The semantic map model raises an issue for the comparison of 'may', 'can' and 'pouvoir'

In this post, I briefly touch on the difficulty to carry out cross-linguistic studies:

'Gries and Divjak recognise that "[c]ross-linguistic semantic studies are notoriously difficult given that different languages carve up conceptual space(s) in different ways (cf. Janda, to appear for discussion); for that reason, linguistic dimensions are difficult to compare across languages" (p7)'

Here, I raise a methodological difficulty involved in the cross-linguistic comparison of 'may', 'can' and 'pouvoir' on the basis of a forthcoming paper by Laura Janda : What is the role of semantic maps in cognitive linguistics?
(here is the Powerpoint verion) .

In her paper, although Janda grants some degree of usefulness to the semantic map model (helps identify patterns across languages, helps visualise complex data), she, nevertheless, identifies the limitations of the model, particularly in the context of the cognitive linguistics analysis.

Broadly, semantic maps are designed to compare large numbers of languages. The semantic map model assumes that:

i) a single universal conceptual space exists
ii) the grammar of each language is the sum of the 'lines' drawn by that language across this single shared space
iii) all languages are based on the same parameters

The semantic map model implies a conceptual space, that is the "universal backdrop of possible distinctions that human beings can recognise (and might grammaticalise)" and a conceptual map, that is "a distribution of actual distinctions made by one or a number of languages across the parameters of conceptual space" (p.5)



Janda follows Langacker (2006) in her distinction between discrete and continuous linguistic models :

"I would like to frame this discussion of semantic maps in terms of Langacker’s (2006) concerns about continuity and discreteness in linguistic models. As Langacker points out, all models are metaphorical, and all metaphors are potentially misleading, particularly if one forgets that the metaphor may be suppressing some information, and/or if the metaphor is excessively discrete or continuous. Most phenomena, including linguistic phenomena, are complex enough to justify applying both discrete and continuous models in their interpretation (Langacker 2006:107). Imposing discreteness on a system means that grouping and reification facilitate the identification of units that would not be available in a continuous description, such as galaxies, archipelagos, villages, and discrete (yet related) languages. Continuity has the advantage of facilitating focus on the relationships among parts of a system, making it possible to identify fields of similarity that discreteness ignores, such as dialect continua and all manner of gradients. We have the option of choosing various models, some of which will be relatively discrete and some of which will be relatively continuous." (p.12)

In other words, semantic maps only show distances and are not semantically meaningful. Further, as the semantic map model focuses on the discrete points, it ignores the continuous zones and the relations between each point. Janda insists that in cross-linguistic studies, these characteristics are amplified. Further, according to Janda, semantic maps fail to capture in detail "differences in metaphor, construal and scalability, all of which are key to a cognitive analysis" (p.30)

Finally, Janda points out that the semantic map model fails to take into consideration the qualitative differences between languages. Indeed she notes that a concept can be expressed by a grammatical category in one language but be expressed lexically in another language (p. 21). That point is of particular relevance to my project as English, 'may' and 'can' are grammatical words and therefore belong to the closed word-class. French 'pouvoir' on the other hand, is a lexical verb which belongs to an open word-class and which takes on inflections. So 'may'/'can' and 'pouvoir' show different degrees of grammaticalisation. Such difference in the lexicalisation process of the semantic domain of POSSIBILITY raises the issue of a possible cross-linguistic lexico-grammatical continuum which naturally contradicts the discrete quality of the semantic map model. Indeed, in her paper, Janda mainly uses the case of cross-linguistic polyfunctional grams to illustrate that there is no direct correlation between grams and concept and that cross-linguistic studies will reveal overlaps between markers and what they express. Janda's crosslinguistic illustrations mainly include languages that share similar grams and the discussion is centred around the various senses of those grams. In the case of 'may', 'can' and 'pouvoir', French and Englsih are not comparable in that way. As mentioned above in English, the forms are fully grammticalised whereas in French, 'pouvoir' inflects. Janda's paper raises the issue of the comparability of the three modals and the necessity to identify clear comparison criteria.

So in sum, the semantic map model is not attractive for the purpose of my study because as discrete by nature, it does not allow to infer on construal mechanisms. Further, it is mainly concerned with quantitative external differences and does not address qualitative properties.