Sookmyung Women`s University
Graduate School of TESOL
Approaches to English Grammar
Stephen van Vlack
Answers to Yule, Explaining English Grammar, Chapter 4, Modals.
Here are the basic answers to the questions. Look at for my closing comments at the bottom!!
1. What is the difference between simple and periphrastic modals? (p. 86)
This is simple. Simple modals are composed of only one word, such as can, or must. Periphrastic modals, on the other hand, are groups of compound verbs that have related meaning to modals, such as be able to, or be allowed to.
2. How do modal verbs differ from other verbs in their syntax and morphology? (p. 87)
Modals are not marked for agreement. They do not receive any marking for third person singular. They also are not able to used in the perfective or progressive aspect.
3. How do epistemic and root modality differ? (pp. 88-89)
Epistemic modality is when the speaker is talking about facts, things that are known or possibly might be known in the future. For example, `Holly can speak Russian.` This type of modality is reliant on what the speaker thinks or knows. Root modality, however, is about social conditions (who has power and what they allow to happen). For example, `Little Bobby, you can eat candy.` It is reliant is reliant on power within the social system.
4. How do the modals `can` and `could` differ from each other? (pp. 91-94)
`Can` and `could` differ in their tense the former is present, while the letter is the past tense form. As we already learned, the different between present and past tense is one of distance across a variety of planes. Here, too, the difference is distance. This distance can be used to account for meaning differences, including degrees of formality, and likelihood that a given event will occur.
5. How do the past tense forms of modals and periphrastic modals in the past tense differ from one another? (pp. 92-106)
The chief difference is in the meaning. Periphrastic modals in the past tense often lose their modality. That means that the modal meanings of possibility or necessity are gone. `We are able to eat dog in Korea` can be replaced by `We can eat dog in Korea.` `We were able to eat dog in Korea`, however, cannot necessarily be replaced by `We could eat dog in Korea.` It is better replaced by `We ate dog in Korea.` The distance in the periphrastic modal in the past is in time and not possibility. This is where the difference between the subjunctive and the simple past form of such verbs are in conflict..
6. Which one; may or might, is more formal in situation where someone is asking for permission? May/might I open the window? Why? (pp.94-97)
This again falls back to the all important concept of distance. Might because it is a marked, past tense form, reflects more distance. This distance manifests itself in the form of politeness. The more the speaker distances themselves from the situation, especially when making a request, the more polite the request. Look at these examples which show the same distinction, but more vividly: `Would you think it might be possible for you to see fit to lending me a few dollars to tide me over for the next few days?` and `Lend me some money, will you?`
7. What differences account for the meaning difference in the weak and strong obligation in the use of the modal `must`? (pp.97-98)
Obligation is generally applied to animate objects and especially humans. In the weak obligation this is usually done by the speaker upon themselves. Weak obligation is, in effect, self-imposed and, therefore, weak. The obligations we impose on ourselves are always weaker than those we inflict on others. Strong obligation is, as you can probably guess and obligation imposed from one entity to another. It is not reflexive or internal and is, therefore, stronger.
8. What do you think accounts for the different meanings for the different modals as they are used; i.e., what creates the meaning difference?
Yule spent an awful lot of time and wasted pages on the individual meaning differences between different simple modals, but, unlike the other sections of this book we have already done, he does not have any smart or snappy new ideas here to make modals much simpler. Instead, what it all boils down to is our old friend context. Modal verbs used in different contexts will have different uses and meanings. This is not a new idea, nor is it simple or easily explainable using traditional grammar, but it does bring us back to the idea that we stated in the beginning of this course; teaching grammar in the absence of context is a waste of time.
9. What happens when epistemic modal functions are negated? (pp. 109-110)
In this case, it is the main verb that is receiving the brunt of the negation. So, in the sentence, `Harry can eat fish, but Cindy cannot eat fish.` the statement about Cindy is focused on the fact that it is impossible for her to eat fish. The possibility of eating fish is not the main focus. What is important is the presence or absence of eating. This is called internal negation and is a direct result of the epistemic modality function which is internal in that it is made by the speaker and reflects back on the speaker.
10. What happens when root modal functions are negated? (p.110)
Here, the negation does not go on the main verb. It applies directly to the modal verb. In the sentence, `Nancy can, but, Lucinda, you cannot go to the movies today.` The focus is not on whether Lucinda will be going to the movies or not. It is on the fact that she CANNOT go to the movies. In the face of such strong objection, the fact that she is not going becomes secondary in relation to why she CANNOT go. It is the lack of permission that is the real focus and the source of suffering for poor Lucinda. This, external negation, too, follows directly from the core meaning or root modality which is made by the speaker by reflects on someone or something else.
Much of what this chapter is about is never mentioned by Yule. Yes, the idea of ROOT and CORE (EPISTEMIC) modality is nice. I do like that, but what else is new? NOTHING!! He spends an awfully long time explaining the meanings and uses of the simple modals. They all basically work the same way, so much of the explanation is unnecessary and I was left wondering why he did that.
More importantly, I was really left wondering why he did not explain the difference between past tense forms of modals and their subjective forms. The subjunctive used to be very common in English and even main verbs were commonly made subjunctive as in this rather old fashioned sentence.
Killed you the porcupine, happy would you be. (If you killed the porcupine, you would be happier.)
Nowadays the subjunctive is used mostly in modals because the meaning of the subjunctive is closely related to modals. Also, over time the subjunctive form and past tense forms have blended and become the same. Because of this maybe Yule thought it would be too complicated to deal with the subjunctive, but from my thinking, this is where most of the difficulty with modals arises. We use periphrastic modals in the past when we clearly want to show that the event is remote in time as opposed to possibility.
a. The pig was able to eat all the slop we fed it.
b. The pig could eat all the slop we fed it.
c. The pig could eat all the slop we fed it, but it didn`t.
d. The pig could have eaten all the slop we fed it, but it didn`t.
The first and last of these are certainly the clearest of these examples and are also the most common examples; i.e., the examples most favored by native speakers. The two middle examples are somewhat ambiguous and while c is less ambiguous than b by virtue of the added context, it still seems less clear than d.
This, as I see it, is the problem that we have to face with modals. Modals used in the present are not a big problem, but ones in the past are harder and what native speakers generally end up doing is mixing modality with other grammatical elements to make the point clearer. Also, in normal situations, there is plenty of situational as well as linguistic context (hopefully) there to make things clear.