Cover not available
Part of
Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions: Categories, co-text, and context
Edited by Pascal Hohaus and Rainer Schulze
[Studies in Language Companion Series 216] 2020
► pp. 47–78

Chapter 3
The scope of modal categories

An empirical study

| Tohoku University
This paper investigates the scope of modal categories. While it is hypothesized in many linguistic theories that different modal categories have different scope, there are only very few systematic studies that show differences. The language of investigation is Japanese, which has grammaticalized all cross-linguistically relevant modal categories and has a strict and transparent head-final structure, which is conducive to the study of scope. The results show that different modal categories indeed have different scope. However the scope properties of all modal categories do not all perfectly align to form a “clean” hierarchy. These problems can be solved if one distinguishes between ‘active’ scope (i.e. the categories some category can take scope over) and ‘passive’ scope (i.e. the categories some category can take scope under), and separates volitional (mainly deontic and boulomaic) from non-volitional (mainly epistemic and evidential) modal categories.
Keywords: modality, modal categories, evidentiality, scope, scope ambiguity, Japanese
Article outline
  • 1.Goals and scope of this paper
  • 2.Modality and other categories of the Japanese verb and verbal complex
    • 2.1The modal categories
    • 2.2Other categories
    • 2.3 Selection of markers and constructions
    • 2.4A note on verbal morphology
  • 3.The data
  • 4. Scope analysis
    • 4.1No combination
    • 4.2No scope ambiguity
    • 4.3 Scope ambiguity obtains
  • 5.Summary and discussion: The scope of modal categories
  • Lists of abbreviations
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.216.03nar
References (32)
References
Alfonso, Anthony. 1980. Japanese Language Patterns, Vol. 2. Tokyo: Sophia University.Google Scholar
Beukema, Frits & van der Wurff, Wim. 2002. Modals, objects and negation in late Middle English. In Modality and its Interaction With the Verbal System [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 47], Sjef Barbiers, Frits Beukema & Wim van der Wurff (eds), 75–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byloo, Pieter. 2009. Modality and Negation. A Corpus-Based Study. PhD dissertation, Universiteit Antwerpen.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2001. A note on mood, modality, tense and aspect affixes in Turkish. In The Verb in Turkish [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 44], Eser Erguvanli Taylan (ed.), 47–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1991. A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English. Tōkyō: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
De Haan, Ferdinand. 1997. The Interaction of Modality and Negation. A Typological Study. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 1: The Structure of the Clause, 2nd rev. edn, ed. by Kees Hengeveld. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1985. Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. In Iconicity in Syntax. Proceedings of a Symposium on Iconicity in Syntax, Stanford, June 24–6, 1983 [Typological Studies in Language 6], John Haiman (ed.),187–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001a. Syntax. An Introduction, Vol. I, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2001b. Syntax. An Introduction, Vol. II. 2nd edn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1995. Agent-oriented vs. epistemic modality: Some observations on German modals. In Modality in Grammar and Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 32], Joan L. Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman (eds), 17–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 2008 Functional Discourse Grammar. A Typologically-based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinds, John. 1986. Japanese. London: Croom Helms.Google Scholar
Horn, L.R. 1978. Some aspects of negation. In Universals of Human Language, Vol. 4, Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), pp. 127–170. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi. 2013. Japanese [London Oriental and African Language Library 17], rev. edn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kawashima, Nobue. 2004. Hiteikei o motsu modariti keishiki to meidai no hyōkasei. Kibō hyōgen no hitei taku nai o rei ni (Negated modal forms and the evaluation of the proposition – Taking negated wish taku nai as an example). Nihongo Kyōiku 118, 57–66.Google Scholar
McCready, Eric & Ogata, Norry. 2006. Evidentiality, modality and probability. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(2), 147–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. 2009. Modality in Japanese – The Layered Structure of the Clause and Hierarchies of Functional Categories [Studies in Language Companion Series 109]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. The order of meaningful elements in the Japanese verbal complex. Morphology 20: 205–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Modality, Subjectivity, and Semantic Change. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nitta, Yoshio. 1984. Kakarimusubi ni tsuite (On kakarimusubi agreement). In Kenkyū Shiryō Nihon Bunpō 5. Joji-hen (1) Joshi, Kazuhiko Suzuki & Ōki Hayashi (eds), 102–135. Tōkyō: Meiji Shoin.Google Scholar
. 1997. Nihongo Bunpō Kenkyū Josetsu (Preliminaries to the Study of Japanese Grammar). Tōkyō: Kuroshio.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank Robert. 1995. Negation and the modals of possibility and necessity. In Modality in Grammar and Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 32], Joan L. Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman (eds), 453–471. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rickmeyer, Jens. 1994. Ein taxonomisch-dependentielles Modell für eine deskriptive Grammatik der japanischen Sprache. Bochumer Jahrbuch zur Ostasienforschung 18: 249–258.Google Scholar
. 1995. Japanische Morphosyntax. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masatoshi. 2006. On the conceptual framework for voice phenomena. Linguistics 44(2): 217–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shirakawa, Hiroyuki, et al.. 2001. Chūjōkyū o oshieru hito no tame no nihongo bunpō handobukku (Handbook for Teachers of Intermediate and Advanced Japanese). Tōkyō: Surii Ee Nettowaaku.Google Scholar
Takanashi, Shino. 2004. Hyōka no modariti keishiki no Ta-kei ni tsuite – beki-datta, nakute-wa ikenakatta, zaru-o enakatta (The Ta-form of valuative modality - beki-datta, nakute-wa ikenakatta, zaru-o enakatta ). Nihongo Bunpō 4(1): 38–54.Google Scholar
. 2006. Hyōka no modariti to kibō hyōgen – Ta-kei no seishitsu o chūshin ni (Valuative modality and expression of desires – the Ta-form in focus). In Nihongo Bunpō no Shinchihei, Takashi Masuoka, Hisashi Noda & Takurō Moriyama (eds), 77–97. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan.Google Scholar
Teramura, Hideo. 1979. Muudo no keishiki to hitei (Mood forms and negation). In Eigo to Nihongo to. Hayashi Eiichi kyōju kanreki kinen ronbunshū, Hayashi Eiichi Kyōju Kanreki Kinen Ronbunshū Kankō Iinkai (eds), 191–222. Tōkyō: Kuroshio.Google Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. & LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Narrog, Heiko
2020. Chapter 7. Modal marking in conditionals. Grammar, usage and discourse. In Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions [Studies in Language Companion Series, 216], ► pp. 173 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 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.