D

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • 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).
    Why not? It provides opportunities for realising our dreams. Europe is more conservative and sticks to values which can be good but can also be a clodhopper.
    Announcement:

    Please participate in the vote 'Would you like to live in the USA?'. We need to see your beautiful opinions about living in the USA! Hopping that you'd set the stage for having a good conclusion!
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Top