Modality (linguistics)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In linguistics, modality denotes a special type of linguistic meaning that arises, for example, with expressions such as the modal verbs must, can , with adverbs such as possibly, maybe, certain and many other types of expressions (and which sometimes remains without external labeling) . The special thing about such modal statements is that individual facts of the real world are not ascertained, but rather different or more extensive statements are made that also contain comparisons of various “possibilities”. Examples of modal statements in German and how they modify the meaning of a simple sentence are: 

Tatsachenbehauptung: „Der Hund hat die Wurst gefressen.“
Modalisierte Aussage: „Der Hund könnte die Wurst gefressen haben.“

(The addition of the modal verb could have the effect here that the truth of the simple assertion is left open; it is presented as a "scenario" that stands alongside other conceivable scenarios.) 

Tatsachenbehauptung: „Ich ging ohne Abendessen ins Bett.“
Modalisierte Aussage: „Ich musste ohne Abendessen ins Bett gehen.“

(The addition of the modal verb had to result in a more extensive statement. For example: "There was no alternative.")

The delimitation of the area of ​​modality is not seen uniformly in linguistics; There are essentially two different traditions:

  • On the one hand, modality is understood as a category that characterizes facts , namely to the extent that they do not belong to reality, but extend to certain non-real scenarios. The linguistic side of the modality then consists in what is said in terms of content about facts outside of reality, and with what linguistic means these contents are expressed. Theories of modality then use models that are generally used in the representation of sentence content ( sentence semantics ), and connect to philosophical conceptions of modality , which are also the basis of modal logic .
  • In competition with this is a view that modality essentially has to do with the characterization of a speaker's subjective attitudes towards a statement. Modality then does not appear as a component of a stated content, but as a way in which a speaker positions his statement in relation to the world of facts. The concept of modality then extends more into linguistic pragmatics .

Such competing conceptions of modality also have an impact on which phenomena are called “modal” at all. As a consensus, however, it can be seen that the meanings of modal verbs such as can, must, may represent typical cases of modality.

Modality must be distinguished from the mode as a grammatical category (i.e. indicative, subjunctive, imperative, etc.), even if concepts of the modality can be used in the interpretation of the modes. Modality is not a grammatical, but a content-based category.

Determining the modal meaning

The exact meaning of most of the words that signal modality is very variable. The linguistic investigation of the modality is therefore concerned on the one hand with determining the essence of the modal meaning as such and on the other hand with explaining the reasons for the variation in meaning. In this section, various types of variation are first presented that can occur in connection with modal expressions, but which must be separated from the core meaning of the modality precisely because they are variable.

Modality is independent of various effects of the utterance

Modal statements, as conveyed by modal verbs, can be used in different ways. For example, uttering the verb may in the first sentence below can result in permission being given, and negating it in the second sentence can result in a prohibition. In the third sentence, the utterance of must causes a request, and in the fourth sentence can do the same (note the occurrence of the word please ):

  1. "You can stay up late today"
  2. "You allowed to not eat of the fruit of that tree."
  3. "You have to remember to tell, as was your Himalaya trip me."
  4. " Can you please tell me what time it is?"

However, the same verbs can be used as a simple reference to a fact, e.g. B .:

  1. "Elsewhere must stay up children, as long as they want"
  2. "In the past , you weren't allowed to harvest all the trees."
  3. "Nobody has to answer questions about family planning in the interview."
  4. "Do you have a watch here, so you tell me the exact time can , if it is running out?" - "Yes."

Variable interpretations that concern the use of sentences for various communicative purposes (such as assertion, prohibition, request, etc.) are assigned to the level of pragmatics in linguistics , in contrast to the literal meaning ( semantics ), which (ideally) the Represents the core meaning of the expressions, which remains the same in all contexts and does not depend on the respective intentions of the communication partner. The question of the nature of the type of meaning called “modality” is therefore first of all a question of semantics, from which the communicative uses are only then derived.

Accordingly, the semantic analysis of modal meaning is in the foreground in this article, i.e. the question of which meaning properties are firmly connected with modal expressions and what kind of sentence a modal statement is actually about (as far as possible, regardless of what it is in an action context).

Modality exists regardless of the degree of "certainty"

With regard to this division, semantics vs. Pragmatically , it can be disputed which descriptions of meaning should be ascribed to the actual, literal meaning of a modal verb. For example, the following different ways of using the verb must can be identified : 

„Der Mann muss geistesgestört sein“
  1. With this sentence the speaker expresses his subjective perplexity and incomprehension about the man. Also: "He must be MENTAL!" (Capital letters symbolize emphasis)
  2. The speaker expresses that he knows exactly about the man. Also: "(We have carried out various tests, and the result is clear: ...) The man MUST be insane."

In the first use, the statement with must has a weaker effect than simple “The man is mentally disturbed”, in the second case the statement with must has a stronger effect than the simple sentence.

In other words, this comparison shows that it is inconsistent (even with the same modal verb) whether a sentence with a modal verb communicates a greater “uncertainty” on the part of the speaker about a state of affairs than with a simple propositional sentence. In this respect, it is unclear whether the frequently occurring characterization that modality relates to the “degree of certainty” of a statement captures the core meaning of the modality. It is true however that modal verbs and their forms to each other may be graded according to the strength of the statement; so called should be a weaker statement than must . In contrast to the sphere of the real, modality has a graded order.

Modality exists regardless of the “subjectivity” of a statement

Objective and subjective forms of modality

A confirmed finding about modality is that there are at least certain cases in which modality leads to an objectively different statement than the corresponding simple sentence. This can already be seen in the fact that the modal aspect of a statement can be contrasted or negated, in particular in the above example the second interpretation can be contradicted by saying: 

 „Nein, er MUSS NICHT geistesgestört sein. (… Es gäbe auch eine andere Erklärung).“

This behavior is in contrast to the so-called modal particles of German, which cannot be negated, and whose function is always described as the "subjective tinting" of a statement, compare the impossible answer: 

 „Er ist nicht geistesgestört. Er ist wohl nur sehr übermüdet“ — ?? „Nein, er ist es nicht wohl.“

Modal verbs do not necessarily have to have this character of a “subjective shade” (but they can also).

Another indication that modalized sentences can represent independent facts are the different consequences of modalized and non-modalized sentences:

  1. "If there was an error does , the editor must again go through the entire text."
  2. "If there could have been a mistake , the editor has to go through the whole text again."

With the second sentence there are also checks for cases that are not required by the first sentence; So the modal verb could in the if- part of the second sentence describes an objectively different fact, and not just a subjective coloring.

Modality types in terms of their status as a statement

A pragmatic explanation of variable aspects of meaning such as the “prohibition, request” interpretations outlined at the beginning is not the only aspect under which pragmatics can come into play when investigating modality. Modal expressions could also be classified as “pragmatic” in the sense that they have a fixed meaning or a fixed function, which is located on a different level than the formulation of statements that can be asserted and contested, i.e. true or false could be. If modality is classified as a “pragmatic” object, it is more likely to mean this: it is content that is conveyed in a sentence, but which evades being asserted or denied. They then only exist at the level of how a speaker's utterance works in an interaction .

From this point of view, J. Meibauer distinguishes three types of modality in a common pragmatics textbook:

  • (a) Statements about [objective] possibility and necessity; z. B. "Fritz can become president."
  • (b) Statements about attitudes towards an issue; z. B. "I suspect that Fritz will be president"
  • (c) Speaker attitudes transported with the utterance that are not accessible as an independent statement, e.g. B. "Fritz will probably become president"

In Meibauer's text, this list is offered as a subdivision of a single category “modality”, but the uniformity of the category is controversial (see the next but one section).

Modality exists in different areas of content

The German modal verbs are often ambiguous with regard to the areas in which the modal statement can be located. For example, the above sentence “The editor has to go through the text again” may refer to an instruction from a supervisor, whereas the sentence “The man must be insane” has no plausible meaning relating to instructions. The classification of such differences is presented in more detail in the following section.

Content structure of the area of ​​the modality

The area of ​​modality can be broken down in various ways. The difference between possibility and necessity corresponds to different logical structures (namely types of quantification); this classification is shown below in the “Logical Analysis” section. In the following section, a division is first made according to content areas, which is also referred to in the literature as the distinction according to the modal basis . In all of these areas there is both possibility and necessity, but with different references.

Circumstantial modality

A first group of modal meanings is made up of statements about possibility and necessity that are based on properties of the acting person or on other objective realities of the world (in contrast to the "epistemic" modalities, which revolve around the possibilities of knowledge; see below ). These cases were dealt with under various terms such as: “agent-oriented modality” ( Bybee ), “event modality” ( Palmer) or simply “non-epistemic modality”. The English term “root modality” is also frequently found in German literature. This article uses the term circumstantial modality (i.e., “circumstantial modality”).

One type of possibility that is based on objective circumstances is the ability of an individual to do something (this is also referred to as “dynamic modality”). Examples: 

„Das Kind kann schon lesen.“
Regardless of whether the child has actually been observed while reading, this statement about the ability means that such situations are a conceivable scenario, as far as it is up to the child.
„Hortensien können in dieser Gegend wachsen.“
This is a statement that is not about a single fact of the real world, as the truth of the sentence is independent of whether hydrangeas have ever been planted in the area in question. Nevertheless, a statement is made about objective conditions, namely that the nature of the plants and those of the environment together are such that the occurrence of fully grown hydrangeas results in a conceivable scenario. - This example shows that there are more factors to be included than just the capabilities of an agent .

Another case is the so-called deontic interpretation of modal verbs (in ancient Greek Δέον deon , German 'duty' ): This refers to commandments and prohibitions. It expresses the obligation or permission emanating from an external source and thus also based on objective circumstances (e.g. applicable laws). Examples:

  • Deontic necessity:
„Maria muss um 10 Uhr bei der Arbeit sein.“
Regardless of whether Maria really shows up for work at 10 a.m., there is a rule that says that only this is proper behavior.
  • Deontic possibility:
„Das Kind darf heute bis Mitternacht aufbleiben.“
Regardless of whether the child really stays up or wants to stay up, there is an instruction from the parents stating that this is a permitted behavior; that is, that it is "possible" for the child to stay up.

Other related cases of modality are:

  • Buletic modality; (too ancient Greek Βουλητικό bουlitkόs , German 'will' ), related to the wishes and wishes of an agent.
„Wenn du sie treffen willst, musst du hier warten.“
The compulsion to wait does not follow from any external law, but from the will of the subject who thereby wants to achieve something.
  • Alethic modality; (too ancient Greek Ἀλήθεια aletheia , German 'truth' ) based on logical laws or the like that secure a conclusion:
„Wenn eine Primzahl größer als 2 ist, muss sie ungerade sein.“
(This variant may already form a transition area to the next, the epistemic type).

Epistemic modality

In contrast to the above discussed modal phenomena which are based on objective facts, there are variants of possibility and necessity, which only be based on what is in a particular case recognizable is; these cases are therefore referred to as “epistemic modality” (from ancient Greek epistḗmē “knowledge”). Here, too, one can distinguish between possibility and necessity on the same basis; a suitable context for such examples are e.g. B. Crime Stories:

  • Epistemic Necessity:
„Der Gärtner muss der Mörder sein.“
Instead of an obligation on the part of an acting subject, this sentence describes an assessment of the facts in a situation: According to what one already knows, in all conceivable scenarios (the details of which may still be open) the gardener is the murderer every time, there are no alternatives in which it could be different.
  • Epistemic possibility:
„Der Gärtner könnte der Mörder sein.“
From what we already know, there is a consistent scenario where the gardener turns out to be the killer, but there are also alternative scenarios where it is not.

Epistemic modality is contrasted with circumstantial interpretations as a type of their own because the expressions have fundamental differences in their grammatical and logical behavior. Circumstantial modal verbs behave in such a way that they assign their own semantic role to the subject, e.g. B. as the bearer of a skill. Epistemic modal verbs, on the other hand, show no interaction with the subject of the sentence, but depend on an assessment made by the speaker of the sentence (even if this in turn is based on the existing facts). Another difference is the interaction with the tense and other temporal properties of the sentence, as in the following contrast:

  1. "The gardener had to stay at home." (Deontic)
  2. "The gardener must have stayed at home." (Epistemic)

The first sentence can plausibly be interpreted deontically, the modal verb then had to mean that we are talking about a previous point in time at which a regulation was in force. The modal verb is therefore logically embedded under the tense (or the tense has Scopus over the modal verb). In the second sentence, on the other hand, a view of things is expressed that is based on the present circumstances and makes a past fact probable - i.e. H. the time indication "past" is logically embedded under the modal verb, the other way around as in the first example. A deontic interpretation of staying at home with an instruction is not possible for the second example because a present instruction could not be fulfilled in the past. - The result of this comparison illustrates the general finding that circumstantial modal verbs are located “deeper” in the logical structure than epistemic ones. (They tend not only to be subordinated to a time indication, but also to negation and quantified subjects).

The question of other speaker-related types of modality

Modality and evidentiality

In the literature, there is disagreement about further extensions of the concept of modality to phenomena that are above all similar to the epistemic modality. This applies to the category of evidentiality , for example . In German, the meaning of the modal verb is to be referred to as "evidenziell" in the following example: 

„Er soll steinreich sein“ ≈ Es heißt / Man sagt, er sei steinreich.

Evidentiality is a grammatical category in some languages that is displayed in verb forms. It then expresses the source from which the speaker obtained information, subdivided mainly according to whether he saw the described facts himself or whether he was told, whether it was deduced from signs, etc. The verb “shall” in the above example is referred to in German grammar as a “modal verb” because it falls into the same grammatical class as “must”, “can” etc. or like other readings of “shall”. Some authors have taken the position that epistemic modality and evidentiality are also about the same category in terms of content, for example in the context of a generally “speaker-oriented modality”. The commonality is that the relation of the speaker to the expressed information is in question. Other authors take the position that evidentiality and epistemic modality diverse and independent categories are, because with modality it related to the scope of a statement (which extends to possible scenarios) in evidentiality it related to the naming of the reasons for a statement , so the source of information.

Modality and functions of the subjunctive

In a similar way, the question arises whether the use of the subjunctive should fall under the concept of modality, because, for example, the subjunctive in indirect speech resembles a marking of evidentiality, compare the verb form “haben” in the following example with the origin of the sentence a statement by McCain: 

„Direkt danach schloss sich McCain der vernichtenden Bewertung an. Trump habe keine Ahnung von Außenpolitik“…

This opens up the possibility of using the term modality in such a way that it generally marks “the speaker's attitudes towards the proposition” and that modality also extends into the area of ​​the grammatical category mode . Such broad conceptions of modality have also been contradicted: De Haan (2001) argues that the subjunctive in free indirect speech is to be classified as a marker of “unconfirmed information” and is not even to be equated with evidentiality (which he already separates from modality). Essentially, the speaker of such an indirect quotation marks that he does not even count as an utterance of the sentence, in contrast to the evident modal verb should , with which only an external source of information is indicated for a personal utterance.

Hacquard (2011) refers to an observation for the French, where modal verbs, if they are not constructed with infinitive, but with a finite subordinate clause, tend therein the Future (or Subjonctif to demand). This shows a connection between the categories mode and modality - but at the same time the case also shows that the two categories are not similar, since the mode only occurs here as a grammatically dependent reflex of a content-related category “modality” that is located elsewhere in the sentence .

Controversy over the uniformity of the term modality

The various possibilities to classify and limit the term modality are reflected in different definitions that have been given in the literature for the entire area, insofar as this has been attempted at all. Mostly there is agreement that modal verbs of must and can form typical cases, i.e. a core area of ​​the modality, uncertainty exists above all about how far the term should be expanded into areas that are at least similar to the epistemic modality, or whether perhaps a family of epistemic functions alone should be seen as a prototype. In this situation, theories of modality may choose to exclude areas that are nevertheless referred to as “modal” elsewhere in the literature.

"Modal" as an ambiguous term

Öhlschläger (1984) summarizes his literature review (which, however, only contains the state of knowledge from the 1980s) as follows:

“[It] turns out that none of the proposed modality terms is able to encompass all of the terms designated as modal. This is often only masked by the fact that modal is used ambiguously or differently than it was defined, if it is not simply used without explanation. "

- Günther Öhlschläger : Journal for Germanistic Linguistics, 12 (1984), 229–246, p. 242

In particular, there are no scientific sources that include modal in the sense of modal adverb (roughly: manner-and-manner adverb) in a treatment of modality in the sense of modal verb . However, Öhlschläger does not provide any criteria as to which other cases of broad modality terms could also be based on simple ambiguity or vagueness of the term.

Modality as a heterogeneous umbrella category

Frank Robert Palmer has a very broad definition of modality . He regards the modality as a grammatical category that is on a par with tense and aspect . The two main groups are then propositional and event modality. In his opinion, "modality" has the status of a super-category, which then includes the sub-categories of "mode" and the "modal system". The latter sub-categories are used to express modal content grammatically. The mode can be illustrated by comparing indicative and subjunctive, for example, and the modal system by the functions of the modal verbs.

Since the mode is an inflectional category, which means that it can be required by grammatical rules and can be expressed differently in individual languages, the mode must still be contrasted with the modality, which is a content-based, i.e. also language-independent, category, even in such a broad classification.

The definition by Lewandowski (1994) is similarly broad :

"Modality is an overarching (...) semantic-pragmatic (communicative) category that includes the mode and expresses the relationship of the speaker to the statement and that of the statement to reality or to the realization of a given and grammatically and / or lexically , intonationally , can be realized rhetorically , etc. "

- Theodor Lewandowski : Linguistic dictionary. Edition 6, Quelle & Meyer Verlag, Wiebelsheim 1994, ISBN 3-8252-1518-0 , p. 714

Modality as a speaker-related or pragmatic category

Above all in philologically oriented traditions, there are definitions that emphasize the speaker reference and thus also associate modality with a pragmatic category. For example:

"Modality is a functional-semantic category that represents a system in which means of different levels of language - morphological , syntactic-constructive, intonational and word-forming means - work together and express whether the consciousness of the speaker expressed linguistically in the utterance as with the reality is designated in agreement or not. "

- Gražina Droessinger

Other classic definitions that go in a similar direction characterize modality as:

  • Relationship of the speaker's statement ( reality ) to reality ;
  • Relation of speaker to sentence content ;
  • Relationship of the verbalized facts to reality and the relationship of the speaker to the content of the sentence.

According to the wording, such definitions would have the consequence that the area of ​​circumstantial modality is completely excluded (although at the same time, “modal verbs” are still used in such cases). The thesis that circumstantial modal verbs should be separated from the rest of the modality has also been specifically advocated by individual authors, but is not generally accepted. In the literature it is sometimes assumed that pragmatically anchored markings such as modal particles with epistemic modal verbs have the common feature that both are not part of the stated sentence content ( proposition ) or are not part of the truth conditions of the sentence. Such a characterization is controversial for epistemic modal verbs (the counter-arguments have already been presented above ).

Modality as a possibility and a necessity

In many overall representations of the modality (mainly from the tradition of model-theoretical semantics , but also in the language typology) the term is expressly restricted to the designation of possibility and necessity and classified as a semantic category. So primarily the circumstantial and epistemic modality are combined, and evidentiality, mode and various pragmatically anchored categories are separated from the modality. This summary is already suggested by the fact that many modal verbs are ambiguous precisely between circumstantial and epistemic interpretations. Comparative language studies show, however, that this is largely a peculiarity of European languages ​​(see below ). Another reason for this classification is that circumstantial and epistemic modality can be analyzed using the same logical structures. The basis for this view is the uniform analysis of the modality as a quantification of possible worlds, which is presented in the next section.

Logical analysis of modal expressions

Statements about possibility and necessity are characterized by the fact that they do not (solely) refer to individual facts of reality, but rather include alternative possibilities for the validity of their statement. An influential theory in philosophy and semantics sees these alternative possibilities or scenarios as objects about which language makes statements, precisely through the modal expressions. These objects are usually called “ possible worlds ” and a variable “w” is introduced for them in the logical representation. Reality is a particularly excellent world in this crowd, which z. B. is symbolized as w ° . The validity of a proposition then exists in relation to a certain world, i.e. H. Proposition can equally be true in relation to the real world or in relation to a certain possible world w; this results in representations such as For example: p (w °) = 1 or p (w) = 1 (where “= 1” is to be read as “has the truth value 1” or “is true”).

Modal expressions then denote a quantification over such possible worlds. In essence, this means:

  • a statement about a possibility corresponds to an existence statement . Example: "The gardener could be the murderer" = "There is a possible world in which the gardener is the murderer";
  • a statement about a necessity corresponds to an all-statement . Example: “The gardener must be the murderer” = “According to the current state of knowledge, it is the case in all possible worlds that the gardener is the murderer”.

However, this presentation must be supplemented, as the statements would be too strong. The task is therefore to formulate suitable restrictions that limit the number of worlds in question. For example, modal expressions of necessity, just like all other all-statements, then result in the structure of an if-then relationship, i.e. they contain an if part that restricts the objects in question. Examples:

  • "All Greeks are artists of life" = For all x: If x is a Greek, then x is an artist of life.
  • "The gardener must be the murderer" = For all worlds w: If w is compatible with what we know about reality (and ...), then in w the gardener is the murderer.

The attached note in brackets "(and ...)" indicates that further conditions can be developed in the respective context, which possible worlds are to be considered. The differences in the modal basis presented in the first section above now appear as conditions that select a certain set of possible worlds, i.e. "necessity in relation to what the law commands" (deontic modality), "necessity in relation to what we know about reality ”(epistemic modality, see example above) etc. A classic version of modal semantics in this context can be found in the work of Angelika Kratzer.

From this representation it follows that one can generally say of expressions whose meaning uses possible worlds that they have a modal component . Nevertheless, verbs or verb forms with a modal component can be clearly demarcated from modal verbs, because modal verbs are defined in such a way that they only express a modal quantification (together with a main verb). For example, the verb “believe” speaks of possible worlds, namely what the believer imagines. For example, the following whole sentence is true because someone really believes what the “that sentence” says, but the that sentence describes possible worlds that do not have to correspond to reality.

  • I think it's already there.

The verb to believe is not a modal verb because it mainly describes the state in which the believer finds himself: He has an attitude towards a proposition that is the object of the verb. Only the relation of this proposition to reality is of a modal nature.

Verbs also have a modal component in the imperative , because the action that is requested is not already in reality. However, it is not a modal verb, if only because the imperative does not make a statement .

The expression of modality in different languages

This article or section needs revision: Incomplete
Please help improve it , then remove this checkmark.

Modal expressions in German

German enables modality to be implemented using various linguistic means:

  • the previously described modal verbs,
  • Adverbs; Modal sentence adverbs are sometimes referred to as modal words in German grammar (e.g. possibly, certainly, maybe ). Also adjectives (which can also be used adverbially): probably, probably .
  • Modal particles (e.g. just, about, but, already, but, actually )
  • A construction from a copula verb (to be, have, remain ) with "too-infinitive", the so-called modal infinitive: "That cannot be done", "The dog has to obey", "That still remains to be proven"

Typology of modal expressions

The Indo-European languages have either a distinctive system of modal verbs or a distinctive modal system, although there are also languages ​​to which both apply. In English , modals are used very often, while the mode has almost completely disappeared.

In the Romance languages, however, the mode of the French subjonctif , the Spanish subjuntivo , the Portuguese subjuntivo o conjuntivo or the Italian congiuntivo has a strong effect . Nevertheless, in Romania , in languages ​​such as Spanish, French and Italian etc. a. Modal verbs and their paraphrases are used.

This is due to the fact that the grammaticalization of the “Romance” modal verbs took a different path, with a decline in the use of the mode, as in spoken French, for individual languages. Palmer is of the opinion that with regard to the development of the modality in a language, the two sub-categories more or less balance each other out and that in a language in which there is the mode and the modal system or verbs, one of these categories over the other the time would replace.

literature

  • Ferdinand de Haan: The interaction between modality and evidentiality: In Reimar Müller, Marga Reis (Hrsg.): Modalität und Modalverbben im Deutschen. (= Linguistic Reports, Special Issue 9). Buske Verlag, Hamburg 2001. pp. 201-216.
  • Rainer Dietrich: Modality in German. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 1992, ISBN 3-531-12364-5 .
  • William Frawley, Erin Eschenroeder, Sarah Mills, Thao Nguyen: The Expression of Modality. (= The expression of cognitive categories. Volume 1). Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2006, ISBN 3-11-018436-2 .
  • Valentine Hacquard: Modality. In: Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, Paul Portner (Eds.): Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. (= Handbooks for Linguistics and Communication Studies, 33). Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2011. Volume 2, chap. 58, pp. 1484-1515
  • Markus Hundt: On the relationship between epistemic and non-epistemic modality in German. In: Journal for German Linguistics , Vol. 31 (2003), pp. 343–381. doi: 10.1515 / zfgl 2003.31.3.343
  • Ferenc Kiefer: On Defining Modality . In Folia Linguistica Vol. 21 (1), 1987, pp. 64-97. doi: 10.1515 / flin.1987.21.1.67 .
  • Wilhelm Köller: Modality as a basic linguistic phenomenon. In: German lessons. 47 (4) (1995). Pp. 37-50.
  • Angelika Kratzer: Modality . In: Arnim v. Stechow, Dieter Wunderlich (Ed.): Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin 1991. pp. 639-650.
  • Jörg Meibauer: Pragmatik 2nd improved edition. Stauffenburg Verlag, Tübingen 2001.
  • Heiko Narrog: On defining modality again. In: Language Sciences , Vol. 27 (2005), pp. 165-192.
  • Günter Öhlschläger: Modality in German. In: Journal for German Linguistics. , 12: 229-246 (1984).
  • Frank Palmer : Mood and Modality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1986, ISBN 0-521-31930-7 . Second, revised edition 2001.
  • Johan van der Auwera, Andreas Ammann: Overlap between Situational and Epistemic Modal Marking. = Chapter 76 in Matthew Dryer, Martin Haspelmath (Ed.): The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. ( online (as of August 2, 2016))
  • Kai von Fintel: Modality and language. In: Donald M. Borchert (Ed.): Encyclopedia of philosophy. Second edition. MacMillan, Detroit 2006. Online from author's website (PDF)
  • Kai von Fintel, Irene Heim: Intensional Semantics. Ms. 2011. Manuscript from author's website

Web links

Wiktionary: Modality  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations

Individual evidence

(Short references refer to the literature list above)

  1. ↑ Basically z. B. Meibauer (2001), p. 4 ff. For the prominent role of modal verbs in so-called indirect speech acts (such as “Can you please tell me what time it is?”) See Chapter 8 there.
  2. ↑ Discussion according to Hundt (2003), p. 369 ff., Where Hundt's explanatory approach is not shown and his example has been replaced by a similar, more plausible example.
  3. ↑ For different degrees of strength of German modal verbs, see Duden. The grammar 8th edition Dudenverlag, Mannheim 2009, p. 557 ff.
  4. ↑ cf. Hundt (2003); P. 370 below
  5. ↑ Hacquard (2011), p. 1509. Example translated into German
  6. ↑ This was the pragmatic mechanism of conversational implicature
  7. ↑ Meibauer (2001), p. 76, where he is based, among other things, on Kiefer (1987). Meibauer's examples for the types have mostly been replaced here
  8. ↑ According to Kratzer (1991), p. 649. Sometimes there are lists of types of modality in which “circumstantial” is contrasted with other forms such as “deontic”, e.g. B. v. Fintel & Heim (2011), p. 34, or Kratzer on p. 640, whereas in this article “deontic” was classified under circumstantial modality. These different ways of speaking do not contradict one another. A simplification that has been made in the present presentation is that subdivisions of the modality such as "deontic", "buletic" etc. in Kratzer's theory are not different subspecies of a modal basis, but factors that belong to a further, independent dimension of the modality, the so-called source of order. Strictly speaking, therefore, z. For example, the deontic modality is an interpretation of a modal verb that has a circumstantial modal base and a deontic order source. Since, according to Kratzer, the source of order can also be empty, there are cases of “circumstantial modality”, where this designation then apparently has a narrower meaning, as it can come into conflict with deontic interpretations; but actually what is meant is “ purely circumstantial”.
  9. ↑ Example from Kratzer (1991), p. 646
  10. ↑ See Hundt (2003), p. 369ff.
  11. ↑ Also called propositional modality in Palmer (2001) . According to Palmer, it describes the modality that expresses the speaker's attitude to the truth value or the facticity of the proposition.
  12. ↑ See Hacquard (2011), Section 5, pp. 1495 ff.
  13. ↑ For this point, see Hacquard p. 1495 f .; the reasoning here had to be adapted to a corresponding German example.
  14. ↑ On this: Hacquard, pp. 1497–1500.
  15. ↑ The latter thesis represents e.g. B. De Haan (2001), see there for a literature review of the controversy.
  16. ↑ Reference to this example: http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/us-wahl-und-donald-trump-buergerkrieg-bei-den-republikanern-zeitlich-begrenzt/13053100.html , March 4, 2016
  17. ↑ De Haan (2001), section 6.
  18. ^ Hacquard (2011), p. 1509
  19. ↑ Palmer ( 1986/2001 )
  20. ↑ Palmer 2001, p. 9 f.
  21. ↑ In this sense also Hacquard 2011, p. 1509 below.
  22. ↑ GRAŽINA DROESSINGER: On the concept and types of modality in linguistics. , Pp. 88–89, from Rüdiger Deth: The partial modality of Possibility in Russian and German. Dissertation, Humboldt University Berlin (1986), p. 29
  23. ↑ Viktor V. Vinogradov: O kategorii modal'nosti i modal'nych slovach v russkom jazyke. (1950) In: Viktor V. Vinogradov: I ssledovanija po russkoj grammatike. Nauka, Moskva 1975, pp. 53-87.
  24. ^ Charles Bally : Syntaxe de la modalité explicite. Cahier F. de Saussure, 2, Genève Cercle Ferdinand de Saussure, (1942), pp. 3-13.
  25. ↑ Helmut Jachnow, Nina B Meckovskaja, Boris J. Norman, Adam E. Suprun (eds.): Modalität und Modus ( Modal'nost 'i naklonenie ). General questions and realization in Slavic. (= Slavic study books. New series. Volume 4). Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 1994, ISBN 3-447-03532-3 , pp. 52-89.
  26. ↑ Hacquard (2011), p. 1506ff.
  27. ↑ Hacquard 2011, pp. 1507–1509, where the thesis tends to be disputed.
  28. ^ Kratzer (1991), p. 639
  29. ↑ De Haan (2001), p. 203
  30. ↑ Hacquard (2011), p. 1484 (in the abstract of the article)
  31. ↑ van der Auwera & Amman (2013)
  32. ↑ cf. Scratches (1991)
  33. ↑ Stefanie Goldschmitt: French modal verbs in deontic and epistemic use Participating persons and organizations. Vol. 12 Romance languages ​​and their didactics, Ibidem-Verlag, Stuttgart 2007, ISBN 978-3-89821-826-9
  34. ↑ Thomas Johnen: The modal verbs of Portuguese (PB and PE). Semantics and pragmatics in locating a communicative grammar. Publishing house Dr. Kovac, Hamburg 2003, ISBN 3-8300-1195-4
  35. ↑ Gerd Fritz, Thomas Gloning: Investigations on the semantic development history of modal verbs in German. Vol. 187 from the German Linguistics series, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1997, ISBN 3-11-094084-1 , p. 61. f
  36. ^ Frank Palmer: Mood and Modality. 2nd. Edition., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2001, pp. 103 f.