Introduction The present course paper deals with the study of the

CONCLUSION
I want to say in my conclusion to express the modal verbs and mood forms in English and Uzbek. There are the possible meanings of the modal auxiliary may, and what is the relative frequency of these uses? Which of the modals is used most to express permission? What are the most frequent modal verbs? If you want the answers to these and similar questions? Then this is the book for you. Dieter Mindt (together with his large team of research assistants) is one of a new breed of grammarians who are basing their investigations of the English language not on subjective introspection but on machine-readable corpora of natural language. As he says in the introduction: “This grammar uses a new approach to English. It is based on authentic English. There has been no borrowing from previous grammars”. It should be pointed out? However? That mind makes no attempt to explain what he understands by the term “authentic language”. Apparently he considers anything spoken or written by a native speaker to be authentic. Unfortunately he neglects to specify his sources, indicating only that he had access to more than 80 million words of English” and that his investigation is “primarily based on fictional texts of British English” . This gives rise to a major objection to Mindt’s claim to authenticity, given the fact that there is growing awareness among linguists that real people do not speak like characters in books, plays and films. In the same way as Mindt would argue that previous grammarians have merely described their subjective perceptions of language, it must be argued that the subjective restructuring of language by authors in works of literature cannot constitute a true representation of authentic English. It may be the fact that there is certain degree of correlation between natural language and some types of literature, but a lot more research would have to be done in this area before it could be claimed that it is sufficient to base a grammar of English on fictional texts alone.
The syntax of the verb consists of a very thorough and systematic classification of the English verb form into main verbs, auxiliaries, modals and catenative (from Latin meaning chain) verbs. Do is classified in a category of its own. Mindt describes in great detail the possible syntactic combinations of these verb classes and outlines how many common verbs belong to more that one of five main classes. Have, for example, can occur in four different categories:
a) as a main verb: she has a jealous husband; b) as a catanative verb: one has to go back to the beginning; c) as an auxiliary: they have struck a bargain; and d) as a modal: we have got to be realists. At first glance it might seem illogical to classify have to and have got to in two different groups, but it is in keeping with Mindt’s syntactic definition of a modal verb: “a modal is never preceded by another modal, by auxiliaries or by catenative verbs”. This formal definition leads to logical inconsistencies: used to is classified as a modal, didn’t use to is not and is therefore ignored. A more flexible and functional approach might have been more helpful in such cases. Modal meaning is viewed from two perspectives: the first perspectives looks at speech intentional aspects, listing 17 types of modal meaning and outlining which modals can convey which speech intention. The other perspectives starts from the individual modals and the different speech intentions each can express. Each modal is described according to a consistent structural framework:
1. essentials: gives a brief account of the most important facts concerning forms and meanings;
2. prototypes: a combination of formal, semantic, and syntactic features which occur most frequently in combination;
3. details: consisting of statistics on forms, meanings and contexts.
The final sections contain some very interesting statistics and graphs showing the distribution of modal and temporal meaning and the contexts in which modals are used. What do these statistics tell us about the use (and the teaching) of the English language? Not a lot, critics of corpus-based linguistics will reply. But surely the fact that 97 % of all may occurrences express possibility and only 3 % permission would indicate that we should devote more time to the former than is usually the case in current textbooks. Statistics are not everything but they can be useful when making decisions involving priority.
These kind of double modal phrases are generally not regarded as correct grammar, although other double modals may be used instead. “ I might could do something about it” is more often expressed as “ I might be able to do something about it” is more often expressed as “I might be able to da something about it”, which is considered more grammatical, although in fact it is still a double modal: be able to functions here as a modal verb synonymous with could or can. Similarly used to could is usually expressed as used to be able to. Double modals can also be avoided by replacing one of the modal verbs with an appropriate adverb, such as using probably could or might possibly in place of might could.
May expresses possibility/high probability (97%) and permission (3%). The modals used to express permission are can (58%), may (16%), could (13%), and might (13%). The three most frequent modals are would (c.28% of all modal occurrences), could (c. 17%), and will (c.17%).