Bělíková Zuzana The Modal Verb Could and its Equivalents in Translation
Download 0.6 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
Blkov Zuzana The Modal Verb Could and its Equivalents in
I.
THEORY Philosophical Faculty, Palacký University Olomouc 10 1 MODALITY “Modality is centrally concerned with the speaker's attitude towards the factuality or actualization of the situation expressed by the rest of the clause.” (Huddleston and Pullum 2002, 173) Huddleston and Pullum (2002, 176) explain two ways how to study modality. The first one is that we look for basic meaning of modal verbs. The second one is to study a pragmatic part of them. They show the difference between semantic and pragmatic strength in the example: 1) You must have one of these cakes. (Huddleston and Pullum 2002, 176) In this example, must as a semantically strong modal is pragmatically weakened (Huddleston and Pullum 2002, 177). “The parameter of STRENGTH of modality is sometimes used to characterise pragmatic aspects of root necessity meaning.” (Depraetere and Verhulst 2008) Imre (2012) adds: “Modality is the grammaticalized expression of the subjective attitudes and opinions of the speaker including possibility, probability, predictability, necessity, obligation, permissibility, ability, desire, and contingency, and it is external to the content, being part of the attitude taken up by the speaker.” 1.1 Kinds of Modality There are two kinds of modality that linguists agree with one another. There are only different terms they use when speaking about these kinds (Huddleston and Pullum 2002, 178). Huddleston and Pullum (2002, 178) use the terms - deontic and epistemic modality. Their common characteristics are subjectivity – in connection with a speaker, and non- factuality – a commitment to the truth is not necessary (Palmer 1986, 96). Dušková (1988, 186) mentions that modal verbs can, may, must, will, could, might, would, should and ought can express deontic and epistemic modality. Shall, need and dare only make deontic one. She does not include dynamic modality into her division. Huddleston and Pullum (2002, 178) also present dynamic modality that is a little bit ambiguous. |
Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2024
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling