Basic semantic meanings of modal auxiliaries.

[woodcutter]

Perhaps, but that isn't the core meaning according to the paraphrasing of the OP.

[LarryLatham]

I'm sorry, woodcutter, you lost me there. I guess I'm not familiar with the terminology (or perhaps just the abbreviations) you are using. Can you spell that out for this feeble old mind?

Larry Latham

Oh, wait. I read it again (correctly this time), and now I understand your meaning.

Yes, I see your point. But perhaps we can persuade Metal56 to amend his paraphrasing just a bit to include not only possibility, but also ability in the core meaning of can and could.

Larry Latham

[woodcutter]

But surely the core meaning ought to be a hard core, not a stretchy thingumibob. (if you'll excuse my expert linguistic terminology!)

[LarryLatham]

Oh, not at all. In fact, it really must be a stretchy thingumibob. Otherwise, how will it accomodate all of the various contexts into which it will be thrust? That's exactly the point. Core meanings must not be construed to be rigid constructs. They are intended to be helpful to students, but when they are cast in rigid form, and real-world language doesn't conform precisely (as it most certainly will not very, very often) students (and teachers) are confused. Now where's the help in that?

Larry Latham

[metal56]

But surely the core meaning ought to be a hard core, not a stretchy thingumibob. (if you'll excuse my expert linguistic terminology!)

The fact is, "ability" (or capability) is included under "possibility", and not v.v.

[metal56]

At that time, I could ride a bike.

Such a sentence has very little to do with "remote possibility".

Right you are! But perhaps it has quite a bit to do with "remote ability." Could the speaker be referring to an ability he had in remote time?

Larry Latham

It's more of a "could if asked", IMO. It was possible for me if asked. Again we must remember that the modal is talking about a hypothetical situation. It is not directly factual, as with "I rode when I was young" (state) or "I once rode a racing bike".

[woodcutter]

If we wanted to convey that, we would say

"I could have ridden a bike"

I think if we say "I could ride a bike at that time", it rather implies that we sometimes did.

[lolwhites]

So you do not believe in basic semantic meanings?

It's not that I don't believe in them, but in the case of modals what you find is one meaning hardly ever covers every use. You can narrow it down to a few meanings, but there are always uses that have fossilized that won't fit into one simple box. So, like I said, we can learn a lot by looking for basic semantic meanings but don't beat yourself up if you don't find one.

[Andrew Patterson]

I'm afraid I can't understand what Lewis is trying to get at when he talks about the "core meanings of modal verbs," that Metal listed.

That is not to say that I think that it is impossible to have core meanings, it's just that there are three components of modality - epistemic, deontic and dynamic. Deontic and dynamic modality is sometimes lumped together as root modality but does seem to involve two different types of modality as evidenced by the difference between "must" and "have to".

The examples that Metal listed are all epistemic modality. Now not all modals carry all three types of modality, but where they do there can be a minimum of three core meanings. Although I would like to note that deontic meanings are less abstract and therefore more likely to emerge first. Historically, I think that this is the case. Sorry, no, I can't provide a reference there but I seem to remember reading it somewhere.

For what it's worth, this is something that I did some work on some time ago, though I never got round to completing it. As you will see, use of "have" and whether it is positive or negative can affect the core meaning too.

You can see how far I got before losing heart at:

http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/Modal.html

[Stephen Jones]

Like lolwhites I don't believe there is one basic meaning for each modal auxiliary, or any need to look for one.

I also believe that the whole chapter where Lewis talks about this and worse still tries to suggest a semantic unifying factor for all modals is junk.

Modal verbs came about in English as what were previously main verbs took on auxiliary status and became divorced from the main verb. Indeed in the cases of 'can' and 'will' the main verb still co-existswith the auxiliary(though spelt 'ken' in the first case). If you are looking for a 'core' meaning you would presumably need to do a historical analysis. Lewis does no such thing and the core meanings are figments of his own imagination.

The 'core meanings' metal 56 gives are hopelessly vague and requiire almost supernatural casuistry to make them fit in with the different meanings in context.

They also totally fail to explain how in many cases one modal can be substituted for another without any change in meaning.

We need a better pattern than either the core meaning chimera or the laundry list so beloved by the Buvard and Pecuchets of linguistic science. Perhaps the idea of some kind of linguistic attraction that results in one form being used instead of another is the way to go. Where the attractions are equally strong then alternatives arise. Andrew could go around making Venn diagrams for the overlaps, and then license out the design to for patchwork quilts to be sold to impoverished EFL teachers freezing in garrets.

One thing I am certain of is that words and grammatical forms expand to fit the meaning available.

Incidentally the explanation of modals in Chapter 3 of the "Cambridge Grammar of the English Language" appears exceptionally clear. Huddelston tends to be a lover of laundry lists but his analysis is a good starting point for furhter ordering or simplification.

[lolwhites]

It's certainly the case that "laundry lists" won't help students, not will core definitions that are too vague. However, it's the search for the Holy Grail of the core definition that helps to pare down the laundry list into something a bit more workable.

Incidentally, however one feels about "core meanings", there's no reason why they can't overlap. Substituting them in certain contexts may not change meaning but it often changes emphasis, so "totally fail to explain" would seem to me to be a bit of an exaggeration.

I'm reminded of how long it took me to learn when to use the Subjunctive Mood in Spanish: I had such a long list of cases when I should use it that it was impossible to remember, while the Indicative=declaration vs Subjunctive=not a declaration distinction may have held true but was too general to be of much use either.

[metal56]

Like lolwhites I don't believe there is one basic meaning for each modal auxiliary, or any need to look for one.

I also believe that the whole chapter where Lewis talks about this and worse still tries to suggest a semantic unifying factor for all modals is junk.

Modal verbs came about in English as what were previously main verbs took on auxiliary status and became divorced from the main verb. Indeed in the cases of 'can' and 'will' the main verb still co-existswith the auxiliary(though spelt 'ken' in the first case). If you are looking for a 'core' meaning you would presumably need to do a historical analysis. Lewis does no such thing and the core meanings are figments of his own imagination.

The 'core meanings' metal 56 gives are hopelessly vague and requiire almost supernatural casuistry to make them fit in with the different meanings in context.

They also totally fail to explain how in many cases one modal can be substituted for another without any change in meaning.

We need a better pattern than either the core meaning chimera or the laundry list so beloved by the Buvard and Pecuchets of linguistic science. Perhaps the idea of some kind of linguistic attraction that results in one form being used instead of another is the way to go. Where the attractions are equally strong then alternatives arise. Andrew could go around making Venn diagrams for the overlaps, and then license out the design to for patchwork quilts to be sold to impoverished EFL teachers freezing in garrets.

One thing I am certain of is that words and grammatical forms expand to fit the meaning available.

Incidentally the explanation of modals in Chapter 3 of the "Cambridge Grammar of the English Language" appears exceptionally clear. Huddelston tends to be a lover of laundry lists but his analysis is a good starting point for furhter ordering or simplification.

<I also believe that the whole chapter where Lewis talks about this and worse still tries to suggest a semantic unifying factor for all modals is junk.>

There you go with that lovely non-linguistics language again.

<They also totally fail to explain how in many cases one modal can be substituted for another without any change in meaning.>

Really? Do show us.

[LarryLatham]

Yes, do!


Larry Latham

[metal56]

The examples that Metal listed are all epistemic modality.

How so? "Can" and modality:

Can = I assert that it is possible for lions to be dangerous. (epistemic)*
Can = I assert that it is possible for you to go to the toilet. (deontic)
Can = I assert that it is possible for me to ride a bike if asked. (dynamic)


*potential = adjective: existing in possibility

[metal56]

May = If I have anything to do with it, it is possible that ...

May

Epistemic:

I may go to the party. = It is possible that I will go to the party.

Deontic:
a) May I borrow your pen. = Do you give me permission to borrow your pen?*
b) George, you may leave. = (Indirectly) George, please leave. *

Giving permission makes it possible for the person to do something.

The "if I have anything to do with it" shows the authority - real or imagined - of the permission granter.