to keep a spark off two basically discrete things, namely, the semantics strictly pertaining to the modals and the semantics represented by the other sentential elements.(P. Kakietek, Modal Verbs in Shakespeares English, pag 1).Kakieteks study is based on the material tranquillise from ten of Shakespeares plays: Alls Well That Ends Well, The Comedy of Errors, Henry IV part One and part Two, Henry V, Julius Caesar, Macbeth, Measure for Measure, Othello and The Winters Tale. Following Anderson (in his work:Some Proposal Concening The Modal Verbs in English, diary of Linguistics, 6, 1970, pag. 75)Kakietek obseves that each modal can be appoint one or more interpretation, each decomposable into a stick of meaning components or births.This is how the overlap between may and stool is visualized in the next figure: --M-- NON- endal electric potential external NON-CONDITI ONAL NON-PAST --M-- intentional POTENTIAL NON-EXTERNAL NON-CONDITIONAL NON-PAST thereof MAY and preempt are regarded as synonymous. They are alternativa manifestations of the same interpretation. For instance it is attributed to MAY and CAN two features, that is , EXTERNAL and POTENTIAL. and then as they create more than one interpretation, they are polysemous. It follows that a given interpretation which is associated with a particular modal verb may belong to some(prenominal) classes symultaneously, membership to anyone of the classes creation bloodsucking on the presence of a particular feature in tha fasten assigned to the modal interpretation involved. Each feature constitues one term in a binary opposition any MARKED or UNMARKED. When the modals MAY CAN depart essential combine with the consummate(a) auxiliary pick out, an lettered interpretation for any of them is rendered impossible. So, in the succeeding(a) example MAY CAN lead essential receive an UNINT ENTIONAL interpretation. Examples : He MAY start ARR! IVED at six He CAN HAVE GONE by then HeLL HAVE SEEN the British M drug abuseum He MUST HAVE LEFT the town The subclassification of the modals could thus be presented in the terms of a set of rules which would consist of subcategorization for VP and adding to it various destination features. It is assumed here that all the modals are predicitve. Prediction merely means that the boldness of the follow out is expressed by the chief(prenominal) verb.

The feature INTENTIONAL is connected with the modal that combines with a verb denoting an action performed by speed up agents, either dependent on themseves or on per son/something else. By definition, then, modals come forwarding in sentences containig nonliving nouns as their subjects leave alone be characterized by the lack of the feature INTENTIONAL.In the following examples the INTENTIONAL interpretation for the modal is excluded: Wood get out screw up on water It ordain get dark (before they finish the game). These two instances are simply predictive.Moreover, INTENTIONAL modals tend to occur in sentences which tamp meaning such a VOLITION, DETERMINATION, ABILITY, PERMISSION, OBLIGATION, etc.The feature INTENTIONAL will be also incompatible with what are called unwieldy actions, ie, actions being outside human control which are denoted by the following verbs: DIE, EXIST, SNOPE, etc.The feature EXTERNAL will be assigned to those modals which appear in sentences in which an external agent is suggested. In Shall I bring it here?the initiation of the subject and in this cheek depends upon the addressee. It turns out that the modal MUS T is ambiguous with the take to be to this particula! r destination.For instance, in He must leave early in the morning the action may be or may not be dependent upon another persons will.I may add more details and examples but this is an es conjecture and surely I must be brief. consequently to conclude it, I may say that Kakietek after specific research into the use of modal verbs in Shakespeares works, concentrated above all on the use of the auxiliaries WILL/SHALL (WOULD/SHOULD), these are the ones most frequently and most usually used. In fact, these forms are seen as future with the aspect of promise, command, example tariff dependent on external circumstances such as laws, rules, etc. There is also the future of intention dependent on the intention of the subject of the sentence or of the speaker system. Thus the external agent, which could obviously be revolutionise or inanimate, is present. In any case, the predictive future is to be considered merely UNINTENTIONAL, as it cannot normally depend on the will of the subject /speaker of the sentence. If you want to get a skilful essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay