In his chapter on modal auxiliaries in The English Verb, Michael Lewis lists what he thinks are the basic semantic meanings for each. I cite those meanings below and ask if you agree with them.
Please remember, we are talking about the basic semantic meaning. In context, these auxiliaries take on wider meanings, but it is the basic meaning I want to discuss.
Paraphrased.
Can = I assert that it is possible that ...
Could = I assert that it is "remotely" possible that ...
May = If I have anything to do with it, it is possible that ...
Might = If I have anything to do with it, it is "remotely" possible that ...
Must = I assert that it is necessary that ...
Will = Given my perception of the immediate situation, it is inevitable that ...
Would = Given the (hypothetical) situation which I perceive at the moment of speaking, the action described is also inevitably true.
Shall = According to my perception of the present situation, it is, if it's anything to do with me, inevitable that ...
From The English Verb by M Lewis. LTP 1986.
Should is dealt with separately as it is a far more complex auxiliary and has many meanings.
Basic semantic meanings of modal auxiliaries.
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
Basic semantic meanings of modal auxiliaries.
Last edited by metal56 on Wed Jun 08, 2005 3:37 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Metal, you could be treading on sensitive toes here: just look how much of a debate there was about will over a year ago:
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/v ... php?t=1217
My view is that you can't reduce modals down to one meaning, though you can cut them down to a few basic ones and allow context to fill in the gaps (e.g. it's almost impossible to know which time the speaker is referring to without looking at the context). I don't see this as especially radical - after all even the most seemingly basic lexical items like cat and book can have subtly different meanings depending on context, so why should modals be any different?
So, yes, on the whole I agree with Lewis though he may be a bit overambitious when he tries to ascribe one meaning to a given modal. His one meaning may account for most uses but probably not all.
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/v ... php?t=1217
My view is that you can't reduce modals down to one meaning, though you can cut them down to a few basic ones and allow context to fill in the gaps (e.g. it's almost impossible to know which time the speaker is referring to without looking at the context). I don't see this as especially radical - after all even the most seemingly basic lexical items like cat and book can have subtly different meanings depending on context, so why should modals be any different?
So, yes, on the whole I agree with Lewis though he may be a bit overambitious when he tries to ascribe one meaning to a given modal. His one meaning may account for most uses but probably not all.
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
I find myself at polar opposites with Mr. Jones, here. I think Michael Lewis's search for the Holy Grail of core meaning is the essence of his brilliance in disecting English so that we can all understand it, more or less.
That said, I hasten to acknowledge that all languages, English included, drift from the core (or perhaps we should say, original) meanings of many of their elements, both lexical and grammatical. English (as well as French and Spanish, and Russian--all of the "major" written 'standard' languages) drifts more slowly than does, say, Fula or Cree or Mandinka, simply because it does possess a "written standard", which is to say, a semi-frozen set of rules by which certain educated self-appointed 'authorities' can judge whether a given stretch of language is rendered 'rightly' or 'wrongly'. But English does drift. One needs only to reflect on how funny William Shakespeare would talk if we had the good fortune to be able to invite him for coffee and conversation at Starbuck's. Most such drifts, though, can be reliably traced to their origins.
Larry Latham
Nice to see that you're still around, Stephen. Articulate and well-informed competition always helps to make things more interesting. To answer your question elsewhere, I've been around, but caught up in other things.
That said, I hasten to acknowledge that all languages, English included, drift from the core (or perhaps we should say, original) meanings of many of their elements, both lexical and grammatical. English (as well as French and Spanish, and Russian--all of the "major" written 'standard' languages) drifts more slowly than does, say, Fula or Cree or Mandinka, simply because it does possess a "written standard", which is to say, a semi-frozen set of rules by which certain educated self-appointed 'authorities' can judge whether a given stretch of language is rendered 'rightly' or 'wrongly'. But English does drift. One needs only to reflect on how funny William Shakespeare would talk if we had the good fortune to be able to invite him for coffee and conversation at Starbuck's. Most such drifts, though, can be reliably traced to their origins.
Larry Latham
Nice to see that you're still around, Stephen. Articulate and well-informed competition always helps to make things more interesting. To answer your question elsewhere, I've been around, but caught up in other things.
So you do not believe in basic semantic meanings?lolwhites wrote:Metal, you could be treading on sensitive toes here: just look how much of a debate there was about will over a year ago:
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/v ... php?t=1217
My view is that you can't reduce modals down to one meaning, though you can cut them down to a few basic ones and allow context to fill in the gaps (e.g. it's almost impossible to know which time the speaker is referring to without looking at the context). I don't see this as especially radical - after all even the most seemingly basic lexical items like cat and book can have subtly different meanings depending on context, so why should modals be any different?
So, yes, on the whole I agree with Lewis though he may be a bit overambitious when he tries to ascribe one meaning to a given modal. His one meaning may account for most uses but probably not all.
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
I've gone a little cold on the core meanings. I mean, I suppose every word starts life with only one meaning, and by means of logical extension or poetic analogy starts to seep across the language. However, those extensions of the core meaning, which may be semantically rather different, sometimes become more frequent and important than the core original meaning itself. The history of words is opaque, so in effect we have to accept that some words have a number of tenously related meanings.
For you:Stephen Jones wrote:I think that Lewis's search for the Holy Grail of the one core meaning belongs to the world of fantasy, not linguistics.
Semantic meaning cannot account for poetry, motivated speech, sociopolitical context, the speaker-audience relationship, irony, attitude, implication, or moral significance.
Do you agree?
Yes, semantic drift.woodcutter wrote:I've gone a little cold on the core meanings. I mean, I suppose every word starts life with only one meaning, and by means of logical extension or poetic analogy starts to seep across the language. However, those extensions of the core meaning, which may be semantically rather different, sometimes become more frequent and important than the core original meaning itself. The history of words is opaque, so in effect we have to accept that some words have a number of tenously related meanings.
Do you think that is the case with the auxiliaries above? If so, what meanings do you see attached to each and how do they relate to the ones suggested by Lewis?
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
I suppose "could" is about the hardest to squeeze into the core jacket.
At that time, I could ride a bike.
Such a sentence has very little to do with "remote possibility".
I've never been a great fan on spending lots of energy on classifying the modals into distinct types - patterns emerge, but it doesn't help us use them very much, IMHO.
At that time, I could ride a bike.
Such a sentence has very little to do with "remote possibility".
I've never been a great fan on spending lots of energy on classifying the modals into distinct types - patterns emerge, but it doesn't help us use them very much, IMHO.
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)