Basic semantic meanings of modal auxiliaries.

[metal56]

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

Will
Epistemic:
a) Don't worry it will be OK.

Given my perception of the immediate situation, it is inevitable that it will be OK.

Deontic:

Will you be quiet!=I demand that you be quiet. (It is inevitable. No choice)
Means "You will be quiet!".


Dynamic: (not sure if "will" fits well with a dynamic reading, but...)

a) I will go to the party.=It is my intention to go to the party.
b) I'll do it.= I volunteer to do it.

Given my perception of the immediate situation, it is inevitable that I will go to the party.
Given my perception of the immediate situation, it is inevitable that I will do it.

)

Have fun!

[LarryLatham]

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.

I wish I could say that I know what Andy means here, but I'm afraid he is way over my head.

Instead of using some big words here and assuming that everyone knows what they mean, at least as they apply to linguistic analyses, maybe it would be useful to get into some detail about what Andy’s terms might mean.

I hasten to confess, here, that I don’t know what they mean. Really, I had to check several dictionaries, and do some thinking to come up with some ideas that seem reasonable to me. So what follows is the meanderings of a non-professional in a very messy area of an inexact science, but let’s see where they go, and whether some of you can buy what I’m selling.

Modality, to begin with, refers to, I believe, a speaker’s ability to separately comment on the nature of the proposition being advanced in the main part of the sentence in which the modal appears. Keeping in mind that sentences are influenced, which is to say that their meaning is influenced as well as, in some cases, their form, by the context in which they appear, modality is often expressed with the use of what we regularly call “modals” or “modal verbs” or (my preference) “modal auxiliaries.” This is not the only way modality can be expressed, but it is an important way, and the one under discussion here. There is a fundamental difference between a sentence like She runs fast and another one like She can run fast. The first is a statement which is represented by the speaker as a truth or fact (whether or not it is actually true). The second sentence, containing can, uses that word for the speaker to posit his momentary, present time, personal view of the information contained in the rest of the sentence. Can is only used here as an example; any of the nine modal auxiliaries can be used, but always in the same place in the sentence, and always with the same intent: to comment on the viability of the proposition in the sentence. The nature of the comment is determined by which particular modal auxiliary is chosen, and its core meaning, as well as by the context surrounding the sentence, which moulds and develops the core meaning.

Andy tells us that there are three types of modality, and he names them epistemic, deontic and dynamic. (I suppose he got these labels from somewhere else; indeed I have seen them before on other websites, and Andy has mentioned them earlier on this site, but candidly, I have never understood what they mean). These are the words I had to look up and think about. It seems to me that the label epistemic simply means that the modal device attempts to justify the piece of knowledge that the main proposition states. It characterizes that proposition as an opinion advanced by the speaker, as opposed to, for instance, a generally accepted truth. When one says, “They are home now”, one represents it as truth…period. Of course, for all of you who will object that it still is only the opinion of the speaker, the “truth” may turn out to be false. The point is that the speaker is using certain forms of language to show us he is presenting it as a truth. (I suppose we can take it or leave it). However, when that speaker says, “They will be home by now”, he comments, with will, that the notion of ‘They’ being home is his opinion, and the modal auxiliary used there represents to us that he is expressing the proposition as an opinion. He is justifying his knowledge that ‘They’ are home. This is what I think is meant by “epistemic modality”. Correct me if I’m wrong here, please.

Deontic denotes that the modality, epistemic though it may be, deals with the ideas of permissibility or ability. So epistemic modality and deontic modality are not separate kinds or types of modality, but rather deontic modality is a subdivision of the epistemic variety. When I say, “ You may leave if you’re finished with the test”, or, “Rabbits can run faster than turtles”, I am expressing not only epistemic modality, but also deontic modality. At least this is what I am thinking now. Again, correct me if I’m wrong in this.

Dynamic modality may be different than epistemic modality. Here, dynamic refers to the expression of the force of personality of the speaker. When my wife says to my son, “You will get up now and you will get to school on time!” , she is displaying the force of her personality and authority by stressing the modal auxiliaries there. Dynamic modal auxiliaries are not normally used in contracted form. The full form, as well as vocal stress (or the use of italics or some similar device in writing), expresses the force desired.

OK. Some of you are better trained than I am in this area. What I’d like to hear from you is whether I’m on the right track, or way off base.


Larry Latham

[metal56]

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 ...

OK. Some of you are better trained than I am in this area. What I’d like to hear from you is whether I’m on the right track, or way off base.


Larry Latham

Yes, Larry, you are on the right track. This is always a good little site for such explanations.

http://www.sil.org/linguistics/Glossary ... isticTerms


Definition

Epistemic modality is a modality that connotes how much certainty or evidence a speaker has for the proposition expressed by his or her utterance.

Definition

Deontic modality is modality that connotes the speaker's degree of requirement of desire for, or commitment to the realization of
the proposition expressed by the utterance.

Although it doesn't have a description of dynamic modality.

Dynamic interpretations convey physical capability. Unlike deontic and epistemic, dynamic modality does not refer to the speaker. For example in the sentence below:

Juan can play the guitar.

can refers to Juan's ability to play the guitar. Can does not seem to refer to the speaker. That differentiates the dynamic modality from deontic and epistemic.

http://www.geocities.com/margowilliams2002/modals

[LarryLatham]

Thanks for the link, M56. I had a look, and must admit nothing there made much sense to me. Must be my lack of foundation in formal linguistics. Even so, this site, while it should be a great help to neophytes like me, reminds me of why intermediate students frequently do not like English-only dictionaries.


Larry Latham

As for the link to the Margo Williams paper, I found nothing there I could agree with. Even her conclusion that 'the best way for students to learn is for the teacher to explain fully and comprehensively' is diametrically opposed to my views.

[metal56]

Thanks for the link, M56. I had a look, and must admit nothing there made much sense to me. Must be my lack of foundation in formal linguistics. Even so, this site, while it should be a great help to neophytes like me, reminds me of why intermediate students frequently do not like English-only dictionaries.


Larry Latham

[Stephen Jones]

I am afraid Larry you are way off base in describing epistemic and deontic modality. No way is deontic modality a sub-branch of epistemic modality. They are standard linguistic terms, and if you are talking about modality you would do well to learn them. They are certainly more likely to be useful than the off-the-cuff roll-your-own stuff that Lewis is writes.

The example you choose to differentiate between modal and non-modal sentences is also a poor one.
She can run fast.
is an example of dynamic modality, and thus has nothing to do with the point of view or desire of the speaker. Dynamic modality may best be considered a throwback to the time when the modal auxiliaries were main verbs with a normal semantic load. If 'can' and 'could' were not modal verbs by structure, we would not need to bother with the category. There is no real difference in degree of factuality between she can run fast, she wants to run fast and she likes to run fast.

I completely fail to see how the definition for 'will' that metal 56 gives ties in with the examples. In fact, I rather suspect you could just swap the definitions around and apply them to different modals and the explanations would be just as convincing, or unconvincing.

[Andrew Patterson]

This one's mainly for Larry:

Most EFL textbooks already split modality into the categories of epistemic, deontic and dynamic, it's just that they don't use those terms. When teaching learners, nor do I.

A typical textbook will include sections on:
1) speculation and deduction - this is epistemic modality;
2) obligation, necessity and permission - this is deontic modality; and
3) ability and volition - this is dynamic modality.

Actually, the word "volition" is rarely used, perhaps it should be.

These are not definitions of the various types of modality but rather lists of how they are expressed in English.

[metal56]

Thanks for the link, M56. I had a look, and must admit nothing there made much sense to me. Must be my lack of foundation in formal linguistics. Even so, this site, while it should be a great help to neophytes like me, reminds me of why intermediate students frequently do not like English-only dictionaries.


Larry Latham

As for the link to the Margo Williams paper, I found nothing there I could agree with. Even her conclusion that 'the best way for students to learn is for the teacher to explain fully and comprehensively' is diametrically opposed to my views.

Mine too.

[lolwhites]

Dynamic interpretations convey physical capability. Unlike deontic and epistemic, dynamic modality does not refer to the speaker. For example in the sentence below:

Juan can play the guitar.

can refers to Juan's ability to play the guitar. Can does not seem to refer to the speaker. That differentiates the dynamic modality from deontic and epistemic.

Am I alone in thinking that can doesn't necessarily refer to Juan's ability. The speaker could be saying "he's allowed to":

Juan can play the guitar because he plays quietly. You can't because the last time you did, the neighbours complained about the noise.

The context fills in the blanks.

[metal56]

Dynamic interpretations convey physical capability. Unlike deontic and epistemic, dynamic modality does not refer to the speaker. For example in the sentence below:

Juan can play the guitar.

can refers to Juan's ability to play the guitar. Can does not seem to refer to the speaker. That differentiates the dynamic modality from deontic and epistemic.

Am I alone in thinking that can doesn't necessarily refer to Juan's ability. The speaker could be saying "he's allowed to":

Juan can play the guitar because he plays quietly. You can't because the last time you did, the neighbours complained about the noise.

The context fills in the blanks.

The use of "can" for "he's allowed to" is not dynamic modality, but deontic modality - and is of course possible as "Juan can play the guitar (if he's finished his homework)" for example. The quote was discussing dynamic modality and didn't deny the deontic use.

Modals express epistemic, deontic/root and dynamic meanings:

a. Epistemic interpretations qualify the `factuality' of a proposition.
b. Deontic interpretations convey notions of obligation or permission.
c. Dynamic interpretations convey physical capability.

[metal56]

I am afraid Larry you are way off base in describing epistemic and deontic modality. No way is deontic modality a sub-branch of epistemic modality. They are standard linguistic terms, and if you are talking about modality you would do well to learn them. They are certainly more likely to be useful than the off-the-cuff roll-your-own stuff that Lewis is writes.

The example you choose to differentiate between modal and non-modal sentences is also a poor one.
She can run fast.
is an example of dynamic modality, and thus has nothing to do with the point of view or desire of the speaker. Dynamic modality may best be considered a throwback to the time when the modal auxiliaries were main verbs with a normal semantic load. If 'can' and 'could' were not modal verbs by structure, we would not need to bother with the category. There is no real difference in degree of factuality between she can run fast, she wants to run fast and she likes to run fast.

I completely fail to see how the definition for 'will' that metal 56 gives ties in with the examples. In fact, I rather suspect you could just swap the definitions around and apply them to different modals and the explanations would be just as convincing, or unconvincing.

Have you tried writing some "will sentences" and making your own paraphrases? It might be a more direct way to help the conversation than the cynical approach you seem to have donned. come onto centre stage. Don't stand in the wings.

I also ask if you could follow up on posts such as this:

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

Please, once again, I ask if you can give examples to support that "proposition".

[Stephen Jones]

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

Please, once again, I ask if you can give examples to support that "proposition".

Can I open the window?
May I open the window?
Could I open the window?

Would you open the window?
Could you open the window?

It may rain later.
It could rain later.

With regard to 'will' the core meaning 'given my perception of the immediate situation it is inevitable" appears to have little to do with any use of 'will'.

For a start when we are making a prediction based on present evidence we tend to use 'going to' - indeed that results in the construction sometimes being called the 'immediate future'.

So if we see clouds in the sky we are more likely to say It's going to rain than it will rain.

It also seems a little cynical to apply it to promises I will always love you somehow sounds much less romantic when paraphrased as "given my perception of the immediate situation I view it as inevitable that I will always love you" though, by suggesting that both the perception and immediatel situation may change, and the promise as well, it may be realistic.

And how does this core definition tell us anything useful about
Will you open the door for me?

'Will' is to do with volition, and its varying meanings are much more easily explained as expansons from that than by the nebulous epistemic meaning Lewsi appears to assign to it. Equally 'can' can be better explained from the starting point of its original meaning of having ability or knowledge.

Lewis's 'core meanings' are unhistorical, ignore standard descriptive grammar, don;t serve in the least as prediction, and are much less clear than the standard explanations.

If they were given by Shuntang instead of Lewis we wouldn't waste five seconds on them.

[Andrew Patterson]

Stephen Jones wrote:

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 further ordering or simplification.

OK, I know that that comment about making Venn diagrams was scarcastic but I'm going to take it seriously because such diagrams are useful where there is overlap in meaning and relatively simple. You are all well aware that I went through a phase when I did some very silly over-complicated Venn diagrams. Ultimately, I used them to solve the problem of counting the number of verb patterns (23 in all.) The trouble is, I did this in a very inefficient way and could probably discovered that fact much more quickly using other methods. When Venn diagrams get too complicated, it becomes next to impossible to discern just what overlaps with what. It was just sth that I had to get out of my system, call it growing up.

Now I would certainly be up for making a Venn diagram that got everything into three overlaping circles labled "epistemic", "deontic" and "dynamic", as that would be simple, but I can't figure out how that would be done. If you can supply the data, I'll make the diagram.

Steven (or anyone else), you will see that I have supplied a laundry list albeit incomplete on the link to my site. if you would like to either simplify or complete, it please let me know.

[JuanTwoThree]

There also seem to be some very common expressions with uses of some of these modals that are so far away from any core meaning as to make its hunt somewhat complicated, to put it mildly.

Look at "We may as well go home" and "we might as well go home" which seem to have very little if anything to choose between them. What's more they seem to express something approaching the certainty that "we will go home" .

And I see that everybody is staying well away from that definition of "shall". It's a big " if" but if we go along with the idea that "shall" is increasingly only used in questions and to a great extent only with "I" and "we" then is it fair to say that "shall" means that the speaker is relinquishing the power of decision to the answerer and that the speaker will abide by that decision: Shall I help you, Shall we dance, Shall I open the window, Shall my secretary make coffee? ( less common) ?

[LarryLatham]

I am afraid Larry you are way off base in describing epistemic and deontic modality. No way is deontic modality a sub-branch of epistemic modality. They are standard linguistic terms, and if you are talking about modality you would do well to learn them. They are certainly more likely to be useful than the off-the-cuff roll-your-own stuff that Lewis is writes.

The example you choose to differentiate between modal and non-modal sentences is also a poor one.
She can run fast.
is an example of dynamic modality, and thus has nothing to do with the point of view or desire of the speaker. Dynamic modality may best be considered a throwback to the time when the modal auxiliaries were main verbs with a normal semantic load. If 'can' and 'could' were not modal verbs by structure, we would not need to bother with the category. There is no real difference in degree of factuality between she can run fast, she wants to run fast and she likes to run fast.

I completely fail to see how the definition for 'will' that metal 56 gives ties in with the examples. In fact, I rather suspect you could just swap the definitions around and apply them to different modals and the explanations would be just as convincing, or unconvincing.

I'm not at all surprised, Stephen, to hear that I'm way off base with my attempts to make some sense out of modality. After all, I freely admit that I know very little about it. I am forced to revert to my own imaginings in this area because nothing I read in textbooks makes any sense at all to me. Andy, in an attempt to be helpful, says:

A typical textbook will include sections on:
1) speculation and deduction - this is epistemic modality;
2) obligation, necessity and permission - this is deontic modality; and
3) ability and volition - this is dynamic modality.

I'm grateful to you, Andy, for trying, but I can't see anything there that helps me to understand modality. Maybe I'm just being dense, or maybe this stuff is way beyond my native abilities to understand, or beyond the linguistic foundation that I have (no formal training), but I just don't get anything from what you said. Nor does anything Stephen has said here on this thread or elsewhere on Dave's (that I've read) get me closer to clarity. Others are also posting, but I'm just not getting it, so I'm forced to come up with my own ideas.

Stephen's criticisms notwithstanding, the most sensible writing I've read about modals is in Michael Lewis's The English Verb. I know Stephen's knee just jerks whenever I mention Michael Lewis, because for some reason (which I also don't understand) he does not accept anything Lewis says. But he makes sense to me. The only trouble with it is that his coverage of modality isn't comprehensive, so I'm left with feeling that I know a little about modality, but not enough. Lewis himself states that it's a messy area of grammar, and warns that his treatment of it is not encyclopedic.

Now I wish that someone could take what I've posted above and show me clearly why I'm wrong. Just throwing terminology at me doesn't stick. I don't know what it means. Sarcasm doesn't help either. I know I'm asking a lot, and perhaps none of you think it's worth the trouble it would take to explain it for me. But I suggest that I'm probably not the only person reading this forum who feels ill prepared in this area of modality. Any teacher who can truly enlighten us would be really appreciated. Will anyone out there take up this little challenge?

Larry Latham