Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T14:33:39.245Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can, may, must and should: A Relevance theoretic account1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Marjolein Groefsema
Marjolein Groefsema
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Hertfordshire, Watford Campus, Aldenham, Watford Herts WD2 8AT, UK. E-mail:m.groefsema@herts.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper I argue that the polysemy view is not capable of giving a unified account of the meanings of CAN, MAY, MUST and SHOULD, whereas the unitary meaning view does not encounter the problems facing the polysemy view. I propose unitary meanings which are rich enough to account for the range of interpretations these modals can have, but which are specific enough to account for why they get these interpretations and not others. Proposing unitary meanings implies that we have to look for a theory of pragmatics which can explain how we achieve the different interpretations of these modals in use. I will argue that adopting the Relevance theory view of what drives interpretation gives us the basis for such an explanation.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 53 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

REFERENCES

Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Ehrman, M. E. (1966). The meanings of the modals in present-day American English. (Janua Linguarum. Series Practica, XLV.) The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goossens, L. (1982). On the development of the modals and of the epistemic function in English. In Alqvist, A. (ed.) Papers from the fifth International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 74–84.Google Scholar
Groefsema, M. (1992). Can, may, must and should: unitary semantics, diverse pragmatics. (Cognitive Science Memo 37.) Colchester: University of Essex.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1989). Be going to and will: a pragmatic account. Journal of Linguistics 25. 291–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klinge, A. (1993). The English modal auxiliaries: from lexical semantics to utterance interpretation. Journal of Linguistics 29. 315–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1977). What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1. 337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1981). The notional category of modality. In Eikmeyer, H.-J. & Rieser, H. (eds.) Words, worlds and contexts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1972). The pragmatics of modality. Papers from the 8th Regional Meeting. Chicago Linguistics Society 229–247.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. (Vol. 2.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1979). Modality and the English modals. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1989). Modality and the English modals. (Revised edition.) London: Longman.Google Scholar
Perkins, M. R. (1983). Modal expressions in English. London: Francis Pinter.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Shepherd, S. C. (1982). From deontic to epistemic: an analysis of modals in the history of English, creoles and language acquisition. In Alqvist, A. (ed.) Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 316–323.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. E. (1989). From etymology to pragmatics: the mind-as-body-metaphor in semantic structure and semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tanaka, T. (1990). Semantic changes of can and may: differentiation and implication. Journal of Linguistics 266. 89–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, A. L. (1988). The pragmatics of English modals. Ph.D. dissertation, University of London.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (1988). Mood and the analysis of non-declarative sentences. In Dancy, J., Moravcsik, J. & Taylor, C. (eds.) Human agency: language, duty and value. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 229–324.Google Scholar