Dynamics of Semantic and Pragmatic Framework of Modal Proposition: Linguistic and Cognitive Aspects

  • L. V. Shnurovska Kyiv National Linguistic University
Keywords: modality, proposition, a domain of a proposition, a modal restrictor, a modal operator

Abstract

The article outlines the linguocognitive background for semantic and pragmatic structural dynamics of the modal proposition in planes of relevance, ambiguity, force dynamics, as well as possible worlds theories. The integrated theoretical approaches entailed the development of a relatively admissible algorithm for interpreting the modal values in a vast number of pragmatic frameworks. Due to the algorithm, a modal proposition incorporates a logical relation and a propositional domain. Logical relation integrates semantic denotation and pragmatic implication and presupposition into the linguistic coherence; whereas propositional domain represents human belief-desire system and encodes the factual or desirable state of affairs in root modalities and the individual’s mental states in epistemic modalities. Propositional domain permanently updates and extends due to the constant modelling of the novel mental inputs. Structurally, the propositional domain incorporates modal operators building the proposition into the contextual framework and linking it to another proposition, i.e. the restrictor.
We incorporate the notion of force dynamics to ground the link between the root and epistemic modalities. Here force serves as contributing or restricting facility to precondition the way root modalities encode the external reality and metaphorically transmit it into the language of thought producing epistemic modal values. In terms of the possible worlds theory we classified factual, regulative, desirable, and idealistic propositional domains to generally outline pragmatic extension of English modals. In the case study of distributional properties and pragmatic extensions of most commonly used English modals in their relationship to truth-conditional content, we speculated on and systematized the means via modal values such as necessity, ability, possibility, potentiality, ordering, desirability etc. are encoded in the live English speech.

References

Barsalou, L. (1989). Intra-concept similarity and its implications for inter-concept similarity. Similarity and analogical reasoning. 76‒121.

Blakemore, D. (1989). Denial and contrast: a relevance theoretic analysis of BUT. Linguistics and Philosophy. 12. 15‒38.

Blakemore, D. (1990). Performatives and parentheticals. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 197‒213.

Bolinger, D. L. (1989). Extrinsic possibility and intrinsic potentiality. Journal of Pragmatics. 13. 1‒23.

Bybee, J., Fleischman, S. (1995). Modality in grammar and discourse: An introductory essay. Modality in grammar and discourse. 1‒14.

Bybee, J., Pagliuca, W. (1985). Cross-linguistic comparison and the development of grammatical meaning. Historical semantics and historical word-formation. 59‒84.

Coates, J. (1988). The acquisition of the meaning of modality in children aged eight and twelve. Journal of Child Language. 15. 425‒434.

Ehrman, M. (1966). The meanings of the modals in present-day American English. Linguistics. 28(4). 46–58.

Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press. 190.

Fodor, J. (1981). The present status of the innateness controversy. Representations. 257–316.

Foolen, A. (1992). Review of Sweetser. Lingua. 88/1. 76‒86.

Groefsema, M. (1995). Can, may, must and should: A relevance theoretic account. Journal of Linguistics. 31. 53‒79.

Haegeman, L. M. V. (1983). The semantics of will in present-day British English: a unified account. 179.

Heine, B. (1995). Agent-oriented vs. epistemic modality: Some observations on German modals. Modality in grammar and discourse. 17‒53.

Krifka, M., Pelletier, F., Carison, G., Meulen, A. ter, Chierchia, G., Link, G. (1995). Genericity: An introduction. The generic book. 1‒124.

Kratzer, A. (1977). What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy. 1. 337‒355.

Kratzer, A. (1981). The notional category of modality. Worlds, words, and contexts. 38–74.

Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. 639‒650.

Kuroda, S.-Y. (1982). Indexed predicate calculus. Journal of Semantics. 1. 43–59.

Leech, G. (2014). Meaning and the English verb. London: Longman, Routledge. 152.

Lewis, D. (1975). Adverbs of quantification. Formal semantics of natural language. 3‒15.

Lewis, D. (1981). Counterfactuals and comparative possibility. Conditionals, belief decision, chance, and time. 57‒85.

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 897.

Palmer, F. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 236.

Palmer, F. (1990). Modality and the English Modals. London and New York: Longman. 256.

Papafragou, A. (1997). Modality in language development: A reconsideration of the evidence. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics. 9. 77‒105.

Papafragou, A. (2006). Epistemic modality and truth conditions. London: Lingua. 1688–1702.

Perkins, M. R. (1983). Modal Expressions in English. London: Frances Pinter & Norwood. 192.

Premack, D., Premack, A. (1994). Moral belief: Form versus content. Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture. 149–168.

Recanati, F. (1996). Domains of discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy. 19. 445‒475.

Sperber, D., Wilson, D. (1996). Fodor’s frame problem and relevance theory. Behavioural and Brain Sciences. 19. 530‒532.

Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 174.

Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science. 2. 49‒100.

Talmy, L. (2000a). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume I: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: The MIT Press. 565.

Talmy, L. (2000b). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume II: Typology Patterns in the Representation of Event Structure. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: The MIT Press. 495.

Warner, A. (1993). English auxiliaries: Structure and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 291.
Published
2018-08-21
How to Cite
Shnurovska, L. (2018, August 21). Dynamics of Semantic and Pragmatic Framework of Modal Proposition: Linguistic and Cognitive Aspects. Scientific Journal of National Pedagogical Dragomanov University. Series 9. Current Trends in Language Development, (17), 135-147. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31392/NPU-nc.series9.2018.17.10