Modals always grounded in the moment of speaking?

[Metamorfose]

That's what Lewis asserts in his The English Verb page 102. Thinking about the subject I made out:

(1) I can swim very well.
(2) She could come next Friday instead of Thursday.
(3) They must be very upset.

I think it's clear that those three sentences are indeed grounded at the moment of speaking.

(4) She could read when she was 4.
(5) My daughter already read when she was 4.

But in (4) althought you may say that I'm expressing my subjective view of a fact, can we really say it's grounded in the moment I utter such a sentence? How different is (4) to (5)?

(6) You could have told me this before, couldn't you?

In (6) I'm expressing my opinion about how things could be different if the other had told me before, I can see it's grounded at the moment now based on events that have already happened.


In the end and again my question is, can I positively say that all modal verbs are grounded at the time one utters a sentence or not all uses of the modals behave like this?

José

[fluffyhamster]

Lewis is worth reading for sure if you are a teacher, but you can start pulling hair out if you start thinking too much about what "you" HEAR at any moment (as opposed to examples YOU read and mull over, perhaps too much) being 'grounded in the moment of speaking'; that is, regardless of the worth or not of Lewis's arguments there are several clues in the stream of speech that form regularities and are usually processed successfully, provided learners are given enough exposure and/or pay "attention" to it to the extent of really hearing, "appreciating" and understanding (these processes need not be so cerebral, just somewhat "affective"/"involved" in the "two-way").

(1) I can swim very well.*
(2) She could come next Friday instead of Thursday.**
(3) They must be very upset.*
(4) She could read when she was 4.
(5) My daughter already read when she was 4.
(6) You could have told me this before, couldn't you?

*No extra information about "time if-or-when" given (note that if we do add a subordinate clause, it uses a present as opposed to past tense form).
**This is likely to be a helpful suggestion rather than expressing a worry about her coming a day later than is hoped, but only prosody in context will show us what is what.

With regard to 4 and 5, 5 especially strikes me as one of those quasi-examples that Lewis has dreamed up through excessive tinkering (assuming it appears in The English Verb): the more obvious thing to do for anyone less intent on proving a point would be to just use sentence 4 (and I have to say that my intuition tells me that the complexities are probably elsewhere than the verb phrase: when > by the time. This properly reflect the (relatively fast, to the proud parent) process that must've been involved even with a (child) prodigy). (We could also move the 'already' into 4 to increase the emphasis).

I myself simply (LOL) think we are dealing with the trusty ELT textbook industry stalwart 'Can for ability' here, in its "past tense" form, and saying that the speaker is somehow subjectively involved in the process (even moreso than the listener, dammit!) would seem to be to be just so much stodgy icing on a perfectly digestible fruit cake (or am I being the fruitcake here?): it may end up looking pretty, but would you really want to eat too much of it? (No, you'd end up sick as a dog!).

Not much to say about 6 (beyond what's said or implied by the various font options I've used) except that it is again the sort of construction that is encountered in many textbooks, and is presumably learnt without too much ado (see immediately preceding discussion of examples 4 and 5).

I've said before (many moons ago and in a previous incarnation) that there is an obsession with the verb phrase, and I think this shows it. Perhaps the complexities are "merely" in the exact (and to the foreign student student it must appear exacting) phrasing "expected" (i.e. the most frequent phrasings), and this extends beyond the verb phrase to include e.g. adverbs and adverbial phrases. Of course, as a native speaker I may not be able to fully appreciate any and whatever problems English may indeed have for the foreign learner, but taking Chinese as an example (which I learnt beyond an elementary level), does English really have far more complexities simply because it has some morphology in its verb forms?

Incidentally, I'd be interested to know what people think the prosody of the tag question there would likely be.

[metal56]

... Incidentally, I'd be interested to know what people think the prosody of the tag question there would likely be.

You must be saying something in all that, Fluff. If only you could learn to express yourself in a clearer way.

You could begin by dumping a large amount of the parentheses you so love. They are so distracting.

[fluffyhamster]

What don't you understand in the part you've quoted, metal? Surely it's perfectly clear English? I'm certainly not going to start rewriting things just for you. (<Nor drop the use of brackets where they seem useful, see?>).

As for the main thrust of my post...I have a theory: that you've started making these kind of totally irrelevant points when anyone dares to say anything that challenges your pet beliefs about the linguistics-teaching continuum (especially when what they say is something to which you would seem to have no immediately worthwhile response). Are you trying to derail or jam up the thread? Why?

So, as I've said before, try to keep on topic and address the main part of my post (which is, I believe, reasonably well-written and really quite clear).

You're of course welcome to make whatever comments you like, but if you keep up with these snide ones, people will probably begin to wonder if you are just totally burnt out and no longer up for any serious discussion.

Guys, please tell me if I'm wrong here, and not entitled to respond in any way (I know I should try to resist the urge) to what I see as direct and immediate provocations. (Metal seems to think I have always been on his case, but I don't think that I've ever been unpleasant or totally disrespectful to him, even if some of my posts might seem somewhat insubstantial).

[metal56]

As for the main thrust of my post...I have a theory: that you've started making these kind of totally irrelevant points when anyone dares to say anything that challenges your pet beliefs about the linguistics-teaching continuum (especially when what they say is something to which you would seem to have no immediately worthwhile response). Are you trying to derail or jam up the thread? Why?

quote]

LOL! To do that, I'd first have to understand just what it is you are ranting on about. Your ideas are all over the place.

[Metamorfose]

(4) She could read when she was 4.
(5) My daughter already read when she was 4.

With regard to 4 and 5, 5 especially strikes me as one of those quasi-examples that Lewis has dreamed up through excessive tinkering (assuming it appears in The English Verb):

Don't you worry Fluffy the excessive tinkering is mine not Lewis's.

the more obvious thing to do for anyone less intent on proving a point would be to just use sentence 4 (and I have to say that my intuition tells me that the complexities are probably elsewhere than the verb phrase: when > by the time. This properly reflect the (relatively fast, to the proud parent) process that must've been involved even with a (child) prodigy). (We could also move the 'already' into 4 to increase the emphasis).

This is KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) isn't it?

In the end, if I got what you mean, is simply not to worry too much whether these sentences are ground or not in the moment of speaking, right?

I can avoid bitter regretting in classroom if I keep my mouth shut on this.

José

[fluffyhamster]

Thanks for clarifying, Jose, it's saved me having to dig out my copy of Lewis from wherever it's been hiding (maybe it accidentally fell into the trashcan LOL).

[metal56]

Thanks for clarifying, Jose, it's saved me having to dig out my copy of Lewis from wherever it's been hiding (maybe it accidentally fell into the trashcan LOL).

And that comment shows what a pathetic academic you really are.

[fluffyhamster]

If you ever wrote 'GSOH' on any of the lonely hearts ads you placed to lure and snare your blind one-legged flamenco-hopping English-speaking Spanish shemale "girlfriend" (Priscilla with the deep voice), metal, you were surely lying.

There's more to life than reading Lewis (at least, there are plenty of other equally worthwhile books for anyone to be getting on with). Not implying that's all you read, by the way (because you seem well-read).

I'll always be grateful to Lewis for writing The Lexical Approach (and I also got a lot out of his and Hill's Practical Teachniques), because it pointed the way for me to what I believe are very interesting, productive, "connectable" and valuable areas in linguistics, but I rarely refer back to him now and certainly don't think I should feel obliged to continually pore over and ponder his every last word, mainly because I am not exactly the type whom his writing concerning grammar is directed at (those who peddle total untruths, either because they don't know any better or plain don't care: for example, some non-native teachers, newbie natives, and unprofessional "experienced" teachers. The non-native will struggle somewhat with Lewis's ideas - no offence intended to Jose; and as for newbies who care, think, read around and develop professionally, they can avoid many of the pitfalls Lewis mentions wihout ever having to have read Lewis himself).

Anyway, I said 'maybe it fell', NOT that I threw it into the trash! Ah but it's too late, the garbage men have come and gone already...looks like I'll need to get my other copy sent to me from the UK.

Hmm, I wonder how many teachers can say they bought not just one but two copies of this "priceless treasure"?

BTW, the noun 'academic' can have negative connotations, and the predicative adjective use is often nothing but negative.

[fluffyhamster]

Actually, my second copy of Lewis's TEV went nowhere near the trashcan; no, I was only joking, it's in fact hanging in my toilet (I drilled a hole through it near the top corner and passed some string through). So there's now no excuse for me not to be reading it pretty much every day (who knows what I'll have to do if I ever run right out of bogroll, though).

[metal56]

So there's now no excuse for me not to be reading it pretty much every day (who knows what I'll have to do if I ever run right out of bogroll, though).

Try using your own scribblings on language use - I'm sure they help create a lot of waste paper.

[Metamorfose]

I am not exactly the type whom his writing concerning grammar is directed at (those who peddle total untruths, either because they don't know any better or plain don't care: for example, some non-native teachers, newbie natives, and unprofessional "experienced" teachers. The non-native will struggle somewhat with Lewis's ideas - no offence intended to Jose; and as for newbies who care, think, read around and develop professionally, they can avoid many of the pitfalls Lewis mentions wihout ever having to have read Lewis himself).

That's why I ask you round here, you can never rely on what only one or two authors and/or teachers say.

José

[fluffyhamster]

So there's now no excuse for me not to be reading it pretty much every day (who knows what I'll have to do if I ever run right out of bogroll, though).

Try using your own scribblings on language use - I'm sure they help create a lot of waste paper.

I'll make this easy for you, metal - there's a third joke coming right NOW > Hmm, if it came to a choice of using my "scribblings" or TEV for you-know-what, I'd use the latter first "every time". But maybe I won't need to use either...

THE "SAVE A BOOK" CAMPAIGN: Attention, linguists! Has a book you admire, such as TEV, literally been "smeared"? Spare the book and its author the outrage by volunteering your own scribblings in place of the book.

In a recent test survey, nine out of ten smearers expressed a preference for brand "metal56" a**wipes. Coming soon to a lavvy near you! (In case of difficulty in locating this brand, copying, pasting and printing his posts from Dave's ESL Cafe will provide a reasonable temporary substitute, depending on the quality of the paper you yourself use).

[fluffyhamster]

Are you trying to derail or jam up the thread? Why?

LOL! To do that, I'd first have to understand just what it is you are ranting on about. Your ideas are all over the place.

There's always the option of responding to the OP, or didn't that occur to you (so intent are you now to hound me, howl at the moon, start p-ing contests, mark your territory etc)?

[metal56]

In a recent test survey, nine out of ten smearers expressed a preference for brand "metal56" a**wipes. Coming soon to a lavvy near you! (In case of difficulty in locating this brand, copying, pasting and printing his posts from Dave's ESL Cafe will provide a reasonable temporary substitute, depending on the quality of the paper you yourself use).

[/quote]

If you dream of becoming a wit, Fluff, I'd suggest you don't yet give up the day job.