"gets to" and modality

[Andrew Patterson]

Larry,

There are believed to be three types of modality, epistemic, deontic and dynamic. I'm glad that you said judgement of the verb because what is judged is not always made clear in descriptions of modality.

Epistemic modalitiy refers to the speakers judgement, but it always co-occurs with
Deontic modality, which is how the speaker or writer is trying to cause something to happen. eg "Could you open the window?" (I am trying to get you to open the window)
The third type of modality is
Dynamic modality is to do with actions where no one is trying to cause something to happen. (Can/Could, Will and Would only.)
[Admitedly, I am less clear about what dynamic modality is than I am about what epistemic and deontic modality.]

What I want to know is can all of this be summarised as,
"modality is the logicl ability of a verb to do it's action to another verb."?

I also want to know whether ALL catenatives exibit modality, not just ones like "ought to" which is a synonym for "should".

Thanks,

Andrew Patterson.

[lolwhites]

What about Will you please turn down that stereo?. Surely that's deontic.

I suspect these types of modality may depend more on how the verb is actually being used, as opposed to which verb it is.

[Andrew Patterson]

Yes, "Will you turn the stereo down!" is indeed deontic.There's no need to suspect anything, the modality of a modal verb does depend on how it's used and the intent of the speaker. Although there may be overtones of other modalities.

All I said was that "Can" and "Will" exhibit dynamic modality, the other modal verbs don't. I did not say that "Can" and "Will" don't exibit epistemic and deontic modality. All modal verbs exhibit epistemic and deontic modality, two also exhibit dynamic modality.

That still doesn't answer my question, though.

Andrew Patterson.

[LarryLatham]

I'm afraid you guys are getting way over my head here. You both clearly are trained linguists. I am merely an amateur. I must admit I was not aware of three different types of modality until now. And, from an amateur's point-of-view, I have to say I don't quite understand what all the fuss is about. All modality, it seems to me, allows the user to express his judgment, or request the same from his listeners. Some of this judgment will about permissibility or obligation (making it deontic, if I understand the concept properly). Some of it will express a force of personality: "Will you please turn it down!" (which is, I suppose, dynamic in character, even though both of you have characterized it as deontic). Even here, though, the utterance can be thought of as a request for judgment, although I will concede that it is perhaps more easily seen as a demand. My guess is (keeping in mind that I'm strictly an amateur linguist without formal training) that the boundries between these various "types" of modality are very fuzzy indeed. They may be useful to linguists, but probably not to teachers or students.

Larry Latham

[Andrew Patterson]

Thanks for the complement, but I'm just a plain old EFL teacher who has surfed to a few interesting sites on linguistics. Linguists tend to like to use pompose words. When I teach I use plainer words such as ability, obligation, necessity and permission and leave it at that.

Despite the long words linguistics isn't rocket science. It's easier to understand most linguistics papers than it is to learn a new language.

My students sometimes ask me, however, what a modal verb is? I tell them that it is a verb that is followed by the bare infinitive that does it's action to the verb. I still don't know, however, if modality is simply the capacity of a verb to do it's action to another verb (by this definition all catenatives would have modality.)

I have never seen this idea written, it is my own idea, but no one seems able to tell me if I am right or wrong.

Andrew Patterson.

[LarryLatham]

Ahhh...now I see where your question is coming from. I avoid the issue you raise by never suggesting that a modal auxiliary is a verb. I don't think it is. I never call it a "modal verb". Modal auxiliaries do not behave like verbs, except that they do accept tense markers (could is the remote form--but please, not the "past" form-- of can, etc.). For instance, they always occupy the first position in a verb phrase, while the verb occupies the last, they do not accept aspect markers like -ing or -ed, they do not accept the 3sg -s, and they act as operators in forming questions and negatives (along with (be) and (have)). So you could (or perhaps I should say, I might) say that a modal auxiliary defines the particular judgment that an author makes concerning the verb, although not with much precision. For that, context must be considered and interpreted by the listener.

By the way, what is a catenative? I have not encountered that word before? Apparently you've done more reading than I in this area.

Larry Latham

[Roger]

Modality? Maybe it's simpler than that:
"She gets to go to a lot of places..." sounds like shorthand for "she gets a lot of chances/opportunities to get around..."

[LarryLatham]

Come again I'm afraid you've whizzed right over my head, Roger.

Larry Latham

[Andrew Patterson]

Roger, I'm afraid I didn't understand your last post, could you explain more fully.

Larry, I think that modal verbs are still verbs the other catenatives certainly are. Modals (and other catenatives) seem to have a certain adverb-like quality too in that they affect the meaning of the word that follows them.

I think it's worth noting, though, that a modal can ONLY do its action to another verb it cannot do it to a substantive object this is not the case for other catenatives. Where the modal is not followed by a verb, then that verb is assumed as below:

Can you swim?
Yes, I can [swim.]

Larry and Roger, if you don't know what a catenative is then you need to read my post "Venn Diagram of the English Catenatives" in this forum.

Also look at the diagram itself at:

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

If you can't link from this site (and you probably can't), just type the URL manually. I would welcome any constructive critisism.

Andrew Patterson.

[metal56]

All of these are directives:

You will do as I say, at once.
Will you please stop that racket?
You will report back for duty on Friday morning.
You have to/must be home by ten.
(I say) they have to be there by eight.

And the "will you please..." above, is certainly deontic. The "request" refers back to the speaker.

As I understand it, dynamic modality is that which does not refer back to the speaker:

Steve can swim
(She says) they have to be there by eight.


More examples:

There’s his motorbike; he must be/has to be home. (epistemic must/have to)

You must be home by ten. (deontic must)

You have to be home by ten. (“have to” does not have a strong deontic role)

He has to be home by ten. (dynamic have to. Does not seem to refer back to the speaker)

[Andrew Patterson]

Thanks Metal,

I find epistemic and deontic modality quite streight forward, but dynamic is a little harder to get my head round. Your post has been quite helpful.

One thing which isn't helpful, though is the term "dynamic" which it seems has nothing to do with it's plain English meaning. I wonder who thought of it and why they chose it. I would have thought "dynamic" could have been better used to describe non-stative verbs.

Would the term "non-epistemic" be just as accurate or is it possible to have epistemic and dynamic modality occurring together? Would that matter?

Andrew Patterson.

[LarryLatham]

You fellows are doubtless younger than I, and have more nimble minds. I'm pretty confused here.

All of these are directives:

You will do as I say, at once.
Will you please stop that racket?
You will report back for duty on Friday morning.
You have to/must be home by ten.
(I say) they have to be there by eight.

For me, there are some clear differences in these examples which require examination. They don't just all fit into one neat little pile.

You will do as I say... I accept that as a directive, as stated. The modality occurs with will because the person doing the directing is judging what he believes (or hopes) occurs following his directive.

Will you please stop that racket? This, to me, is a request, not a directive, albeit a strong one suggesting emotional involvement. The modality again occurs with will because the speaker is asking for a judgment from his listener. He hopes the answer will be: "OK, (I will)."

You will report back... This one is the same as the first.

You have to/must be home by ten. This one is very troubling to me. The implication given here is that have to and must are equivalent. I do not think so. "You have to be home by ten" says that there is some outside reason why the listener be home by ten. It could be that someone else is leaving at that time, and the listener needs to be there to care for an elderly relative, for example. It might be that a particular television program of great interest to the listener starts at ten. On the other hand, "You must be home by ten" is quite a different proposition. This is a command, of sorts. Here, the speaker asserts his personal authority with must in a way which is unlike the speaker who says, "You have to...". "You must..." becomes, "I say it is necessary...", whereas "You have to..." states: "It is necessary (because of circumstances)." That this is true is clarified when a negative is introduced. "You must not..." is quite a different idea from, "You don't have to...". This also reveals that must is a modal auxiliary, whereas have to is not, since it does not appear in the first position in the verb phrase here. So...while I would agree that "You must be home by ten" is a directive, I wouldn't agree that "You have to be home by ten" is. It is merely a piece of information, or perhaps a reminder. Nevertheless, while modality occurs with must primarily because the speaker is asserting his personal authority, there is also a palpable element of modality with have to since it seems clear that a user is expressing a kind of judgment about the necessity (of being home by ten). So even if have to cannot be included inside the closed class of modal auxiliaries, we have to admit that it does express modality.

"I say they have to be there by eight" is, I believe, unlikely in normative, native speaker English. It is possible, of course, because there is nothing grammatically wrong with it, but I think most speakers would say, "I say you must...". Either way, the speaker is specifically asserting his personal authority to direct.

These are my understandings of the above sentences. I'd welcome your arguments if you don't agree.

But I am pretty much in the dark about the nature of and differences between epistemic, deontic, and dynamic modality. And I'm afraid I don't understand what you guys have said up to now about them. What exactly, metal56, do you mean that "the request refers back to the speaker" in "Will you please..."? I don't mean to put you on the spot actually, but I am just not able to make sense of it. Perhaps I'm missing something you can lead me through. Your examples at the end of your post leave me baffled, although perhaps it is just the terminology that I don't understand. At any rate, I'd be grateful for some more help here.

Larry Latham

[Andrew Patterson]

The best explaination of the three types of modality is:

http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Thompson-Modals.html

enjoy!

Andrew Patterson.
http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/catenative

[metal56]

Larry.

I’m always happy to clarify.

Will you please stop that racket?

Does the listener have a choice? The “will you please” is now lexicalised in such uses, meaning it isn’t literally a request. (think whether "let" in "let us pray" really means "allow" in modern use.)


<You have to/must be home by ten. This one is very troubling to me. The implication given here is that have to and must are equivalent. I do not think so.>

And neither do I, but there are, more and more these days, those who do see those two modals as equal. Your eloquently clear explanation that follows is how I also see have to and must.

"I say they have to be there by eight":

Sorry, this would have been clearer as "You tell them that I say they have to be there by eight". Which would again be a more modern use of have to, but would be transferred to “them” through an intermediary, “You” above, who would probably use have to mark the sentence with external authority.

Clarity and the dynamic modals (subject-oriented):

Dynamic modality is a relatively new area of modal-speak and some deny it has relevance as a independent category. But still, I’ll try to keep it simple.

A dynamic modal ascribes the property of ability to the subject of the sentence. Some writers also include disposition* that turns on the subject.

“Pete can turn cartwheels.”


Whereas:

“Pete can turn cartwheels all night” could be ambiguous. It might be read as epistemic-in that it may be an opinion of the speaker, or the speaker may be exaggerating. Or it might be read as dynamic - in that the ability is real and ascribed to the subject.

*Morton must wear a teeshirt, because he burns easily. (disposed to burning)

CIRCUMSTANTIAL/DYNAMIC MODALITY

A: I will plant the rhododendron here.
B: That’s not a good idea. It can grow very tall.

Lastly, willingness and intention are also identified with dynamic modality, by some writers:

I will become a great athlete.

The discussions on the use of “have to” as a dynamic modal is still in the early stages, so forgive me if I don’t go too deep on that.

Hope that helps a little.

[metal56]

And let's not forget that some are suggesting a third category:

The existential modals


Phew!