Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-zkb6p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T19:15:07.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modals and actuality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

F. R. Palmer
F. R. Palmer
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistic Science, University of Reading
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Part of the meaning of a verb phrase containing a form of one of the English modal verbs CAN and WILL1 is that the actions, events, etc., indicated by the following full verb took place, takes place and will take place. I shall use the term MODALITY to refer to the meaning of the modal verb and EVENT to refer to the meaning of the full verb and say that, in certain circumstances, there is ACTUALITY of the event or that the event is ACTUALIZED. I wish to discuss the circumstances in which this is so and attempt to provide explanations in terms of some of the characteristics of modality in general.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 1977, pp. 01 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Austin, J. L. (1966). Ifs and cans. In Austin, J. L., Philosophical papers. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (First published in PBA, 1956.) 153–180.Google Scholar
Ayers, M. R. (1966). Austin on ‘could’ and ‘could have’. PQ 16. 113–120.Google Scholar
Ayers, M. R. (1968). ‘Could’ and ‘could have’: a reply. PQ 18. 144–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behre, F. (1965). J. L. Austin's ‘If’. ES 46. 85–92.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. M. (1946). The contrary-to-fact conditional. Mind 55. 289–307.Google Scholar
Reprinted in Feigl, & Sellars, (eds) (1949), Readings in philosophical analysis. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts.Google Scholar
Ehrman, M. E, (1966). The meanings of the modals in present day English. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Gallop, D. (1967). Ayers on ‘could’ and ‘could have’. PQ 17. 255–256.Google Scholar
Grince, H. P. (1968) Utterer's meaning, sentence-meaning and word-meaning. FL 4. 225–242.Google Scholar
Handford, S. A. (1947). The Latin subjunctive: its usage and development from Plautus to Tacitus. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Honoré, A. M. (1964). Can and can't. Mind 73. 463–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. D. (1971). The sentence in written English: a syntactic study based on the analysis of scientific texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lebrun, Y. (1966). A note on ‘can’ and ‘could’. RLaV 32. 58–65.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1969). Towards a semantic description of English. London:Longman.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. (1947). Ethics. London: OUP.Google Scholar
Nowell-Smith, P. H. (1960). Ifs and cans. Theoria 26. 85–101.Google Scholar
Nowell-Smith, P. H. (1961). Ethics. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1974). The English Verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Twaddell, W. F. (1965). The English verb auxiliaries. (Second edition.) Providence: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
Von Wright, G. H. (1951). An essay in modal logic. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Von Wright, G. H. (1968). An essay in deontic logic. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar