Search

The article presents a corpus-based study that aims at establishing how modality is used in climate change-related discourse by King Charles III of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the UK). The study involved a corpus of speeches on the topic of climate change delivered by King Charles III from 2005 to 2023. The corpus was analysed in the computer software AntConc (Anthony) in order to compute the frequency of the occurrence of the central modal verbs. Thereafter, they were analysed qualitatively to establish the types of modality associated with them. The analysis revealed that climate change-related discourse by King Charles III was marked by a high frequency of the occurrence of the modal verbs will and can. Their frequency, pragmatic roles, and association with the different types of modality are further discussed in the article.

Spoken in a multilingual environment characterised by continuous contacts with other languages, Singapore English (SgE) is a singular object of study. Its modal system has also been developing in independent ways compared to inner-circle varieties, e.g. British English, its historical ancestor. Different approaches have attempted to explain such developments, including the substratist and the grammaticalisation approaches. The present paper explores both these approaches with the aim of examining the role that they may have in the development of the (semi-)modal verbs of necessity in SgE. Using some corpus analysis conducted on informal data, it will be shown why the substratist approach does not seem sufficient to explain the relatively frequent non-epistemic uses of must in SgE. It will be discussed how SgE must could be instead replicating older dynamic uses, typical of Middle English times (1100–1500 CE), according to a process known as replica grammaticalisation as recapitulation (Ziegeler 2014). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Prilozi Proucavanju Jezika is the property of Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper presents a study of modal verbs with dynamic meaning for the expression of possibility in the tourism research article in the introduction and conclusion sections of the article. The main aim of this paper is then to analyse these dynamic modal verbs in a corpus of scientific journals in the discipline of tourism. It is understood in this study that dynamic modal verbs contribute to defining the speaker's point of view. In this sense, this analysis will determine which section has the highest frequency of dynamic modal forms. Furthermore, the functions that these modal verbs fulfil in the sections under study will be highlighted, according to the context in which these forms are found. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I argue that the suffix -vel‘-ble’ in dispositional adjectives (such as quebrável ‘breakable’,adorável ‘adorable’, durável ‘durable’) behaves like a dynamicmodal, and I offer three arguments in support of this view. First, I show thatit is particularly difficult to capture the quantificational force of thesuffix, and consequently of the derived adjective, in the same way that happenswith other dynamic modals, like ability -can and dispositional -will.Second, I show that -vel ‘-ble’, like other dynamic expressions(e.g., can, will) is anchored to the subject of the modal andrelativized to bundles of property expressions, not to propositions. In otherwords, they share the same kind of modal base. Third, I show that both -vel‘-ble’ and dynamic can have a veridical effect when combined withpredicates that denote a sensation or experience. Finally, I conclude that thesuffix -vel ‘-ble’ expresses dispositions, best captured in thedomain of dynamic modality as potentiality, rather than possibility,probability, moral obligation or causality (i.e., the trigger reading), asrecently proposed by Resende and Rech (2020). This analysis affords a simpler,more elegant explanation for the different interpretations attributed to theseadjectives across languages.@font-face{font-family:"Cambria Math";panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;mso-font-charset:0;mso-generic-font-family:roman;mso-font-pitch:variable;mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}@font-face{font-family:Times;panose-1:0 0 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0;mso-font-charset:0;mso-generic-font-family:auto;mso-font-pitch:variable;mso-font-signature:-536870145 1342185562 0 0 415 0;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal{mso-style-unhide:no;mso-style-qformat:yes;mso-style-parent:"";margin:0in;mso-pagination:none;text-autospace:none;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}.MsoChpDefault{mso-style-type:export-only;mso-default-props:yes;font-size:11.0pt;mso-ansi-font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}.MsoPapDefault{mso-style-type:export-only;mso-pagination:none;text-autospace:none;}div.WordSection1{page:WordSection1;}@font-face{font-family:"Cambria Math";panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;mso-font-charset:0;mso-generic-font-family:roman;mso-font-pitch:variable;mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal{mso-style-unhide:no;mso-style-qformat:yes;mso-style-parent:"";margin:0in;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}.MsoChpDefault{mso-style-type:export-only;mso-default-props:yes;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:PT-BR;}div.WordSection1{page:WordSection1;}

The domain of modality is one of the controversial issues of linguistics since there is no unanimity among scholars concerning the nature of modality as well as subcategories included under modality umbrella.Numerous studies have attempted to define modality using various approaches as well as from different angles. The article examines the literature on the issue and splits them into two major groups: the ones which define modality as a hypercategory consisting of subcategories such as epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality types and the second group of scholars who differentiates subjective and objective subtypes of modality. However, each approach has gaps which should be fulfilled. The former does not define common seme which unites epistemic, deontic, dynamic and other so called modality types, whereas according to the latter approach some modality types are both objective and subjective in nature which make the taxonomy irrelevant. Thus, the main goal of the article is to make general claims about the framework of modality domain reviewing the literature on the topic. The research is based on token studies in the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper deals with the grammatical differences and overlaps between the uses of the Finnish kuulua as a verb of auditory perceptibility (‘to be audible’) and as a verb of appearance, when employed in negative clauses (‘to be imperceptible (through unspecified sensory input)’). Both meanings entail perceptibility, existentiality and motion from the experienced towards the experiencer. However, they differ significantly in regard to the nature of the motion as well as the degree of animacy of the subject referent. As a verb of auditory perceptibility, kuulua accepts mainly inanimate subjects referring to a perceivable sound. As a verb of appearance, kuulua is mostly used with animate subjects. The semantic difference between the two constructions is accounted for in terms of objective and intersubjective meaning construal. The potential movement of a sound towards the experiencer concerns the relationship between the world and the subject of conceptualization, whereas the non-appearance of an animate being is viewed on the level of intersubjective cognitive coordination, with regard to interactional expectations. The results of this study shed light on the complex semantics of perceptibility. The analysis is based on 1,528 occurrences of kuulua in dialectal and literary data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The analysis of data extracted from the Balanced Corpus of Modern Latvian reveals that the non-modal variant of vajadzēt is mostly used with pronouns, especially those referring to the speaker. The modal variant of vajadzēt, on the contrary, is similar to the debitive in that the majority of their dative subjects are non-participants of the speech act, mostly represented by substantives which can be not only animate but also inanimate. In those cases w here the modal vajadzēt and the debitive have the speaker as their subjects, they are more likely to receive dynamic meaning. If the subject corresponds to the addressee or non-participants of the speech act, the most frequent interpretation is a deontic one. Epistemic meaning is relatively more common with the modal vajadzēt than with the debitive irrespective of the subject type. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Modality is a grammatical feature which plays a crucial role in determining the ultimate interpretation of propositions. Different languages make use of different linguistic elements like mood, modal auxiliaries, modal verbs, modal adjectives and adverbs for encoding the concept of modality. Despite of its importance in the overall structure of any language, little attention has been paid to the study of modality in Iranian Languages. The present paper focuses on the analysis of the modal auxiliaries in Hawrami. After taking a short look at the concept of modality and getting familiar with the Palmer's (1999, 2001) basic classification of modal systems, these three modals are introduced:"mašjo/mašjā: must", "biey:become", "tāwāy: can". It is argued that among the other modals, only "mašjo" is used to denote the degree of "necessity" in both "epistemic" and "deontic" modal systems. "biey" and "tāwāy", on the other hand, exhibit the concept of "possibility" in "epistemic" and "deontic" systems. Moreover, "biey" and "tāwāy" encode different types of dynamic modality. Although "biey" can also be used to indicate "necessity" in deontic system as well, it imposes less severe obligations on the agent compared to the deontic "mašjo". It is also shown that "mašjā" is the only modal verb which can convey the "deontic" reading in the past tense constructions. None of the aforementioned modal auxiliaries encode evidentiality in Hawrami. Key Words: modal auxiliaries, epistemic modality, deontic modality, dynamic modality, Hawrami. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Dil Araştırmaları is the property of Journal of Dil Arastirmalari and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper describes the results of a series of annotation experiments that focused on a number of prototypical expressions of dynamic modality in English and Spanish. This kind of modality may be defined as possibility and necessity due to natural factors (Perkins, 1983) and comprises meanings such as inevitability, tendency, ability and circumstantial possibility. The work reported is part of a larger project - CONTRANOT - aimed at the creation and validation of contrastive functional descriptions through corpus analysis and annotation, and at the production of a bilingual English-Spanish corpus annotated with different layers of discourse and grammatical features (see Arús et al., this volume; Lavid, 2008; Lavid et al., 2007, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c). The results display striking similarities between inter-annotator agreement in the two languages, in terms of both the global percentages of agreement and the percentages of the individual expressions and their respective correlates in the other language. The main problem for inter-annotator agreement was the distinction between dynamic modality and the other two modalities (epistemic and deontic). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Though there is considerable overlap between the two words of "pian ((This character cannot be represented into ASCII text))" and "pianpian ((These characters cannot be represented into ASCII text))", they are different in semantic contents. "Pian" is semantically related to the subject of the sentence, indicating the subject's volition is in conflict with the undergoing act and the anticipation implied by the context; "pianpian" is semantically related to the speaker, indicating the reality is against the anticipation of the speaker and thus conveying his dissatisfaction and surprise. Such a difference determines the modality type of these two words: "pian" belongs to the category of dynamic modality but "pianpian" to the category of evaluative modality. In terms of subjectivity, "pianpian" is stronger than "pian". The examination of these two words from the perspectives of modality and subjectivity throws new light on the differences between them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper offers a critical analysis of the features used to define categories of modal meaning (expressed by modal verbs). First, Palmer’s (1990) and Huddleston and Pullum et al’s (2002) definition of dynamic modality is compared with the taxonomic approach to that area of modal meaning in Depraetere and Reed (2011) and Depraetere (2014). The next part of the paper is focussed on the ways in which deontic necessity is defined in Huddleston and Pullum et al (2002), Van der Auwera and Plungian (1998), Coates (1983). Finally, the defining features of the category of dynamic implication are analysed. The discussion is meant to make explicit and assess the diverse strategies used to delineate categories of modal meaning. Some principles of methodological good practice are put forward.