Basic semantic meanings of modal auxiliaries.

[Andrew Patterson]

StephenJones wrote:

Huddleston in CGEL states that declarative 'can' is never epistemic.

Presumably he means positive declarative "can", because negative declarative "can" ie "cannot"/"can't" can be. Mmm, that is probably quite difficult to read.

[Andrew Patterson]

Lolwhites wrote:

Interesting that most of the examples seen here revolve around can, which is probably one of the easier modals to narrow down, though how you can get it down to one basic meaning that encompasses I can see... I can hear to mean I see... and I hear when, let's face it, the former is far more widely used without reference to ability or possibililty (at least in British English) is beyond me.

Noone has attempted to narrow should down because even Lewis admits it can't be done.

I should go. It's getting late
You should be so lucky!
Should we narrow this modal down I'll eat my hat.

Actually, to my mind it is more sensible to thrash out these modals starting with "can".

I listed the modals earlier in order of meaning. I'll do so again here:
can, could, may, might, will, would, shall, should, had better, must.

If you think about how meaning gradually changes down the modals, this is the most natural ordering from a semantic point of view. It's far better than listing them alphabetically as some books do.

About two years ago, I put the modals in order of meaning by myself and later found that they had already been put in this order in "In company intermediate."

I think we could thrash out the various meanings in turn.

[LarryLatham]

Take a look at the end of page 103 and the first part of page 104. in TEV.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Because of a variety of contexts, any single modal auxiliary will have different interpretations. That variety of interpretations arises solely from the variety of contexts. The modal auxiliary itself, however, has a basic meaning that is flexible. Stephen declares this situation a disaster, but he's dead wrong here. It is the only thing which keeps communication together and sensible for the participants. If an addressee's mind had to process a series of (according to Stephen, up to 5) separate meanings for each modal tossed his way by an interlocutor, it would be difficult to keep up with the conversation. But if, as you and I think is the case, there is a single overarching meaning, one merely has to discern how that meaning makes sense in this particular context. If one cannot, or if one can imagine several possible interpretations, then one will simply ask for clarification. For example, if my roommate talks to someone on the phone, and then hangs up, turns to me and says, "John can come", I can:

1. Accept that as clear enough, because just knowing that he'll be at the party will satisfy me at the moment.

2. Realize that John's boss must have given him the day off, since I have prior knowledge that John usually works today.

3. Wonder how he can get here, because I know that his car is broken, and he lives more than ten miles away. So I may ask, "Who is bringing him?"

4. Wonder how he got his wife to agree, or even if she knows, since in the past she has strenuously objected to his coming to our football parties. I may then ask, "Does his wife know?"

etc, etc. You all can imagine the list goes on and on. But the key to all this is realizing that "John can come", while it may have a wide variety of actualizations, all of those have something to do with the ability or possibility of John's coming. Where's the disaster in that?

Larry Latham

[Stephen Jones]

The disaster, Larry, is in the wording you have invented for your 'core meaning' and the way you try and apply it where it is not in the least appropriate.

The disaster comes when you confuse modality, which is a semantic category, with modal auxiliaries, which are a grammatical class.

The disaster comes when you try and apply the patterns of one type of modality, (epistemic modality) to a use of the modal auxiliaries that has nothing to do with it.

The disaster comes when, finding you do not understand the standard linguistic terminology for modality, you blame theshortcoming on "academic linguists making it up" instead of your being too lazy to try and understand it.

Your basic problem Larry, is that you look at language and see Lewis. even when you find out that his pattern is different from that of most other authorities on the web, your reaction is to read Lewis again for a couple of hours, not read other authorities to try and understand what they are saying.

[Stephen Jones]

Presumably he means positive declarative "can"

My bad; I misquoted.

[LarryLatham]

Your basic problem Larry, is that you look at language and see Lewis. even when you find out that his pattern is different from that of most other authorities on the web, your reaction is to read Lewis again for a couple of hours, not read other authorities to try and understand what they are saying.

My problem, Stephen, is that I do not believe what some of the authorities say about modals, simply because what they say does not make sense to me. Just because someone is an "authority", we cannot blindly assume that what they say is true as long as their name is not Lewis. No matter how long your list of authorities is, you have not been able to convince me that Lewis is wrong in this case. His explanation is, to me, the most thoughtful.

Let's just take, for example, your quote from Huddleston:

Two subcases can be distinguished; potential and currrently actualized.

Examples:
(i) (Potential) She can run the marathon in under three hours.
(ii) (Currently actualized) I can hear something rattling.
The latter is found with sense verbs and various verbs of cognition and (ii) differs little from I hear something rattling. By contrast (i) differs sharply from She runs the marathon in under three hours. ...... in this potential ability case, the degree of difference from the unmodalised version will depend very much on the pragmatics of the situation concerned. There is, for example, little effective difference between She can speak fluent French and She speaks fluent French because it is not easy to assert the fromer without repeated acutalisations fo the ability.

Whereas you accept this, presumably because it comes from Huddleston rather than Lewis, I do not. I do not believe that there is little difference between "I can hear something rattling" and "I hear something rattling." For me, there is a profound, if subtle, difference. The difference may be hard for some people to articulate, but it is not superficial. And the difference must certainly depend on "can", since that word is the only difference between the sentences. Maybe Huddleston does not see the difference, nor do you, but I do, and M56 does, as do others. Morover, his argument that, "There is, for example, little effective difference between She can speak fluent French and She speaks fluent French because it is not easy to assert the fromer without repeated acutalisations fo the ability" is absurd on its face. The difference lies in what the speaker represents. That is plain to see, if you're willing to look for it. Huddleston introduces an entirely unnecessary complication with his distinction between "potential" and "currently actualized" examples. There is no need for this distinction, since the modal operates exactly in the same way in both examples, to wit: it expresses the speakers judgment of ability.

If you, or Huddleston, said that the listener's interpretation of the pragmatic meaning in a particular context would likely be nearly the same with "I can hear...", versus "I hear...", then I would agree with that. But neither of you is saying that.

Larry Latham

[Stephen Jones]

Seeing your showing upa as browsing the forum at the same time as I am, let me try and explain Larry why you are confusing things.
Lets look at the three different types of modality for can.

Epistemic Modality
This is what Lewis calls 'possibility' or 'doubt'. That is to say the modal implies a judgement by the speaker on the factuality of the propostion. As 'can' itself is not used in this sense in affirmative, declarative sentences, I'll use 'could' and 'can't' for the examples
He could come later
He can't be at home
These are contrasted with the factual statements
He's coming later
He isn't at home
In the modal examples the speaker is making a judgement call on the possiblity of her coming later or being at home (in the second case the judgement call is the result of some kind of logical deduction). This fits in entirely with what you are saying.

Deontic Midality
This refers to permssion or obligation. Again, as in epistemic modality, the modal form expresses an attitude or authority that is not necessarilythat of the subject of the verb.
You can come in now{/i]
means that the speaker is expressing his permission for the subject of the verb to come in.
Can the students come in now?
means that the person spoken to is being asked to grant permsiion for the subject of the verb to come in.
This feature is quite interesting because with normal catatenatives ('want', 'like', 'be thinking of' etc) the person doing the wanting, liking or thinking is the subject of the verb.

Dynamic Modality
With 'can' the distinction between this and deontic modality is clear - it is less clear with 'must' for example.
The point is that the source of the modulation is the subject of the verb, just as it is with other catatenative verbs.
The normal sense of 'can' in this type of modality is 'ability' or 'potential'
She can play football very well.
Now there may be a strong difference between the modulated and the unmodulated form, as in
She can make me lick her boots all day long
She makes me lick her boots all day long
but then there is also a strong difference between these two versions
Fluffy wants to fondle Britney Spears all night long
Fluffy fondles Britney Spears all night long.
Both statements are however factual propositions. What is stated as a factual proposition is the ability to play football well, to make others lick her boots, or the wish to fondle Britney, as opposed to the action of playing football well, making others lick your boots, or fondling Britney.
To put it another way.these two sentences:
She can speak French very well
She speaks French very well
both express opinions, but are both factual propositions.
To suggest otherwise is to claim that
Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light
is a non-factual representation of the speakers opinion, whilst
Metal 56 is a sexy turn-on
is a statement of objective fact.

Perhaps you might find it easier to say that dynamic modality is what modal auxiliaries do when they are not being modal

[Stephen Jones]

I do not. I do not believe that there is little difference between "I can hear something rattling" and "I hear something rattling." For me, there is a profound, if subtle, difference. The difference may be hard for some people to articulate, but it is not superficial.

But you're quite prepared to admit that to the listener both have the same pragmatic meaning. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck ....

There is no need for this distinction, since the modal operates exactly in the same way in both examples, to wit: it expresses the speakers judgment of ability.

So,
Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
is my judgement of ability but
Nothing travels faster than the speed of light.
is objective fact?

Rock on!

[LarryLatham]

So,
Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
is presented as my judgement of ability but
Nothing travels faster than the speed of light.
is presented as objective fact?


Absolutely right! Don't forget, we're talking about language here. Not physics.

Naturally, the actual truth of the proposition may be disproven.

Larry Latham

[LarryLatham]

Dynamic Modality
With 'can' the distinction between this and deontic modality is clear - it is less clear with 'must' for example.
The point is that the source of the modulation is the subject of the verb, just as it is with other catatenative verbs.
The normal sense of 'can' in this type of modality is 'ability' or 'potential'

She can play football very well....

... What is stated as a factual proposition is the ability to play football well...

According to whom? According to the subject of the verb?

That may be clear to you, Stephen, but it sure as hell ain't clear to me.

Larry Latham

[Andrew Patterson]

Larry Lantham wrote:

According to whom? According to the subject of the verb?

That may be clear to you, Stephen, but it sure as hell ain't clear to me.

Larry, I put it like this on my website:

Dynamic modality is how the speaker or writer perceives that the subject of the sentence would frame the interpretation of the proposition.

No, it isn't clear and it takes a bit of navel-gazing to get it. The subject doesn't actually frame the proposition, of course, indeed the subject may even be inanimate anyway; you project yourself into the subject's viewpoint.

It's relatively easy to understand epistemic and deontic modality but dynamic modality is just harder to understand. I'm still struggling to understand root modality which is a mixture of deontic and dynamic modality.

[Stephen Jones]

Much too complicated, Andrew.

The question you ask yourself is
Who is calling the shots?
(i)In epistemic modality it is the speaker:
He could be at home - the doubt emanates from the speaker.
(ii)In deontic modality it is the speaker if the sentence is declaratlive and the person addresseid if it's interrogative
He can't come in -- the speaker is the one denying permission (subjective) or reporting an external circumstance (objective)
Can he come in? --- the permission is being granted by the person you are speaking to.
(iii)In dynamic modality it is the subject of the verb (exactly the same as with any other catatenative).
She can sure turn heads. Who has the ability to turn heads - she does.

It is much easier if you use the third person for your examples - when you use the first or second person you can get confused because the subject can be the same as the speaker or the person spoken to.


Root modality is both deontic and dynamic modality. In other words, if it's modality and it ain't epistemic, it's root.

The terminology may be a pain to learn, and you are being asked to look at things that you may skip the first time, but we are dealing with concepts that are straightforward and clearly based on usage.

[LarryLatham]

Much too complicated, Stephen.

The question you ask yourself is
Who is calling the shots?

The overarching point to all of this is to remember that it always is the speaker who is making the language. The only time when the subject calls the shots is when the subject of the verb is "I".

The simplest, easiest way is usually the right way. Language makers are people, and people rightly want to do the most with the least effort. The simplest thing to remember is the speaker always calls the shots.

That seems self-evident to me.

Larry

[Stephen Jones]

She can play football very well....
According to whom? According to the subject of the verb?

According to whom is irrelevant, Larry. As irrelevant as it is in the sentence
Two and two make four
or in the sentence
Two and two make five

All three sentences are factual propositions, even though the first one is an opinion and the third is demonstrably false.

Your problem is this, Larry. You see the sentence:
The bus could arrive at six.
and rightly see that this is different from the straightforwardly factual
The bus arrives at six.
You correctly see that the difference is that the modalized expression is expressing possible doubt as to the buses arrival, and that the word that introduces this modality is 'could'.
Now when you come to the sentence
She could run the marathon really fast.
You see that it is different from from the factual
She ran the marathon really fast.
and that what makes the difference is 'could'. However you are wrong to interpret it like the first example because it doesn't work that way.
When you come to this third example
She could see the bus pulling away.
even you realize that this means the same thing as
She saw the bus pulling away.
but to save your theory that 'could' will always result in some kind os speakers judgement you invent a difference between the pragmatic meaning and some kind of metaphysical semantic meaning only visible to a select few such as you, Lewis and M56.

The point is that the second and third sentences are different uses of modality from the first. And because you can't see there is more than one type of modality, you end up with the circular argument
'can' can be used to represent the speakers judgement, so whenever 'can' is used we have a judgement or opinion.
And this is of course, a logical fallacy.

[Stephen Jones]

The simplest, easiest way is usually the right way. Language makers are people, and people rightly want to do the most with the least effort. The simplest thing to remember is the speaker always calls the shots.

And you've just pulled the ground from under your feet, because if this is true for every sentence, then it cannot possibly be a distinguishing mark of modality.