Modality’s semantic map

Starting from Bybee, Perkins, & Pagliuca (1994) and complementing their insights with observations that often originale in the non-English literature on modality, this paper attempts to supply the grammaticalized expressions ofmodalüy with a semantic map. The t er m "modality" is taken t o refer t o just those (four) domains in which possibility contrasts with necessity, and "semantic map' refers to a representation of cross-linguistically relevant synchronic and diachronic connections between modal, premodal, and postmodal meanings or uses. Special attention is given to meanings that are vague between possibility and necessity, to developments from possibility to necessity and vice versa, to postmodal meanings that can originale in either possibility or necessity, and to demodalization of non-epistemic modality.

[1]  O. Jespersen.  A modern English grammar on historical principles , 1928 .

[2]  Grammaire de base du latin , 1969 .

[3]  Elizabeth Closs Traugott,et al.  A history of English syntax : a transformational approach to the history of English sentence structure , 1972 .

[4]  From deontic to epistemic: an analysis of modals in the history of English, creoles, and language acquisition , 1982 .

[5]  Damir Kalogjera,et al.  The English Modals and Their Equivalents in Serbo-Croatian, with Pedagogical Material. New Studies Series, Volume 1. , 1982 .

[6]  Joan L. Bybee.  Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form , 1985 .

[7]  Wolfgang U. Dressler,et al.  Cross-linguistic comparison and the development of grammatical meaning Suppletion in word-formation , 1985 .

[8]  Johanna Nichols,et al.  Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology , 1986 .

[9]  Thomas Birkmann.  Präteritopräsentia: morphologische Entwicklungen einer Sonderklasse in den altgermanischen Sprachen , 1987 .

[10]  Thomas L. Willett.  A Cross-Linguistic Survey of the Grammaticization of Evidentiality , 1988 .

[11]  W. Bruce Croft.  Typology and Universals , 1990 .

[12]  D. Bhat.  Grammatical Relations: The Evidence Against Their Necessity and Universality , 1991 .

[13]  Eve Sweetser,et al.  From Etymology to Pragmatics: Preface , 1990 .

[14]  Charles N. Li.  The Aspectual System of Hmong , 1991 .

[15]  E. Traugott,et al.  Focus on types of grammatical markers , 1991 .

[16]  Lexical universale and universals of grammar , 1992 .

[17]  David Gamon.  ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF EPISTEMICITY IN THE GERMAN MODAL VERBS MÖGEN AND MÜSSEN , 1993 .

[18]  Anthony Warner,et al.  English Auxiliaries: Structure and History , 1993 .

[19]  La catégorie du médiatif en bulgare dans une perspective typologique , 1993 .

[20]  S. Kemmer.  The Middle Voice , 1993 .

[21]  B. Heine.  Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization , 1993 .

[22]  Towards a typology of modality : the encoding of modal attitudes in English, Turkish, Korean, Japanese, and Tagalog , 1994 .

[23]  B. Jacobsson.  Recessive and emergent uses of modal auxiliaries in english 1 , 1994 .

[24]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World , 1994 .

[25]  Ulrike Demske-Neumann.  Modales Passiv und tough movement : zur strukturellen Kausalität eines syntaktischen Wandels im Deutschen und Englischen , 1994 .

[26]  Need and dare: The black sheep of the modal family , 1994 .

[27]  On the Grammaticalization of German können, dürfen, sollen, mögen, müssen , and wollen , 1995 .

[28]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  Modality in grammar and discourse , 1995 .

[29]  Johan van der Auwera,et al.  Modality: The Three-layered Scalar Square , 1996, J. Semant..

[30]  Kate Burridge,et al.  From modal auxiliary to lexical verb: the curious case of Pennsylvania Germanwotte , 1998 .