SCIENTIFIC SERIES
“COGNITIVE STUDIES OF LANGUAGE”
Author: A.V. Zelenshchikov
Affiliation: Saint-Petersburg State University
Abstract:
Sentences with modal auxiliary verbs in English and other languages can receive two distinct interpretations well known as root (deontic, dynamic) and epistemic readings. A number of articles provide different explanations for the distinction. In accordance with Kratzer’s classical analysis of modal sentences it is the context (conversational background), not the meaning of a modal, that determines whether a sentence expresses root or epistemic meaning. A core idea of this paper is that the modal dichotomy of a sentence results from the difference between two types of proposition which is seen as a cognitive modus of representation of a state of affairs. A creative proposition leads to the root interpretation, while a descriptive proposition determines the epistemic reading of a sentence.
Keywords: modality; root and epistemic interpretation; modal base; imtentionality; creative and descriptive proposition
References:
Аристотель. Соч.: в 4 т. Т. 1. М.: Изд-во «Мысль», 1975.
Зеленщиков А.В. Пропозиция и модальность. Москва: URSS, 2010.
Kratzer A. Modality // Semantics. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research / A. von Stechow, D. Wunderlich (eds.). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1991. P. 639-650.
Kratzer A. The Notional Category of Modality // Formal Semantics. The Essential Readings / P. Portner and B.H. Partee (eds.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2002.
Portner P. Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Ross J.R. Auxiliaries as Main Verbs // Studies in Philosophical Linguistics. Series I / W. Todd (ed.). Evanston: Great Expectations Press, 1969. P. 77-102.
Searle J.R. Intentionality. An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Sweetser E. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Talmy L. Force dynamics in language and cognition // Cognitive Science. 1988. No. 2. P. 49-100.
Pages: 425-431