Enablement and possibility

Raphael Salkie

Research output: Chapter in Book/Conference proceeding with ISSN or ISBNChapter

Abstract

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 pro-cess. 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.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationModes of modality: modality, typology, and universal grammar
EditorsElizabeth Leiss, Werner Abraham
Place of PublicationAmsterdam
PublisherJohn Benjamins
Pages319-352
Number of pages34
ISBN (Electronic)9789027270795
ISBN (Print)9789027206169
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2014

Publication series

NameStudies in Language Companion Series

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Enablement and possibility'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Salkie, R. (2014). Enablement and possibility. In E. Leiss, & W. Abraham (Eds.), Modes of modality: modality, typology, and universal grammar (pp. 319-352). (Studies in Language Companion Series). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.149