Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T22:50:07.729Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MAY, CAN and the expression of permission

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Patrick Duffley ,
Sandra Clarke  and
Walter Hirtle
Patrick Duffley
Affiliation:
Fonds Gustave Guillaume, Université Laval
Sandra Clarke
Affiliation:
Fonds Gustave Guillaume, Université Laval
Walter Hirtle
Affiliation:
Fonds Gustave Guillaume, Université Laval
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Any system is necessarily both one, by virtue of its governing principle, and several internally, by virtue of the positions it contains. No system can contain just one element. By nature and by definition a system is binary: it must contain at least two elements to be a system at all. (Translated from Guillaume 1973:175)

In any linguistic system—and this is the basic condition for systematizing—there is … a before and an after within which and between which the mind moves, crossing over the dividing-line which separates these two positions, and that is why a linguistic system necessarily has a kinetic basis in the mind. (Translated from Guillaume 1969:160)

Type
Papers on the Psychomechanics of Language/Articles sur la psychomécanique du langage
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , Fall 1981 , pp. 179 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1981

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

Catsijne, O. V. (1972) The Uses of MAY in Present-day Narrative Prose. Celta: Lumbumbashi.Google Scholar
Clarke, S. (1974) A Comparison and Contrast of the Guillaumian and the Transformational-generative Theories of Language with Special Attention to the Modal Auxiliaries of English. PhD Thesis, Université Laval, Québec.Google Scholar
Coates, J. (1980) “The non-equivalence of MAY and CAN .” Lingua 50: 209–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrman, M. (1966) The Meanings of the Modals in Present-day American English. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Evans, B., and Evans, C. (1957) A Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1973) “May we come in?” Semiotica 9:97–117.Google Scholar
Guillaume, G. (1969) Langage et science du langage. Paris: Nizet.Google Scholar
Guillaume, G. (1973) Principes de linguistique théorique de Gustave Guillaume. (Ed. Valin, R.) Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval.Google Scholar
Hermeren, L. (1978) On Modality in English. A Study of the Semantics of the Modals. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Jenkins, C. (1972) Modality in English Syntax. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Joos, M. (1964) The English Verb. Form and Meanings. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Kučera, H. and Francis, W. N. (1967) Computational Analysis of Present-day American English. Providence: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
Lebrun, Y. (1965) “Can” and “May” in Present-day English. Brussels: Presses universitaires de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1971) Meaning and the English Verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Noel, G. (1964) “ May and Might: Meanings, Tenses and Usage.” Revue des langues vivantes 30:446–58.Google Scholar
Onions, C. T. (1929) An Advanced English Syntax. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. T. (1974) The English Verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. T. (1979) Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman.Google Scholar