Modality

Ferenc Kiefer
Table of contents

Modality is a central notion in logic and it has attracted considerable attention in linguistics. Logical definitions of modality are based on the notions of necessity and possibility and modal notions must all be traceable to the logical notions of necessity and possibility. Logical treatments of modality are restricted to properties of propositions and exclude all nonpropositional features of sentences. In linguistics, normally a broader view of modality is espoused. Three major approaches can be distinguished. (i) Modality is related to necessity and possibility, it is used to relativize the validity of propositions to a set of possible worlds. On this view, modality is not necessarily propositional, it may also include nonpropositional aspects of the sentence. (ii) Any modification of a proposition comes under the heading of modality. According to this view, volitional, emotive, evaluative modifications, too, belong to modality, in spite of the fact that these modifications are not related to necessity and possibility. (iii) Modality is what the speaker is doing with a proposition. This notion of modality includes (i) and (ii); in addition, it also covers illocution, in particular, the speech acts of imposing obligation and granting permission. On this approach, there is no dividing line between semantics and pragmatics, or, at least much of what has traditionally been considered to be pragmatics belongs to semantics.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Aksu-Koç, A.
1988 The acquisition of Aspect and Modality: The Case of Past Reference in Turkish. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, L.
1986 Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: typologically regular asymmetries. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (eds.) Evidentiality: The Coding of Epistemology in Language. Ablex.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Bally, C.
1932 Linguistique générale et linguistique française. E. Leroux.Google Scholar
1942 Syntaxe de la modalité explicite. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure II: 3–13.Google Scholar
Brown, P. & S. Levinson
1978 Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In E.N. Goody (ed.) Questions and Politeness: 56–289. Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
1985 Morphology: A Study of the Relation Between Meaning and Form. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. & W. Pagliuca
1985 Cross-linguistic comparison and the development of grammatical meaning. In J. Fisiak (ed.) Historical Semantics, Historical Word Formation: 59–83. Mouton.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.W. Pagliuca
1994 The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Calbert, J.
1975 Toward the semantics of modality. In J.P. Calbert & H. Vater (eds.): 2–70.Google Scholar
Calbert, J.P. & H. Vater
(eds.) 1975 Aspekte der Modalität. Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö.
1985 Tense and Aspect Systems. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Givón, T.
1993 English Grammar. A Function-Based Introduction. John Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K.
1970 Functional diversity of language, as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language 6: 322–361.Google Scholar
Hintikka, J.
1962 Knowledge and Belief. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L.R.
1989 A Natural History of Negation. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kiefer, F.
1983 What is possible in Hungarian? Acta Linguistica Hungarica 33: 149–187.Google Scholar
1986 Epistemic possibility and focus. In W. Abraham & S. De Meij (eds.) Topic, Focus, and Configurationality: 161–179. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987 On defining modality. Folia Linguistica XXI(1): 67–94.  BoPGoogle Scholar
1988 Ability and possibility. The Hungarian verb tud ‘to be able to’. Studies in Language 12(2): 393–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992 Modality. International Encyclopedia of Linguistics: 2515–2520. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1995 Bound utterances. Language Sciences 18(2): 575–587. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
1997 Modality and pragmatics. Folia Linguistica XXXI(3–4): 241–253.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A.
1978 Semantik der Rede. Kontexttheorie – Modalwörter – Konditionalsätze. Scriptor.  BoPGoogle Scholar
1981 The notional category of modality. In H.-J. Eikmeyer & H. Rieser (eds.) Words, Worlds, and Contexts. New Approaches to Word Semantics: 38–74. de Gruyter.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J.
1977 Semantics. Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Miller, G.A. & D.M. Kwilosz
1981 Interaction of modality and negation in English. In A.K. Joshi, B.L. Webber & I.A. Sag (eds.) Elements of Discourse Understanding: 201–216. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oswalt, R.
1964 Kashaya Texts. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Öhlschläger, G.
1989 Zur Syntax und Semantik der Modalverben im Deutschen. Linguistische Arbeiten 144. Niemeyer.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F.R.
1979 Modality and the English Modals. Longman.  BoPGoogle Scholar
1986 Mood and Modality. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Perkins, M.R.
1983 Modal Expressions in English. Pinter.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Redder, A.
1984 Modalverben im Unterrichtsdiskurs. Pragmatik der Modalverben am Beispiel eines institutionellen Diskurses. Niemeyer. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Von Stechow, A. & W. Sternefeld
1988 Bausteine syntaktischen Wissens. Ein Lehrbuch der generativen Grammatik. Westdeutscher Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stephany, U.
1986 Modality. In P. Fletcher & M. Garman (eds.) Language Acquisition: 375–400. Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E.
1990 From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Thurmair, M.
1989 Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E.C.
1989 On the rise of epistemic meaning: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65(1): 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Der Auwera, J.
1996 Modality: the three-layered scalar square. Journal of Semantics 13: 181–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vater, H.
1975 Werden als Modalverb. In J.P. Calbert & H. Vater (eds.): 71–148.Google Scholar
Wells, G.
1985 Language Development in the Preschool Years. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Willett, T.
1988 A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12(1): 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Von Wright, G.H.
1971 Explanation and Understanding. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, D.
1981 Modalverben im Diskurs und im System. In I. Rosengren (ed.) Sprache und Pragmatik: 11–53. Gleerup.  BoPGoogle Scholar