Univerzita Karlova V Praze Filozofická Fakulta Ústav Anglistiky a Amerikanistiky Epistemic and Root Possibility Meanings of CA
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Univerzita Karlova v Praze Filozofická fakulta Ústav anglistiky a amerikanistiky Petra Huschová Epistemic and Root Possibility Meanings of CAN and MAY in Written English Anglický jazyk Vedoucí práce: prof. PhDr. Libuše Dušková, DrSc. 2008 Abbreviations used in the study ACAD academic scientific style ADMIN administrative style FICT fiction FTA face threatening act NAT popular scientific style (natural sciences) NEWS newspaper reporting CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1 2. Modality 4 2.1 Modality and mood 4 2.2 Definition of modality 5 2.3 Classification of modality 7 2.3.1 Epistemic modality 11 2.3.2 Deontic and dynamic modality 12 2.3.3 Root modality 13 2.4 The concept of possibility and necessity 14 2.4.1 Epistemic vs. root possibility 15 2.5. English modal verbs 17 2.5.1 General characteristics 18 2.5.2 Syntactic co-occurrence patterns 19 2.5.3 Negation 20 2.5.4 Time reference and past tense modal forms 21 2.6 Polysemous vs. monosemous nature of the English modal verbs 23 2.6.1 Fuzziness and centre-periphery viewpoint 24 2.6.2 Semantic indeterminacy of modal verbs 28 3. Hedging 31 3.1 Hedging and modality 33 3.1.1 Tentative possibility 34 3.1.2 Hypothetical usage 34 4. Methodological framework 36 4.1 Scope and central aims 37 4.2 The criteria of analysis 38 4.3 Characteristics of the research data 39 5. CAN 42 5.1 Aspect, time reference and factivity 43 5.2 Gradience 45 5.2.1 The gradient of restriction (possibility vs. permission) 46 5.2.2 The gradient of inherency (possibility vs. ability) 48 5.3 Root possibility CAN 50 5.3.1 Time reference 50 5.3.2 Enabling external circumstances 51 5.3.3 Syntactic co-occurrence patterns 53 5.3.3.1 The nature of subject 53 5.3.3.2 The nature of verb 54 5.3.3.3 CAN + perfect infinitive 56 5.3.4 Contextual and pragmatic factors 56 5.3.4.1 Root possibility CAN in declarative structures 56 5.3.4.2 Root possibility CAN in interrogative structures 59 5.3.5 Root possibility CANNOT 60 5.4 Epistemic CAN 62 6. COULD 63 6.1 Root possibility 64 6.1.1 Hypothetical root possibility COULD (non-past contexts) 65 6.1.2 Root possibility COULD in past contexts 67 6.1.3 Root possibility COULD + perfect infinitive 69 6.2 Epistemic possibility COULD 71 6.3 Undecidable 72 7. MAY 73 7.1 Epistemic MAY 73 7.1.1 Syntactic co-occurrence patterns 74 7.1.1.1 Sentence type 76 7.1.1.2 Negation 77 7.1.1.3 Time reference 77 7.1.1.4 Aspect 79 7.1.1.5 Concessive clauses 81 7.1.1.6 Harmonic combinations 84 7.2 Root possibility MAY 85 7.2.1 Gradient of restriction 86 7.2.2 Syntactic co-occurrence patterns 87 7.2.3 Existential possibility 89 7.3 Indeterminate cases – merger 90 8. MIGHT 91 8.1 Epistemic possibility MIGHT 92 8.1.1 Epistemic MIGHT in non-past contexts 92 8.1.2 Differences between epistemic MAY and MIGHT in non-past contexts 93 8.1.3 Hypothetical epistemic MIGHT 95 8.1.4 Indeterminate cases of epistemic MIGHT 96 8.1.5 Past epistemic MIGHT 97 8.1.6 Epistemic MIGHT in reported speech 98 8.2 Root possibility MIGHT 99 8.3 MIGHT + perfect aspect 100 8.3.1 Past epistemic possibility 102 8.3.2 Past hypothetical epistemic possibility 103 8.3.3 Past hypothetical root possibility 103 8.4. Undecidable 104 9. Meanings and uses of CAN and MAY 106 9.1 Theoretical vs. factual possibility 107 9.2 Overlap in root possibility 109 10. Meanings and uses of COULD and MIGHT 114 10.1 Hypothetical use 115 10.2 Past tense use and reported speech 117 10.3 Epistemic MIGHT and COULD 118 10.4 MIGHT and COULD + perfect aspect 121 11. Distribution of modal verbs with regard to stylistic variation 124 11.1 Administrative and academic scientific style 126 11.2 Popular scientific style and newspaper reporting 128 11.3 Fiction 129 12. Modal verbs in the function of hedges 132 12.1 COULD and MIGHT 132 12.2 CAN and MAY 134 13. Conclusions 136 14. Summary 140 References 150 Appendix 1: Data used in the analysis 154 Appendix 2A: tokens of CAN 156 Appendix 2B: tokens of COULD 170 Appendix 2C: tokens of MAY 182 Appendix 2D: tokens of MIGHT 199 1. Introduction The study is concerned with the English modal auxiliaries CAN and MAY 1 and their morphologically past tense forms COULD and MIGHT . It is essentially a small-scale corpus-based investigation into possibility meanings of these modal auxiliaries in contemporary written British English, taking account of stylistic variation. The investigation focuses on assigning appropriate readings to contextualized occurrences of modal auxiliaries and is thus primarily based on discussions of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic aspects. The study attempts to present a general account of possibility senses of CAN /COULD and MAY /MIGHT and reviews the issues relating to their use and distribution on the basis of a semantic and quantitative analysis. However, frequency of occurrence is meant to provide merely a supplementary view of the qualitative analysis, focusing on the role of context in interpreting modal meanings. Among the modal-specific questions that the treatise addresses are those concerning modal semantics, syntactic co-occurrence patterns, stylistic variation, and pragmatic inferencing. It is important to note that the study does not attempt to provide an exhaustive and systematic semantic description of CAN /COULD and MAY /MIGHT . Based on interpreting particular contextualized occurrences, it primarily investigates relevant contextual factors and patterns in order to reveal their significance in terms of the root-epistemic distinction. Secondly, the study examines the values of CAN /COULD and MAY /MIGHT from the viewpoint of supposedly competing forms and questions their alleged quasi-equivalence. Stated differently, the analysis attempts to prove that, however close the interpretations may be, some contextual features determining the reading and choice of a particular modal verb can generally be pinpointed. Thirdly, the paper discusses the factors governing the distribution of CAN /COULD and MAY /MIGHT across different registers and text-types. The final goal of the present study is to integrate the possibility modal senses into an 1 Capitals are used in this study in all contexts to indicate lexical items while italics are used for forms. For instance, CAN is used to refer to the modal with its forms can, cannot, can’t . The morphologically past tense forms are treated as independent lexical items (i.e. MIGHT , COULD ) for the reasons explained in section 2.5.4. 1 overall framework of hedging and to identify those modal possibility uses that are commonly employed as hedging devices. Furthermore, the study attempts to disprove the general belief that it is only epistemic possibility meanings that commonly function as hedges. The subject is discussed from different perspectives, both theoretical and corpus-based. The first two chapters deal exclusively with theoretical issues and the concepts outlined there are investigated in more detail in the subsequent empirical sections. The empirical chapters, accompanied with relevant theoretical framework, focus primarily on the discussion of findings resulting from the analysis of the actual data. The opening chapter, dealing with terminological issues, briefly introduces widely recognized definitions, concepts and frameworks of modality. Its goal is not to cover systematically any available models in depth, for it goes beyond the framework of this paper. The categories of modality are referred to mainly for purposes of contrast and clarification. Being the central issue to the study, the concept of modal possibility is thoroughly investigated and subsequently expanded in the empirical sections with the aim of establishing factors that help distinguish epistemic and root possibility. Section 1.5 reviews the essential features of the English modal auxiliaries with focus on their idiosyncratic characteristics and a considerable range of uses. Emphasis is put on discussing their nature in terms of polysemy and monosemy, gradience and indeterminacy. Finally, the concept of hedging is defined and its relation to modal possibility explained. Each of the first four empirical chapters (5 - 8) deals thoroughly with one modal verb in turn (i.e. CAN , COULD , MAY and MIGHT ). Various senses of these modal verbs are illustrated with the examples drawn from the corpus. Special attention is paid to examining the relation between the modals and other domains of grammar, above all, aspect, negation, time reference, interrogative structure or hypothetical marking, which seemingly help disambiguate the intended reading. These chapters also focus on demonstrating the wide semantic range covered by the four auxiliaries and thus imply their potential 2 overlap in usage, i.e. CAN and MAY in their root possibility sense, MIGHT and COULD in their root possibility, epistemic possibility and hypothetical sense. Consequently, chapters 9 and 10 attempt to clarify to what extent the senses involved are synonymous and in what way they are distinct. Since the analysis focuses on mapping the distribution and use of CAN /COULD and MAY /MIGHT with regard to stylistic stratification and degree of formality , the relative importance of these verbs and their meanings in the examined registers is summarized in chapter 11. Chapter 12 tries to illustrate and explain which of the modal possibility senses are typically exploited as hedging devices. The study concludes with a summary of the major findings. It is necessary to emphasize that the results of the analysis and the validity of the suggested conclusions are limited by the extent of the sample, which is not sufficient to draw any firm general conclusions.