Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T15:50:40.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 24 - Modality in Germanic

from Part IV - Semantics and Pragmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2020

By
Kristin Melum Eide
Edited by
Michael T. Putnam  and
B. Richard Page
Michael T. Putnam
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
B. Richard Page
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Summary

Modality is a category encompassing many different aspects of language use, and the literature concerned with this topic extends from antiquity to the modern age. This chapter provides an introduction to the notion of modality, discusses how it relates to other major categories such as tense, aspect and mood, and illustrates how modalities are instantiated morphosyntactically in the Germanic languages. We are specifically addressing cross-linguistic differences and similarities; for instance, only a few of the Germanic languages employ subjunctive moods productively, whereas all use modal auxiliaries. The discussion revolves around types of modality and their typical exponents with a particular emphasis on the deontic (root, event) v. epistemic (evidential, propositional) modalities and potential commonalities between them. Other central topics addressed are the notions of authority and controllability. Finally, we investigate some recent trends in the literature on speech act modality in the Germanic languages, including the potential role of complementizers.

Keywords

deontic modalityepistemic modalityspeech act modalityauthoritycontrollabilityverb secondmoodsubjunctive 1subjunctive 2counterfactuals
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics , pp. 567 - 590
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Auwera, J. van der and Aguilar, A. Z. 2016. “The History of Modality and Mood.” In Nuyts, J. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood. Oxford University Press: 9–29.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S. 2002. “Modality and Polarity.” In Barbiers, S., Beukema, F., and van der Wurff, W. (eds.), Modality and Its Interaction with the Verbal System. Amsterdam: Benjamins: 51–73.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S. and van Dooren, A. 2017. “Modal auxiliaries.” In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. C (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edn., Vol. V. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell: 2646–2676.Google Scholar
Berthelin, S., Borthen, K, and Knudsen, C. S 2013. “Midtstillet jo–semantiske og pragmatiske aspekter.” Paper presented at MONS 15. University of Oslo, November 21, 2013.Google Scholar
Boogart, R. 2007. “The Past and perfect of epistemic modals.” In Saussure, L., de Moeschler, J., and Puskas, G. (eds.), Recent Advances in the Syntax and Semantics of Tense, Mood and Aspect. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 47–71.Google Scholar
Boogart, R. And Janssen, T. 2010. “Mood in Dutch.” In Rothstein, B. and Thieroff, R. (eds.), Mood in the Languages of Europe. Amsterdam: Benjamins: 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, D. 2013. The Nature and Origin of Language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brennan, V. 1993. Root and Epistemic Modal Auxiliary Verbs. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Brennan, V. 2004. Modalities. Ms., Vanderbilt University, Nashville.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology – A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R., and Pagliuca, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar – Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. N. 1977. References to Kinds in English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chung, S. and Timberlake, A. 1985. “Tense, aspect and mood.” In Scopen, T. (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press: 203–258.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1985. Tense. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Diewald, G. 1999. Die Modalverben im Deutschen. Grammatikalisierung und Ployfunktionalität. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Dyvik, H.1999. “The universality of f-stucture: Discovery or stipulation? The case of modals.” Proceedings of the LFG99 Conference, CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Eide, K. M. 2005. Norwegian Modals. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Eide, K. M. 2011. “Modals and the present perfect.” In Mortelmans, T., Mortelmans, J, and de Mulder, W. (eds.), In the Mood for Mood. Rodopi: Cahiers Chronos: 1–20.Google Scholar
Eide, K. M. 2017. “Counterfactual Present Perfects.” In Fryd, M. and Giancarli, P-D. (eds.), Aorists and Perfects: Synchronic and diachronic Perspectives. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers: 245–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eide, K. M. in press. “Have-less perfects.” In Eide, K. M. and Fryd, M. (eds.), Norwegian: An Old Norse Heritage. The Perfect Volume. Papers on the Perfect. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Elsness, J. 2003. “A contrastive look at the present perfect/preterite opposition in English and Norwegian,” Languages in Contrast 3.1: 3–40.Google Scholar
Faarlund, J. T., Lie, S., and Vannebo, K. I. 1997. Norsk Referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Fagan, S. 2001. “Epistemic modality and tense in German,” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 13.3: 197–230.Google Scholar
Falk, C. 2010. “The Interaction of Temporal and modal Auxiliaries in Counterfactual Contexts in Swedish,” Tampa Papers in Linguistics 1: 1–12.Google Scholar
Fintel, K. von 2006. “Modality and Language.” In Borchert, D. M (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edn., Vol. 6. Detroit: Macmillan Reference: 20–27.Google Scholar
Frege, G. 1892. “Der Gedanke. Eine Logische Untersuchungen.” In Patzig, G. (ed.), 1986: Logische Untersiehurg (3): 30–53. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Gelderen, E. van 2004. Grammticalization as Economy. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. 1972. “The inferential perfect in Scandinavian: a problem of contrastive Linguistics,” The Canadian Journal of Linguistics 17.2: 132–139.Google Scholar
Haugen, O. E. 1998. Grunnbok i norrønt språk. Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. and Traugott, E. C. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Izvorski, R. 1997. “The present perfect as an epistemic modal.” In Lawson, A. and Cho, E. (eds.), 1999: SALT VII. Ithaca: Cornell University: 99–116.Google Scholar
Khomutova, T. N. 2014. “Mood and Modality in Modern English,” Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences 154: 395–401.Google Scholar
Kinnander, B. 1974. “Perfektum i sekundär användning,” Nysvenska studier 53: 127–172.Google Scholar
Klein, W. 1992. “The present perfect puzzle,” Language 68: 525–552.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. 1986. “Conditionals,” Chicago Linguistics Society 22.2: 1–15.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. 2002. “The Notional Category of Modality.” In Portner, P. and Partee, B. H. (eds.), Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings. Oxford: Blackwell: 289–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsson, I. 2014. “Conditional clauses and the shape of HAVE,” Nordic Atlas of Language Structures (NALS) Journal 1: 287–299.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. 1969. Towards a Semantic Description of English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lohnstein, H. 2000. Satzmodus – kompositionell. Zur Parametrizierung der Modus-phrase im Deutschen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Lohnstein, H. 2001. “Sentence mood constitution and indefinite noun phrases,” Theoretical Linguistics 27.2–3: 187–214.Google Scholar
Lohnstein, H. and Bredel, U. 2004. “Inflectional morphology and sentence mood in German.” In Lohnstein, H. and Trissler, S. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 235–264.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mezhevich, I. 2008. “A time-relational approach to tense and mood.” In Abner, N. and Bishop, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project: 326–334.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. 1999. The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Narrog, H. 2012. Modality, Subjectivity, and Semantic change. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Næs, O. 1972. Norsk grammatikk. Elementære strukturer og syntaks. Oslo: Fabritius.Google Scholar
Nordström, J. 2010. Modality and Subordinators. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nuyts, J. 2006. “Modality: Overview and linguistic issues.” In Frawley, W., Klein, W., and Levinson, S. (eds.), Expression of Cognitive Categories: The Expression of Modality. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter: 1–26.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 2001. Mood and Modality, 2nd edn. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Patard, A. 2014. “When tense and aspect convey modality. Reflections on the modal uses of past tenses in Romance and Germanic languages,” Journal of Pragmatics 71: 69–97.Google Scholar
Plank, F. 1984. “The modals story retold,” Studies in Language 8: 305–364.Google Scholar
Portner, P. 2009. Modality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 1985. “Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 21–58.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. 2010. “Mood in Icelandic.” In Rothstein, B. and Thieroff, R. (eds.), Mood in the Languages of Europe. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 33–55.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. 1978. “Assertion.” In Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press: 315–332.Google Scholar
Thieroff, R. 2004. “The subjunctive mood in German and the Germanic languages.” In Abraham, W. (ed.), Focus on Germanic Typology. Studia Typlogica 6. Berlin: Akademie Verlag: 315–358.Google Scholar
Thieroff, R. 2010. “Moods, moods, moods.” In B. Rothstein and R. Thieroff (eds.), Mood in the Languages of Europe. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 1–29.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H., Petersen, H. P, Jacobsen, J. Í L., and Hansen, Z. S.. 2004. Faroese. An Overview and Reference Grammar. Tórshavn: Føroya Froðskaparfelag.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H. and Vikner, S. 1995. “Modals and double modals in the Scandinavian languages,” Working papers in Scandinavian Syntax 55: 51–88.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, H. 2006. “On the semantic motivation of verb movement to C in German,” Theoretical Linguistics 32.3: 257–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, S. 1988. “Modals in Danish and event expressions,” Working papers in Scandinavian Syntax 39: 1–33.Google Scholar
Wärnsby, A. 2009. “Controllability as a contextual variable.” In Studies on English Modality: In Honour of Frank Palmer: 69–98.Google Scholar
Wright, G. H. von 1951. “Deontic Logic.” Mind 60: 1–15. Reprinted in G. H. von Wright, A. Tsangalidis, and R. Fachinnetti (eds.), Logical Studies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul: 58–74.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 1999. “Modal verbs must be raising verbs.” In Bird, S., Carnie, A., Haugen, J. D., and Nordquest, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL18): 599–612.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×