"gets to" and modality

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:10 am

<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.>

The solutions suggested on that website are only one way to combat a very real quandary: How to help students that have been taught through inadequate textbooks and outdated teaching use language in real situations. Read a few reviews of some of the ESL material out there and you'll see what I'm getting at. I'm an ESL veteran of 20 years and have seen the results of decontextualised, de-cotextualised, teaching.

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

That depends on who teaches. You might also note that applying modal verbs in expressing modality is pretty infrequent in actual use

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:38 am

<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 ...>

As always, very erudite, Larry.

Nice summary.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 12:51 pm

I asked the questions not as an exam but to elicit the thinking behind your statement. There would have been no point in answering if I did not know among other things why you did not regard modals as verbs. Since I do regard modals as verbs, my answer would not fit into your way of thinking.

Your answer to the questions was long and detailed but did not include the sort of things that I was expecting. I will answer your questions in the light of the new post when I have time, but right now I have to prepare for some lessons and mark some homework and that must take priority right now.

Andy.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:54 pm

Andrew

<Since I do regard modals as verbs, my answer would not fit into your way of thinking. >

Nor mine. Modal auxiliaries have verb like behaviour, but they are not verbs as we formally use the word.

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 7:25 pm

Modal auxiliaries have verb like behaviour, but they are not verbs as we formally use the word.

Aaaahhhhhhh! Thanks, metal56. It's nice to have at least one confirmation of this idea. (And a heavyweight one at that!).

We'll await Andrew's reply after he marks his student papers.

Larry Latham

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:53 pm

he 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.

You referred to physicists in an earlier post Larry, but when physicists find that their theory doesn't square with observed phenomena its the theory they jettison, not the reality.

And the reality is that the two phrases have exactly the same meaning

I'll quote Merriam Webster.
2 : have permission to — used interchangeably with may you can go now if you like usage Can and may are most frequently interchangeable in senses denoting possibility; because the possibility of one's doing something may depend on another's acquiescence, they have also become interchangeable in the sense denoting permission. The use of can to ask or grant permission has been common since the 19th century and is well established, although some commentators feel may is more appropriate in formal contexts. May is relatively rare in negative constructions (mayn't is not common); cannot and can't are usual in such contexts.

Even though the two phrases are suemtically identical that doesn't mean there are not other factors for choosing. In this case, register, as may is probably considered more formal. However a multitude of other factors could intervene to allow an individual to make a personal decision, for human beings do not freeze up like non-compliant W2K software when offered two equal choices. Ask somebody to choose a random number and you will get an answer.

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.

You are equally wrong here.
I think it’s possible that Rosa runs a mile in under 5 minutes.
is equivalent to
Rosa may be able to run a mile in under 5 minutes
and it would not be unreasonable to say that it expresses the speaker's personal judgement,

but
Rosa can run a mile in under 5 minutes
is a statement of fact and no more expresses the speaker's judgement than the sentences
Rosa wants to run a mile in under 5 minutes
or
Rosa's runs a mile in under five minutes every day

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 9:11 pm

he solutions suggested on that website are only one way to combat a very real quandary: How to help students that have been taught through inadequate textbooks and outdated teaching use language in real situations. Read a few reviews of some of the ESL material out there and you'll see what I'm getting at. I'm an ESL veteran of 20 years and have seen the results of decontextualised, de-cotextualised, teaching.

Doubtless, but I fail to see what you are getting at. Nobody is proposing decontextualised or decotextualized teaching. I was expressing scepticism of the idea that "defining" modal auxiliaries serves any didactic purpose. The definitions of modality being bandied around here are hardly likely to make things clearer for students, even if they did really describe current English. I would maintain that the only useful definition of modals you can give is a structural one, and in that case you might as well just give a list.

Incidentally, I find the discussion as to whether the modal auxiliaries are verbs or not to be somewhat sterile, on a par with the old chestnut as to whether viruses are living organisms or not. We all know what they are and what they do, so why argue over the label.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 9:36 pm

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.

Catenative comes from the Latin for linking. They appear to be a much wider class than you suggest according to: http://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/sgraml ... 4-Comp.pdf

What are catenative verbs?
• catenatives say something about either a state or an action / occurrence
• they are verbs which are grammatically linked to other verbal constructions
• catenatives are, for example: see, want, hear, remember, like
I saw somebody fall out of a tree.
I want to come.
I heard him coming.
I remember doing it.
He likes to go to Bielefeld.

I think one of the studies you are referring to is describing the language of chldren, and that explains why they consider "wanna" to be one morpheme, since the child interprets it that way.

One thing does appear clear; there is no general agreement as to what terms we should be using to describe contemporary English.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 9:42 pm

Larry,

First of all, there are 48 slides in http://www.let.uu.nl/~slr/gram4/sld001.htm

Each individual slide doesn't say much, but together they form a reasonable simple (possibly simplistic) introduction to mood and modality. Perhaps it would have been nicer if it hadn't included an analysis of Dutch too. I don't think it was ever intended to be detailed. Either way, I think "balony" is a bit strong.
I see Steven thinks it is "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.

Steven, by itself I would say that is true but it is explained more fully further on.

Have you both actually viewed all 48 slides?

Thank you for clarifying that you thought modality refers back to the speaker not the subject, of course it is only when the subject is "I" that the two coincide.

Concerning my questions, I see that you have not answered them one by one, I have tried to extract the answers please tell me if I have misinterpreted what you wrote:

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

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.

but modals "mostly occur in pairs showing remote and unmarked flavours." You stated that "must" doesn't have a corresponding remote and unmarked flavour. [Using your terminology, "must" was actually the remote and unmarked flavour of "mote" which only survives in the response to vows in Freemasonry: "So mote it be!" (So I'm told, I'm not a freemason.)]

So you think that modals are not verbs because they do not inflect for tense but have remote unmarked flavour instead. I have always though of this as psychological distance but I think it amounts to the same thing. Clearly there are times when the remote unmarked flavour of a modal verb does not indicate the past but there are cases when it does.

I should point out here that when a verb is in the subjunctive mood and third conditional then this can apply to verbs that you would accept as verbs.

eg. It's high time I went to bed. (If I don't finish this to night its probably because its high time I went to bed.)

You said we can't say "canned go" well the remote form of "can" is "could" and one can say "could" go" You said we can't say "woulding helped". Here I would point out that there are plenty of languages, such as Thai, that do not have present participles or gerunds. Are we to conclude that they have no verbs? Modern Greek by the way has no infinitive.

Larry, if you still think that catenatives all include the word "to" you clearly still haven't looked at my Venn diagram of the English catenatives:

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

Catenatives conventionally don't include the modals (though I think they should), but they include verbs followed by gerunds and the infinitive with "to", verbs followed by the object, "to" and the infinitive and verbs that can be followed by the object and bare infinitive.

I'm afraid going to stop here for now before going on to the next questions because its late and I think its high time I went to bed.

Andrew Patterson

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 9:51 pm

Catenatives conventionally don't include the modals (though I think they should),

I don't know where you get the "conventional wisdom" from. A Google search will turn up respectable sources that include all auxilaries as catenatives.

One site gives the definition of an auxiliary as a catenative that is also an operator.

And no, I didn't see all 48. I gave up at slide twenty. I have a dialup line and bandwidth costs money which I don't feel like spending on what is not even interesting rubbish.

The fact that Larry and I put down our swords in the midst of a fight to the death, to agree on junking the site, should warn you off it.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 11:19 pm

<Larry, if you still think that catenatives all include the word "to" you clearly still haven't looked at my Venn diagram of the English catenatives>

Three Groups of Catenatives

Those that take gerunds

avoid, detest, enjoy, keep

Those that take infinitives

agree, decide, expect, forget, hope, plan, want

Those that take both

attempt, continue, hate, like, love, prefer, remember, start

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:21 am

<I would maintain that the only useful definition of modals you can give is a structural one, and in that case you might as well just give a list. >ç

I'll remember to tell that to my students.

"But what is the difference between "could" and "should", teacher?"

"Just stick them in the right place in the sentence and all will be OK. Now let me get on with my novel."

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:39 am

Larry, haver I interpreted your other answers correctly?

2. If Modals are not verbs, what are they?
You don't seem to have answered this but I agree with Steven's comment on whether viruses are living or dead here.

3. Are "stative verbs" verbs?
You seem to think they are.

4. Do you think that the catenatives are verbs and the modals are not?
See 7.

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?
No answer.

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?)
No answer.

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?
Yes?

8. If you answered in 4. and 7. that the catenatives are verbs, how can catenatives be verbs and modals not?
No answer.

Now as for your question:

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.] (Parts in square brackets later retracted.) 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?

Modality is the overlay of the speaker's how the speaker wants to communicate over the plain statement. Only verbs which are capable of overlaying this meaning can be catenatives. So explicitly there is nothing about the way the speaker wants to communicate, but implicitly, there is.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 9:06 am

"But what is the difference between "could" and "should", teacher?"

"Just stick them in the right place in the sentence and all will be OK. Now let me get on with my novel."

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse, or just don't have enough money to buy a dog to kick.

Your question has nothing to do with the definition of modals as a class.

If you are teaching the meanngs of modals then there are two common approaches. The first is to give loads of examples of the use of each modal, and the second is to group the modals by usage. So using the first way you would talk about "could" to represent ability in the past, a request for permission, possibility and any other uses. Using the second way you would take for example the various ways of using modal verbs to express possibility or probability, grouping such phrases as "he must be at home" and "he could be at home". Both ways are bitty, and you would want to try and go from one to the other in the hope the students see the matrix. Frankly for the more complicated forms "He might have done it", I am of the opinion that it is better to teach them for recognition purposes only. I have spent too many hours on futile transformation exercises that take longer to explain than to do.

If you have another method please share it with us.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 9:48 am

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

Modals are auxiliaries. If you feel that every word has to be labelled in the tradtional way as a part of speech, then you would have to call them verbs. The distinction Larry is making between modals and verbs is that modals can never be used independently, they only have one form, and cannot form part of the tense system..

3. Are "stative verbs" verbs?

Yes

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

Depends entirely on how you would define catenatives.

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?

No answer. I'm not Larry

Can we accept that both are linked 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?)

See answer to number 5.

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?

This is obvious nonsense

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

The answer was already given to 2 above. A catenative such as 'want' does not require another verb afterwards. As Larry pointed out you can reasonably argue that "I want a coffee" and "I want to see you" are equivalent SVO constructions. The ability to dispense with a following verb, while maintaining the same meaning, is true of many catenatives. Modals are much more limited.

Modality is the overlay of the speaker's how the speaker wants to communicate over the plain statement. Only verbs which are capable of overlaying this meaning can be catenatives. So explicitly there is nothing about the way the speaker wants to communicate, but implicitly, there is.

Your falling into the common trap of choosing certain terms to define a set of phenomena and then insisting that your arbitrary terms have some real value and that other phenomena that does not fit into the pattern must be twisted to do so.

A catenative is normally defined as a verb that links to another verb. Sometimes you could qualify this link as overlaying meaning, but there are plenty of cases where this is not true.
He stopped smoking
He stopped to have a cigarette

And if stop is "overlaying' meaning here, then how is it "overlaying" its meaning in the phrase
He stopped the bus

You could say I feel like dancing{/i] is an example of 'feel like' overlaying dancing, but what about I feel like s hit? Not much 'overlaying' there.

It's worth going back to the original example from metal 56 that started this article. "gets to" works in very much the same way as the modal auxiliaries, in that "gets" in this sense cannot be used independently of a following verb. This is however only true of a very small number of catenatives.

Anyway, hope I've saved Larry a little bit of work.