All modals followed by "have" can only have an epistemic meaning not a deontic or dynamic meaning, and the perfect tense is implied even if the past participle is not explicitly used.
True or false?
Modals followed by "have"
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
Andrew Patterson
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
Modals followed by "have"
Last edited by Andrew Patterson on Sun May 23, 2004 1:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Andrew Patterson
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
You're confusing me here, stephen, did you see sth that made you change your mind?
By epistemic, of course, I mean speculation and deduction.
It seems to me that modals followed by "have" are limited in their meaning to speculation and deduction. At least, I can't seem to make a sentence with a deontic meaning (obligation/permission/necessity); or a dynamic meaning (ability/volition.)
If this is true, is it worth telling our students?
By epistemic, of course, I mean speculation and deduction.
It seems to me that modals followed by "have" are limited in their meaning to speculation and deduction. At least, I can't seem to make a sentence with a deontic meaning (obligation/permission/necessity); or a dynamic meaning (ability/volition.)
If this is true, is it worth telling our students?
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Re: Modals followed by "have"
I'm going to argue with you here, Andy. First of all, if a modal auxiliary occurs in a verb phrase, it is always the first word in the phrase. Hopefully, that will be uncontroversial, but skeptics can prove it to themselves with a few examples. If, then, the modal auxiliary is followed by have, that word will either be the main verb or it will be another auxiliary leading to a perfect element in the meaning of the entire verb phrase. If have is a main verb, like:Andrew Patterson wrote:All modals followed by "have" can only have an epistemic meaning not a deontic or dynamic meaning, and the perfect tense is implied even if the past participle is not explicitly used.
True or false?
He may have a gun.
...there is no perfect tense implied, contrary to what you've suggested above, if I'm reading you properly.
What about this sentence?
If you should have your wallet stolen, you won't be able to drive.
Also consider this sentence:
You should have stopped after three beers.
To me, the meaning here does not suggest speculation or deduction so much as an assertion of duty or responsibility. It sounds like an acusation to me. If said in an accusing tone, it surely would be.
What do you think?
Larry Latham
I agree with Larry's last post>
Father to son: You can have my car for the evening but you will have your driver's licence with you = deontic, deontic
Traffic regulations: all drivers of a vehicle must have the appropriate licence with them = deontic
Moreover there is no intimation of perfect tense here.
harzer
Father to son: You can have my car for the evening but you will have your driver's licence with you = deontic, deontic
Traffic regulations: all drivers of a vehicle must have the appropriate licence with them = deontic
Moreover there is no intimation of perfect tense here.
harzer
-
Andrew Patterson
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
Thanks for replying Larry and Harzer, but Larry, I did not assert the statement to be true, I was asking if it was true, hence my asking True or false. That's why I'm asking.
Larry, you pointed out that "have" can also be a main verb. That was sth that I should have noticed.
but didn’t. You are quite right when you say that when it is the main verb, as in, “He may have a gun,” no perfect tense is implied.
However, in your example, “He may have a gun,” the speaker is still speculating as to whether he has a gun. No one is trying to get anyone to do anything. Harzer’s example, “You have my car for the evening,” is clearly deontic as it is giving permission. So if “have” is the main verb deontic modality is indeed possible.
“If you should have your wallet stolen,” is interesting. I feel it is incomplete, though. It should be continued with something like, “contact me immediately. It speculates on the possibility of your wallet being stolen. It seems to me that the deontic meaning (what you should do if it’s stolen) comes in the independent clause. “Should have” does not itself have a deontic meaning .
When "have" is an auxiliary verb it's a different matter. Now comes the problem of definitions. I am still a little uncertain about what constitutes epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality.
You give the example, “You should have stopped after three beers,” which you say sounds like an assertion of duty or responsibility. I would define it as a retrospective rebuke. In this one I can see it both ways - it is indeed an assertion of duty or responsibility which would suggest deontic modality; on the other hand, no one is trying to get anyone to do anything as the action has already happened and cannot be changed. That would suggest epistemic modality.
I’d also like to ask you if you think that, “had better have” has dynamic overtones of coersion.
It is probably worth noting here that “have” can still be an auxiliary when it is the only [non-modal] verb in the sentence if it is used in an answer to a question:
Q: Can you sing?
A: Yes, I can [sing].
To summarise, I accept that you can have deontic modality when “have” is the main verb, but I’m still unsure about whether or not a retrospective rebuke constitutes deontic or epistemic modality. Anyone able to clarify this?
Larry, you pointed out that "have" can also be a main verb. That was sth that I should have noticed.
but didn’t. You are quite right when you say that when it is the main verb, as in, “He may have a gun,” no perfect tense is implied.However, in your example, “He may have a gun,” the speaker is still speculating as to whether he has a gun. No one is trying to get anyone to do anything. Harzer’s example, “You have my car for the evening,” is clearly deontic as it is giving permission. So if “have” is the main verb deontic modality is indeed possible.
“If you should have your wallet stolen,” is interesting. I feel it is incomplete, though. It should be continued with something like, “contact me immediately. It speculates on the possibility of your wallet being stolen. It seems to me that the deontic meaning (what you should do if it’s stolen) comes in the independent clause. “Should have” does not itself have a deontic meaning .
When "have" is an auxiliary verb it's a different matter. Now comes the problem of definitions. I am still a little uncertain about what constitutes epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality.
You give the example, “You should have stopped after three beers,” which you say sounds like an assertion of duty or responsibility. I would define it as a retrospective rebuke. In this one I can see it both ways - it is indeed an assertion of duty or responsibility which would suggest deontic modality; on the other hand, no one is trying to get anyone to do anything as the action has already happened and cannot be changed. That would suggest epistemic modality.
I’d also like to ask you if you think that, “had better have” has dynamic overtones of coersion.
It is probably worth noting here that “have” can still be an auxiliary when it is the only [non-modal] verb in the sentence if it is used in an answer to a question:
Q: Can you sing?
A: Yes, I can [sing].
To summarise, I accept that you can have deontic modality when “have” is the main verb, but I’m still unsure about whether or not a retrospective rebuke constitutes deontic or epistemic modality. Anyone able to clarify this?
The example you should have stopped after three beers may well be trying to get someone to do something. You can't change the past, but it could well be an attempt to influence future behaviour, and is therefore deontic. I can't see how there's any type of speculation or deduction going here; for the sentence to make any sennse, the speaker must know for a fact that the listener had too many beers and some unfortunate consequence resulted, so what's being speculated or deduced?
As for dynamic meaning, what about My Dad could have been a great footballer but he married my Mum instead? Couldn't that suggest past ability?
As for dynamic meaning, what about My Dad could have been a great footballer but he married my Mum instead? Couldn't that suggest past ability?
-
Andrew Patterson
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
Thanks Lolwhites,
In defining "epistemic" as meaning speculation and deduction, I may have limited its meaning, the definition. I think that it may be broader than just speculation and deduction. It's usually defined as the speaker's judgement of the truth of a proposition. I think it should also include how they came to that judgement. In answer to your question, no one is trying to speculate or deduce anything, but they certainly judge that the other person's behaviour was wrong and prsumably believe their judgement to be true. I'm not trying to move the goalposts here, I am already unsure whether a retrospective rebuke is epistemic or deontic.
Read this, for clarification (or perhaps it will only serve to muddy the waters. It did for me.) The website in bold refers directly to potential:
http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/issue1/modal ... troduction
http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/issue1/modal ... xistential
http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/issue1/modalfrm.htm
http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/issue1/modalana.htm
http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/issue1/modal ... mendations
I actually thought about commenting on this fact, but felt the post would be too long if I did. It is true that the speaker may indeed be trying to influence future behaviour, but they are doing it obliquely. It is one possible inference that but it is not explicitly said. It is also possible that the speaker is not trying to influence future behaviour. The person may have become a tea-totaler, and the incident may have happened a long time ago. If a person isn't going to drink again and you believe that they won't, then you are not trying to influence their behaviour.The example you should have stopped after three beers may well be trying to get someone to do something. You can't change the past, but it could well be an attempt to influence future behaviour, and is therefore deontic.
In defining "epistemic" as meaning speculation and deduction, I may have limited its meaning, the definition. I think that it may be broader than just speculation and deduction. It's usually defined as the speaker's judgement of the truth of a proposition. I think it should also include how they came to that judgement. In answer to your question, no one is trying to speculate or deduce anything, but they certainly judge that the other person's behaviour was wrong and prsumably believe their judgement to be true. I'm not trying to move the goalposts here, I am already unsure whether a retrospective rebuke is epistemic or deontic.
No, it suggests potential not ability. However, potential may still be dynamic modality. On the other hand it may be existential or epistemic.As for dynamic meaning, what about My Dad could have been a great footballer but he married my Mum instead? Couldn't that suggest past ability?
Read this, for clarification (or perhaps it will only serve to muddy the waters. It did for me.) The website in bold refers directly to potential:http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/issue1/modal ... troduction
http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/issue1/modal ... xistential
http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/issue1/modalfrm.htm
http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/issue1/modalana.htm
http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/issue1/modal ... mendations
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
No Andrew, I was just taking the mick. 'deontic' always makes me think of oral hygiene, while 'epistemic' seems to refer to all kinds of nasty tropical diseases.
I'm almost certain you're wrong.
All modals are followed by the infiintive and tthat infinitive just like the past or present tense can function with or without any combination of the progressive and perfect aspect.
So, taking do as our example,
we are concerned here with modal + have + done (perfect yes, progressive no)
or modal + have + been + doing (perfect yes, progressive yes).
It really depends on how you define your terms. If you claim that should is 'epistemic' because it always describes a person's judgement of the situation or the truth of that situation, then you may be right.You would also have to accept that "third conditionals" are always epistemic.
I would say that you are right about can and could, and that will and won't are unlikely to reflect volition.
I'm almost certain you're wrong.
All modals are followed by the infiintive and tthat infinitive just like the past or present tense can function with or without any combination of the progressive and perfect aspect.
So, taking do as our example,
we are concerned here with modal + have + done (perfect yes, progressive no)
or modal + have + been + doing (perfect yes, progressive yes).
It really depends on how you define your terms. If you claim that should is 'epistemic' because it always describes a person's judgement of the situation or the truth of that situation, then you may be right.You would also have to accept that "third conditionals" are always epistemic.
I would say that you are right about can and could, and that will and won't are unlikely to reflect volition.
-
Andrew Patterson
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
OK, Stephen,
Larry and Harzer already put me right on the bit about the perfect tense. I didn't need any convincing, it was an oversight. Of course "have" can be used as the main verb.
I was interested in Harzer's example which showed such cases can be deontic too.
I am interested in the cases where "have" is used to form the perfect tenses, though. The present perfect is often described as the present relevance of a past event, but I'd like to speculate about whether this present relevence is limited to existential, epistemic and dynamic or maybe it just eliminates the deontic. Maybe this is just limited to cases where modal verbs are involved, or maybe it tells us sth about the perfect tenses. I do note here that the addition of a modal whatever that modal might be strictly speaking means that it is no longer the PRESENT perfect and indeed is probably the future perfect.
It seems to me that this removal of the deontic extends to the perfect continuous tenses, We often hear eg He must have been painting. Is a deduction based on present evidence. What may be significant here is that present evidence is the only possible way in which the present perfect can be relevent to us. It may be that deontic sense is not possible in the perfect tenses. I'm not sure about dynamic. Are these possible?: He will have to have had an operation. He has to have had an operation. OK not modals but modal equivelents, but they should show if dynamic modality is possible because have to is always dynamic (or perhaps it isn't here.)
It's late and what I wrote was basically a stream of conciousness, I'll have to look at it again later. I just seem to be getting a lot of ideas. I hope I haven't written a load of rubbish.
Larry and Harzer already put me right on the bit about the perfect tense. I didn't need any convincing, it was an oversight. Of course "have" can be used as the main verb.
I was interested in Harzer's example which showed such cases can be deontic too.
I am interested in the cases where "have" is used to form the perfect tenses, though. The present perfect is often described as the present relevance of a past event, but I'd like to speculate about whether this present relevence is limited to existential, epistemic and dynamic or maybe it just eliminates the deontic. Maybe this is just limited to cases where modal verbs are involved, or maybe it tells us sth about the perfect tenses. I do note here that the addition of a modal whatever that modal might be strictly speaking means that it is no longer the PRESENT perfect and indeed is probably the future perfect.
It seems to me that this removal of the deontic extends to the perfect continuous tenses, We often hear eg He must have been painting. Is a deduction based on present evidence. What may be significant here is that present evidence is the only possible way in which the present perfect can be relevent to us. It may be that deontic sense is not possible in the perfect tenses. I'm not sure about dynamic. Are these possible?: He will have to have had an operation. He has to have had an operation. OK not modals but modal equivelents, but they should show if dynamic modality is possible because have to is always dynamic (or perhaps it isn't here.)
It's late and what I wrote was basically a stream of conciousness, I'll have to look at it again later. I just seem to be getting a lot of ideas. I hope I haven't written a load of rubbish.
-
Andrew Patterson
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
I am now convinced that (with the possible exception of shall have) modals in the perfect tense cannot be deontic. I think that they are always epistemic and perhaps can be dynamic (but don't have to be.)
In most cases the reason is obvious, you can't get someone to do sth that has already been done.
This does not follow, however in the case of the future perfect, ie the perfect tense with "will". Nevertheless, the future perfect still does not seem to carry any epistemic meaning. I guess it might be sth to do with the retrospection, but the fact still remains, that the action has not yet happened, although no one seems to be influencing it.
Can anyone explain why the future perfect can't be deontic, or indeed, can it be deontic?
As I said at the beginning, though, I'm not sure about "shall have". Does that have a deontic sense?
In most cases the reason is obvious, you can't get someone to do sth that has already been done.
This does not follow, however in the case of the future perfect, ie the perfect tense with "will". Nevertheless, the future perfect still does not seem to carry any epistemic meaning. I guess it might be sth to do with the retrospection, but the fact still remains, that the action has not yet happened, although no one seems to be influencing it.
Can anyone explain why the future perfect can't be deontic, or indeed, can it be deontic?
As I said at the beginning, though, I'm not sure about "shall have". Does that have a deontic sense?
-
Andrew Patterson
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
From another forum
I received this reply to the same question from another forum:
There's a legal/regulatory use of "must have" that works the same as
"shall have":
Applicants must have completed at least three years advanced training.
I think you can use "will have" this way just to the extent that you can
use "will" deontically:
You will report to me again in one week's time. You will have carried
out all my instructions...
Works OK if spoken by hypnotist or mysterious villain in movie.
Ross Clark
There's a legal/regulatory use of "must have" that works the same as
"shall have":
Applicants must have completed at least three years advanced training.
I think you can use "will have" this way just to the extent that you can
use "will" deontically:
You will report to me again in one week's time. You will have carried
out all my instructions...
Works OK if spoken by hypnotist or mysterious villain in movie.
Ross Clark
-
Andrew Patterson
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
Ross Clark wrote:
lolwhites wrote:
The way I see it, Ross's use of "will" is backed up in some way, I'm quite interested in this idea of "backed up" modality. In the case of the hypnotist, it is backed up by the fact that the subject is under a hypnotic trance and is compelled to do as he is told. I don't know why Ross said mysterious villain, I would have thought that this statement is backed up by coersion - you will have done it because you know that if you don't I'll send someone round to break your legs/kill you.
Advice is also backed up by coersion in the case of "had better".
Lolwhites, I totally agree with you about your analysis of "must" have and "will have", however, I'm not sure how all this fits into the epistemic-deontic-dynamic framework.
Starting with Ross, I think that hypnotic compulsion and coersion are dynamic.
Lolwhites, I think that a requirement is also dynamic, but an expectation and an assumption are epistemic.
What do you think? RSVP.
Another thought, is "would rather" always epistemic when acting as a modal verb, but deontic when followed by the past subjunctive?
You will report to me again in one week's time. You will have carried
out all my instructions...
Works OK if spoken by hypnotist or mysterious villain in movie.
lolwhites wrote:
Applicants must have completed at least three years advanced training = a requirement
Applicants will have completed at least three years advanced training. = an expectation and/or assumption.
The way I see it, Ross's use of "will" is backed up in some way, I'm quite interested in this idea of "backed up" modality. In the case of the hypnotist, it is backed up by the fact that the subject is under a hypnotic trance and is compelled to do as he is told. I don't know why Ross said mysterious villain, I would have thought that this statement is backed up by coersion - you will have done it because you know that if you don't I'll send someone round to break your legs/kill you.
Advice is also backed up by coersion in the case of "had better".
Lolwhites, I totally agree with you about your analysis of "must" have and "will have", however, I'm not sure how all this fits into the epistemic-deontic-dynamic framework.
Starting with Ross, I think that hypnotic compulsion and coersion are dynamic.
Lolwhites, I think that a requirement is also dynamic, but an expectation and an assumption are epistemic.
What do you think? RSVP.
Another thought, is "would rather" always epistemic when acting as a modal verb, but deontic when followed by the past subjunctive?