Possibilities for Action

null, Annina J. Loets (Oxford University)

I show how four puzzling observations about ability ascriptions can be explained by four simple observations about the clauses they embed: action ascriptions. The explanation affords a novel argument against any semantic theory that draws on such puzzling observations about ability ascriptions to motivate a non-standard semantics for agentive modals. More positively, we can defend the idea that `can' and `able' are possibility modals while distinguishing abilities from mere circumstantial possibilities in what they are possibilities for: mere circumstantial possibilities are possibilities for something to happen; abilities are possibilities for action. I conclude by considering interesting new lines of inquiry the view opens up for questions about the dual of ability, as well as about the relation between agentive modals and their epistemic, deontic, and bouletic cousins.