Invariantist ‘might’ and modal meaning change
- 271 Downloads
Invariantism proposed by Braun (Linguistics and Philosophy 35(6):461–489, 2012) aims to maintain full identity of semantic content between all uses of ‘might’. I invoke well-known facts regarding diachronic change in meanings of modals to argue that invariantism commits us to implausible duplication of familiar processes of lexical semantic change on the level of “lexical pragmatics”, with no obvious payoff.
KeywordsModality Invariantism Contextualism Lexical pragmatics Modal meaning change
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Braun, D. (2012). An invariantist theory of ‘might’ might be right. Linguistics and Philosophy, 35(6), 461–489.Google Scholar
- Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Nordlinger R., Traugott E. C.: Scope and the development of epistemic modality: Evidence from ought to. English Language Linguistics 1(2), 295–317 (1997)Google Scholar
- Searle, J. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 59–82). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change volume~96 of Cambridge studies in linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Yanovich, I. (2013). Standard contextualism strikes back. Journal of Semantics. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffs022.