Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:56:39.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards a more explicit taxonomy of root possibility1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 February 2011

ILSE DEPRAETERE  and
SUSAN REED
ILSE DEPRAETERE
Affiliation:
Université de Lille III, UMR 8163 Savoirs, Textes, Langage, Villeneuve d'Ascq, [email protected]
SUSAN REED
Affiliation:
Rue de la Forge 3, 1470 Bousval, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this article is to improve the description of root (or non-epistemic) possibility meanings. In previous accounts, the defining criteria are not applied systematically; there is a tendency towards definition by exemplification (especially when it comes to meanings that are ‘not permission’ and ‘not ability’) and certain categories (permission, for instance) tend to be defined in a circular way. We will argue that there are three criteria which are necessary and sufficient to distinguish five subclasses of root possibility meaning. The three criteria are: (a) the scope of the modal meaning, (b) the source of the modality and (c) the notion of potential barrier; the five meanings are: (a) ability, (b) opportunity, (c) permission, (d) general situation possibility (GSP) and (e) situation permissibility. The article offers an in-depth analysis of the three defining criteria and the root possibility meanings that their systematic application gives rise to. This approach clearly brings out the similarities and the dissimilarities between the different subcategories of root possibility meaning in English, and in this way it results in a more explicit taxonomy.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 1 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barbiers, Sjef. 2002. Current issues in modality: An introduction to modality and its interaction with the verbal system. In Barbiers, Sjef, Beukema, Frits & van der Wurff, Wim (eds.), Modality and its interaction with the verbal system, 1–18. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1989. Extrinsic possibility and intrinsic potentiality: 7 on may and can + 1. Journal of Pragmatics 13 (1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere D. & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London and Canberra: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1991. A comprehensive descriptive grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusho.Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse & Verhulst, An. 2007. Source of the modality: A reassessment. English Language and Linguistics 12 (1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Mathew S., Gil, David & Comrie, Bernard (eds.). 2008. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Available online at http://wals.info/feature/74. Accessed 4 December 2009.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 2004. Meaning and the English verb, 3rd edition. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1997. Scope and the development of epistemic modality: Evidence from ought to. English Language and Linguistics 1 (2), 295–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 1990. Modality and the English modals, 2nd edition. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Ross, John. 1969. Auxiliaries as Main Verbs. In Todd, William (ed.), Studies in philosophical linguistics, series 1, 77–102. Evanston, IL: Great Expectations Press.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12 (1), 49–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Der Auwera, Johan & Ammann, Andreas. 2008a. Situational possibility. In Haspelmath et al. (eds.), chapter 74.Google Scholar
Van Der Auwera, Johan & Ammann, Andreas. 2008b. Overlap between situational and epistemic modal marking. In Haspelmath et al. (eds.), chapter 76.Google Scholar
Van Der Auwera, Johan & Plungian, Vladimir. 1998. Modality's semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2, 79–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr & Wilkins, David P.. 1999. The case for ‘effector’: case roles, agents, and agency revisited. In Shibatani, Masayoshi & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Grammatical constructions, 289–32.Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar