an explicit classification of non-epistemic senses of tavan, shodan and bayestan based on Depraetere’s semantic-pragmatic model

Document Type : Research

Authors

1 PhD student at the University of Isfahan

2 Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Foreign languages

3 Associate Professor of English Language School, Faculty of Foreign Languages, University of Isfahan

Abstract

In this paper we first briefly investigated some Persian scholars’ classifications of non-epistemic (or root) senses of central Persian modal auxiliaries tavanestan, shodan, and bayestan, which roughly correspond to English can/may/might, can/may/might, and must/should,  respectively.The findings showed that most of them, which mainly follow Palmer’s semantic-syntactic framework, have not proposed any explicit and operationalizable criteria for analysis and classification of various senses of these polyfunctional modals and have mainly identified and described their various senses through researcher-made examples (e.g. Akhlaghi, 2006; Taleghani, 2008). Their approach was found to be mainly semantic-syntactic like that of Palmer and his followers. Even, the studies which are done beyond Palmer’s framework and have integrated pragmatics into their approach have not offered any explicit criteria for the classification of Persian modals (Rahimian, 2008; Rahimian and Amouzadeh, 2012; Amouzadeh and Rezaee, 2009), although their works have shed considerable light on the various senses that these modals can convey. Being aware of the limitations of the previous works, we introduced Depraetere’s (2014) semantic-pragmatic model which is composed of three distinct layers (two semantic and one pragmatic) and classified the non-epistemic senses of Persian modals accordingly. Her two obligatory semantic layers are context-dependent and context-independent layers, while pragmatic layer is optional and mainly appears in the conventionalized uses of the modal auxiliary verbs in colloquial language. The context-independent meaning is either possibility or necessity. The context-dependent meaning, on the other hand, is determined by three parameters (i.e., scope of modality, source of modality, and potential barrier). It is through these parameters that one can explicitly determine the context-dependent meaning of a modal auxiliary. Depraetere tries to reconcile semantics and pragmatics in an integrated framework to account for various senses of modals. She offers explicit criteria and puts an end to the different opinions regarding non-epistemic senses of modal auxiliaries. Upon application, Depraetere’s model proved to be very efficient for a more systematic and intersubjective classification of non-epistemic senses of Persian modals. In our analysis of some examples taken from Persian websites, we found that bayestan can express narrow-scope internal necessity, wide-scope internal necessity and wide-scope external necessity, like English must. Like English auxiliaries can, may and might, the auxiliary tavanestan can express five senses in Persian, that is, ability (narrow-scope, internal, and  [- potential barrier] possibility), permission (narrow-scope external, and [+ potential barrier] possibility), opportunity (narrow scope, external, and [- potential barrier] possibility), situation permissibility (wide-scope, external and [+ potential barrier] possibility) and situation possibility (wide-scope, external, and [- potential barrier] possibility). Shodan which is typically employed in colloquial Persian can only express permission, and situation permissibility and does not have the capacity to express ability and opportunity senses. Due to the unclear status of khah, like English will, its investigation needs an individual investigation. 

Keywords

References

Akhlaghi, F. (2007). bayestan, shodan, and tavanestan: Three modal verbs in modern Persian. Dastoor, 3, 133-182 [In Persian].
Amouzadeh, M., & Rezaee, H. (2010). The semantic aspects of bayad in Persian language. Journal of Language Research, 1, 57-78 [In Persian].
Ilkhanipoor, N., & Karimi Doostan, Gh. (2016). Lexicalization of semantic dimensions of modality in Persian modal adjectives. Journal of Language Research (Zabanpazhuhi), 19, 65-87 [In Persian].
Bateni, M. R. (1969). Description of the grammatical structure of Persian language. Tehran: Amir Kabir [In Persian].
Bateni, M. R. (1975). Modern linguistic issues (ten papers). Tehran: Agah [In Persian].
Brennan, V. (1993). Root and epistemic modal auxiliary verbs (PhD thesis). University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA.
Bybee, J., & Fleischman, S. (1995). Modality in grammar and discourse: an introductory essay. In J. L. Bybee & S. Fleischman (Eds.), Modality in Grammar and Discourse (pp. 1-14), Amesterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Carston, R. (2009). The explicit/implicit distinction in pragmatics and the limits of explicit communication. Pragmatics, 1(1), 35-62.
Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Groom Helm.
Collins, P. (2007). Can/could and may/might in British, American and Australian English: A corpus‐based account. World Englishes, 26 (4), 474-491.
Depraetere, I., & Reed, S. (2006). Mood and modality in English. In B. Aarts & McMahon (Eds.), The handbook of English linguistics (pp. 269-290). Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Depraetere, I., & Reed, S. (2011). Towards a more explicit taxonomy of root possibility.English Language and Linguistics, 15 (1), 1-29.
Depraetere, I. (2014). Modals and lexically saturated saturation. Journal of Pragmatics,71, 160-177.
Facchinetti, R. (2002). Can and could in contemporary British English: a study of the ICE-GB corpus. In P. Peters, P. Collins, & A. Smith (Eds.), New Frontiers of Corpus Research. Papers from the Twenty-first International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora Sydney 2000 (pp. 229-246). Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
Farrokhpey, M. (1979). A syntactic and semantic study of auxiliaries and modals in modern Persian (PhD thesis), University of Colorado, Boulder, USA.
Givon, T. (1995). Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gholamalizadeh, Kh. (1995). The structure of Persian language. Tehran: Ehya’e Ketab [In Persian].
Goossens, L. (1985). Modality and the modals. In M. Bolkestein, C. De Groot & L. Mackenzie (Eds.), Predicates and Terms in Functional Grammar (pp. 203–217). Dordrecht: Foris.
Halliday, M. A. (1970). Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language, 322-361.
Hengeveld, K. (1989). Layers and operators in functional grammar. Journal of Linguistics, 25 (1), 127-157.
Homayoonfar, M. (2013). Investigating the grammaticalization process of Persian modals based on Leman’s parameters, Dastoor, 9, 50-73 [In Persian].
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of English language.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huitink, J. (2012). Modal concord: A case study of Dutch. Journal of semantics, 29 (3), 403-437.
Kratzer, A. (1977). What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and philosophy, 1 (3), 337-355.
Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantics: an international handbook of contemporary research (pp. 639-650). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Kratzer, A. (2012) Modals and conditionals: New and revised perspectives (Vol. 36). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mashkut-al-dini, M. (2000). Persian grammar based on transformational theory. Mashhad: Mashhad University Press [In Persian].
Palmer, F. R. (1987). The English verb. London and New York: Longman.
Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality (2nd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F. R.  (1990). Modality and the English modals. London: Longman.
Papafragou, A. (2000). Modality: Issues in the semantics-pragmatics interface. Amesterdom: Elsevier.
Portner, P. (2009). Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rahimian, J. (2009). The formal and semantic aspects of Persian modal elements in modalized sentences. Journal of Linguistics & Khorasan Dialects, 1, 75-91 [In Persian].
Rahimian, J., & Amouzadeh, M. (2013). Modal auxiliaries in Persian and expression of modality. Journal of Language Research, 4 (1), 20-40 [In Persian].
Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Salkie, R. (2009). Degrees of modality. In R. Salkie, P. Busuttil & J. Van der Auwera (Eds.), Modality in English: Theory and description (Vol. 58, pp. 79-103). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Taleghani, A. H. (2008). Modality, aspect and negation in Persian (Vol. 128). Amesterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Traugott, E. G., & Konig, E. (1991). The semantics pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization (2nd Vol., pp.189-218). Amesterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Van Der Auwera, J. & Plungian, V. (1998). Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology, 2, 79–124.
Van Der Auwera, J. & Ammann, A. (2008). Overlap between situational and epistemic modal marking. In M. Haspelmath, M. S. Dryer, D. Gil, & B. Comrie 
With the collaboration of H. Bibiko, H. Jung, and C. Schmidt (Eds.), The World Atlas of language structures, (pp. 310-313). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research)
Volume 10, Issue 28
December 2018
Pages 115-148

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics