Basic semantic meanings of modal auxiliaries.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 9:42 am

Andrew Patterson wrote:Metal wrote:
So the "unframed" proposition would be something like:
Some lions are dangerous. (See von Wright. 1951)
While the partially framed proposition would be:
(Some) lions can be dangerous.
The von Write quotation is, I think the first time that the idea of existental modality was posited and I had this very quote in my mind when I wrote that. It's just we were already discussing the example of the bus pulling away.

The answer is yes. That is exactly as I would interpret it. This is my idea, though, not anybody elses so tell me if you think I am talking rubbish, Metal.

No, not at all. I think it makes some sense to point out partial framing. The full-framing of the "lion" proposition would seem to be "Some lions can be dangerous".

She could see the bus from where she stood. She could also see that he wasn't on it.

That is fully framed, IMO.

As is the second of these if one wants to give a more stative meaning to the proposition:

She could see the bus from where she stood.
She could often/always see the bus from where she stood.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:38 am

Metal wrote:

She could see the bus from where she stood. She could also see that he wasn't on it.

I think that this is turning into a Barbara Cartland novel.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:52 pm

Andrew Patterson wrote:Metal wrote:
She could see the bus from where she stood. She could also see that he wasn't on it.
I think that this is turning into a Barbara Cartland novel.

I do very much hope so, sir.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:26 pm

You keep repeating the same nonsense. When will you realise that "ability" is a type of possibility? When will you see that the base of all modal auxilairies is either possibility or necessity?

When I become completely unhinged like you.

You're waffling. You can say anything is a form of possibility. What's the point of a core meaning so vacous it is indistinguishable from thin air?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:24 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:
You keep repeating the same nonsense. When will you realise that "ability" is a type of possibility? When will you see that the base of all modal auxilairies is either possibility or necessity?
When I become completely unhinged like you.

You're waffling. You can say anything is a form of possibility. What's the point of a core meaning so vacous it is indistinguishable from thin air?

You can say anything is a form of possibility.

I can (it's possible) and I could (it's possible), but I don't. Only what I have called possibility here.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:31 pm

"Maybe he'll sing a song" has necessity in it by Metallic logic, and Lolwhitian logic too perhaps.

For me, there is future in it. It's an easier position to be defending, that's for sure.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:53 pm

woodcutter wrote:"Maybe he'll sing a song" has necessity in it by Metallic logic, and Lolwhitian logic too perhaps.

For me, there is future in it. It's an easier position to be defending, that's for sure.

Can it not have necessity and future in it then?

Are you lost? Recall:

Will = Given my perception of the immediate situation, it is inevitable that ...

If you want to add more modality with "maybe", things change slightly, but then, I wasn't talking about anything more than just basic semantic meaning of the modal auxiliaries, now was I?

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:01 pm

"Maybe he'll sing a song" has necessity in it by Metallic logic, and Lolwhitian logic too perhaps.

You'll have to do better than that, Woody. That's just one example, where the meaning comes as much from the word maybe as the verbs.

If you pay him, he'll sing a song doesn't necessarily refer to a future event - you could be talking about a friend who sings songs for money i.e. a general truth about your friend, not future at all.

Time references come from context.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:28 pm

Salkie says this:

"Core members of the modal category meet these four criteria:

A. They express possibility or necessity.
B. They are epistemic or deontic.
C. They are subjective, involving
(i) commitment by the speaker.
(ii) primary pragmatic processes.
(iii)a sharp distinction between the modal expression and the proposi-
tional content.
D. They are located at one of the extremes of a modal scale.

www.brighton.ac.uk/languages/ research/Salkie_Degrees_of_modality.pdf

He suggests that dynamic uses (if such a category really exists) seem to be low in modality because they fail to meet the above criteria and so should be assigned to the periphery.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:04 am

A collection of abstruse claims in technical language, that's all.

Which jars more -

In the past it will/ Yesterday it will

or "will not necessarily"

I'm not sure whether seeking core meanings is worthwhile. However, they ceratinly must be the meanings most easy to manipulate, they must be meanings that clash most heavily with their polar opposites, and they certainly must be the meanings that could be identified by all speakers of the language, or else people would be unable to use the language. No normal person would identify "will" with necessity. Certain words, such as "would" cause a problem, and may have multiple cores. Other modals, such as "can", present no difficulty at all. Ask 1000 people for the core meaning and you will receive the same species of answer from each.

In fact, how about that for the solution? We determine the core meaning of words by asking 1000 native speakers. If there is no clear winner, then there is no core.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:09 am

Metal, I think you mean:
http://www.brighton.ac.uk/languages/res ... dality.pdf
(There's no space before "research".)

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 6:05 am

woodcutter wrote:A collection of abstruse claims in technical language, that's all.

Which jars more -

In the past it will/ Yesterday it will

or "will not necessarily"

I'm not sure whether seeking core meanings is worthwhile. However, they ceratinly must be the meanings most easy to manipulate, they must be meanings that clash most heavily with their polar opposites, and they certainly must be the meanings that could be identified by all speakers of the language, or else people would be unable to use the language. No normal person would identify "will" with necessity. Certain words, such as "would" cause a problem, and may have multiple cores. Other modals, such as "can", present no difficulty at all. Ask 1000 people for the core meaning and you will receive the same species of answer from each.

In fact, how about that for the solution? We determine the core meaning of words by asking 1000 native speakers. If there is no clear winner, then there is no core.

Could you give us your definition of core, or basic semantic, meaning? I'm not sure we are on the same track here.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 6:18 am

The meaning that the word has in the most neutral circumstance, I suppose. That being the meaning seen as the ultimate root of other possible meanings, unless the two uses are widely considered as entirely unrelated, ie as two separate words. What's yours?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:47 am

Andrew Patterson wrote:Metal, I think you mean:
http://www.brighton.ac.uk/languages/res ... dality.pdf
(There's no space before "research".)

Yes, that's it. Thanks.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:52 pm

Woodcutter - I'm not sure what you mean by a "neutral circumstance". When is it ever possible to analyze a sentence out of context?

If you look back over the "Interesting use of 'Future Perfect'" thread (link on the first page of this one) you'll see that Larry Latham and I argued repeatedly that time reference in sentences with will came from context.