Basic semantic meaning of modal auxiliaries

Originally Posted by tdol

Definitely. Sorry, rather a careless posting. Why does 'should' get special treatment?

Because there seems to be many "shoulds".

[Tdol]

Doesn't that undermine the theory a bit given the size of the family?

Originally Posted by tdol

Doesn't that undermine the theory a bit given the size of the family?

Which theory and what family?

[Tdol]

The theory of core meanings of the modal family.

Originally Posted by tdol

The theory of core meanings of the modal family.

Is there one? Not all language follows the same patterns. After all, where is the core meaning for "there"?

[Tdol]

Not here.

Originally Posted by tdol

Not here.

MIA!

[DBP]

M56:
In his chapter on modal auxiliaries in The English Verb, Michael Lewis lists what he thinks are the basic semantic meanings for each. I cite those meanings below and ask if you agree with them.

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 ...

I don't think that "assert" fits very well here because 'can/could' can be epistemically very weak. This is especially notable in speech where intonation strengthens or weakens 'can/could'.

That caaaaaan happen. OR That cooooould happen.

Also, while 'could' is used to discuss remote/impossible events, it can also be used as a near equivalent of 'can'.

===================

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 ...

I wonder why Mr Lewis has prefaced all these, eg. "If I have anything to do with it". I'd say that 'may' and 'might' have a discernible range of possibility, so they don't simply mean "it's possible that" and "it's remotely possible that".

Those are more the meanings of 'can' and 'could', which only express "possibleness" but don't express any discernable range of possibility.

'may' & 'might' express how certain a speaker is. They don't simply address that the speaker thinks something is possible.

===========================

Must = I assert that it is necessary that ...

Is 'must' never used to relate another's assertion? An equal core concept for 'must' is epistemic 'must'.

Based on the available information, my logical deduction is that such and such is the case.

That must be the plumber.

========================

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.

These two, 'will' & 'would', like can/could are not always distinctly different. Rather than disjointed, I feel it's better to look at them as occupying the same scale.

Certainly, 'would' covers the unreal/impossible end of this scale/spectrum and 'will' the real/possible end but they meet in the middle and sometimes it's possible to use one or the other with virtually no difference in meaning.

=========================

Shall = According to my perception of the present situation, it is, if it's anything to do with me, inevitable that ...

I'd say that 'shall' and 'will' share this meaning and others and intonation and context would/will fill us in as its strength.

====================

Should is dealt with separately as it is a far more complex auxiliary and has many meanings.

I don't understand the distinction that is being made here by Mr Lewis. All the other other modals have epistemic and deontic meanings just as 'should' does. 'should' equates to probably/likely as regards epistemic meaning and I suggest that this level of epistemic strength gives it its deontic strength, occupying a level below 'must'.
{From The English Verb by M Lewis. LTP 1986.}

<Can = I assert that it is possible that ...
Could = I assert that it is "remotely" possible that ...

I don't think that "assert" fits very well here because 'can/could' can be epistemically very weak. This is especially notable in speech where intonation strengthens or weakens 'can/could'.

That caaaaaan happen. OR That cooooould happen.

Also, while 'could' is used to discuss remote/impossible events, it can also be used as a near equivalent of 'can'. >

Is that to reply to an assetion? "That" is anaphoric, so something must have been asserted rearlier by another speaker. The use of can there is not being used in its basic semantic meaning, but either shows, doubt, support, or signals new, or contradictory information is to follow. That's why intonation is being used- to weaken or stengthen the original assertion.

Example:

It can snow even in high summer here.

That can happen, but it hasn't snowed for at least ten years at that time of year.
.............

It can snow even in high summer here.

Yes, that can happen, and it can go on for days.

[QUOTE=DBP]M56:
In his chapter on modal auxiliaries in The English Verb, Michael Lewis lists what he thinks are the basic semantic meanings for each. I cite those meanings below and ask if you agree with them.

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 ...

I don't think that "assert" fits very well here because 'can/could' can be epistemically very weak. This is especially notable in speech where intonation strengthens or weakens 'can/could'.

That caaaaaan happen. OR That cooooould happen.

Also, while 'could' is used to discuss remote/impossible events, it can also be used as a near equivalent of 'can'.

===================

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 ...

I wonder why Mr Lewis has prefaced all these, eg. "If I have anything to do with it". I'd say that 'may' and 'might' have a discernible range of possibility, so they don't simply mean "it's possible that" and "it's remotely possible that".

Those are more the meanings of 'can' and 'could', which only express "possibleness" but don't express any discernable range of possibility.

'may' & 'might' express how certain a speaker is. They don't simply address that the speaker thinks something is possible.

===========================

Mr Lewis would say that possibility is the basic semantic meaning of many modals. They take on other, added, meanings in context, but possibility is the base.

What do you think?