ESL Linguistics Discussion Forum

Re: can i replace "can " with "could " in this condition

Anonymous — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 02:53:33 GMT

BTW, may I ask, where are you, JTT?

Re: can i replace "can " with "could " in this condition

MrPedantic — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 23:46:33 GMT

Hello Anon

No, you would have to use 'can'. 'Could' makes it sound as if you're talking about a hypothetical situation.

MrP

can i replace "can " with "could " in this condition

Anonymous — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:34:34 GMT

suppose i call up a guy who is using a windows machine and want to know if he can see the windows start icon !!!

i can use the sentence " can you see the start icon at the left corner of your screen "

i want to know if i can replace that sentence with

"could u see the start icon at the left corner of your screen "

Re: Can / Could and Will / Would

equivocal — Sat, 05 Mar 2005 13:22:41 GMT

I got lost here. If it's not a word at this stage, but only a logical concept, how can everyone's interpretation of the word (which is not a word at this stage) be the same across all languages?

Logic does not vary across languages. So the logic of the verb "kill" would be the same in all languages. If there is a word which does not exist in the language, then it is an accidental gap.

I don't think you are saying that all concepts exist in all languages, but something more like all concepts exist in all minds, or potentially could, or something similar.

Yes, that would be right.

I notice that you go directly from the concept stage to the syntactic stage. Shouldn't there be a "lexical item" stage? Don't you need more than concepts before you start combining words according to a given syntax?

As I said, the first step of the syntactic stage is to pull words out of the lexicon.

eq

Re: Can / Could and Will / Would

CalifJim — Sat, 05 Mar 2005 07:27:28 GMT

At this level, everyone's interpretations of the word is the same, across all languages. I still wouldn't really call it a word at this stage yet, but merely a logical concept.

I got lost here. If it's not a word at this stage, but only a logical concept, how can everyone's interpretation of the word (which is not a word at this stage) be the same across all languages? I have the sense that this is not nonsense, but that there should be a simpler or clearer way of saying it! I don't think you are saying that all concepts exist in all languages, but something more like all concepts exist in all minds, or potentially could, or something similar.

I notice that you go directly from the concept stage to the syntactic stage. Shouldn't there be a "lexical item" stage? Don't you need more than concepts before you start combining words according to a given syntax?

CJ

Re: Can / Could and Will / Would

CalifJim — Sat, 05 Mar 2005 07:05:14 GMT

Thanks for such complete answers, eq!

As for

I'm building a non-linear grammar model.

I'm not even going to to there! Not yet, anyway. I still have to think about the first part of your answer.

Re: Can / Could and Will / Would

equivocal — Sat, 05 Mar 2005 03:19:58 GMT

Different areas... hmm... I'm not a psycholinguist so I cannot really say, but if the Wernicke's area was damaged, you do get fluent but nonsense speech. So I would be tempted to say yes. But if forced to give an answer, then I would say that the "concept" level is a pre-linguistic one, while the logical level isn't. I haven't really thought much about it yet though, plunged straight into syntactical technicalities... how typical. :P I will spend some time thinking about it when I can.

Re: Can / Could and Will / Would

MrPedantic — Sat, 05 Mar 2005 01:49:28 GMT

Intriguing, eq.

Would you regard 'concept', 'logical level', etc as functions of different areas of the human brain?

MrP

Re: Can / Could and Will / Would

equivocal — Fri, 04 Mar 2005 22:31:12 GMT

So are you saying that in your way of looking at it, a word only and always (fundamentally) has only one meaning? -- Because it seems that this is what you are saying.

Indeed, one and only one. However, I've been using the word quite liberally, before the 'word' is retrieved from the mental lexicon it starts out as a concept., Furthermore, I believe that there is only one meaning at two levels. The first level is the lowest one and this interpretation is unique to an individual. So my interpretation of the verb 'kill' at the fundamental form is different from yours at this base level.

This information then gets passed on to the next level, which is something like a logical level. At this level, everyone's interpretations of the word is the same, across all languages. I still wouldn't really call it a word at this stage yet, but merely a logical concept. At this stage, all concepts are the same for everyone, across all languages. The concept at this stage is what I have been referring to throughout the discussion.

The next level is the syntactic one, where words are pulled out of the lexicon of a language then put together.

The next level is what I would call the embellishment level. Here all the contextual information, stylistic usage, cultural use etc occurs.

The final level is of course utterance.

For interpretation of utterances, you reverse the process.

Another question: It sounds as if you are building some kind of theory of the semantics of the modals on the purely logical (epistemic) uses, always explaining other uses in terms of the epistemic ones. Yes?

No, I'm building a non-linear grammar model.

eq

Re: Can / Could and Will / Would

paco2004 — Fri, 04 Mar 2005 11:38:18 GMT

It's neither to ask something nor to argue against anybody. It's just to summarize what I was taught in school about modals.

English modals can be sorted into three groups by their tense bearingness and senses.

stating facts (semantically tense bearing)
will be able to/can/could (physical, sensual, mental) ability/capability
(1) Can you drive a car? Yes I can.
(2) I couldn't swim when I was a boy.
will have to/must/had to obligation/necessity
will/would/used to habit

asking hearer's current mood (semantically present tense)
can/could/will/would/may/might
(1) Can you help me? (2) Could you help me?
(3) May I borrow your umbrella? (4) Might I borrow your umbrella? (more hesitant)

expressing speaker's current mood (semantically present tense)
will/would speaker's liking or tendency
might/may/could/can/should/ought to/should/would/will/must/(fact) speaker's judgment on the dgree of possibility/certainty

The modals used in combination with the if-clause subjunctive mood seem to belong mostly to the 3rd group. The time implied by the sentences using these kind of modals is expressed by the form of the following infinite verbals (bare infinitive or have + past participle). All of these modals themselves are taken semantically in present tense but 'would', 'should', 'might', and 'could' are syntactically treated as in past tense.

paco

Re: Can / Could and Will / Would

CalifJim — Fri, 04 Mar 2005 04:19:59 GMT

You have explained it here: it is your "sense" which yields these meanings. This sense does not arise from the meaning of may/might on its own as a modal

I would say this means that Mr. P.'s sense somehow 'creates' the meanings of those modals in the context of the sentences in which they occur, but that Mr.P.'s sense somehow does not 'create' the meanings of those modals 'on their own'.

But doesn't someone's "sense" yield the (fundamental) meanings of 'modals on their own'?

It seems you are separating meaning from use. (The meaning of 'may' is 'possibility operator'; the use of 'may' is -- among others -- to ask permission.) Would you agree?

CJ

Re: Can / Could and Will / Would

CalifJim — Fri, 04 Mar 2005 04:01:59 GMT

Hi, eq,

So are you saying that in your way of looking at it, a word only and always (fundamentally) has only one meaning? -- Because it seems that this is what you are saying.

And are you saying that any other meanings we come to associate with that word are sort of acquired "after the fact", as if we learned the meanings of words in order from most fundamental meaning to secondary meanings?

Another question: It sounds as if you are building some kind of theory of the semantics of the modals on the purely logical (epistemic) uses, always explaining other uses in terms of the epistemic ones. Yes?

Jim

Re: Can / Could and Will / Would

equivocal — Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:33:54 GMT

MrP, I think we are not agreeing on what we mean by context. For me context would be any information not readily available from the fundamental meaning of the utterance.

I have a sense of positive meaning in the first of these, and negative meaning in the second. Or to put it another way: #1 does indeed suggest forgetfulness, and #2 does indeed suggest reproach; and I'm not sure how this can be explained by your earlier models.

You have explained it here: it is your "sense" which yields these meanings. This sense does not arise from the meaning of may/might on its own as a modal but it arrives from may/might with respect to the entire construction of the sentence.

Maybe a better way of putting it would be that I believe that the fundamental meaning of a word is its meaning when it stands on its own and that is present in all constructions with that word. For may/might that is its status as the possibility operator. So regardless of what type of modal it plays in the utterance, it always maintains its status as a possibility operator.

eq

Re: Can / Could and Will / Would

MrPedantic — Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:16:34 GMT

Hello eq

Grammar is a set of rules which generate all possible utterances of the language and none of the illegal ones.
I would not wholly disagree with this statement; but I would suggest that the set of rules has first to be inferred; and it can only be inferred from context â e.g. if the verbal prefix Â²QÂ¹ always accompanies a reference to past time, and occurs in no other context, we may tentatively pencil in the possibility that Â²QÂ¹ relates to a past tense of some kind.

Which is to say, I don't believe we can discount the possibility that the meaning of a word is the way in which it is used.

On the question of may/might, I'm still not quite sure how your analysis would distinguish between

1. 'I may have gone sailing last week'

and

2. 'I might have gone sailing last week'.

I have a sense of positive meaning in the first of these, and negative meaning in the second. Or to put it another way: #1 does indeed suggest forgetfulness, and #2 does indeed suggest reproach; and I'm not sure how this can be explained by your earlier models.

MrP

Re: Can / Could and Will / Would

equivocal — Thu, 03 Mar 2005 22:13:41 GMT

Dear MrP,

But isn't grammar that which we extract from all the contexts in which something is used?

No, grammar is a set of rules which generate all possible utterances of the language and none of the illegal ones. In my opinion that is, I'm a generativist. I will even go further to distinguish a fundamental grammar from an embellished one. Read my reply to CJ for a little more information on my "fundamental grammar".

That for instance is how we write the grammar of a previously unknown language.

I assume you mean the stuff which we extract from all contexts? Not quite actually. If you want to study an unknown language, let's call it Zeezee and if you have no language in common with the speakers of Zeezee you would want to spend time doing several things:

1) Collect a list of basic nouns
2) Collect a list of basic verbs
3) Collect the sounds of the language
4) Look at the word order of simple sentences with respect to 1 & 2

Only when you have done this, having defined say that a sentence in Zeezee works by stringing the Verb, Subject and Object (which is extremely rare by the way) in that order, can we begin to look at other things.

eq