Clause structure and modality in Functional Grammar

Hengeveld, Kees

doi:10.1515/9783110882278-005

Cited by 13 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Semantic distinctions like the ones discussed above have led authors like Halliday (1970), Lyons (1977), Foley and Van Valin (1984), and Hengeveld (1987Hengeveld ( , 1988Hengeveld ( , 1989 to posit a distinction between two types of modality, often called subjective and objective, following the terminology introduced by Lyons (1977). Although the various proposals are driven by different theoretical concerns, the actual definition of the distinction usually boils down to whether or not the modal in question involves the speaker in the utterance.…”

Section: Exemplification Of the Subjective-objective Distinctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Epistemic modals, on the other hand, are regarded as peripheral operators, because their function is external to the core layer: they express the speaker's estimation of the likelihood that the state of affairs denoted by the core will become a reality. Hengeveld's (1987Hengeveld's ( , 1988Hengeveld's ( , 1989) framework, finally, brings together elements from the three approaches discussed above. Like Foley and Van Valin (1984), Hengeveld proposes a layered model of clause structure, consisting of successive layers, each with their own set of operators; he accounts for different types of modality as operators over different layers.…”

Section: Exemplification Of the Subjective-objective Distinctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The issue of speaker-relatedness in modality has traditionally been discussed in terms of the distinction between subjective and objective modality: the terminology was introduced in Lyons (1977), but the distinction as such dates back to Halliday (1970) and was taken up again in Foley and Van Valin (1984) and Hengeveld (1987Hengeveld ( , 1988Hengeveld ( , 1989. In the first section, therefore, I will survey the different proposals for the definition and delineation of subjective and objective function in the modal system.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Subjective and objective modality: interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system

Verstraete

2001

Journal of Pragmatics

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study deals with the distinction between subjective and objective modality on the basis of the English modal auxiliaries. I show that this distinction is still very poorly understood, both in terms of the criteria that have been proposed to support it, and in terms of the actual delineation of subjectivity and objectivity in the modal domain. After identifying the empirical and theoretical problems in the literature, I propose an alternative, semiotic account, which tries to explain the divergent grammatical behavior of subjective and objective modality in terms of the function they fulfill. The central factor in this semiotic explanation is the performative versus non-performative status of the modals, which can explain their divergent behavior with respect to tense, interrogation, and conditionality. On the basis of this alternative analysis, I also propose a more accurate delineation of subjective and objective functions in the English modal auxiliary system. 0

show abstract

Section: Exemplification Of the Subjective-objective Distinctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Exemplification Of the Subjective-objective Distinctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Subjective and objective modality: interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system

Verstraete

2001

Journal of Pragmatics

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In very general terms, I am considering differences in scope between types of modality within the structure of the clause, as has been suggested by William Foley and Robert van Valin (1984: 215ff), Kees Hengeveld (1987 and1989), and Hans Kronning (1996: 53ff). 7…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epistemic prometer and Full Deontic Modal Verbs

Vázquez-Laslop

2000

BJL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spanish prometer 'promise', permitir 'permit' and obligar 'oblige' are considered modal verbs. In their deontic senses they behave syntactically as control verbs. This property is maintained in non-deontic permitir and obligar, but not in nondeontic prometer, which shows some features of a raising verb. Non-deontic permitir and obligar are causatives of alethic modalities ('x makes it possible/necessary for y to F(y,...)'), while non-deontic prometer is epistemic ('it is highly likely thatFfx,...)'). Nondeontic senses of the three verbs have in common the non-intentionality of the participant referred to by the subject in the main clause.

show abstract

“…(Coates 1983: 42) To Foley and Van Valin (1984) both deontic and dynamic use of modal auxiliaries are objective (content-related or ideational), while epistemic sense of modals encode the speaker's subjective evaluation of the SoAs, that is, they are speakerrelated. In contrast, Hengeveld (1987Hengeveld ( , 1988Hengeveld ( , and 1989 believes that the epistemic use of modal auxiliaries can be either subjective or objective, while, similar to Foley and Van Valin (1984), he regards both deontic and dynamic uses of the modals as objective (content-related).…”

Section: Sub/objectivity As An Inherent Property Of Certain Modality mentioning

confidence: 98%

A More Explicit Framework for Evaluating Objectivity and (Inter)Subjectivity in Modality Domain

Medadian

Mahabadi

2018

RiL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we propose a more explicit framework for definition and evaluation of objectivity and (inter)subjectivity in the modality domain. In the proposed operational framework, we make a basic distinction between the modality notions that serve an ideational function (i.e., dynamic modal notions) and those with an interpersonal function (i.e., deontic and epistemic evaluations). The modality notions with ideational and interpersonal functions are content and person-oriented, respectively. While all dynamic modal notions are characterized by objectivity, deontic and epistemic modal notions may display a degree of (inter)subjectivity depending on their embedding context. Our main claim is that (inter)subjectivity can hardly be argued to be the inherent property of certain modality forms and types, but rather it is essentially a contextual effect. We functionallyoperationally define (inter)subjectivity as the degree of sharedness an evaluator attributes to an epistemic/deontic evaluation and its related evidence/deontic source. (Inter)subjectivity is realized by (at least) one or a combination of three contextual factors, viz. the embedding syntactic pattern, the linguistic context and the extralinguistic context of a modality marker. Since both descriptive and performative modal evaluations involve a degree of (inter)subjectivity, performativity, which refers to speaker's current commitment to his evaluation, is viewed as an independent dimension within modal evaluations and plays no part in the expression of (inter)subjectivity.We would like to gratefully acknowledge the help of two anonymous reviewers whose suggestions helped us improve the previous draft of the paper. Any possible shortcomings are due to us, though.

show abstract

Clause structure and modality in Functional Grammar

Cited by 13 publications

References 0 publications

Subjective and objective modality: interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system

Subjective and objective modality: interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system

Epistemic prometer and Full Deontic Modal Verbs

A More Explicit Framework for Evaluating Objectivity and (Inter)Subjectivity in Modality Domain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About