Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Wiley-Blackwell Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info


New from Oxford University Press!

ad

Language Planning as a Sociolinguistic Experiment

By: Ernst Jahr

Provides richly detailed insight into the uniqueness of the Norwegian language development. Marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of the Norwegian nation following centuries of Danish rule


New from Cambridge University Press!

ad

Acquiring Phonology: A Cross-Generational Case-Study

By Neil Smith

The study also highlights the constructs of current linguistic theory, arguing for distinctive features and the notion 'onset' and against some of the claims of Optimality Theory and Usage-based accounts.


New from Brill!

ad

Language Production and Interpretation: Linguistics meets Cognition

By Henk Zeevat

The importance of Henk Zeevat's new monograph cannot be overstated. [...] I recommend it to anyone who combines interests in language, logic, and computation [...]. David Beaver, University of Texas at Austin


Summary Details


Query:   English Modals
Author:  YIB00161@niftyserve or jp>
Submitter Email:  click here to access email
Linguistic LingField(s):   Syntax

Summary:   Dear linguists,

In the beginning of January I raised two questions about English modals.
My first question is: Which modal is more suitable in (1) and (2)?
(1) Bill isn't eating his food. He (doesn't have to/ may not) be hungry.
(2) A: Someone is knocking on the door. It must be John.
B: It (doesn't have to/ may not) be John. It could be George.
My second question is: Does "It doesn't have to be Dexter" in (3) have the
meaning of (4a) or (4b)?
(3) "The other four senators may have more powerful motives we don't happen to
know about. It doesn't have to be Dexter," continued Mark, sounding
unconvinced.
(4) a. It is not certain that it is Dexter.
b. It is possible that it is not Dexter.

Soon after that I got 17 e-mails. Thank you for answering my questions. I
would express my sincere thanks to the following people who supplied useful
data: Deborah Milam Berkley, Larry Horn, Daniel Currie Hall, Alison Huettner,
Steven Schaufele, William Morris, Sarah Rosenzweig, Rob Pensalfini, Pierre
Larriv, Susan Ervin-Tripp, Peter T. Daniels, Price Caldwell, Karen Davis, Rick

Nouwen, Bruce Despain, Megan Elizabeth Melancon, and Vincent Jenkins.

As to (1), all the respondents said that "may not" is more suitable.
As to (2), Half the respondents claimed that "doesn't have to" is more
suitabl e and half of the respondents claimed that "may not" is more
suitable. Some respondents pointed out that "doesn't have to" is
somewhat better and more typical. One respondent pointed out that "may
not" is poor but not impossible. As to (3) and (4), 59% of the
respondents told me that (3) expresses the meani ng of (4a) and 41%
told me that (4) expresses the meaning of (4b). One responden t
indicated that (3) can mean both (4a) and (4b) in this context,
although per haps (4b) is slightly more appropriate.

LL Issue: 9.448
Date Posted: 24-Mar-1998
Original Query: Read original query


Back

Sums main page