This paper is concerned with the semantics of Spanish
This paper is concerned with the semantics of the Spanish abilitative modal expression
(1)
a.
Ayer
yesterday
mi
my
hermana
sister
fue
was.
capaz
capable
de
of
solucionar
solve
el
the
enigma.
enigma
‘Yesterday my sister was capable of solving the enigma.’
b.
Sandra
Sandra
es
is
capaz
capable
de
of
denunciar
report
a
to
su
her
vecina
neighbor
cualquier
any
día
day
‘Sandra is capable of reporting her neighbor any day.’
The novel empirical generalization that we put forth in this paper is that whenever SC occurs with imperfective morphology (in the broadest sense, to include simple present interpreted generically), two possible interpretations of the prejacent arise: (i) one that is compatible with a generic ability interpretation, and (ii) one that is consistent with an action-dependent ability (in the sense of
Our main theoretical claims can be summarized as follows:
SC has a circumstantial modal base that includes propositions that describe the subject’s inner circumstances. Depending on the ordering source, either a purely abilitative reading or an accidental reading emerges.
As an abilitative modal where the subject has control over the output, we follow Portner (
The accidental reading is the result of the interaction between the semantics of the modal and of the imperfective (past or present) as realized on the copula, viewed as a universal modal over most normal worlds.
Accidental readings under the imperfective past can be viewed as conveying action-dependent abilities. Therefore, we open the possibility that such abilities are not only conveyed by means of the boundedness constraint triggered by perfective aspect, as previously shown for French
This paper contributes new empirical data to the various interactions between imperfective aspect and abilitative modality, thus contributing to current work on abilities, dispositions and modality in general. It also contributes to the ongoing discussion on actuality entailments to the extent that SC is here used as a probe into the nature of actuality entailments.
Using a set of empirical diagnostics, this section delves into the characterization of SC as a modal expression with two main interpretations. We further show that SC requires that the prejacent expresses an unusual or remarkable state of affairs, which seems comparable to the unlikelihood presupposition of English
In previous literature, and especially in Castroviejo & Oltra-Massuet (
(2)
a.
Ele
he
foi
was
capaz
able
de
of
chegar
arrive
a
to
horas.
hours
‘He was able to arrive on time.’
b.
Ele
he
é
is
capaz
able
de
of
chegar
arrive
amanhã.
tomorrow
‘He may arrive tomorrow.’
(3)
a.
Hobbes
Hobbes
fue
was.
capaz
capable
de
of
traducir
translate
la
the
obra
work
completa
complete
de
of
Homero
Homer
a
to
los
the
86
86
años.
years
‘Hobbes was capable of translating the complete works of Homer at 86.’
b.
Mi
my
hijo
son
es
is
capaz
capable
de
of
haber
have
resuelto
resolved
el
the
caso
case
sin
without
acudir
turn-to
a
to
la
the
policía.
police
‘My son is capable of having solved the case without going to the police.’
This distinction, noted in Portuguese through the use of
Let us start by presenting a sentence in the present tense, (4), which can have the two purported readings.
(4)
Hobbes
Hobbes
es
is
capaz
capable
de
of
traducir
translate
las
the
obras
works
completas
complete
de
of
Homero.
Homer
‘Hobbes is capable of translating Homer’s collected works.’
In the purely abilitative reading, the sentence characterizes Hobbes’ disposition to translate Homer’s works. In the non-abilitative reading, the sentence describes the possibility of an event of Hobbes’ translation of Homer’s works in a future time, which is viewed as something unusual or exceptional. These two interpretations can be identified through a series of grammatical tests.
First, only the purely abilitative reading is compatible with perfective aspect on SC (realized either as the
(5)
Hobbes
Hobbes
fue
was.
capaz
capable
de
of
traducir
translate
las
the
obras
works
completas
complete
de
of
Homero.
Homer
‘Hobbes was capable of translating Homer’s collected works.’
If the copula is inflected for the Spanish
Second, whenever SC selects for a prejacent that is under the scope of an aspectual operator (perfect or progressive), the indisputable abilitative reading is no longer available, (6).
(6)
Este
this
filósofo
philosopher
es
is
capaz
capable
de
of
haber
have
traducido/
translated
estar
be
traduciendo
translating
las
the
obras
works
completas
complete
de
of
Homero.
Homer
‘This philosopher is capable of having translated/being translating Homer’s collected works.’
Note that the copula is inflected in the present tense, while the prejacent has different aspectual properties, so it is counterintuitive to interpret these sentences as conveying that the agent has the ability to have translated or be translating the book.
Third, free choice adverbials such as
(7)
Este
this
filósofo
philosopher
es
is
capaz
capable
de
of
traducir
translate
las
the
obras
works
completas
complete
de
of
Homero
Homer
cualquier
any
día
day
de
of
estos.
these
‘This philosopher is capable of translating Homer’s collected works any day.’
Fourth, the purely abilitative reading exhibits stronger commitment to the truth of the prejacent than the other reading, as illustrated in (8) (where we couple up the aspectual constraints in each reading to make the differences emerge).
(8)
a.
Con
with
toda
all
seguridad,
security
el
the
águila
eagle
es
is
capaz
capable
de
of
volar
fly
bajo
under
el
the
sol
sun
sin
without
ser
be
deslumbrada.
blinded
‘Most certainly, eagles are capable of flying under the sun without being blinded.’
b.
??Con
with
toda
all
seguridad,
security
mi
my
hijo
son
es
is
capaz
capable
de
of
haber
have
resuelto
solved
el
the
caso.
case
([intended] ‘Most certainly, my son is capable of having solved the case.’)
In sum, there seems to be a clear-cut distinction between two readings, one which is unquestionably abilitative and another one that expresses a different kind of possibility, to be further characterized in 4.2 as an accidental or no-choice interpretation.
Both uses of SC share, though, a key meaning component, characterized as an
(9)
El
the
águila
eagle
es
is
capaz
capable
de
of
volar
flying
#(bajo
under
el
the
sol
sun
sin
without
ser
be
deslumbrada).
blinded
‘Eagles are capable of flying #(under the sun without being blinded).’
Likewise, in the other reading, the need for the
(10)
Pedro
Peter
es
is
capaz
capable
de
of
haber
have
jugado
played
al
to the
baloncesto
basketball
#(sin
without
pelota).
ball
‘Pedro is capable of having played basketball #(without a ball).’
Once we add a modifier that indicates that the prejacent does not express a regular event, SC is felicitous.
Next, we briefly review previous accounts of these data and highlight their major drawbacks.
So far, we have shown that SC can give rise to two slightly different meanings, which correlate with the grammatical properties of the construction, such as the overt expression of aspect above or below the adjective
In a first attempt to make these correlations explicit, Castroviejo & Oltra-Massuet (
The main problem of this sketchy analysis is that it fails to capture the fact that SC is not really a full-fledged epistemic modal. It is structurally not as high as a typical epistemic auxiliary, such as English
(11)
Castroviejo & Oltra-Massuet (
Conociendo
knowing
a
to
mi
my
hijo,
son
es
is
capaz
capable
de
of
haber
have
resuelto
solved
el
the
caso.
case
‘Knowing my son, he’s capable of having solved the case.’
Even if we are considering the information that we know—which would be compatible with an epistemic interpretation—this knowledge is necessarily relative to the agent of the VP event. This is not expected under a purely epistemic interpretation.
A second problem concerns the fact that SC is not analyzed as a copular construction containing an adjective (
A third problematic issue concerns the empirical coverage of Castroviejo & Oltra-Massuet (
(12)
De
of
joven,
young
tu
your
abuela
grandmother
era
was.
capaz
capable
de
of
ganar
win
la
the
lotería
lottery
y
and
volver
come back
a
to
casa
house
con
with
las
the
manos
hands
llenas
full
de
of
dinero.
money
‘As a young woman, your grandmother was capable of winning the lottery and come back home with her hands full of money.’
The interpretation that obtains is one where this grandmother was unpredictable. It does not convey that she used to appeal to her capacities to win the lottery. This reading is analogous to (13), which only differs in the form of the copula, now in the present tense.
(13)
Tu
your
abuela
grandmother
es
is
capaz
capable
de
of
ganar
win
la
the
lotería.
lottery
‘Your grandmother is capable of winning the lottery.’
Sentences such as (13) were considered epistemic in Castroviejo & Oltra-Massuet (
Castroviejo & Oltra-Massuet (
This is a different strategy from the one proposed in Castroviejo & Oltra-Massuet (
In order to overcome such unwanted predictions and problems posed in previous treatments of the compositionality of SC, its unusual component, and the interaction of aspect and modality, in the remainder of this paper we address the following questions:
Is it possible to provide a compositional account that yields the two readings? How should the two readings be fully characterized?
What exactly is this unusual flavor and how is it triggered?
What is the role of aspect in the computation of the modality of SC?
However, before turning to these research questions, let us first review the previous literature on abilitative modality.
In this section we frame abilitative modality within the study of modals more generally, so as to establish the fundamentals that our proposal for SC will be based upon. As will be discussed, abilitative modals are not prototypical modals and their contribution is not straightforwardly accounted for within modal logic. In this regard, we pay special attention to what the previous literature has said about English
In the Kratzerian view (
(14) | Kratzer ( |
|
a. | Hydrangeas might be growing here. | |
b. | Hydrangeas can grow here. |
Epistemic modality evaluates the prejacent (i.e., the modalized clause without the modal) against various sources of information, while circumstantial modality considers “material conditions which cause or allow an event to happen” (
Abilitative modality is typically considered circumstantial, although authors such as Portner (
(15) | Portner ( |
|
a. | John can swim. | |
b. | Mary can see the ocean. |
Portner argues that in (15a),
(16) | Kaufmann ( |
|
a. | ⟦can |
|
b. |
Abilitative modals raise three main issues in the semantics of modality: (i) the control over the outcome, (ii) the effort component and (iii) the actuality entailment. These are briefly sketched in the remainder of this section.
In the 1970s, Kenny (
(17) | Portner ( |
|
a. | He can hit the board. | |
He has the ability to hit the board. | ||
b. | He can hit the top half of the board. | |
He has the ability to hit the top half of the board. | ||
c. | He can hit the bottom half of the board. | |
He has the ability to hit the bottom half of the board. |
If John has the ability to hit the board, then he has the ability to hit either the top half or the bottom half. However, it does not follow that he can hit the top half or he can hit the bottom half, which should be the case since (17a) ↔ ((17b) ∨ (17c)). As put by Portner, the main difficulty for a ◊ analysis is that it allows for the possibility that hitting be accidental e.g. the top half of the board, while both
One way to overcome this issue has been to propose that abilitative modality requires two layers of quantification, an existential one and a universal one. The first one chooses an action, and the second one ensures the outcome. Portner (
(18) | A proposition |
In prose,
This solves part of the singularity of abilitative modality, namely the fact that
Another widely discussed property of abilitative modals is an effort component analogous to implicative verbs such as
(19) | a. | John managed to solve the problem. |
b. | John solved the problem. | |
c. | Solving the problem was difficult to achieve. |
According to Karttunen, (19a) implies (19b) and presupposes (19c).
In his article on English
(20) | Bhatt ( |
|
a. | Yesterday, John was able to eat five apples in an hour. (Past episodic) | |
b. | In those days, John was able to eat five apples in an hour. (Past generic) |
(21) | Bhatt ( |
|
a. | ||
b. |
We will go back to aspect in the next subsection. Focusing on the effort inference, the equivalence with implicative verbs can be tested for abilitative
(22) | a. | #Timmy is able to breathe. |
b. | Timmy had a terrible car accident as a result of which he lost control over most of his muscles. Thankfully, he is able to breathe. |
As to Greek
(23)
O
the
Janis
John
borese
can.
na
sikothi.
stand-up.
‘John was able to stand up—it was a difficult thing!’
As pointed out by Giannakidou & Staraki (
This idea is also recast in the view laid out in the previous subsections, whereby abilitative modals have two layers of modality, one of them universal, and where the modal base contains the subject’s abilities.
One of the most discussed issues in abilitative modality, and which teases apart different readings of the same lexical item
As previously shown, Bhatt (
For instance, in (24) (Bhatt’s (27a)), the presence of a generic operator,
(24) | a. | (In those days,) a fireman was able to eat five apples. |
b. |
Actuality entailments are expected, because
Later on, Piñón (
(25) | a. | In her early twenties, Rebecca was able to swim across Lake Balaton. |
b. | In her early twenties, Rebecca had the ability to swim across Lake Balaton. |
Certainly, from (25a) it does not follow that Rebecca actually swam across Lake Balaton. The sentence in (26) (his (7b)) is an example of
(26) | Yesterday afternoon, Rebecca was able to swim across Lake Balaton. |
In Piñón’s (
(27) | a. | ability ⇝ Tense [Modal] |
b. | opportunity ⇝ Modal [Tense] |
(28) | a. | No Actuality Entailment: at some time in the past it was possible for Rebecca to swim across Lake Balaton. |
b. | Actuality Entailment: it is possible for Rebecca to carry out the action of swimming across Lake Balaton at some point in the past. |
In sum, here, instead of
Building on Bhatt, and extending the analysis to all modals with circumstantial modal bases (i.e. root modals), Hacquard (
(29)
a.
Jane
Jane
a
has
pu
can.
soulever
lift
cette
this
table,
table
#mais
but
elle
she
ne l’a pas
soulevée.
lifted
b.
Jane
Jane
pouvait
can.
soulever
lift
cette
this
table,
table
mais
but
elle
she
ne l’a pas
soulevée.
lifted
‘Jane was able to lift this table, but she didn’t lift it.’
More specifically, in her account, if Aspect is merged between Tense and the root modal, two possible outcomes obtain. If Aspect is realized as perfective (
(30) | Hacquard ( |
|
a. | ||
b. | There is an actual event (which in some/all accessible worlds …) |
(31) | Hacquard ( |
|
a. | ||
b. | In all ‘generic’ worlds |
In particular, Hacquard proposes a pragmatic principle, called
Mari and Martin (
(32)
Mari & Martin (
Notre
our
nouveau
new
robot
robot
a
has
meme
even
pu
could.
repasser
iron
les
the
chemises
shirts
à
at
un
a
stade
stage
bien
well
précis
precise
de
of
son
its
developpement.
development
Mais
mais
on
one
a
has
supprimé
suppressed
cette
this
function
function
(qui
which
n’a
jamais
never
été
been
testée)
tested
pour
for
des
some
raisons
reasons
de
of
rentabilité.
profitability
‘Our new robot could even iron shirts at a particular stage of its development. But we suppressed this function (which was never tested) for profitability reasons.’
The key component here is that the inference can be cancelled if the context makes it possible to understand ability as temporally bounded. Given this kind of data, they present an alternative analysis that does not bear on the syntactic position of Aspect with respect to the modal, but rather on an ontological distinction between two types of abilities/dispositions, generic abilities and action-dependent abilities. The former are inspired by Kenny (
(33) | Generic abilities ( |
|
a. | Do not require verifying instances. | |
b. | Ascribed to an agent |
|
c. | By default unbounded (temporally persistent). | |
d. | A positive explanatory factor: “s/he was able to do it, so s/he did it.” |
Mari and Martin assume that the modal expressions
They propose that Action-dependent abilities are characterized as follows:
(34) | Action-dependent abilities ( |
|
a. | Ontologically depend on the corresponding action. | |
b. | A unique and non-repeatable performance suffices to imply the corresponding action-dependent ability. | |
c. | Have the same temporal boundaries as the action on which they depend and are thus bounded. | |
d. | No explanatory factor: “S/He did it, so s/he was able to do it.” |
In this account,
Schematically, in (35), the first sentence expresses an action-dependent ability, (35a), while the second one expresses a generic ability, (35b).
(35) | Thalberg ( |
|
a. | Brown |
|
b. | Brown |
(35a) can be accidental and Brown may not be able to repeat the action of hitting three bull’s-eyes in a row. By contrast, in (35b), hitting three bull’s-eyes in a row is temporally persistent and repeatable.
To predict when actuality is entailed, the semantic component that plays a crucial role is the so-called
The proposal, as stated in Mari & Martin (
This theory is aimed at explaining cases where the French modal
Rubio Vallejo (
(36)
Juan
Juan
pudo
can.
coger
take
el
the
bus…
bus
pero
but
no
not
quiso/
want
y
and
tuvo
had
un
a
viaje
trip
fantástico.
wonderful
‘Juan was able to take the bus… but he didn’t want to/and he had a wonderful trip.’
In his pragmatic account, Rubio Vallejo takes into consideration whether a modalized sentence such as (36) (without the follow-up) is a partial or a total answer to the
(37)
¿Pudo
can.
Juan
Juan
coger
take
el
the
tren?
train
‘Was Juan able to take the train?’
The author is more interested in a situation in which the modalized sentence is a partial answer to a question such as (38), because pragmatic enrichment is then at stake.
(38)
¿Cogió
take.
Juan
Juan
el
the
tren?
train
‘Did Juan take the train?’
In his account, a quantity implicature can generate the counterfactual interpretation, since the speaker has preferred to utter a weaker (modalized) proposition. In such a case, the modal base is interpreted to refer to opportunity/ability. By contrast, if the modal base is teleological and there are no known impediments, the actuality effect can be derived through an informativeness principle.
While each account supersedes the previous one in empirical coverage, we will suggest in subsection 4.3.2 that only Mari and Martin’s analysis can easily extend to the behavior of SC under
Our proposal elaborates on the classic ideas in Kratzerian modality for auxiliary modals (e.g.
Recall that our empirical generalization is that Spanish
In a nutshell, we propose that SC involves a double layer of modality (
(39)
a.
Juan
John
es
is
capaz
capable
de
of
subir
climb
al
to the
Everest.
Everest
‘John is capable of climbing Mt. Everest.’
b.
In the purely abilitative reading, the ordering source ⋂
We now proceed step by step and motivate this analysis.
In view of the data presented in Section 3, we can highlight some distributional differences between SC and other circumstantial modals such as
While SC is also a personal modal just like
(40)
Ayer
yesterday
por
for
la
the
tarde,
afternoon
Rebeca
Rebecca
fue
was.
capaz
capable
de
of
cruzar
cross
el
the
Lago
lake
Balaton
Balaton
a
at
nado.
swim
‘Yesterday afternoon, Rebecca was capable of swimming across Lake Balaton.’
SC relies on the subject’s circumstances, but not just any circumstance. Consider first some additional differences with other circumstantial modals. Take Thomason’s (
(41) | I can’t write a check. |
The reasons why the speaker cannot write a check may vary, e.g. his balance is negative or he cannot find his checkbook. Similar reasons could be behind
(42) | ( |
That didn’t do any good and now they have probably flagged me and I won’t be able to write a check anywhere. |
By contrast, the modal SC in (43) is infelicitous in most scenarios. The motivations that license
(43)
No
soy
am.1
capaz
capable
de
of
extender
issue
un
a
cheque.
check
‘I’m not capable of writing a check.’
The reasons for not having climbed Mount Everest, (44), cannot be that the climbing material got stolen or the bad weather. It has to be the subject’s strength, self confidence, courage, or alike.
(44)
No
he
have.1
sido
been
capaz
capable
de
of
escalar
climb
el
the
Everest.
Everest
‘I haven’t been capable of climbing Mt. Everest.’
Conversely, the bad weather or the lack of the right climbing material could be the reasons for not climbing Mount Everest in (45).
(45) | I couldn’t/wasn’t able to climb Mount Everest. |
Additionally,
(46)
a.
El
the
presidente
president
tiene
has
la
the
capacidad
capacity
de
of
convocar
call
elecciones.
elections
‘The president has the capacity to call an election.’
b.
El
the
presidente
president
es
is
capaz
capable
de
of
convocar
call
elecciones.
elections
‘The president is capable of calling an election.’
Note that the capacity of calling an election is externally assigned (it is not intrinsic), so (46b) cannot convey (46a). In fact, (46b) is acceptable. However, the possibility that the president calls an election in this example does not really depend on the external assignment of this capacity, but on his own determination.
All this suggests that the circumstances that SC is concerned with are not just external circumstances. Here we build on Kratzer’s (
To encode this idea, we build on Kaufmann’s (
(47) | a. | |
b. |
We want to put forth that the content of the modal base can explain the more constrained distribution of SC (with respect to
(48)
El
the
águila
eagle
es
is
capaz
capable
de
of
volar
fly
#(bajo
under
el
the
sol
sun
sin
without
ser
be
deslumbrada).
blinded
‘Eagles are capable of flying #(under the sun without being blinded).’
Flying is an inner capacity of eagles, but, to many speakers, the sentence is not fully acceptable without the follow-up. Example (46b) cannot be interpreted, either, as conveying that the president has the intrinsic capacity of calling an election. Rather, it has to be the result of some voluntary effort that invokes strength of the body or intellect (hence the oddity of its purely abilitative interpretation). In generic statements—and even more so when the subject denotes a natural kind term—the intuition is that the prejacent can be true on special occasions, when the subject wants to fulfill a certain goal. This result is obtained while keeping the content of
By restricting ourselves to circumstances concerned with the strength of the body, character or intellect of the subject, we can explain why SC does not occur in contexts where other broader circumstantial modals, such as
Before going back to the eagle example in (48) above, let us consider (49), where the copula is inflected for past tense and perfective aspect to avoid a generic interpretation of the construction.
(49)
El
the
águila
eagle
fue
was.
capaz
capable
de
of
volar
fly
(bajo
under
el
the
sol
sun
sin
without
ser
be
deslumbrada).
blinded
‘The eagle was capable of flying (under the sun without being blinded).’
Observe that (49) is acceptable even without the follow-up, because it expresses an event that was carried out by virtue of the inner circumstances of that particular eagle (it is an episodic rather than generic statement). (49) expresses an action-dependent ability (
We assume that, when the copula is in the present tense, as in (48), a generic interpretation obtains. Flying is an intrinsic capacity for eagles, so the sentence without the follow-up gives rise to a reading where eagles fly in highly ranked worlds where these animals appeal to their physical strength. Certainly, flying requires strength, but it is also the result of some general physical conditions that define the species as a kind (for instance, having wings). Therefore, to make an SC sentence felicitous, it has to be that the subject pushes his/her inherent properties (usually, to fulfill some goal).
Indeed, we usually apply strength to fulfill a goal or to face a challenge. Therefore, the prejacent in SC constructions will tend to describe an event that is compatible with the subject applying strength and with the existence of a goal or challenge. The possibility of the prejacent being true can repeat itself as many times as we can imagine, but it cannot coincide with an inherent or intrinsic property. The event described by the prejacent will always be more specific (and hence informative) than the general property contained in the modal base. Imagine for a moment that I have a pet eagle. If I utter (50), where I am not discussing eagles as a natural kind, but my specific eagle, the sentence can only be interpreted as though my pet does not have the intrinsic capacities of a regular eagle. Nevertheless, if it pushes its inner properties, it manages to fly, so it is viewed as quite an achievement (for this specific eagle).
(50)
Mi
my
águila
eagle
es
is
capaz
capable
de
of
volar.
fly
‘My eagle is capable of flying.’
Let us now consider a contrast between SC and
(51) | a. | #Timmy is able to breathe. |
b. | Timmy had a terrible car accident as a result of which he lost control over most of his muscles. Thankfully, he is able to breathe. |
(52)
[Manuel
Manuel
tuvo
had
un
a
terrible
terrible
accidente
accident
de
of
coche
car
cuyo
whose
resultado
result
fue
was
la
the
pérdida
loss
de
of
control
control
de
of
sus
his
músculos.]?/#
muscles
Por
by
suerte,
luck
es
is
capaz
capable
de
of
respirar.
breathe
‘Manuel had a terrible car accident as a result of which he lost control over most of his muscles. Thankfully, he is capable of breathing.’
In Castroviejo & Oltra-Massuet (
(53) | [ |
As we will elaborate on in 4.3.3, following standard explanations,
Interestingly, sentences such as (53) improve when they include aspectual particles such as
(54)
Manuel
Manuel
ya/todavía
already/still
es
is
capaz
capable
de
of
respirar.
breathe
‘Manuel is already/still capable of breathing.’
F. Martin (p.c.) suggests that this has to do with the fact that such particles ensure that SC denotes a generic ability by making clear that it exists independently of its specific manifestation. Another option would be that these aspectual particles remove the generic interpretation triggered by the present tense of the copula. We leave a further development of this idea for future research.
Summing up our findings so far, the modal base of SC is concerned with inner circumstances of the event’s agent. More specifically, the prejacent describes an event in which the agent has pushed his/her intrinsic capacities. We now discuss the reading that was called “epistemic” in the previous literature, and which we will characterize as accidental, in line with literature on Tagalog and St’át’imcets.
In this subsection we aim to provide an alternative characterization of the reading that Castroviejo & Oltra-Massuet (
In subsection 2.1, we discussed a number of tests from the previous literature that establish a difference between a purely abilitative reading and a putative epistemic reading. We have shown that treating the latter as epistemic is problematic. Here we want to focus on certain properties that suggest that in all cases where we have this seemingly non-abilitative reading, we actually have personal modality (hence, we refer to the inner circumstances of the subject), where the meaning conveyed is lack of control or unpredictability. Let us start with the example in (55).
(55)
Cualquier
any
día,
day
Paula
Paula
es
is
capaz
capable
de
of
matar
killing
a
to
su
her
suegra.
mother-in-law
‘Any day Paula is capable of killing her mother-in-law.’
(55) conveys that the subject may be part of an eventuality that cannot be predicted by the speaker. Matching adverbials such as the free choice
Another illustration is the case in (56). Since the modal base only includes inner circumstances of the subject, the sentence cannot convey the fact that the president has the (externally assigned) capacity to call an election. However, the example can have a regular abilitative reading (if placing ballot boxes so that people can vote depends on e.g. the president’s courage) or an accidental reading (one in which placing the ballot boxes may depend on the president’s random will to do so). That is, (56) can felicitously convey that the president may be unpredictable enough so as to let the people vote.
(56)
El
the
presidente
president
es
is
capaz
capable
de
of
poner
put
las
the
urnas.
ballot boxes
‘The president is capable of placing ballot boxes (so that people can vote).’
Our main claim regarding this reading is the following:
(57) | The cases formerly characterized as epistemic are better analyzed as conveying a so-called accidental reading. |
Therefore, going back to the diagnostics discussed in subsection 2.1, whenever we find that SC selects for a VP in the perfective aspect, we expect a reading whereby the VP subject might have behaved unpredictably. Recall (6), repeated below for convenience.
(58)
Este
this
filósofo
philosopher
es
is
capaz
capable
de
of
haber
have
traducido/
translated
estar
is
traduciendo
translating
las
the
obras
works
completas
complete
de
of
Homero.
Homer
‘This philosopher is capable of having translated/being translating Homer’s collected works.’
Indeed, translating Homer’s complete works is seen as an unpredictable event, something that lacks any control, from the point of view of the speaker. It is not something that requires the VP agent’s strength.
We claim that this duality between the pure abilitative and the accidental interpretation—which is also found in other languages (see e.g. subsection 4.2.2)—can be accounted for by analyzing accidental SC as a modal expression that lies structurally higher than a pure abilitative modal, but structurally lower than a pure epistemic modal (see subsection 4.3.3).
Alongside this claim, we put forth the empirical generalization that this reading may occur both when the copula is in the simple present, and also when it appears in the imperfective past form. The key condition is that accidental SC may occur whenever
(59)
a.
Teresa
Theresa
es
is
capaz
capable
de
of
ganarle
win.
a
to
su
her
hermano.
brother
‘Teresa is capable of defeating her brother.’
b.
Teresa
Theresa
era
was.
capaz
capable
de
of
ganarle
win.
a
to
su
her
hermano.
brother
‘Teresa was capable of defeating her brother.’
Both (59a) and (59b) can express a purely abilitative reading, but they can also convey that at a non-past time starting from the present, (59a), or the past, (59b), which cannot be determined, it is possible for Teresa to beat her brother.
Note that the occurrence of the accidental reading under
Before moving on to other dual abilitatives cross-linguistically, let us refer back to the
(60)
Pedro
Peter
es
is
capaz
capable
de
of
haber
have
jugado
played
al
to.the
baloncesto
basketball
#(sin
without
pelota).
ball
‘Pedro is capable of having played basketball #(without a ball).’
As will be elaborated in 4.3.3, the accidental reading shares the same modal base as abilitative SC,
In this subsection we want to bring together the notion of unpredictability with the characterization of other abilitative modals in the literature. One such case is Dell (
(61)
Na-kunan
ni
Ben
Ben
ng
litrato
picture
si
Luisa.
Luisa
a. Ben managed to take a picture of Luisa.
b. Ben involuntarily took a picture of Luisa.
Another case in point is the so-called “no-choice” reading of
(62)
cúy’=ljkacw=ha
going.to=1
ka-cwák-a
lh=ma7g’úlm’ecw=as?
‘Are you going to be able to wake up at dawn?’
(63)
qwaqwx-mín=lhkan
nightmare-
ta=scwelálhp=a,
ka-cwák=kan-a
aylh.
then
‘I had a nightmare about a ghost, then I woke up suddenly.’
Unlike Tagalog and St’át’imcets, the accidental reading of SC does not arise under perfective aspect. In fact, none of the above could be expressed through SC. Nevertheless, the lack of control or lack of prediction is indeed conveyed by SC in (55). Therefore, we assume that universal quantification does play a role in yielding the accidental reading. However, we will derive it compositionally from the interaction with the universal quantification issuing from aspect. As argued for in Section 4, we are assuming a double layer of quantification for SC (existential plus universal), and what ensures the subject’s control over the event is the ordering source, which appeals to the subject’s strength. In the accidental reading, we will argue, the ordering source is merely stereotypical (ranking higher those worlds that are most normal, as conveyed by
The analysis we present relies on the notion of generic ability and action-dependent ability in Mari & Martin (
We assume that
(64) | ⟦capaz⟧ = |
∀ |
As other circumstantial modals,
(65) | ⟦capaz de ganar⟧ = |
∀ |
SC does not have the same behavior as a modal auxiliary. For one, it is a compositional combination of a lexically rich adjective and a copula, which bears aspect. Hence, in the purely abilitative reading, we are assuming that the copula translates semantically as
(66)
María
María
era/fue
was.
capaz
capable
de
of
ganar.
win
‘María was capable of winning.’
(67) | a. | [ |
b. | [ |
As will be further developed in section 4.3.3, imperfective aspect translates as universal quantification over worlds (or rather situations, as argued for in
Let us take (68) as a starting point, with the corresponding
(68)
María
María
fue
was.
capaz
capable
de
of
ganar.
win
‘María was capable of winning.’
(69) | [ |
Skipping the step by step derivations for reasons of space,
There is nothing particularly interesting or different from what has been said about other abilitative modals under the perfect, except for the fact that the modal base is more specific than in other circumstantial modals.
As to the actuality entailments (recall subsection 3.3), the data regarding SC may seem less clear than the facts reported by Mari & Martin (
(70)
La
the
gimnasta
gymnast
fue
was.
capaz
capable
de
of
hacer
do
el
the
triple
triple
salto
jump
mortal
mortal
mientras
while
duró
last.
el
the
efecto
effect
del
of.the
elixir,
elixir
OK
OK
aunque
although
nunca
never
llegó
arrive.
a
to
hacerlo.
do.
‘The gymnast was capable of performing a triple mortal jump while the effect of the elixir lasted, OK although she ended up never performing it.’
We can conclude from this that, even under the perfective aspect, actuality is not an entailment (although it is much more salient and the preferred reading).
Let us now turn to the behavior of SC under imperfective (and generic) aspect.
The main idea we would like to put forward in this subsection is that the combination of
To understand the interpretive effects of SC in the present tense and in the imperfective past, we adopt Arregui et al. (
(71) | ⟦ |
where BEST( |
Leaving aside the details on how
To account for the ambiguity of SC under
(72) | a. | [ |
b. | [ capaz [ |
(72a) gives rise to the pure abilitative reading under
(73) | |
∀ |
In all most normal worlds there is a possibility that relies on the subject’s inner circumstances such that in all better worlds in which the subject applies her strength of the body, character or intellect, the subject carries out the VP event in such better worlds. Whenever the goal presents itself, the VP agent has the disposition of carrying out the event denoted by the VP. This results in a generic ability, a possibility that holds in every normal world and is, thus, repeatable, although not necessarily actualized.
(72b), by contrast, gives rise to the accidental reading, as characterized in subsection (40). In this inverse scope scenario, we propose that
(74) |
That is, there is a possibility that relies on the subject’s inner circumstances such that in all most normal worlds, the subject carries out the event denoted by the VP in such worlds. Note that here we do not have two universal quantifiers, which would be expected if
Imagine a scenario in which we are talking about Kilian Jornet, who is a fantastic athlete. Given his physical conditions, we can truthfully utter (75).
(75)
Kilian
Kilian
Jornet
Jornet
es
is
capaz
capable
de
of
escalar
climb
el
the
Everest.
Everest
‘Kilian Jornet is capable of climbing Mount Everest.’
(75) conveys that in all most normal worlds, given Kilian’s circumstances concerned with his strength of the body, character or intellect, there is a possibility that he climbs Mount Everest. He can make an effort and climb Mount Everest in every normal world (in which the goal of climbing this mountain is presented).
Now, imagine we want to convey that Kilian is so unpredictable that he could end up climbing Mount Everest. This would be the reading we have called “accidental” in subsection 4.2, and which corresponds to (74). This means that there is a possibility dependent on Kilian’s inner circumstances such that in all most normal worlds, Kilian climbs Mt. Everest in such worlds. Hence, the lack of choice has to do with the fact that the possibility of the event taking place holds in all of these normal worlds, which are compatible with Kilian’s inner circumstances, but which are ranked higher not depending on his effort, but on general characteristics of normal worlds. In order to bring about this reading, we have to assume that the modal adjective
The main support for this analysis in terms of scope interaction comes from the empirical generalization spelled out in subsection 4.2, namely that this ambiguity only arises when the copula bears
(76)
¡CAPAZ
capable
eres
are.2
de
of
caerte
fall.
de
of
la
the
silla!
chair
‘(lit.) You are capable of falling of the chair.’
[intended] ‘Falling of the chair is some unpredictable event in which you could participate.’
Summing up, we have argued that when the copula bears
Several consequences follow from our main proposal, which can be summarized as follows:
SC is not a modal auxiliary, but a copula followed by a modal adjective
The modal base in SC is always
When the copula bears
First, the modal in the accidental reading is higher than the one that yields the generic ability. Therefore, it is syntactically higher than the plain abilitative, which squares with the idea that the accidental reading is close to an epistemic one (recall that epistemic modals are higher than root/circumstantial ones). Alongside with being structurally higher, we claim that its ordering source is not
In fact, once
Second, we expect the interpretation of the prejacent to be either a controlled event or an accidental event, thus indicating which scopal composition we have (
(77)
María
María
es
is
capaz
capable
de
of
ganar
win
‘María is capable of winning
a.
el
the
partido.
game
the game.’
b.
la
the
lotería.
lottery
the lottery.’
In the case of (77a), it may either be that we are considering María’s physical condition or else how lucky she is. If the former, a generic ability obtains (in every normal world there is a world in which she appeals to her strength to win). If the latter, an action-dependent ability (and hence, the accidental reading) obtains (there is a possibility of winning that happens in all normal worlds, not under her control). As to (77b), since it does not make much sense to assume that in every normal world there is a possibility that María wins the lottery by virtue of her strength, we tend to interpret that there is a single possibility that this happens in all normal worlds. The only possible interpretation is an action-dependent ability (with an accidental flavor).
Crucially, accidentality or unpredictability is only triggered by
(78)
?#María
María
fue
was.
capaz
capable
de
of
ganar
win
la
the
lotería.
lottery
‘María was capable of winning the lottery.’
Third, cases in which SC selects for a prejacent in the perfective, where the VP event is thus bounded (as in (6) above), can only be interpreted as an action-dependent ability, not a generic one. Therefore, they involve an accidental interpretation, and the structure in (79b).
(79)
a.
María
María
es
is
capaz
capable
de
of
haber
have
ganado.
won
‘María is capable of having won.’
b.
[
The interpretation of (79a) would be along the following lines: there is a world
Empirical support for this analysis comes from acceptable sentences such as (80), involving the lottery, and which sound odd under the perfective, i.e., without the accidental component (as shown in (78)).
(80)
María
María
es
is
capaz
capable
de
of
haber
have
ganado
won
la
the
lotería.
lottery
‘María is capable of having won the lottery.’
Of course, this apparently unusual combination of
Fourth, we can reveal an interesting empirical outcome that seems to follow from the idea that the accidental reading is the result of moving CAPAZ above
(81)
De
of
joven,
young
Kilian
Kilian
era
was.
capaz
capable
de
of
escalar
climb
el
the
Everest.
Everest
‘As a young man, Kilian was capable of climbing Mount Everest.’
a.
b.
The novel empirical observation is that the reading in (81b) entails that Kilian did climb Mount Everest once, despite the fact that the copula bears imperfective morphology. Let us consider (81) in more detail. (81a) conveys that in all normal past worlds, there was a world compatible with Kilian’s inner circumstances such that in all better worlds where he appealed to his strength, he climbed Mount Everest. That is, (81a) describes a generic ability in the past. There is no
(82) is an example whose more salient (and reasonable) interpretation is
(82)
Luis
Luis
era
was.
capaz
capable
de
of
caerse
fall.
de
of
la
the
silla
chair
cuando
when
menos
less
lo
esperabas.
expected.
‘Luis was capable of falling of the chair when you didn’t expect it.’
In (82), the sentence unambiguously refers to accidental SC, because falling is not something that the VP agent typically controls or something that depends on her strength. The speaker is describing Luis in the past and one of his features is that he could unpredictably fall. The only way the speaker can make this assertion is because she is acquainted with at least one verifying instance. Otherwise, there are no grounds that motivate a truthful assertion of this sort.
This piece of data is interesting because despite the presence of
In principle, there is no trace of a
Fifth, we should consider whether or to what extent this proposal is compatible with the facts of Tagalog and St’át’imcets, as reported in 4.2.2. Remember that the abilitative vs. accidental interpretation is explained as a difference in force. Specifically, in the abilitative reading, the quantifier is existential (∃) and in the accidental/no-choice, a universal quantifier (∀) expresses that all worlds conspire to make the prejacent true. The present analysis is different in assuming that SC includes a double layer of quantification, and explains the different output through the content of the ordering source (
Summing up, in this section we have elaborated on the consequences of our proposal that both generic and action-dependent abilities are possible when
In this paper we have analyzed the Spanish modal expression
We have proposed that the modal base in SC contains the subject’s inner circumstances only. In this sense, it is a more restricted circumstantial modal than e.g.
Our second contribution has to do with a characterization of two different readings of SC, which had previously been identified as abilitative vs. epistemic. Here we have offered a more convincing analysis that is based on the novel observation that the latter reading only arises under imperfective aspect (be it past or generic present). We have put forth the idea that the universal quantification of the
We have left the spell-out of some compositional details for future research, especially in two main areas. First, we have not provided any principled explanation for the process by which two universal modals collapse and one of them introduces its own ordering source. Beyond the interpretive outcome, we have not provided any independent evidence of similar processes. Second, due to space limitations, we have not provided details regarding the contribution of tense and aspect in the case of the accidental reading, where there is a dissociation between the modal time (present or past) and the event time (future from the modal time). From the point of view of semantic theory, we have contributed new empirical observations to the ongoing debate on actuality entailments, even though we need to further elaborate on the consequences the ideas here presented have for a full-fledged account of actuality effects, and for a structural explanation that maps syntactic position and semantic interpretation.
1 = first person, 2 = second person, 3 = third person,
Note that without the modifier, (10) could equally be fine with the same interpretation containing an unusual component, e.g. in a context where Pedro hates playing basketball or does not even know how to play it, but would dare play it to obtain something in return.
Other classifications have been proposed. For instance, Portner (
There is yet another inference, irrelevant to our purposes, according to which the subject “at least attended the act described” (
They also argue that a strict structural analysis cannot account for a wider range of phenomena, which includes object-experiencer verbs like
We leave aside the true epistemic
(i) a. (Walsh Todo all el the mundo world lo va goes a to creer, believe y and yo 1 mismo, self si if mañana tomorrow lo leo read en in el the diario, newspaper es is capable that lo creo. believe.1 ‘Everybody will believe it, and I myself, if tomorrow I read this in the paper, (it) is possible/likely that I believe it.’ b. (Donoso capable that hasta even resulte turns.out. un a buen good senador. senator ‘Maybe/Possibly he even turns out to be a good senator.’
We also disregard examples that receive divergent acceptability judgments in European Spanish, such as SC with weather predicates, (ii).
(ii) Es is capaz capable de of llover. rain ‘(lit.) It is capable of raining.’
To be precise, we should analyze the infinitival clause as a property of events, and severe the external argument from its verb, as in Kratzer (
As pointed out in fn 6, a semantics that includes events is necessary to express the composition of aspect and the modal sentence.
Additional and more accurate empirical research is needed to further motivate this point, but this is not the focus of the present article.
We refer the interested reader to Cipria & Roberts (
This is
We are grateful to the audience of the Workshop on the Morphological, Syntactic and Semantic Aspects of Dispositions (U. Stuttgart), and especially to Fabienne Martin, for remarks on previous versions of this research. We are also indebted to two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions for improvement. By all means, any remaining mistakes are our own. Thanks also go to the editors of this Special Issue on the grammar of dispositions (Fabienne Martin, Marcel Pitteroff, and Tillmann Pross) for offering us the possibility of contributing to this collective work.
This research has been partially supported by project FFI2015-66732-P, granted to the first author, and funded by the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness and the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER, UE), the IT769-13 Research Group (Basque Government), and UFI11/14 (University of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU). The second author acknowledges financial support from project FFI2016-80142-P (Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness), the Serra Húnter Program (Catalan Government), the 2017 SGR 165 Research Group on Language and Linguistics, ROLLING (AGAUR), the URV Program for Fostering Research, and an ARES-URV grant (La Caixa Foundation & URV).
The authors have no competing interests to declare.