We have partnered with TradePub to bring you free industry magazines and resources - no coupons or credit cards required!
Visit: englishforums.tradepub.com
Anonymous,
3 yr 75 days ago
Sorry Milky, for my butting in. I followed your discussion, and I wanted to hear your opinion about the following comments:  CalifJim wrote: |
In any case, I thought the difference was supposed to lie along the
speaker-oriented vs. subject-oriented axis, not the epistemic vs.
deontic axis, so I still don't see what difference it makes whether you
call the first one epistemic or deontic, or even 'neutral', another of
Palmer's classifications. (emphasis is mine) |
|
| MrPedantic wrote: |
In the epistemic structures, the utterance relates to inferring states of affairs.
("Since X is the case, Y is the case.")
In the deontic structures, the utterance relates to influencing the course of events.
("Since X is the case, Y is necessary.")
(emphasis is mine, again)
|
|
F.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MrPedantic
+
266263
Wed, 13 Sep 06 08:12 AM
| Milky wrote: | <But in any case, "I feel I must say" is epistemic not because of "must", but because of "I feel". The speaker has simply qualified a deontic utterance with an epistemic preamble. Cf.>
I disagree.
I feel he may come to see us this weekend.
Is the "may" there deontic?
|
|
We are talking about this structure: 1. I must say, that's a very nice hat you're wearing. I'm not aware of any evidence that "I must say" in this sense (which can be paraphrased as deontic "I can't help saying") is an ellipsis for "I feel I must say". If you do prefix "I feel", you add an epistemic element (underlined) to a deontic core (emboldened): 2. I feel I must say, that's... Naturally, you can do the same to an epistemic phrase, in which case you simply accentuate the epistemic element: 3. He may come this weekend. [Epistemic: it's possible that he will come.] => "I feel he may come this weekend". Of course, feeling + permission is awkward here: 4. He may come this weekend. [Deontic; he has my permission to come] => ?"I feel he may come this weekend". But feeling + obligation is fine; it's a way of softening the utterance: 5. I feel you ought not to do that. Epistemic underlined; deontic emboldened. I realize we're in Necker cube territory again, though. If you don't see the deontic nature of the second clause in #5, you don't see it. MrP
Joined on
Tue, Oct 12 2004
Veteran Member
12,592
...opella forensis / adducit febris...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
milky
+
266266
Wed, 13 Sep 06 08:25 AM
| Anonymous wrote: | Sorry Milky, for my butting in. I followed your discussion, and I wanted to hear your opinion about the following comments:
| CalifJim wrote: |
In any case, I thought the difference was supposed to lie along the speaker-oriented vs. subject-oriented axis, not the epistemic vs. deontic axis, so I still don't see what difference it makes whether you call the first one epistemic or deontic, or even 'neutral', another of Palmer's classifications. (emphasis is mine) |
|
I feel that terms such as speaker-oriented are not as well defined as terms such as "deontic" and "epistemic". Have a look at these definitions:
speaker-oriented modality: epistemic modality, which applies to a whole proposition and communicates the speaker's stance concerning its truth. Opposed to agent-oriented modality and subject-oriented modality. Palmer (1990: 7) says ‘epistemic and deontic modality relate to the speaker’ (i.e. they are concerned with the speakers - or reported speakers - and their judgments and desires).
However, in an earlier work (1974: 100-3) he talks of ‘discourse-oriented modality’ (deontic modality in questions and requests, which involve both interlocutors) and ‘speaker-oriented modality’ (deontic statements, where the speaker is the deontic souce).
Bybee (1995) seems to use speaker-oriented modality in a different way to refer to speech acts that aim at getting something done: imperatives, optatives, permissives.
........
subject-oriented modality: ‘ascribes a certain property to the subject of a clause’; one of the three types of modality for Huddleston (1988: 78-9). SEE: type of modality. Palmer defines dynamic modality at subject oriented (1990: 36, since it refers to the ability of will of the subject, rather than the opinions (epistemic) or attitudes (deontic) of the speaker (and addressee)). later, however, he divides dynamic modality into subject-orientated (I can swim) and neutral (='it is possible/necessary for…')
.........
agent-oriented modality: a supercategory proposed by Bybee (1985) and used by used by Bybee & Fleischman (1995: 5) applying to all modalities in which conditions are predicated on an agent (obligation, desire, ability, permission and root possibility). It is opposed to speaker-oriented modality (speech acts that aim at getting something done: imperatives, optatives, permissives) and to epistemic modality which applies to a whole proposition and communicates the speaker's stance concerning its truth. It seems to boil down to the same thing as 'root modality' (i.e. a combination of deontic and dynamic modalities).
...........
subjective vs. objective epistemic modality: ‘Alfred may be unmarried’ (= (subjectively) ‘perhaps Alfred...’, or = (objectively) ‘I know that there is a possibility that Alfred...’) (Lyons 1977: 797-8). S.m. refers to the speaker’s beliefs, o.m. refers to reality (and can be denied, questioned, can be included in if-clauses and embedded under factive predicates: I know that...). Subjective epistemic modality ‘seems to be in many ways more basic in natural language than objective epistemic modality’ (Keifer 2518b) and Coates confirms that 'in the majority of cases Epistemic modals are subjective and Root modals are objective' (1983: 33).
http://dinamico.unibg.it/anglistica/slin/modgloss.htm
| MrPedantic wrote: |
In the epistemic structures, the utterance relates to inferring states of affairs.
("Since X is the case, Y is the case.")
In the deontic structures, the utterance relates to influencing the course of events.
("Since X is the case, Y is necessary.")
(emphasis is mine, again)
|
|
F.
|
|
Can I get back to you later on that as I am on the phone to students all of this morning?
Joined on
Thu, Jan 15 2004
Senior Member
3,149
Hume said that if we had perfect or complete descriptive knowledge of reality, we could not, by reasoning, derive a single valid "ought".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CalifJim
+
266279
Wed, 13 Sep 06 09:21 AM
The format of the previous post makes it impossible to know who wrote what.
I don't know whether the extra remarks are Anon's or Milky's.
It is impossible to follow this kind of posting, which is intolerable in a thread that is already difficult to follow.
For the sake of keeping it clear who said what, I would appreciate it
if you, whichever you are, did not include your own remarks within a box
that quotes someone else.
Thank you for your cooperation.
CJ
Joined on
Mon, Aug 2 2004
California
Veteran Member
22,465
"There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
milky
+
266280
Wed, 13 Sep 06 09:26 AM
OK, Ill change it.
Too late, I can't. If you carefully read that post and the one it replies to, you'll probably understand it better.
|
|
|
|
|
milky,
3 yr 75 days ago
How idiomatic does "It is my firm belief that I must give up smoking" sound to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
MrPedantic
+
266599
Wed, 13 Sep 06 10:19 PM
| Milky wrote: | |
But you must give up smoking at least five times a year.
|
|
Yes, I would call that epistemic too. So perhaps we can say:
1. I must give up smoking! ] Deontic.
2. I must give up smoking, oh, at least five times a year. ] Epistemic.
(I have a curious sense that, in some way, the "must" in #1 relates to "give up", whereas in #2 it relates to "I"; but it's probably an imaginary distinction.)
MrP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MrPedantic
+
266601
Wed, 13 Sep 06 10:27 PM
For interest, I came across this example of epistemic "must" in the negative with a perfect infinitive today:
‘Rarity by itself shouldn’t necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been (randomly) dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable.’
MrP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MrPedantic
+
266605
Wed, 13 Sep 06 10:39 PM
To continue with "must"/"have to"...
| Milky wrote: | |
I stand with this:
Deontic use:
"Must" subjective.
"Have to", objective.
|
|
| Milky wrote: | |
In which case (just to clarify), in your view, no BrE speaker could use the following sentences in a subjective sense:
| MrPedantic wrote: | |
4. I have to give up smoking.
5. You have to give up smoking.
6. He has to give up smoking.
|
|
Would that be your position?
MrP
|
|
|
|
|
|