Article published In:
Review of Cognitive LinguisticsVol. 12:2 (2014) ► pp.471–491
Making sense of negated modals in English
With a glimpse at other Germanic languages
The complexities of the interaction of modality and negation are well-known. They mainly arise from different scopes of negation. Thus, the negation in You mustn’t go has narrow scope while the negation in You can’t go has wide scope. This study adopts a cognitive approach to the issue of scope in negated modality. It examines negated modals within a conceptual matrix developed on the basis of conceptual distinctions that are crucial to modality. The distribution of negated modal verbs within the conceptual matrix reveals which modal concepts are coded in a given language and which ones are not. The study focuses on the system of English negated modals but also compares it to the systems of German, Dutch and Norwegian. In all four languages, the predominant way of negating modals is by using wide-scope negation. German, in fact, wholly relies on wide-scope negation, while English makes use of both scopes of negation. Its mixed nature leads to a number of “irregularities” in the use of modals, which, however, can still be shown to be motivated.
References
Coates, J
(1983) The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London/Canberra: Croom Helm.
de Haan, F
(1997) The interaction of modality and negation: A typological study. New York/ London: Garland.
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G.K
(2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Iatridou, S., & Zeijlstra, H
(2010) On the scopal interaction of negation and deontic modals. Logic, Language and Meaning, 315–324.
Johnson, M
(1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R.W
(1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Leech, G.N
(1969) Toward a semantic description of English. London: Longman.
Lyons, J
(1977) Semantics. 2 volumes1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Myhill, J
(1996) The development of the strong obligation system in American English. American Speech, 711, 339–388.
Ostler, N., & Atkins, B.T.S
(1992) Predictable meaning shift: Some lexical properties of lexical implication rules. In J. Pustejovsky & S. Bergler (Eds.), Lexical Semantics & commonsense reasoning, Proceedings of SIGLEX workshop, Association for Computational Linguistics 1991. ([URL])
Palmer, F.R
(1990) Modality and the English modals. London/New York: Longman.
(2001) Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pelyvás, P
(1996) Subjectivity in English: Generative Grammar versus the cognitive theory of epistemic grounding. Frankfurt/M: Peter Lang.
(2011) Motivation in English must and Hungarian kell. In K.-U. Panther &
G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (pp. 171–190). Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Radden, G., & Panther, K.-U
(2004) Introduction: Reflections on motivation. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 1–46). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sweetser, E
(1990) From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L
(1988) Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 121, 49–100. Revised version in L. Talmy. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring (pp. 409–470). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Cited by
Cited by 2 other publications
Benczes, Réka
GÓRALCZYK, IWONA & JOANNA ŁOZIŃSKA
2021. Yoga instructions in Polish and Russian as directive speech acts: a cognitive linguistic perspective. Language and Cognition 13:4 ► pp. 613 ff. 
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.