The main idea of this section is to generalize the idea of an operator (for example, a hedge cue) and their scope. It seems there are many similar phenomena in natural language (polarity, negation, world creation verbs, etc.). I will try to identify them and see how this phenomena is expressed en language and their relation with syntax. In natural language, negation functions as an ‘operator’, along with quantifiers (QUANTIFICATION) and modals (MODALITY); operators are more basic and have more properties than ordinary predicates or functors. In particular, operators have a ‘scope’; that is, there is always some other element – either assumed or verbally present in the discourse – to which a negative, modal, or quantifier refers. That linked element is said to be ‘the focus’ or to be ‘in the scope’ of the negative (or modal; quantifiers are said to ‘bind’ rather than ‘focus on’ another element). (Negation and Negative Polarity, http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/CELS-Negation.pdf) We will start following Palmer, trying to see how modality is expressed in English, and which operators this expressions define, together with their scope. Palmer indicates that modality [...] does not relate semantically to the verb alone or primarily, but to the whole sentence. Not surpisingly, therefore, there are languages in which modality is marked elsewhere than on the verb or within a verbal complex. Modal verbs Modal verbs in english are a system of verbs that allow to express the modality (opinion or attitude of the speaker) of the proposition they are in. They add the information to the main verb of the proposition, indicating the possibility of the proposition being true or false (for example, the certainty of the fact bein expressed: "{This may be the cause of the accident}"), or epistemic modality, or the necessity and possibility ({You must leave}), or deontic modality. The list of modal verbs in English is small and well defined: MAY, CAN, MUST, OUGHT TO, WILL and SHALL (including MIGHT, COULD, WOULD and SHOULD), and they exhibit clear grammatical properties, related with negation, inversion, code and emphatic affirmation (NICE). In other languages, like French, this is not so clear. Modal verbs, by definition, extend their scope to te entire preposition they are included in. It is interesting to see that the same verbs can be used to express deontic and epistemic modality, for example in That may be, sir, when I may be a wife. the first occurrence of may expresses epistemic modality, and the second one expresses deontic modality. There are also formal differences between deontic and epistemic uses of verbs: for example, deontic MUST has a negative mustn't, be epistemic MUST don't, or MAY not negates the modal when deontic (no permission) but the following verb when epistemic (It may be that it is not so). Complement clauses Opinions and attitudes may be expressed through modal forms occurring in subordinate clauses (He concluded that she was there). Usually, opinions and attitudes expressed this way do not indicate the speaker opinions. Modal lexical items with complement clauses (I think he's there) can be used to indicate opinions and attitudes of the speaker. Object complement cluses report the attitudes or opinions of the subject of the main clauses. Palmer defines three types of subordinate clauses: a) complement clauses, introduced by a lexical subordinator or 'predicator', most importantly a verb which can be interpreted as reporting something that was said or might have been said by the subject of the main clause, who is thus portrayed as having expressed some kind of opinion or attitude por ejemplo: "I thought that it was a good idea". b) oblique claues, not dependent upon a lexical item (for example, I did it so they should come). c) relative clause, which is essentially adjectival in character. I am mainly interested in the first type of clause, because it includes operators (the lexical subordinator) with an associated scope. In the example: I thought {that it was a good idea} (*) As mentioned by Palmer, Rescher associates modality with complex sentences in subordinate position. When such a proposition is itself made subject to some further qualification of such a kind that the entire resulting complex is itself once again a propoisition, then this qualification is said to represent a modality to which the original proposition is subjected. In addition to alethic, epistemic and deontic modalidites, he introduces temporal modalities (It is always the case that p), boulomaic modalities (It is hoped that p), and evaluative modalities (It is a good thing that p), and causal modalities (The state of affairs will bring it about its coming about that p). They cannot clearly be considered as examples of modality in language (because they relate to actual states of affairs, that can be true o false). But the are all represented using an operator, an including a scope. Palmer mentions another type of subordinate clauses not concerned with modality:
Also, there are many verbs that expresss some degree of modality, but carry other meanings as weel: decide, wait, challenge, reveal, suspect. All of then function grammatically like some of the modal predicators. Complements clauses can also be seen as reporting attitudes or opinions. There is direct (John said 'I'm coming tomorrow') or reported (John said that he was coming the next day) speech. In reported speech, we can find a verb acting as an operator (said, mention). In all of these cases, there is a transitive verb that requires an object (Are you sure?) In English, reports of opinions are treated exactly like reports of actual speech: THINK and SAY are followed by that or no conjunction, and a declarative form of the verb. In Spanish, the subjunctive is directly associated with indirect speech; this however, is more related with the tense of the main verb: past tense requires normally the subjunctive (No creí que esto fuera a pasar). (*) As a convention, I will use boldface to identify operators, and enclose within brackets their scope. |