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
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) DOI:


Balkanski, Cecile T
1993 Actions, Beliefs and Intentions in Multi-action Utterances. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.

Barbiers, Sjef, Beukema, Frits & van der Wurff, Wim
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, 3
rd
edn. Paris: Longman.

Leech, Geoffrey
2004 Meaning and the English Verb, 3
rd
edn. London: Longman.

Narrog, Heiko
2005 On defining modality again.
Language Sciences 27: 165–192.


Palmer, Frank
1990 Modality and the English Modals, 2
nd
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).

Scott, Donia, Delin, Judy & Hartley, Anthony
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
Cited by 2 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 12 may 2023. 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.