"gets to" and modality

[Andrew Patterson]

Larry,

My question as to whether modality was the capacity of a verb to do its action to another verb was an attempt to use Occam's Razor. The statement,

"Modality is the capacity of a verb to do its action to another verb."

Is about as simple as you can get. You don't have to think about whether it refers back to the speaker, if it does then it automatically does its action to another verb. Actually, though I too have been reading up on modality and this site:

http://www.let.uu.nl/~slr/gram4/sld001.htm

at slide 5 make me think that I should alter my statement slightly. Remember Ocam's razor says that the simplest possible explanation is the best, not simpler than possible.

I'm not sure on this one but maybe "mood" is the capacity of a verb to do its action to another verb, and "modality" is when that verb can only be used with the expression of that capacity. What do you think?

One thing that you have got in focus, though is that this is an applied linguistics forum. We need to also think about what is the best way to get the students to use the modals correctly.

Andrew Patterson.

[LarryLatham]

I applaud your efforts at simplification, Andrew, but can't accept your statement. You say that modality is accomplished with verbs, while I insist that is not possible. Even the modal auxiliaries are (I say) not verbs, not to mention other language devices employed to judge the proposition. I think we both want the same end result, which is to simplify this "messy area" of modality, because we both conclude that descriptions of it have gotten far too complicated. Perhaps we'll have our way some day (but I fear not any day soon! ).

Larry Latham

[LarryLatham]

After looking at the website in your link, Andrew, I think the information in it is baloney. (Well, you asked what I think. )

I can understand why you might be tempted to change your original statement to be about mood rather than modality after looking at slide 5, but what if you analyze the example sentences differently. For example:

He wants to eat.

Suppose I say that wants is the finite verb in this sentence, and the infinitive form eat (with to) is a verbal serving as complement to the finite verb, becoming, as it were, a predicate noun. Is there anything wrong with that analysis? If not, then the whole idea of "mood" is out the window. There is nothing about mood here. Nor is there anything modal. The statement is nothing less or more than an expression of a fact, and is unmarked for any added interpretation. There is nothing there about how, in the words of this website, "the speaker wants to communicate".

Can you fault me here?

What is true about slide 5, although I'm going to paraphrase it, is that if the verb complex contains a modal auxiliary, that word is the first word of the complex.

Larry Latham

[Andrew Patterson]

Larry,

You asked if I can fault you. Before I say if I can yes or no, could you clarify a few things:

1. What is a verb and what is it about modals that makes them not verbs.

2. If Modals are not verbs, what are they?

3. Are "stative verbs" verbs?

4. Do you think that the catenatives are verbs and the modals are not?

5. Whether or not you agree that modality (or mood) is the capacity of a modal (or a catenative) to do its action to another verb (and it seems that you don't), do you nevertheless agree that modals and catenatives do their action to the verb that follows?

6. If you do not think that modals do their action to another verb, do you think that they overlay their meaning on the verb that follows them? (Is it the word "action" that you object to?)

7. Do you think that the catenatives are verbs when acting on a substantive (noun or pronoun) object but not verbs when doing their action to a verb?

8. If you answered in 4. and 7. that the catenatives are verbs, how can catenatives be verbs and modals not?

Andrew Patterson
http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/catenative

[LarryLatham]

Wow! This looks like comprehensive exams. OK, Andrew, I'll try my best with them, but you'll have to wait just a bit until I have enough time to address all that.

Larry Latham

[Andrew Patterson]

Okey dokey Larry

[LarryLatham]

Actually, Andrew, in looking over my post above where I ask if you can fault me, I discover that I've indeed made an error, and want to correct it here (before going on to answer your questions).

I believe I mistakenly identified the infinitive to eat as a predicate noun. In looking at it again, it seems clear to me that it is a direct object.

My apologies. (How embarrasing).

Larry Latham
(Proving, once again, that we all can put our feet in our mouths with regularity).

[Andrew Patterson]

Larry,

I've never found the concept of the predicate useful except for predicative adjectives. (Subject-Verb-Object is usually enough.) Conventionally the predicate includes everything except the subject - ie what the subject is doing and what it is doing it to.

So I'm not sure that you were in fact wrong, although your statement would assume that the modal or catenative was acting as a second subject, which is unorthodox and perhaps not what you meant. .

I am not sure, however that direct object is the best term either. You stressed that modality always refers back to the subject. If you want to refer back to the subject, then it must be a compliment. Note also, though that an object can come after the second verb. So maybe direct object is not wrong either. One could therefore argue that it is a blend of compliment and direct object. That's why until you mentioned it now, I let it go. I like to use the phrase transitive element to refer to cases where either or both are possible, although it is not a recognised term.

Andrew Patterson

[LarryLatham]

Well, no. What I have stressed is that a modal always does not refer back to the subject. It refers exclusively to the speaker. Anyways, the problem with the sentence in question:

He wants to eat.

is that it can be seen in more than one way. When I looked at it first, I saw it this way:

He=subject
wants=finite verb
to eat=infinitive complementing wants

Nothing wrong with that, I think. But you can also look at it this way:

He=subject
wants to=catenative
eat=finite verb

Nothing wrong with that either. It's similar in construction to He can eat. So take your pick. At least that's what I'd tell students. You can see it either way, and both seem right.

Larry Latham

[Stephen Jones]

The trouble with Occam's razor, Larry, is that you can cut your own throat with it, if you are not careful.

Actually, I prefer the metaphor of the Panda's thumb. This was the title of an essay by Stephen Jay Gould, the Harvard paleontologist and essayist on Evolution. He was referring to the epiphany he had when he went to the zoo and saw that a Panda had in fact an extra digit, which it used for gripping bamboo shoots. Now, as you probably know, basic features such as the number of appendages very rarely change within species in the same family or even phylae, so an extra digit in a species (as opposed to in an individual where it would simply be the result of a mutation) would be wondrous indeed. However on looking more closely Gould saw that what had happened was that the extra thumb was not in fact a bony structure, but nothing but cartilige, a kind of super bump. And then came the epiphany. For this was exactly what you would expect from evolution - making the clumsy best of what is there - and if Creationism were true one would have expected a much more elegant design.

Now in this respect language is like living organisms, It consists of a near infinite number of adaptions of what is there. There is an incredibly simple explanation as to how the complexity developed (Darwinism is basically simple statistics) but the complexity itself cannot be reduced.

The other problem you are suffering from Larry is what is known as "reification": that is to say you are attributing a real existence to abstract concepts originally devised as tools to describe reality. Modality does not exist. It is simply a term used to try and describe a certain attribute of verbs and how they affect other verbs. Therefore there is no earthly reason to have one simple explanation for it, or definition of it.

Your description of the use of 'can' and 'may' is clear; that is to say it is clearly a valiant, but failed attempt, to squeeze the language into a pre-conceived theoretical framework.

The difference between can and may is that the former is used when one is thinking about ‘objective possibility’ and the latter when one has ‘subjective possibility’ in mind—when the user is himself involved willingly in the creation of possibility, as, for example, when giving permission (although that is hardly the only such involvement).

There is no difference whatsoever between the phrases
Can I go to the toilet?
and
May I go to the toilet?
Somebody who, as a little boy, had kept on being given the pedantic answer "Yes, you can, but you may not", would probably prefer the second,and some people would say that the second is a little more polite, but "subjective and objective possiblity" my hat!

We must, of course, realize that there are many different kinds of possibility: general ability (Can you run fast?), legal possibility (Gays can marry in San Francisco.), deductive possibility (She can’t be French.), logical impossibility (No one can jump that high.), possibility decided by policy (You can’t smoke in here.), offers (Can I give you a lift?), requests (Can you hand me that wrench?), etc. A certain flexibility in the interpretation of possibility is required, but what remains is that only one basic notion is necessary for understanding this use of modality.

Why stop here? You can claim everyting is possible or impossible. It didn't rain yesterday clearly is an example of the impossibility of it having rained according to your logic, and The sun rises in the East, means the speaker is of the opinion that it is possible that the sun rises in the East, and not possible that it rises in the West.

The truth is that Andrew's original statement of the three types of modality is clear - as long as one accepts his clarification that "dynamic modality" is when the modals aren't being modal at all!. 'Can' and 'could' when referring to ability have as much semantic meaning as "wants to" in the example you give, and "will" and "would" are often simple tense markers.
When the sun comes out the snow will melt is no more expressing an opinion than, When the sun came out the snow melted. On the other hand, in the sentence You'll never get me to agree with yor will clearly reflects the opinion (and cynics might say the volition) of the speaker.

"Modality" in the sense of showing the attitude of the speaker towards the action of the main verb, can be expressed

• within the standard tense system
  He's always playing rap music when he's not working[/i[
  as opposed to
  He always plays rap music when he's not working.
  
  Modals
  He can't have said that!
  as opposed to
  He didn't say that
  
  and fully fledged separate verbs
  He got to sleep with Britney Spears
  as opposed to
  He slept with Britney Spears
  
  or
  He managed to understand what Larry and Andrew were getting at.
  as opposed to
  He understood what Larry and Andrew were getting at,

What one has is a continuum, with some cases (the sun will rise tomorrow being close to straightforward tense markers, and others I want you to stop smoking probably being best considered as lexical items outside the scope of modality.

But

• The continuum does not map exactly to the syntactical structures
  
  Modality is what you define it to be
  
  Modality and modal auxilaries are not synonymous.

I will attempt to give a more ordered and detailed explanation at a later date, but it's the witching hour here in Saudi, and I suspect my post is appearing more crotchedy than intended, so

'Nuff for now!
Steve

[Stephen Jones]

Incidentally Andrew this site
http://www.let.uu.nl/~slr/gram4/sld001.htm
appears to be plain nonsense.

Voice and Aspect have to do with the way the speaker sees the situation

are either so vague as to be meaningless, or downright wrong, depending on how charitable you feel.

[Stephen Jones]

So much for lists:

"The difficulties of interpreting an already complex system is compounded by the out-of-context, oversimplified, fragmentary teaching methods like providing a list of modals together with their corresponding meanings which lead to students’ over-generalisation. Students may recognise or memorise the modals with their accompanying meanings but they fail to produce them in speech, a typical symptom of failure of knowledge transfer."

http://www.c5.cl/ieinvestiga/actas/tise ... 0/ID50.htm

Nice try! (or cheap shot) but if you look closely at the article in question you will see that what is recommended as a didactic approach are a large number of "mini-cases" joined by hyper-links to create context. An interesting idea, and a long cry from the sweeping definition you are asking for.

And the reason that most students only ever produce a small proportion of modal expressions is that they are very difficult.

It's a lot easier to write a novel than to get a PhD in quantum physics, but you don't blame that on inadequate textbooks.

[LarryLatham]

A valiant try, Stephen. It is clear you care, and you read and think. But I'm afraid I cannot accept your conclusions. For example:

There is no difference whatsoever between the phrases
Can I go to the toilet?
and
May I go to the toilet?

The simple thing that I think you may be overlooking here, Stephen, is that if what you say is true, that there is no difference whatsoever between these two utterances, then how in the world could anybody ever decide which of them to use? If they are indeed identical, wouldn't we be conflicted each time we wanted to express the thought conveyed by these two expressions? What to do; mentally flip a coin--if heads, use one, if tails use the other? The point is, a user must choose between them. The choice of one of them is also the choice not to use the other. How, exactly would one make that choice if they are indeed identical. The only clear answer is that they must not be identical.

So, scholarly as your post sounds, Stephen, I'm afraid it simply makes no sense at all to me.

Larry Latham

[LarryLatham]

OK, Andrew. As promised, I’ll try my best with your questions. But first, I must ask one of my own. Why the examination here? When I asked if you could fault me, I was referring to the analysis I had made of a simple sentence. I thought it was a simple question, and believed I was asking it innocently, or at least I had no hidden motives. I merely wondered whether you agreed with the way I took it apart. (I guess, though, considering that I actually did err in the analysis, it turned out for the better--for me-- that you didn’t just rip into me! )

OK, now that that is off my mind, let’s see what I can do with your questions. Rather than take them one at a time, I think I’ll just sort of mix them up all together, and try to explain my ideas about sentences, verbs, and modality so far as I have forged them up to now. Note please, however, that I remain open to correction. My level of confidence, while substantial, is not 100%, and if anyone can add to my knowledge, I’d be mighty grateful.

With few exceptions, English sentences (or perhaps I should say clauses, since everything here applies to each clause of a compound sentence) tend to follow an overarching general pattern, usually expressed as S/V/C, where S stands for the subject of the sentence, or what or who the sentence is about, and the V/C stands for the proposition of the sentence, that is, what the subject does or is, or what happens to him, or her, or it. The V in the pattern represents, of course, the verb, and any word or complex that can go into this position in a sentence is called a finite verb. Finite verbs perform a nexal function, which is to say they connect the subject with the rest of the sentence in some way, usually by naming some sort of action or state of existence that is pertinent to the meaning of the sentence. Words that are usually identified as verbs, or are made out of verbs, but that do not appear at the “V” slot in the sentence pattern are verbals—gerunds, gerundives, or infinitives. Verbals are modifiers, or expanders of the meanings of other words. Gerunds always function as nouns, gerundives always work as adjectives (for example, the Flying Tigers), but infinitives are the most versatile (and confounding, sometimes). They can operate as nouns, or adjectives, or adverbs. The “C” in the general sentence pattern, represents an optional feature of the sentence: a complement to the verb. Sometimes, it is absent altogether. Where it exists in the sentence, it can take any of several forms: an object (direct or indirect), a predicate noun, or a predicate adjective.

Finite verbs inflect, or change their form, to show particular points-of-view taken by the user as expressed with tense, to show the temporal interpretation of events as expressed with aspects, and to show agreement with number and person of the subject. There are two general kinds of verbs, sometimes called stative and dynamic, or linking verbs and action verbs. Linking or stative verbs equate the subject and the complement in some way. Bill seems tall, and Bill is a good man, are both examples of sentences with stative verbs. The first is complemented with a predicate adjective; the second with a predicate noun. All verbs have five different forms: a base (or root) form, a Simple Present Tense form (I lump the -s variation for 3sg together with the general form), a Simple Past Tense form, a Past Participle form and a Present Participle form. Some forms (base forms, Past Part., and Pres. Part.) are used in multi-word verb complexes, where auxiliaries are used together with verbs to form a phrase working as a finite verb. The auxiliaries normally used are (have), (be), and the modal auxiliaries. An argument could me made for (have) and (be) to be called “helping verbs”, since they do inflect within the verb complex, as does the verb itself. We can use them as, for example: had gone, having helped, has demonstrated, etc. In other words, they behave as verbs do. The modal auxiliaries, however, do not. Moreover, the verbs following modal auxiliaries are always in base or root form. We cannot say, for example: *canned go, or *woulding helped, or *mays demonstrated. For these reasons, among others, I cannot agree that modal auxiliaries are verbs in any formal way, and so I discount the label “modal verb”, since that suggests that they are some kind of verb. I think the designation “modal auxiliary” fits perfectly well, and prefer to use that. Modals (expressions of modality), of course, come in different types. There are the modal auxiliaries, a small closed class of words that mostly occur in pairs, with forms corresponding to remote and unmarked flavors: can, could; may, might; will, would; shall, should; and one more, must, which for reasons that have to do with its meaning, does not occur in a remote form. A user uses “had to” to express the remote idea associated with must. In addition to the modal auxiliaries, which are used in the verb complex along with base form or root form verbs, there are other language devices used to express modality. The definition of modality seems to be controversial, but I believe it can be fairly accurately explained as a tool, allowing the user to express his personal judgment about the non-factual and non-temporal facets of the proposition of the sentence. While a verb complex can do this by using modal auxiliaries, other language can accomplish a similar task. For example, the following two sentences are nearly equivalent (though they are not identical):

Rosa can run a mile in under 5 minutes.

I think it’s possible that Rosa runs a mile in under 5 minutes.

Both of these sentences show modality, which is to say the author expresses his judgment of the proposition in each. Only one of them does it with a modal auxiliary in the finite verb complex. The fact that judgment is given of the entire proposition (which includes not only the verb complex, but also the complement following) means any statement that modality (by any means) does its action on another verb must be flawed, as being too limited.

You asked about catenatives. My knowledge of them is slight. (I only heard about them in one of your posts a few days ago). But from what I can ascertain on the internet sites I’ve looked at, I tend not to believe catenatives are verbs. They are a small closed class (in this they are similar to modal auxiliaries). They all contain the particle to. They generally are pronounced: gonna, hafta, wanna, gotta, etc., along with a few others such as tend to or seem to. The essence of the catenative is that the particle to, in sentences like: She has to go home now, appears to be attached to has rather than the infinitive or base form verb which follows. In fact, some linguists believe the has to in the sentence above counts as only one morpheme. All this, to me, makes it look more like an auxiliary than a verb. Moreover, it seems that the immediately following verb is always a base form, and so that makes it behave a lot like a modal auxiliary, but I don’t think catenatives are modal in character. They do not necessarily express the author’s view of the proposition.

Well, Andrew, I’ve done my best with your questions. I feel a lot like I’ve rambled all around, but part of that was in keeping with trying to touch all of your questions. What do you think? Do I pass? I'm certain to get an argument for some of this, if not all of it, but then, what are forums for?

Larry Latham

[metal56]

Steve

Modality and modal auxilaries are not synonymous.

It seems to me that that is the only sensible thing you stated in your post.

I hope that doesn't sound too crotchety.

Mind you, if I were teaching ESL to a bunch of pandas, I might use some of your ideas.