LINGUIST List 5.253

Fri 04 Mar 1994

Disc: Double modals

Editor for this issue: <>

Directory

1. "Dr. Barbara A. Fennell", Re: 5.241 Double modals
2. Larry Horn, Re: 5.241 Double modals
3. Natalie Maynor, Re: 5.241 Double modals

Message 1: Re: 5.241 Double modals

For a brief summary of double modal usage in Southern American
English and a discussion of its possible sources, please refer to my
miscellany article in the most recent edition of American Speech and
the works cited in it.

Full details:
Barbara A. Fennell (1993) 'Evidence for British Sources of Double
Modal Constructions in Southern American English.' AMERICAN SPEECH,
68.4. pp. 430 - 438.

Barbara Fennell
North Carolina State University

Message 2: Re: 5.241 Double modals

In response to Tom King's posting, I confess that I feel a bit uneasy hearing
"could" described as having indicative vs. subjunctive senses. For one thing,
I take this mood distinction, at least as reflected in English, to involve
subcategorization by some higher predicate (e.g. 'demand that he leave') or
other other operator taking scope over it (e.g. 'if she were to leave')--note
that these are two different notions, or realizations, of 'subjunctive'. In
any case, subjunctive is a grammatical category and does not correspond to a
constant 'sense'. I would be more comfortable with the standard terminology
of modality, in which 'could' would be described as having an epistemic sense
or use (He could be there now, for all I know), a root meaning as the past of
'can' (She could run a 4 minute mile in her younger days) that expresses
potentiality or physical possibility, and a deontic meaning (as in the
sequence of tense example She said that you could come). These understandings
(i.e. senses or uses, depending on the analysis) thus correspond respectively
to 'it is possible that...', 'it was possible for...' or 'NP was able to...',
and 'it was permitted for...'/'NP was permitted to'.
 That-all aside, my own informant work on double modal dialects in Texas
and Arkansas is consistent with Tom King's finding. Specifically, may/might
can occur ONLY as the FIRST modal in a sequence, and always with the epistemic
meaning 'maybe', 'it is possible that'. On the other hand, can/could ONLY
occurred as the LAST modal in a sequence, and always with a root or deontic
meaning involving ability or permission. The maximum number of modals in
attested sequences was three, and 'should' and 'will' were found in addition
to the others. Thus,
 He'll can come. 'He will be able to come'
 You might should come. 'Perhaps you should come'
 You might could be right.
and so on. It's nice to know these constructions have roots in the sod of the
old country.

Larry Horn

Message 3: Re: 5.241 Double modals

The President of the United States uses double modals.
 --Natalie (maynorra.msstate.edu)