模态多义性与德语模态再探讨

Q2 Arts and Humanities Studies About Languages Pub Date : 2024-07-03 DOI:10.5755/j01.sal.1.44.35276
Dagmar Masár Machová
{"title":"模态多义性与德语模态再探讨","authors":"Dagmar Masár Machová","doi":"10.5755/j01.sal.1.44.35276","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper points out that there is presently no consistent definition of German modals, nor is there any agreement as to which verbs should be categorized as modals. The paper suggests that modals should be defined based on modal polyfunctionality, i.e. the ability to express both root and epistemic readings. Applying this definition, the paper states that besides canonical dürfen ‘beallowed to’, können ‘can’, mögen ‘may’, müssen ‘must’, sollen ‘should’, wollen ‘want’, verbs werden ‘will’ and brauchen ‘need’ are to be considered modals as well, since they semantically behave as standard modals. More specifically, they are both capable of expressing both root and epistemic modalities. Furthermore, the paper proposes that the absence of agreement in 1st and 3rd person singular in modals such as in ich/er mussØ ‘I/he must’ cannot be solely attributed to their preterite-present origin of modals, but is related to the synchronic definition of modals, i.e. their polyfunctionality as a result of paradigmatic coherence. In addition to exploring the central modals, the paper investigates the paradigms of brauchen ‘need’, as well as werden ‘will’, suggesting that they might be aligning with the central modals in terms of their agreement morphology as well. Since being theoretical, the paper’s arguments are supported by the examples from the texts referenced in literature or produced by native speakers of German.","PeriodicalId":37822,"journal":{"name":"Studies About Languages","volume":"196 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Modal polyfunctionality and German modals revisited\",\"authors\":\"Dagmar Masár Machová\",\"doi\":\"10.5755/j01.sal.1.44.35276\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper points out that there is presently no consistent definition of German modals, nor is there any agreement as to which verbs should be categorized as modals. The paper suggests that modals should be defined based on modal polyfunctionality, i.e. the ability to express both root and epistemic readings. Applying this definition, the paper states that besides canonical dürfen ‘beallowed to’, können ‘can’, mögen ‘may’, müssen ‘must’, sollen ‘should’, wollen ‘want’, verbs werden ‘will’ and brauchen ‘need’ are to be considered modals as well, since they semantically behave as standard modals. More specifically, they are both capable of expressing both root and epistemic modalities. Furthermore, the paper proposes that the absence of agreement in 1st and 3rd person singular in modals such as in ich/er mussØ ‘I/he must’ cannot be solely attributed to their preterite-present origin of modals, but is related to the synchronic definition of modals, i.e. their polyfunctionality as a result of paradigmatic coherence. In addition to exploring the central modals, the paper investigates the paradigms of brauchen ‘need’, as well as werden ‘will’, suggesting that they might be aligning with the central modals in terms of their agreement morphology as well. Since being theoretical, the paper’s arguments are supported by the examples from the texts referenced in literature or produced by native speakers of German.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37822,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies About Languages\",\"volume\":\"196 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies About Languages\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.sal.1.44.35276\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies About Languages","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.sal.1.44.35276","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文指出,德语模态目前没有一致的定义,对于哪些动词应归类为模态也没有一致意见。本文认为,模态的定义应基于模态的多功能性,即同时表达词根和认识读法的能力。应用这一定义,论文指出,除了典型的 dürfen 'beallowed to'、können 'can'、mögen 'may'、müssen 'must'、sollen 'should'、wollen 'want'之外,动词 werden 'will' 和 brauchen 'need'也应被视为情态动词,因为它们在语义上的表现与标准情态动词相同。更具体地说,它们都能表达根模态和认识模态。此外,本文还提出,在 ich/er mussØ 'I/he must'等情态动词中,第一人称和第三人称单数不一致的现象不能完全归因于它们的前现在时情态起源,而是与情态动词的同步定义有关,即它们的多功能性是范式一致性的结果。除了探讨中心情态动词外,本文还研究了 brauchen "需要 "和 werden "将 "的范式,认为它们在同意形态上也可能与中心情态动词一致。由于是理论性的,本文的论点得到了文献中引用的或以德语为母语的人所写的文章中的例子的支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Modal polyfunctionality and German modals revisited
This paper points out that there is presently no consistent definition of German modals, nor is there any agreement as to which verbs should be categorized as modals. The paper suggests that modals should be defined based on modal polyfunctionality, i.e. the ability to express both root and epistemic readings. Applying this definition, the paper states that besides canonical dürfen ‘beallowed to’, können ‘can’, mögen ‘may’, müssen ‘must’, sollen ‘should’, wollen ‘want’, verbs werden ‘will’ and brauchen ‘need’ are to be considered modals as well, since they semantically behave as standard modals. More specifically, they are both capable of expressing both root and epistemic modalities. Furthermore, the paper proposes that the absence of agreement in 1st and 3rd person singular in modals such as in ich/er mussØ ‘I/he must’ cannot be solely attributed to their preterite-present origin of modals, but is related to the synchronic definition of modals, i.e. their polyfunctionality as a result of paradigmatic coherence. In addition to exploring the central modals, the paper investigates the paradigms of brauchen ‘need’, as well as werden ‘will’, suggesting that they might be aligning with the central modals in terms of their agreement morphology as well. Since being theoretical, the paper’s arguments are supported by the examples from the texts referenced in literature or produced by native speakers of German.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Studies About Languages
Studies About Languages Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
32 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal aims at bringing together the scholars interested in languages and technology, linguistic theory development, empirical research of different aspects of languages functioning within a society. The articles published in the journal focus on theoretical and empirical research, including General Linguistics, Applied Linguistics (Translation studies, Computational Linguistics, Sociolinguistics, Media Linguistics, etc.), Comparative and Contrastive Linguistics. The journal aims at becoming a multidisciplinary venue of sharing ideas and experience among the scholars working in the field.
期刊最新文献
Kriegsmetaphorik in der politischen Sprache: eine kontrastive Studie am Beispiel von ukrainischen und deutschen Pressetexten Modal polyfunctionality and German modals revisited Lessons learned from an electronic botany dictionary compilation project Variation diatopique dans la terminologie juridique. Analyse des néologismes juridiques dans FranceTerme, dans le Grand dictionnaire terminologique, dans TERMIUM Plus® et TERMDAT Preferences of Lithuanian cybersecurity synonymous terms in different user groups
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1