I am many years out of school. What part of speech “can’t,” “won’t” etc. The fact that they are contractions further confuses me. Thanks.
Modal verbs. Don’t let the contraction get in the way; that’s just the negative form. The examples you gave:
can’t -> can not
won’t -> will not
ETA: This is probably a more accessible page.
Thank you.
“modal verb” is not correct. English has a class of modals that do not behave like verbs in that they cannot be governed by a modal. Until around 1550, you could say something like “will can do something” and you still can say the equivalent in French and German, but in English you must say, Will be able to do". Both the fact that modals ceased being verbs and the rise of the periphratic phrases like “be able to” happened in the half century between 1550 and 1600.
You’re saying that “can” isn’t a verb? I understand that it’s different in from typical verbs in important ways (to put your point a bit differently, what’s the infinitive of “can”?), but does that disqualify it from verb-hood? I suppose it’s a question of definition.
In my neck of the woods, ie TEFL, we use “modal” or “modal verb” or “modal auxiliary” as a useful contraction of “modal auxilliary verb”. If pohjonen looks in a grammar book aimed at teachers or learners of English then they will find the heading “modal”. (Incidentally not everyone is happy with the idea that modals form “past” and “present” pairs such as those in Bosstone’s second link.)
I agree that, just to complicate life we also have some semi-modals in English such as “be able to” “have to” “need to” “dare to” “ought to” “used to” which don’t have all the characteristics* if the true modals yet are used in the same way (ie to add a layer of meaning).
- no “s” for 3rd person singular, He can not he cans; no auxiliary for questions or negatives, Will you … ? not Do you will … ?, I can’t not I don’t can.
In both traditional (Latin-based) and contemporary (scientific descriptive linguistics) grammatical nomenclature, words like can and will are referred to as “modal verbs”. Just because Standard English modals can’t be compounded like German and have lost some of their present-tense inflections doesn’t mean they’re not verbs. They still follow the general word order restrictions of other verbs, and most of them still inflect to distinguish tense.
It makes perfect sense to keep calling them “verbs”, and so professional grammarians continue to do so.
Presumably Teacher of English as a Foreign Language.
Ah. Thanks. I usually hear it as English as a Second Language, so I never would have come up with that. With the “neck of the woods” part, I was trying to figure out where TE Florida was. 
lol ! sorry. Glee you presume correctly.