Difference between revisions of "Modality"

From Creolista!
Jump to: navigation, search
(Modality expressed in the NP)
(Modality expressed in the NP)
Line 70: Line 70:
 
the presence of a "zero modal" or "to" seems to have little other function than to break off what you are saying from the specific context in which you are saying it, though arguably "to" conserves meanings associated with "path" and "goal" ([telicity]) from it's homonym preposition.
 
the presence of a "zero modal" or "to" seems to have little other function than to break off what you are saying from the specific context in which you are saying it, though arguably "to" conserves meanings associated with "path" and "goal" ([telicity]) from it's homonym preposition.
  
=Modality expressed in the NP=
+
==Modality of '''to'''==
  
 
"To" is a versatile word. Not only can you can begin and end sentences with it, but there are very few words in English that are excluded from preceding or following "to". The "true" modals are the only example that comes to mind: "to" can can never precede or follow ''may'', ''will'', ''can'', ''shall'' (with or without -''d'') and ''must''. (The interesting exception, though quite restricted, is the present tense version of "will".) These modals can likewise never precede one another (*will can, *should may, etc). So for the time being, let's suggest that "to" is deeply modal, and yet much more. <br />
 
"To" is a versatile word. Not only can you can begin and end sentences with it, but there are very few words in English that are excluded from preceding or following "to". The "true" modals are the only example that comes to mind: "to" can can never precede or follow ''may'', ''will'', ''can'', ''shall'' (with or without -''d'') and ''must''. (The interesting exception, though quite restricted, is the present tense version of "will".) These modals can likewise never precede one another (*will can, *should may, etc). So for the time being, let's suggest that "to" is deeply modal, and yet much more. <br />

Revision as of 02:48, 3 April 2011

Modal verbs in English

Some of the most salient characteristics of the basic list (excluding other modalizers like ought to, needn't etc.:

invariable
cannot be combined
are followed by the verbal base / bare infinitive
can be interpreted radically or epistemically (based on a root meaning or on a scale of probability ranging from cannot to 'must'). Often the radical meaning and epistemic meaning are difficult to disentangle.
can could capability / possibility
will would future / certainty
shall should value judgement / necessity
may might possibility
must logical necessity / certainty


Modality of the markers to and Ø

In English, the infinitive is traditionally thought of as including "to". This may not be wrong insofar as "to" provides rupture with the modal and temporal plane in a way that [participials] don't. Participials (whether in -ing or in -EN) could be said to inherit their finite determination from the matrix clause (-ING is contemporaneous with it, -EN anterior to it), whereas with TO + infinitive this isn't the case, there is a clear rupture from the temporal plane. However it might be interesting to compare TO + infinitive with the bare infinitive or verbal base:

command mode

  • I demand that he come
  • Come on!

advice mode

  • He should be ready.
  • I suggest he be ready

e / pro / vocative mode

  • God save the queen
  • May you...
  • Go to hell.

final cause mode

  • I (had/made) him bake the cookies.

dubitative mode

  • Why walk?
  • Him?! Walk?

the presence of a "zero modal" or "to" seems to have little other function than to break off what you are saying from the specific context in which you are saying it, though arguably "to" conserves meanings associated with "path" and "goal" ([telicity]) from it's homonym preposition.

Modality of to

"To" is a versatile word. Not only can you can begin and end sentences with it, but there are very few words in English that are excluded from preceding or following "to". The "true" modals are the only example that comes to mind: "to" can can never precede or follow may, will, can, shall (with or without -d) and must. (The interesting exception, though quite restricted, is the present tense version of "will".) These modals can likewise never precede one another (*will can, *should may, etc). So for the time being, let's suggest that "to" is deeply modal, and yet much more.

Like all these other modals "to" can immediately precede an unflected verb, but unlike all these other modals it can also precede a gerund (or if you prefer: an uninflected verb + -ing), in which case we can "confidently" call it a preposition:

   * We're looking forward to seeing them again
   * They want to see the museum when they come this time.


Again unlike the other true modals it can follow a verb, but like modals it can introduce a verb phrase (which prepositions cannot do, without the help of -ing)


   * -- They should [VP really like the exhibit that's on when they're coming.]
   * -- We'll have to [VP really put aside an entire afternoon for that].
   * -- Do you think they're going to [VP want to [VP spend the whole afternoon?]]
   * -- Yeah, with them you're not going to [VP want to [VP forget to [VP wear comfortable shoes]]]. Trust me you're not going to [VP want to]!


As the last three examples show, "to" is much more like a matrëshka (Russian doll) than the other modal verbs. In #4 The subject of "want", "forget", and "wear" is identical to the subject of "go", in each case it is just the head on top of a sequentially smaller body of words, a more limited predicative relation. And, co-text or context permitting, this smaller body of words -- poof -- can be reduced to nothing at all. Our "to" is a pretty potent modal.

But is it really a modal? Forget for the moment that it's also a preposition (to the lighthouse!), and a particle (It was noon before Buck Mulligan finally came to), and just concentrate on this more specialized context. Perhaps it's just a conjunction after all:

   * They would walk and talk and chalk and stalk their way around the pool hall every Friday night.


Except -- and here I hope you agree -- conjunctions just don't quite feel like Russian dolls -- they're more like a people mover at the airport, they bump us along the sentence until we reach the end... "walk and talk" can stand alone in ways that "gonna' and wanna'" can't... because gonna' and wanna' are wannabe kings that need a regime to make themselves whole. And they can snatch that regime right out of the subject of conversation.

   * -- Is he going to crawl up out of the hole?
   * -- He doesn't seem to want to try to.
   * -- No but he really needs to.
   * -- Yep, it's obvious (that) he should.


I see "to" as a convenient tunnel, that the grammatical subject crawls through in order to reach the head of the sentence (probably through the letter "o") :rolleyes: I see its modal value as being quite neutral in general... the one particularly difficult to explain exception being:

You're not to go. / Were [I to go]

Odd hybrids

dare
need


periphrastics with to

ought to / needs to
be able to
etc.