Cover not available
Part of
Modes of Modality: Modality, typology, and universal grammar
Edited by Elisabeth Leiss and Werner Abraham
[Studies in Language Companion Series 149] 2014
► pp. 319–352

Enablement and possibility

| University of Brighton
We need a better explanation of the differences in meaning and use between can and may. This paper proposes that the underlying semantics of all uses of can is enablement, in a precise sense derived from the philosophy of action, while may expresses metalinguistic possibility, linking a proposition with another domain of propositions. The widespread belief among linguists that modality involves possible worlds is wrong: neither “modality” nor “possible worlds” play a part in the analysis. Semantically, sentences containing can and may are typically incomplete, but the missing information is different in each case. Both involve impliciture (n.b. not implicature), a pervasive pragmatic process. The two words can and may thus have complex but divergent semantic properties, yet there is nothing unusual about their pragmatics. The analysis draws on Kent Bach’s work on semantics and pragmatics, which assumes a sharp conceptual divide between meaning and use.
Published online: 24 January 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.149.11sal
References (50)
References
Abraham, Werner. 1989. Syntaktische Korrelate zum Lesartwechsel zwischen epistemischen und deontisch/volitiven Modalverben. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik (GAGL) 30: 145–166.Google Scholar
. 2002. Modal verbs: Epistemics in German and English. In Barbiers, Beukema & van de Wurff (eds), 19–50.Google Scholar
. 2012. Covert modality in typology. In Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), Covert Modality, 386–439. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 1994a. Semantic slack: what is said and more. In Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives, Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), 267–291. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 1994b. Conversational impliciture. Mind & Language 9(2): 124–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Minding the gap. In The Semantics/pragmatics Distinction, Claudia Bianchi (ed.),27–43. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 2011. Perspectives on possibilities: Contextualism, relativism or what In Epistemic Modality, Andy Egan & Brian Weatherson (eds),19–59. Oxford: OUP. < [URL]> (November 2012). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Balkanski, Cecile T. 1993. Actions, Beliefs and Intentions in Multi-action Utterances. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef, Beukema, Frits & van der Wurff, Wim (eds.) 2002. Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 47]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bealer, George. 2006. A definition of necessity. Philosophical Perspectives 20(1): 17–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1989. Extrinsic possibility and intrinsic potentiality: 7 on MAY and CAN+1. Journal of Pragmatics 13: 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bradley, Raymond & Swartz, Norman. 1979. Possible Worlds: An Introduction to Logic and its Philosophy. Indianapolis IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Butler, Jonny. 2003. A minimalist treatment of modality. Lingua 113(10): 967–996. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2004. Relevance theory and the saying/implicating distinction. In Handbook of pragmatics, Larry Horn & Gregory Ward (eds), 633–656. Oxford: Blackwell. Early versiont: < [URL] > (November 2012).Google Scholar
Collins, Peter. 2006. Can and may: Monosemy or polysemy Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Australian Linguistic Society. < [URL] > (November 2012).Google Scholar
. 2009. Modals and Quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 2011. The definition of modality. In Cognitive Approaches to Tense, Aspect and Epistemic Modality [Human Cognitive Processing 29], Adeline Patard & Frank Brisard (eds), 21–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delin, Judy, Hartley, Anthony, Paris, Cecile, Scott, Doni & van der Linden, Keith. 1994. Expressing procedural relationships in multilingual instructions. Proceedings of the eventh International Generation Workshop , June 1994, Kennebunkport, ME, 61–70. < [URL] > (November 2012).Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse. 2012. Time in sentences with modal verbs. In The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect, Robert I. Binnick (ed.), 989–1019. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse & Reed, Susan. 2011. Towards a more explicit taxonomy of root possibility. English Language and Linguistics 15(1): 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse & Verhulst, An. 2008. Source of modality: A reassessment. English Language and Linguistics 12(1): 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Egan, Andy, Hawthornen, John & Weatherson, Brian. 2005. Epistemic modals in context. In Contextualism in Philosophy, Gerhard Preyer & Georg Peter (eds), 131–169. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit. 2005. Modality and Tense: Philosophical Papers. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, Nicolas. 2007. Dynamic modality. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 4(2): 44–61. < [URL] > (November 2012).Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin. 1970. A Theory of Human Action. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Gresset, Stéphane. 2001. CAN/MAY et MIGHT/COULD. Cahiers de Recherche en Grammaire Anglaise 8: 177–222.Google Scholar
. 2003. Towards a contextual micro-analysis of the non-equivalence of might and could . In Modality in contemporary English [Topics in English Linguistics 44], Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug & Fran Palmer (eds) 81–99. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Groefsema, Marjolein. 1995. Can, may, must and should: A relevance-theoretic account. Journal of Linguistics 31: 53–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hughes, George & Cresswell, Max. 2012. A New Introduction to Modal Logic. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc. 2009. Modality. In Grammar, Meaning and Pragmatics [Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 5], Frank Brisard, Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds), 179–207. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2012. Modals and Conditionals: New and Revised Perspectives. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-based Study of Grammaticalization [Topics in English Linguistics 32]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larreya, Paul & Rivière, Claude. 2005. Grammaire explicative de l’anglais, 3rd edn. Paris: Longman.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2004. Meaning and the English Verb, 3rd edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. 2005. On defining modality again. Language Sciences 27: 165–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank. 1990. Modality and the English Modals, 2nd edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Papafragou, Anna. 2000. Modality: Issues in the Semantics-pragmatics Interface [Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface 6]. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Pollack, Martha E. 1986. Inferring Domain Plans in Question-answering. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. SRI Technical Report SRIN-403.Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 2010. Truth-conditional Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1969. Auxiliaries as main verbs. In Studies in Philosophical Linguistics, S eries 1, William Todd (ed.), 77–102. Evanston IL: Great Expectations Press.Google Scholar
Salkie, Raphael. 1997. Naturalness and contrastive linguistics. In Proceedings of PALC ‘97, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & Patrick J. Melia (eds.) 297–312. Lodz: University of Lodz. Reprinted in Teubert, Wolfgang & Krishnamurthy, Ramesh (eds). 2007. Corpus Linguistics, Vol. 4 [Critical Concepts in Linguistics], 336–351. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2009. Degrees of modality. In Modality in English: Theory and Description [Topics in English Linguistics 58], Raphael Salkie, Pierre Busuttil & Johan van der Auwera (eds), 79–104. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. The INTERSECT translation corpus. < [URL] > (November 2012).Google Scholar
Scott, Donia, Delin, Judy & Hartley, Anthony. 1998. Identifying congruent pragmatic relations in procedural texts. Languages in Contrast 1(1): 45–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swartz, Norman. 1997. The concepts of necessary conditions and sufficient conditions. < [URL] > (November 2012).Google Scholar
Vetter, Barbara. 2011. Recent work: Modality without possible worlds. Analysis Reviews 71(4): 742–754. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 1999. Modal verbs must be raising verbs. WCCFL Proceedings 18: 599–612Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Abraham, Werner
2020. Modality in Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics, DOI logo
Depraetere, Ilse & Raphael Salkie
2017. Free Pragmatic Enrichment, Expansion, Saturation, Completion: A View from Linguistics. In Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line [Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning, 11], ► pp. 11 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.