Modality, Subjectivity, and Semantic Change

Abstract

Modality, Subjectivity, and Semantic Change: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective (Oxford Linguistics) Heiko Narrog This book is a cross-linguistic exploration of semantic and functional change in modal markers. Its approach is broadly functional typological but makes frequent reference to work in formal semantics by scholars such as Angelika Kratzer and Paul Portner. The author starts by considering what modality is and how it relates to and differs from subjectivity. He argues that modality cannot be defined in terms of subjectivity: both concepts are independent of each other, the first exhibiting different degrees of subjectivity, and the second being operative in a much wider range of grammatical and lexical categories. Subjectivity, he suggests, should not be defined solely in terms of performativity, evidentiality, or construal, but rather from the interplay of multiple semantic and pragmatic factors. He then presents a two-dimensional model for the descriptive representation of modality, based on the notion that among the many aspects of modal meaning, volitivity and speech-act-orientation versus event-orientation are two of its most salient parameters. He shows that it is especially the dimension of speech-act orientation versus event-orientation, parallel to category climbing in syntax, that is operative in diachronic change. Numerous examples of diachronic change within modality and between modality and other categories are then examined with respect to their directionality. With a focus on Japanese and to a lesser extent Chinese the book is a countercheck to hypotheses built on the Indo-European languages. It also contains numerous illustrations from other languages.

Adverbial Markers of Epistemic Modality Across Disciplinary Discourses: A Contrastive Study of Research Articles in Six Academic Disciplines

“…The terminological distinction between subjective and objective modality was first applied with reference to English data by Lyons (1977: 797-801). Later, it was discussed by numerous other scholars, who defined the terms in different ways, and viewed their relation to modality from different perspectives (for a summary and discussion of the different views see, e.g., Verstraete 2001;Portner 2009;Narrog 2012). As observed by Verstraete (2001Verstraete ( : 1506, the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity essentially corresponds to the distinction between "speaker-related and content-related function".…”

“…As observed by Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 624), " [m]odality represents the speaker's angle", and markers of epistemic modality express the speaker's knowledge and commitment to the truth of the proposition (cf. Narrog 2012;Palmer 2001). In addition to presenting the speaker's view, modality creates space for negotiation and mediation (Martin & Rose 2003), and can be treated as "a resource for taking up different positionings" (Simon-Vandenbergen & Aijmer 2007: 42).…”

Towards a Typology of Semantic Derivation Models. a Case of Mental Engrossment Vocabulary

“…Semantics modelling is thought to reveal not only the conceptual entities that underlie the contents of a linguistic item or a class of linguistic items but also those areas of language cognition that represent the national worldview, the specificities of ethnic mentality, and the characteristics of cognitive abilities which belong to different linguistic communities (Goddard, 2008;Narrog, 2012;Brychcín, Konopik, 2015, etc.). From this perspective, semantics modelling acquires significance for cross-linguistic (either contrastive or typological) studies, as it offers methods to decipher the peculiar manners in which the semantics of a linguistic item encodes and distributes information on a certain state of affairs in both related and non-related languages.…”

Subjectification in the Development of Clitic Doubling: A Diachronic Study of Romanian and Spanish

“…Two types of subjectification There are two main views on subjectivity and subjectification: a conceptualist approach and a pragmatic approach (Nuyts 2001, Narrog 2012. The conceptualist approach represents the interpretation of Langacker (1987Langacker ( , 2002Langacker ( , 2006, which defines subjectivity in terms of grounding and construal, with a more subjective stance consisting of an offstage construal of the conceptualizer and a more objective perspective placing the conceptualizer onstage.…”