home » Style » The category of modality as a linguistic universal. Categories of modality and its role in language

The category of modality as a linguistic universal. Categories of modality and its role in language

At the grammatical level, modality clarifies and corrects the objective-modal meaning of a sentence associated with the opposition between reality and unreality, that is, it acts as one of the aspects of the relationship of the statement with reality, as a predicative aspect.

Consideration of the class of particles in the light of the category of modality allows us to understand the specificity of these function words, which consists not simply in creating additional semantic shades of the utterance, but in the function of a modal qualifier. Features of the syntactic use of particles also indicate that they belong to the sphere of mode: this is a special intonation design (intonation of emphasis, intensification), the absence of an independent syntactic role in the structure of the sentence, the possibility of using an introductory component in the function.

So, in an interrogative-rhetorical statement, does it explicate the modal meaning of emphasized confidence in combination with shades of doubt, surprise, bewilderment and others:

And why does everyone say: a military genius? Is the person who manages to order the delivery of crackers in time and go to the right, to the left, a genius? (L. Tolstoy) - confidence + irony; In the actual interrogative statement, the function of the particle is really reduced to the explication of the modal meanings of surprise, bewilderment, which are superimposed on the main modal plane: “Did our house burn down?! - Ganka was scared. “Where will mom live now?” (K. Sedykh) - surprise + fear; But the father said: “This is impossible.” - "Why not?" - “Didn’t you read in the Patriarchal Testament that after the sale of Joseph, not all his brothers spent the money, but bought boots made of pigskin for themselves and their wives, so as not to eat the price of blood, but to trample on it” (N. Leskov) - doubt + astonishment. [ 17, p. 95].

The meaning of the impossibility of action is explicated by the combination perhaps with the infinitive in interrogative-infinitive sentences: And behind Andrei Yaroslavich’s chair there also stood his sword-bearing boy. But how can you compare him with Grinka! (A. Yugov); “Invasion of Batyevo! - a sorrowful exclamation escaped Nevsky. - Do you really understand what was happening on Russian soil then?! (A. Yugov). That is why the analysis of the functioning of modal particles requires taking into account a complex of factors, among which contextual and prosodic ones will occupy a special place. Ultimately, it is they who determine one or another type of modal meaning realized by a particle, as well as various semantic layers that complement and enrich the main modal meaning.

Understanding the subjective-modal nature of particles (it is important to note the presence of a subjective-evaluative component in almost all particles of the Russian language, including demonstrative, attributive, emphatic-restrictive, intensifying, negative) helps to organize and comprehend this class of words, explains cases of polysemy and homonymy in circle of particles, as well as a moving boundary between the class of particles and the category of modal words.

Interjections are a non-specialized peripheral means of forming subjective modality. This is due to the peculiarities of the semantics of interjections, in which the emotional and expressive components dominate, as well as the specifics of their use in speech - less syntactic flexibility compared to introductory words and a number of communicative restrictions, including the conditions of dialogicity and conversational speech. At the same time, interjections are closer to explicators of subjectivity, since they can act as an equivalent of a sentence and perform the function of a modal qualifier. In addition, we can talk about interjectional meaning as special form lexical meaning, which is associated with the expression of the speaker’s subjective attitude to reality and is situationally and intonationally determined. The use of interjections with a modal meaning represents the area that is the zone of intersection of the semantic field of emotions and the semantic field of subjective modality. .

Introductory sentences are included among the means of expressing modality; the communicative load of the introductory sentence is associated with similar functions of introductory words:

- introductory-modal: “If I’m not mistaken, are you wearing the uniform of such and such a regiment?” - “Yes, I serve in such and such a regiment,” answers Mikhail Ivanovich (N. Chernyshevsky);
- introductory-contact: And we, as you please see, travel to given time We are in Moscow (M. Bulgakov);
- introductory-emotional: The court advisers, perhaps, will get to know him, but those who have already reached the ranks of generals, those, God knows, maybe even cast one of those contemptuous glances that a proud person throws at everything that nor grovel at his feet, or, even worse, perhaps they will pass by inattention that is fatal for the author (N. Gogol);
- introductory author's notes: Previously, there were several birch trees around the linden tree, which, as they say, were all covered with poems by Pushkin (O. Pavlishchev);
- meaning the degree of ordinaryness: At the end of the game, they argued, as usual, quite loudly (N. Gogol);
- way of forming a thought: But, really, when you think about how microscopically small their capabilities are compared to the capabilities of the one in whose retinue I have the honor of being a member, it becomes funny and, even I would say, sad (M. Bulgakov).

An important place among the syntactic ways of expressing subjective modality is occupied by a rhetorical statement, expressing not a question, but a message in an expressive form. The significant emotional charge, accentuated affirmation or negation inherent in these constructions enhances their real objective modality. At the same time, rhetorical statements are one of the productive ways of realizing subjective modal meanings, since they always reflect the position of the speaking subject, his emotional state, personality assessments, such, for example, as: doubt-reflection: I think, I can’t come up with it... I’ll spread my mind and mind, I can’t figure it out - where does such coldness come from in him?.. Has he acquired a new sweetheart?.. (A. Pechersky) ;

Modal particles introduce into a sentence different meanings of a subjective attitude towards what is being communicated. This relationship may be uncomplicated, or it may be combined with the meaning of the objective relationship of what is being reported to reality. However, a subjective attitude, a hint of a particular situation, an assessment in modal particles is always present. This element of attitude, subjective reaction is present to varying degrees in other particles - negative and formative. For example: Let the Motherland be glorified! Let the Motherland be glorified! The particle “yes” includes the meaning of categoricalness and solemnity, thus, modal coloring is characteristic of the class of particles as a whole. It should also be noted that all modal particles, in terms of the values they contribute, are combined into groups:

a) Particles that introduce emotional and other assessments, expressing the speaker’s immediate reactions.
b) Particles expressing will.
c) Particles that establish various connections and relationships of the message with other parts of speech of the message, with its source, with other events and facts.

The first group includes particles expressing agreement, warning, threat, assumption: and, after all, here, yes, and others. The second group includes particles characterizing the expression of will, a call for agreement, for expectation. The third group is characterized by the completion or identification of a previous state; independence, not connected with anything; uniqueness and exclusivity: that’s all, yes, exclusively, uniquely, etc.

In Russian, the class of modal particles in its modern form quite complex and very varied in its lexical composition, in the etymological nature of the verbal elements related to it. In sentences with subjective-modal particles, meanings associated with immediate emotional reactions, with one or another volitional manifestation, and evaluative-characterizing meanings can be distinguished. These two types of conclusions very often, and even usually, appear in close interaction with each other. .

So, in sentences meaning disapproval, dissatisfaction, regret about the inappropriateness or illegality of something: Such a disaster must happen!; And he should have been late!; We got lost near the house - we must! the subjective-modal meaning is associated with the word necessary (necessary, and necessary), the direct lexical meaning of which is lost here. In sentences you never know where they call!; You never know what happens!; They talk about a lot!; He won't ask for much! the meaning of rejection, disagreement or dismissal is associated with the word malo (colloquial) positionally fixed at the beginning of the sentence, you never know - with the obligatory pronominal word following it. In the sentences What was not there!; Why haven't I changed my mind!; Where has he been!; They bought him so many gifts!; What doesn't happen in war! the meaning of plurality and diversity (of subjects, objects, actions, circumstances) is associated with the weakening of direct meanings of both pronominal words and negation. In sentences So that he will ever be late!; So that I would allow myself to leave the house, at least into the garden, in a blouse or unkempt? (A.P. Chekhov) grammatical meaning forms subjunctive mood complicated by the meaning of expressively stated impossibility..

The meaning of underlining (emphasis, highlighting) - always in combination with an element of one or another subjective attitude - is characteristic of such constructions that, with a greater or lesser degree of certainty, are based on the structure of the question and answer or, more broadly, in general dialogic unity, on the concatenation of remarks, on talk. The first part of such a construction serves to introduce (usually with a pronominal word) that element of the message that is emphasized, highlighted: But what is most terrible is that he does not know a single word, as if he had just been born (Fed.); I didn’t like dolls, no. What she loved was doing kindergartens (M. Tsvetaeva); He listed the main parts of the machine. - Now look carefully: what do we have here? cartridge... Now - what am I doing? - I press the handle - I turn on the machine (Panova); Time, soon to be punished, In the measure of its speedy days, Abolishes another power, another glory - and the cross is on them. Time will erase even their traces with its speedy iron. And it is not able to cope - With what, just think! - with a rhyme (Tvardovsky); Without which there is no happiness, it is without human respect ( Speaking).

This also includes complex constructions with the words yes, no: There is a home, a family - no, this is not enough for him; They argued, yes, but they didn’t quarrel (colloquial speech).

In a relatively independent position - as part of a simple sentence - a combination of the conjugated form of a verb (without or with negation) and the preceding infinitive of the same verb is used, often with an accenting particle - then: read (not) read; read (not) read; phraseological units: I don’t know, I don’t know. The subjective-modal meaning of such combinations is a confident emphasis on a feature, often in combination with comparison: Well? Kill, Panteley Eremeich: at your will; but I will not return (Turgenev); Guys, I’m not making promises to you, but I’ll try (G. Uspensky); You take, but don’t put back (A. Chekhov); -Where did they take her? - he thought. - They haven’t harnessed it yet, the sleigh is still outside (Lev Tolstoy); And I couldn’t sleep. As soon as you closed your eyes, Moscow unforgivenly flared up in them again (Baby).

Several subjective-modal meanings have combinations of two identical forms of the same word with obligatory negation in the second form: glad not glad, hut not hut, sleeping not sleeping.

a) As part of an adversative or concessive construction, such a combination, usually nominal, always opening the construction, can have the meaning of a softened, uncertain negation: Sometimes Antipka will seem doubtful about something: drunk is not drunk, but somehow looks wildly (Gonch.); They couldn’t find out what kind of people they were... Merchants are not merchants, Germans are not Germans; gentlemen? - there are also no such things, but important people (L. Tolstoy); The sea is not a sea, but the waves are big here (colloquial speech).
b) In a relatively independent position, such combinations can denote a vague, unclear or weakly, incompletely manifested sign: At a meeting, he will hide in a far corner, frown: and he sleeps - he does not sleep, and he listens - he does not listen (G. Radov);
c) The same combinations as part of an adversative construction can mean indifference for what follows, insignificance in relation to the result: you slept, didn’t sleep, but get up; Don’t cry, don’t cry, you can’t bring back the past. [Sofia:]; Think, don’t think, you won’t get smart (A. Ostrovsky); A father is not a father, a sister is not a sister - he will not look, he will sell everyone for a penny (Saltykov-Shchedrin); A storm is not a storm, but anchovy goes on and on (D. Holendro). In this meaning, the compounds in question are possible in different syntactic positions: If he cooks something tasty or not tasty, he will eat everything; If he gives orders that are not practical, he has to obey (colloquial speech)[ 10, p. 125].
d) Combinations of two forms of the same name, such as scoundrel from scoundrels, from eccentrics, eccentric, have the meaning of a high degree of attribute: And the rest, too, apparently, were selected, from dodgers dodgers (Malyshk.).
e) Only as the first part of an adversative construction are used denoting an independent and separate fact of construction of the type friendship with friendship (a...): Woe is grief, and then there is still trouble (A. Ostrovsky) (i.e. (friendship by itself, by itself, but...)).
f) Only as part of a complex adversative or concessive construction, as its first part, do predicatively significant combinations of two identical forms of the same word, pronounced as part of one syntagm, function as the first part, such as smart-smart, but wrong. Such constructions, denoting an emphasized opposition, are not limited to words of any specific categories: joke, joke, but look around; summer-summer, but it’s cold; old man, old man, and there; learned and learned, but made a mistake. Stupid, stupid, look how the mother secretly trumps! (Saltykov-Shchedrin).

Modality can be expressed lexically, entering semantics different words: truth, truth, false, impossible, possible, probable, certainly, possible etc.

In morphology, modality is manifested using the mood forms of the verb (see the section “Category of Mood” above).

In syntax, modality is conveyed primarily through the use of various components of a statement that are not grammatically related to the members of the sentence: introductory words and phrases, inserted constructions. Finally, in the Russian language there are specialized means for expressing modality - modal words, in which modality is expressed in their semantics and in their special grammatical status.

Modal words are unchangeable words separated into an independent part of speech, denoting the relationship of the entire statement or its individual part to reality from the point of view of the speaker, grammatically unrelated to other words in the sentence, and standing out intonationally:

What time is it now? Dark. Maybe , third.

Again to me it is seen , I can't close my eyes.

The shepherd in the village will crack his whip at dawn.

The cold will blow through the window,

Which faces the courtyard.

Not true , You

All the whiteness with its through wave

With me (Past.).

In a sentence, modal words, as a rule, act as syntactically isolated units - introductory words or phrases: " Undoubtedly, he was not completely normal at that moment" (Kav.); " Perhaps I you do not need the Night, from the abyss of the world, like a shell of pearls, I am thrown onto your shore" (Mand.). Modal words may not stand out intonationally (and in writing punctuationally) when they are closely adjacent to the predicate and evaluate it with point of view of reliability or unreliability: “Splashing in the pupil and dissolving in the lymph, She is akin only to the Aeolian nymph, like a friend Narcissus. But in the calendar rhyme she is different for sure know better" (I.Br.). Finally, modal words are also used as word-sentences, which express an assessment of what was previously said from the point of view of its reliability or unreliability: “Are you a fan of female beauty?” Of course". (Ch.).

According to lexical meaning modal words are divided into two large groups: 1) modal words with the meaning of statement: of course, undoubtedly, indisputably, of course, certainly, without any doubt etc.; For example: " Certainly, There are different types of poets" (Mayak); "The elders have their own reasons for this. Undoubtedly, undeniably your reason is ridiculous, That in a thunderstorm there are purple eyes and lawns And the horizon smells of damp mignonette" (Past.); 2) modal words with the meaning of conjecture: probably, apparently, probably, must be, I suppose etc., for example: “He’s walking somewhere, Maybe, ceramic horse" (B.Ok.); "I, praising the machine and England, May be, just in the most ordinary Gospel the thirteenth apostle" (Mayak.);

Byorigin a group of modal words was formed by moving into it: 1) nouns: true, fact etc.: "And Truth, everything that the Cossacks got, they divided it all up" (Gogi.); "Your line is erroneous, politically incorrect, fact!" (Shol.); 2) short adjectives: indisputably, undoubtedly, truly, truly, possibly and others: "Zinaida, undoubtedly beautiful, excellently brought up" (Dost.); "At Nikolai Semenovich's, right, there were boots-pants made of rubberized silk, which he never used" (Yu. Nag.); 3) short participles: apparently:obviously: "Where does the firewood come from?" - "From the forest, obviously" (N. Nekr.); 4 ) state category words: obviously, clearly, clearly and others: “He grabbed the crutches with his fingers too tenaciously and tensely,” it is seen, I’m not used to them yet” (B. Gorb.); 5) verbs: of course it seems and others: “Onegin, I was younger and better then, Seems, was" (P.); "Are you dancing the mazurka with her? – he asked in a solemn voice. “She confessed to me...” – “Well, so what? But is this a secret?" – " Of course" (L.); 6) phrases: V in fact, it must be, perhaps, in all likelihood, one must believe etc.: " May be, this is the point of madness, May be, this is your conscience; The knot of life in which we are recognized and two beings are untied" (Mand.).

Modal words differ semantically, morphologically and syntactically from similar genetically related words. Yes, modal word it seemed differs from the corresponding form of the verb in that: a) it denotes conjecture and has no procedural meaning; b) does not express grammatical meanings of aspect, mood, etc.; c) does not act as a predicate in a sentence. Wed: "And that's all to her it seemed - she is a foal, and it was worth living, and it was worth working" (Mayak.) - the highlighted word is a verb; " It seemed its energy is enough to awaken the tundra and melt the permafrost" (A.N.T.) – it seemed is an introductory modal word. In relation to the correlative parts of speech, modal words act as grammatical homonyms.

It should be borne in mind that both the category of modality itself and modal words as one of the means of its expression have not yet been sufficiently studied in modern linguistics. This explains the presence of different points of view on the composition of those units that form a group of modal words. So, V.V. Vinogradov defines their circle quite broadly and includes among them, in addition to those listed: a) words and phrases that indicate the source of speech: according to so-and-so, according to rumors and so on.; b) words denoting speech assessment: how it says, in short and so on.; c) words expressing emotional assessment: fortunately, unfortunately, unfortunately and so on.; d) words denoting the logical division of speech: firstly, secondly, finally and so on. Such a broad interpretation of modal words is unjustified, since when the above four groups are included in the circle of means expressing the categorical meaning of modality, its original definition becomes blurred and unclear.

Modal words express:

a) logical assessment of the statement, the reality of what is being communicated: indeed, certainly, undoubtedly, of course, indisputably, obviously, of course, etc.;

b) possibility, probability of what is being reported, assumption, doubt about its reliability: perhaps, probably, probably, apparently, apparently, apparently, it seems, perhaps, etc.

*Modal words are deprived of a nominative function, they are not members of a sentence and are not grammatically related to the words that make up the sentence. Their syntactic functions:

a) use as a word-sentence, more often in dialogical speech .- Will you buy this book? - Of course (Gorky);

b) use as an introductory word with a modal meaning. Of course, you don’t care about me (A.N. Tolstoy).

Do not turn on into the category of modal words:

1) introductory words expressing an emotional attitude to the facts of reality (fortunately, to pleasure, unfortunately, unfortunately, to surprise, to chagrin, to regret, to annoyance, etc.);

2) words with the meaning of clarification, explanation, limitation (in particular, however, by the way, etc.);

3) words indicating the connection of thoughts, the order of their presentation, the method of design, close in function to conjunctions) firstly, finally, on the contrary, on the contrary, however, so, therefore, therefore, in a word, so to speak, etc.) .

Modality concept

Mode and modality

Actualization categories of mode

modality- from the point of view of reality / unreality;
- Modality of reality means that the content is expressed from the point of view of the speaker and corresponds to objective reality: the subject perceives what is being communicated as a real and reliable fact.
- Modality of invalidity on the contrary, it means that the content of what is being communicated does not correspond to objective reality; the subject perceives what is being communicated as not real, i.e. as possible, desirable, conjectural, doubtful, etc. The modality of invalidity is divided into the following semantic types:
  - modality of necessity and obligation (debitive modality)
  - modality of possibility and impossibility (potential modality)
  - presumptive (hypothetical) modality
  - incentive (imperative) modality
  - modality of intention (intentional modality)
  - desired (optative) modality

personalization- the relationship of an action, a sign to the subject of the situation, which can be the speaker (1st person), the addressee (2nd person) and not participating in the act of communication (3rd person).
temporary localization- fixation of an event on the time axis or lack of such fixation. The starting point is the moment of speech. Temporal localization is manifested in the opposition: now - before - after.
spatial localization(optional) - fixation of an event in the space of communication or beyond, which is expressed in oppositions here-there, here-there, from here-from there, up-down, inside-outside, far-close....

Qualification categories of the mode

authorization is the qualification of information from the point of view of the sources of its communication. It manifests itself in the opposition “own/alien”.
persuasiveness - (from lat. persuasio- persuasion, opinion) is the qualification of information in terms of the degree of its reliability, manifested in the opposition “reliable/unreliable”.
evaluativeness (optional) - expression of the speaker’s positive or negative attitude towards the positive content; general assessment of a situation, person, object according to the parameters “good/bad” (qualitative assessment), “many/little” (quantitative assessment).

Social categories of mode

Social categories of the mode are an expression of the speaker’s attitude towards the interlocutor: respectful - familiar, official - friendly. Depending on the attitude towards the interlocutor, situations of equality, “top-down”, “bottom-up” differ. Manifestations of social categories include all kinds of clauses and markings used to introduce unusual expressions.

Ways of expression

Modality can be expressed by various grammatical and lexical means:

special forms of moods
- in Russian - indicative, imperative and subjunctive, as well as independent infinitive ( I wish I could rest!)
- in English - Imperative and Subjunctive Mood, etc.;
modal words:
- introductory and adverbs - it seems, perhaps English perhaps, likely;
- modal verbs:
  - in English - can, may, should And must,
  - in German - dürfen and können (to be able), mögen and wollen (to wish), müssen and sollen (to have to),
  - in Russian - I want, I can, I must, I must, I must, I can and so on.
intonation means.

Modality and mood

Sometimes the term modality acts as a synonym for the term mood, but more often these concepts are differentiated, considering modality a semantic category (relating not only to the verb and which may not have a mandatory expression in the language), and mood as a grammatical category of the verb (which may lose connection with modality, as, for example , conjunctive in Latin and French, dictated in some cases only by syntactic rules).

Discussions about modality in the sense of a grammatical category are conducted in several problematic directions on issues of:

On ways of expressing modal meanings;
On the composition of modal meanings (whether or not to include affirmation/negation, narration, interrogativeness, incentiveness in the composition of modal meanings);
About how “modal” the imperative mood is.

In Russian syntactic science, two main points of view on modality have developed:

Modality is considered a grammatical category that characterizes the content of a sentence from the perspective of reality/irreality;
Modality means the grammaticalized attitude of the speaker to reality.

Literature

Zainullin M.V. Modality as a functional-semantic category. - Saratov, 1986.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what “Modality (linguistics)” is in other dictionaries:

- (from the Latin modus size, method, image) in different subject areas, a category characterizing a method of action or attitude to action. Modality (linguistics) Modal logic Modality (programming) Modality (psychology) ... ... Wikipedia

Modality- (from Wed. Lat. modalis modal; Lat. modus measure, method) functional semantic category expressing different types the relationship of the statement to reality, as well as different types of subjective qualifications of the reported. Modality is... ...

This term has other meanings, see Mood. This article should be Wikified. Please format it according to the article formatting rules. Leaning... Wikipedia

- (conjunctive, subjunctive, lat. modus conjunctivus or subjunctivus) a number of special forms of the verbal mood of most Indo-European languages, expressing through a subjective attitude possible, conjectural, desirable or ... ... Wikipedia

- (lat. modus imperativus; also imperative) a form of mood expressing expressions of will (order, request or advice). For example: let's go, let's go, talk. Contents 1 Meaning 2 Morphological characteristics ... Wikipedia

Wikipedia has articles about other people with this last name, see Nikitin. Serafima Evgenievna Nikitina Date of birth: September 1, 1938 (1938 09 01) (74 years old) Country ... Wikipedia

LINGUISTIC FUNDAMENTALS OF THE METHODOLOGY- abbreviation, paragraph, automatic text processing, automatic translation, autonomous speech, speech adaptation, text adaptation, addresser, addressee, alphabet, speech act, active grammar, active vocabulary, active speech, active possession... ... New dictionary methodological terms and concepts (theory and practice of language teaching)

A science that is formed at the intersection of social and humanitarian knowledge about man and culture and studies culture as an integrity, as a specific thing. function and modality human. being. Although the origin of the term K. is usually associated with the name ... Encyclopedia of Cultural Studies

Conceptual categories- in linguistics semantic components general, characteristic not of individual words and systems of their forms, but of vast classes of words, expressed in natural language by a variety of means. Unlike hidden categories and grammatical... ... Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary

terms and concepts of text linguistics- As a unit of analysis and description of the material, an information model of the text was adopted, revealing the terminology system of text linguistics not as a set of thematically similar terms, but as a field structure in which terms naming elements... ... Dictionary of linguistic terms T.V. Foal

The meaning of the word MODALITY in the Large Modern Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language

Large modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. 2012

Modality and related phenomena

The boundaries of the sphere of modality are drawn by different scientists in different ways. Let's look at some of the values that Not belong to modal ones - at least in the grammar of the Russian language.

Negation is not one of the modal meanings (except for expressive negation, which falls within the scope of subjective modality, as in the sentence I wanted to go there= ‘there was no hunting’). Negation is an operator that connects to the linguistic units of the different meanings(including with modalities), forming natural semantic combinations. For example, denial of possibility is impossibility, denial of permission is prohibition. The category formed by the opposition of affirmation and negation is called polarity(see, for example, Melchuk 1998: 149, Horn 1989).

Words with the meaning of evaluation are close to the sphere of modality (see Plungyan 2000). However, modal meanings characterize the proposition as a whole, while the evaluation (usually according to the good/bad parameter) is rather included in the semantics of individual words (such as manage, manage, freak out, show off) and is an independent object of natural language semantics, mainly lexical. See Arutyunov 1998 for the assessment category.

The grammatical category is adjacent to the sphere of modality evidence, which expresses the source of the speaker’s information about the situation. In languages with the grammatical category of evidentiality, a statement about a fact, i.e. about an event that the speaker himself saw or took part in ( direct evidence), necessarily different from a statement where the speaker is based on the data that was communicated to him (quotation; in some languages the term “retelling mood” is adopted); conveys the result of his conclusions (inferential); or what seemed to him (imperceptive) ( indirect evidence). In Russian, evidentiality is not a grammatical category, but particles and introductory words with evidential meaning (such as supposedly, as if, as if, it seems, apparently) are available in abundance; on evidentiality see Melchuk 1998, on evidential indicators in the Russian language see Bulygina, Shmelev 1997, Arutyunova 1998, Khrakovsky 2007, Letuchy 2008.

There is a close connection between evidentiality and epistemic modality: epistemic modality is the incomplete degree expressed by the speaker reliability its information, and evidentiality marks sources information on which the speaker bases his utterance. Both meanings can be expressed undifferentiated in one indicator, but indirect evidence in itself does not mean unreliability (Khrakovsky 2007).

The indicator of evidentiality is semantically similar to the introductory phrase with the verb of speech / opinion: in both cases, the speaker shares with a certain person responsibility for the truth of the expressed proposition (on the semantics of introductoryness, see Paducheva 1996: 321-334]). Citation evidentiality is close to Russian citation indicators, they say And they say. The difference is that they say And they say, semantically and sometimes syntactically, are localized in the subordinate clause of a speech verb with an autonomous subject, so that the speaker is completely eliminated, as in (a), and the quotative can be semantically likened to the associated proposition of the introductory clause, as in (b), where the speaker and the syntactic subject are present on a parity basis:

(a) My neighbor said, necessary they say, beware of provocationsÜ My neighbor said, What we must beware of provocations;

(b) How said my neighbor, we must beware of provocations.

Modality as an egocentric category

In the tradition of Russian grammars, it is customary to divide modality into objective and subjective, and those meanings that are expressed by mood are classified as objective modality. But the semantics of mood is also subjective, i.e. also presupposes the speaker. For the optative meaning of the subjunctive mood this is obvious: It would be summer now! = ‘I I want it to be summer now.’ However, the speaker is also present in the semantics of the indicative mood, as demonstrated by Moore's famous paradox. Phrase She's beautiful, but I don't think so is anomalous because it contains a contradiction: the component ‘she is beautiful’ has the implication ‘I think she is beautiful’, which contradicts the assertion ‘I don’t think so’. The component ‘I believe ...’ in semantics affirmative proposal– this is even more than an implication: it is epistemic commitment speaker. So the term “subjective modality” must be accepted as a tribute to tradition: in principle, grammatical modality is also subjective.

It should be noted that the modality expressed lexically by the verb be able, does not always have the speaker as its subject, see section 3 about this. In subordinate clause it is quite common for the speaker to have no relation to the modality expressed by the subjunctive mood ( He wants me to obey him). This is a speaker-oriented problem vs. participant-oriented modality. Moreover, in a simple sentence, the implied subject of a modal word may not be the speaker, but the hearer; for example, there are natural connections between question and answer:

(A) - Can <мне>? – Can <тебе>.

With these reservations, common to all phenomena from the sphere grammatical modality is the participation of the speaker: modality is an egocentric category. It is on this basis that negation, which is not an egocentric category, is excluded from the sphere of modality - at least in the Russian language.

According to Palmer, subjectivity is an essential criterion of modality, Palmer 1986: 16. However, modality is not the only egocentric category. Another sphere of the egocentric is deixis. (These two spheres are combined in the classic work of R. Jakobson - Jakobson 1957/1972, which introduced the concept of a shifter into use.) The third sphere is the already mentioned assessment. Finally, there is a fourth sphere - emphasis and communicative structure (theme-rhematic division).

2. Illocutionary modality

Affirmation, encouragement, question

In linguistics, it is customary to divide sentences “according to the purpose of the statement” - into narrative, imperative and interrogative. J. Austin (Austin 1962) drew attention to the fact that when making this or that statement, a person can sometimes not just describe a certain state of affairs, but perform a certain action - speech act: inform, ask, encourage, request, predict, promise, thank, etc. Austin called the characterization of an utterance from the point of view of the action performed with its help illocutionary force statements. Corresponds to illocutionary forces illocutionary modality(which is opposed to simply modality - so to speak, semantic).

Basic speech acts (and their corresponding illocutionary forces) are statement(otherwise – assertion, declarative), motivation And question. Accordingly, they talk about assertive, motivating and interrogative illocutionary modality.

The theory of speech acts is based on the distinction between the propositional content of an utterance (proposition) and its illocutionary force. It is believed that different illocutionary forces can be connected to the same or similar content; you will get statements that are appropriate in different speech acts: He bought himself a bicycle(speech act - statement), Buy yourself a bike(motivation), You'll buy yourself a bike? (question).

A proposition may not be asserted, but may be used as an assumption, opinion, fear, question, etc. Only the use of a proposition in a speech act with one or another illocutionary force turns it into a statement or statement of some other type.

A proposition, in addition, can be an argument of modal operators (such as perhaps necessary), predicates of propositional attitude and evaluation (such as it's a pity, it's desirable). This is how they arise modalized propositions. A modalized proposition is also a proposition; receiving one or another illocutionary force, it can be used in a speech act. For example, He forgot about our agreement– this is a categorical statement, i.e. assertion of a non-modalized proposition. And in a sentence Maybe he forgot about our agreement modalized proposition. Another example: Father is pleased with your success(categorical statement) and Father would be pleased with your success(affirmation of a modalized proposition).

Illocutionary modality motives is expressed, first of all, imperative (Pass the salt!). In addition, the illocutionary force of an incentive can be expressed by an interrogative sentence with a modal verb ( You can't pass me the salt?); or lexically, using a particle: Let him pass you the salt; or subjunctive mood: Would you pass me the salt! The incentive illocutionary modality, in contrast to the affirmative one, is poorly compatible with the modality expressed by introductory words; cf., however, Please pass me the salt;Give me, perhaps salt. For information on incentive modality, see the article Imperative.

Illocutionary modality question expressed by an interrogative pronoun (private question), particle whether and questioning intonation ( general question). An interrogative sentence in form acquires the illocutionary force of a question only in the context of a speech act: an interrogative sentence as part of a complex sentence is understood as indirect question, Wed Who are you? (question) and I know who you are (who are you– indirect question).

this is a question about the possibility:

(1) May be, he forgot about our agreement? –

Answer No, it can not be! implies ‘no, he didn’t forget’; but the answer Yes, May be it only means that there is such a possibility.

On the basis of the basic illocutionary modalities - statements, motives and questions - other, private types of speech acts (verbal, or speech, actions) arise.

Performative verbs

Speech act theory began with the discovery performative sentences – sentences with performative verbs such as I ask, I demand, I promise, I predict, I advise. These are sentences that are narrative in form, but have the property that their use in a statement does not describe the corresponding action, but is equivalent to its very implementation. Yes, the statement I promise you to come at seven there is already a promise; similarly for Please come at seven, I advise you to come at seven, etc. Each performative verb expresses its own speech act, i.e. is a lexical indicator of a certain illocutionary modality.

Indirect speech acts

In addition, there are many particular types of speech acts that do not have a performative verb. So, different types speech acts are built on the basis interrogative sentence– both in Russian and in other languages; these are the so-called indirect speech acts, see Wierzbicka 1991: Why paint your house purple?? (‘don’t’, condemnation); Why don't you go to the doctor? (‘we must go’, advice); How about something to eat? ('offer'); How dare you? (‘strict condemnation’, cf. English. How dare you?) and etc.

Different private illocutions have their own rules for the use of pronouns, specific intonation contours (Yanko 2009), etc. See Paducheva 1985/2009, Wierzbicka 1991, and what else? for an overview of the illocutionary problematic.

An affirmative sentence, with an indicative mood of the verb, is intended to be used in the context of the speech act of assertion, but is not entirely unambiguous. Yes, a proposal It's cold in the room can be used as a separate statement, or can be part of a complex Ivan says the room is cold, and then it is not asserted by the speaker - the speaker is not responsible for its truth. However, the illocutionary purpose can be specified. So, in sentence (2) the particle Truth marks the speech act of expressing a desire to hear confirmation of one’s opinion (see Wierzbicka 1984):

(2) The room is cold, Truth?

An unambiguous illocutionary indicator characterizes a sentence as a complete utterance intended for use in a specific speech act. Therefore, a sentence with a clearly expressed illocutionary modality is usually syntactically insubordinate, i.e. cannot be part of more complex sentence. In fact, sentence (2) by its structure is intended to be a separate statement and cannot be part of another sentence. Thus, in sentence (3), sentence (2) does not constitute a syntactic component: the scope of the particle Truth is no longer a clause It's cold in the room; (3) is understood as ‘is it true that Ivan says this’:

(3) Ivan says it’s cold in the room, isn’t it?

Another example of clarifying the illocutionary modality of an affirmative sentence. There are various linguistic means to express the idea that this statement should be understood, so to speak, ironically, i.e. in a meaning opposite to the literal one:

(4) There is something to envy! He wanted to get married! You understand a lot!

The statement has an expressive tone and syntactically insubordinate– in a hypotactic context, the “ironic” meaning is lost, the illocutionary force of irony disappears:

(5) But memory again and again confirms that there is something to envy. [S.A. Semenov. Preliminary Grave (1924)]

Different illocutionary modalities can arise on the basis of a sentence with a grammatically expressed question modality. Thus, a particular question can be understood as a negative statement:

(6) Who needs it? = ‘no one needs’;

Well, what will he do? = ‘nothing will be done’.

Another interrogative construction can be understood as exclamatory (i.e. expressive), also negative:

(7) What a scientist he is!

The above overview of illocutionary modalities is incomplete. Questioning, quoting. Wed. Grishinskaya Murka

Illocutionary conjunctions

There are exceptions to the rule about the syntactic insubordination of unambiguous indicators of illocutionary modality. So, in sentence (1) the conjunction So expresses the causal relationship between the propositional meaning of the first sentence (lack of bread) and the illocutionary modality of the request included in the meaning of the second; thus the illocutionary modality of the imperative is subordinate:

(1) There is no bread either, So go to the bakery.

Conjunctions are capable of interacting with the illocutionary modality of the imperative and then for now, so that, once, if:

(2) Once You tame fierce beasts, try to cope with my little wife.” [Walter Zapashny. Risk. Struggle. Love (1998-2004)]; Since you're sure I'm lying, why are you calling? [Inka (2004)]; Since you don’t understand Russian, maybe you should sing in Hebrew? [Andrey Belozerov. The Seagull (2001)]

See about Russian illocutionary conjunctions Paducheva 1985/2009: 46, 47; Jordan 1992.

Withdrawn assertiveness

A proposition with a verb in the indicative mood is intended for use in a statement with an affirmative illocutionary modality. However, the same proposition can be used in contexts where its truth is not asserted. These are contexts withdrawn affirmative(Paducheva 1985: 33, 94, 95; 2005), otherwise – non-veridicality (Zwarts 1998). A proposition in the context of a sublated affirmative has neutral modality. Yes, the proposal Ivanov in Moscow in example (1) there is an assertive modality, and the same proposition in (2) and (3) is in the context of lifted assertiveness and has a neutral modality.

(1) Ivanov in Moscow;

(2) I don’t think Ivanov is in Moscow;

(3) If Ivanov is in Moscow, he will help you.

Thus, an indicative in Russian can express a proposition regardless of its illocutionary modality (otherwise, assertive status). Propositions that fall into the context of a question, external negation, condition, modal operators, verbs of opinion, performative verbs, future tense, imperative have neutral modality; This is the modality of infinitives and verbal nouns. Interrogative illocutionary modality is interrogative illocutionary force, in the context of a proposition with neutral semantic modality.

Removed assertiveness is an important context for referential indicators, in particular for pronouns in - someday. Yes, a proposal Has anyone come, with the illocutionary force of the statement, sounds strange - it requires conjecture of some modality (for example: Maybe, somebody came). And in the context of the question, the pronoun is - someday Fine: Has anyone come? Zvarts, Laduso about negative polarization: monotony or subdued affirmativeness.

3. Subjective modality: constructions, introductory words

The sphere of subjective modality includes constructions, introductory words and phrases, the semantics of which includes the speaker.

Constructions and revolutions

Constructions with conjunctions, particles, repetition, and interjections ( Oh this money!), pronouns ( That's the voice, that's the voice!).

Example 1. Using the construction " it was necessary+ infinitive” the speaker expresses regret about his action or dissatisfaction, disapproval of someone else: ‘it wasn’t necessary’]:

AND it was necessary Send the car for technical inspection today. [V. Grossman. Everything flows].

Example 2. Turnover Wow has a completely different phraseologically related meaning - it expresses the surprise of the speaker:

Wow"how time flies" [Andrey Gelasimov. Someone else's grandmother (2001)]

Looks so unadapted, not of this world, but Wow- how you got your bearings! [Vera Belousova. Second Shot (2000)]

Union How connects the state of surprise with its object. But a unionless union is also possible:

- Well, he must have escaped! - Egor was amazed. [IN. Shukshin. Viburnum red (1973)]

The meaning of surprise occurs only in the speech mode; in the subordinate position no idiomatic meaning arises; the meaning of the whole is composed compositionally from the meaning of the parts:

Feeling that Wow to say something,<…>I told him that I had just read Pnin and that I liked it very much. [G.Barabtarlo. Resolved dissonance // “Star”, 2003]

Example 3. Using a construction like " you never know+ predication” the speaker can express an opinion about the insignificance of what happened [there is a four-page text about this with a reference to “no place to sleep”]:

He said - in two days. - You never know He said. Do you want to argue? [A. Gelasimov. You Can (2001)] = ‘he could have said a lot of things, but it should not be taken into account’.

This construction can have other meanings – ‘many’ or ‘many, including bad’:

You never know can be found on someone else's computer! [Izvestia, 2001.12.05]

I decided to wash this fang: you never know where he lay and Who touched him! [Valery Pisigin. Letters from Chukotka // “October”, 2001]

Example 4. Using the construction " no to+ infinitive” the speaker expresses disapproval that a person did not do something:

No, to listen, adjust, wait for your solo, don’t get out. [L. Gurchenko. Applause]

It is important that in all these cases the subject of a propositional attitude (dissatisfaction, disapproval, etc.) can only be the speaker - all three constructions are insubordinate and unquotable, cf. the insubordination of sentences with an unambiguously expressed illocutionary intention, noted in section 2.

Example 5. Construction " what the+ noun phrase” can have several meanings (Podleskaya 2007). Its main meaning is an expressive expression of a negative assessment:

What the jokes! = ‘bad jokes’

The same construction with an anaphoric or cataphoric addition can be used to express a positive assessment:

What a beauty these county ladies!

And as an ordinary non-expressive question about identification:

This what stop?

In the context indirect question, only the identification value remains:

I don't understand What He behind there was a man; I did not know, What This behind song; tell me well what he is like and What He behind Human; we will clearly represent<…> What we have behind fans.

A positive assessment can, with appropriate vocabulary, be preserved in a hypotactic context:

Imagine what a bliss it was to talk to her (A.A. Bestuzhev-Marlinsky)

There are other constructions with a subjective modal meaning, cf. What do I care?? = ‘I don’t care about this’; What does he care?\ = ‘nothing bad will happen to him’.

For a number of constructions, which in Grammar 1980 belong to the sphere of subjective modality, the semantics does not include the speaker as a subject emotional state or expression, and therefore there are no grounds for attributing them to the sphere of subjective modality. In particular, they are freely used in a hypotactic context without changing their meaning:

A. He always believed that friendship - friendship, and the money is apart;

b. I went and saw that house is like home, nothing special;

V. He says that what wasn't there;

g. The neighbors said that she the holiday was not a holiday;

d. He complained that take - take, but they don’t put it back;

e. It was clear that he waiting - can't wait, When I leave;

and. It is clear that he has no time for talking;

h. She suspects that I something to think about.

Even if these constructions presuppose a subject of consciousness, it is certainly not necessarily the speaker. True, their morphology is not completely regular; for example, in (a, b, f) the verb tense can only be present.

Some classes of introductory words and their properties

In principle, introductory words, like all other words, should be described in the dictionary. However, the general properties of introductoryness as a specific semantic-syntactic phenomenon are described in grammar. Introductory words and phrases, in principle, express the speaker’s attitude to what is being communicated (i.e., they have the speaker as an implied subject) and, thus, enter the sphere of subjective modality.

In Grammar 1980, seven classes of introductory words and phrases are distinguished, on a semantic basis. We will look at two of them:

– words expressing the emotional-intellectual attitude or assessment of the speaker ( Unfortunately),

– words characterizing the source of information ( as you know, according to you).

a) words expressing an assessment of a fact - approval, disapproval, fear, surprise (for example: fortunately, unfortunately, a strange thing, what good, it turns out);

b) compliance with expectation ( of course, naturally, of course, really, in fact);

c) assessment of the reliability of information ( certainly, indisputably, probably, undoubtedly, it seems, without a doubt, probably, in all likelihood, obviously, should be, must be assumed, perhaps, most likely, perhaps, seems), see Vinogradov 1947: 739.

Let us indicate one important division within the reliability indicators. Mental predicates are divided into predicates opinions(type count) and predicates knowledge(type know, see, feel). Introductory words also have a corresponding division. Introductory words expressing the mode of opinion are perhaps, probably. And the words expressing the mode of knowledge are (this division was introduced in Yakovleva 1988, where, however, a different, opaque terminology is used).

In the group with the mode of knowledge, the most frequent word is Seems. Introductory Seems used in the following situations (Bulygina, Shmelev 1997).

1) In a situation of uncertain perceptual impression: Seems to smell like gas.

2) In a situation of recall or when transmitting something inaccurately remembered:

At one of the stations, Seems, between Belgorod and Kharkov, I got out of the car to walk along the platform. [A. P. Chekhov. Beauties (1888)]

3) When transmitting incompletely reliable information received from other persons: It seems he's out of town;

4) In a situation where there is no reliable data to make a final judgment: .

Confirmation of connection Seems with the mode of knowledge is its incompatibility with non-referential pronouns: * It seems someone has already solved this problem(necessary - somebody) with acceptable Maybe(or: I think that), has anyone already solved this problem.

In the example It seems we've done it wrong word Seems at first glance expresses an opinion. However, as shown in Zaliznyak 1991, in a modal and evaluative context a substitution can occur, in which an opinion-evaluation is passed off as knowledge (accordingly, an unverifiable proposition is presented as a verifiable one): the sentence states that the speaker is in a “state of knowledge” - albeit uncertain .

The implied speaker appears at the word Seems subject of uncertain knowledge. The explicit subject of the 1st person changes the semantics of the introductory word (Bulygina, Shmelev 1997): Seems like a good movie can be uttered in a situation of transferring information received from other people or when the film has not been watched to the end; A I think the movie is good indicates the subject’s uncertainty in his own assessment.

Syntactic subordination of introductory words

Some sentences with the word Seems syntactically insubordinate:

(1) a. Ivan, Seems, on holiday;

b. *Zina believes that Ivan, Seems, on holiday.

As we know, the syntactic inconsistency of a sentence can be evidence of the presence in it of an unambiguous illocutionary or subjective modal indicator. However, insubordination can also be due to purely semantic incompatibility of the modal indicator with the content of the propositional attitude. To set out general rules In this regard, preliminary clarification is needed.

There are three groups of introductory words from the point of view of the modality of the associated proposition (Paducheva 1996: 313):

I. Introductory words compatible only with assertive modality of the proposition; Thus, in (2)–(4), the speaker asserts that the situation (described in the proposition) occurs:

(2) Ivan, Unfortunately, on holiday;

(3) Honestly, Bobby lied;

(4) He, nevertheless, succeeds.

If the associated proposition of the introductory word is not asserted, the introductory phrase of group I cannot be used:

(5) *Ivan, Unfortunately, on holiday?

(6) *If Ivan, Unfortunately, on vacation, we will have to wait until the fall.

II. Introductory words suggesting neutral modality in associated proposition; Thus, in (7), unlike (2), the speaker does not assert anything, but only communicates his assumption:

(7) Ivan, Maybe, on holiday.

Introductory words of group II can be used in the context of a question, and some even in a conditional sentence:

(8) You, apparently (Maybe, probably seems like) busy?

(9) If you May be, busy, tell me straight.

Group II includes all parentetic indicators of reliability (i.e. definitely...it seems).

III. Introductory words that are indifferent to the modality of the associated proposition. This group includes words expressing compliance with expectations:

(10) He, Certainly, busy again;

(11) If, of course, he’s busy again, and he’s worse.

If an introductory phrase (modal) is subordinated to a propositional attitude predicate, then its associated proposition is within the scope of two operators: the subordinating operator of the propositional attitude and its own, modal. Clearly, if these operators are not consistent, a semantic anomaly will arise. There are two natural rules of agreement.

Rule 1. An introductory phrase that presupposes the neutral modality of the associated proposition is not combined with a subordinating predicate that requires assertive or presumptive status for the same proposition:

(12) *I'm glad that he maybe, returned;

(13) *I'm upset that she definitely left;

(14) *It turned out that he undoubtedly scammer.

Wed. strangeness of example (15):

(15) And no one knows what, May be, he keeps her white scarf under his padded jacket... [“Our Contemporary”, 2004.01.15]

Rule 2. Introductory phrases expressing the mode of knowledge (i.e. it seems, clearly, definitely, as if, as if), are possible only in the context of subordinating predicates of knowledge - such as know, see, feel, see (16); similarly, a phrase expressing a mode of opinion is combined with a subordinating predicate of opinion, see (17) (this rule is formulated, in other terms, in Yakovleva 1988):

(16) a. I feel like it's behind me definitely are watching;

I feel that I Seems, you will have to give in.

b. *I feel that he maybe, somewhere nearby;

*I feel like I undoubtedly, tired.

(17) a. I believe that you undoubtedly, you can handle it;

I think he probably, will refuse.

b. *I think that Ivan Seems, on holiday;

*I think Ivan obviously satisfied.

Returning now to example (1b), we see that insubordination Seems here is explained not by subjective modality as such, but by the semantic inconsistency of the propositional attitude and the modal predicate. Yes, they are capable of subduing Seems Verbs remember, feel, smell, understand, conclude and even rejoice:

Through its roar I heard some sound in the room, and with fear I remembered that, Seems, didn’t lock the door, carefully, opening the bathroom door slightly, looked out. [Alexander Kabakov. Writer (1990-1991)]

“I’m not worried,” Maxim answered. And I felt that Seems, lied again. “No, I’m worried, but I’m not afraid,” he corrected himself. [V. Krapivin. Boltik (1976)]

Sons of bitches Goshka and Sashka, sensing that their father great mood, What, Seems, he had money, and they immediately began to beg for gifts. [Eduard Volodarsky. Suicide Diary (1997)]

Having taken office, Orlov looked closely for the first day, comprehended what he saw on the second, and on the third he realized that, Seems, it's time to do something. [About myself (1997) // “Capital”, 1997.02.17]

From the way Huascaro was happy, Inca concluded that, Seems Having traveled a couple of tens of kilometers around the city in search of a gift, they finally found it. [Ulya Nova. Inka (2004)]

The neighbor, delighted that, Seems Finally, the topic for conversation was chosen, and he turned to me. [Maria Golovanivskaya. Contradiction in essence (2000)]

Marusya’s empty look took on some meaning, and Korshunov was foolishly happy that it seemed like it might be... In a word, well, Marusya will yell, well, she’ll cry, but nothing else terrible will happen. There will be no emptiness. [Galina Shcherbakova. Details of Small Feelings (2000)]

Subordinate Seems also allow verbs of speaking - which in this context act like knowledge:

Tant Elise even said today that he, Seems, good man, even crazy. [Yu.N. Tynyanov. Küchlya (1925)]

And, can you imagine, Valka, he fell to his knees in front of me and declared that, Seems, loves me. [Tatiana Tronina. Mermaid for intimate encounters (2004)]

Her father had just told her two days ago that, Seems, met that one the only woman, which he needed all his life, that he was suffering, but could not help himself... [Anna Berseneva. Flight over separation (2003-2005)]

Another ten to fifteen minutes later, Nikolai Ivanovich reported that it seemed that Baran and his passenger had arrived: they parked the car, Baran remained in the car, and the passenger walked to multi-storey building on Seleznevka. [Lev Korneshov. Newspaper (2000)]

he wanted to tell his friend that, Seems, knows this “dead man”. [Sergey Osipov. Passion according to Thomas. Book two. Primus inter pares (1998)]

and only then finally managed to squeeze out of himself that, Seems, fell out of love with his wife [Evgeny Shklovsky. State of weightlessness (1990-1996)]

Mom told me later that, Seems, Uncle Buma did not treat him carefully enough without preventing him from getting out of bed. [N.M.Gershenzon-Chegodaeva. Memoirs of a daughter (1952-1971)]

Is the subject of subjective modality always the speaker?

So, the hypotactic context forces an amendment to the original definition of modality, which is that the subject of modality is the speaker. In a hypotactic context, the implied subject of the introductory phrase is the subject of the subordinating sentence:

(1) Kolya believes that Ivan, May be, will come.

Speaking about the implied subjects of introductory words, you should pay attention to the use Seems in the subjunctive mood - it would seem:

(2) Volodya arrived indignant: he asked representatives of the Yamaha company to give Zhenya a piano. It would seem what it cost them! But they limited themselves to some kind of electronic keyboard. [Sati Spivakova. Not everything (2002)]

If in ordinary context the implied subject Seems– speaker, the subjunctive mood adds the point of view of the second participant in the speech situation: the speaker invites the listener to share his point of view with him, so that it would seem expresses an expectation that the speaker assumes is common between him and the listener. In the meaning ‘it would seem’ it can also be used simply Seems. And example (4) (belongs to E.E. Razlogova) shows that an indirect speech act arises on the basis of the subjunctive mood:

(4) I, Seems, I speak Russian!

Here the speaker has no uncertainty about the language he speaks. Its illocutionary goal is to find out why the listener behaves as if the language is incomprehensible to him. Those. the listener is one of the subjects of modality.

The implied subjects of the introductory sentence deserve special attention. turns out. The semantics of this word is described in detail in Khrakovsky 2007, where it is interpreted as an indicator of a special grammatical category admirativeness – close to evidentiality. Without challenging this interpretation in any way, we can offer a more traditional interpretation turn out to be in its different contexts (see Paducheva 2006).

Initial input value turns out includes the following two components:

turns out(X, P) =

a) X found out that P;

b) X is surprised that R.

In example (6), in a speech context, the implied subject turns out, participant X, is the speaker; he is both a subject of new knowledge and a subject of surprise:

(6) I'm so glad! Found, found! They, turns out, were sick and didn’t send any news! (L. Petrushevskaya. Three girls in blue)

In addition to person X, the situation may include person Y - the source of information-knowledge, since they learn very often from someone. In (6) person Y is off-screen. Person Y may not exist; Thus, in (7) the speaker receives knowledge not from the Source participant, but from direct perception:

(7) He returned home, went up to the porch, was about to open the door, but she, turns out, locked from the inside with a bolt. (V. Pisarev. Fairy tales)

This is the case in a speech context. In a narrative, the speaker's surrogate and the subject of knowledge and surprise can be the narrator, as in (8), or a character, as in (9):

(8) City of Kozelsk, turns out, annually celebrates its fall (M. Gasparov, Records and Extracts).

(9) Thirdly, he was afraid of being scared and kept checking himself: “Aren’t you scared?” “No, it’s not scary,” answered a cheerful voice in his head, and Nikolka was proud that he, turns out, brave, turned even more pale. (M. Bulgakov. The White Guard)

In this case, the second participant – the Source of information – can also enter the game, and then turns out may introduce inappropriate direct speech. In the original meaning, as in (6), P is the knowledge of the subject X. Meanwhile, in a situation of improper direct speech, P is what a certain Y said or made X understand. As for the person X, it is not necessary considers information P as his knowledge, and P causes him not so much surprise as bewilderment. Example (from Hrakovsky 2007, with a different interpretation):

(10) - I'll tell you. Do you want to be honest? I’ve been noticing you for a long time, Dima. - And then she spewed such unthinkable and stunning nonsense that Glebov was speechless with amazement. Turns out, he always inspects their apartment with some special attention; in the kitchen, he was interested in the refrigerator under the window and the freight elevator door. One day he asked in detail<...>(Yu. Trifonov)

In (10) The source of Y is the interlocutor, the landlady; person X does not consider this information as his knowledge, i.e. is the subject not of surprise, but of bewilderment about R.

The semantics of introductory words and phrases confirms that egocentricity is a general property of modal indicators.

4. Possibility and necessity

The scope of modality includes verbs, predicates and introductory words that express possibility or necessity with their lexical meaning, such as can, it is possible, perhaps, perhaps, it is impossible;must, must, necessary, must, must, ought, must, required etc. The meanings ‘possibility’ and ‘necessity’ are included in the semantics of syntactic constructions (for example, independent infinitive : The day cannot be corrected by the efforts of the luminaries) and illocutionary forces (for example, motivation). So these meanings play an important role in the grammatical semantics of the Russian language.

Possibility and necessity are the main concepts of traditional modal logic. Logic offers an apparatus that can be used to describe the polysemy of modal words in natural language; when describing contextual synonymous relationships between possibility and necessity; when explaining the interaction of modality with negation.

For example, logic predicts synonymy can not And should not: He can't accept this gift» He should not accept this gift; How could I forget!» I shouldn't have forgotten; synonymy there must be R and impossible not R: He has to admit it» He can't help but admit it.

In modal logic, there are three types of modality: alethic, deontic and epistemic. Let's look at these three types first with an example. possibilities.

Alethic possibility (alethic – from the Greek aletheia ‘truth’). The statement that p(x) is alethically possible means that x is capable of doing p given his physical or intellectual endowment; that there are no obstacles in the world for p(x) to exist: the alethic possibility follows from the objective structure of the world. The main indicators of alethic possibility are: maybe, maybe. Examples.

(1) hare per day can run more than four hundred kilometers [Murzilka, No. 7, 2002];

(2) he was sure that she had a banal cataract, which can be removed and at least partially restore lost vision. [Lyudmila Ulitskaya. Journey to the seventh side of the world // New World, No. 8-9, 2000]

(3) Irina does not could kissing the director. She felt nauseous. [Tokareva Victoria. Its own truth // “New World”, No. 9, 2002]

Verb be able has forms present. and past time ( maybe, could) and owls view. past and bud. ( smog, will be able), so is not morphologically defective in the same sense as English. modal verbcan. (NB: SV forms smog And will be able verb be able are permissible only in the context of alethic possibility and are not used in deontic and epistemic meanings Maybe.)

Synonyms for alethic maybe, maybe – capable, able, has the opportunity. Each synonym has, of course, its own shades of meaning. For example, You can get your feet wet there ≠ There is an opportunity to get your feet wet, because the I have an opportunity usually used in relation to something desirable.

Alethic possibility (especially impossibility) can be expressed by a construction with an independent infinitive:

(4) You don't see such battles (L.) = ‘you are not you can to see such battles (more precisely, to participate in them)’;

Where did you get me from? know! = ‘you you can not know me'.

Semantics of alethic Maybe is revealed by Anna Wierzbicka's interpretation (Wierzbicka 1987):

X can do V = ‘X will do V if he wants’.

For example: Ivan can swim across the Volga= ‘will swim across if he wants’.

It should be noted that this interpretation is only suitable for that kind of alethic possibility, which in Plungian, Auvera 1998 is called internal possibility (participant internal possibility). Inner possibility is ability; external possibility (alethic) concerns a state of affairs external to the subject. Participant external possibility is demonstrated by example (2).

The indicator of external possibility can express existential quantification:

(5) Strategic mistakes can have widespread consequences" Some strategic mistakes have widespread consequences.

Intrinsic alethic possibility, ability, does not presuppose the speaker as the subject of this modality (see Palmer 1986: 16 for the corresponding meaning of English can). Logical equivalences do not work on the alethic possibility: Ivan cannot swim across the Volga ≠ must not swim across.

A deontic possibility is the possibility of action of some agent, affirmed by a morally or socially responsible subject or institution. Deontic possibility is associated with duty, with the requirements for behavior imposed by a system of rules. In the prototypical case, a deontic possibility is permission given by an authority, usually the speaker.

(1) Well, if you don’t want to be a charm, which would be very nice, you may not be by her. [M. A. Bulgakov. The Master and Margarita, part 2 (1929-1940)]

You you can leave We have our own things here, we have a large staff of cloakroom attendants here.

Deontic possibility can be expressed not only by a verb be able (You can go), but also a performative sentence ( I give you permission to go), imperative mood ( Go), combination to have a right.

In Bulygina, Shmelev 1997, it is noted that alethic and deontic possibility differ in their relation to the logical law ab esse ad posse: this law is applicable to alethic possibility, but not to deontic possibility: what is not allowed can really exist. The deontic possibility essentially presupposes the alethic: what is usually prohibited is what is alethically possible.

The deontic possibility is under the control of authority, and therefore is freely used in motivating speech acts: Let me pass! Let me tell you! You can go?("'let me pass"). And verbs expressing alethic possibility do not form imperatives (* could!).

The opposition between alethic and deontic possibilities is manifested in the interaction of these modalities with the grammatical aspect of the subordinate infinitive. Denial of deontics Maybe And Can requires replacement of owls. type of subordinate infinitive to imperfect. So, the negation of (2a) must be (2b), since. view; in sentence (2c), from Sov. by the form of the verb, the modality is understood as alethic (see Rasudova 1968 about this):

(2) a. Here you can go street [in the deontic meaning: ‘allowed’];

b. It's not allowed here go over street;

V. It's not allowed here go street.

The contrast between alethic and deontic modality is shown by examples (3)–(5) (in example (a), with a verb of the owl type, alethic modality, 'impossible', in example (b), with a verb of non-natural type, - deontic, ' wrong'):

(3) a. They say to pain you can't get used to it. Wrong. [AND. Grekova. Fracture (1987)]

b. It would all be over sooner. Why does he need this merciless pleasure? You can't get used to it to her, you cannot allow yourself to fear loss. [Yuri Nagibin. Another Life (1990-1995)];

(4) a. To him can't be helped[impossible]; b. To him can't help[wrong];

(5) a. His can't be interrupted[impossible]; b. His you can't interrupt[wrong].

The imperfective in the context of a denied deontic possibility (i.e. in the context of a prohibition) is to some extent semantically motivated: in order to prohibit an action in general, it is enough to prohibit the activity that leads to this result (and alethic impossibility concerns specifically the achievement of a result, hence SV) . For a negated deontic I authorize the imperfective of the subordinate infinitive is not required; both forms are possible - although the imperfective is preferred:

(6) I don't allow you put / put there's a chair here.

Epistemic possibility expresses the incompleteness of the speaker's knowledge. With its help, a probabilistic judgment is made. Examples.

(1) It seems it could have happened so he was wrong. [Vasil Bykov. Stone (2002)]

True, common sense considerations were also not on their side, but then common sensecould turn out to be with a flaw. [Vasil Bykov. Stone (2002)]

newspaper could have crumpled up, collected in a heap by the wind, soaked by rain, either dogs or cattle crushed it with their snout... [V. Astafiev. Passing Goose (2000)] [unknown what exactly]

Irina suddenly realized that Sasha could have been burned together with a tent or shoot in the entrance. [Tokareva Victoria. Your truth]

In the last sentence, modality is clearly epistemic: it is a possibility that occurs to the subject of the attitude.

Epistemic possibility is spoken of when different possible states of the world are considered, and the speaker does not know which possibility holds. However, in example (2) the verb be able is in a context where, from the speaker’s point of view, there is only one possibility:

(2) Marfusha walked around as if in a daze, but did not sound the alarm, and this could only mean one thing: She knew where Sonya was. [IN. Belousova. Second Shot (2000)]

Deontic possibility makes sense only in relation to situations that are controlled by the subject; Therefore, in the context of uncontrollable situations, modality is clearly epistemic:

(3) There is a real danger that the state may be late with a reaction to the situation in the field of interpersonal relationships between men and women ["Family Doctor", 2002.04.15].

Epistemic possibility can be expressed not only by a verb be able, but also introductory words Maybe And May be:

(4) He could go to Paris;

(5) May be, he went to Paris;

(6) Maybe, he left for Paris.

All three sentences contain the same proposition – ‘he went to Paris’ and the same modality – epistemic possibility.

Epistemic possibility has the speaker as its subject. Thus, the speaker is the subject of the assumption in sentence (7):

(7) Petka could forget about our agreement.

Now about the three types of modality necessity.

Alethic necessity must be understood as logical necessity. The main indicator is must:

(1) It is curious that Semashko hates the intelligentsia, and certainly must hate, because as a Bolshevik he is no longer an intellectual, he is already a weapon in the elements: the elements against the intellectual. [M. M. Prishvin. Diaries (1918)]

An example of alethic necessity from Kobozev, Laufer 1991:

(2) What kind of mug is this? At the mug must be pen.

One should distinguish from alethic necessity “practical” necessity, expressed in words necessary, necessary. Practical necessity is related to the concept of purpose (see Lewontin 2006), so that need to has three valencies - the subject of the goal, the need and the goal:

(3) To light a fire, I need matches.

The goal may not be expressed explicitly:

(4) “Naturally,” answered Azazello, “how can we not shoot him?” Its a must I should have shot you. [M. A. Bulgakov. The Master and Margarita, part 2 (1929-1940)]

Words necessary, necessary do not necessarily imply the speaker as the subject of the goal, so that the modality they express is not necessarily egocentric.

Deontic necessity is an obligation. The agent believes that he is obliged to perform some action if there is a person or institution whose authority he recognizes; moral principles or social attitudes; moral obligation, duty, law-abiding behavior.

Indicators of deontic necessity: must, obliged, necessary, necessarily, inevitably, certainly, required, should; with negation - wrong, unconstitutional, illegal, immoral. Examples.

(1) <…>waved his hand to the arrested man, indicating that he must follow behind him. [M.A. Bulgakov. The Master and Margarita, part 1 (1929-1940)

(2) Meanwhile, both these newspapers and our entire office have been trying to convince me for two months now that I must hate Germans [L. N. Andreev. Yoke of War (1916)]

(3) Fear of breaking the rules it should be organically inherent in a local government official. [Discussion on local government (2001-2004)]

Usually the need arises from some source or cause: X need to Y (i.e. Y is the source of what X needs). By specifying the reason, it is possible to distinguish different types of deontic obligations.

Epistemic necessity is the speaker's belief that a situation is highly probable:

(1) We were passionate about a rock band project that should have done us famous. [LiveJournal Entry (2004)]

If I, a belly-first philistine who does not share the views of the communists, hate the current “disgusting”, then how can I must hate his honest communist, to whom this disgusting stands against him life path? [M. M. Prishvin. Diaries (1920)] [ must hate‘must hate’, epistemic necessity:]

An indicator of epistemic modality can be the subject's genitive. Yes, word must in sentence (2), with a nominative subject, can be understood in both an epistemic and deontic meaning, and in (3) rather in an epistemic meaning, which follows from the emphasized non-agentivity of the verb with a genitive subject (deontic understanding is also possible; for example, speech can go about ordering the eviction of the unreliable person):

(2) He shouldn't be at this time in Moscow;

(3) It shouldn't exist at this time in Moscow.

The modality of necessity can be expressed by the speech act of motivation:

(4) Take a seat.

The modality of necessity can also be expressed by a construction with an independent infinitive (examples from Grammar-80):

(5) We are in Siberia for frosts no stranger to[absence of necessity];

No one do not move! Everyone stand up! [obligation, i.e. necessity];

Such silence search[= ‘need to look’, necessity].

Necessity and denial.

Let's start with the fact that the word must, in all its meanings, interacts with negation non-compositionally: should not most often means the same thing should not:

(1) He shouldn't stop on the first step - the consciousness of one’s evil, but one must take the second step - to recognize the existing Good above oneself. [IN. S. Soloviev. Three speeches in memory of Dostoevsky (1881-1883)].

Actually here should not means ‘cannot’. Indeed, shouldn't stop = must not stop, A should not, according to one of the laws of modal logic, means ‘cannot’: it is necessary not P = it is not true that R Maybe.

In example (2) shouldn't guess= ‘it must be so that he wouldn’t guess’ (possibly the epistemic understanding of ‘most likely won’t guess’, but it follows from the context that this is not what is meant):

(2) He shouldn't guess that she started this intrigue on purpose... [Tatyana Tronina. Mermaid for intimate encounters (2004)].

So, should not, as a rule, does not mean ‘it is not true that one should’. More precisely, compositional understanding in the sense of negating an obligation requires special prosodic efforts: You do not have to \ reply to this letter= ‘You don’t have to answer’. Meanwhile, the words obligated, obligatory interact with negation compositionally, i.e. not necessary P = maybe not R:

(4) he<Государственный совет>must give advice to which the President can, but don't have to listen... ["Kommersant-Vlast", No. 36, 2000].

Negation of the indicator of alethic and deontic necessity usually requires replacement perfect form infinitive for imperfect. Example.

(5) Olya believed that people like her shouldn't go out get married<…>because otherwise they won’t be able to work. [Anna Berseneva. Flight over separation (2003-2005)]

In (5) the subject is plural; but also with the subject in singular. number, as in (6), the form is also imperfect:

(6) She believed that shouldn't go out married

In example (7) SV is used, but NSV is possible and preferable:

(7) Before the operation began, he was instructed that he would under no circumstances shouldn't detect themselves even in front of the crews of other ships. ["Soldier of Fortune", 2004.01.14].

The same in example (8) – Sov. the appearance of the infinitive sets the reader up for epistemic understanding must, i.e. to understand the meaning of probabilistic assessment; to express a deontic meaning, ness would be preferable. view:

(8) The instinct of a historian told Eidelman that letters of this kind are, first of all, documents, and they should not be left lying around in his personal archive... ["Our Contemporary", 2004.05.15].

So, with a deontic meaning, the infinitive in nes is preferable. form. Denial of epistemic necessity, on the contrary, does not require replacing the SV infinitive with NSV:

(9) I believe that this situation shouldn't end just a discussion. [New Region 2, 2008.01.19].

(10) I think Spartak shouldn't meet great resistance [Football-4 (forum) (2005)]

In (11) it is clear that must expresses the speaker’s opinion, his assessment of the likelihood of the situation:

(11) Seal is stubborn and hates cops to the extreme. He shouldn't split. - You understand a lot! - the one called Vaga interrupted him. - It’s between us that Seal is so cool, but in the cops everything is different, understand? [N. Leonov, A. Makeev. Cop roof (2004)].

In example (12), the type of necessity itself is unclear (which is often the case in everyday life); but judging by the absolute appropriateness of the owls. kind, here is the epistemic modality: shouldn't cause= ‘unlikely to cause’, the confidence of the speaker (in a narrative context, the character).

(12) Everything was thought out to the smallest detail: in the morning Katya and the children will leave for Sheremetyevo, which shouldn't cause no suspicions, since Katya always went to the dacha in advance to prepare the house for Moore’s arrival. [Lyudmila Ulitskaya. Queen of Spades (1995-2000)]

Correlation of epistemic modality with owls. the type of verb is not random. This is a consequence of the fact that epistemic modality arises naturally in the context of uncontrollable events. The correlation of the negative SV imperative with uncontrollability is similar: don't cook porridge– intentionally; don't cook porridge– accidentally (Bulygina 1980: 341, Zaliznyak 1992: 81).

The egocentricity of epistemic modality does not contradict the fact that in a narrative the subject of modality can be a character (Paducheva 1996). Thus, in (13) the subject of the ought judgment is obviously the accusers.

(13) He publicly, from the pulpit, asked his accusers why he must hate The West and why, hating its development, would it read its history? [A. I. Herzen. Past and thoughts.] [= ‘why do you demand that I hate?’]

Literature

Bondarko A.V., Belyaeva E.I., Biryulin L.A. et al. 1990. The theory of functional grammar. Temporality. Modality. Publishing house "Science". Leningrad.

Vinogradov V.V. Selected works. Research on Russian grammar. M., 1975.

Letuchiy A. Comparative constructions, irrealis and evidentiality //Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Sonderband 72 (2008)

Levontina 2006 – The concept of purpose and semantics of target words in the Russian language. //Linguistic picture of the world and systemic lexicography. M.: YASK, 2006.

Khrakovsky 2007 – Khrakovsky V.S. Evidentiality, epistemic modality, (ad)mirativity. //Evidence in the languages of Europe and Asia. Collection of articles in memory of N.A. Kozintseva. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2007.

Horn 1989 – Horn L.R. A natural history of negation. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago press, 1989.

Haspelmath 1997 – Haspelmath M. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon press, 1997.

Lyons 1977 – Lyons J. Semantics. Vol. 1–2. L. etc.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1977

Views