Ñòóäîïåäèÿ

Ãëàâíàÿ ñòðàíèöà Ñëó÷àéíàÿ ñòðàíèöà

ÊÀÒÅÃÎÐÈÈ:

ÀâòîìîáèëèÀñòðîíîìèÿÁèîëîãèÿÃåîãðàôèÿÄîì è ñàäÄðóãèå ÿçûêèÄðóãîåÈíôîðìàòèêàÈñòîðèÿÊóëüòóðàËèòåðàòóðàËîãèêàÌàòåìàòèêàÌåäèöèíàÌåòàëëóðãèÿÌåõàíèêàÎáðàçîâàíèåÎõðàíà òðóäàÏåäàãîãèêàÏîëèòèêàÏðàâîÏñèõîëîãèÿÐåëèãèÿÐèòîðèêàÑîöèîëîãèÿÑïîðòÑòðîèòåëüñòâîÒåõíîëîãèÿÒóðèçìÔèçèêàÔèëîñîôèÿÔèíàíñûÕèìèÿ×åð÷åíèåÝêîëîãèÿÝêîíîìèêàÝëåêòðîíèêà






Introduction. Modality has always been a fascinating area to not only linguists but also philosophers and logicians in fact in the course of time it was viewed from






Modality has always been a fascinating area to not only linguists but also philosophers and logicians in fact in the course of time it was viewed from different viewpoints. Although modality was studied quite broadly, it still has good perspective to open new horizons.

What is Modality? (amen hatvac@ ira introduction, conclusionov)

The term ‘modality’ derives from the postclassical Latin word ‘ modalitas’. This term was very rare at that time, it entered English from French ‘ modalité ’. In the Middle English scholars used ‘ modus’ (meaning measure, method, shape)in various senses and one of those senses is associated with ‘modality’.

In Germanic and Romance the term ’modality’ is related to the term ‘mood’, in some languages these two terms are not related. In English modality tends to be considered something like equivalent with the modal auxiliaries, the reason for this is that they are most grammaticalized ways of expressing modality in English and they form a complex system, where various modal meanings are in contact with each other through complex links. https://grammar.about.com/od/mo/g/modalityterm.htm

https://linguistlist.org/issues/12/12-2018.html

The study of modality is called ‘Tropology’. The problem of modality was studied by such researchers as M. A. Blokh, F. R. Palmer, E. V. Gordon, I. B. Morozova, N.M. Rayevska and others. They studied the problem of modality from different aspects: some of them examined the peculiarities and the functions of modal verbs, others studied ways and means of expressing modality.

There are different definitions for modality. In the Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary modality is defined as a functional-semantic category which expresses different types of relations between utterance and reality and different subjective relations which are contributed by the author. In other words, modality is all about encoding of different degrees of subjective response in the viewpoint of writer or speaker.

When communicating, the speaker himself chooses the lexical patterns that are to be applied in his speech. This choice naturally is made, unconsciously, depending on the situation. Because it is the situation that provides the speaker's attitude, his choice of certain structures or patterns. The concept of modality has various aspects that is why it is often viewed from different viewpoints. For instance mood is the grammatical means of expressing modality, the area which has been studied thoroughly.

While studying the nature of modality one may come across to various definitions, types (narrow, broad), markers of modality, etc. one may get lost in the labyrinth of modal meaning, especially when taking into consideration all of its factors.

(karas sharunakes ete el chimanas inch gres 1in linkic).

In a narrow sense, according to Erhart, modality is the combination of the grammeme: statement (realized as a declarative), question (interrogative forms) and wish (imperatives and exclamations). This definition of modality covers modal auxiliaries, adverbs (possibly, probably).

In broad sense, modality is the realization of utterance. This definition covers the expressions of interpersonal content.

Intonation patterns cover both of these definitions. Intonation is very significant. It shapes the modality of the utterance.

Modality is relatively vague area in linguistics and many attempts were made to reach some kind of definiteness and this nature gives rise to speculations. The modal meaning can be expressed in a variety of ways. The narrow definition of modality refers to the grammatical category of mood, about which we will talk in the next chapter. The broad definition refers to the syntactic constructions and lexica items: imperatives, interrogatives, negation, modal adjectives/adverb, evaluative and modal words.

Negation should be separated from interrogatives and imperatives as they are different field of investigation (In Encyklopé dia jazykovedy (1993: 293), it is referred to as basic modality). In fact, negation is the denial of affirmation. It's the speaker's negative attitude of expressed affirmative statement. Some authors such as Ká š ová classify negation in the group of peripheral modality markers. Negation is the syntactic means of expressing disagreement, absence of like. Some authors accept the treatment of modality in the broad definition, others however, don't.

The studies on modality occupied many linguists since the 20th century. They mostly focused on syntactic construction and the expression of verbal mood. Matthew (2005: 228) defines modality as 'a category covering either a kind of speech act or the degree of certainty with which something is said.' Another linguist Erhart (1984: 116) defined modality as a category, and Palmer (mi hat stugel karoxa grel es) holds with him partly: it is possible to
recognize a grammatical category of modality (which is similar to aspect, tense, number, gender, etc.(1986: 1). Ď urovič (1956: 9) considers modality a main constitutional factor of a sentence.

There were different views when modality was first tried to be defined and examined, many linguists insisted that modality of declarative sentences. They accepted this theory because indicative mood is not marked and does not have a modal meaning. According to Huddleston, declaratives are opposed to the interrogatives and imperatives because they have definite assertion i.e. declaratives express definiteness.

Modality comprises the writer’s attitudes (mode of reassurance, possibility, obligation, necessity, prediction, willingness, permission, volition, ability), which can be contrasting.

Traditionally modality in English is expressed with the help of modal verbs: must, can, could, may, might, will, would, shall, should. The function of the modal verbs is to reflect our judgment about whether what we say or write is true.

Other lexical items: modal adjectives, adverbs, modal words and the others don't refer to the grammatical category and in the next chapter there's a proper description o about them. Modal adverbs are those lexical devices which function as markers of modality. They emphasize and disjunct something (c.f. Greenbaum et al 1990).

Apart from modal verbs, there are other linguistic means that express modality: adverbs (surely, definitely, clearly, necessarily, perhaps, maybe, obviously), adjectives (possible, probable, certain, necessary, compulsory, sure, likely), nouns, verbs, expressions (be able to, be allowed to, be bound to, etc.) etc. (avelacnel)

 

Types of Modality (mi hat es normal nayel dasavorel)

Generally modality is referred to the modal meaning in the sentence structure. As it was mentioned above, the area of modality occupied many scholars and in the course of time many theories appeared. According to them modality is fall into different types.

However, modality is not considered a clear area of study. It covers three main categories:

‘epistemic’ modality dealswith probability, possibility, certainty, etc.

‘root’ modality (deontic) – deals with obligation, permission, ability, etc.

dynamic (inherent)/situational

There is an interesting theory that epistemic modality is dependent upon the root one. From diachronic viewpoint this theory is proved to be true. Synchronically ‘root’ and epistemic modalities are related by means of a subsumption relation. Modality can be studied in connection with tense and aspect. For instance epistemic modality discussed with tense. As a matter of fact modality and tense are interconnected as both categories have predications and they clearly interact with each other. Obviously, the category of aspect is connected with the category of tense, therefore these three categories of modality, tense, aspect are closely related.

In order to find out how this relation happened, the phenomenon of modality must be viewed from diachronic and synchronic viewpoints.

Epistemic modality is that type of linguistic modality which deals with the speaker's degree of comprehension/judgment or trust about certain affairs i.e. epistemic modality describes the way speaker communicates his/her doubts, certainty, thoughts, etc. It estimates the likelihood, possibility, certainty of the things and affairs that may or have or will happen in a possible/certain point in the universe.

In speech epistemic modality is realized:

lexico-grammatically: through modal verbs (may, might, can.etc)

grammatically: through moods.

lexically: through adverbials or special intonation patterns.

Epistemic modality is of three types:

Speculative: e.g. Mary may be at school.

Deductive: e.g. Mary must be at school.

Assumptive: Mary'll be at school.

There are four major types of epistemic modal markers in English: modal auxiliaries (may. might, can, could, must, etc), lexical modal verbs (seem, appear), modal adjectives/adverbs (likely, probably, etc.)

The phenomenon of evidentiality is discussed with epistemic modality. It is the denotation of information sources of the speaker, which he supposes to be true. It shows the origins of the information. Evidentiality usually covers various subcategories of the source of information:

directly- it is when the speaker himself recieves the information with his own ears

indirectly- when the speaker supposes some facts or statements based on the initial/original information, or derived from additional knowledge that one can have

received from others (hearsay)

There are different views on if evidentiality. It is distinct from epistemic modality. Naturally the relation between epistemic modality and evidentiality is problematic. There is a logical connection between them referring to the fact epistemic judgments maybe based on the evidence. Besides, evidential categories may suggest some degrees of probability. Let's admit that hearsay information does not seem so truthful as the direct one, and therefore, the direct one implies more definiteness.

Hence, some authors evaluate the relations of these categories quite differently. For example Bybee and Palmer assume that evidentiality enters into the category of epistemic modality. Other authors do not really put them so close to each other, they just join the under the same modal subcategory. And some others relate them but admit that they are different categories. And not so many authors differentiate types of evidentiality. Inference is closely connected to epistemic modality rather than hearsay, but some authors insert inference in epistemic modality and exclude evidential categories, because inference and epistemic modality have at least one common feature, whereas evidentials do not. Inference also involves degrees: strong -clearly, obviously, logical, moderate forms- plausible, presumably, appear, weak forms- seem. Summing up this, we may say that evidentiality is not a very tight category. With epistemic modality the speaker expresses her/his judgments about the facts, whereas with evidential modality indicates the evidence she/he has for its factual status.

Another modal category is 'emotional attitude’ or boulomaic, it indicates the degree of speaker's liking or disliking of a situation or things, which are expressed with by the predicative adjective or adverb, etc.

e.g. Unfortunately, I can't accept your invitation, I don't have time.

This category has not been analyzed thoroughly in the range of modal notions. Probably the reason is that this meaning is not so vivid in the system of modal auxiliaries. Like deontic and epistemic modalities, it can be analyzed from both negative and positive poles, because it has an attitudinal character. In this sense volition can also fall into this type. When comparing volition to deontic modality, it is not always easy to recognize their limits.

Among other modal categories, ‘descriptivity’ and ‘performativity’ are worth to mention. They are actually the speaker's evaluation. Performativity expresses the speakers attitude in the moment of speech in descriptive type speaker himself expresses, describes, points out some affairs, actions performed by someone else in some point of time. (ete uzes es linki ej 26-ic baner karas dnes) https://books.google.am/books? id=72URszHq2SEC& printsec=frontcover& hl=ru#v=onepage& q& f=false

Deontic modality is also a type of linguistic modality, which indicates what is necessary or possible according to certain/ accepted norms, standards, expectations i.e. deontic modality expresses that the things in life do not coincide with the accepted social or personal standards and ideals. This category comprises other subcategories:

commissive modality - it is the speaker's commitment to do something.

Directive modality: these are the requests, commands.

Volitive modality: these are the wishes, desires.
Deontic modality has the features of obligation/ permission. Expressions of permission, obligation, are more complicated because they both involve the assessment of the degree of moral acceptability of and its translation into action terms.

In speech deontic realisation can be made with the help of:

grammatical moods, imperative mood: e.g. Go away!!

modal verbs: I shall help you.

other verbs: I hope to finish my paper soon.

adverbials and other constructions.

Deontic modality is contrasted to the alethic and epistemic modalities. The relations of deontic modal concepts are studied by deontic logicians. Deontic modals differ with their relations to normative and evaluative concepts (reason, virtue, value, etc.)

https://www.unm.edu/~jbybee/downloads/BybeeFleischman1995Introduction.pdf

Epistemic and Deontic modalities are connected with each other (concern themselves with the notions of possibility or necessity). Epistemic uses comprise information linked with the speaker's knowledge about the situation. In deontic uses we come across to obligation, prohibition, permission, etc. (Huddleston 1998: 78). 'Epistemic' modality is informs us about the speaker's understanding and knowledge. It refers to the reason of the speaker. 'Deontic' modality has in it a bit of will.

According to Palmer deontic modality has the meaning of futurity, whereas 'epistemic' modality contains the speaker’s attitude to the truth of past, present or future. According to Coates epistemic modality is the speaker's proportion of conditions and circumstances of reality. He claims that epistemic modality shows speaker’s commitment or knowledge. He refers to the speaker’s own judgments, the speaker’s (lack of) commitment to the truth of the proposition expressed.

These three meanings (epistemic, deontic, dynamic) in different academic literature may be named differently. For instance, dynamic modaliy is also called faculative /inherent. It is described as the attribution of the subject i.e. subject can perform the action expressed by the main verb.

Dynamic modality expresses more than ability, need, necessity, besides it can be situational. Deontic and dynamic modalities refer to the events that have not happened, but potentially they may take place, that is why they may be called 'event modality'.

There are two types of dynamic modality the first one expresses ability (can), the second one expresses willingness (will). 'Can ' is used both for epistemic and deontic modality, it may not only express physical or mental abilities but also circumstances where the person is involved.

a. She can stay as long as she likes. [deontic]
b. She can easily beat everyone else in the club. [dynamic]
c. She can speak French. [ambiguous] (urish orinakner mtacel)

Dynamic modality is distinguished from epistemic and deontic modalities in two ways.

Firstly, dynamic modality concerns itself more with the subject's characteristics than the opinion or attitude of the speaker.

Secondly, it concerns with the source of opinion or attitude, for instance dynamic modals 'can', 'would like' take subject which indicates the source of ability or volition, and in this manner a complete sentence can be produced.
Dynamic modal expressions describe state or ability, opinion/attitude, volition of the subject. They are distinct from deontic and epistemic modal expressions, because they indicate the source of opinion or attitude to the sentence subject. https://www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTL09/pdf_doc/4.pdf

https://books.google.am/books? id=xKUvDFTARR8C& pg=PA70& lpg=PA70& dq=dynamic+modality& source=bl& ots=mi8GPkehpS& sig=2ObMDVTTQgdBpFtPPoseLSzMkuw& hl=ru& sa=X& ved=0ahUKEwi0vtbKmqDLAhVoMZoKHVpaA5EQ6AEIXTAI#v=onepage& q=dynamic%20modality& f=false

Another notion is ‘alethic’ modality, it was suggested by Wright, it is expressed in modal context. This notion is not frequently used in linguistic semantic analyses of modality. Distinction of alethic and epistemic modalities in some way shows the similarity between objective and subjective modalities, and also there can be found similarities between epistemic and dynamic/inherent modalities. In addition there is a distinction of likelihood:

objective truth- truth for a certain person,

subjective truth- truth in the world.

Palmer criticized this distinction, he says that there is no distinction between what is generally true and what the speaker think to be true.

 

 

When we study modal meanings we come across to the notions:

Objective modality

Subjective modality.

It means that with the help of objective modality the speaker expresses his/her understanding or reflects his/her own version of reality.

Objective (inherent) modality is characteristic to the predication and it reflects the relationship between utterance and reality. Its purpose is to present the speaker's knowledge about the situation. cavalvel

Subjective modality shows the involvement of the speaker in the utterance. Cavalvel


·

Chapter 2. Means of Expressing Modality (https://books.google.am/books? id=72URszHq2SEC& printsec=frontcover& hl=ru#v=onepage& q& f=false) nayi ej 32 kareli a henc et dasavorutyamb grel

When talking about the means of expressing modality, it should be mentioned that there are different classifications of means among scholars. The founder of the English study in Russia B. A. Ilysh[1] says: “Modality can be expressed in the sentence with the help of different means: modal words, modal verbs, sometimes just with the help of mere verbiage, intonation and mood. In English modality is transferred with the help of all meanings and shades, which are expressed with the help of synthetic and analytical forms of moods and verbs. Combinations of modal verbs with infinitive render the attitude of the subject of the action”. Accordingly, most of the scholars such as Vinogradov, Khlebnikova, point out that as an extra-linguistic category modality in speech is realized by:

1. Phonological means – intonation (stress)

2. Lexico-grammatical means – modal verbs

3. Lexical means – modal words and expressions (subjective modality)

4. Grammatical means – mood forms of the verb (grammatical modality).


Ïîäåëèòüñÿ ñ äðóçüÿìè:

mylektsii.su - Ìîè Ëåêöèè - 2015-2024 ãîä. (0.018 ñåê.)Âñå ìàòåðèàëû ïðåäñòàâëåííûå íà ñàéòå èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî ñ öåëüþ îçíàêîìëåíèÿ ÷èòàòåëÿìè è íå ïðåñëåäóþò êîììåð÷åñêèõ öåëåé èëè íàðóøåíèå àâòîðñêèõ ïðàâ Ïîæàëîâàòüñÿ íà ìàòåðèàë