Modals: monosemous or polysemous

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:10 am

It is said that despite all the research done regarding modals, there are still basic questions that have not been answered. One of the main questions that remains unanswered is this:

Do modals have a single underlying meaning, or should they be treated as
polysemous?

I've never been able to answer that question. How about you?

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:18 pm

Unhinged musings.

I've always thought you might be able to get to some rough and ready underlying meaning of some of them.

Any definition would be a bit like the rings on a dartboard. There's a sort of bull's eye definition which if you make it a bit more fuzzy might take in other uses of the modal in question but then you come up against some very off-centre use that makes any underlying meaning either difficult or so vague as to be of not much use.

Some of these may be historical though not archaic uses of a modal. I'm thinking particularly of "Should you require any further assistance, I will etc" and things like "I might add that", which seems to mean "I damn well am adding that".

Anyway how would you explain the underlying meaning? It's fair to also ask if other words are always adequate to describe the meaning of words.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:36 pm

More musings.

Regarding "must" vs "should", have you noticed how "must" can be used when the time of the action is present, but not when it is future - but maybe that's a discussion for another thread.

You know Professor Fox, you should recognise him when he arrives then.

*You know Professor Fox, you must recognise him when he arrives then.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:38 pm

Is it at all appropriate to talk of the 'meanings' of a grammatical feature?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:39 pm

Anyway how would you explain the underlying meaning? It's fair to also ask if other words are always adequate to describe the meaning of words.

We can but try.

oceanbreeze · Post by **oceanbreeze** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:03 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:Is it at all appropriate to talk of the 'meanings' of a grammatical feature?

I should think it would be more appropriate to talk about the 'uses' or 'functions' of grammatical features as opposed to "meanings". Especially where modals are concerned!

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:24 pm

"Do modals have a single underlying _______, or should they be treated as polysemous?

a Use b Function c Semantic Force

d Meaning e Morphemic value f Whotsit g Thingummy

Take your pick as long as you understand the question.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:15 pm

oceanbreeze wrote:
Stephen Jones wrote:Is it at all appropriate to talk of the 'meanings' of a grammatical feature?

I should think it would be more appropriate to talk about the 'uses' or 'functions' of grammatical features as opposed to "meanings". Especially where modals are concerned!

They can be described both pragmatically and semantically, can they not?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:17 pm

JuanTwoThree wrote:"Do modals have a single underlying _______, or should they be treated as polysemous?

a Use b Function c Semantic Force

d Meaning e Morphemic value f Whotsit g Thingummy

Take your pick as long as you understand the question.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:25 pm

Like Juan, I think it's possible to narrow down the meanings of modals, though reducing each one to one, and only one, sense/function/whatever it probably overambitious and unlikely to be of much use to the students anyway.

One analogy might be from physics; quantum theory and string theory, etc, may account for the universe more "accurately" than Newton's Laws, but which is more useful when designing a bridge?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:28 pm

lolwhites wrote:unlikely to be of much use to the students anyway.

How so?

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:20 pm

Ignoring aspect, actionsart and tense and possibly certain moods Modality is what's left when we say this is not what the verb DOES, it's not what it HAS and it isn't what it IS.

There is only one thing left. The philosophical framework in which all this is interpreted. Is this the same framework at base? I don't know.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:03 pm

metal56 wrote:
lolwhites wrote:unlikely to be of much use to the students anyway.

How so?

Well, I have a colleague who is currently researching a whole PhD on should, so presumably it would be of some use to her. However, your common or garden student who needs English for (say) work purposes probably would benefit more from some good, concrete, general guidelines about the various uses of the modals rather than some fuzzy "basic meaning" that will probably seem pretty far removed from reality for anyone who isn't a full time linguist.

I'm not saying such things aren't worth bothering about, far from it, but they have their time and place.