Modality in logic and linguistics. Definition

Introduction

In the last lecture we considered three time-related verbal categories, those of tense, aspect & phase. The category of tense expresses absolute situation-external time, the category of phase expresses relative situation-external time, while the category of aspect expresses situation-internal time. In this lecture we will consider the grammatical category of mood and several basic notions that underlie it.

The category of mood (from I Latin modus mode of existence) is seen as the category of the verb expressing relations between the situation and reality as conceived by the speaker. In other words, the category of mood shows the subjective appraisal of the situation reality-unreality by the speaker.

 

Controversial issues: Mood vs. Modality

The category of mood in the present day English verb has generated many discussions. It has been treated in many different ways and is considered the most controversial category of the verb. Some linguists admit that due to the complexity of this category it seems hardly possible to arrive at any convincing and universally acceptable conclusion concerning it (Ильиш).

The key problems with Mood are as follows:

· Mood is often confused with Modality.

· The semantic scope of the category of Mood is not clearly defined.

· Linguists use different criteria (formal, semantic, functional or a combination thereof) in distinguishing moods.

· There is difference of opinion on the so-called analytical forms of Mood.

· Many of the grammars are written in fairly traditional terms and present modal systems that look very similar to those of Latin, Greek and Old English.

· There are different views on homonymy and polysemy of verbal forms expressing modal meanings.

Thus, our first task is to make a clear distinction between Mood and Modality.

The category of Modality

Modality in logic and linguistics. Definition

It is essential to note that the notion of modality is used in various sciences, particularly in logic and linguistics, which creates some confusion regarding logical and linguistic modalities.

In modal logic modality is defined as the relation of the proposition (суждение) to objective reality on the basis of either its mode of existence (possibility, factuality, necessity), or whether it is true or false.

The notion of modality in linguistics seems vague and opens a number of possible definitions. Without going into detail it is necessary to proceed directly to the results of the study of this category.

Thus, linguistic modality is defined as a functional-semantic (notional) category, which expresses the relation of the utterance to reality-unreality as conceived by the speaker (Xoмyтoвa).

The speaker-related character of modality in linguistics makes it different from modality in logic. For example: in logic the sentence "Novosibirsk is the capital of Russia" is characterized by non-factual (unreal) modality as the proposition is false. In linguistics the same sentence, from the point of view of the speaker, presents the situation as a fact, hence, the type of modality is that of reality.

It is important to emphasize that linguistics is not concerned with the truth or falseness of utterances, which can be proved only empirically, i.e. experimentally, and have no system of linguistic means to express them. It is necessary to stress once again that linguistic modality is concerned with reality-unreality as conceived by the speaker. According to this interpretation, fiction (novels, stories, science fiction, etc.) refers to linguistic reality, though the characters of these works may have never existed in real life.

However, modalities in logic and linguistics arcclosely, though indirectly,connected regarding their semantics, but this is beyond the scope of the lecture.

 

Linguistic Modality: Semantic scope

Returning to linguistic modality, it should be made clear that it is seen as a unity of two modalities; modality of reality and modality of unreality.

Modality of reality characterizes situations as facts of reality from the point of view of the speaker, while modality of unreality is a feature of situations interpreted by the speaker as non-facts. For example: Today is Tuesday. Romeo and Juliet were in love (facts - modality of reality); (l wish) it were Sunday today. If it were Sunday, I wouldn't go to school. Go and fetch my things! (The dean requested) that all be present at the conference. He might come. Perhaps he'll help us (non-facts - modality of unreality).

As seen from the examples above, modality does not relate semantically to the verb alone, but to the whole of the sentence (Jespersen, Palmer). Moreover, the semantic scope and means of expression of modality are not uniform.

Thus, the semantics of unreality is represented by three types of modality (Xoмутова):

1) non-factual modality (модальность недействительности), e.g. (I wish) it were Sunday today. If it were Sunday today, I wouldn't go to school;

2) modality of inducement (побудительная модальность), e.g. Go and fetch my things! (The dean requested) that all be present at the conference;

3) suppositional modality (модальность предположения), e.g. He might come. Perhaps he'll help us.

Non-factual modality is seen as implicit negation of the reality of the situation, e.g. (I wish) it were Sunday today means It is not Sunday today.

Modality of inducement is characteristic of direct and indirect inducement to perform an action, e.g. Go and fetch my things (direct inducement) - (The dean requested) that all be present at the conference (indirect inducement).

Suppositional modality characterizes situations, which are possible or probable from the point of view of the speaker, e.g. He might come. Perhaps he '11 help us.

The above semantic types of unreal modality have common semantic base: all of them characterize the situation as a non-fact from the point of view of the speaker.

Thus, with respect to meaning linguistic modality is an opposition of reality and unreality. The meaning of reality is intensive. The meaning of unreality is extensive: it consists of non- factuality, inducement and supposition.