1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language”
  4. Volume 43, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 43, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article argues that the logical paraphrases used to describe the meanings of , and obscure the natural-language semantic interaction between these verbs and negation. The purported non-negatability of is argued to be an illusion created by the indicative-mood paraphrase ‘is necessary’, which treats the necessity as a reality rather than a non-reality. It is proposed that negation coalesces with the modality that itself expresses to produce a negatively-charged version of ’s modality: the subject of is represented as being in a state of constraint in which the only possibility open to the subject is oriented in the opposite direction to the realization of the infinitive’s event. The study also constitutes an argument against a lexicalization analysis: in the combination and each contribute their own meaning to the resultant sense, but according to their conceptual status as inherently irrealis notions.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.18062.duf
2019-11-18
2024-09-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/sl.18062.duf
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abraham, Werner
    2002 Modal verbs: epistemics in German and English. InSjef Barbiers, Frits Beukema & Wim van der Wurff (eds.), Modality and its interaction with the verbal system, 19–50. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.47.04abr
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.47.04abr [Google Scholar]
  2. Attal, Pierre
    1994 Questions de sémantique: une approche comportementaliste du langage. Louvain: Peeters.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bittner, Thomas & Barry Smith
    2001 A unified theory of granularity, vagueness and approximation. Proceedings of the first COSIT workshop on spatial vagueness, uncertainty, and granularity. Ogunquit, ME, CD-ROM, 1–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bolinger, Dwight
    1989 Extrinsic possibility and intrinsic potentiality: 7 on May and Can +1. Journal of Pragmatics13. 1–23. 10.1016/0378‑2166(89)90107‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(89)90107-0 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chierchia, Gennaro & Sally McConnell-Ginet
    1990 Meaning and grammar. An introduction to semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Coates, Jennifer
    1983 The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Cruse, Alan
    2011 Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Croft, William
    1991 The evolution of negation. Journal of Linguistics27. 1–27. 10.1017/S0022226700012391
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700012391 [Google Scholar]
  9. De Haan, Ferdinand
    2015 The interaction of modality and negation. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Depraetere, Ilse & Susan Reed
    2011 Towards a more explicit taxonomy of root possibility in English. English Language and Linguistics15. 1–29. 10.1017/S1360674310000262
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674310000262 [Google Scholar]
  11. Depraetere, Ilse
    2014 Modal meaning and lexically-regulated saturation. Journal of Pragmatics71. 160–77. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  12. Drubig, Hans
    2001 On the syntactic form of epistemic modality. University of Tübingen ms. [accessed online atwww.lingexp.uni-tuebingen.de/sfb441/b2/papers/DrubigModality.pdfonMay 14, 2018]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Duffley, Patrick J., Sandra Clarke & Walter Hirtle
    1982 MAY, CAN and the expression of permission. Canadian Journal of Linguistics26. 179–93. 10.1017/S0008413100009774
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100009774 [Google Scholar]
  14. Duffley, Patrick J.
    1992 The English infinitive. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 1994 Need and dare: the black sheep of the modal family. Lingua94. 213–43. 10.1016/0024‑3841(94)90010‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(94)90010-8 [Google Scholar]
  16. 1997 Negation and the lexical semantics of the modal auxiliaries must and may in English. InPierre Larrivée (ed.), La structuration conceptuelle du langage, 69–82. Louvain: Peeters.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Duffley, Patrick J. & Pierre Larrivée
    1998 Need, dare and negative polarity. Linguistic Analysis28. 1–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Duffley, Patrick J.
    1998 Considerations for the cognitive analysis of the modal auxiliaries in English. Langues et linguistique24. 85–103.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Fischer, Olga, De Smet, Hendrik & Wim van der Wurff
    2017 A brief history of English syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139049559
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139049559 [Google Scholar]
  20. Flannery, Tom
    2005 The weathermakers. Toronto: Harper Collins.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Fodor, Jerry A.
    1998 Concepts. Where cognitive science went wrong. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 10.1093/0198236360.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/0198236360.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Frawley, William
    1992 Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, NY: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Fuchs, Catherine
    1982 La paraphrase. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 1994 Paraphrase et Énonciation. Paris: Ophrys.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Galsworthy, John
    1920 Tatterdemalion. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Grize, Jean-Blaise & Benjamin Matalon
    1962 Introduction à une étude expérimentale et formelle du raisonnement naturel. InEvert Willem Beth, Jean-Blaise Grize, Roger Martin, Wolfe Mays, Arne Naess & Jean Piaget (eds.), Implication, formalisation et logique naturelle (Études d’épistémologie génétique 16), 9–67. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Hacquard, Valentine
    2011 Modality. InClaudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, 1484–515. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Halliday, M. A. K.
    1994 [1985] An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Heisenberg, Werner
    1958 Physics and philosophy: The revolution in modern science. London: George Allen & Unwin.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Hoeksema, Jack
    2012 On the natural history of negative polarity items. Linguistic Analysis38. 3–33.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Hoffmann, Ronald T.
    1966 Past tense replacement and the modal system. InAnthony G. Oettinger (ed.), Mathematical linguistics and automatic translation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Harvard Computational Laboratory. Report NSF-17.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Hirtle, Walter
    1997 DO auxiliary – a meaningful support and operator. Lingua100. 111–49. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(96)00040‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(96)00040-X [Google Scholar]
  33. Horn, Laurence R.
    1989 A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 2017 The singular square: contrariety and double negation from Aristotle to Homer. InJoanna Blochowiak, Cristina Grisot, Stephanie Durrleman & Christopher Laenzlinger (eds.), Formal models in the study of language. Applications in interdisciplinary contexts, 143–79. Berlin: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Huddleston, Rodney
    1976 Some theoretical issues in the description of the English verb. Lingua40. 331–83. 10.1016/0024‑3841(76)90084‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(76)90084-X [Google Scholar]
  36. 1984 Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165785
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165785 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hudson, Richard
    1975 The meaning of questions. Language51. 1–31. 10.2307/413148
     https://doi.org/10.2307/413148 [Google Scholar]
  38. Israel, Michael
    2011 The grammar of polarity. Pragmatics, sensitivity, and the logic of scales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975288
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975288 [Google Scholar]
  39. Jacobsson, Bengt
    1979 Modality and the modals of necessity must and have to. English Studies60. 296–312. 10.1080/00138387908597972
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00138387908597972 [Google Scholar]
  40. James, Francis
    1986 Semantics of the English subjunctive. Vancouver: University of British Colombia Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Klima, Edward S.
    1964 Negation in English. InJerry A. Fodor & Jerrold Katz (eds.), The structure of language, 246–323. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1978 The form and meaning of the English auxiliary. Language54. 853–82. 10.2307/413237
     https://doi.org/10.2307/413237 [Google Scholar]
  43. 1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol.2. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 2000 Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 2009 Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214369
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2015 How to build an English clause. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics5. 1–45.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Larrivée, Pierre
    2004 L’association négative. Geneva: Droz.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Leech, Geoffrey N.
    2004 Meaning and the English verb, 3rd edn.London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Lyons, John
    1977 Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Maché, Jakob
    2013 On black magic – How epistemic modifiers emerge. Berlin: Freie Universität zu Berlin Ph.D. dissertation.
  51. Maienborn, Claudia, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner
    (eds.) 2011 Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110226614
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226614 [Google Scholar]
  52. Murphy, M. Lynne
    2010 Lexical meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511780684
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511780684 [Google Scholar]
  53. Nordlinger, Rachel & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
    1997 Scope and the development of epistemic modality: evidence from ought to. English Language and Linguistics1. 295–317. 10.1017/S1360674300000551
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674300000551 [Google Scholar]
  54. Palmer, F. R.
    1986 Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Palmer, Frank R.
    1990 Modality and the English modals, 2nd edn.London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 2001 Mood and modality. Cambridge: University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139167178
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178 [Google Scholar]
  57. Paul, Hermann
    2002 Deutsches Wörterbuch: Bedeutungsgeschichte und Aufbau unseres Wortschatzes, 10th edn.Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 10.1515/9783110929799
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110929799 [Google Scholar]
  58. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey N. Leech, & Jan Svartvik
    1985 A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Schlegoff, Emanuel A.
    2000 On granularity. Annual Review of Sociology26. 715–20. 10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.715
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.715 [Google Scholar]
  60. Sweetser, Eve
    1990 From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  61. Talmy, Leonard
    1988 Force Dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science12. 49–100. 10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2 [Google Scholar]
  62. Tottie, Gunnel
    1985 The negation of epistemic necessity in present-day British and American English. English World Wide6. 87–116. 10.1075/eww.6.1.05tot
     https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.6.1.05tot [Google Scholar]
  63. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    1972 A history of English syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. van der Auwera, Johan
    2001 On the typology of negative modals. InJack Hoeksema, Hotze Rullmann, Victor Sanchez-Valencia & Ton van der Wouden (eds.), Perspectives on negation and polarity items, 23–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.40.03auw
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.40.03auw [Google Scholar]
  65. Veselinova, Ljuba N.
    2016 The negative existential cycle viewed through the lens of comparative data. InElly van Gelderen (ed.), Cyclical Change Continued, 139–188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.227.06ves
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.227.06ves [Google Scholar]
  66. von Bergen, Anke, & Klaus von Bergen
    1993 Negative Polarität im Englischen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Zwicky, Arnold M. & Geoffrey K. Pullum
    1983 Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t. Language59. 502–13. 10.2307/413900
     https://doi.org/10.2307/413900 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.18062.duf
Loading
Must/need, may/can and the scope of the modal auxiliary
Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language” 43, 499 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18062.duf
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.18062.duf
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.18062.duf
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): logical semantics; modal auxiliary; negation; paraphrase; polarity

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error