Search results for 'tag:Nouns tag:Modals' matching tags 'Nouns' and 'Modals'

Re: Lack of emphasis on NPs in ESL

Kooyeen — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:38:55 GMT

I obviously agree with Forbes: it depends on your first language. I have never had any problems with passive sentences, subjects and objects, the difference between countable and uncountable, etc. because those are all features I have in Italian too. It is not difficult at all for me to use conditional structures (= modal verbs) in polite requests, like in "Could you lend me 1,000 dollars?", because very similar structures are used the same way in Italian too. On the other hand, I know some Asian languages don't even have past or future tenses, so it's easy to imagine how much more difficult it must be for them to learn English.

So instead of focusing on noun phrases, shouldn't we rather focus on the real difficulties, which happen to vary from learner to learner according to their native language and past experience with languages in general?

Anonymous

How about this student?

<<I assume many of you have watched the cartoon "Totally spies", right?
I just wonder why it is "Totally" here. "totally" is always an adverb, so what do they imply when using "totally" here? How can it go with the noun "spies"?>>>

Heh, good question! I don't know! Could somebody tell me more about that, as a side note here without going completely off topic? Otherwise I will open another thread. I would say "Total spies", but if I suspect that "totally" in "Totally spies" is used informally in some dialects to mean "definitely", like in, like " Are you, like, coming to my awesome party tonight? - Oh, yeah, totally!"
If that is the case, then I don't think that "totally" has anything to do with proving learners have trouble with noun phrases. It would suggest learners have trouble with informal English, and if you ask me, that's true.

Re: A few English Grammar Questions !! Need help..

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:59:31 GMT

1. Â Â Â Â A group IS ... Â (Not important who is in the group). A group is a singular, countable noun.

3.Â Â Â Â Both wrong. Â Â Â Â She went home half an hour ago. Given, finished time requires simple past UNLESS it relates to another action in the past. e.g. She had gone home before the others arrived.

4.Â Â Â Â She has sold... Â Indefinite (no time) past. Done, but we don't know (or care) when.

5Â Â Â Â Ditto

6. Â Â Â Â Have you ever ...? Â Indefinite past. We don't know when.

7. Â Â Â Â Mmmm, this one is elementary ! Â Do you .... Â ALWAYS requires the infinitive form. e.g. Do you live..., Do you like..., Do you do... Do you have...?Â

I could write a whole grammar book on how to differentiate the 6 modal verbs and their MANY uses. I suggest you buy one.Â Â Â Â Good luck :)

Re: the middle voice option

Dawnstorm — Tue, 27 May 2008 08:09:34 GMT

Hi,

I'm really enjoying this. You're making me think.

I'm going to take your points out of sequence. I think I'm still replying to your post; if I misrepresent what you're saying, please correct me.

First, the summary of what I'm going to say: A lot depends on theory, and how you frame your terms. To me, ergativity in English is primarily a side topic to voice, and the only "marked" voice in English is the passive. All others rely on semantics and indirect evidence (such as your very detailled and useful post about the transitivity system in English). BUT: how do you frame the evidence there is systematically? In syntax? Make it part of the lexicon? In other words, what exactly is it that the term "ergative" adds to a combination of transitivity and lexical tagging? I'm still thinking about your suggestion to speak of "ergative structures" rather than "ergative verbs". This is an interesting approach, de-emphasising the lexicon in that respect; but I'm trying to ignore it for this post, mostly because I'm not done thinking it through.

Second, I think I've used the term "semantic" very loosely in my other post. There's reference, and then there's cognitive framing. (Or content and point of view.) The cognitive framing is harder to get at and interpret, mostly because these things aren't always immediately visible. We're talking about "ergative structures" in English, or the "middle voice", because we've noticed these constructions in other languages (Basque for ergativity; Ancient Greek for Middle voice; etc.). That is we have to strip away the structure and get down to the point-of-view meaning that the structures imply. And then we have to go back to English and look for expressions of said point-of-view meaning in this language. (Something similar is going on when linguists are probing "shall/will" along the lines of futurity/modality, within the discussion whether English has a future tense or not. The consensus is it doesn't, but the discussion - assuming "will/shall" as tense-modals - has been productive, if not conclusive.) But the thing is this: if you're bringing concepts to a language from outside (which is usual in comparative linguistics) you need an anchor; conventional structural methods - such as your "what syntactic operations yield well-formed usage?" approach - have their limitations. So do semantic (referential or framing). This makes ergativity/unaccusativity hard to think about, before you choose your approach.

Examples follow:

This is about the sentence, "He died a cruel death."

MrPedantic
The object here is a cognate object (it is implied in the verb itself) and thus belongs to a slightly different model. (I would say that it only exists to provide an adverbial opportunity: "he died a cruel death" = "he died in a cruel way".)

I agree that, framing-wise, the object functions much like an adverbial. But it's an "object" in syntax, which has implications that are incompatible with adverbials. Most relevant, here, "die" is now prone to passivisation.

"A cruel death was died," does sound odd (I'll get to it in a minute), but I wouldn't bat an eyelid at "Many deaths were died that night." Interestingly, it's hard to put this into the active voice, mostly because no subject seems appropriate. (?"The Soldiers died many deaths that night."; ?"The army died many deaths that night."...). To me, all the examples I can think of (plural nouns, collective nouns...) don't express the passive meaning. The closest I come is "Many people died that night." Anything else I can think of is of questionable grammaticality.

However, "A cruel death was died," although it sounds odd, doesn't sound ungrammatical in the least (at least not to me). It's also not a semantic problem; I understand the sentence perfectly well, both reference- and framingwise.

The reason, I think, this sounds odd is a pragmatic one. I think this one sounds odd because it's hard to find a context for this utterance that justifies the passive, which is a "marked construction". You generally expect "marked" constructions to be there for a reason. I suspect in the right context the above sentence would be perfectly fine. (It's a matter of Grice's conversational maxims, the maxim of manner, in particular.)

This is where the "frame-semantics" of syntactic constructions become complicated, I think. How do language structures tie in with cognitive structures (e.g. To what extent do we buy the Sapir-Worf hypothesis?)

So, from this I go to self-observation:

MrPedantic
and precisely because of that distinction, I would call "break" here ergative (ex. 5) , and "die" unaccusative (ex. 2).

See, I had the hardest time even to grasp what that meant, not now in this thread, but when I first discovered the distinction. That's because, learning English, I didn't train to see the difference. It wasn't necessary, as ergativity/unaccusativity isn't expressed through syntactic structures, but only indirectly through what operations are possible on the verb; this I pretty much took care off either through lexical list-tagging, or through collocation. If there is a hidden logic to it that I applied in learning, it never became conscious. (It's quite possible that I had a practical knowledge, but no discoursive one of this subject; but why, then, is it so hard to grasp?)

If we go back to the list and sift through the operations there, we'll find that "die" behaves different from "break" in the way we specified. But here's the catch: to apply that structural method, we have to assume that "break" in 5.a = "break" in 5.b = "break" in 5.c etc.; i.e. that "break" is the same lexical item in all these instances. That's because syntax has a hard time to differentiate between "signifier" and "signified", or "sign" and "concept".

Notice, for example, how your 5.a is already the transitive, while systematically it should be the intransitive agentive: 5.a *He broke. (i.e. "He caused/performed the action of breaking." as opposed to "He underwent the process of breaking," which is 5.b, now, and would be 5.c)

So I'd amend this, to:

5a. *He broke.

5b. He broke the plate

5c. The plate broke.

5d. The plate was broken.

5e. The broken plate

5f. The plate broke easily

And the comparison with "die" would be two-fold:

1. = sign; 2. = concept

5.1a He died.

5.2a He killed.

5.1b *He died the man.

5.2b He killed the man

5.1c The man died.

5.2c *The man killed.

5.1d *The man was died.

5.2d The man was killed.

5.1e *The died man [cf. The dead man.]

5.2e The killed man.

5.1f The man died easily. (<-- What's the difference to 5.1a? Should I add an * before it, as this is out of place, here?)

5.2f *The man killed easily. (<-- Is this not available, because 5.1f is available?)

5.1a, 5.1c, and 5.1f seem to be much the same. And this is the problem I have systematising a structural comparison. One possibility, I see is to re-cast 5a as reflexive 1. *He died himself./2. He killed himself. I might try to justify this through dying being a process you undergo, thus if you add an agentive/causative to core meaning (which is not in slot a, but in slot c) the verb becomes by necessity reflexive ("He caused himself to die.")

But these things are all a bit... tentative. I fear it's more rationalised than rational, if you get my drift.

[Interesting aside: you used the term "anticausative" alongside "ergative" and "unaccusative" for break in your thread. Bears repeating, as it's something I'm also still thinking about; a very interesting concept I haven't come across yet.]

MrPedantic
But I find a semantic difference too: the first presents the sign from the point of view of the reader, and the second, from the point of view of the writer.

Now, that's an interesting observation. I'd argue that the semantic difference is not referential (it refers to the same state of affairs), but it's a framing difference. If we view the sign as a proxy for the agent, we're importing the difference of active vs. voice into a construction that's free of the syntactic properties that normally accompany this framing device in English. "Reads," then, is ergative, while "says is a straightforward accusative verb (one that takes the accusative (which isn't marked in English - except, perhaps, for pronouns, where it's indistinguishable - morphologically - from the dative; the conventional term would be "direct object").

MrPedantic
Also, although the same few verbs tend to recur as examples in these discussions, actual usage is more imaginative.

That's what makes language so fascinating, isn't it? Nice example, there, too.

Re: Analysis sentence

Clive — Wed, 07 May 2008 12:10:28 GMT

Hi,

Sentence A . It takes all sorts ( to make a world ) ( saying ) used to say that you think somebody's behaviour is very strange or unusual but that everyone is different and likes different things. ( Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary [ 7 th edition ] ).

it takes all sorts ( to make a world ) ( saying ) - subject / main clause

used to - modal verb

say - verb

used to say - I'd call it 'a verbal phrase'.

that you think somebody' behaviour is very strange or unusual - subordinate clause / noun clause

but - a conjunction, joining subordinate clauses.

that everyone is different and likes different things. - subordinate clause / noun clause

Hello Grammar Teacher/Teachers,

1. I have attempted partly, could you help me to break down Sentence A into clauses, phrases and so on ?

2. What is the part of speech of the underlined word ,' but '?

Could you define the underlined word,' but ' as well ? nevertheless, on the other hand.

Best wishes, Clive

Analysis sentence

bhikkhu1991 — Wed, 07 May 2008 08:36:16 GMT

it takes all sorts ( to make a world ) ( saying ) - subject / main clause

used to - modal verb

say - verb

used to say - ?

that you think somebody' behaviour is very strange or unusual - subordinate clause / noun clause

but - ?

that everyone is different and likes different things. - subordinate clause / noun clause

Hello Grammar Teacher/Teachers,

1. I have attempted partly, could you help me to break down Sentence A into clauses, phrases and so on ?

2. What is the part of speech of the underlined word ,' but '?

Could you define the underlined word,' but ' as well ?

Thank you.

With best wishes.

Verbs

ganesh77 — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:38:41 GMT

The list isn't meant to be exhaustive or carefully arranged. Any additions, corrections or further examples would be welcomed.

1 main verbs; lexical verbs (all verbs which are not auxiliaries or modals)

2 action verbs; event verbs; dynamic verbs (a verb which can be used in continuous tenses) i.e. eat, run, talk

3 state of being verbs; existence verbs; state verbs; stative verbs; static verbs (a verb which describes a state and is not usually used in a continuous tense) i.e. be, own, know

4 regular verbs (a verb that has four forms and follows the normal rules)

5 irregular verbs; strong verbs (a verb not following the normal rules for inflection)

6 auxiliary and modal verbs (which make up verbal phrases) â 23 in total

7 linking verbs; copulative verbs; copulas (a verb which links the subject and complement of a clause) i.e. It is warm today.

8 transitive verbs (a verb used to talk about an action or event that involves more than one person or thing, and so is followed by an object) i.e. Sheâs wasting her money.

9 intransitive verbs (a verb used to talk about an action or event that only involved the subject and so has no object) i.e. She arrived.

10 multiword verbs

a type 1 â intransitive [phrasal verbs; adverb particle

b type 2 â transitive (inseparable) [prepositional verbs; preposition particles]

c type 3 â transitive (separable) [phrasal verbs; adverb particle]

d type 4 â transitive (with two inseparable particles) [phrasal-prepositional verbs; first particle is an adverb, second particle is a preposition]

11 compound verbs

12 delexical verbs (a verb which has very little meaning in itself but is used with an object to describe an action) i.e. She gave a small cry.

13 ditransitive verbs (a verb which can have both a direct and indirect object) i.e. She gave me a kiss.

14 ergative verbs (a verb which can be used transitively to focus on the performer of the action, or intransitively to focus on the thing affected by the action) i.e. He boiled the water. The water boiled.

15 reporting verbs; performance verbs; performative verbs (a verb used with a quote or a reported clause to describe what people say or think) i.e. suggest, say, wonder

16 reciprocal verbs (a verb which describes an action involving two people doing the same thing to each other) i.e. They met in the street.

17 reflexive verbs (a verb which is typically used with a reflexive pronoun) i.e. Donât cut yourself with that knife.

18 defective verbs (a verb without all the inflected forms of a regular verb) i.e. modals

19 finite and non-finite

a infinitives

b gerunds; verbal nouns

c participles

20 catenative verbs (a verb that takes other verb forms as objects; found at the head of a series of linked constructions) i.e. We agreed to try to decide to stop eating snacks.

21 causative verbs (a verb that designates the action necessary to cause another action to happen) i.e. The devil made me do it.

Re: 'than' in a comparative sentence

CalifJim — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 00:29:10 GMT

You can use the full form, the 'pro' form, or just the pronoun. In the last case, note that isolated subject pronouns after than are often expressed as object pronouns in informal situations. The 'pro' form is the echo of the operator (modal or auxiliary) -- do if the first clause has no other operator.

Joe can play chess better than [I can play chess / I can / I / me].

Ed will reach the train station sooner than [we will reach the train station / we will reach it / we will / we / us].

Karen saw the sign more clearly than [he saw the sign / he saw it / he did / he / him].

Re: the purpose of would have+p.p.

Clive — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:52:23 GMT

Hi,

Here are a few comments for you to consider. If you have any more questions, please post again.

Next time, please try to use a smaller-sized font )

Clive.

I suppose the writer would have been about 30 when he published his first book. The modal/PP shows doubt. The statement about age may or may not be correct.

That would have been Della's car. (How is that different with "That would be Della's car." ? <<< This would not be used for a past situation.) Again, this shows lack of certainty. The speaker is trying to make a logical deduction.

Within 10 weeks of the introduction, 34 million people would have been reached by our television commercials. This sounds like the speaker thinks the introduction probably did not happen, and thus the 34 million were not reached. This senetnce is a little trickier, in that it could also refer to a future introduction that the speaker knows will not happen.

I would have liked a life in politics. Because of the pronoun 'I', the speaker is not showing lack of certainty. He is speaking of a hypothetical situation in the past, which he knows did not happen. You might say he is speaking of 'an alterbative form of the past'.

I would never have done what they did. Again, a situation in the past which the speaker knows did not 'happen'.

She would have arrived by now. Again, shows lack of certainty. If the speaker were certain, he'd simply say 'She has arrived by now'.

Re: How to say using modal verb?

Clive — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:13:39 GMT

Hi,

Happy New Year to you, too.

"How can I continue work any longer?" Let me add that 'work' here is a noun. It's like saying "How can I continue my class any longer?"

"How can I continue to work any longer?" Here, 'work' is an infinitive verb form.

Really, one could also argue that the word 'continue' makes 'any longer' rather redundant.

Again, Happy New Year, Clive

Re: ''Should I not respect you?'' and ''Shouldn't I respect you?''

Bokeh — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:05:47 GMT

Jackson6612 wrote:
In grammar, a clause that is in the interrogative has its subject following do, be, have, or a modal verb.

The pronoun goes in the first possible position after do, be, have, or a modal verb. In a case where that verb is part of a contraction the first possible position is obviously after the whole contraction.