9.448, Sum: English Modals

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-9-448. Tue Mar 24 1998. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 9.448, Sum: English Modals

Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Review Editor:     Andrew Carnie <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Editors:  	    Brett Churchill <brett at linguistlist.org>
		    Martin Jacobsen <marty at linguistlist.org>
		    Elaine Halleck <elaine at linguistlist.org>
                    Anita Huang <anita at linguistlist.org>
                    Ljuba Veselinova <ljuba at linguistlist.org>
		    Julie Wilson <julie at linguistlist.org>

Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
                      Zhiping Zheng <zzheng at online.emich.edu>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/


Editor for this issue: Anita Huang <anita at linguistlist.org>

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Tue, 24 Mar 1998 12:17:00 +0900
From:  <YIB00161 at niftyserve.or.jp>
Subject:  English Modals

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Tue, 24 Mar 1998 12:17:00 +0900
From:  <YIB00161 at niftyserve.or.jp>
Subject:  English Modals

Dear linguists,

In the beginning of January I raised two questions about English modals.
My first question is: Which modal is more suitable in (1) and (2)?
(1) Bill isn't eating his food. He (doesn't have to/ may not) be hungry.
(2) A: Someone is knocking on the door.  It must be John.
    B: It (doesn't have to/ may not) be John. It could be George.
My second question is: Does "It doesn't have to be Dexter" in (3) have the
meaning of (4a) or (4b)?
(3) "The other four senators may have more powerful motives we don't happen to
    know about.  It doesn't have to be Dexter," continued Mark, sounding
    unconvinced.
(4) a. It is not certain that it is Dexter.
    b. It is possible that it is not Dexter.

Soon after that I got 17 e-mails.  Thank you for answering my questions.  I
would express my sincere thanks to the following people who supplied useful
data: Deborah Milam Berkley, Larry Horn, Daniel Currie Hall, Alison Huettner,
Steven Schaufele, William Morris, Sarah Rosenzweig, Rob Pensalfini, Pierre
Larriv, Susan Ervin-Tripp, Peter T. Daniels, Price Caldwell, Karen Davis, Rick

Nouwen, Bruce Despain, Megan Elizabeth Melancon, and Vincent Jenkins.

As to (1), all the respondents said that "may not" is more suitable.
As to (2), Half the respondents claimed that "doesn't have to" is more
suitabl e and half of the respondents claimed that "may not" is more
suitable.  Some respondents pointed out that "doesn't have to" is
somewhat better and more typical. One respondent pointed out that "may
not" is poor but not impossible.  As to (3) and (4), 59% of the
respondents told me that (3) expresses the meani ng of (4a) and 41%
told me that (4) expresses the meaning of (4b).  One responden t
indicated that (3) can mean both (4a) and (4b) in this context,
although per haps (4b) is slightly more appropriate.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-9-448