Enablement and possibility
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.
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.
Abraham, Werner. 2002. Modal verbs: Epistemics in German and English. In Barbiers, Beukema & van de Wurff (eds), 19–50.
Abraham, Werner. 2012. Covert modality in typology. In Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), Covert Modality, 386–439. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
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.
Bach, Kent. 1994b. Conversational impliciture. Mind & Language 9(2): 124–162.
Bach, Kent. 2004. Minding the gap. In The Semantics/pragmatics Distinction, Claudia Bianchi (ed.),27–43. Stanford CA: CSLI.
Bach, Kent. 2011. Perspectives on possibilities: Contextualism, relativism or what In Epistemic Modality, Andy Egan & Brian Weatherson (eds),19–59. Oxford: OUP. < [URL]> (November 2012).
Balkanski, Cecile T. 1993. Actions, Beliefs and Intentions in Multi-action Utterances. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.
Bealer, George. 2006. A definition of necessity. Philosophical Perspectives 20(1): 17–39.
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1989. Extrinsic possibility and intrinsic potentiality: 7 on MAY and CAN+1. Journal of Pragmatics 13: 1–23.
Bradley, Raymond & Swartz, Norman. 1979. Possible Worlds: An Introduction to Logic and its Philosophy. Indianapolis IN: Hackett.
Butler, Jonny. 2003. A minimalist treatment of modality. Lingua 113(10): 967–996.
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).
Collins, Peter. 2006. Can and may: Monosemy or polysemy Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Australian Linguistic Society. <
[URL]
> (November 2012).
Collins, Peter. 2009. Modals and Quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
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.
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).
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.
Depraetere, Ilse & Reed, Susan. 2011. Towards a more explicit taxonomy of root possibility. English Language and Linguistics 15(1): 1–29.
Depraetere, Ilse & Verhulst, An. 2008. Source of modality: A reassessment. English Language and Linguistics 12(1): 1–25.
Egan, Andy, Hawthornen, John & Weatherson, Brian. 2005. Epistemic modals in context. In Contextualism in Philosophy, Gerhard Preyer & Georg Peter (eds), 131–169. Oxford: OUP.
Fine, Kit. 2005. Modality and Tense: Philosophical Papers. Oxford: OUP.
Gisborne, Nicolas. 2007. Dynamic modality. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 4(2): 44–61. <
[URL]
> (November 2012).
Goldman, Alvin. 1970. A Theory of Human Action. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gresset, Stéphane. 2001. CAN/MAY et MIGHT/COULD. Cahiers de Recherche en Grammaire Anglaise 8: 177–222.
Gresset, Stéphane. 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.
Groefsema, Marjolein. 1995.
Can, may, must and should: A relevance-theoretic account. Journal of Linguistics 31: 53–79.
Hughes, George & Cresswell, Max. 2012. A New Introduction to Modal Logic. London: Routledge.
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP.
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.
Kratzer, Angelika. 2012. Modals and Conditionals: New and Revised Perspectives. Oxford: OUP.
Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-based Study of Grammaticalization [Topics in English Linguistics 32]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Larreya, Paul & Rivière, Claude. 2005. Grammaire explicative de l’anglais, 3rd
edn. Paris: Longman.
Leech, Geoffrey. 2004. Meaning and the English Verb, 3rd
edn. London: Longman.
Narrog, Heiko. 2005. On defining modality again. Language Sciences 27: 165–192.
Palmer, Frank. 1990. Modality and the English Modals, 2nd
edn. London: Longman.
Papafragou, Anna. 2000. Modality: Issues in the Semantics-pragmatics Interface [Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface 6]. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Pollack, Martha E. 1986. Inferring Domain Plans in Question-answering. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. SRI Technical Report SRIN-403.
Recanati, François. 2010. Truth-conditional Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP.
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.
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.
Salkie, Raphael. 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.
Salkie, Raphael. 2010. The INTERSECT translation corpus. <
[URL]
> (November 2012).
Swartz, Norman. 1997. The concepts of necessary conditions and sufficient conditions. <
[URL]
> (November 2012).
Vetter, Barbara. 2011. Recent work: Modality without possible worlds. Analysis Reviews 71(4): 742–754.
Wurmbrand, Susi. 1999. Modal verbs must be raising verbs. WCCFL Proceedings 18: 599–612
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Abraham, Werner
2020.
Modality in Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics,
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.
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.