The modal verbs can and may in English and Spanish

Table of Contents

• Abstract
• Introduction
• 1. Modality and Mood
  • 1.1. The Difference between Mood and Modality
    • 1.1.1. What is Mood?
    • 1.1.2. What is Modality?
  • 1.2. Epistemic Modality and Evidentiality
  • 1.3. Root Modality
    • 1.3.1. Deontic Modality
    • 1.3.2. Dynamic Modality
  • 1.4. The Root - Epistemic Distinction (as shown in CAN and MAY)
    • 1.4.1. An Analysis of the Dichotomy Root - Epistemic
• 2. Modal Verbs
  • 2.1. The Morpho-Syntactic Properties of the English Modals
  • 2.2. The Structural Positions of Modals
  • 2.3. The Complement of Modals
  • 2.4. Time Reference for CAN and MAY
  • 2.5. Scope Properties of Modal Verbs
  • 2.6. Modality and Negation
• 3. A Semantic Analysis of the English Modals
  • 3.1. The Unitary Semantic Approach vs. Ambiguity - Polysemy View
    • 3.1.1. The Ambiguity View (Palmer)
    • 3.1.2. The Polysemy View (Sweetser)
    • 3.1.3. The Monosemy View (Kratzer, Papafragou)
  • 3.2. Quantification and Scope
  • 3.3. Modal Restrictors
  • 3.4. Semantics for Modal Operators
• 4. A Pragmatic Point of View
  • 4.1. The Pragmatics of Root Modality
    • 4.1.1. Derivation of Root Interpretations of CAN and MAY
  • 4.2. The Pragmatics of Epistemic Modality
    • 4.2.1. The Metarepresentation Hypothesis
    • 4.2.2. Derivation of Epistemic Interpretations of CAN and MAY
  • 4.3. 'Speech-Act' Modality (Factual MAY)
• 5. Expressing Permission and Possibility in Spanish
  • 5.1. Modality Types
  • 5.2. A Syntactic Account
  • 5.3. A Semantic Account
    • 5.3.1. Complements
    • 5.3.2. Subject Restrictions
    • 5.3.3. Tense
    • 5.3.4. Negation
• Concluding Remarks
• References

Objectives and Key Themes

This paper aims to provide a thorough analysis of the English modal verbs "can" and "may," comparing them to their Spanish equivalents. The study investigates the expression of root and epistemic interpretations, exploring the possibility/necessity distinction. A key focus is on how incomplete modal expressions are pragmatically interpreted to create rich modal concepts.

• The distinction between root and epistemic modality.
• The morpho-syntactic properties and structural positions of modal verbs.
• A semantic analysis of modal verbs, comparing different theoretical approaches.
• The pragmatic manipulation of modal expressions to derive contextual interpretations.
• A comparison of the expression of permission and possibility in English and Spanish.

Chapter Summaries

1. Modality and Mood: This chapter defines mood and modality, differentiating them as grammatical and semantic/pragmatic categories, respectively. It establishes root and epistemic modality as major types, further classifying them into subcategories like deontic, dynamic, alethic, and evidentiality. The chapter concludes by distinguishing between root and epistemic readings of modals, specifically analyzing "can" and "may."

2. Modal Verbs: This chapter offers a syntactic analysis of modality. It details the morpho-syntactic properties of modal verbs, comparing them to primary auxiliaries. The chapter then explores the structural positions of modals, influenced by their dynamic, deontic, or epistemic readings. It also examines how complements impact interpretation, the interaction of "can" and "may" with tense and aspect, and the scoping of modals in relation to negation.

3. A Semantic Analysis of the English Modals: This chapter presents a semantic analysis of English modals, contrasting the unitary semantic approach with ambiguity/polysemy views proposed by linguists like Palmer and Sweetser. It discusses the monosemy view of Kratzer and Papafragou, and explores quantification, scope, modal restrictors, and semantics for modal operators, providing a comprehensive framework for understanding the semantic nuances of these verbs.

4. A Pragmatic Point of View: This chapter delves into the pragmatic aspects of root and epistemic modality. It investigates the derivation of root and epistemic interpretations of "can" and "may," specifically examining the metarepresentation hypothesis. It also analyzes "speech-act" modality (factual "may"), giving a complete picture of the pragmatic forces shaping the interpretation of these modal verbs.

5. Expressing Permission and Possibility in Spanish: This chapter shifts the focus to Spanish, analyzing modality types, syntactic accounts, and semantic aspects, including complements, subject restrictions, tense, and negation. The chapter offers a cross-linguistic comparison, highlighting similarities and differences between English and Spanish modal expressions.

Keywords

Modality, root modality, epistemic modality, deontic modality, dynamic modality, modal verbs, can, may, poder (Spanish), English, Spanish, semantics, pragmatics, syntax, quantification, scope, negation, possibility, necessity, metarepresentation.

Frequently Asked Questions: A Comprehensive Analysis of English and Spanish Modality

What is the main topic of this paper?

This paper provides a detailed analysis of English modal verbs "can" and "may," comparing them to their Spanish equivalents. It explores the expression of root and epistemic modality, examining the distinction between possibility and necessity, and analyzing how incomplete modal expressions are pragmatically interpreted.

What are the key themes explored in this study?

Key themes include the distinction between root and epistemic modality; the morpho-syntactic properties and structural positions of modal verbs; a semantic analysis comparing different theoretical approaches; the pragmatic manipulation of modal expressions; and a cross-linguistic comparison of permission and possibility in English and Spanish.

How does the paper differentiate between root and epistemic modality?

The paper defines and differentiates root and epistemic modality, categorizing them into sub-types like deontic, dynamic, and evidentiality. It analyzes how these different types manifest in the usage of "can" and "may," examining their syntactic and semantic properties.

What syntactic aspects of modal verbs are discussed?

The syntactic analysis covers the morpho-syntactic properties of modal verbs, their structural positions within sentences, the influence of complements on interpretation, the interaction with tense and aspect, and the scope of modals in relation to negation.

What semantic approaches to modal verbs are compared?

The paper compares different semantic approaches, including the unitary semantic approach, the ambiguity/polysemy views (Palmer, Sweetser), and the monosemy view (Kratzer, Papafragou). It explores quantification, scope, modal restrictors, and semantics for modal operators.

What is the role of pragmatics in interpreting modal expressions?

The pragmatic analysis focuses on the derivation of root and epistemic interpretations, examining the metarepresentation hypothesis and analyzing "speech-act" modality (factual "may"). It shows how context significantly shapes the meaning of modal verbs.

How does the paper compare English and Spanish modal expressions?

The cross-linguistic comparison focuses on expressing permission and possibility in Spanish, analyzing modality types, syntactic accounts, semantic aspects (complements, subject restrictions, tense, negation), and highlighting similarities and differences between English and Spanish.

What are the chapter summaries?

The paper includes detailed summaries for each chapter: Chapter 1 defines modality and mood; Chapter 2 provides a syntactic analysis of modal verbs; Chapter 3 offers a semantic analysis; Chapter 4 explores pragmatic aspects; and Chapter 5 compares English and Spanish modal expressions.

What are the keywords associated with this research?

Keywords include modality, root modality, epistemic modality, deontic modality, dynamic modality, modal verbs, can, may, poder (Spanish), English, Spanish, semantics, pragmatics, syntax, quantification, scope, negation, possibility, necessity, and metarepresentation.

Where can I find the complete table of contents?

The HTML file includes a complete and detailed table of contents outlining the structure of the paper.