Generic "will".

[metal56]

But I am not with you here. You should know that I am not one of those American English speakers you mention who cannot see any uses of the modal auxiliary "will" (and I do assert that it is always a modal auxiliary) that do not serve to extend time into the future. I have posted plenty of opinions to the contrary. But I still maintain that use of "will" does imply a speculation. Speculation does not necessarily mean that the user is predicting a future time event. It can be just as well used to refer to an event that the speaker cannot personally know is true, simply because of the circumstances of his perhaps limited knowledge of it. He may know, for example, of some plans for an event that should have already occurred. If that event is scheduled for a place removed from the location of the speaker, however, then he cannot personally know that it has indeed happened as planned. He must therefore speculate that it has and will say something like: " (Such and such) will have happened..." It gives rise to statements like, "It's already a quarter past eight, so his morning class will be in session now." It also gives rise to statements like, "When food is scarce, the biggest chick will kill and eat the smaller ones."

I agree with everything you have said so far. As you know, I'm very fond of citing Lewis' famous "They will be there by now." example of what you would call speculation and I would call logical deduction.

If that is the case, then grammatical devices cannot be chosen from a catalog, because that would mean that we'd have to go through a process of elimination for each of the hundreds of devices we might use in the course of a simple conversation. Time simply doesn't allow for that. Instead, I believe, we (who would teach) must find meaningful descriptive overviews for each of the elements of English grammar. I submit that competent users have found meaningful overviews, even if they often are not able to articulate them. Particular interpretations will depend heavily on context and cotext, as you pointed out above, but there must be some central essence from which to begin.

Again, I've posted what the core meaning of every modal verb according to Lewis, and I agree with those and the concept of core meanings. Those core meaning apply only out of context; when in context they take on additional meanings. One of the additional meanings of "will" allows us to talk about present habits, persistence and generic qualities. That's the use I cite here and the use that many AE speakers have said that they do not recognise. What can I do about that?

But this idea of yours (or perhaps someone else's, and you're borrowing it) about uses of "will" to indicate a 'generic quality', or 'persistence', or 'volition' just seems rather silly to me, if you'll pardon my phrasing.

Then a few hundred linguist and I, including Lewis, must be silly analysts. The use of "will", translated to many other languages, works in the same way. It is found in environments that discuss habit, persitence and generic qualities and in places where emphatic language can be found.

It's quite likely to be confusing to most observers (...certain to be confusing to students) just like all similar statements of seemingly endless catalogs of special uses for certain elements of English grammar.

Not in my 25 years of teaching experience. Most students understand the usage very quickly and it also helps them define present uses of "will" and set those against "future" uses.

Search your own mind: do you, as a native speaker, really reach into such a catalog when you consider whether to use "will" (or any other grammatical device).

My catalogue was "written" and learned by heart many years ago, I do not now need to refer to it daily. But, my students do need to write their own catalogue of English usage. They begin with the core and then study how context, including pragmatic needs, affect the core meaning. It's not a massive, taxing, task... it help them understand the subtleties of our language.

But what she really meant to imply was that the grammar is pretty transparent to competent users of the language.

I'm sure it is, but we are discussing more than grammar here and more than just competent users.

If that is the case, then grammatical devices cannot be chosen from a catalog, because that would mean that we'd have to go through a process of elimination for each of the hundreds of devices we might use in the course of a simple conversation.

When I learned to drive a car, I had to go through a catalogue of action/motions and a lot of road safety rules in order to become a competent driver. I passed my test second time because i didn't refer enough to the "catalogue" in the first test. Now, 20 years on, I do not even think of that catalogue.

In the case of "will", I believe, that essence is that "will" involves some kind of speculation on the part of the user. Starting from that point, we can examine each "will" we encounter, either as a user or as a receiver, to ask ourselves, "What is the speculation, and why does the user (or why do I want to) make it?"

Yes, you can do that as a primary action. When students then want to label each moment speculation they will need other language to do so.

Then, please don't forget about the emphatic use of all auxiliaries. The use of "will" in generic qualities , persitence and habit type sentences is not there just so the speaker can show speculation. The word "will" often has that abilty to express persistence or constant nature.

His will is strong on this. He refuses to budge.

Sorry, have to leave it there. Duty calls. Back later.

[Andrew Patterson]

Metal wrote:

His will is strong on this. He refuses to budge.

"Will" here, of course, is a noun. Perhaps it is time to look at the way in which non-modal uses of "will" colour the use of "will" as a modal. I did this in my last post, but you did not tie this in with my post. Then again you were rushing off. Could you also explain more fully what you mean by,

I'm sure it is, but we are discussing more than grammar here and more than just competent users.

Larry, I think you just about summarised everything that we have ever discussed about "will" in your last post. I think I'm going to go back to that post again and again.

[metal56]

Metal wrote:

His will is strong on this. He refuses to budge.

"Will" here, of course, is a noun. Perhaps it is time to look at the way in which non-modal uses of "will" colour the use of "will" as a modal. I did this in my last post, but you did not tie this in with my post

.

I'll try to tie in asap.

Could you also explain more fully what you mean by,

I'm sure it is, but we are discussing more than grammar here and more than just competent users.

Well, I was thinking more about people who limit grammar to syntax. If we can discuss the beyond-the-core, contextualised, meanings of "will", add to that the pragmatic needs of the speaker regarding the expression of "generic qualities" and consider not-yet-competent speakers (including non-native ones), we might just have a chance to move on.

[LarryLatham]

One of the additional meanings of "will" allows us to talk about present habits, persistence and generic qualities. That's the use I cite here and the use that many AE speakers have said that they do not recognise. What can I do about that?

But this idea of yours (or perhaps someone else's, and you're borrowing it) about uses of "will" to indicate a 'generic quality', or 'persistence', or 'volition' just seems rather silly to me, if you'll pardon my phrasing.

Then a few hundred linguist and I, including Lewis, must be silly analysts. The use of "will", translated to many other languages, works in the same way. It is found in environments that discuss habit, persitence and generic qualities and in places where emphatic language can be found.

Hmmm. I guess I'll have to read Lewis again more carefully, because I don't come away with your interpretation. The other few hundred linguists I'll have to take on faith from you.

Although I haven't studied it fully lately, I have had a wee gander at Lewis' discussion of "will" in The English Verb just tonight. Here is what he has to say:

Will--A Summary

"Will does not refer to an event seen by the speaker as a matter of fact. Being a modal auxiliary, will necessarily expresses a relationship between two states, that prevailing at the time of speaking, and a second state. In the case of will this second state is:
1. psychologically immediate for the speaker [but not factual], and
2. seen as inevitably linked to the state prevailing at the moment of speaking.

Usually the "inevitible linking" is in time, in which case will refers to events in Future Time. Occasionally, the inevitable linking is logical, in which case will may refer to events not in Future Time."
--Michael Lewis, The English Verb, page 119.

Now, I don't see anything there about "will" ever refering to 'generic qualities', or 'persistence'. Of course, he may have written elsewhere about that. But I'm having a bit of trouble resolving Lewis' "Will does not refer to an event seen by the speaker as a matter of fact" with your (and a few hundred other linguists) suggestion that "will" can be used to emphasize 'generic qualities'. If a speaker is emphasizing that an event or a thing has generic qualities, wouldn't he be asserting something he sees as fact? How does that work?


Regarding your notions about catalogs of uses for elements of English, (Yes, you are correct that it isn't only about grammar. Catalogs are also used for words: they're called dictionaries.) I will admit that it is often useful for speakers to make decisions about dichotomies. Many elements of grammar have dual characteristics (this one or that one, remote or proximate, now or then, etc.). These are basic, and students must learn them. But I personally do not think this extends to longer lists of uses for particular elements, sometimes running to double digits. I always hated them when I was a student (maybe that's why I never did very well in my English classes), and tried very hard as a teacher to find "central meanings" (or core meanings) that I could teach my students so they would feel they could understand the grammar rather than have to memorize it (without understanding it).

I guess that's just a difference of style between you and me.

Larry Latham

[metal56]

...

I agree with Lewis' statement about the non-factuality (in the eyes of the speaker) of "will", but he omits to mention that he is referring to categorical fact. Nowhere does he overtly discuss modal fact, i.e. i.e., statements of possibility or necessity.

Here are some examples of modal factual statements.

You can get killed that way.

The Red Queen may come to the party. (I don't know.)

The Red Queen can come to the party. (Her parents will let her.)

The Red Queen can come to the party. (She is physically able to.)

The Red Queen will come to the party.

The square of an even number must be even.

The second billiard ball must move.


It is a fact (modal) that these things can, may, could, will (under certain circumstances), etc. happen.

Now, I don't see anything there about "will" ever refering to 'generic qualities', or 'persistence'. Of course, he may have written elsewhere about that. But I'm having a bit of trouble resolving Lewis' "Will does not refer to an event seen by the speaker as a matter of fact" with your (and a few hundred other linguists) suggestion that "will" can be used to emphasize 'generic qualities'. If a speaker is emphasizing that an event or a thing has generic qualities, wouldn't he be asserting something he sees as fact? How does that work?

In the same way that the difference between this:

When food is scarce, the biggest chick kills and eat the smaller ones. (Absolute fact, in the eyes of the speaker)

And this:

When food is scarce, the biggest chick will kill and eat the smaller ones.

(Modal fact in the eyes of the speaker)

The second speaks hypothetically. It's epistemic. It is not here and now , but is distanced, not specifically in time but possibility. The first is what Kant called assertoric*. The second has the speaker stepping in to comment on the (supposed) categorical fact.

I always hated them when I was a student (maybe that's why I never did very well in my English classes), and tried very hard as a teacher to find "central meanings" (or core meanings) that I could teach my students so they would feel they could understand the grammar rather than have to memorize it (without understanding it).

I guess that's just a difference of style between you and me

Not sure I like your conclusion, Larry, especially when have said, a thousand times on this forum, that I accept core meaning of modals, but also know that additional meanings appear in context.


The core remains the same, the contextualised meaning expands.

*assertoric

A proposition stating that something actually is the case, rather than necessary or merely possible.

.............

Another thing. Could you tell me where you see speculation in the following situation?

A king says to his knight:

You, Sir Winalot. You will bring me the head of the fierce dragon immediately!

After thoughts:

Dynamic modality seems less of a unified category than epistemic and deontic modality; it has been subdivided into: (i) ability (I can play tennis); (ii) power (Oil will float on water); (iii) futurity (I will/shall be 20 tomorrow); (iv) prediction (You will feel better after this medicine), (v) habit (When he has a problem, he will work at it until he finds an answer).

http://wwwesterni.unibg.it/anglistica/slin/modgloss.htm

Dynamic modality - Dynamic modality is how the speaker or writer perceives that the subject of the sentence would frame the interpretation of the proposition.

So if "When food is scarce, the biggest chick will kill and eat the smaller ones." is really dynamic modality and it is true that we use dynamic modality to show how "the subject of the sentence would frame the interpretation of the proposition.", we'd expect the chick to say ""When food is scarce, I will kill and eat my smaller brothers and sisters.", which is generic, habitual, a tendency, or something like that.


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

[metal56]

Playing around with this at the moment:

Yes, some people will kill and waste the meat (it is certain that SOME people do that). REAL sportsmen in my eyes kill for the trophy and the meat. Hunters respect one another, and killing a deer doesn't mean that you are a murderer. I see it like this.

http://www.rstefan01.com/archives/randomthread.shtml

[LarryLatham]

I agree with Lewis' statement about the non-factuality (in the eyes of the speaker) of "will", but he omits to mention that he is referring to categorical fact. Nowhere does he overtly discuss modal fact, i.e. i.e., statements of possibility or necessity.

Here are some examples of modal factual statements.

You can get killed that way.

The Red Queen may come to the party. (I don't know.)

The Red Queen can come to the party. (Her parents will let her.)

The Red Queen can come to the party. (She is physically able to.)

The Red Queen will come to the party.

The square of an even number must be even.

The second billiard ball must move.


It is a fact (modal) that these things can, may, could, will (under certain circumstances), etc. happen.

Well, I guess you've got me there, M56. Modal Fact. I've never heard it called this before. However, if I'm getting the right drift, I believe this is what I (and Lewis) (and I think a lot of other people) call opinion, or judgment. When you say, "The Red Queen can come to the party", the very idea that the sentence can have different meanings in context leads me to think there's less of fact there than judgment:

No one (that I'm aware of) objects.
Perhaps her broken ankle has healed sufficiently.
The rules of the game allow her to come.
Transport has been arranged for her.
Her enemies have decided not to come.
She does not have to attend the royal wedding after all, so she is free to come.

Moreover, this judgment is of course personal and instantaneous...made on the spot by the speaker. He may, without doubt, believe his assertion to be precisely true. Perhaps that is what leads you to call it fact. But he represents it to be opinion with the use of a modal auxiliary. He acknowledges that there is a difference between generally accepted fact and truth as he sees it in this particular case. Maybe that's what you mean by modal fact. But I think the term is misleading.

Well, I kind of doubt that either of us is going to budge on this, M56. I willingly reaffirm that you are much the more qualified linguist in this discussion, and so I certainly will not dismiss what you have said.

But so far I remain unconvinced.

Larry Latham

[metal56]

Larry Latham[/quote]

Well, I guess you've got me there, M56. Modal Fact. I've never heard it called this before. However, if I'm getting the right drift, I believe this is what I (and Lewis) (and I think a lot of other people) call opinion, or judgment. When you say, "The Red Queen can come to the party", the very idea that the sentence can have different meanings in context leads me to think there's less of fact there than judgment:

He may, without doubt, believe his assertion to be precisely true. Perhaps that is what leads you to call it fact.

I guess I need more time and space to explain modal fact.

But he represents it to be opinion with the use of a modal auxiliary.

Next time a safari guide says to you something like: You've been bitten by a poisonous snake You must get to a hospital as or to someone with an antidote soon as possible. why not reply "Is that your opinion? See what they say.

[LarryLatham]

Next time a safari guide says to you something like: You've been bitten by a poisonous snake You must get to a hospital as or to someone with an antidote soon as possible. why not reply "Is that your opinion? See what they say.

I would totally expect them to say: "It certainly is." or something else to that effect.

Larry Latham

[metal56]

Next time a safari guide says to you something like: You've been bitten by a poisonous snake You must get to a hospital as or to someone with an antidote soon as possible. why not reply "Is that your opinion? See what they say.

I would totally expect them to say: "It certainly is." or something else to that effect.

Larry Latham

Not me.

[LarryLatham]

As I said before, M56, I suppose you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

But that's all right. I have loads of respect for your opinions (even if not for your facts )

Larry Latham

[metal56]

Any help with this little gem?

In truth he did recognize it as a fact that he must either domineer over dukes, or else go to the wall.

So he, whoever he is, could say "It is a fact that I must he must either domineer over dukes, or else go to the wall".

And this, anyone?

Even though we cannot say for sure what his ulterior motive was, it is a fact that he must have had one.

Why would a speaker claim a fact of a modal statement if a type of [/b factuality wasn't involved?

.................

We all know as a fact that nothing will satisfy us until we realize the truth for ourselves.

...but we all know as a fact that you can and do have all black things with no admittance for whites.

I know as a fact that Americans should damn-well care what China thinks of them...

[LarryLatham]

By all means, how about some of the usual suspects (or even some new ones) jumping into this debate!!! All opinions (and some facts) are welcome.

Larry Latham

[metal56]

As I said before, M56, I suppose you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

But that's all right. I have loads of respect for your opinions (even if not for your facts )

Larry Latham

And I for yours.

"Modal certainty" next.

[LarryLatham]

"Modal certainty" next.

I can hardly wait. Sounds like an oxymoron to me!!!

Larry Latham