Bruce,
   I think you're right. "Used to" is particularly rich because it 
brings in the sense that something that was true in the past is no 
longer so, pretty much what we get with perfect aspect. The modals seem 
to have floated free of what we normally think of as tense and aspect, 
(which is to say that they are not nearly as predictable), but they do 
bring those meanings into play. And it seems to me a particularly 
dynamic aspect of grammar, very much in flux, so it's not surprising 
that we would have dialect differences.
   If we want to think about how a study of these forms would deepen 
reading and writing, then we need to think about how they function and 
pay attention to the nuances of meaning that come into play in and 
through these choices.
   My beginning college students seem comfortable making rather far 
reaching generalizations even when they have no knowledge base to draw 
on. Our academic disciplines require us to be far more careful, to 
qualify our statements in various ways, and the modals are certainly a 
tool for that.  (Not the only tool by any means, but a key tool.) 
Perhaps learning to qualify with some subtlety is an important part of 
what mature writing calls for. We could map out similar sorts of 
"mature" choices on the deontic side.
   I guess I'm saying that a formal grammar tends to lead us in the 
opposite direction, to classify in ever more general or abstract 
categories rather than lead us into the heart of discourse. We certainly 
can't have a grammar without forms, but we need to pay respect to all 
those studies that seem to say (are purported to say) a merely formal 
study doesn't carry over. Maybe the details matter.
   Grammar is emergent in  more than one way; in the language itself and 
in the maturation of the language user. It's not just "innate", but 
develops over time. Instruction could be thought of as a kind of 
mentoring of that process. We would need to describe the background 
knowledge that would allow mentoring conversations to go on. "Grammar in 
context" doesn't happen because the language is too complex to describe 
"at point of need." But formal grammar study doesn't help if it merely 
allows us to classify various forms.
   I apologize if I am pushing this discussion well past Peter's opening 
question. I just think it is the kind of discussion we need to have if 
we are to push for a new kind of approach to grammar, more maximalist 
than minimalist, focused on much more than just classification or error.

Craig
Bruce Despain wrote:
> Craig, et al.,
>  
> You bring up the quasi-modals (semi-modals) that seem to be caught in 
> the throes of change.  The British seem to be a bit more progressive 
> with these.  Consider the following:
> (1) Ian used to be less obstinate.  [aspectual-perfective]
> This past tense form has become an aspect marker.  Notice that I can 
> use this as a main verb helped by "do" in the negative when it is in 
> in the past.  It doesn't make sense in my dialect (or any other?) to 
> use it with the present tense form.
> (2) Ian didn’t used to be so obstinate.
> (3)*Ian doesn’t used to be so obstinate.
> But the British allow the negative formative to combine, like a modal! 
> This works as well as the interrogative forms.
> (4) Ian usedn’t to be so obstinate.
> (5) Used Ian to be so obstinate?
> (6) Usedn’t Ian to be so obstinate?
> I bring this up as background for the other quasi-modals ("need" and 
> "dare").  These have full verb forms in all contexts, but may 
> optionally have modal forms in negative and interrogative contexts:
> (7) Orion dares/dared to jump in.
> (8) Orion doesn't/didn't dare to jump in.
> (9) Does/Did Orion dare to jump in?
> Thus in these latter contexts, but not corresponding to (7), there is 
> also:
> (10) Orion dare not jump in. (I've heard "dasen't" in some dialects; 
> must be old.)
> (11) Dare Orion jump in?
> In contrast to these two verbs there is "ought" which acts in harmony 
> with (7) as a full verb, but is otherwise a modal:
> (12) Orion ought to jump in.
> (13) Orion oughtn't to jump in.
> (14) Ought Orion to jump in?
> (15) Orion ought not jump in.
> (16) Ought Orion jump in?
> So it appears that "ought to" has gone the furthest, "need" and "dare" 
> part way, and "used to" vacillating as either one or the other.  I 
> wonder if this would represent a change that has become fixed in 
> modern times.  It seems to be that a theory of language could allow 
> that certain dialect changes could get halted in the midst of a change 
> and remain rigid, maybe with the proliferation of literacy.  There are 
> other ways in which the British have diverged from the American since 
> colonial times.  Maybe this is just another example of what can happen 
> (changes by analogy?) in dialects that become isolated. 
>  
> Bruce
>
> >>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 11/06/07 7:53 AM >>>
> Peter,
> Modals and tense have been an issue over the years and I have been in
> the middle of some of those conversations. I have also moved on from
> earlier positions, so I will try out a couple of observations here.
> I think the modals are a great way to demonstrate the process of
> grammaticalization since, as Herb points out, we can pretty much trace
> them back to a time when they acted more or less like ordinary verbs and
> not as auxiliaries. It’s also a way to look at grammar as EMERGENT, not
> innate and fixed, but dynamic and evolving. We can see that there is not
> a hard and fast separation between the lexicon and the grammar. These
> are core principles of cognitive approaches to grammar.
> Tense and aspect give us a way to ground a statement in historical time.
> I won’t go into big detail on that except to say it has to do not just
> with past and present, but with whether an action is completed, ongoing,
> recurrent, and so on. The modals add meanings about the attitude or
> judgment of the speaker. I think deontic and epistemic are very rough
> classifications and don’t do full justice to the highly nuanced meanings
> involved or the highly nuanced ways in which time factors in. A
> scientist may want to qualify a statement about, say, global warning, by
> saying we COULD have some results, SHOULD expect others, and so on.
> These same qualifications can be made about past or ongoing events. "She
> should be on her way right now." "It might have been him all along." It
> adds information about the speaker’s judgment of likelihood. We also
> have the possibility of adding judgments about ability, desirability,
> obligation, and so on. We MUST act. We CAN make a difference. I think
> sometimes we have a tendency to describe formal rules, classify the
> constructions, and pull further and further away from the nuances of
> meaning that matter most. The modals are messy because they are hard to
> classify, but this gives us a range of meaning options that would not
> otherwise be available.
> We also have a number of periphrastic forms that can be classified as
> modals, and these seem to add options by being capable of shifting tense
> and capable of combining with each other. We don’t normally say “We
> should can”, but we can say “we should be able to.” We can also say “I
> was able to” or “I was supposed to” or even “I was supposed to be able
> to”, adding tense shifts and multiple meanings that are not available
> for the core modals.
> I was researching ESL grammars recently and ran into “be going to” as a
> future auxiliary. I’m not sure I like “future auxiliary” as a category,
> but it has evolved a role very similar to “will.” “I will study hard for
> the test.” “I am going to study hard for the test.” It’s interesting
> that we can come up with a past tense version, something we can’t do
> with “will.” “I was going to study hard for the test.” We can see an
> historical addition of meaning, from “I am going to the store”
> (travelling) to “I am going to shop” (probably starting as “going to a
> place where I can shop” and then becoming “I intend to shop”), and
> finally something like “It is going to rain,” meaning I am predicting
> that it will happen with some certainty. It may be that adding the
> possibility of tense shift makes it more flexible than “will”. “I was
> going to rake the leaves, but I couldn’t find the rake.” "Was going to"
> here denotes past time intention.
> I think we can find a number of constructions we might think of as
> semi-modals. It’s only messy if we feel language is under an obligation
> to be neatly classifiable. Langacker calls his (cognitive) approach
> “maximalist”, “non-reductive”, and “bottom-up.” Maybe one reason formal
> grammar study doesn’t carry over into writing (at least easily) is
> because it takes us away from the living language by being too
> minimalist, reductive, and top down.
> The modals seem to me an area where the details, the nuances, are so
> key, so important.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
> Peter Adams wrote:
> > I've only been following this list for about a year, and I'll be you
> > have thrashed this topic around more than once in the past. But I
> > wasn't here for those thrashings, so I'm inviting another round.
> >
> > How do you analyze tense and modals? Is "might" the past tense of
> > "may"? Is "could" the past tense of "can"? Or is it more accurate to
> > say that modals don't inflect for tense? There are ten (?) modals
> > (will, would, shall, should, can, could, may, might, must, and ought
> > to, and none of them is past tense.
> >
> > Peter Adams
> >
> > 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/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended 
> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. 
> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is 
> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the 
> sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

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/