Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:27:44.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linguistic Modality as Expressions of Social Power

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Simon Winter  and
Peter Gärdenfors
Simon Winter
Affiliation:
Lund University Cognitive Science, Kungshuset, Lundagård, S-222 22 Lund, Sweden. Email: [email protected]
Peter Gärdenfors
Affiliation:
Lund University Cognitive Science, Kungshuset, Lundagård, S-222 22 Lund, Sweden. Email: [email protected].
Get access

Abstract

The semantics of the linguistic modals is argued to be determined mainly by the power structure of the participants in the interaction. In the deontic uses of the modals, another determining factor is the expectations of the participants' attitudes towards the relevant action. By viewing the evidence as a power in its own right, our analysis can be generalized to the epistemic uses in a coherent way. The epistemic uses are seen as pragmatic strengthenings of the deontic uses, rather than as metaphorical mappings.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 18 , Issue 2: Special issue on COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS , December 1995 , pp. 137 - 165
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Andersson, T. 1994. Conceptual Polemics & Dialectic Studies of Concept Formation. PhD thesis. Lund University Cognitive Studies, 27.Google Scholar
Anward, J. & Linell, P. 1976. Om lexikaliserade fraser i svenskan, In Nusvenska studier, 55–56. Uppsala, pp. 77–119.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benveniste, É. 1946. Structure des relations de personne dans le verbe, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique, XLIII, fasc. 1:126. Reprinted in Benveniste (1966) pp. 225–236.Google Scholar
Benveniste, É. 1956. La nature des pronoms. In For Roman Jakobson. Den Haag: Mouton & Co. Reprinted in Benveniste (1966), pp. 251–257.Google Scholar
Benveniste, É. 1966. Problèmes de Linguistique Générale. Vol. 1. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. 1988. Knowledge in Flux. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. 1994. The Role of Expectations in Reasoning. In Masuch, M. and Polos, L. (eds), Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Under Uncertainty. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1989. Mind, Code and Context – Essays in Pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In Cole, & Morgan, (eds), Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1986. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things & What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Luria, A. R. 1976. Cognitive Development & Its Cultural and Social Foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Translation by Martin Lopez-Morillas and Lynn Solotaroff of Ob istoricheskom razvitii poznavatel'nykh protsessov, Nauka, Moscow, 1974.)Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1982. Deixis and Subjectivity. In Jarvella, Robert J., R. J., and Klein, W. (eds), Loquor, Ergo Sum? Speech, Place, and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics. New York: John Wiley, pp. 101–124.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. 1975. “A Framework for Representing Knowledge”. In Winston, P. H. (ed), The Psychology of Computer Vision, New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 211–277.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 1979. Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pörn, I, 1970. The Logic of Power. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. 1986. Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadock, J. 1970. Whimperatives. In Sadock, J. & Vanek, A. (eds), Studies Presented to Robert B. Lees by his Students. Edmonton, IL: Linguistic Research, pp. 223–238.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schank, R., & Abelson, R. P. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding, Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Ass.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. E. 1982. A Proposal for Uniting Deontic and Epistemic Modals. In Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. E. 1984. Semantic Structure and Semantic Change – A Cognitive Linguistic Study of Modlity, Perception, Speech Acts, and Logical Relations. Doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics & Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 1981. Force Dynamics. Paper presented at conference on Language and Mental Imagery. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 1988. Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition. Cognitive Science 2, 49–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlin, R. 1995. Mapping Conceptual Representations into Linguistic Representations: The Role of Attention in Grammar, Dept. of Linguistics, Institute for Cognitive and Decision Sciences, University of Oregon, ms.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 1989. On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change. Language 65(1), 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, S. 1986. Särdragsanalys – dess möjligheter och omöjligheter. Unpublished paper. Institutionen för nordiska språk, Universitetet i Lund.Google Scholar
Winter, S. 1994. Förväntningar och kognitionsforskning. Lund University Cognitive Studies, 33.Google Scholar
von Wright, G. H. 1963. Norm and Action. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar