Coming across "might ought to" gave me pause for thought.
Firstly it's particularly useful as a tentative suggestion that something is a very good idea.
Secondly it's staggeringly widespread: Guess how many Google hits it gets before you look. Don't cheat. And very few of them are from lists of modals.
Lastly you can see that it apparently fits perfectly into a "might ------- to" model which makes its use all the more beguiling.
Any way of checking how much this is AmE from the South?
Modal stacking
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
JuanTwoThree
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
Well, modal stacking is said to be a feature of Southern American English. The very first google hit for "modal stacking" is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_American_English
and for something more reputable there are references here
http://www.utm.utoronto.ca/~halldani/ha ... s.2001.pdf
and more elsewhere. So I was wondering if "modal plus semi modal" was more widespread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_American_English
and for something more reputable there are references here
http://www.utm.utoronto.ca/~halldani/ha ... s.2001.pdf
and more elsewhere. So I was wondering if "modal plus semi modal" was more widespread.
-
OxfordBlues
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 7:31 pm
- Location: United States
- Contact:
Oh Juan, please don't use wikipedia as a source of information about linguistics! Most of their information is horribly incorrect.
Also, most things written about "Southern American" speech and dialects is a load of crap. True linguistic analysis has shown that speakers in much of the southern US, especially the Gulf Coast region tend to have the most prescriptive forms around, not to mention one of the most diverse active vocabularies.
Unfortunately there is quite a bit of prejudice against people from this area and stereotypes and regional prejudice often taints opinions about the language.
As for modal stacking as you've called it, that is no more a feature of the speech varieties of that region than it is of any other. There are rules governing the various ways in which modals behave.
Some may be subordinated by other modals while others may not.
If you want a complete listing of the various types of modals and the rules governing them, check out this link:
http://calleteach.wordpress.com/2009/12 ... sh-modals/
Also, most things written about "Southern American" speech and dialects is a load of crap. True linguistic analysis has shown that speakers in much of the southern US, especially the Gulf Coast region tend to have the most prescriptive forms around, not to mention one of the most diverse active vocabularies.
Unfortunately there is quite a bit of prejudice against people from this area and stereotypes and regional prejudice often taints opinions about the language.
As for modal stacking as you've called it, that is no more a feature of the speech varieties of that region than it is of any other. There are rules governing the various ways in which modals behave.
Some may be subordinated by other modals while others may not.
If you want a complete listing of the various types of modals and the rules governing them, check out this link:
http://calleteach.wordpress.com/2009/12 ... sh-modals/
-
JuanTwoThree
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
I think I've got a pretty good handle on the rules governing how modals behave, but thanks for the exhaustive link all the same.
Between your assertion that modal stacking is not a feature of Southern American English and:
Boertien, Harmon. 1986. “Constituent Structure of Double Modals,” in Language Variety in the South: Perspectives in Black and White. Michael Montgomery and Guy Bailey, eds. Tuscaloosa: University of
Alabama Press. p 294-318.
Coleman, William. 1975. Multiple Modals in Southern States English. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Indiana.
Di Paolo, Marianna. 1989. “Double Modals as Single Lexical Items.” American Speech 64, 3: 195-224.
Feagin, Crawford. 1979. “Modality: Double Modals and Liketa,” in Variation and Change in Alabama English. Washington: Georgetown University Press. p 151-185
.
Mishoe, Margaret and Michael Montgomery. 1994. “The Pragmatics of Multiple Modal Variation in North and South Carolina.” American Speech 69.1: 3-29.
Whitley, M. Stanley. 1975. “Dialectal syntax: plurals and modals in Southern American.” Linguistics 161: 89-108.
inter alia,
you won't be offended if I'm disinclined to take your word for it. But I'm equally disinclined to look into it further.
I must say though that your link is very interesting in that it concentrates on all structures that convey mood, even if that adds up to a large chunk of language, and not on what it calls the nine Germanic modals plus the usual rag-bag of let, make, had better, ought to, dare, needn't and so on. I've mentioned before how "do-support" was and is resisted by the the full verbs which convey mood ( I hope not, I think not, I suppose not etc)
I'm interested in the negation of the traditional modals. It's always been clear to me that the "must-ness" of "you must go" and that of "you must not go" are no different and that the break between sense units is "You must/not go" and not "You must not/go", regardless of "mustn't".
I don't see it applying to giving and refusing permission with "can" or "may" though. "You may not go to the ball" is hardly "You have permission not to go", except when it is of course.
Between your assertion that modal stacking is not a feature of Southern American English and:
Boertien, Harmon. 1986. “Constituent Structure of Double Modals,” in Language Variety in the South: Perspectives in Black and White. Michael Montgomery and Guy Bailey, eds. Tuscaloosa: University of
Alabama Press. p 294-318.
Coleman, William. 1975. Multiple Modals in Southern States English. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Indiana.
Di Paolo, Marianna. 1989. “Double Modals as Single Lexical Items.” American Speech 64, 3: 195-224.
Feagin, Crawford. 1979. “Modality: Double Modals and Liketa,” in Variation and Change in Alabama English. Washington: Georgetown University Press. p 151-185
.
Mishoe, Margaret and Michael Montgomery. 1994. “The Pragmatics of Multiple Modal Variation in North and South Carolina.” American Speech 69.1: 3-29.
Whitley, M. Stanley. 1975. “Dialectal syntax: plurals and modals in Southern American.” Linguistics 161: 89-108.
inter alia,
you won't be offended if I'm disinclined to take your word for it. But I'm equally disinclined to look into it further.
I must say though that your link is very interesting in that it concentrates on all structures that convey mood, even if that adds up to a large chunk of language, and not on what it calls the nine Germanic modals plus the usual rag-bag of let, make, had better, ought to, dare, needn't and so on. I've mentioned before how "do-support" was and is resisted by the the full verbs which convey mood ( I hope not, I think not, I suppose not etc)
I'm interested in the negation of the traditional modals. It's always been clear to me that the "must-ness" of "you must go" and that of "you must not go" are no different and that the break between sense units is "You must/not go" and not "You must not/go", regardless of "mustn't".
I don't see it applying to giving and refusing permission with "can" or "may" though. "You may not go to the ball" is hardly "You have permission not to go", except when it is of course.
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
I guess 747, 000 
Doesn't seem that much - the South is a big place. Certainly Juan is right that that is the geographical information usually given, but Oxford is probably right in saying that that information is overblown, especially given how much Americans move about.
It seems to me that while British people are pretty familiar with the notion of local dialect and do not necessarily write as they speak, the same instinct is not so present in the U.S.
Doesn't seem that much - the South is a big place. Certainly Juan is right that that is the geographical information usually given, but Oxford is probably right in saying that that information is overblown, especially given how much Americans move about.
It seems to me that while British people are pretty familiar with the notion of local dialect and do not necessarily write as they speak, the same instinct is not so present in the U.S.
