Dear Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim
thank you for the answer. However, I'm posting it to a private message since I don't know if it's exactly what I'm looking for, I'd like to show you part of what my friend wrote, so that you can have an idea of it.
I think the question is more complicated and I really hope not to bore you. What follows are some draft notes my friend Katrin has already prepared.
> Modality
>
> Modality is a very complex and controversial area, an ?elusive phenomenon?
> (Fawcett 1983: x), which as a philosophical and linguistic concept has
> been examined and reformulated since at least Aristotle?s time.
> Consequently, there is a broad range of literature reflecting the
> scholars? different approaches and perspectives.
> In consideration of the numerous linguistic studies on modality, it may be
> useful to provide a brief selection of representative works of the last
> decades. Functional-oriented views of modality, often embedded in the
> study of grammaticalization, include for instance work by Halliday (1970),
> who sees modality as an assessment of probability, stressing its
> interpersonal function. Lyons (1977) offers a semantic-conceptual approach
> based on modal logic, in which his notion of modality is closely connected
> to subjectivity, whereas Stubbs (1986) and Coates (1988) present a
> pragmatics-oriented concept of modality. More specifically, Stubbs
> supports a theory of commitment and detachment where utterances express
> different speaker attitude within a continuum of commitment; a concept,
> which embodies a part of what he calls ?a modal grammar of English? (1986:
> 4). Coates, however, introduces a more elaborate perspective on modality,
> which involves semantic-pragmatic aspects such as face-saving strategies.
> She also includes hedges as a way of modality manipulation (1988: 9).
> Palmer (1986) and (2001) are comprehensive standard reference
> works on modality taking a typological outlook. For further insight into
> typological investigations it might be advisable to consult Givón (1984),
> Nuyts (2001) or van der Auwera et al. (2005). A recent development within
> typology related to modality is that of semantic maps, which are designed
> to chart ?similarity of meaning and thus invite interpreting the various
> uses as exemplifying either vagueness or polysemy? (van der Auwera and
> Temürcü 2006: 133).
>
>
> Definition of Modality ? quotes aufgenommen sind markiert
>
> Modality has been defined in different ways by various linguists. For
> instance, Lyons (1977: 452) defines modality as ?the speaker?s opinion or
> attitude towards the proposition that the sentence expresses or the
> situation that the proposition describes.? According to Quirk et al.
> (1993: 219) ?modality may be defined as the manner in which the meaning of
> a clause is qualified so as to reflect the speaker?s judgment of the
> likelihood of the proposition it expresses being true,? whereas in
> Matthews (2005: 228) modality is regarded as ?the degree of certainty with
> which something is said.? Despite this diversity of definitions, there
> seems to be an underlying general agreement regarding the root of the
> matter, that is to say, ?a certain inclination (a desire, willingness,
> belief) towards the propositional content? which the speaker expresses
> (cf. Wunderlich 1976: 98). These definitions, however, seem to be
> restricted to propositions alone, central to these definitions the notions
> of possibility, (possible worlds - perkins s. 6 oder evtl. Commitment /
> non commitment??
>
> Mood
>
> The terms ?modality? and ?mood? seem often to be used interchangeably in
> the literature. Therefore, to avoid confusion, a clear distinction needs
> to be made.
> I adopt here a definition as proposed by Huddleston. Huddleston (1989:
> 164) states that ?[t]he general term ?mood? is applied to grammatical
> systems of the verb or VP whose terms are differentiated semantically
> primarily in the contrast between factual assertion and various kinds of
> non-factuality and / or non-assertion.?
>
>
> .? Traditionally, the grammatical category of mood is restricted to
> inflectional systems (cf. Lyons 1977: 746, Huddleston 1989: 80).
thank you for the answer. However, I'm posting it to a private message since I don't know if it's exactly what I'm looking for, I'd like to show you part of what my friend wrote, so that you can have an idea of it.
I think the question is more complicated and I really hope not to bore you. What follows are some draft notes my friend Katrin has already prepared.
> Modality
>
> Modality is a very complex and controversial area, an ?elusive phenomenon?
> (Fawcett 1983: x), which as a philosophical and linguistic concept has
> been examined and reformulated since at least Aristotle?s time.
> Consequently, there is a broad range of literature reflecting the
> scholars? different approaches and perspectives.
> In consideration of the numerous linguistic studies on modality, it may be
> useful to provide a brief selection of representative works of the last
> decades. Functional-oriented views of modality, often embedded in the
> study of grammaticalization, include for instance work by Halliday (1970),
> who sees modality as an assessment of probability, stressing its
> interpersonal function. Lyons (1977) offers a semantic-conceptual approach
> based on modal logic, in which his notion of modality is closely connected
> to subjectivity, whereas Stubbs (1986) and Coates (1988) present a
> pragmatics-oriented concept of modality. More specifically, Stubbs
> supports a theory of commitment and detachment where utterances express
> different speaker attitude within a continuum of commitment; a concept,
> which embodies a part of what he calls ?a modal grammar of English? (1986:
> 4). Coates, however, introduces a more elaborate perspective on modality,
> which involves semantic-pragmatic aspects such as face-saving strategies.
> She also includes hedges as a way of modality manipulation (1988: 9).
> Palmer (1986) and (2001) are comprehensive standard reference
> works on modality taking a typological outlook. For further insight into
> typological investigations it might be advisable to consult Givón (1984),
> Nuyts (2001) or van der Auwera et al. (2005). A recent development within
> typology related to modality is that of semantic maps, which are designed
> to chart ?similarity of meaning and thus invite interpreting the various
> uses as exemplifying either vagueness or polysemy? (van der Auwera and
> Temürcü 2006: 133).
>
>
> Definition of Modality ? quotes aufgenommen sind markiert
>
> Modality has been defined in different ways by various linguists. For
> instance, Lyons (1977: 452) defines modality as ?the speaker?s opinion or
> attitude towards the proposition that the sentence expresses or the
> situation that the proposition describes.? According to Quirk et al.
> (1993: 219) ?modality may be defined as the manner in which the meaning of
> a clause is qualified so as to reflect the speaker?s judgment of the
> likelihood of the proposition it expresses being true,? whereas in
> Matthews (2005: 228) modality is regarded as ?the degree of certainty with
> which something is said.? Despite this diversity of definitions, there
> seems to be an underlying general agreement regarding the root of the
> matter, that is to say, ?a certain inclination (a desire, willingness,
> belief) towards the propositional content? which the speaker expresses
> (cf. Wunderlich 1976: 98). These definitions, however, seem to be
> restricted to propositions alone, central to these definitions the notions
> of possibility, (possible worlds - perkins s. 6 oder evtl. Commitment /
> non commitment??
>
> Mood
>
> The terms ?modality? and ?mood? seem often to be used interchangeably in
> the literature. Therefore, to avoid confusion, a clear distinction needs
> to be made.
> I adopt here a definition as proposed by Huddleston. Huddleston (1989:
> 164) states that ?[t]he general term ?mood? is applied to grammatical
> systems of the verb or VP whose terms are differentiated semantically
> primarily in the contrast between factual assertion and various kinds of
> non-factuality and / or non-assertion.?
>
>
> .? Traditionally, the grammatical category of mood is restricted to
> inflectional systems (cf. Lyons 1977: 746, Huddleston 1989: 80).
