Suppletive & supplicative modality

[Andrew Patterson]

I brought these ideas up in the "Modal agony" thread but they are very different from the rest of the thread. I suggested it be split off from the rest of the thread and metal agreed.

To recap, verbs that can be followed by both the object, to+infinitive, and to+infinitive namely:
a) Beg, Expect, Need and Want, and
b) would like, would love, would hate and would prefer.
c) have and leave

often carry with them two ideas:
1. of lacking something for which I used the word "suppletive" which the SOED defines as "having the attribute of supply deficiencies;" and
2. of entreaty for something for which I used the word "supplicative" which means pertaing to humble or ernest entreaty. I don't necessarily mean these have to imply humility, but I have to use some word and this fits best.

These ideas may also exist in "have to" and they may not always be present in all of these verbs.

When looking for modality, I am somtimes unsure whether something is mearly part of the meaning of the verb
or modality per se.

In your opinion, are these ideas modality?

[Andrew Patterson]

At the risk of replying to my own post, perhaps there are three concepts here not two. They seem to lie on a continuum:

1) being "in want of" or needing
2) wanting or "would liking"
3) entreating or soliciting

The first is the state of lacking something;
the second the emotional state resulting from that lack; and
the third is an attempt to redress that lack.

Possible adjectives to describe these modalities (if they are modalities) could be:
1. suppletive,
2. aspirational, and
3. solicitive/supplicative

"Can", "could" and "may", I note, can also be used to entreaty someone.

What do you think?

[metal56]

<In your opinion, are these ideas modality?>

As I said earlier, yes.

[Andrew Patterson]

<In your opinion, are these ideas modality?>

As I said earlier, yes.

Thanks for making that clear.

Could you tell me, though, how modality differs from meaning?
How can we separate modality from the plain meaning of a verb?

[metal56]

Could you tell me, though, how modality differs from meaning?
How can we separate modality from the plain meaning of a verb?

Could you expand your question a little. Give some examples, etc.

It seems like a bit of a mega-subject for this small forum.

[Andrew Patterson]

Could you tell me, though, how modality differs from meaning?
How can we separate modality from the plain meaning of a verb?

Could you expand your question a little. Give some examples, etc.

It seems like a bit of a mega-subject for this small forum.

I'll try. When we think of the modal verbs, there isn't anything in the way of meaning that we can extract that is not modality. Indeed we could go further and say it is impossible to define any one modal verb, we can only describe its use.

If we go to the other extreme and think of a verb that is clearly lexical such as "cut", we have a clear idea of what it means because we can visualise the action and with the possible exception of the purpose behind the action, we can feel sure that it carries no modality.

As a verb becomes more philosophical or abstract, or when it acts as a catenative or perhaps mearly when it is stative, it becomes harder to say what the verb means seperate from any modal meaning despite the fact that we feel that we may be able to define it. Apart from the fact that catenatives bridge the gap between lexical and modal verbs anyway, there are some verbs that seem to have a very clear lexical and modal component. "Remember" and "forget" come to mind. Although they are stative, there is a clear lexical meaning here. We either remember or we don't; we forget or we dont. Information either has or has not been stored in the brain. There is no intangible philosophical framework about that fact. At the same time, we use these words as catenatives and we are framing our understanding of the following verb in terms of modality.

Going back to the sub-set of verbs we have been talking about, I have difficulty trying to figure out whether verbs like "want" have a lexical as well as a modal element in their meaning, or whether their meaning is purely modal. Depending on context, I think "beg" has a lexical component. One can physically go out into the street and ask people for money, for instance. Yet it also comes on this continuum of needing to wanting to soliciting and is a catenative. On this continuum, I see soliciting as the least modal idea and needing as the most modal idea. Even "beg" can be used in a more abstract way in reported speech to describe how someone said something and this seems more modal to me. However, I would suggest that abstraction is not the whole story. Some verbs such as "emancipate" which cannot act as catenatives have abstract ideas and have a lexical component to their meaning but have no modal component at all.

[Andrew Patterson]

No reply yet. OK, let me put it another way.

Given a verb (in the present or past at least) that carries modality,
it is easy to seperate tense, it's indicated by a suffix,
it's easy to extract aspect, it's shown syntactically although aktionsart may be more difficult to separate off.

Mood and modality are generallly considered to be the same thing but at least mood as such is shown syntactically and it is easy to see if a verb is in the imperative, conditional, subjunctive or indicative mood.

That leaves the dictionary definition and modality and I find it a devil of a job to work out the difference.

I don't think I will really know what modality is until I understand this. Strangely, I can't find any literature on this question.

So once again, the two main questions are:
How does modality differ from meaning?
How can we separate modality from the plain meaning of a verb?

[metal56]

Andrew, it's 3;45 am here, so I'm off to bed. I'll reply tomorrow.

Nite.

[Andrew Patterson]

OK, I appreciate that. I'm a bit surprised that the usual modality buffs aren't interested in this one.

[metal56]

<On this continuum, I see soliciting as the least modal idea and needing as the most modal idea. Even "beg" can be used in a more abstract way in reported speech to describe how someone said something and this seems more modal to me. However, I would suggest that abstraction is not the whole story. Some verbs such as "emancipate" which cannot act as catenatives have abstract ideas and have a lexical component to their meaning but have no modal component at all.>

Very interesting, Andrew. It's something I've not thought too much about. I need to catch up with you.

I''l give it some thought if you can give more verbs which you think are lexical and modal at the same time.

[JuanTwoThree]

How about if, just for argument's sake, the lexical meaning of "want" was "lack". "This town wants a cinema" "For want of a nail a shoe was lost". Nothing very modal about that

[metal56]

That leaves the dictionary definition and modality and I find it a devil of a job to work out the difference.

I don't think I will really know what modality is until I understand this. Strangely, I can't find any literature on this question.

[/color]

What's wrong with this definition?

Definition
Mood is one of a set of distinctive forms that are used to signal modality.

Modality is a facet of illocutionary force, signaled by grammatical devices (that is, moods), that expresses

the illocutionary point or general intent of a speaker, or
a speaker’s degree of commitment to the expressed proposition's believability, obligatoriness, desirability, or reality.

Discussion
The term mood is used by some authors in the same sense modality is.

Others distinguish the two, as we do here, by using mood to refer to the contrastive grammatical expressions of different modalities and reserving modality to refer to the meanings so expressed.

If, in addition, modality is used to refer to meanings expressed by lexical means as well as grammatical, it is effectively a synonym of illocutionary force.

http://www.sil.org/linguistics/Glossary ... dality.htm

[metal56]

How about if, just for argument's sake, the lexical meaning of "want" was "lack". "This town wants a cinema" ...Nothing very modal about that

Is it the speaker's judgement, or has the town decided that it needs/lacks a cinema? If the first, then it's modal to me. It's a judgement based on a personal view.

He wants to go and live in Iraq for a while. (Non-modal. categorical fact)

He wants to go and live in Iraq for a while, then he would see how the other half live.

[Andrew Patterson]

I''l give it some thought if you can give more verbs which you think are lexical and modal at the same time.

This is not easy my whole reason for asking the question is that I am unsure what is modality and what is meaning. By definition, the catenatives lie between the modal and lexical verbs. Subjectively, I find the greatest modality and the least lexical meaning in the verbs followed by the object and bare infinitive. I have refered to these verbs as transitive modals before and that term seems to fit "let" most strongly. I have said before that "let" does not mean "allow" ."Let" and most or all of the words on this group are impassive. The presence of an object seems to make these verbs more lexical. "Help", "make" seem to be more lexical and the verbs of passive perception seem to be more lexical again. That they can be followed by v-ing might indicate a greater degree of lexicality in as much as something is being done. Hope that starts you off.

Juan wrote:

How about if, just for argument's sake, the lexical meaning of "want" was "lack". "This town wants a cinema" "For want of a nail a shoe was lost". Nothing very modal about that

Earlier in this thread, I distinguished "in want of" from "want" in its modern sense (admitedly, its original sense does survive in some uses.) "In want of" seems to mean nothing but lack. "Want" implies lack and an emotional state resulting from that lack. I labled this "aspirational modality" that was a mistake. Having this emotional state does not necessarily mean an aspiration. A person who is fasting will want food but will not aspire to eating before the period of fasting is finished rather they will regard it as a temptation to be overcome. Perhaps "penury" is a better adjective (despite the fact it is normally a noun) at least etymologically it derives from the Greek for "hunger". The second problem here is that I am not yet sure if either the lack or emotional state is in fact modal.

Metal wrote:

If, in addition, modality is used to refer to meanings expressed by lexical means as well as grammatical, it is effectively a synonym of illocutionary force.

Which begs the question, "How can we distinguish illocutionary force from meaning?"

Do you agree with my assertion that you can't define a modal verb, you can ony describe its function?

[JuanTwoThree]

Yup, usually, though "wants" meaning "lacks" is a bit archaic it can be completely unanthropomorphic (for "want" of a better word) and it's nobody's judgement, neither the speaker's nor the town's. It just means "hasn't got" as a matter of fact.