thanks to a language log post, which pointed out the irony in the following headline, a question i've had before (but haven't done any research on) is once again on my radar.
of course, what is being pointed out is that "you can't belong in Britain" is ungrammatical. what's being taken for granted is why that should be.
to me, this seems to be a problem with 'can' and statives. the examples in (1) are all ungrammatical, but the examples in (2) are just fine:
(1) a. *You can't belong in Britain if you don't speak English.
b. *He can't know Marie - they've never met.
c. *They can't like milk if they're vegan.
d. *I can't possibly care about what happened at work.
(2) a. You won't/might not/couldn't belong in Britain if you don't speak English.
b. He won't/might not/couldn't know Marie - they've never met.
c. They won't/might not/couldn't like milk if they're vegan.
d. I won't/might not/couldn't possibly care about what happened at work.
why (1) should be out is not straightforward, and i have struggled with trying to explain it to non-native speakers learning english. moreover, it's not as simple as "stative verbs cannot appear with 'can'" because sometimes 'can' with a stative verb is possible:
(3) a. You can't have personal belongings as a monk.
b. Four people can't live in a one-bedroom apartment.
though i can't quite put my finger on what the analysis would be, i have a feeling it's related to the fact that stative verbs often get a generic/habitual interpretation when in the present tense.
...thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment