Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T00:45:07.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Making meaning with be able to: modality and actualisation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2021

BENOÎT LECLERCQ  and
ILSE DEPRAETERE
BENOÎT LECLERCQ
Affiliation:
DEPA - Département d'Études des Pays Anglophones University of Paris 8 2 rue de la Liberté [email protected]
ILSE DEPRAETERE
Affiliation:
UMR 8163 Savoirs, Textes, Langage University of Lille 3 Rue du Barreau 59650 Villeneuve-d'Ascq [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article sheds new light on the usage constraints of be able to, by combining empirical evidence from the British National Corpus (BNC, Davies 2004–) with theoretical insights on the semantics–pragmatics interface. First, we show that be able to does not, contrary to the general assumption, express only ‘ability’ but it shares most of the root meanings usually associated with the possibility modals can and could (Coates 1983: 124). The data analysis shows that what is called ‘opportunity’ in Depraetere & Reed's (2011) taxonomy is the most frequent meaning of be able to. We then turn to the notion of actualisation, which is often claimed to be the main distinguishing feature between be able to and can/could. The qualitative analysis of the BNC dataset provides the empirical evidence, lacking in previous research, for the claim that actualisation is indeed a defining property of the modal periphrastic form. Starting from a reassessment of the semantics–pragmatics interface in terms of a fourfold distinction, we argue that actualisation is a generalised conversational implicature and constitutes conventional pragmatic meaning (that is, conventional non-truth-conditional meaning).

Keywords

be able toactualisationsemanticspragmaticsGCI
Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 2022 , pp. 27 - 48
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Aarts, Bas, McMahon, April & Hinrichs, Lars (eds.). 2021. The handbook of English linguistics, 2nd edn. Hoboken, NJ, and Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 2004. The semantic path from modality to aspect: Be able to in a crosslinguistic perspective. In Lindquist, Hans & Mair, Christian (eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English, 57–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2010. Defining pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arppe, Antti, Gilquin, Gaëtanelle, Glynn, Dylan, Hilpert, Martin & Zeschel, Arne. 2010. Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora 5(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh. 1999. Ability modals and their actuality entailments. In Shahin, Kimary N., Blake, Susan & Kim, Eun-Sook (eds.), Proceedings of the 17th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 74–87. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Binnick, Robert I. 1991. Time and the verb: A guide to tense and aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Binnick, Robert I. 2021. Aspect and aspectuality. In Aarts, , McMahon, & Hinrichs, (eds.), 244–68.Google Scholar
Borgonovo, Claudia & Cummins, Sarah. 2007. Tensed modals. In Eguren, Luis & Fernández-Soriano, Olga (eds.), Coreference, modality, and focus: Studies on the syntax-semantics interface, 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1988. The development of English aspectual systems: Aspectualizers and postverbal particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, Bert & Depraetere, Ilse. 2016. Short-circuited interpretations of modal verb constructions: Some evidence from The Simpsons. Constructions and Frames 8(1), 7–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrasco, Ángeles. 2019. On the actuality entailment of Spanish root modals. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 8(2), 111–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London and Canberra: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Collins, Peter. 2009. Modals and quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2004–. BYU-BNC. (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press). Available online at: www.english-corpora.org/bnc/ (accessed 23 March 2020).Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 2006. The grammar of the English verb phrase, vol. 1: The grammar of the English tense system: A comprehensive analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 2007. Distinguishing between the aspectual categories ‘(a)telic’, ‘(im)perfective’ and ‘(non)bounded’. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 29, 48–64.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 2011. The definition of modality. In Patard, Adeline & Brisard, Frank (eds.), Cognitive approaches to tense, aspect and epistemic modality, 21–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse. 2019. Meaning in context and contextual meaning: A perspective on the semantics-pragmatics interface applied to modal verbs. Anglophonia. French Journal of English Linguistics 28. https://doi.org/10.4000/anglophonia.2453Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse & Langford, Chad. 2020. Advanced English grammar: A linguistic approach, 2nd edn. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse & Reed, Susan. 2008. Towards a more explicit taxonomy of root possibility in English. Paper presented at ISLE 1, Freiburg, 8-11 October 2008.Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse & Reed, Susan. 2011. Towards a more explicit taxonomy of root possibility. English Language and Linguistics 15(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse & Reed, Susan. 2021. Mood and modality in English. In Aarts, McMahon & Hinrichs (eds.), 207–27.Google Scholar
De Wit, Astrid. 2017. The present perfective paradox across languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Facchinetti, Roberta. 2000. Be able to in Present-Day British English. In Mair, Christian & Hundt, Marianne (eds.), Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory, 117–30. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia & Staraki, Eleni. 2013. Ability, action and causation: From pure ability to force. In Mari, Alda, Beyssade, Claire & Prete, Fabio Del (eds.), Genericity, 250–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. 2006. Aspects of modality. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. 2009. On the interaction of aspect and modal auxiliaries. Linguistics and Philosophy 32, 279–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. To appear. Actuality entailments. In Gutzmann, Daniel, Matthewson, Lisa, Meier, Cécile, Rullmann, Hotze & Zimmermann, Thomas E. (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to semantics. Hoboken, NJ, and Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Homer, Vincent. 2011. French modals and perfective: A case of aspectual coercion. In Washburn, Mary Byram, McKinney-Bock, Katherine, Varis, Erika, Sawyer, Ann & Tomaszewicz, Barbara (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 106–14. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence. 1984. Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, Deborah (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications, 11–42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence. 2004. Implicature. In Horn & Ward (eds.), 3–28.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence & Ward, Gregory (eds.). 2004. The handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Huang, Yan. 2014. Pragmatics, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huang, Yan. 2017. Implicature. In Huang, Yan (ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics, 155–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1984. Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia. 2009. Cancellability and the primary/secondary meaning distinction. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(3), 259–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1971. Implicative verbs. Language 47, 340–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leclercq, Benoît. To appear. Semantics and pragmatics in Construction Grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Mari, Alda. 2017. Actuality entailments: When the modality is in the presupposition. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 191–210.Google Scholar
Mari, Alda & Martin, Fabienne. 2007. Tense, abilities and actuality entailment. In Aloni, Maria, Dekker, Paul & Roelofsen, Floris (eds.), Proceedings of the XVI Amsterdam Colloquium, 151–6. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Morgan, Jerry L. 1977. Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. Technical report no. 52, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/17765/ctrstreadtechrepv01977i00052_opt.pdf?sequeGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. 2005. On defining modality again. Language Sciences 27, 165–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank. 1980. Can, will and actuality. In Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan (eds.), Studies in English linguistics, 91–9. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank. 1990. Modality and the English modals, 2nd edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Thornburg, Linda. 1999. The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Radden, Günter (eds.), Metonymy in language and thought, 333–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piñón, Christopher. 2003. Being able to. In Garding, Gina & Tsujimura, Mimu (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 384–97. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Piñón, Christopher. 2009. Another look at the actuality entailment of certain modal verbs. Handout at conference on ‘Genericity: Interpretation and uses I’, Paris, ENS, 11–13 May.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2009. Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Vallejo, David. 2017. Actuality effects as conversational implicatures. Journal of Pragmatics 112, 44–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westney, Paul. 1995. Modals and periphrastics in English. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan. 2004. Relevance theory. In Horn & Ward (eds.), 607–32.Google Scholar
Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra. 2001. Past ability and the derivation of complementary inferences. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2(2), 273–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra. 2003. The development of counterfactual implicatures in English: A case of metonymy or M-inference? In Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Thornburg, Linda L. (eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing, 169–203. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine, Moeschler, Jacques & Reboul, Anne. 2019. Implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar