Basic semantic meanings of modal auxiliaries.

[metal56]

Good evening.

I shouldn't rebut, but well....

Surfing about the web for Applied Linguistics, I found that pretty much any page included something like this:

" Applied Linguistics is concerned with practical issues involving language in the life of the community. The most important of these is the learning of second or foreign languages. Others include language policy, multilingualism, language education, the preservation and revival of endangered languages, and the assessment and treatment of language difficulties."

(from www.linguistics.unimelb.edu.au)

No, I'm not suggesting at all that this be a "Teaching English forum" exclusively. I'm just offering my point of view on the current subject and don't at all mean to poop anyone's party. My understanding of Applied Linguistics is that it embraces an almost infinite number of disciplines, one of which is Language Teaching. Though my comments may not be filled with erudite explanations and terminology, they ought to be considered valid on some level in the arena of Applied Linguistics. Maybe I'm just being sensitive, but well....

peace,
revel.

I see you being a bit Luddite at times. A kind of "I'm just a simple guy really and that makes me a better teacher". As we've seen from many of your posts in the past, you are far from a simple guy. Your own posts occasionally reach levels of highbrow intellectualising, and that's OK, but please try not to come on with the "simple guy" approach.[/quote]

[woodcutter]

Obviously many of the modals can satisfy all three of these branches, and when they do so, they do not always do so in the same way.

Might, which would not generally be a "deontic" beast, turns deontic in

"You might help your father"

Whether this is a gentle suggestion or an order depends upon the tone of voice. We have got nowhere at all in finding out the meaning of might by mentioning deontics. If we are to find a core meaning in a word, I maintain as ever that it will be the core meaning that the average bod on the street will come out with. i.e Might = It is possible.

And, however hard it is to find, I suppose it must always be there in some sense. Otherwise, how does the illiterate man know that "I can't bear it" is a relative of "bear the load" and not of "bare the body"?

[Stephen Jones]

Now this is really too much, Stephen. In She can speak French very well, is it the attitude of 'She' that she speaks French well, or is it the attitude of the person speaking? In He won't listen, is it 'He' who is telling us he has his ears plugged, or is it the speaker of the sentence?

She can speak French well is a factual statement describing her ability to speak French.
He won't listen is describing a decision on the subjects part.

The speaker's attitude is irrelevant to both statements, and you and Lewis are the only ones who keep on dragging it in.

. I have the same objection to all of your other examples: it is the speaker and not some external force who qualifies the proposition offered by the rest of the sentence

Which specific sentences are you talking about? In You can come in now the permission comes from the speaker. In You can't give your boyfriend a blow job in front of the cameras at the SuperBowl the prohibition comes from the regulatory authority; I couldn't care less.

But adding a modal auxiliary to any sentence always calls the 'facts' into question

No, it doesn't always call the facts into question. It only does this when it is epistemic modality. Everybody but you appears to be clear about this.

Isn't that what 'maybe' is for, Stephen?

Yes, and there is no difference in meaning between 'Maybe he's here' and He may/might/could be here.

A fact is a fact only when we all agree that it is. One can call a fact into question, of course, and that can be done in a zillion different ways. Saying that modal auxiliaries provides a way to do it, is simply another way to put what I've said all along: Modal auxiliaries give speakers a device for commenting on the proposition put forth in a sentence.

And you keep saying it ad nauseam, but fail to understand that this is only one use of modal auxiliaries.

ith all due respect to you, Stephen, and also to academic linguists who make this stuff up, it seems like nonsense to me.

Better an academic linguist than a crank.

[metal56]

Then you maintain that "objective deontic modality" imposes obligation by external rules. External to what? It seems to me that You can come in now imposes no obligation to begin with, since the addressee can simply refuse to come in, and whatever permission might be granted with the use of "can" is granted by the speaker rather than by some external entity. I have the same objection to all of your other examples: it is the speaker and not some external force who qualifies the proposition offered by the rest of the sentence.

That is the part I too would like to question. What is this "external obligation" he talks about. For me, external obligation (objective necessity) is clearer in "You have to be here by six as the shop opens at seven. Those are the rules set down by the company." But, in "You must be here at six..." the obligation is interior (subjective necessity) and follows the true use of "must" as speaker's viewpoint on the situation.

Note that deontic modality reflects the attitude of the speaker, or of a set of rules he is conveying. Where this is not true we have dynamic modality.
Examples:
She can speak French very well.

For that one I'd ask how "She can speak French very well" not also include the opinion of the speaker. Unless Stephen means that the speaker is reporting something he has heard, which could be seen as dynamic modality, but how is the listener supposed to know if it is a value judgement (modality) on behalf of the speaker.

E.G.

Stephen: Bush can manage the Iraq war quite easily and he can also ride a bike quite well."

Q: In whose opinion?

Stephen: Well, the first part is dynamic modality because everyone knows it's true and the "bike" part is my own opinion and therefore deontic modality.

Q: Erm? What time is dinner?

In , He won't listen, however often you tell him.[/i]
is it 'He' who is telling us he has his ears plugged, or is it the speaker of the sentence?

LOL! Good question.

[metal56]

Might = It is possible.

Good, but then what does "may" mean?

[metal56]

She can speak French well is a factual statement describing her ability to speak French.
He won't listen is describing a decision on the subjects part.

The speaker's attitude is irrelevant to both statements, and you and Lewis are the only ones who keep on dragging it in.

So modal auxiliaries help us assert facts? See "Bush can also ride a bike (above).

Which specific sentences are you talking about? In You can come in now the permission comes from the speaker. In You can't give your boyfriend a blow job in front of the cameras at the SuperBowl the prohibition comes from the regulatory authority; I couldn't care less.

And those are both this "external obligation" thing you go on about?

[woodcutter]

Might and may are much the same. Nobody would infer that two different people who said "I may go to the party" and "I might go to the party" would have different chances of showing up, or had said anything anything very different.

The core according to Lewis would imply they had.

[Stephen Jones]

And, however hard it is to find, I suppose it must always be there in some sense. Otherwise, how does the illiterate man know that "I can't bear it" is a relative of "bear the load" and not of "bare the body"?

We are talking about 'bear' and not 'can' here., so I presume you are making a comment about words in general.
If you look in a dictionary you will often find three or four separate meanings for the same root. Normally linked admittedly.

However when we come to grammar words it gets a lot harder to decide on a core meaning. They are used in too many contexts.

And with modals looking at the meaing doesn't help us too much with usage.
look at these pairs of opposites.
(i)I It can't be true. ---- It must/could/might/may be true
(ii)You can't come in. ---- You can/may come in.
(iii)She can't swim ----- She can swim.

We are unlikely to say it can be true, and You could/might come in is not the opposite of You can't come in. and whilst you may come in now is the opposite of You can't come in yet it is not true that She may swim is the opposite of She can't swim.

The reason for these differences is that we have three different types of modality here. The terms we use to describe them (epistemic, deontic and dynamic) are labels to describe a phenomena that exist in language and affect the way it works. You can ignore the labels, but the distinction is still there in everyday speech and is not going to go away just because Larry and Lewis wish it to.

[Stephen Jones]

For that one I'd ask how "She can speak French very well" not also include the opinion of the speaker

The same way that She speaks French very well which means the same thing, includes or doesn't include the opinion of the speaker.

That is the part I too would like to question. What is this "external obligation" he talks about. For me, external obligation (objective necessity) is clearer in "You have to be here by six as the shop opens at seven. Those are the rules set down by the company." But, in "You must be here at six..." the obligation is interior (subjective necessity) and follows the true use of "must" as speaker's viewpoint on the situation.

Both examples you give are deontic. The first is as you say, objective deontic modality, the second is subjective deontic modality. How are we disagreeing?

And those are both this "external obligation" thing you go on about?

No, learn to read before you post. The first is subjective permission (permission granted by the speaker) whilst the second is objective permission, granted by some other entity but the speaker. They are both deontic however, because they are talking about permission, and thus different from He could come now which is epistemic, and She can come now she's recovered from her riding accident which is dynamic, talking about her ability.

[Stephen Jones]

Might and may are much the same. Nobody would infer that two different people who said "I may go to the party" and "I might go to the party" would have different chances of showing up, or had said anything anything very different.

'Might' is often considered to suggest a slighter possibility than 'may' or 'could'. The difference is a small one of degree though, and not one of core meaning.

[woodcutter]

The reason for the ill-fitting opposites is that we do not use only logic to select words. It "can be true" may be selected as the opposite of can't, in some situations, and the meaning would be grasped if it were used in an unnatural way. If someone said "No, it can be true" we would examine the core meaning, as best we could, and try to decipher the statement.

Having a word "deontic" which covers suggesting and ordering may be of utility in some situations. It is of no utility in dicovering the central meaning of words.

Anyway, you don't believe in central meanings. Why on earth would you believe in three central meanings.

[metal56]

Might and may are much the same. Nobody would infer that two different people who said "I may go to the party" and "I might go to the party" would have different chances of showing up, or had said anything anything very different.

'Might' is often considered to suggest a slighter possibility than 'may' or 'could'. The difference is a small one of degree though, and not one of core meaning.

You've just expressed a difference, however small, in core meaning.
Might means that there is a lesser chance of me going to the party than there is with may. However small the difference of degree, the two are distinct semantically and pragmatically.

May = closer possibility.
Might = a more remote possibility.

[metal56]

Might and may are much the same. Nobody would infer that two different people who said "I may go to the party" and "I might go to the party" would have different chances of showing up, or had said anything anything very different.

The core according to Lewis would imply they had.

Nobody would infer that two different people who said "I may go to the party" and "I might go to the party" would have different chances of showing up, or had said anything anything very different.

Can I ask if you are an AE speaker? I certainly would read a difference in the chances of showing up. Do you use "might" a lot?

[Stephen Jones]

Actually it is not all that clear that 'might' is still considered more remote than 'may'. Because 'may I' is considered very formal, there is a tendency for 'may' to take on the same remote characteristics as 'might'.

There is a more important distinction however, and that is that 'may' can be used for permission and 'might' normally cannot.

[woodcutter]

Are you kidding Metal (Milky)? We encounter each other on two different forums these days...........

Yeah, OK, maybe "might" is somewhat weaker. Always hard to define a core though. Those definitions from Lewis seem to suggest a big difference between the two.

Stephen - So you are indeed claiming a number of cores for "may" then, despite the fact that there are no cores to be had?

I would say "you may go" means "it is possible for you to go, cos I say so". It is a poetic derivation from the larger meaning. Just because we have a habit of making the poetic shift with "may", we do not have to have such a habit with similar words.