Student questions 2013 Workshop 6

Q: In the sentence "she might just as well have hit him with a steel club" does the modal
might refer to the time at past ?

A: The whole story is set in the past. The whole VGr is might have hit and it expresses an
event before past. Mary is thinking about something she has already done (hit him with a
leg of lamb) and comparing it with something she didnt do at that time (hit him with a steel
club). She thinks the outcome would have been the same.

The time reference of VGrs with speculative/hypothetical modals like this one is difficult
(when you start to think about it consciously) because might in itself is the speakers
judgement at the moment they are speaking. In this case, we could paraphrase the sentence
starting it was likely that if. and it was likely is of course at past. But that is a
theoretical point and not much use in the classroom.

What is important to the learner is the time and reality of the event expressed by the main
verb (hit). It is both UNREAL and PAST and that is why the perfect is used after the modal.

Q: Would you like me to get you some cheese? Does would here refer to at present or at
past?

A: The story as a whole is set in the past, as stories normally are. This, however, is direct
speech; it is part of a dialogue and not part of the story line. She seems to be asking her
husband how he feels at present. The purpose, of course, is to make an offer. Would is a
past form used for present time in this case (i.e. it is Distant) but the speaker does not really
have a choice because wouldlike is an idiomatic expression for making offers.

Q: It is difficult to tell conditional, speculative/hypothetical modals apart, so our question is
how to distinguish them.

A: I am not sure it is always possible to separate them, but we tend to use the term
conditional when they occur in conditional clauses. Use a terminology which you think
describes their meaning, and that your learners can understand. (I promise not to trip you
up in the exam.)

Q: Can the chunk 'might as well' be considered as a fixed expression which provides a
suggestion, equal the chunk of "she could have done"?

A: Mary is not suggesting that she should (or should have) hit him with a steel club. She is
looking at the result of her action and drawing a conclusion. But you are right that might as
well is a fixed expression which means something like it would make no difference. It is
often used in a light-hearted way in conversation, for example:
Do you want another piece of cake? Yeah, go on then - might as well.

Q: Past time, politeness, uncertainty all express some kind of distance. Does that mean that
all past tense forms refer to distance?

A: Yes, you could say that. However, when the reference time is past (as when we are telling
a story) the normal choice for the writer/speaker is past tense. In other words, past tense
for past time does not convey any special message.

If, however, a writer/speaker uses past tense for present time, they are doing it for a reason
and so the reader/listener will try and understand what the special message is. That is when
it becomes useful to talk about Distance. If I meet you on the stairs outside my office and
say to you Did you want to see me? the choice of did (together with my tone of voice
and so on) will have a different effect than if I had chosen do. Distance can be a useful
concept to explain that.

Likewise, if a writer/speaker uses present tense for past time it is useful to have a term to
describe the effect of that. I have used the term direct but perhaps you can find another
term that you prefer.

Q: We didnt get the meaning of Would they mind awfully if she stayed just where she was
until she felt better.

A: This is reported speech. Mary perhaps said: Would you mind awfully if I stay right here
until I feel better. (Would you mind awfully means Would you mind very much.)
Would mind cannot be back shifted (at least not without changing the meaning) so it
remains as it is, but the rest has been shifted to fit in with the past time reference of the
surrounding text.

Q: But you must eat! Is this an order or obligation? Surely it depends on how the reader is
interpreting the speakers emotions?

A: Absolutely. That is one reason why I gave you such a long text. It becomes clear that Mary
is a devoted wife. Being a good wife is important to her. If you were an actor playing the
role of Mary, how would you say it? Probably with concern in your voice, as if you were
worried about your husband. She seems to be pleading with him. As you suggested, in
another context it could be said in anger, trying to impose an obligation. You must eat! I
spent all day preparing it.

Q: and you can have it right here and not even move out of your chair Is this a
suggestion, an offer or permission? If it is permission, the wife is allowing him to sit right
there.

A: Who is going to bring the meat and stuff to him? Obviously it is Mary, since he wont
need to move out of his chair. In other words, Mary is offering to bring him food to where
he is sitting. It is more than just a suggestion.

In a different context, a very similar utterance could signal permission. For example, if Mary
had been talking to her child and the child wanted to stay in her chair and watch a TV
programme rather than sitting at the kitchen table to eat supper, Mary could give her
permission by saying something like this. The context of situation and the relationship
between the speakers are both important in the interpretation.

Again, although we understand it perfectly the exact time reference is confusing (if you
think about it consciously) because you can means something like it is possible for you to
(at present) but the main verb (have=eat) obviously refers to something that will happen
after. Learners wont be confused by it though; they will focus on the time of the main verb
and understand that it is after present.

One group asked if it is possible to make an offer without using an interrogative. Yes it is,
and this is a good example. But interrogatives are often used for offers: Shall I get your
slippers is one example. Mary is offering to go and get them. If she were just suggesting,
she might say Perhaps youd feel more comfortable in your slippers. But in some cases it
can be difficult to distinguish between offers and suggestions, and there can be
misunderstandings between speakers because of that.

Q: Alright then, they would have lamb for supper. We argued a lot about this. I think it is
likelihood because she cant be sure he is staying for dinner. She used would not will,
which is distant. Another one of us thinks it is prediction because she took the lamb out of
the freezer already.

A: This is reported speech (or reported thought actually). We understand that she was
thinking to herself Alright then, we will have lamb for supper. In the story it is reported
and therefore backshifted will becomes would. Alright then makes it clear that she has
made a decision. Will shows her intention or determination, i.e. a strong willingness or
volition.

That, of course, makes it probable that they will have it but she is not saying it is probable
that (it is not likelihood in other words). She is saying something like I have now decided
this. Also, if she were predicting because of something she had seen she would be much
more likely to say we are going to have lamb for supper. Somebody could say that for
example if they had seen the cook already preparing it, or they had recognized the smell of
roast lamb coming from the kitchen.

Q: She couldnt feel anything at all. Is this possibility or ability?

A: When you say possibility, do you mean likelihood? It was possible that is an
expression of likelihood, but that is not what this means. We could instead paraphrase it
She wasnt able to feel or we could say It was not possible for her to feel
Possible that is likelihood, but possible to is not. Could here means ability/possible to.