Article published in: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
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
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
Bradley, Raymond & Swartz, Norman
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).
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).
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 & Reed, Susan
Depraetere, Ilse & Verhulst, An
Egan, Andy, Hawthornen, John & Weatherson, Brian
2007 Dynamic modality. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 4(2): 44–61. < http://www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTL09/pdf_doc/4.pdf > (November 2012).
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey
Pollack, Martha E.
Ross, John Robert
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
1997 The concepts of necessary conditions and sufficient conditions. < http://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/conditions1.htm > (November 2012).
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.