Search results for 'tag:Modals tag:American English' matching tags 'Modals' and 'American English'

Re: may, might and could - what's the difference

CalifJim — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 22:41:45 GMT

I am trying to formulate guidelines for learners of English as a foreign language with regards the use of may/might/could to express possibility. It seems to me that you can use these three modals (almost) interchangeably when expressing possibility.

For example, 'Where's Mary?' 'I'm not sure. She may/might/could be in her room.' or 'It may/might/could rain later on.'.

Are there any differences in use between these three modals? If so, what are they?

I assume your question is restricted to the "unconstrained modals of logic", and that you are not asking about the use of may for permission or could for ability, for example. There are a few differences, particularly with respect to could, which is, in my opinion, only an "honorary" member of the group.

1. could does not operate under negation in the same way as may and might. Whereas may not and might not express the possibility of the negated proposition, could not expresses impossibility unless some unusual stress pattern is provided by the speaker, maybe even with a slight pause after could.

She may be there. She might be there. She could be there.
She may not be there. She might not be there. *She could not be there. (in the intended reading) (Actually, even may not is a little suspect, as the 'permission' meaning of may might come through in that example.)

2. could almost requires a following be (in the intended reading).

The puppy is thin; he [might / may / could] be [hungry / lost / a stray].
That music sounds like a symphony; it [might / may / could] be by Mozart.
Susan says that the answer is 67, and she [might / may / could] be right.

Otherwise the unintended 'ability' reading or some other anomalous interpretation is too likely:

The drain is blocked; we [might / may / ?could] have to call a plumber.
Liz looks tired; she [might / may / ?could] want to take a nap.
The current rules are too confusing, so the committee [might / may / ?could] develop new rules.

There seems to be no problem if the verb is meteorological, however, because the 'ability' reading is blocked. The weather is not physically able to do things as an agent:

It [might / may / could] rain this afternoon.

The same reasoning applies with other non-agentive situations:

The cake is too big, but the cookies [might / may / could] fit in this box.

3. Unlike might and may, could does not occur with as well. This was mentioned in another post above. (It's debatable whether this is even a case of the "unconstrained modals of logic", but I'll mention it here anyway.)

This party is really dull; we [might / may / *could] as well leave.

4. In American English, the difference between may and might is one of register. may occurs in official announcements and scientific papers, for example, and might occurs more often in ordinary conversation. (Percentages of probability have nothing to do with it!)

Employees may find this information helpful in choosing a health care plan.
For hydrocarbon molecules of this type, electrophoresis may give better results.
We might take a trip to Disneyland this summer.

could would probably not be used in any of the three examples immediately above (in the intended reading).

5. may is not often used in backshifts, but both might and could are.

I [might / may / could] be ready by 10.
I thought (that) I [might / *may / could] be ready by 10.

Re: Conditionals and modals in reported speech

Kooyeen — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 16:52:37 GMT

Thank you MrPedantic.
Maybe you've seen I also posted my last post in a new thread. CalifJim replied, and everything seemed ok to him. Maybe there are some differences and preferences between British and American English? For example, this sentence (it's the one about vegetables, only modified a little):

You should stay in bed and rest until you get well. ------------> After two months, I got well a long while ago then: My doctor said I should have stayed in bed and rested until I got well. And so I did.
Isn't that sentence ok?

Then you said that a sentence like "If my grandfather had caught that disease, he could have died" means he didn't catch the disease and didn't die of it. So, is this wrong?
It was practically impossible, but they told my grandfather that if he had caught that disease, he could have died. Nobody would have expected that terrible disease would be widespread two years later. And my grandpa caught it, and suffered for a couple of months before dying.

Thanks.

Re: does choose express obligation?

Inchoateknowledge — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:12:56 GMT

CalifJim wrote:
Why must expresses epistemic modality -- it must be the mailman, and must not carries only deontic modality
Not to spoil the argument you're making here, but to clarify a tangential matter: This is not true for American English, which allows the following:

-- Janette is not eating the peas.
-- Hmmm. She must not like them. (epistemic must not)

CJ

Hi CJ

Indeed, must not is used to mean something is higly unlikely but still possible

It must not be the postman.

But I am sure you knew what I meant.

Sometimes with modals the negation changes modality.

Re: Teacher David????

milky — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 00:17:51 GMT

CalifJim wrote:
". It is as if there is a whole body of "cross-cultural English" that I don't know about. Yes, I know about elevator and lift, truck and lorry, but I think you're talking about something bigger -- but what? Can you give more examples?

CJ

You may need to start a new thread up if you want to continue this. If you do so, let's focus not only on lexis, as you did above, but also on pragmatic use of English, which is really what this thread is about.

Anyway, here's one study you could look at if you have the cash:

Compared the use of selected epistemic modals in the English speech of Chicano barrio residents and Anglo visitors to the community. Transcribed conversations served as the database. Discusses the epistemic modal functions used the most disparately between groups. Differences are shown to relate to cross-culturally different uses of epistemic modality for politeness. (Author/VWL)

Title:	Cross-Cultural Differences in Polite Epistemic Modal Use in American English.
Authors:	Youmans, Madeleine

---------

Just found a freebie:

http://www.channelviewpublications.net/jmmd/022/0057/jmmd0220057.pdf

Re: Modal verbs

milky — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 01:56:23 GMT

CalifJim wrote:
The consequence of all this seems to be the following:

Mrs. Mary Pierce, Robert and Elizabeth's mother:
-- Robert, you must stay home tonight and study your Latin lessons. (Mary is the speaker; Mary imposes. Robert has the obligation. - Speaker-oriented.)

Yes.

Elizabeth, Robert's sister:
-- Robert can't go out tonight! He has to study his Latin lessons. (Mary imposes. Elizabeth reports. Robert is the subject. Again Robert has the obligation. - Subject-oriented.)

Yes.

All this to the point where (in BrE, at least) Mary's saying ... you have to stay home tonight ... or Elizabeth's saying He must study his Latin lessons would be incorrect.

Mary's use of "have to" would be "correct" if she were reporting another person's or body's imposition. Elizabeth's would be correct if she were stating her own opinion or encouraging Robert to study.

Hmm. That's definitely not American English. (We'd most likely say have to in both cases.)

CJ

Re: Modal verbs

CalifJim — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 01:44:08 GMT

The consequence of all this seems to be the following:

Mrs. Mary Pierce, Robert and Elizabeth's mother:
-- Robert, you must stay home tonight and study your Latin lessons. (Mary is the speaker; Mary imposes. Robert has the obligation. - Speaker-oriented.)

Elizabeth, Robert's sister:
-- Robert can't go out tonight! He has to study his Latin lessons. (Mary imposes. Elizabeth reports. Robert is the subject. Again Robert has the obligation. - Subject-oriented.)

All this to the point where (in BrE, at least) Mary's saying ... you have to stay home tonight ... or Elizabeth's saying He must study his Latin lessons would be incorrect.

Hmm. That's definitely not American English. (We'd most likely say have to in both cases.)

CJ

Re: Modal verbs

CalifJim — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 05:49:58 GMT

I've been told that must/have to are used interchangeably. However, my English text books say that the difference is some context considerable. What is your view on this?

I don't know of any context in which the difference might be described as considerable. Perhaps you should post some examples.

My view on modals in American English is shown in Post:67841.

The basic uses are as follows:

1. must is used to indicate an inevitable logical conclusion.

The lights are on. He must be at home.
I can't find my pen. I must have lost it on the way here.

2. have to is used to show an obligation.

I have to take a final exam next Tuesday.
Mary had to go to the bank, but she'll be back in a few minutes.

If you use only the two described above in ordinary conversation, you will match American usage nearly 100% of the time.
______

3. That said, on occasion, but not often, have to replaces must in the meaning described above (1.). It gives the impression of being more casual in tone, while in some cases simultaneously insisting somewhat more strongly on correctness of the conclusion. (Using must in the examples below is not wrong.)

Her ex-husband was going to the same party. That has to be why she turned down our invitation.
This has to be the answer. All the other choices are wrong.

4. Also, on occasion, but more frequently than the substitution just described (3.), must substitutes for have to described above (2.). It gives the impression of belonging to more official language - and/or of being more formal in tone. Consequently, it is used more often in rules and instructions than in ordinary conversation. (Using have to in the examples below is not wrong, but sounds less official.)

All employees must wash their hands before returning to the kitchen.
The application must be filled out and signed before September 1.

(As for analyzing what thought you wish to express in terms of subjectivity and objectivity, note that there is little agreement on what to call subjective and what to call objective. Consequently, in my opinion, the net result of such analysis while in the act of trying to speak in a real conversation will almost certainly leave you tongue-tied, no matter how interesting the topic may be as arm-chair philosophy.)

CJ

Re: modals :)

CalifJim — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:46:19 GMT

In American English we would say We will not have had ... or We won't have had ... (instead of shall).
Other than that, both sentences seem quite normal to me as they stand, no matter how haughty the first may seem or how wordy the second may seem. In the case of the second, I thought he would have jumped ... is a good alternative and less of a mouthful!

CJ

Re: 3 sentences which i have a grammatical question about...

paco2004 — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 03:12:20 GMT

Hello JKB

The first question is a controversial issue. It may be better for you yourself to read an article about it in The Columbia Guide to Standard American English

Usually "often" comes at the middle position [before a main verb, after "is"/"have"/"modals". You can put it at the tail of sentences when you want to emphasize the meaning. But in such cases, it is common to modify "often" with "quite" or "very".

"Pursue someone beyond something" is correct as it is. "Pursue someone to beyond something" is wrong.

paco

Re: "has to" as a helping verb?

milky — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:26:28 GMT

CalifJim wrote:
it seems that a few American English speakers do not distinguish between those uses

Actually, the subjective/objective distinction is of extremely little importance to American speakers. Typically "must" is used as an epistemic modal almost exclusively in ordinary conversation, and "have to" as a deontic modal. That is, "must" is used to show logical necessity; "have to" is used to show situational requirements (objective, possibly?) or social obligation (subjective, possibly?). The two are interchanged at times but these interchanges are the variants, not the usual usage.

CJ

How confusing. The conflation of two modals. Why don't you just get rid of one of them?