Skip to main content Accesibility Help
×
×
Home

Towards a more explicit taxonomy of root possibility1

  • ILSE DEPRAETERE (a1) and SUSAN REED (a2)
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.

Copyright
References
Hide All
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, 118. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1989. Extrinsic possibility and intrinsic potentiality: 7 on may and can + 1. Journal of Pragmatics 13 (1), 123.
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
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.
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London and Canberra: Croom Helm.
Declerck, Renaat. 1991. A comprehensive descriptive grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusho.
Depraetere, Ilse & Verhulst, An. 2007. Source of the modality: A reassessment. English Language and Linguistics 12 (1), 125.
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.
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press.
Leech, Geoffrey N. 2004. Meaning and the English verb, 3rd edition. London and New York: Longman.
Nordlinger, Rachel & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1997. Scope and the development of epistemic modality: Evidence from ought to. English Language and Linguistics 1 (2), 295317.
Palmer, F. R. 1990. Modality and the English modals, 2nd edition. London and New York: Longman.
Ross, John. 1969. Auxiliaries as Main Verbs. In Todd, William (ed.), Studies in philosophical linguistics, series 1, 77102. Evanston, IL: Great Expectations Press.
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12 (1), 49100.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Der Auwera, Johan & Ammann, Andreas. 2008a. Situational possibility. In Haspelmath et al. (eds.), chapter 74.
Van Der Auwera, Johan & Ammann, Andreas. 2008b. Overlap between situational and epistemic modal marking. In Haspelmath et al. (eds.), chapter 76.
Van Der Auwera, Johan & Plungian, Vladimir. 1998. Modality's semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2, 79124.
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.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

English Language & Linguistics
  • ISSN: 1360-6743
  • EISSN: 1469-4379
  • URL: /core/journals/english-language-and-linguistics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed