Basic semantic meanings of modal auxiliaries.

[Andrew Patterson]

I wrote:

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.

OK, what this is missing is examples:
Ask yourself what you are doing philosophically when you speculate and look at an example of a sentence where somebody speculates using a modal:

It looks as though it may rain.

I don't know for a fact that it is going to rain, but I can nevertheless form a view as to the likelihood of that happening.

I mean philosophically quite literally, epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

So much for speculation, with deduction we are also forming a view as to the truth of sth.

Ding dong! That must be the milkman - he always comes at this time.

Note that just because we form a view as to the truth it doesn't mean that we are right.

Definitions of philosophical deontology aren't as helpful so I won't include them. Basically, with deontic modals you are controling sth or at least attempting to control sth in the real world; getting sth done or preventing it from being done or at least having an effect on sth.

If I grant permission by saying, "You may come in," I am attempting to
control you in some way. If I wasn't there there would be no control and you could come in anyway.

Dynamic modality is an inate quality of the subject, that is that it would be an inate quality whether or not I said it.

Somebody else can probably explain dynamic modality better, though. I'm off to bed.

[metal56]

I wrote:

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.

OK, what this is missing is examples:
Ask yourself what you are doing philosophically when you speculate and look at an example of a sentence where somebody speculates using a modal:

It looks as though it may rain.

I don't know for a fact that it is going to rain, but I can nevertheless form a view as to the likelihood of that happening.

I mean philosophically quite literally, epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

So much for speculation, with deduction we are also forming a view as to the truth of sth.

Ding dong! That must be the milkman - he always comes at this time.

Note that just because we form a view as to the truth it doesn't mean that we are right.

Definitions of philosophical deontology aren't as helpful so I won't include them. Basically, with deontic modals you are controling sth or at least attempting to control sth in the real world; getting sth done or preventing it from being done or at least having an effect on sth.

If I grant permission by saying, "You may come in," I am attempting to
control you in some way. If I wasn't there there would be no control and you could come in anyway.

Dynamic modality is an inate quality of the subject, that is that it would be an inate quality whether or not I said it.

Somebody else can probably explain dynamic modality better, though. I'm off to bed.

Take a look at this article and tell me what you think. The writer explores the possibility that epistemic modality actually does contribute to the truth conditions of an utterance.

http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~anna4/papers/epmodtruth.pdf

I think your description of dynamic modality (subject-oriented) is fine, but needs to be extended to uses of have to, as in "They have to be in Pairs by tomorrow". This is, of course, in the case where the speaker is only giving information with have to and not setting an obligation. If it were meant to be a have to utterance of obligation set by the speaker, it would be deontic modality.

[metal56]

<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.

Can I open the window? (Is it allowed to open the window?)
May I open the window? (Do you allow me to open the window?)
Could I open the window? (Do you mind if I open the window)

In all of those, the nearness-remoteness of social relationship is also at work in the choice of modal. Do you think that only the basic semantic meaning is what helps us choose the most appropriate modal in a given moment?


Would you open the window? (As the situation stands at the moment, is it possible for you to open the window?) The "inevitabilty" lies in the way one is expected to fulfill such a request. Listeners do not normally refuse.

Could you open the window? (It there a remote chance -possibility - of you opening the window?)

Again, the nearness-remoteness of social relationship is also at work in the choice of modal.

It may rain later.
It could rain later.

Which one of those shows more of the speaker's commitment to the possibility of rain?

--------------

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'.

Really?

I can see that you can't open the door and there's no one else around so, inevitably, I will be the one who opens it for you.

He's doing so well with his studies and so he will pass his exams.

As I perceive my feelings for you at this very moment, I can see no reason why I will not love you forever.

Cynical, or not, that is the basic semantic use of "will" in use.

Next?

--------------

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

See, polite requests and expected response, above.

'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.

So for you, "will" has no epistemic use?

Equally 'can' can be better explained from the starting point of its original meaning of having ability or knowledge.

Ability comes under the heading of "possibility".

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.

By "unhistorical", do you mean "non-traditional"? If your "standard" explanations are so perfect, why are thre so many confused students, teachers and, even, linguists?

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

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

And that's surprising? If you feel you are wasting your time on this, why bother?

[metal56]

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) ?

Glad you brought up "shall".

You shall go to the castle and kill the dragon.

According to my perception of the present situation, it is, if it's anything to do with me, inevitable that you...

Shall I kill the dragon, sire?

Shall = According to your perception of the present situation, is it, if it's anything to do with you, inevitable that ... ?

Yes, in the second example, the speaker is reliquishing the power to the listener.

Let's also not forget that "shall" is still commonly used in legalese texts.

[LarryLatham]

I wrote:

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.

OK, what this is missing is examples:
Ask yourself what you are doing philosophically when you speculate and look at an example of a sentence where somebody speculates using a modal:

It looks as though it may rain.

I don't know for a fact that it is going to rain, but I can nevertheless form a view as to the likelihood of that happening.

I mean philosophically quite literally, epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

Terrific, Andy. But not so fast. You seem to be saying that epistemic modality is that kind which comments upon or justifies the proposition of the sentence. You also suggest that there are two other kinds. But I believe that all modal auxiliaries (since that is the modal vehicle which we seem to be discussing here--people should remember that there are other ways to express modality) constitute the speaker's personal present-time view of the proposition. Doesn't that mean, then, that all modal auxiliaries are epistemic? Or can you show me that my notion about modals in general is wrong?

And you can see where this is going, then. If all modals are epistemic, then deontic and perhaps dynamic must be subcatagories. This is not the way they are presented in the textbooks, nor indeed here and elsewhere on the web. Where does the problem lie?

Larry Latham

[woodcutter]

What is the most pressing reason for trying to form modals into distinct regiments with silly names, in any case? It ain't easy, and why is it so important? Why can't they just do their own thing?

[LarryLatham]

A very good question, Woodcutter. Exactly why is it important to divide modal auxiliaries up into three different kinds and give them different labels? What is achieved with that?

Larry Latham

[metal56]

A very good question, Woodcutter. Exactly why is it important to divide modal auxiliaries up into three different kinds and give them different labels? What is achieved with that?

Larry Latham

It keeps linguists in work.

[fluffyhamster]

The problem seems to me to be one of dealing with what is actually quite a large group: 'the modal auxilaries'. It's better to look at them individually (lexically), and if they overlap function-wise, well then you might have a class or set worth speaking of; and when the treatment is lexical (as in a good learner dictionary), it's interesting that there may be a temptation on the teacher's part to simplify and condense what may be multiple meaning-uses until they are all subsumed under an "umbrella" heading. I guess every serious teacher yo-yos back and forth between just dealing with example sentences on an individual and contextual basis, and organizing those sentences into a more "coherant" syllabus (for whatever purposes).

[lolwhites]

OK Larry, I'll throw in my tuppence worth too and see if it helps...

Leaning modals out of it for the moment, narrowing any lexical item down to one core meaning is rarely as easy as it sounds. For example:

Stephen King has written a new book.
Have you seen my book? I put it down around here somewhere.

Note that the meaning of book in both cases is subtly different; one refers to an individual copy, the other to something less concrete. We have no trouble working out what book means in context. So, which is the more core/basic meaning?

Now, when we look at modals, the situation becomes still messier. Is is possible to take every use of a given modal and find one common thread that runs through all of them. Personally, I think that it's a tall order, though we can reduce it to a minimum. If I have understood Stephen Jones correctly, he seems to be saying it isn't worth even trying; my view is that those who try can help us reach some sort of understanding on the way.

[metal56]

The problem seems to me to be one of dealing with what is actually quite a large group: 'the modal auxilaries'. It's better to look at them individually (lexically), and if they overlap function-wise, well then you might have a class or set worth speaking of; and when the treatment is lexical (as in a good learner dictionary), it's interesting that there may be a temptation on the teacher's part to simplify and condense what may be multiple meaning-uses until they are all subsumed under an "umbrella" heading. I guess every serious teacher yo-yos back and forth between just dealing with example sentences on an individual and contextual basis, and organizing those sentences into a more "coherant" syllabus (for whatever purposes).

<The problem seems to me to be one of dealing with what is actually quite a large group: 'the modal auxilaries'.>

Nine is a large group?

[JuanTwoThree]

We try to make sense of things because even failure is enlightenment. It's one of the meanings of one of my favourite quotes:

We shall not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time

TS Eliot

(Note the shall/will!)

[Andrew Patterson]

Metal wrote quoting Fluffyhamster:

<The problem seems to me to be one of dealing with what is actually quite a large group: 'the modal auxilaries'.>

Nine is a large group?

Although conventionally there are nine, I there are others that act like modals and at least one of which "had better" should already be classified as a full blown modal.

Not including words followed by to+infinitive, these words can act as true modals notwithstanding that they don't have "NICE" qualities in all uses:
can, could,
may, might,
let when followed by "go", "slip", "rip", etc
would rather, (also followed by the past subjunctive)
would sooner, (I have seen this listed as a synonym of "would rather" but it is rarely found in the past subjunctive and implies a choice between the lesser of two evils.)
will, would,
shall, should,
had better,
must,
make when followed by "do",
need only a modal in questions and negatives,
dare only a modal when a question with "how",
come (US)
go (US)
help.

I make that 19. Note that although core meaning is difficult, it is possible to order them by meaning, which I have tried to do here.

Some of them are difficult to place but:
can, could, may, might, would rather, would sooner, will, would, shall, should, had better, must

represents an order of meaning that I feel certain about.

[metal56]

Metal wrote quoting Fluffyhamster:

<The problem seems to me to be one of dealing with what is actually quite a large group: 'the modal auxilaries'.>

Nine is a large group?

Although conventionally there are nine, I there are others that act like modals and at least one of which "had better" should already be classified as a full blown modal.

Not including words followed by to+infinitive, these words can act as true modals notwithstanding that they don't have "NICE" qualities in all uses:
can, could,
may, might,
let when followed by "go", "slip", "rip", etc
would rather, (also followed by the past subjunctive)
would sooner, (I have seen this listed as a synonym of "would rather" but it is rarely found in the past subjunctive and implies a choice between the lesser of two evils.)
will, would,
shall, should,
had better,
must,
make when followed by "do",
need only a modal in questions and negatives,
dare only a modal when a question with "how",
come (US)
go (US)
help.

I make that 19. Note that although core meaning is difficult, it is possible to order them by meaning, which I have tried to do here.

Some of them are difficult to place but:
can, could, may, might, would rather, would sooner, will, would, shall, should, had better, must

represents an order of meaning that I feel certain about.

I prefer to see the usual 9 as full modals. The others...

[Andrew Patterson]

Don't you think that "had better" has as much right to be included as "must" which similarly doesn't have a proximal and remote form. "Had better has ALL of the N.I.C.E. properties.

Surely it it shouldn't be left out just because it is two words.