Article published in:
Modes of Modality: Modality, typology, and universal grammarEdited by Elisabeth Leiss and Werner Abraham
[Studies in Language Companion Series 149] 2014
► pp. 319–352
Enablement and possibility
Raphael Salkie | 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
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.149.11sal
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.149.11sal
References
References
Abraham, Werner
Bach, Kent
2011 Perspectives on possibilities: Contextualism, relativism or what In Epistemic Modality, Andy Egan & Brian Weatherson (eds),19–59. Oxford: OUP. http://userwww.sfsu.edu/kbach/Bach.PerspPoss.pdf (November 2012) DOI: 

Balkanski, Cecile T.
Barbiers, Sjef, Beukema, Frits & van der Wurff, Wim
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward
Bolinger, Dwight
Bradley, Raymond & Swartz, Norman
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: < www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/publications/WPL/01papers/carston.pdf
> (November 2012).
Collins, Peter
2006 Can and may: Monosemy or polysemy Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Australian Linguistic Society. <
http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:12785/Collins_ALS2006.pdf
> (November 2012).
Declerck, Renaat
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. <
www.mt-archive.info/NLG-1994-Delin.pdf
> (November 2012).
Depraetere, Ilse
Depraetere, Ilse & Reed, Susan
Depraetere, Ilse & Verhulst, An
Egan, Andy, Hawthornen, John & Weatherson, Brian
Gisborne, Nicolas
2007 Dynamic modality. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 4(2): 44–61. <
http://www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTL09/pdf_doc/4.pdf
> (November 2012).
Gresset, Stéphane
Groefsema, Marjolein
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey
Kiefer, Ferenc
Krug, Manfred
Papafragou, Anna
Pollack, Martha E.
Ross, John Robert
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.
2010 The INTERSECT translation corpus. <
http://arts.brighton.ac.uk/staff/raf-salkie/portfolio-of-major-works/intersect
> (November 2012).
Scott, Donia, Delin, Judy & Hartley, Anthony
Swartz, Norman
1997 The concepts of necessary conditions and sufficient conditions. <
http://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/conditions1.htm
> (November 2012).
Vetter, Barbara
Cited by
Cited by 2 other publications
Depraetere, Ilse & Raphael Salkie
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 03 april 2021. 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.