Modality-Instrumental-I.

pdf

javi_roman10

INGLÉS INSTRUMENTAL I (NIVEL B2)

1º Grado en Estudios Ingleses

Facultad de Filosofía y Letras

Universidad de Granada

Reservados todos los derechos.

No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
 Inst I – MODALITY SYSTEMS
MODALITY
1. Definition
Modality is a topic primarily discussed in linguistics but its impact
on stylistic approaches to language has been enormously felt.
However, decisions as to which elements are to be considered
under the general notion of modality vary depending on the
discipline. In general, modality can be defined as the potential of
language to project the speaker’s or writer’s attitude about the
proposition expressed. The term ‘attitude’ is here amply and loosely
defined, so attitudinal stances may refer to a variety of speaker
responses ranging from desire to obligation and duty, certainty or
uncertainty concerning the likelihood of the propositional content
of the utterance. (Nørgaard, Busse and Montoro 2010: 113)
The interpersonal function, as the term itself suggests, is about how
we orientate, shape and measure our utterances as discourse. This
function is expressed principally by the grammatical system of
modality which is that part of language which allows us to attach
expressions of belief, attitude and obligation to what we say and
write. Modality is therefore the grammar of explicit comment, and it
includes signals of the varying degrees of certainty we have about
the propositions we express, and of the sorts of commitment or
obligation that we attach to our utterances. (Simpson 2004: 123)
a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-8941431
Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
Dr Rocío Montoro
2. Types of modality
2.1 Deontic modality
Deontic modality, first of all, is the modal system of ‘duty’, as it is
concerned with a speaker’s attitude to the degree of obligation
attaching to the performance of certain actions. (Simpson 1993: 43)
Deontic modality markers:
1. Modal verbs: may, should, must
2. Adjectives and participles in ‘BE … THAT’ and ‘BE … TO’
constructions: ‘You are permitted to leave’, ‘It is possible for
you to leave’, etc.
Clearly, the deontic system is of crucial relevance to the strategies of
social interaction, especially to tactics of persuasion and politeness.
Indeed, when we come to consider some of the linguistic features of
persuasive discourse such as advertising language, deontic
modality will provide a valuable analytic tool. (Simpson 1993: 44)
2.2 Boulomaic modality
It is extensively grammaticised in expressions of ‘desire’.
Boulomaic modality markers:
Modal lexical verbs indicating the wishes and desires of the speaker
are central:

Inst I – MODALITY SYSTEMS
1. I hope that you will leave
2. I wish you’d leave
3. I regret that you’re leaving.
Adjectival and participial constructions in a ‘BE … TO’ or ‘BE …
THAT’ framework can carry boulomaic commitment although
related modal adverbs may also be used:
1. It is hoped that you will leave. (BE+participle+THAT)
2. It’s good that you’re leaving. (BE+adjective+THAT)
3. It is regrettable that you’re leaving. (BE+adjective+THAT)
4. Hopefully, you’ll leave. (modal adverb)
5. Regrettably, you’re leaving. (modal adverb) (Simpson 1993:
45)
2.3 Epistemic modality
The epistemic system is possibly the most important regarding the
analysis of point of view in fiction. And as the epistemic modal
adverb in the previous sentence (spot it!) should suggest, epistemic
modality is concerned with the speaker’s confidence or lack of
confidence in the truth of a proposition expressed. In the following
examples, the modal auxiliaries are now used in their epistemic
sense. They convey varying degrees of epistemic commitment to the
basic proposition You are right:
1. You could be right.
2. You may be right.
3. You must be right.
4. You might have been right.
a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-8941431
Viajes Universitarios a Marruecos, Ibiza, Algarve... ¡Haz clic aquí y RESERVA AHORA!
Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
Dr Rocío Montoro
5. You should have been right (i.e. in the context of ‘If you
followed the instructions carefully’). (Simpson 1993: 44-45)
Epistemic modality markers:
Despite the obvious centrality of the modal auxiliaries in the
system, epistemic modality may be grammaticized through a range
of other devices. Modal lexical verbs are one means:
1. I think you are right.
2. I suppose you’re right.
3. I believe you are right.
as are adjectives in the familiar ‘BE…TO’ and ‘BE…THAT’
constructions:
1. You are sure to be right.
2. It’s certain that you’re right.
3. It’s doubtful that you’re right.
There is also a group of epistemic modal adverbs which includes,
but is not restricted to, the following: arguably, maybe, perhaps,
possibly, probably, certainly, supposedly, allegedly. (Simpson 1993: 45)
2.3.1 Categorical assertions
Speakers also have the option of expressing the basic proposition in
its ‘raw’ form; or in other words, as a categorical assertion:
• You are right.
 Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
Inst I – MODALITY SYSTEMS Dr Rocío Montoro

Categorical assertions express the strongest possible degree of 1. a. It’s clear that you are right.
speaker commitment. In this respect, they are ‘epistemically non- b. You’re clearly right.
modal’. Epistemic expressions thus function to distinguish non- 2. a. It’s obvious that you’re right.
categorical assertions from categorical ones by signalling that the b. You’re obviously right.
speaker’s commitment to the truth of the proposition encoded in the 3. a. It’s apparent that you’re right.
utterance is qualified. (Simpson 1993: 45) b. Apparently, you’re right.
4. a. It’s evident that you’re right.
b. You’re evidently right. (Simpson 1993: 46)

It is worth adding that verbs which represent straightforward

(Simpson 1993: 46)
2.4 Perception modality
Perception modality […] is best regarded as a subcategory of
epistemic modality. It is distinguished by the fact that the degree of
commitment to the truth of a proposition is predicated on some
reference to human perception, normally visual perception.
(Simpson 1993: 46)
Perception modality markers:
Adjectives in ‘BE…THAT’ constructions are especially important, as
are related modal adverbs:
mental processes do not de facto constitute part of the perception
modal system. Statements of the sort I saw the game or I heard the
noise are simply categorical assertions presenting observations on
the part of the speaker. By contrast, examples 1–4 incorporate some
linguistic justification for the speaker’s commitment to the truth of a
proposition based on reference to external signs. (Simpson 1993: 46-
47)
3. Other modality markers
a) Modal adverbs:
certainly, probably, surely, perhaps.
b) Evaluative adjectives and adverbs:
lucky, unlucky, fortunately, regrettably.
c) Verbs of knowledge, prediction, evaluation:
seem, believe, guess, foresee, approve.
d) Generic sentences:
Generalized propositions claiming universal truth and
usually cast in a syntax reminiscent of proverbs or scientific
laws.

a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-8941431

Si tienes dificultades en cualquier materia, te asignamos un profe idóneo ¡Clic aquí!

 Inst I – MODALITY SYSTEMS Dr Rocío Montoro

e) Verba sentiendi:
Words denoting feelings, thoughts, and perceptions,
primarily signals of a subjective point of view
f) Words of estrangement:
These expressions pretend that the author – or often one
character observing another – does not have access to the
feelings or thoughts of the characters. They emphasise an act
of interpretation, an attempt to reconstruct the psychology
of the character by reference to the signs that can be gleaned
by external observation. (Adapted from Fowler, 1986)

References

Fowler, R. (1986) Linguistic Criticism. Oxford: OUP

Nørgaard, N., Busse, B. and Montoro, R. (2010) Key Terms in
Stylistics. London: Bloomsbury
Simpson, P. (1993) Language, Ideology and Point of View. London and
New York: Routledge.
Simpson, P. (2004) Stylistics. A Resource Book for Students. London
and New York: Routledge.

a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-8941431

Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.