Double modals as single lexical items in American English
Double Modals
as Single Lexical Items
In American English.
An important problem
faced by modern studies of the American English auxiliary verbs is preventing
the iteration of modals as in sentence :
1. I could
must do that.
In general, there have
been two main approaches for ruling out such sequences of modals: the
Phrase-Structure (P-S) rule approach based on the Auxiliary analysis which
relies on P-S rules containing only one modal per surface clause; and the
subcategorization approach as a part of the Main Verb analysis , which assumes
that modals are finite forms and are subcategorized for stem forms. One
problem that both types of analyses face is that there are large numbers of
English speakers in the USA, most notably in the South Midland and Southern
United States, who regularly use double modals (D-M).
2.I don’t think
I have any grants you might could apply for.
3.We might
can go up there next Sunday.
4.I may
could at Finger’s.
5.You know, if
you drank a half a drink,you might oughta go ho-
me and sleep it off.
6.This thing
here I might should turn over to Ann.
7.How is it no
one might not would notice that but Ann?
8.Well, once we
get under way, it shouldn’t oughta take us very long.
Allowing for double
modals might seem to be a simple matter of relaxing the restrictions on the
iteration of modals. Thus, for these dialects , the Auxiliary analysis would
have an alternative P-S rule allowing two or more modals, and the Main Verb
analysis would allow modals to have stem forms.However, such simple solutions are
not adequate when assessed against data collected in Texas from DM speakers.
This data as a whole
indicates that merely relaxing the restrictions of either the P-S analysis or
the subcategorization analysis will not adequately account for the speakers’
intuitions about or production of DM’s.In fact, weakening the restrictions of
either of these two analyses would do little more than generate unrestricted
sequences of modals. Such a consequence is problematic since the Texas data
indicates that DM dialects have significant syntactic and semantic restrictions.
While being regional,
double modals are quite important phenome-non. A large percentage of the U.S.
population uses them. Almost every native speaker of the Southern Midland and
Southern dialect areas uses at least one DM at least occasionally.
Also, there are two facts
suggesting that the underlying structures of single and double modal dialects
are very similar.First, from the viewpoint of structural dialectology, DM’s are
intelligible to speakers of single modal dialects, so the structure of DM
dialects must be compatible with those of single modal dialects. Second, some
Northerners who migrate to Texas begin to use DM’s within a year of their
arrival, showing that Northern English can easily accommodate DM’s.
SYNTACTIC
AND SEMANTIC CHARACTERISTICS
Both the unconstrained
phrase-structure and subcategorization analyses predict that all combinations
of DM’s are acceptable. There are the nine modals, can, could, may, might,
should, will, would, ought to, must, and the quasi-modals, better
(as in had better, ‘d better), need, supposed to, used to, attested
in DM’s, and according to analysis, there are 156 possible combinations with
them.
Here are the most
common:
may could
might would might supposed to
may
can might better might’ve used to
may
will might had better may need to
may
should can might better can
may supposed to
used to could might woulda
should
oughta musta coulda had oughta
might
could would better
might oughta could
might
might
can oughta could
might
should may used to
In general, the DM
combinations are strictly ordered.
e.g: may can,
but not can may.
The exceptions to this
are could might , can might. Typically,the first modal is may
or might .
There is generally one
sense (or sometimes two related senses) that is (are) preferred for each DM
while other senses are generally rejected or treated indifferently. In the
case of might could - “ability”. The “possibility” is ranked low, and
the “permission” sense is somewhere in between.
Thus, Double Modals could
be semantically described as follows:
Might could
“ability”: Noone could
tell if he was dealing with them or not, but Bill
might could
tell the case of
his arrival.
“permission’: She is a
very polite three-year-old.Yesterday she asked
If
she might could write on the walls.
“possibility”: There
might could be water in that old well.
Might should
“obligation”: They are
just realized that they forgot to send an invitation
to
John. “We might should’ve invited John."
“obligation/suggestion”:
You might should turn this to Ann.
“logical possibility”:
Jim usually gets home at about 5:30, but it is 6:00
And he is not at home yet.He might should
be
home
by now.
Might oughta
“obligation”: We might
oughta invite him to our party.
“obligation/suggestion”: You
might not oughta call him.
“logical possibility”: It
is four o’clock and Mary just put a pie in the
oven. The pie might
oughta be done by five.
Might would
“hypothetical”: I
might would havedone it if he would tell me to.
“prediction”: I asked him
if he might would have it ready by one
o’clock.
“habitual”: John is
recalling his childhood:”On Sundays we might
would visit our grandparents.
PREFERENCES
FOR SENSES OF DOUBLE MODALS
Due the individuals’
will the second part of a double modal may vary ,therefore, the whole modal
construction changes its meaning. That is because some senses are preferred
over others in a second modal. Furthermore the data indicate that there is no
simple generalization that can be made concerning which senses are the most
acceptable. For instance, although the root senses are preferred over the
epistemic one for might could and might oughta (the
“obligation” and “obligation/suggestion”from the one part and the “logical
possibility” from the other) this generalization does not hold for might
could or might would.
In the case of might could
, “ability” , a root sense, is more acceptable than “permission”,another root
sense, and “possibility”, an epistemic sense. Finally, for might would
“hypothetical”, the most epistemic sense , is somewhat preferred over
“prediction” and definitely preferred over “habitual” , the most root-like
sense. Because of this situation , se-mantis relations must be stated
separately for each Double Modal.
The DM’s syntactic and
semantic properties analysis shows that Double Modals have restrictions in
their syntax and meanings that the corresponding single modals may not have.
Furthermore , the restrictions are idiosyncratic: a rule that applies to one DM
may not be applicable to another one. Thus , a syntactic solution of the DM
problem is unlikely because DMs don’t behave as simple combinations of their
component parts as would be expected if they were syntactically combined.
THE TENSE IN
DOUBLE MODAL CONSTRUCTIONS
The tense specification
for single modals in present-day English is somewhat unclear. On the one hand ,
there are some contexts where only the past-tense forms of some of the models
are acceptable for most speakers of American English , as in the following
dialogue:
-
Why did he lose
the all-around athlete contest last month?
-
Well , he was
excellent in everything else , but he can’t/couldn’t swim across the
river that day.
Although some speakers
will also find this difference for might as opposed to may , or ,
will accept may in this context :
She might
have eaten that last piece of cake.
You would
have been just as angry.
George could
have been more polite around his mother.
That woman may
have been his mother-in-law.
It could
be ready by 6 o’clock.
You should
visit Rome in the spring.
In spite of the
fact that some past contexts freely allow both past and present forms of the
modals , there are other contexts which are more acceptable with past than
with present :
I talked to Jim
just before he left for Dallas last week.
A : He thought
that he could get there in time.
B : He thought that
he can get there in time.
As to Double
Modals , their problem is more difficult. They could be conventionally
subdivided the two groups : Tense-mixed and Tense-matched ones . The first
group comprises DMs whose first and second parts are specified differently for
tense :
e.g. may
could
instead of having the
same tense specification as it is in the second gro-
up :
e.g : may
can
Although the present as
well as the past forms of the modals seem to be acceptable , Tense-matched
forms should be more acceptable than Tense-mixed ones if both modals are
sensitive to tense specification.
While comparing the two
DMs from diverse tense-groups , may could and may can, in a past
context , the Tense-mixed DM could be found more acceptable than the
Tense-matched one . That is probably because may could has at least
some past-tense marking . However , this form isn’t as acceptable as it
is found to be in situations in which the context doesn’t restrict the
action to the past . If the action is limited to the past, it is more
common to use both modals in the same (here past) tense underlying this
way the certainty of the past :
e.g : may
could - might could
e.g : It scared him
because he might can have died.
It scared him because he might
coulda died. (more preferable variant)
So , it is specific for
DMs to change their tense according to the con- text , though tending to the
Tense-matched form indicating both modals are sensitive to tense
specifications .
LEXICAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF DOUBLE MODALS
Double Modals are
syntactically constructed sequences of single modals . Thus , they should be
analyzed as two-word lexical items , like compound nouns , Verb + Particle
constructions , Verb + Adjective const-ructions , or idioms . At first the DMs
may seem a violation of the rule of non-iteration in the Auxiliary verbs usage
, but that is not so . While deriving from the single modals , the DMs still
form a specific lexico-grammatical part of the language and have their own
characteristics .
The best way to show that
the lexicon is the proper grammatical component for dealing with the
particularities inherent in DMs is to develop an analogy between multiword
lexical items and DMs. For all that they have at least three types of
properties in common :
1.
Non-productivity
2. A combination
of both unit-like and non-unit-like behaviour
3. Syntactic and
semantic irregularities
These properties are
common just in sets of related lexical (not syntactic) constructions . Each
of them will be discussed in general and then applied in particular to DMs .
1.NON-PRODUCTIVITY
A clear-cut example of
the non-productive multiword lexical construct- ructions are the English
Verb-Adjective ones . These lexical units have their steady shape , so they
can’t be altered or reformed by will .
e.g : to
hammer flat , to wipe clean , etc.
In spite that having an
analogous lexical form , constructions of this type shouldn’t be
confused with the simple combinations of verbs and adjectives such as to
hammer round ( well , strongly ,…) or to wipe immaculate
(thoroughly , softly) .
e.g :
Margaret hammered it flat .
Margaret
hammered it well .
Mary
wiped it clean .
Mary
wiped it immaculate .
The Verb-Adjective
constructions are not syntactically constructed, that,s they are
non-productive . Otherwise , any adjective should be able to follow any verb ,
that is absolutely unacceptable for non-productive-ness .
DMs are non-productive ,
too . It is clearly seen in that not all possible DMs are recognized by all
DM users . This applies both to individual differences among speakers in a
speech community and different ces among speech communities . Thus , it is
normal when many persons who rejected might would accept might
could. It means that some DMs are far more common than others .
DM speakers from
different regions may have different DMs in their repertoire , but all DM
speakers have a certain set of DMs . If DMs were not non-productive , that’s
syntactically constructed, all the people who use them would produce the same
set of them . Instead , the speakers apparently have learned or prefer just
particular DMs . In this item learning DMs is equivalent to learning
vocabulary .
2. UNIT-LIKE
AND NON-UNIT-LIKE BEHAVIOUR
A second characteristic of
multiword lexical constructions is that they can exhibit a combination of
unit-like and non-unit-like behaviour . It means that syntactic and
morphological rules sometimes treat these lexical items as one word and
sometimes as more than one .
Verb-Particle
constructions are good examples of this phenomenon:to make up , to get over
, to calm down , to switch on , etc. In spite of ot- her evidence
(especially semantic evidence) that they would be treated as lexical items ,
the well known rule of Particle Shift allows the components of
Verb-Particle constructions to be nonadjacent in surface structure :
e.g : Please ,
wake me up earlier tomorrow .
He
will certainly get all this obstacles over .
Switch
the light down !
Furthermore , at least
one adverb , right , can also interrupt the compo-
nents of some
Verb-Particle constructions :
e.g : She
came right back .
As
soon as we got the computer started , it broke right down
Morphologically ,
Verb-Particle constructions often have idiosyncra-
tic characteristics .
Although tense morphemes attach to the Verb ,
e.g : It picked
up the door .
and the nominalizing
morpheme -er can attach to both elements ;
e.g : garage
door picker upper
Other multiword
lexical items are also sometimes treated as units by the morphology : Smith
and Wessoned (shot) .
On the contrary ,
Verb-Adjective constructions never act as a unit as far as morphology is
concerned . The adjectives can take comparative clauses and the accompanying
morphology while the verbs take the appropriate verbal morphemes :
e.g : Mary
hammered it flatter than ever today .
He
wiped it cleaner than I thought .
He
shot it deader than a doornail .
DMs , in their turn
, behave similarly to most multiword lexical items : sometimes they act as
units and sometimes they do not . For example , Adverb placement can follow
the DM indicating that they are acting as a unit :
e.g : I might
could sublegally get it for you .
e.g : I might
just couldn’t see it .
If
we had known , we may still could have done it .
Another syntactic
rule that can treat DMs as separate words is the Non-Productive Auxiliary
Inversion . Questions built according to this rule may contain a DM component
where only the second modal is inverted :
e.g : Could
you might find you a seat somewhere ?
However , there are cases
when all three possible types of inversion second modal only , first modal only
, and both modals as a unit – are present :
e.g : Might
should we have invited Jim ?
In general , the type of
inversion depends to a great extent on the particular DM involved . Here are
most preferable variants of the DM question constructions :
for might could
Could + Subject + might ? (81 %)
for might
should Might should + Subject ? (55 %)
for might
oughta Might + Subject + oughta ? (58 %)
the most acceptable
inversion type for might would is :
Would + Subject + might ? (63,6 %)
Negative placement can
also either treat DMs as a unit , producing end negation ( type 1) :
e.g : I was afraid
you might couldn’t find it .
or as separate elements
producing medial negation ( type 2 ) :
e.g : The mother might
should not put a blanket over her baby .
I don’t hear too well
. I think maybe I better put it on or I might not could
understand you .
Different DMs show
differential preference for these two types of negation . The preference for
might could and might oughta is medial negation . In the responses
containing the negation of these two DMs , the overwhelming majority of users
preferred to say might not could and might not oughta ,
respectively . On the other hand , people who accepted sentences containing
negated might should or might would preferred end negation : might
should not/n’t and might would not/n’t.
In spite that end
position is clearly preferred for DM responses with the Past tense or irrealis
have , some individuals accepted medial placement . Furthermore , for a
small number of DM speakers , both negation and have can iterate within
a DM so that they can appear in both medial and end position simultaneously
:
e.g : He might
not couldn’t be at home now .
He mighta
should have gotten home by now .
Another rule involving morphology
and DMs is tense concord , as discussed above . Other indications that tense
treats DMs as units is that the verbal elements following the DM are almost
never marked for tense , nor does have ever appear in quality of such
following verbs. In other words , tense and have can iterate in this regional
variety of English , but only within the DM , becoming this way quite
complicate for a syntactic treatment of DMs .
3. SEMANTIC AND
SYNTACTIC IRREGULARITIES
The third characteristic
of multiword lexical items is that of semantic and syntactic irregularities .
Multiword lexical constructions such as idioms and compound words have quite an
unpredictable nature of their semantics , so the most available and
traditional means in their study is the lexicon . For example , throw cold
water and blackboard exhibit such semantic peculiarities ;
He is always
throwing cold water on my ideas .
I prefer the
green blackboards .
Until recently the word
blackboard had only the compound type of semantics . This type of semantics
has a trend to restrict the full range of this compound word’s meaning . That is
, a blackboard was a black-coloured board used as a chalkboard , not just any
black-coloured board . Now , however , since blackboard can also refer to a
green chalkboard , the word begins to acquire the idiom-type , so-called
noncompositional semantics.
Individual DMs have many
similar traits with multiword lexical constructions in specific restrictions
on their semantics . These restrictions , even if they show some systemacity ,
are usually referred to the lexicon .
Multiword lexical
combinations typically exhibit syntactic irregulari- Ties as well . For
example , idioms are usually not as syntactically flexible as their literal
forms :
Her father laid
the law down when she came home late .
He blew
some steam off after he got home .
DMs also have some specific
syntactic properties , some of which were already discussed . One point that
hasn’t been made is that positive declarative DMs are more acceptable to a
greater percentage of the population than negated or inverted DMs are .
CONCLUSION
In spite of being
exclusively regional phenomenon , Double Modals are significant and commonly
acknowledged realia of Modern American English . Like the other multiword
modals (such as would rather) they are taking their own function in
human communication processes.
As to multiword modals’
attribution , they serve as necessary , basic expressions for all dialects of
English . Thus , all dialects of English , both “double modal” and “single
modal” ones , have such a set of expressions , and they do not differ
qualitatively . The difference is quantitative one : Double Modal dialects have
more of these multiword modals. There is also no doubt that Double Modals
have many common properties with other multiword lexical constructions .
Furthermore , being lexical items they contribute to simplify the syntax of
the Auxiliary system of the English language .
In general , it could be
wrong to consider Double Modals as any kind of gram-mar distortion . Their
grammatical form is steady and scientifically recognized .As to their
stylistical definition , they could be rather attributed to Regional Colloquialisms
than to Slang . Also, while dealing with them special linguistic approach is
necessary and the context should be taken into account .