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

8
As a conclusion, I contend that a sentence can only be considered to be modal if a modal
presupposition is explicitly present. The examples above are tokens of modality being
expressed in a predicate system as found in e.g. English. While other languages may employ
differing systems, this principle nonetheless also holds true for those cases. Consider e.g. the
following two examples from Chinese (taken from Tiee (1986, 229)) and Bernese Swiss
German, where modality is marked not through the use of a modal auxiliary as in the English
examples discussed above but with a modal particle de and dänk respectively.
(6a)
zheige ren hen youqian de
This person very rich modal:particle
„This person must be very rich“
[(de) M ((zheige ren) (hen youqian)) P ]
(6b)
Burtlef isch dänk witer
Burgdorf be modal:particle further
„Burgdorf is further away, I think“
[(dänk) M ((Burtlef) (isch witer)) P ]
Another point which emerges from the above discussion is that we must obviously presuppose
the existence of unmodalized contents. Nølke (1989, 48) raises the question of the status of
this unmodalized expression, it being either a theoretical construct or empirical reality.
Contrary to Nølke, who takes any utterance to be modalized, I claim that there is indeed an
empirical reality to unmodalized expressions. In addition to the discussion above concerning
examples (1) and (5a/b), I refute such a view on the grounds that modality would then either
be an inherent quality of language or, if we regard the term „utterance“ to be of significant
value, practically an equation to the concept of illocutionary force in terms of speech act
theory (Searle (1979)). This view would be based on an example such as the following: