The expression of modality in Korean - Institut für ...

4
modality 3 . This is also the basic foundation of the framework of this study, namely a model of
modality which is based on semantic-pragmatic parameters, i.e. which is defined by semantic
concepts and discourse-pragmatic principles. I shall refer to this type of model of modality as
„notional“, meaning that it stems from one principal concept (i.e. the expression of the
speaker’s attitude) under which particular elements are classed. A notional model of modality
serves to provide a conceptual basis which is a broad definition of a cross-linguistic, category
MODALITY 4 , which may have different formal manifestations in different natural languages,
ranging from lexical to highly grammaticalized means of encoding, with the various types of
modality themselves assumed to be universal. A notional model therefore is not and does not
strive to be a complete and thorough pre-empirical theory of modality. But can such a
relatively broad model be adequate? I contend that it certainly is adequate for the purpose it is
formulated for, to provide a systematic set of descriptive and analytical tools for a study of
modality on a morpho-syntactic level. Furthermore, although such a model of modality is
obviously much less restrained and bound than a non-empirical, inductive model, it is by no
means completely open (which would render it useless). As I will show in the next
subchapter, a notional model of modality is governed by a set of strict rules and principles. In
addition, consider the following comments by Nølke (1989):
„In a recent article, the logician Gardies 5 has paid special attention to the problem
of defining the linguistic category of modality. His conclusion is rather
discouraging. He shows that neither the narrow Aristotelian definition nor the
broad speaker oriented one which defines modality as „any modification of a
propositional content“, makes possible a rigorous demarcation of the linguistic
facts normally referred to as instances of modality (...) what he is saying is that no
equivalence can be established between this (supposed) factual extension of
modality and the extension generated by any existing theory.“ (Nølke 1989, 47)
If this statement comes anywhere close to the scientific status quo of research on modality
(and I believe it does), it is clear that no theory has definitive descriptive, analytical and
explanative strength, and - repeating what I have already stated above - it is virtually
impossible that the phenomenon of modality will ever come to be within reach of such a
comprehensive theory, due to all the factors and reasons already explained and discussed. It is
therefore methodologically sound to choose an approach which best befits the goal and scope
3 Although Lyons’s basic definition of modality must be the wording which is quoted most often, the concept
itself is by no means his invention. Jespersen (1924, 313) e.g. considered moods to „express certain attitudes of
the mind of the speaker towards the contents of the sentence.“
4 The uppercase denomination convention is adopted from Dahl’s (1985) practice, signalling a universal category.
5 Gardies, J.L. (1983) Tentative d’une définition de la modalité. In: La notion sémanticologique de modalité, J.
David & G. Kleiber (eds.), 13-24. Kliencksieck, Paris.