Craig:
Lyons (1996), in his "Linguistic Semantics," states some interesting
things to state about tense. First, he defines "tense" in this way:
The term "tense" is one of the terms of traditional grammar that is
widely used in its traditional sense by those who would claim no
special expertise in linguistics. It is of course derived ultimately
(via Old French) from the Latin word "tempus, meaning "time" (p.312)
Then, he refers to the lingustic definition of "tense:"
In the standard usage of linguists (if not of philosophers and
logicians), tense is by definition a matter of grammaticalization"
(p.313).
He continues, describing the deictic aspect of tense:
It is now generally accepted that tense involves, not just temporal
reference as such, but deictic temporal reference: i.e., that it
involves reference to a point or interval of time which is determined
in relation to the moment of utterance" (p. 313).
In a further paragraph, Lyons shows that there is a connection
between tense and mood:
Tense, as we saw in the preceding section, is the category which, in
such languages as have tense, results from the grammaticalization of
(incidental) deictic temporal reference. At first sight, it might
appear that, since there is no obvious connexion between temporal
reference and modality, tense and mood are quite distinct grammatical
categories. However, as was noted in section 6.6 and mentioned again
at the beginning of the present section, in all languages that have
both tense and mood, the two categories are, to a greater or lesser
degree, interdependent. In fact, it is often difficult to draw a
sharp distinction, from a semantic or pragmatic point of view,
between tense and mood(p. 332).
And finally, Lyons makes a statement that surprised me: he affirms
that *tense* is a *matter of modality*:
I should mention at this point that there are certain, untraditional
and so far non-standard, but empirically well supported, theories of
tense, according to which, looked at from a more general point of
view, tense itself can be seen as being primarily a matter of
modality"(p.333).
Lyons also discusses two uses of the modal "will" in two different
sentences where tense and mode seem to overlap:
For example, in saying
That will be the postman,
speakers are more likely to be making an epistemically qualified
statement about the present than an unqualified assertion about the
future; in saying
I wanted to ask you whether you needed the car today,
they are more likely to be making a tentative or hesitant request
than to be describing some past state of consciousness (pp. 332-333).
So, where does this leave us? Are tense and mode separate, distinct,
or overlapping?
Eduard
Craig Hancock wrote...
>Bob,
> I just think that saying "should", "must", and "might" carry
tense is
>difficult to explain. Is it present tense? Past tense? How do you
>explain it in such a way that a language learner can see that it is
>different from other uses of the word "tense" in very substantial
>ways?
> I think you would have to say it is present tense (despite
historic
>evidence to the contrary)because of the way it actually works within
>discourse. If Bush says "We must stay the course in Irag," that
>paraphrases roughly out to "We have to stay the course in Iraq."
>(present tense.) But unlike every other present tense verb, it
doesn't
>put the -s ending on third person singular. (How would calling it
>present tense help a non-native speaker anticipate that problem?
>Wouldn't calling it past tense get them to anticipate a different
kind
>of meaning, that Bush is in fact saying something about the past and
>not about our present situation?) The clearest position, to me, is
that
>the modal ("must") presents his time of the telling attitude about
the
>situation. This would be true even if we added perfect aspect. "He
>must have studied" paraphrases out to "It seems certain that he has
>already studied." If you want to classify that as tense, then you are
>using tense in a wider way than I would.
> When I answered Jed's question, I simply brought in information
about
>how a functional grammar might address the problem. When he asked
about
>"syntacticians," I thought he meant that somewhat inclusively. The
>modal auxiliary is very important to the nature of an assertion.
Tense
>adds a very specific kind of time reference. The modal auxiliaries
>convey the present time attitude of the speaker about modal notions
>like possibility, probability, obligation, and the like. These are
very
>important to the interpersonal nature of a statement. Our non-native
>speaker needs to USE these structures, not just analyze them, and the
>formal requirements (not adding the -s) are only one part of that.
> Does finite mean something like "assertional"? Does "assertional"
also
>mean (or always include) "tense"?
> To some extent, we are just arguing about how wide a definition
to give
>to the word 'tense."
> To the extent that I get to think of myself as a "syntactician"
(one
>who worries about a view of syntax that is practical and teachable),
I
>would say that the modals have floated free of what we normally mean
by
>tense. It's either a very different kind of tense or different enough
>to be thought of as outside the category.
> If that is not what Jed was interested in, then I apologize.
>
>Craig
> >
>
>
>
>Craig,
>>
>> I appreciate your observation about my typo. I hope that this
post will
>> not require you to make an observation about my poor proofreading
skills
>> that is not relevant to the point under discussion.
>>
>>> I see both 1a) and 1b) as ungrammatical, though I'm sure that
was >
>> just a typing mistake on your part. "Want", of course, requires
the > -s
>> inthe usual spots. It definitely carries tense.
>> ***********
>> Please return to Jed's question:
>>
>> My question is this: are modal verbs finite (carrying grammatical
>> tense) even though they are not inflected or marked in any way to
show
>> that tense? Do syntacticians (sp?) consider the tense to be there
>> (perhaps marked with some kind of abstract zero morpheme) even
though we
>> can't see it?
>>
>> I have no idea how your last post answered Jed's question.
>>
>> ***********
>> I am puzzled by this observation:
>>
>> If I say "Bob should be able to answer your question" or "Bob
shall
>> be able to answer your question", I have not changed tense in the
usual
>> sense of the word, though thinking of these as tensed would lead
us to
>> believe that one is past and the other present.
>> If I concentrate on the generating rules as you explain them, I
might
>> give the misleading notion that I am choosing between time
references
>> rather than choosing between attitudes.
>>
>> I have no idea how anything I have proposed presents "the
misleading
>> notion that the choice between these two examples leads to the
>> conclusion that one is past and one is future."
>>
>> (Let us not consider here whether English has a "future" tense.)
>>
>> Except for some very specific instance that both Herb and Johanna
have
>> noted, English modals like could/can, would/will, might/may, etc.
no
>> longer have a regular past/present tense difference.
>>
>> ****************
>> The central modals in modern English have the same property that is
>> required for the first verb in any tensed clause English. At this
point
>> in our description, it is less important what to label it than it
is to
>> determine whether this (abstract) property is part of all modals.
>>
>> I have read no counter description in your posts.
>>
>> *******************
>> If you have taught ESL students then you have heard/read sentences
like
>> 1 and 2.
>>
>> 1) Bob cans drink beer.
>> 2) Bob doesn't can drink beer.
>>
>> The description I have proposed provides why an L2 learner might
produce
>> 1 and 2.
>>
>> I can appreciate that for some teachers sentences 1 and 2 are not
very
>> important and any attempt to describe them is a waste of time.
Also,
>> some views of language aren't really concerned about the question
why L2
>> learners might produce these sentences.
>>
>> I have a concern to understand why L2 learners might produce 1 and
2, so
>> I have no way to understand what you now write:
>>
>> I have many ESL students and can appreciate the need for
explaining
>> formal rules that most native speakers never consider. I have
found a
>> functional perspective more effective . . .
>>
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> 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/
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/
|
