LINGUIST List 5.287

Sun 13 Mar 1994

Disc: Double modals

Editor for this issue: <>

Directory

1. , double modals again
2. , Re: 5.278 Varia: Double modals, Mainstream linguistics

Larry Horn is quite right in pointing out that 'subjunctive' is rather
a grammatical category of mood than a proper description of one of the
possible uses of _could_. In my posting I used the indicative/subjunctive
distinction in a looser fashion. The word _could_ is indeed used in several
different senses in English: 1) as the past tense of _can_ (I could sing
better when I was younger); 2) in contrary-to-fact constructions (I could
sing better if I were younger); 3) in an epistemic sense (What you say
could be true); 4) in indirect quotations following a past tense verb
(He said he could do that); 5) in indirect speech acts (Could I help
you? Could you come earlier?); 6) in a 'potential' sense (I could say
that better, Clinton could turn out to be a better president than
Bush [no political statement here, just an example!]). This is
by no means intended to be an exhaustive list, as there are surely
more possible senses of _could_, and one 'could' imagine a different
classification. Larry Horn mentioned senses 1), 3), and 4) in his
posting. What is important here is that _might could_ cannot be used
as a replacement for _could_ in all the senses mentioned. According to
my native speaker intuition (I grew up in Dallas, Texas, and my
father came from Arkansas), the double modal is not possible in sense
1) or sense 5), but it may occur in the other senses. In sense 4) it
can only be used to indirectly quote "I could do that" or "I might
could do that", not "I can do that". The senses in which _might could_
is possible all involve 'nonfactivity' in one form or another, and
this is what I was referring to in my original posting when I used
the term 'subjunctive'. This consistent distribution also belies
the prejudice sometimes expressed that double modals are "substandard"
varieties of (single) modal expressions.

In my own idiolect, _might could_, _might should_, and _might ought to_
are all possible. I'm not too sure about _may can_ and _might can_,
although I would certainly accept them as possible within my regional
dialect. I find forms such as _I'll can_ foreign to my dialect, although
I can imagine that they occur in other regional varieties. These
examples would support the interpretation that _can_ and _could_
function here as 'to-less' infinitives, taking the role of the
paraphrase _be able to_. (The form _could_ could be seen here as a
variant of _can_ in the position following _might_. The construction
_might could_ arises then on the basis of morphological assimilation.)
Another interpretation would be to regard _might_ as a nonfactivity
marker in the three constructions I cited at the top of this paragraph.
(N.B.: 'nonfactivity' does not necessarily mean 'counterfactivity';
it means that the statements involved do not (yet) describe facts,
so that the 'potentiality' sense is also included.) My linguistic
intuitions support the latter interpretation at least for my
dialect, in which _can_ and _could_ do not function fully as
non-finite forms.

I am grateful to Joyce Neu for initiating this thread. She might
ought to add something herself and give us all a reliable email
address in the process. I am grateful for the comments on my
previous posting, both in the linguist newsletter and directly
to me. Special thanks to Larry Horn for his clarifications. I have
a particular interest in this matter from the point of view of
comparative linguistics, since the relevant English and German
constructions are quite similar to one another. The difference
is that in German, the verb _koennen_ ('oe' for o-umlaut) has
a full paradigm (infinitive, present, past, present and past
perfect, subjunctive, past participle), as opposed to _can_,
which is defective in modern English (only present and past, no
distinction in form between 'indicative' and 'subjunctive').

I remain by my assertion in the previous posting that double
modals serve the purpose of 'gap-filling' in English, supporting
the distinction between factive and nonfactive senses. Of
course the factive/nonfactive interpretation of _could_ is
clear in many cases from the context, but nevertheless the use of
_might could_ helps to clarify the speaker's intent.

I would be grateful for any references on the historical development
of double modal constructions and on paradigm-gap-filling in
dialects.

Tom King

University of Koblenz
Rheinau 1
D-56075 Koblenz
Germany

(kinginformatik.uni-koblenz.de)

Message 2: Re: 5.278 Varia: Double modals, Mainstream linguistics

David A. Johns" <DJOHNSUFPINE.bitnet> wrote:

A couple of notes from Southeast Georgia:

...

 * I heard one local resident use MIGHT BETTER several times in
 one discussion. This suggests that for him BETTER is no
 longer a reduction of HAD BETTER, but has actually become a
 modal.

I don't think this has anything to do with double modals. I use the
form easily and naturally, and I'm from Northeastern New Jersey, where
double modals do not occur, at least in white speech. (I must add,
however, that my Brooklyn-born wife objects when I do so, claiming
I'm going southern.

--Leo Connolly