Bob

This is a point where the Principles and Parameters model and those
closely related to it make an interesting claim, that modals are
daughter nodes of INFL and form part of an IP.  However, I've never
quite been able to make this analysis work for me.  For one thing, it
means calling "do" a modal, which makes no semantic or morphological
sense, since "do" can take both tense suffixes and does not participate
in the deontic/epistemic contrast true of all other modals.  For
another, it seems to make a virtue of a historical artifact, the fact
that most of the modals arise from Old English preterite presents, that
is, past tense forms that had present meaning, which would explain why
they never developed present tense inflections.  The INFL and IP
analysis of modals has always struck me as a bit circular.  But then my
syntax and phonology colleagues here at Ball State have long lamented by
penchant for diachronic explanation.

I also find your can/be able to contrast uncompelling, for similar
historical reasons.

Herb





Herb observes that in reported speech the historic past and non-past
tense of modals shows up.

Herb's examples:

He will be here.
He says he will be here.
He said he would be here. 

********

Given this question:

How do you analyze tense and modals?   

I answer that modals have inherent tense, and it is unclear whether that
tense is past or present (non-past) (except in the case of reported
speech).

My reasoning is as follows.  (1) and (2) mean approximately the same.

1) I can eat chocolate.
2) I am able to eat chocolate.

However, only "be able to" works with want.

3) *I want to can eat chocolate.
4)   I want to be able to eat chocolate.

("Have to" and must have the same distinction.)

If modals have NO tense, then we have to have a special explanation for
why (3) is ungrammatical.  However, if modals have inherent tense, then
it is straightforward why "can" is ungrammatical in a position where a
verb must be without any tense.  

In claiming that modals have inherent tense, we can also explain why
modals never take the agreement-s: the agreement-s would be
double-marking the modal for tense.

Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/