Basic semantic meanings of modal auxiliaries.

[metal56]

I reproduce Metals first post here to compare the order that Lewis used:

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.

I note that can, could, may and might are in the same order as I listed; and that will, would, shall and should are in the same order too. He puts must between might and will, however.

That order was random and based on extracted quotes from chapters.
I think that the order wasn't important to lewis, only the pairings.

[Andrew Patterson]

Metal wrote:

That order was random and based on extracted quotes from chapters.
I think that the order wasn't important to Lewis, only the pairings.

OK, but may I suggest that the core meaning of a modal is that meaning that lies mid-way between the meaning that is closest to the modal below it in the list and the meaning of the modal above it in the list.

That of course leaves the end modals. With "can" we have already seen that it can be partially framed so the indicative mood would seem to be the "modal" below "can". (The subjunctive moods may be instead, I'd like to discuss that.) The relationship between "must and "can't" suggests that this may form a circular system.

[metal56]

Metal wrote:

That order was random and based on extracted quotes from chapters.
I think that the order wasn't important to Lewis, only the pairings.

OK, but may I suggest that the core meaning of a modal is that meaning that lies mid-way between the meaning that is closest to the modal below it in the list and the meaning of the modal above it in the list.

That of course leaves the end modals. With "can" we have already seen that it can be partially framed so the indicative mood would seem to be the "modal" below "can". (The subjunctive moods may be instead, I'd like to discuss that.) The relationship between "must and "can't" suggests that this may form a circular system.

OK, but may I suggest that the core meaning of a modal is that meaning that lies mid-way between the meaning that is closest to the modal below it in the list and the meaning of the modal above it in the list.

Could you write our that list of ordered modals and add each core meaning as you go along? It would help to me to see exactly how youe see it.

[Andrew Patterson]

OK, but I kind of did here (a bit expanded):
can can range from an unframed indicative meaning to potential to ability to permission
could can range from permission to uncertainty
may is mainly about uncertainty
might is the remote counterpart of may
would rather is to do with preference or choice
would sooner is a more definite choice
will is to do with volition - more definite again
would is it's remote counterpart
shall is also to do with volition but is used for advice and suggestion too
should is to do with suggestion and recommendation and is the remote counterpart of shall (It is beginning to move away from that now, though.)
had better is similar to should but with a stronger sense of obligation
must is to do with obligation but also to do with deduction

from deduction we go back to the unframed meaning of can

It is really tough to pick a core meaning.
You might want to look at my incomplete laundry list of modality to better see how meaning changes, the point, though is to avoid laundry lists:
http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/Modal.html

A quick visual to see what I mean when I say the list is circular:
http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/ModalClock.html

[metal56]

OK, but I kind of did here (a bit expanded):
can can range from an unframed indicative meaning to potential to ability to permission
could can range from permission to uncertainty
may is mainly about uncertainty
might is the remote counterpart of may
would rather is to do with preference or choice
would sooner is a more definite choice
will is to do with volition - more definite again
would is it's remote counterpart
shall is also to do with volition but is used for advice and suggestion too
should is to do with suggestion and recommendation and is the remote counterpart of shall (It is beginning to move away from that now, though.)
had better is similar to should but with a stronger sense of obligation
must is to do with obligation but also to do with deduction

from deduction we go back to the unframed meaning of can

It is really tough to pick a core meaning.
You might want to look at my incomplete laundry list of modality to better see how meaning changes, the point, though is to avoid laundry lists:
http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/Modal.html

A quick visual to see what I mean when I say the list is circular:
http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/ModalClock.html

It's interesting, but to me it falls at the first fence. Unless, of course, you can explain why you chose to order the three words below (blue highlight)in such a way.

can can range from an unframed indicative meaning to potential to ability to permission could can range from permission to uncertainty

If you ordered them permission, ability, potential, you'd come unstuck at the beginning of "could".

[metal56]

I would have though that by definition all meaning is semantic as semantic means pertaining to meaning. All meaning is communicative too as whe whole point of assigning meaning to a word is so that one can communicate that meaning. Perhaps I'm missing sth here. Is this a matter of emphasis?

I like this little example:

Someone comes to my door with a petrol can and says he has run out of fuel. I say that there is a petrol station just around the corner.

Now, do you think that the basic semantic meaning of the single words, or combination of words, in my sentence is the same as the communicative meaning of my reply?

[Andrew Patterson]

It's interesting, but to me it falls at the first fence. Unless, of course, you can explain why you chose to order the three words below (blue highlight)in such a way.

can can range from an unframed indicative meaning to potential to ability to permission could can range from permission to uncertainty

If you ordered them permission, ability, potential, you'd come unstuck at the beginning of "could".

I'll do 4 instead of three because the unframed indicative meaning is the first meaning. I'm not sure that you'll like the answer - I merely ordered the meanings in that way to best line up with the meanings of the modals either side of them. In other words I ordered the meanings of individual modals in the same way as I ordered the modals themselves.

[Andrew Patterson]

Metal wrote quoting me

I would have though that by definition all meaning is semantic as semantic means pertaining to meaning. All meaning is communicative too as whe whole point of assigning meaning to a word is so that one can communicate that meaning. Perhaps I'm missing sth here. Is this a matter of emphasis?

I like this little example:

Someone comes to my door with a petrol can and says he has run out of fuel. I say that there is a petrol station just around the corner.

Now, do you think that the basic semantic meaning of the single words, or combination of words, in my sentence is the same as the communicative meaning of my reply?

Ah, got it. I'll get back to you on how this affects the classification.

[Andrew Patterson]

Metal wrote quoting me

I would have though that by definition all meaning is semantic as semantic means pertaining to meaning. All meaning is communicative too as whe whole point of assigning meaning to a word is so that one can communicate that meaning. Perhaps I'm missing sth here. Is this a matter of emphasis?

I like this little example:

Someone comes to my door with a petrol can and says he has run out of fuel. I say that there is a petrol station just around the corner.

Now, do you think that the basic semantic meaning of the single words, or combination of words, in my sentence is the same as the communicative meaning of my reply?

Ah, got it. (I think )I'll get back to you on how this affects the classification.

[shuntang]

But surely the core meaning ought to be a hard core, not a stretchy thingumibob. (if you'll excuse my expert linguistic terminology!)

The fact is, "ability" (or capability) is included under "possibility", and not v.v.

Yes and No.

On ability:
If yesterday you claimed "I can drink two bottles of wine", today you may use Simple Past of Can to say the ability:
Ex: Yesterday I could drink two bottles of wine.

On possibility:
However, if yesterday you guess "It can rain soon", today you cannot use its Simple Past tense:
Ex: ?Yesterday it could rain.
Ex: Yesterday it rained.

Why? It is because possibility is a future tense and cannot be used to tell the past.

[shuntang]

What is the characteristic of a future action? It is a kind of possibility. Though it is mentioned at the present, its realization is in the future. If we now say He will travel to Europe next month, the journey is for the time being only a possibility, not a fact. The realization of it is in next month. By realization, I mean that by that time the action materialize, or MOST IMPORTANT, can never materialize at all, because he fails to travel. We cannot be completely sure of the future, but we may have to express our idea about it, so we use modal auxiliary verbs to help indicate that it is only a possibility.

This important aspect of a future action -- not being materialized -- is usually not emphasized in most grammar sources:

The Simple Future tense is used to express actions which will take place in the future:
e.g. They will come to visit us next Saturday.

Mentioning when to take place is not enough. As we will see, if they don't point out clearly that, other than taking place, a future action can be cancelled or not be materialized, they will have a hard time in separating a future action from the present action.

[LarryLatham]

What is the characteristic of a future action? It is a kind of possibility. Though it is mentioned at the present, its realization is in the future. If we now say He will travel to Europe next month, the journey is for the time being only a possibility, not a fact. The realization of it is in next month. By realization, I mean that by that time the action materialize, or MOST IMPORTANT, can never materialize at all, because he fails to travel. We cannot be completely sure of the future, but we may have to express our idea about it, so we use modal auxiliary verbs to help indicate that it is only a possibility.

This important aspect of a future action -- not being materialized -- is usually not emphasized in most grammar sources:

The Simple Future tense is used to express actions which will take place in the future:
e.g. They will come to visit us next Saturday.

You are quite right about this, Shuntang. What you say here is precisely what several others have pointed out in several threads on Dave's over the course of quite a long period of time. The only niggle I have with you is that I prefer not to call the use of will a "future tense", as I don't believe it is a tense at all. There is no "future tense" in English, although I realize when I assert that that it is somewhat controversial in the community at large. Not very much, however, in the company of linguists. Most real linguists agree that English has no future tense.

The modal auxiliary, will, is chosen by speakers for exactly the reasons you cite: they wish to speak about something they cannot be sure of, even though they are in possession of certain information they believe leads to the truth of the proposition they are asserting. In many cases, the main reason they cannot be sure of the truth of the proposition is that it is planned or set for completion ("realization" in your terms--perfectly acceptable) at a time in the future. But will is also chosen when the speaker cannot be sure for other reasons, giving rise to such expressions as, "They've already been gone for two hours. Surely they will be home by now." In this case, the speaker does not refer to an event in future time, but to a "now" event, but he cannot be sure about it because he cannot confirm it personally at the present moment.

Larry Latham

[shuntang]

Dear Larry,

Good to see you.

The only niggle I have with you is that I prefer not to call the use of will a "future tense", as I don't believe it is a tense at all.

If it is not a tense at all, you have to conclude that in some situations, we don't use tense. Then if you can tell me when to use no tense, I may jump to it when I don't know how to choose a tense, or further, I will use no tense at all in every sentence, so there will be no problems again about tenses. Isn't this wonderful?

-----------------------------

There is no "future tense" in English, although I realize when I assert that that it is somewhat controversial in the community at large….. Most real linguists agree that English has no future tense….. But will is also chosen when the speaker cannot be sure for other reasons, giving rise to such expressions as, "They've already been gone for two hours. Surely they will be home by now." In this case, the speaker does not refer to an event in future time, but to a "now" event…..

Then we have arrived a question I posted earlier: "How to separate the future from the present?" I am afraid that your reasoning is, because we cannot define the future, there is no future tense. Am I correct?

You think that because we use 'Now', it is then a present action, so the tense is not future tense. Am I correct?

[LarryLatham]

Then we have arrived a question I posted earlier: "How to separate the future from the present?" I am afraid that your reasoning is, because we cannot define the future, there is no future tense. Am I correct?

You think that because we use 'Now', it is then a present action, so the tense is not future tense. Am I correct?

No, I'm afraid you are not. The future is separated from the present, of course, by a period of time, just as everyone knows. It is not a matter of language. It is an experience of life. We have, in English, several ways to talk about present time events, and several ways to talk about future events. That should not surprise you as a Chinese speaker. You and your fellow Chinese speakers can talk about past events, present events, and future events, all without benefit of verb tense at all, isn't that so? So what's the big deal about English not having a future tense?

Of course we can define the future, and we do have verb forms that allow us to refer to events yet to come. Use of the modal auxiliary, will, is surely one of them, but not the only one. We also can use present tense verbs along with future time adverbials...expressions such as "tomorrow", or "next year". We even can, in certain rather special situations, use past tense forms to refer to future events. Speaking to her boss, an employee might ask the boss: "Would you mind if I went home early today?" So you see, it is neither necessary nor correct to depend on verb form to determine if a user is referring to a future event.

Larry Latham

[shuntang]

The reasoning of the future tense

It is not a matter of language. It is an experience of life.

Do you believe many grammars for young students agree that we have future tense? Do you need me to quote some examples from the web, so that you may believe? I really don't think so. But if they regard there is future tense, do you think they don't know what you have put here -- an experience of life? What I mean is, people can experience the same thing but have a different viewpoint, so we had better throw in some logic to back up the experience. But I missed the logic in your message. Timidly, I post my reasoning below and hope you may give a comment on it.

The future is separated from the present, of course, by a period of time, just as everyone knows.

Not very precise. But we may go on based on this agreement.

Now, we may review your example:
Ex: "They've already been gone for two hours. Surely they will be home by now."
What if later we found out they were now not home yet, because they went to see a movie and dine out before going home? Then what kind of action it is when you say "Surely they will be home by now"? It is neither past nor present action. Indeed, it is not an action at all: "They are not home by now." Now the action "Surely they will be home by now" is realized after you say it. Since the realization of it is separated from the present, what is the matter if we call it a future action? It is totally in accordance with your definition, and according to our experience of life. And then, what is wrong if we claim the future action is in future tense, for every action contains a tense?

---------------------

We also can use present tense verbs along with future time adverbials... expressions such as "tomorrow", or "next year".

Our logic goes on. Furthermore, as for your example above, why didn't you say in Simple Present "Surely they ARE home by now"? It is because you are not so sure. The realization of it depends on the future -- a description of a future action. On the other hand, if we are sure it happens, we may use Simple Present with future time adverbials...such as "tomorrow", or "next week". It is aware and agreed by most grammars. My humble further logic is, for example, if something important happens now and you need to meet your boss tomorrow and he has agreed, the meeting has actually started by Now. It is a present action, rather than a future one. I have an example of marriage around here in the forum. If John marries June next weekend, the marriage will not just start on next weekend. It has actually started by now. Then the marriage is actually a present action, rather than a future one. The further proof is, some years later, if people ask John and June to talk about the marriage, they may start by the day John asked June to be his wife, rather than by only the day of marriage. Nobody will object this. It means that the marriage is not merely started by the day of the marriage. It is our experience of life.

=====================
Put it simply, if we are sure the action happens, we use Simple Present, even with future time adverbials like Tomorrow or Next Year. A correspondent told me that one can say "I see my doctor four years later", if the appointment is agreed. On the other hand, if we are not so sure it happens, we use modal auxiliaries to help indicate the possibility -- even with time adverbial 'Now'. Since actions with modal auxiliaries are realized in a time separated from the present, they are future actions, in future tense.