Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 43:3 (2019) ► pp.499–532

Must/need, may/can and the scope of the modal auxiliary

May thee know the pitfalls of thy paraphrases!

| Universite Laval
This article argues that the logical paraphrases used to describe the meanings of must, need, may, and can obscure the natural-language semantic interaction between these verbs and negation. The purported non-negatability of must is argued to be an illusion created by the indicative-mood paraphrase ‘is necessary’, which treats the necessity as a reality rather than a non-reality. It is proposed that negation coalesces with the modality that must itself expresses to produce a negatively-charged version of must’s modality: the subject of musn’t is represented as being in a state of constraint in which the only possibility open to the subject is oriented in the opposite direction to the realization of the infinitive’s event. The study also constitutes an argument against a lexicalization analysis: in the combination mustn’t, must and not each contribute their own meaning to the resultant sense, but according to their conceptual status as inherently irrealis notions.
Keywords: polarity, modal auxiliary, negation, paraphrase, logical semantics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The case of must
  • 3.The case of may
  • 4.What an approach based on linguistically-encoded meaning can contribute to the discussion
    • 4.1Linguistic evidence of the way English construes the meaning of the modal auxiliaries
    • 4.2Two forms of possibility in English
    • 4.3Two ways of construing necessity in English
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18062.duf
References (67)
References
Abraham, Werner. 2002. Modal verbs: epistemics in German and English. In Sjef Barbiers, Frits Beukema & Wim van der Wurff (eds.), Modality and its interaction with the verbal system, 19–50. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Attal, Pierre. 1994. Questions de sémantique: une approche comportementaliste du langage. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Bittner, Thomas & Barry Smith. 2001. A unified theory of granularity, vagueness and approximation. Proceedings of the first COSIT workshop on spatial vagueness, uncertainty, and granularity. Ogunquit, ME, CD-ROM, 1–39.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1989. Extrinsic possibility and intrinsic potentiality: 7 on May and Can +1. Journal of Pragmatics 131. 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro & Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1990. Meaning and grammar. An introduction to semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Cruse, Alan. 2011. Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. The evolution of negation. Journal of Linguistics 271. 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Haan, Ferdinand. 2015. The interaction of modality and negation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse & Susan Reed. 2011. Towards a more explicit taxonomy of root possibility in English. English Language and Linguistics 151. 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse. 2014. Modal meaning and lexically-regulated saturation. Journal of Pragmatics 711. 160–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drubig, Hans. 2001. On the syntactic form of epistemic modality. University of Tübingen ms. [accessed online at [URL] on May 14, 2018]
Duffley, Patrick J., Sandra Clarke & Walter Hirtle. 1982. MAY, CAN and the expression of permission. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 261. 179–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duffley, Patrick J. 1992. The English infinitive. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1994. Need and dare: the black sheep of the modal family. Lingua 941. 213–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997. Negation and the lexical semantics of the modal auxiliaries must and may in English. In Pierre Larrivée (ed.), La structuration conceptuelle du langage, 69–82. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Duffley, Patrick J. & Pierre Larrivée. 1998. Need, dare and negative polarity. Linguistic Analysis 281. 1–19.Google Scholar
Duffley, Patrick J. 1998. Considerations for the cognitive analysis of the modal auxiliaries in English. Langues et linguistique 241. 85–103.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, De Smet, Hendrik & Wim van der Wurff. 2017. A brief history of English syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flannery, Tom. 2005. The weathermakers. Toronto: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 1998. Concepts. Where cognitive science went wrong. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frawley, William. 1992. Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, NY: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fuchs, Catherine. 1982. La paraphrase. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
. 1994. Paraphrase et Énonciation. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Galsworthy, John. 1920. Tatterdemalion. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
Grize, Jean-Blaise & Benjamin Matalon. 1962. Introduction à une étude expérimentale et formelle du raisonnement naturel. In Evert Willem Beth, Jean-Blaise Grize, Roger Martin, Wolfe Mays, Arne Naess & Jean Piaget (eds.), Implication, formalisation et logique naturelle (Études d’épistémologie génétique 16), 9–67. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. 2011. Modality. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, 1484–515. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994 [1985]. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Heisenberg, Werner. 1958. Physics and philosophy: The revolution in modern science. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack. 2012. On the natural history of negative polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 381. 3–33.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Ronald T. 1966. Past tense replacement and the modal system. In Anthony G. Oettinger (ed.), Mathematical linguistics and automatic translation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Harvard Computational Laboratory. Report NSF-17.Google Scholar
Hirtle, Walter. 1997. DO auxiliary – a meaningful support and operator. Lingua 1001. 111–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2017. The singular square: contrariety and double negation from Aristotle to Homer. In Joanna Blochowiak, Cristina Grisot, Stephanie Durrleman & Christopher Laenzlinger (eds.), Formal models in the study of language. Applications in interdisciplinary contexts, 143–79. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1976. Some theoretical issues in the description of the English verb. Lingua 401. 331–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1984. Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1975. The meaning of questions. Language 511. 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Israel, Michael. 2011. The grammar of polarity. Pragmatics, sensitivity, and the logic of scales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobsson, Bengt. 1979. Modality and the modals of necessity must and have to . English Studies 601. 296–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
James, Francis. 1986. Semantics of the English subjunctive. Vancouver: University of British Colombia Press.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward S. 1964. Negation in English. In Jerry A. Fodor & Jerrold Katz (eds.), The structure of language, 246–323. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1978. The form and meaning of the English auxiliary. Language 541. 853–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 21. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2000. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. How to build an English clause. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics 51. 1–45.Google Scholar
Larrivée, Pierre. 2004. L’association négative. Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 2004. Meaning and the English verb, 3rd edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maché, Jakob. 2013. On black magic – How epistemic modifiers emerge. Berlin: Freie Universität zu Berlin Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.). 2011. Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, M. Lynne. 2010. Lexical meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1997. Scope and the development of epistemic modality: evidence from ought to . English Language and Linguistics 11. 295–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 1986. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1990. Modality and the English modals, 2nd edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
2001. Mood and modality. Cambridge: University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 2002. Deutsches Wörterbuch: Bedeutungsgeschichte und Aufbau unseres Wortschatzes, 10th edn. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey N. Leech, & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schlegoff, Emanuel A. 2000. On granularity. Annual Review of Sociology 261. 715–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force Dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 121. 49–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel. 1985. The negation of epistemic necessity in present-day British and American English. English World Wide 61. 87–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1972. A history of English syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan. 2001. On the typology of negative modals. In Jack Hoeksema, Hotze Rullmann, Victor Sanchez-Valencia & Ton van der Wouden (eds.), Perspectives on negation and polarity items, 23–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veselinova, Ljuba N. 2016. The negative existential cycle viewed through the lens of comparative data. In Elly van Gelderen (ed.), Cyclical Change Continued, 139–188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Bergen, Anke, & Klaus von Bergen. 1993. Negative Polarität im Englischen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t . Language 591. 502–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar