Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T15:44:59.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The English modal auxiliaries: from lexical semantics to utterance interpretation1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Alex Klinge
Alex Klinge
Affiliation:
Department of English, The Copenhagen Business School, 15 Dalgas Have, DK-2000 Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Like so many others before it, this exposition is of the meaning of the English modal auxiliaries, which are found in utterances conveying modal meanings such as ability, possibility and permission. However, unlike the majority of its predecessors, the present rendering admits to being about more than semantics. With the five central modal auxiliaries, can, may, must, will and shall, the modals for short, as a point of departure, a framework will be formulated to shed light on some central aspects of the immense cotext and context sensitivity involved in the meaning of utterances of sentences containing a modal auxiliary.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , September 1993 , pp. 315 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. (1989). Extrinsic possibility and intrinsic potentiality: 7 on MAY and CAN + 1. Journal of Pragmatics. 13 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouma, L. (1973). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries in contemporary German. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Boyd, J. & Thorne, J. P. (1969). The semantics of modal verbs. JL. 5 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (1988). Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics. In Kempson, R. (ed.), Mental representations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 155–181.Google Scholar
Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London and Canberra: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Davidsen-Nielsen, N. (1988). Has English a future? Acta Linguistica Hafniensia. 21 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidsen-Nielsen, N. (1990). Tense and mood in English: a comparison with Danish. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Davies, E. (1986). The English imperative. London and Sydney: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Davis, S. (ed.) (1991). Pragmatics: a reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Durst-Andersen, P. (1986). Russian qualitative aspect: referential and propositional semantics. In Sørensen, F. (ed.) Aspects of aspect. Copenhagen: Cebal. 27–57.Google Scholar
Durst-Andersen, P. (1992). Mental grammar: Russian aspect and related issues. Columbus, OH: Slavica.Google Scholar
Ehrman, M. E. (1966). The meanings of the modals in present-day English. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1989). be going to and will: a pragmatic account. JL. 25 291–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermerén, L. (1978). On modality in English: a study of the semantics of the modals (Lund Studies in English 53). Lund: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Herslund, M. (1989). Modality: a presentation. In Herslund, M. (ed.) On modality: papers from meetings and discussions in the Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. 7–15.Google Scholar
Jackson, B. S. (1985). Semiotics and legal theory. London and New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Joos, M. (1964). The English verb: form and meanings. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. & Postal, P. M. (1964). An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1977). What MUST and CAN must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy. 1 337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kress, G. (1976). Halliday: system and function in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1987). Meaning and the English verb, 2nd edn.London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1981). Language, meaning and context. Bungay, Suffolk: Fontana.Google Scholar
Marino, M. (1973). A feature analysis of the English modals. Lingua. 32 309–323.Google Scholar
Moya, C. (1990). The philosophy of action. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1990). Modality and the English modals, 2nd edn.London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Perkins, M. R. (1983). Modal expressions in English. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1991). What is a speech act? In Davis, S. (ed.) Pragmatics: a reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 254–264.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Van Der Auwera, J. (1986). The possibilities of may and can. In Kastovsky, D. & Szwedek, A. (eds.) Linguisties across historical and geographical boundaries. In honour of Jacek Fisiak, on the occasion of his fiftieth birthday, vol. II. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1067–1076.Google Scholar
Vanparys, J. (1987). Towards a pragmatic approach to modality: the case of permissive can and may. In Verschueren, J. (ed.) The pragmatics perspective: selected papers from the 1985 international pragmatics conference. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 229–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Wright, G. H. (1951). An essay in modal logic. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Walton, A. L. (1991). The semantics and pragmatics of can. Linguistische Berichte. 135 325–345.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1987). The semantics of modality. Folia Linguistica. 21 25–43.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (1988). Representation and relevance. In Kempson, R. (ed.) Mental representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 133–153.Google Scholar
Woisetschlaeger, E. F. (1985). A semantic theory of the English auxiliary system. New York and London: Garland.Google Scholar