Basic semantic meanings of modal auxiliaries.

[Stephen Jones]

The reason we use three terms for modality is because there are three distinct linguistic phenomena.

To attempt to shoehorm all three into the epistemic definition as Larry wishes doesn't lead to clarity in the least.

Incidentally I agree with most of what Lewis says. However I believe what he says about modality to be hogwash.

I cannot see why you feel Lewis's explanation is clear, Larry, or why you find the concepts of epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality to be unclear. I suspect it is because of your belief that their should be one, and only one, explantion for all linguistic phenomena.

Let me try and give a very basic description of modality as I see it.

First, modality is opposed to polarity, that is to say it covers the area between the two poles 'yes' and 'no'. Modality is a semantic category, not a grammatical one, and there are various ways of expressing it including, mood, modal verbs, and adverbs.

Modality can question the factuality of an event. This is called epistemic modality.
Examples:
He ('ll/must/could/may/might/can't/won't) have finished now.
It ('ll/could/can/may/might/can't/won't) happen.

It is clear that the effect of the modal auxiliary in these cases is on the degree of possibility (though you can have fun tryng to explain the difference between 'will' and must, and 'can't' and 'won't' in these cases). That is to say the difference between the different modals is more on of degree of probability than any inherent semantic difference.

That is why the other two kinds of modality are sometimes called root modality, because they have a definite semantic load.
Deontic modality is conerned with permission, obligation or advisablity. Like epistemic modality it normally reflects the view of he speaker, but there is such a thing as objective deontic modality where the obligation is imposed by external rules.
Examples:
You can come in now.
Can/may/might I borrow your car?
You mustn't touch that.
You needn't come in tomorrow.
Women must/have to cover their hair in Saudi Arabia.

Note that deontic modality reflects the attitude of the speaker, or of a set of rules he is conveying. Where this is not true we have dynamic modality.
Examples:
She can speak French very well.
He won't listen, however often you tell him.
The modals reflect the attitude or ability of the subject, and not that of the speaker.

So there are two separate factors in grouping modality:

• (i)non-root (no or little semantic load) epistemic modality
  versus
  root (semantic load) doentic & dynamic modality.
  
  (ii)Expressing the attitude of the speaker epistemic and deontic modality
  versus
  independent of the attitude of the speaker dynamic modality.

Now this is more complicated than simply assigning core meanings to each modal auxiliary. However, it describes what exists in the language, as opposed to in the hopes of the linguist. The main reason why the description of modals and modality is complex is because the use of modals is complex. False over-simplification is not the way to go.

[Stephen Jones]

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?

With you.

All modals aren't epistemic.

[revel]

Good afternoon all!

This thread is way above my head. So is nuclear physics and world hunger and so when I speak about such subjects with others, my comments tend to be limited by both my knowledge and my desire to increase that knowledge bank. So the terms used on this thread are an interesting read for me from a theoretical, intellectual, professional point of view but I won't dare use them because I just don't have the capacity to do so.

One core "thing" I find about the modal auxiliaries and all those other combinations of sounds that could also be considered modal is that they all occupy the same place in the sentence-puzzle. That is, they (generally) come before some verb and thus modify in some way how we should interpret that verb. Thus (in general) the "be" of the present continuous adds the aspect of "right now" to the action represented by the verb form root + ing, while the use of "ought to" reflects that the action following it is, in the speaker's opinion, the right, the best, maybe the better thing to do. What they share is the simplicity of their structure, before the verb in a statement, before everything in a yes/no question, before the verb again and with an -n't stuck on to reflect negative. Since I work with students and not linguists and not even with other English teachers, I count on student's ability to catch onto the meaning of each of those auxiliaries and verb forms combinations through one-by-one exposure to them in contextual (though often very artificial) examples and practice work. For me, auxiliaries themselves are totally lacking in meaning and are more like situational adverbs, modifying the verb that follows. That is the core. The descriptive explanations are important and useful but often also complex and confusing. The subjunctive verb in Spanish point brought up is an excellent example. Making categories and then filling them in with laundry lists is, as has been mentioned and seconded, not very useful in the classroom.

Have to go to that classroom right now!

peace,
revel.

[LarryLatham]

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.

I can see the difference in meaning in your two examples of book, but I believe that simply makes my point. A book is a concept we can wrap our minds around, and it is useful to do that. By your examples, you show that context does serve to mould and particularize our exact notion of book as one thing in one use, and a slightly different thing in another.

It will also be useful to understand core meanings in modal auxiliaries. These core meaning must be flexible, so as to permit particularizing in particular uses. Attempts to fossilize core meaning as a single, unchanging piece of concrete will meet with the same confusion as obtains when we define book as a pile of paper with words printed on them and a cover wrapped around them, and then use it in a sentence like: "Steven King has written a new book."

If we are not successful in agreeing on flexible core meanings for modal auxiliaries, then we are forced to continue to present students with lists and catalogs of separate words and separate meanings which students will be sure extend forever with no hope of learning them all. If we cannot, as teachers, learn to make sense of English (after all, isn't that what grammar is for?) then we'll have to teach students the language by listing for them all the possible sentences, and asking them to memorize each of them as a separate entity. We must try to boil things down into concepts that can be understood. But we cannot boil them down to institutionalized frozen bits. The concepts must flex enough so people can recognize the basic core, and still shape them to fit particular uses. When Michael Lewis suggests that can has a core meaning of ability or possibility, he goes to great pains to point out that these concepts can be seen, or interpreted, in several different ways:

Can you swim? Ability
I can't lift this. Objective impossibility
You can't smoke here. Rules, legal impossibility.
Can you help me? Request (Is it possible for you to...)
Can I help you? Offers (Is it possible for me to...)
He can't be Chinese! Logical possibility

...and so on.

This is extremely useful in the classroom. If students can see that can always refers to some kind of possibility, then they will search for possibility or ability in every verb phrase in which it appears, and thus begin to feel for the first time that they have a handle on that one. They only have to do this for nine words. (Sorry, Andy, I'm with M56 as regards your expanded list of modal auxiliaries, remembering however that those nine modal auxiliaries are not the only way to express modality. The nine work in particular ways in particular parts of verb phrases.) It's a reachable goal for students.

Larry Latham

[LarryLatham]

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!)

I like this quote too, Juan. I haven't encountered it before, so thanks for posting it. It's definitely cool.

Larry Latham

[metal56]

Good afternoon all!

This thread is way above my head. So is nuclear physics and world hunger and so when I speak about such subjects with others, my comments tend to be limited by both my knowledge and my desire to increase that knowledge bank. So the terms used on this thread are an interesting read for me from a theoretical, intellectual, professional point of view but I won't dare use them because I just don't have the capacity to do so.

One core "thing" I find about the modal auxiliaries and all those other combinations of sounds that could also be considered modal is that they all occupy the same place in the sentence-puzzle. That is, they (generally) come before some verb and thus modify in some way how we should interpret that verb. Thus (in general) the "be" of the present continuous adds the aspect of "right now" to the action represented by the verb form root + ing, while the use of "ought to" reflects that the action following it is, in the speaker's opinion, the right, the best, maybe the better thing to do. What they share is the simplicity of their structure, before the verb in a statement, before everything in a yes/no question, before the verb again and with an -n't stuck on to reflect negative. Since I work with students and not linguists and not even with other English teachers, I count on student's ability to catch onto the meaning of each of those auxiliaries and verb forms combinations through one-by-one exposure to them in contextual (though often very artificial) examples and practice work. For me, auxiliaries themselves are totally lacking in meaning and are more like situational adverbs, modifying the verb that follows. That is the core. The descriptive explanations are important and useful but often also complex and confusing. The subjunctive verb in Spanish point brought up is an excellent example. Making categories and then filling them in with laundry lists is, as has been mentioned and seconded, not very useful in the classroom.

Have to go to that classroom right now!

peace,
revel.

Sometimes, Revel, when you write as above, I think you want this forum to be a Teaching English forum. It isn't, it is an Applied Linguistics forum. Here, those that wish to can get to grips with the nitty-gritty of the language and, if they so choose, use that information in their teaching or just to develop their own understanding of the language they use.

I mean, when you play the Luddite, it seems to pour cold water on what are, for me, very interesting, if often complex, discussions.

[metal56]

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!)

I like this quote too, Juan. I haven't encountered it before, so thanks for posting it. It's definitely cool.

Larry Latham

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.

I like it too. Note the "If it is anything to do with me/us...we shall not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will (inevitably) be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time

[Stephen Jones]

It will also be useful to understand core meanings in modal auxiliaries. These core meaning must be flexible, so as to permit particularizing in particular uses

There are two problems here. The first is that any 'core meaning' so flexible that it can cover most uses, is going to be so abstract it will be worthless.

'can' does have a meaning of ability or knowing how to. As I said, it was originally a main verb with that meaning, and still functions as a main verb in many languages. However 'possibility' is so vague a term that you can use it to describe almost any modal clause - the students may temporarily have a warm feeling, but it won't help them much.

"will" has an original meaning of or volition. This is why
Will you open the door is paraphraseable as "Do you want to open the door for me?"
as opposed to metal's paraphrase of
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.
which requires the consumption of vast amounts of expensive weed to be understandable.

However, dealing with the individual modals one at a time is insufficient to lead to clear understanding. We must also look at the different functions, and see which modals can be used for each.

So we will teach permission, and explain that both 'may' and 'can' are used. We will teach requests, and explain that 'will/would/could/can you" are all used.

And, most importantly, we will teach epistemic modality separately (in fact all EFL course books I know do that, even though the author might not even know of the existence of the word 'epistemic'). If we don't teach it separately how can we explain that the opposite of He must be here is He can't be here but that the opposites of You must wear a fig leaf are You mustn't wear a fig leaf or You don't have to/needn't wear a fig leaf depending on the appropriate dress code.

If we don't distinguish between epistemic and root modality, we are letting in the laundry list trough the front door. We would have to explain separately why there are two possible meanings for He should be there and for he may marry his boyfriend, whilst if we distinguish between epistemic and root modality we have one explanation that covers many cases.

The second problem of course is that Lewis's core meanings are either subjective, plain wrong or totally delusional depending on how charitable you feel. By attempting to explain from the epistemic outwards, when historically it is the dynamic meaning that preceded the epistemic, he gets his knickers in an awful twist, and it seems metal and Larry hopelessly tangled up in them as well.

And a final point: as Andrew is trying to say what distinguishes the modal auxiliaries is not that they are used to express modality, but that they follow certain formal constraints. There are many other verbs that are also used to express modality, in a manner semantically indistinguishable from the way the modal auxiliaries do.

[revel]

Good evening.

I shouldn't rebut, but well....

Surfing about the web for Applied Linguistics, I found that pretty much any page included something like this:

" Applied Linguistics is concerned with practical issues involving language in the life of the community. The most important of these is the learning of second or foreign languages. Others include language policy, multilingualism, language education, the preservation and revival of endangered languages, and the assessment and treatment of language difficulties."

(from www.linguistics.unimelb.edu.au)

No, I'm not suggesting at all that this be a "Teaching English forum" exclusively. I'm just offering my point of view on the current subject and don't at all mean to poop anyone's party. My understanding of Applied Linguistics is that it embraces an almost infinite number of disciplines, one of which is Language Teaching. Though my comments may not be filled with erudite explanations and terminology, they ought to be considered valid on some level in the arena of Applied Linguistics. Maybe I'm just being sensitive, but well....

peace,
revel.

[JuanTwoThree]

What we call the beginning is often the end
And to make an end is to make a beginning.
The end is where we start from. And every phrase
And sentence that is right (where every word is at home,
Taking its place to support the others,
The word neither diffident nor ostentatious,
An easy commerce of the old and the new,
The common word exact without vulgarity,
The formal word precise but not pedantic,
The complete consort dancing together)
Every phrase and every sentence is an end and a beginning,
Every poem an epitaph. And any action
Is a step to the block, to the fire, down the sea's throat
Or to an illegible stone: and that is where we start.
We die with the dying:
See, they depart, and we go with them.
We are born with the dead:
See, they return, and bring us with them.
The moment of the rose and the moment of the yew-tree
Are of equal duration. A people without history
Is not redeemed from time, for history is a pattern
Of timeless moments. So, while the light fails
On a winter's afternoon, in a secluded chapel
History is now and England.

With the drawing of this Love and the voice of this
Calling

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.
Through the unknown, unremembered gate
When the last of earth left to discover
Is that which was the beginning;
At the source of the longest river
The voice of the hidden waterfall
And the children in the apple-tree
Not known, because not looked for
But heard, half-heard, in the stillness
Between two waves of the sea.
Quick now, here, now, always—
A condition of complete simplicity
(Costing not less than everything)
And all shall be well and
All manner of thing shall be well
When the tongues of flame are in-folded
Into the crowned knot of fire
And the fire and the rose are one.


Little Gidding is the fourth of the Four Quartets and this is part 5 of Little Gidding. And I would sell my soul to the devil at a crossroads at midnight to write a fraction as well as this.

[Stephen Jones]

I'm afraid I agree with metal on this one revel. to say

I count on student's ability to catch onto the meaning of each of those auxiliaries and verb forms combinations through one-by-one exposure to them in contextual (though often very artificial) examples and practice work.

isn't very helpful.

After all how do you choose those examples? As you are not sugggesting that the student be presented with an amorphous mass of unfiltered language, some kind of choice is surely necessary.

And the polemic between me and lolwhites on one side, and Larry and Metal on the other does have practical implications.

If, like Larry, you believe that each modal has a core meaing, than you are more likely to teach the different uses of each modal together, or in proximity.

If like me and lolwhites you believe there is not one core meaining you are more likely to teach the functions separately, and contrast the use of different modals within the same function. If like me you believe there is a big difference between epistemic and root modality you are unlikely to mix the two in your presentation.

Even if the matters under discussion don't directly affect pedagogy, they are still useful. It is much easier to choose the correct strategy when you have a sound grasp of the matter under discussion than when you are shaky about it.

[Andrew Patterson]

Stephen wrote:

And a final point: as Andrew is trying to say what distinguishes the modal auxiliaries is not that they are used to express modality, but that they follow certain formal constraints. There are many other verbs that are also used to express modality, in a manner semantically indistinguishable from the way the modal auxiliaries do.

What distinguishes modals is that they follow certain formal constraints and express modality.

The other verb that you talk about are still distiguishable from modals, with to+infinitive, for instance, there is usually a sense of purpose.

[LarryLatham]

I thought I had already made a posting on this view of Stephen's, but can't seem to find it now, so I guess I'll have another go at it.

The reason we use three terms for modality is because there are three distinct linguistic phenomena.

To attempt to shoehorm all three into the epistemic definition as Larry wishes doesn't lead to clarity in the least.

Incidentally I agree with most of what Lewis says. [I am delighted to hear this, Stephen, but I wouldn't have guessed it from your postings here and elsewhere on Dave's.] However I believe what he says about modality to be hogwash. [Fair enough, but that doesn't end the matter.]

I cannot see why you feel Lewis's explanation is clear, Larry, or why you find the concepts of epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality to be unclear. I suspect it is because of your belief that their should be one, and only one, explantion for all linguistic phenomena.

Let me try and give a very basic description of modality as I see it.

First, modality is opposed to polarity, that is to say it covers the area between the two poles 'yes' and 'no'. Modality is a semantic category, not a grammatical one, and there are various ways of expressing it including, mood, modal verbs, and adverbs.

Modality can question the factuality of an event. This is called epistemic modality.
Examples:
He ('ll/must/could/may/might/can't/won't) have finished now.
It ('ll/could/can/may/might/can't/won't) happen.

It is clear that the effect of the modal auxiliary in these cases is on the degree of possibility (though you can have fun tryng to explain the difference between 'will' and must, and 'can't' and 'won't' in these cases). That is to say the difference between the different modals is more on of degree of probability than any inherent semantic difference.

That is why the other two kinds of modality are sometimes called root modality, because they have a definite semantic load.
Deontic modality is conerned with permission, obligation or advisablity. Like epistemic modality it normally reflects the view of he speaker, but there is such a thing as objective deontic modality where the obligation is imposed by external rules.
Examples:
You can come in now.
Can/may/might I borrow your car?
You mustn't touch that.
You needn't come in tomorrow.
Women must/have to cover their hair in Saudi Arabia.

Note that deontic modality reflects the attitude of the speaker, or of a set of rules he is conveying. Where this is not true we have dynamic modality.
Examples:
She can speak French very well.
He won't listen, however often you tell him.
The modals reflect the attitude or ability of the subject, and not that of the speaker.

So there are two separate factors in grouping modality:

• (i)non-root (no or little semantic load) epistemic modality
  versus
  root (semantic load) doentic & dynamic modality.
  
  (ii)Expressing the attitude of the speaker epistemic and deontic modality
  versus
  independent of the attitude of the speaker dynamic modality.

Now this is more complicated than simply assigning core meanings to each modal auxiliary. However, it describes what exists in the language, as opposed to in the hopes of the linguist. The main reason why the description of modals and modality is complex is because the use of modals is complex. False over-simplification is not the way to go.

First, modality is opposed to polarity, that is to say it covers the area between the two poles 'yes' and 'no'. Modality is a semantic category, not a grammatical one, and there are various ways of expressing it including, mood, modal verbs, and adverbs.

Hmmm. It covers the area between 'yes' and 'no'. Isn't that what 'maybe' is for, Stephen? I'm having a little trouble seeing why we should get into such a tizzy over modality if we're just talking about the area between 'yes' and 'no'. That modality has to do with meaning rather than form is, I think, uncontroversial here. However, modal auxiliaries, in particular, do surely conform to certain formal guidelines regarding their placement in the verb phrase, and exclusivity within it. I really am trying hard to see what you're getting at here, but so far, to no avail. Saying that modality is opposed to polarity does not clarify things for me about what modality really is.

Modality can question the factuality of an event. This is called epistemic modality.
Examples:
He ('ll/must/could/may/might/can't/won't) have finished now.
It ('ll/could/can/may/might/can't/won't) happen.

It is clear that the effect of the modal auxiliary in these cases is on the degree of possibility (though you can have fun tryng to explain the difference between 'will' and must, and 'can't' and 'won't' in these cases). That is to say the difference between the different modals is more on of degree of probability than any inherent semantic difference.

With all due respect to you, Stephen, and also to academic linguists who make this stuff up, it seems like nonsense to me.

A fact is a fact only when we all agree that it is. One can call a fact into question, of course, and that can be done in a zillion different ways. Saying that modal auxiliaries provides a way to do it, is simply another way to put what I've said all along: Modal auxiliaries give speakers a device for commenting on the proposition put forth in a sentence. The comment is exterior to the factual part of the proposition, even as it occurs inside the verb phrase in the sentence. He can't have finished now has, as the factual proposition put forth: He has finished now, or more properly, He is finished. I say more properly for the second example because it is presented in simpler grammatical terms, to wit: closer to 'pure' fact without the baggage of aspectual elements. The purest factual statements are presented in either present simple or past simple tense:

Water boils at 100 degrees.
He went home already.

About these 'facts' there can be no arguement of degree. But adding a modal auxiliary to any sentence always calls the 'facts' into question, because adding a comment always means that the speaker himself is qualifying the proposition. He can't have finished now is not only a sentence about "He", but also about how the speaker views the 'fact', "He is finished".

You say that the difference between individual modals is a matter of degree of probability rather than any real semantic difference. If that is true, then there must exist a kind of sequence ranging from the least degree of probability to the highest degree. Can you line them up for me, Stephen, proceeding from one extreme to the other? I'm having trouble working that out.

That is why the other two kinds of modality are sometimes called root modality, because they have a definite semantic load.
Deontic modality is conerned with permission, obligation or advisablity. Like epistemic modality it normally reflects the view of he speaker, but there is such a thing as objective deontic modality where the obligation is imposed by external rules.
Examples:
You can come in now.
Can/may/might I borrow your car?
You mustn't touch that.
You needn't come in tomorrow.
Women must/have to cover their hair in Saudi Arabia.

Hmmm. "Definite semantic load." That sounds impressive indeed, but for me it has no semantic actualization. It doesn't mean anything to me. For one thing, your examples are the same ones as your examples for epistemic modals (can, may, might), and for another, are you saying that describing different degrees of probability of factuality (your notion, not mine) has no "semantic load"? That's hard for me to grasp.

Then you maintain that "objective deontic modality" imposes obligation by external rules. External to what? It seems to me that You can come in now imposes no obligation to begin with, since the addressee can simply refuse to come in, and whatever permission might be granted with the use of "can" is granted by the speaker rather than by some external entity. I have the same objection to all of your other examples: it is the speaker and not some external force who qualifies the proposition offered by the rest of the sentence.

Note that deontic modality reflects the attitude of the speaker, or of a set of rules he is conveying. Where this is not true we have dynamic modality.
Examples:
She can speak French very well.
He won't listen, however often you tell him.
The modals reflect the attitude or ability of the subject, and not that of the speaker.

Now this is really too much, Stephen. In She can speak French very well, is it the attitude of 'She' that she speaks French well, or is it the attitude of the person speaking? In He won't listen, is it 'He' who is telling us he has his ears plugged, or is it the speaker of the sentence?

Your ideas, however cleverly presented, just don't seem to me to stand up to examination. I hesitate to use the word 'hogwash', because much of what you say about grammar is well conceived and right to the point. But your ideas about modality are, well, hogwash.

Larry Latham

[Andrew Patterson]

I've done a little tree diagram which tries to explain modality.

You are all invited to comment and add branches.

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

I see the other posters have been busy, I'll have a look tomorrow, dobranoc as they say in this part of the world.

[metal56]

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.

"Must" is the proximal form and it does have a remote form. That form is "had to". "Must" talks about subjective necessity "in the present circumstances" and "had to" talks about objective necessity in the past.