"gets to" and modality

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 11:30 am

Could this sentence be read as having either a positive or negative attitude, depending on the context?

"As a social worker, she gets to go to lots of slum areas."

Can "get to" be modal-like in any of it's uses?

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 5:30 pm

It's hard to say without a context, but generally if you "get to" do something, I think it implies it's something you want to do. Of course, it could be used ironically...

As for modality, technically it's not a modal verb and it isn't used in addition to tense or aspect. However, it does add an element of speaker judgement, so in that sense I suppose you could say it has something in common with modals in terms of meaning.

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 9:02 pm

I'd just like to second lolwhites' elegant, excellent, and precise reply.

Larry Latham

I might also point out that if you cast the verb differently:

"As a social worker, she has got to go to lots of slum areas."

...the sense of the sentence tends to lean more toward the negative, though not necessarily so.

Lolwhites' comments still apply, except that generally if you "have got" to do something, the usual implication is that you are forced, somehow.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jan 27, 2004 10:50 am

For me "gets to" behaves modally, or has modal-like behaviour, in many examples. It can express obligation, possibility/opportunity and similar.

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Tue Jan 27, 2004 6:56 pm

I see your point, and so does lolwhites. It reminds us that modality remains one of English grammar's least definitive areas.

Larry Latham

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jan 27, 2004 10:55 pm

Indeed it does. I think?

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 12:13 am

Strictly speaking I wouldn't class it as a modal verb. It doesn't behave like one grammatically and can't be used on top of tense and aspect. It can be argued that it adds meaning in the same way as modals do, but that just goes to show how varied language is.[/i]

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:27 am

I agree, lolwhites. But I would argue that modality (the whole subject, not modal auxiliaries in particular) is by far the most varied aspect of grammar. You and I have been illustrating on another thread that verbs are nowhere near as "variable" as some people think.

Larry Latham

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 8:00 am

Hi lolwhites,

I was thinking more about what is called "modality", or "modality-like behaviour":

"Today's grammars have hardly moved past the days of calling would've been going to have been talked about a "tense" and of not recognizing modalities like be to (overmarked posterior); get to (opportunitive or accomplishmental, as in "get to attend the rally";"

http://www.orlapubs.com/AL/L8.html

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:29 pm

Metal56, where did you find the site in your post above? I had a look, and it's certainly interesting (if extremely difficult to read...not to mention full of typos). It seems to imply a forthcoming grammar book. Is that your understanding also? Do you know any more about that?

Larry Latham

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 9:10 pm

Larry

Yes it is a very interesting site,if hard to read:

http://nweb.pct.edu/homepage/staff/evavra/KISS.htm

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 8:23 am

Sorry for not noticing this post before, if I have I would have put my Venn Diagram of the English Catenatives

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

here rather than as a seperate post.

I have nothing new to say except that all the catenatives (see my diagram) seem to exibit modality.

I think that "modality" at base is just the logical abitily of a verb to do its action to another verb.

I am having trouble with the rules for gerunds can anyone help?

Andrew Patterson

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 1:21 pm

I suggest you take a look at the second page of the "Split Infinitive" thread, further down this forum, Andrew.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 8:13 pm

I've had a look at the split infinitive thread, but I didn't really find anything that I didn't know. Perhaps I need to ask simpler questions.

Two for now:

1 Does anyone know of any three part phrasal verbs that can be followed by "to" and the infinitive? (I don't know of any but there are several that are followed by gerunds. I think this could be a new grammar rule.)

2 Is "modality" basically the logical capacity of a verb to do it's action to another verb?

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 11:55 pm

I'm not sure about your first question, Andrew, but I'll take a stab at your second:

I believe that modality is the capacity of some part of a sentence (typically not the verb), sometimes a single word, sometimes a phrase or possibly even a subordinate clause, to allow the author a means of expressing his/her personal judgment concerning some aspect of the verb's action or state. If the sentence is a question, modality requests the judgment of the listener on the issue.

Michael Jordan could really play B-ball!

This sentence is obviously about Michael Jordan. But it is also about the author's personal opinion of Jordan's hoop abilities.

A lot of words, I know, but that's the clearest statement I can make just at the moment without taking time to edit for brevity.

Does this square with your understanding?

Larry Latham

Teacher Discussion Forums