Is there a “Meditative-polemic-May”?
Abstract
This article aims at displaying the results of a preliminary study on MAY and MIGHT in extraposed subject clauses where they compete with the meditative-polemic-Should. Two types of extraposed subordinate clauses will be compared, one in which MAY and MIGHT have an epistemic meaning and one in which they behave like the meditative-polemic-Should. The examples extracted from Google reveal that this specific use of MAY and MIGHT is mostly found in American English, that it is mostly used in journals, and that the subclause refers to past events that could logically be expected. What is more, the subordinate clause containing this modal auxiliary reformulates the title of the article or of a paragraph. This shows that the proposition in which it is found plays a crucial role in the text, which is to provide the main information of the article once the background has been explained. We will also see that when the subject of the content clause is animate, MAY and MIGHT are less likely to have an epistemic or root reading than when the subject is inanimate. Finally, the examples reveal that this form collocates with subjective markers denoting the point of view of the subject, via the use of verbs of cognition and perception or via the progressive aspect (it’s not surprising that he may want, need, choose, be feeling…). We propose to call it the “subjective-explanatory-May”.
Keywords:
May, Might, Modal auxiliaries, Meditative-polemic-shouldReferences
Adamczewski, H., and C. Delmas. 1982. Grammaire linguistique de l’anglais. Armand Colin, 5ème édition.
Behre, F. 1955. Meditative-polemic should in Modern English that-clauses (Vol. 4). Almqvist & Wiksell.
Bouscaren, J., and J. Chuquet. 1987. Grammaire et textes anglais: guide pour l’analyse linguistique. Editions OPHRYS.
Celle, A. 2018. Epistemic evaluation in factual contexts in English. In Z. Guentchéva (ed.), Epistemic Modalities and Evidentiality in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, 22–51. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110572261-002 (Crossref)
Coates, J. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. Routledge.
Huddleston, R., and G. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2005-0209 (Crossref)
Jacobsson, B. 1988. Should and would in factual that‐clauses. English Studies 69(1): 72–84. (Crossref)
Jespersen, O. 2013 [1931]. Essentials of English grammar. Routledge. (Crossref)
Kanté, I. 2010. Mood and modality in finite noun complement clauses: A French-English contrastive study. International journal of corpus linguistics 15(2): 267–290. (Crossref)
Khalifa, J. C. 2004. Syntaxe de l’anglais: théories et pratique de l’énoncé complexe aux concours. Editions OPHRYS.
Larreya, P., and C. Rivière. 2005. Grammaire explicative de l’anglais. 3 e édition.
Larreya, P. 2015. Modalisations a priori et a posteriori: le cas de would. Anglophonia. French Journal of English Linguistics 19. (Crossref)
Leech, G. 1971. Meaning and the English verb. London: Longman.
Melis, G. 2002. Nominalisateurs et prise en charge. In C. Delmas, and L. Roux (eds.), Construire et Reconstruire en Linguistique Anglaise. Syntaxe et Sémantique. C.I.E.R.E.C Travaux 107, Publications de l’Université de Saint-Etienne, 139–150.
Paillard, M. 1984. La question du subjonctif en français et en anglais contemporains. Cahiers Charles V 6(1): 63–86. https://doi.org/10.3406/cchav.1984.955 (Crossref)
Pelyvás, P. 2006. Subjectification in (expressions of) epistemic modality and the development of the grounding. In A. Athanasiadou, C. Canakis and B. Cornillie (eds.), Subjectification: Various paths to subjectivity. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110892970 (Crossref)
Quirk et al. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Pearson Longman.
Rothstein, P. 2009 (October). Le linguistique dans l’expression de la subjectivité en traduction: une problématique du subjonctif. In H. Anamur, A. Bulut, and A. Uras-Yilmaz (eds), Colloque international de traduction. La traduction sous tous ses aspects au centre de gravité du dialogue international. Istanbul.
Spears, A. K. 1973 (April). Complements of significant-class predicates: A study in the semantics of complementation. In Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Vol. 9, No. 1), 627–638. Chicago Linguistic Society.
Wilson, D., and D. Sperber. 2004. Relevance Theory. In L. R. Horn, and G. Ward (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.
Université Lumière Lyon 2 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8534-5248
