Modality is a semantic concept that covers notions such as possibility, probability, permission, ability, volition, necessity and obligation. The class of modals is in many languages both syntactically and semantically highly irregular and unpredictable: modals frequently have idiosyncratic conjugational patterns and are subject to highly specialized syntactic rules. One of the main characteristic of modal verbs is their relatively imprecise and indeterminate meaning, their ambiguity: the same modal can be deontic (i.e. based on rules and regulations), but it may also involve processes, sets of knowledge or belief systems, and thus get an epistemic interpretation.
In order to define the class of modals or to provide a set of environments in which a modal may be correctly or appropriately used, one must refer to many levels of language: the purely syntactic environment, as well as the logical structure, the context of the utterance, the assumptions that are shared by the speaker and the addressee, the social situation assumed by the participants in the discourse, the impression the speaker wants to make on the addressee, and so on. There is also the question of the appropriate context environments, that is, the semantic-pragmatic issue. Therefore, a complete analysis of a particular modal can only be achieved by looking both at its syntactic features and at its semantic structure; in other words, the syntax of a modal verb is based on its semantics, and these two dimensions are inseparable.
Table of Contents
1. Modality and Mood
1.1. The Difference between Mood and Modality
1.1.1. What is Mood?
1.1.2. What is Modality?
1.2. Epistemic Modality and Evidentiality
1.3. Root Modality
1.3.1. Deontic Modality
1.3.2. Dynamic Modality
1.4. The Root – Epistemic Distinction (as shown in CAN and MAY)
1.4.1. An Analysis of the Dichotomy Root – Epistemic
2. Modal Verbs
2.1. The Morpho-Syntactic Properties of the English Modals
2.2. The Structural Positions of Modals
2.3. The Complement of Modals
2.4. Time Reference for CAN and MAY
2.5. Scope Properties of Modal Verbs
2.6. Modality and Negation
3. A Semantic Analysis of the English Modals
3.1. The Unitary Semantic Approach vs. Ambiguity – Polysemy View
3.1.1. The Ambiguity View (Palmer)
3.1.2. The Polysemy View (Sweetser)
3.1.3. The Monosemy View (Kratzer, Papafragou)
3.2. Quantification and Scope
3.3. Modal Restrictors
3.4. Semantics for Modal Operators
4. A Pragmatic Point of View
4.1. The Pragmatics of Root Modality
4.1.1. Derivation of Root Interpretations of CAN and MAY
4.2. The Pragmatics of Epistemic Modality
4.2.1. The Metarepresentation Hypothesis
4.2.2. Derivation of Epistemic Interpretations of CAN and MAY
4.3. ‘Speech-Act’ Modality (Factual MAY)
5. Expressing Permission and Possibility in Spanish
5.1. Modality Types
5.2. A Syntactic Account
5.3. A Semantic Account
5.3.1. Complements
5.3.2. Subject Restrictions
5.3.3. Tense
5.3.4. Negation
Research Objectives and Topics
This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the English modal verbs CAN and MAY (and their Spanish equivalent PODER), examining their root and epistemic interpretations through the lens of the possibility-necessity distinction. The research explores the hypothesis that modal expressions in natural language contain underspecified contents that require pragmatic manipulation to support formal inference.
- Syntactic properties of English modal auxiliaries and their structural positions.
- Semantic analysis debating unitary, ambiguous, and polysemous approaches to modals.
- Pragmatic derivation of contextual meanings for root and epistemic modality.
- Interaction of modals with negation, tense, and aspect.
- Cross-linguistic comparison focusing on the Spanish verb PODER.
Excerpt from the Book
1.1. The Difference between Mood and Modality
Although these two notions are related in origin, and to some extent in meaning, they represent two separate components of grammar: while mood is a grammatical category, modality is a semantic / pragmatic concept. Originally, they were both connected with the mode, manner, or fashion of saying something, but as the language advanced from Old English to Modern English, they have developed more specialized uses. Thus, the word “modal” is used in logic and philosophy to refer to propositions involving the affirmation of possibility and impossibility, existence and non-existence, contingency and necessity, and this meaning has been taken into grammar, as well.
. The topic of mood and modality (MOD) is a difficult aspect of language description because - among other reasons - the inventory of modal meanings is not stable across languages, moods do not map neatly from one language to another, modality may be realized morphologically or by free-standing words (such as adverbs), and it interacts in complex ways with other modules of the grammar, like tense and aspect. Describing MOD is all the more difficult if the attempt is to develop a unified approach that would provide cross-linguistic coverage (McShane et al.)
Morphology and syntax differ significantly from language to language. If, for instance, we defined modality as a category sharing the morpho-syntactic features of the English modal verbs, the definition would only suit the very same modal verbs of English, and, to a lesser extent, modals in some related languages; but for a vast majority of languages, this definition would be pointless. A semantically based definition, on the other hand, offers ground for cross-linguistic validity. Even speakers of completely different languages share the same basic experiences and needs, that is, meanings. This makes meaning more universal than a particular syntactic or morphological structure. (Narrog, 2005)
Mood and modality represent the linguistic expression of the speaker’s attitude toward an utterance or an event that may or may not take place. Subsequently, it is mainly the speaker’s perception that influences his approach, which can be either objective or speaker-oriented (subjective, participative).
Summary of Chapters
1. Modality and Mood: Explores the distinction between mood as a grammatical category and modality as a semantic/pragmatic concept, while establishing the root and epistemic reading categories.
2. Modal Verbs: Provides a syntactic examination of the English modals, focusing on their NICE properties, structural positions within the clause, and their interaction with tense, aspect, and negation.
3. A Semantic Analysis of the English Modals: Investigates the debate between unitary, ambiguity, and polysemy views of modals, proposing a monosemous approach where context dictates interpretation.
4. A Pragmatic Point of View: Discusses the derivation of root and epistemic interpretations through pragmatic enrichment, including the metarepresentation hypothesis and 'speech-act' modality.
5. Expressing Permission and Possibility in Spanish: Offers a cross-linguistic account of the Spanish verb PODER, contrasting its syntactic and semantic behavior with English modals.
Keywords
Modality, Mood, Root Modality, Epistemic Modality, CAN, MAY, PODER, Semantics, Pragmatics, Syntactic, Negation, Possible Worlds, Polysemy, Monosemy, Metarepresentation
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper fundamentally deals with the linguistic analysis of the English modal verbs CAN and MAY, exploring how they are used to express different categories of meaning such as possibility, ability, and permission.
What are the primary themes discussed?
The core themes include the syntactic positioning of modals, the semantic debate regarding their polysemous versus monosemous nature, and the pragmatic processes involved in deriving context-specific meanings.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to provide a complete analysis of CAN and MAY by demonstrating that these expressions carry underspecified semantic content, which is enriched through pragmatic interaction to support inference.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The study utilizes a generative syntactic framework, possible-worlds semantics, and elements of Relevance Theory to analyze linguistic data and cross-linguistic differences between English and Spanish.
What is covered in the main body of the work?
The main body examines the morpho-syntactic features of modals, their classification into root and epistemic types, their role as propositional operators, and how they behave in relation to negation and complement structures.
Which keywords best describe this research?
Key terms include modality, mood, root and epistemic interpretations, semantic-pragmatic interface, and cross-linguistic analysis of auxiliary systems.
How does the author distinguish between root and epistemic modality?
The author distinguishes them by their interaction with tense, their syntactic position within the clause, and whether they involve the speaker’s mental representation of reality (epistemic) or relations between circumstances (root).
What unique role does the Spanish verb PODER play?
PODER serves as the primary Spanish equivalent to CAN and MAY, and the analysis shows how it functions as a "semi-auxiliary" that behaves differently than English modals by carrying tense and subject-verb agreement.
What is the "metarepresentation hypothesis" mentioned in the work?
It is a theory used to explain epistemic modality, suggesting that speakers perform deductive operations on their own beliefs or hypotheses, treating the embedded proposition as an interpretive object rather than a direct description of fact.
- Quote paper
- Andra Stefanescu (Author), 2007, The modal verbs can and may in English and Spanish, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/91019
