Cover not available
Part of
The Corpus Linguistics Discourse: In honour of Wolfgang Teubert
Edited by Anna Čermáková and Michaela Mahlberg
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 87] 2018
► pp. 205–221

Epistemic must in an English-Swedish contrastive perspective

| University of Gothenburg
Must in English and måste in Swedish do not mean quite the same thing and they have different formal and functional properties as can be shown from a translation perspective. They occur for example with different frequencies in the two languages. Must is mainly epistemic while the deontic meaning predominates with måste. Several factors play a role for the semantic-pragmatic function of must such as the degree of speaker certainty and the type and source of evidence. It is shown that must is used both to express the speaker’s stance and with hearer-appeal in situations where the hearer is assumed to know more than the speaker. Måste is closely associated with certainty and with inferential meaning.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Material and method
  • 3.Epistemic and evidential meaning
  • 4.Frequencies
  • 5.The Swedish correspondences of English must
    • 5.1Must translated by expressions of certainty
    • 5.2Must translated by epistemic particles
    • 5.3Must with inferential meaning
    • 5.4Zero-correspondence
  • 6.The English correspondences of Swedish måste
    • 6.1Måste translated by expressions of certainty
    • 6.2Måste translated by expressions of evidentiality
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.87.09aij
References (20)
References
Aijmer, K. 2017. The semantic field of obligation in an English-Swedish perspective. In Contrastive Analysis of Discourse-pragmatic Aspects of Linguistic Genres [A special issue of the Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics], K. Aijmer & D. Lewis (eds), 1–32. New York NY: Springer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, B. 1999. Adverbial connectors in English and Swedish: Semantic and lexical correspondences. In Out of Corpora. Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson, H. Hasselgård & S. Oksefjell (eds), 249–268. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Altenberg, B. & Aijmer, K. 2000. The English-Swedish parallel corpus: A resource for contrastive research and translation studies. In Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory. Papers from the 20th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 20) Freiburg im Breisgau 1999, C. Mair & M. Hundt (eds), 15–33. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Altenberg, B., Aijmer, K. & Svensson, M. 2001. The English-Swedish Parallel Corpus (ESPC): Manual. Department of English, Lund University. <[URL]> (15 January 2017).
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. 1999. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cornillie, B. 2007. Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality in Spanish (Semi-)auxiliaries. A Cognitive-functional Approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
de Haan, F. 2009. On the status of ‘epistemic’ must. In Modality in English 3, R. Facchinetti & A. Tsangalidis (eds), 261–284. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. 1976. The Scandinavian Languages: An Introduction to Their History. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Johansson, S. 2007. Seeing Through Multilingual Corpora. On the Use of Corpora in Contrastive Studies [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 26]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mortelmans, T. 2000. On the ‘evidential’ nature of the ‘epistemic’ use of the German modals müssen and sollen. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 14: 131–148.Google Scholar
2010. Falsche Freunde: Warum sich die Modalverben must, müssen und moeten nicht entsprechen. In Modalität/Temporalität in kontrastiver und typologischer Sicht, A. Katny & A. Socka (eds), 133–148. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2012. Epistemic must and its cognates in German and Dutch. The subtle differences. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 2150–2164.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, J. 2001. Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization [Human Cognitive Processing 5]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2003. Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive and typological issues. In Modality in Contemporary English, R. Facchinetti, F. R. Palmer & M. Krug (eds), 1–18. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, N. 2003. Changes in the modals and semi-modals of strong obligation and epistemic necessity in recent British English. In Modality in Contemporary English, R. Facchinetti, M. Krug & F. R. Palmer (eds), 241–266. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teleman, U., Hellberg, S. & Andersson, E. 1999. Svenska Akademiens grammatik, Band 4. Stockholm: Norstedt.Google Scholar
Teubert, W. 1996. Comparable or parallel corpora. International Journal of Lexicography 9: 238–264.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Dasher, R. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, J. & Plungian, V. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2: 79–124.DOI logoGoogle Scholar