The modal verbs can and may in English and Spanish

Table of Contents

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

Research Objectives and Topics

This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the English modal verbs CAN and MAY (and their Spanish equivalent PODER), examining their root and epistemic interpretations through the lens of the possibility-necessity distinction. The research explores the hypothesis that modal expressions in natural language contain underspecified contents that require pragmatic manipulation to support formal inference.

• Syntactic properties of English modal auxiliaries and their structural positions.
• Semantic analysis debating unitary, ambiguous, and polysemous approaches to modals.
• Pragmatic derivation of contextual meanings for root and epistemic modality.
• Interaction of modals with negation, tense, and aspect.
• Cross-linguistic comparison focusing on the Spanish verb PODER.

Excerpt from the Book

Summary of Chapters

1. Modality and Mood: Explores the distinction between mood as a grammatical category and modality as a semantic/pragmatic concept, while establishing the root and epistemic reading categories.

2. Modal Verbs: Provides a syntactic examination of the English modals, focusing on their NICE properties, structural positions within the clause, and their interaction with tense, aspect, and negation.

3. A Semantic Analysis of the English Modals: Investigates the debate between unitary, ambiguity, and polysemy views of modals, proposing a monosemous approach where context dictates interpretation.

4. A Pragmatic Point of View: Discusses the derivation of root and epistemic interpretations through pragmatic enrichment, including the metarepresentation hypothesis and 'speech-act' modality.

5. Expressing Permission and Possibility in Spanish: Offers a cross-linguistic account of the Spanish verb PODER, contrasting its syntactic and semantic behavior with English modals.

Keywords

Modality, Mood, Root Modality, Epistemic Modality, CAN, MAY, PODER, Semantics, Pragmatics, Syntactic, Negation, Possible Worlds, Polysemy, Monosemy, Metarepresentation

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the core subject of this paper?

The paper fundamentally deals with the linguistic analysis of the English modal verbs CAN and MAY, exploring how they are used to express different categories of meaning such as possibility, ability, and permission.

What are the primary themes discussed?

The core themes include the syntactic positioning of modals, the semantic debate regarding their polysemous versus monosemous nature, and the pragmatic processes involved in deriving context-specific meanings.

What is the primary research goal?

The goal is to provide a complete analysis of CAN and MAY by demonstrating that these expressions carry underspecified semantic content, which is enriched through pragmatic interaction to support inference.

Which scientific methods are employed?

The study utilizes a generative syntactic framework, possible-worlds semantics, and elements of Relevance Theory to analyze linguistic data and cross-linguistic differences between English and Spanish.

What is covered in the main body of the work?

The main body examines the morpho-syntactic features of modals, their classification into root and epistemic types, their role as propositional operators, and how they behave in relation to negation and complement structures.

Which keywords best describe this research?

Key terms include modality, mood, root and epistemic interpretations, semantic-pragmatic interface, and cross-linguistic analysis of auxiliary systems.

How does the author distinguish between root and epistemic modality?

The author distinguishes them by their interaction with tense, their syntactic position within the clause, and whether they involve the speaker’s mental representation of reality (epistemic) or relations between circumstances (root).

What unique role does the Spanish verb PODER play?

PODER serves as the primary Spanish equivalent to CAN and MAY, and the analysis shows how it functions as a "semi-auxiliary" that behaves differently than English modals by carrying tense and subject-verb agreement.

What is the "metarepresentation hypothesis" mentioned in the work?

It is a theory used to explain epistemic modality, suggesting that speakers perform deductive operations on their own beliefs or hypotheses, treating the embedded proposition as an interpretive object rather than a direct description of fact.