The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.701-727
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print)
Print publication date 31 Dec 2017
Received Jul 2017 Revised Nov 2017 Accepted Dec 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.17.4.201712.701

Modal Categories and Dynamic Modality in English

Yong-Beom Kim
Kwangwoon University ybkim@kw.ac.kr

Abstract

Kim, Yong-Beom. 2017. Modal Categories and Dynamic Modality in English.Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 17-4, 701-727. This paper attempts to clarify obscurity regarding classification boundaries of modal categories in English and related ambiguities in the interpretation of the modal expressions. By utilizing cognitive concepts such as modal forces, their sources and cognitive domains, this paper will attempt to provide a more explicit categorization of English modal categories in a mutually exclusive manner so that the domain-related usages of the modal verbs and the ambiguities in their interpretations can be accounted for in a principled and unambiguous way. Especially, this paper puts forth an expanded notion of dynamic modality that can deal with various usages of modal verbs which have been left unaccounted for.

Keywords:

modality, epistemic modality, deontic modality, dynamic modality, modal force, cognitive domain

Acknowledgments

The research leading to this paper was supported by 2016 Kwangwoon University Research Grant (grant number 2016-0165), for which I am grateful to the university. I also thank three anonymous referees for their valuable comments on the earlier version of this paper. A rudimentary version of this paper was presented at the Fall Meeting of The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics in 2016 and appeared in the proceedings from the conference

References

  • Brewer, N. 1987. Modality and Factivity: One Perspective on the Meaning of the English Modal Auxiliaries (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Leeds.
  • Brennan, V. 1993. Root and Epistemic Modal Auxiliary Verbs(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts. Amherst, MA, USA.
  • Feldman, F. 1986. Doing the Best We Can. Dortrecht: Reidel. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4570-8]
  • Greenberg, Y. 2002. Two types of quantificational modalized genericity, and the interpretation of bare plural and indefinite singular NPs. In B. Jackson, ed., Proceedings of SALT XII, 104-123. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, CLC Publications. [https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v12i0.2871]
  • Groefsema, M. 1995. Can, may, must and should: A relevance theoretic account. Journal of Linguistics 31, 53-79. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700000566]
  • Kratzer, A. 1977. What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 337-355. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00353453]
  • Kratzer, A. 1981. The notional category of modality. In H. J. Eikmeyer and H. Reiser, eds., Words, Worlds and Contexts, 38-74. Berlin: de Gruyter. [https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110842524-004]
  • Huddleston, R. and G. K. Pullum, 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. UK: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530]
  • Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
  • Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics, Vol 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kim, Y-B. 2017a. A force-dynamic approach to modal auxiliaries in English. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 17(1), 135-161. [https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.17.1.201703.135]
  • Kim, Y-B. 2017b. Remarks on epistemic would. Discourse and Cognition 24(3), 1-23. [https://doi.org/10.15718/discog.2017.24.3.1]
  • Palmer, F. R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Palmer, F. R. 1990. Modality and English Modals. London and New York: Longman.
  • Palmer, F. R. 2003. Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive and typological issues. In R. Facchinetti, M. Krug and F. Palmer, eds.,Modality in Contemporary English, 1-17. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Perkins, M. R. 1980. The Expression of Modality in English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). CNAA.
  • Perkins, M. R. 1983. Modal Expressions in English. London: Francis Pinter.
  • Portner, P. 2009. Modality. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
  • Radden, G. and R. Dirven. 2007. Cognitive Grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. [https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.2]
  • Sweetser, E. E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: The Mind-as-Body Metaphor in Semantic Structure and Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904]
  • Talmy, L. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12, 49-100. [https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2]
  • Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semanitcs, Vol. 1. Boston: MIT Press.