DOCSLIB.ORG

Modality and the Norwegian Modal Verbs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Modality and the Norwegian Modal Verbs VILNIUS UNIVERSITY UGNIUS MIKUČIONIS MODALITY AND THE NORWEGIAN MODAL VERBS Doctoral dissertation Humanities, Philology (04 H) Vilnius, 2012 The research was carried out at Vilnius University in 2002–2012 Research supervisor: Prof. Dr. Tomas Riad (Stockholm University, Sweden, Humanities, Philology – 04 H) VILNIAUS UNIVERSITETAS UGNIUS MIKUČIONIS MODALUMAS IR NORVEGŲ KALBOS MODALINIAI VEIKSMAŢODŢIAI Daktaro disertacija Humanitariniai mokslai, filologija (04 H) Vilnius, 2012 Disertacija rengta Vilniaus universitete 2002–2012 metais Mokslinis vadovas: Prof. Dr. Tomas Riad (Stokholmo universitetas, Švedija, humanitariniai mokslai, filologija – 04 H) Contents Modality and the Norwegian modal verbs ....................................................................................... 7 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 7 1.1 The aims and the tasks of the dissertation ............................................................................ 10 1.2 The method .............................................................................................................................................. 11 1.3 Disposition ................................................................................................................................................ 12 2. Presentation of my model ........................................................................................................... 14 2.1 Terminology............................................................................................................................................. 14 2.2 Non-epistemic modality .................................................................................................................... 21 2.2.1 Dynamic modality ................................................................................................................................... 28 2.3 Epistemic modality .............................................................................................................................. 33 2.4 The relationship between modality and evidentiality .................................................... 36 2.5 Summing up ............................................................................................................................................. 40 2.6 Predictions that follow from my model ................................................................................... 42 2.6.1 Interaction between negation and attitude ............................................................................................ 42 2.6.2 Two (or more) attitudes expressed in one utterance ...................................................................... 44 2.6.3 The expression of complex attitude ............................................................................................................. 46 2.6.4 Expectations about semantic development ............................................................................................ 48 3. Comparison with earlier models ............................................................................................. 50 3.1 Agent-oriented, speaker-oriented, epistemic and subordinating modality ........ 50 3.2 Epistemic, participant-internal, participant-external and deontic modality ... 53 3.3 Event modality vs. propositional modality ............................................................................ 58 3.4 Root (dynamic and deontic) vs. non-root (epistemic, metaphysical and evidential) .............................................................................. 63 4. Non-epistemic modality in Norwegian ................................................................................ 67 4.1. Non-epistemic modality: the neutral attitude ..................................................................... 68 4.1.1 Expression of acceptance and permission, and some pragmatic issues ......................... 68 4.1.2 Potential meaning ................................................................................................................................... 77 4.2 The non-neutral attitude ................................................................................................................. 82 4.2.1 Simple attitude ......................................................................................................................................... 82 4.2.2 Complex attitude ........................................................................................................................................................ 86 4.2.3 Summing up ................................................................................................................................................................... 90 4.3 Non-Epistemic Modality and Non-Temporal Use of Preterite Forms .................... 91 4.3.1 Skulle vs. skal ............................................................................................................................................................... 95 4.3.2 Ville vs. vil ................................................................................................................................................... 99 4.3.3 Burde vs. bør ...........................................................................................................................................101 4.3.4 Kunne vs. kan ..........................................................................................................................................103 4.3.5 Måtte vs. må .............................................................................................................................................107 4.3.6 Summing up .............................................................................................................................................109 5 5. Epistemic modality in Norwegian ........................................................................................ 111 5.1 Neutral epistemic attitude ............................................................................................................112 5.2 Non-neutral epistemic attitude ..................................................................................................116 5.2.1 Simple attitude .......................................................................................................................................116 5.2.2 Complex attitude ...................................................................................................................................120 5.3 Epistemic Modality and Non-Temporal Use of Preterite Forms .............................121 5.3.1 Skulle vs. skal ..........................................................................................................................................122 5.3.2 Ville vs. vil .................................................................................................................................................129 5.3.3 Burde vs. bør ...........................................................................................................................................131 5.3.4 Kunne vs. kan ..........................................................................................................................................132 5.3.5 Måtte vs. må .............................................................................................................................................134 5.4 Summing up and conclusions of this chapter .....................................................................136 6. The relationship between attitude and negation ............................................ 138 6.1 Non-epistemic attitude and negation .....................................................................................142 6.2 Epistemic attitude and negation ...............................................................................................155 6.3 Summing up and conclusions of this chapter .....................................................................159 7. Attitude towards another attitude: Two (or more) attitudes verbally expressed in one utterance ............................................................................... 162 7.1 The relationship between epistemic and non-epistemic attitude ..........................163 7.2 Means of expression of attitude. Modal adverbs/adjectives and verbs ...............169 7.3 Different attitudes in one utterance ........................................................................................176 7.4 Summing up the findings of this chapter ..............................................................................192 8. Diachronic considerations ................................................................................ 194 8.1 Expressing neutral attitude in Old Norse and in Modern Norwegian .................194 8.2 Expressing non-neutral simple attitude. ...............................................................................204 8.3 Expressing non-neutral complex attitude. Old Norse BYRJA and Modern Norwegian BURDE...................................................................................................211 8.4 Summing up the findings of this chapter ..............................................................................214 9. Final discussion. Summary and conclusions ................................................... 216 Bibliography
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Layers and Operators in Lakota1 Avelino Corral Esteban Universidad Autónoma De Madrid
    Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 36 (2015), 1-33 Layers and operators in Lakota1 Avelino Corral Esteban Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Abstract Categories covering the expression of grammatical information such as aspect, negation, tense, mood, modality, etc., are crucial to the study of language universals. In this study, I will present an analysis of the syntax and semantics of these grammatical categories in Lakota within the Role and Reference Grammar framework (hereafter RRG) (Van Valin 1993, 2005; Van Valin and LaPolla 1997), a functional approach in which elements with a purely grammatical function are treated as ´operators`. Many languages mark Aspect-Tense- Mood/Modality information (henceforth ATM) either morphologically or syntactically. Unlike most Native American languages, which exhibit an extremely complex verbal morphological system indicating this grammatical information, Lakota, a Siouan language with a mildly synthetic / partially agglutinative morphology, expresses information relating to ATM through enclitics, auxiliary verbs and adverbs, rather than by coding it through verbal affixes. 1. Introduction The organisation of this paper is as follows: after a brief account of the most relevant morpho- syntactic features exhibited by Lakota, Section 2 attempts to shed light on the distinction between lexical words, enclitics and affixes through evidence obtained in the study of this language. Section 3 introduces the notion of ´operator` and explores the ATM system in Lakota using RRG´s theory of operator system. After a description of each grammatical category, an analysis of the linear order exhibited by the Lakota operators with respect to the nucleus of the clause are analysed in Section 4, showing that this ordering reflects the scope relations between the grammatical categories conveyed by these operators.
    [Show full text]
  • Classification of Modal Meaning in Negotiation Dialogues
    Classification of Modal Meaning in Negotiation Dialogues Valeria Lapina1 and Volha Petukhova2 Computational Linguistics1, Spoken Language Systems2, Saarland University, Germany [email protected], [email protected] Abstract This paper addresses modality classification for multi-issue bargaining dialogues in order to model human-like negotiation behaviour and to efficiently compute negotiation strategies. We pro- pose a modality annotation and classification scheme comprising semantically distinguishable cate- gories applied reliably by humans and machines. Our classification of modality varieties is based on both the traditional dichotomy of epistemic and root modalities, and on the analysis of the available corpus data. Our modality scheme has been used for annotating human-human dialogues and training SVM-based classifiers. We built predictive models that show accuracies in the range between 73.3 and 82.6%. 1 Introduction In any communicative situation, interlocutors communicate their beliefs, desires, expectations, interests and obligations by means of certain communicative actions, i.e. dialogue acts. These actions are used by the speaker to signal his or her intentions concerning events, objects, relations, properties involved in the communicative situation. Speaker’s intentions can be rather complex, vague and ambiguous. They may also be emotionally qualified expressing particular attitudes towards their communicative partners, third parties and message content. In negotiation interactions, partners do not just negotiate through a sequence of offers. It is observed that negotiators actually rarely make concrete offers as binding com- mitments (Raiffa et al., 2002). Rather, participants’ actions are often focused on obtaining and providing preference information. In multi-issue bargaining, a special form of negotiation, parties have the possibil- ity to simultaneously bargain about several goods and attributes.
    [Show full text]
  • Master's Degree Programme the Syntax And
    Master’s Degree programme in Language Sciences (D.M. 270/2004) Final Thesis The Syntax and Semantics of Bare Subjunctives in Romanian: a Balkanism Supervisor Ch. Prof. Iliyana Krapova Assistant supervisor Ch. Prof. Guglielmo Cinque Graduand Anda-Amelia Neagu Matriculation Number 866105 Academic Year 2017 / 2018 Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Iliyana Krapova, who has always been, during my years at Ca’ Foscari, a strong point of reference. She hasn’t only been a helpful supervisor for my thesis, giving me precious advices and suggesting me how to best accomplish this task, but also an inspiring Professor of Bulgarian Language and Slavic Linguistics. I would also like to thank Professor Guglielmo Cinque, my assistant supervisor, most of all for making me understand, thanks to his classes and his works, that syntax, although not being as obscure and abstruse as it might seem at a first glance, is a whole universe which needs to be constantly explored, thus making me realize that I wish to continue its exploration. I want to thank the faculty members at Ca’ Foscari, in particular Professor Alessandra Giorgi, who introduced me to generative grammar and syntax, and to whom I owe my initial interest in this field. I also want to express my thanks to Professor Assia Assenova, who has been for me a constant and valuable source of help and support, and who transmitted me her love for teaching and for Bulgarian language. I am also thankful to Professor Andrea Trovesi, my bachelor’s degree supervisor, for if it wasn’t for him, I wouldn’t have discovered and taken interest in Balkan linguistics.
    [Show full text]
  • A Tense Question: Does Hebrew Have a Future?
    Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures Hornkohl and Hornkohl and New Perspectives in Biblical and Khan (eds) New Perspectives in Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew Rabbinic Hebrew Aaron D. Hornkohl and Geoffrey Khan (eds) EDITED BY AARON D. HORNKOHL AND GEOFFREY KHAN Most of the papers in this volume originated as presenta� ons at the conference Biblical Hebrew and Rabbinic Hebrew: New Perspecti ves in Philology and Linguisti ,cs which was held at the University of Cambridge, 8–10th July, 2019. The aim of the conference was to build bridges between various strands of research in the fi eld of Hebrew language studies that rarely meet, namely philologists working on Biblical Hebrew, philologists working on New Perspectives in Biblical Rabbinic Hebrew and theore� cal linguists. The volume is the published outcome of this ini� a� ve. It contains peer-reviewed papers and Rabbinic Hebrew in the fi elds of Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew that advance the fi eld by the philological inves� ga� on of primary sources and the applica� on of cu� ng-edge linguis� c theory. These include contribu� ons by established scholars and by students and early career researchers. This is the author-approved edi� on of this Open Access � tle. As with all Open Book publica� ons, this en� re book is available to read for free on the publisher’s website. Printed and digital edi� ons, together with supplementary digital material, can also be found here: www.openbookpublishers.com Cover image: Genizah fragment of the Hebrew Bible with Babylonian vocalisati on (Num. 18.27-28, Cambridge University Library T-S A38.12; courtesy of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library).
    [Show full text]
  • Participant-Internal Possibility Modality and It's
    ISSN 2039-2117 (online) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Vol 6 No 5 S2 ISSN 2039-9340 (print) MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy September 2015 Participant-internal Possibility Modality and It’s Coding by – A Bil Analytical Construction in Kazakh Gulzada Salmyrzakyzy Yeshniyaz Botagoz Ermekovna Tassyrova Dauren Bakhytzhanovich Boranbayev Kazakh Ablai Khan University of international relations and world languages, The Republic of Kazakhstan 050022, Almaty, Muratbaev Street, 200 Ruslan Askarbekovich Yermagambetov The Korkyt Ata Kyzylorda State University, The Republic of Kazakhstan, 120014, Kyzylorda, Aiteke Bie Street, 29A Doi:10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n5s2p211 Abstract This paper discusses the semantic paradigm of the participant-internal possibility modality as a subcategory of modality and it’s coding in Kazakh with –A bil analytical construction. We will show that –A bil expresses all semantic properties of participant- internal possibility modality such as inherent/ learnt and mental/physical. Therefore constitutes the core of the functional- semantic field of the given modality. The paper also accounts for the relation of –A bil in modal usage with other category operators such as aspect, tense and voice. Keywords: modality, ability, participant-internal, converb, functional approach 1. Introduction Despite the available vast literature on modality there is still does not exist the single definition of the domain of modality in linguistics. Mostly modality is understood as a united meaning of its subcategories which are still under scrutiny and new concepts are being offered which make difficult to stabilize the semantics of modality. It is not once noted that “the number of modalities one decide upon is to some extent a matter of different ways of slicing the same cake” (Perkins, 1983, p.10).
    [Show full text]
  • Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda!
    the indicative. However, we can also use the modal auxiliary do to express emphatic modality, which is also part of the indicative mood: • I do believe in spooks, I do believe in spooks. I do, I do, I do, I do, I do believe in spooks! —The Cowardly Lion in The Wizard of Oz. However, do can be used as an auxiliary in questions (inter- rogative mood): Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda! • Do you love me? Also, we use the auxiliary do to negate things in the indica- By Laurie Endicott Thomas, MA, ELS tive mood: • She does not smoke cigarettes. ave you ever lain awake in the wee hours of the morn- Note also that to do can be an ordinary verb, not just an ing thinking about what you should have done, would auxiliary: Hhave done, or could have done? If so, then you under- • After supper, we did the dishes. stand the power of modal auxiliary verbs. In English, we use the verbs to be and to have as auxiliary (helper) verbs to express Irrealis Modalities the timing of actions or states of being. We also use the verb to The other 4 basic moods (imperative, interrogative, condi- be plus a past participle to express the passive voice. However, tional, and subjunctive) express irrealis modalities, which we use modal auxiliary verbs (can, could, do, may, might, must, convey something other than reality. There are several irrealis shall, should, will, would) to express feelings, such as beliefs, modalities (Table 2). doubts, guesses, and regrets, as well as to ask questions and Although we can certainly express these various irrea- make requests.
    [Show full text]
  • Epistemic Modality: English Must, Have to and Have Got to and Their Correspondences in Lithuanian
    ISSN 1392–1517. Online ISSN 2029–8315. KALBOTYRA. 2016 • 69 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15388/Klbt.2016.10374 (Non)epistemic modality: English must, have to and have got to and their correspondences in Lithuanian Audronė Šolienė Department of English Philology Vilnius University Universiteto g. 5 LT-01513 Vilnius, Lithuania Email: [email protected] Abstract This paper deals with the three types of modality – epistemic, deontic and dynamic. It examines the relation between the synchronic uses of the modal auxiliary must and the semi-modals have to and have got to as well as their Lithuanian translation correspondences (TCs) found in a bidirectional translation corpus. The study exploits quantitative and qualitative methods of research. The purpose is to find out which type of modality is most common in the use of must, have to and have got to; to establish their equivalents in Lithuanian in terms of congruent or non-congruent correspondence (Johansson 2007); and to determine how Lithuanian TCs (verbs or adverbials) correlate with different types of modality expressed. The analysis has shown that must is mostly used to convey epistemic nuances, while have to and have got to feature in non-epistemic environments. The findings show that must can boast of a great diversity of TCs. Some of them may serve as epistemic markers; others appear in deontic domains only. Have (got) to, on the other hand, is usually rendered by the modal verbs reikėti ‘need’ and turėti ‘must/have to’, which usually encode deontic modality. Key words: modality, epistemic, deontic, dynamic, necessity, obligation, translational correspondence, corpus-based analysis (Ne)episteminis modalumas: anglų kalbos must, have to ir have got to bei jų vertimo atitikmenys lietuvių kalboje Santrauka Šio darbo objektas yra trys anglų kalbos modaliniai veiksmažodžiai – must ‘turėti/ privalėti’, have to ir have got to ‘turėti/reikėti’ ir jų vertimo atitikmenys lietuvių kalboje.
    [Show full text]
  • MIINA NORVIK Future Time Reference Devices in Livonian in a Finnic Context
    DISSERTATIONES LINGUISTICAE UNIVERSITATIS TARTUENSIS 25 MIINA NORVIK Future time reference devices in Livonian in a Finnic context Tartu 2015 ISSN 1406-5657 ISBN 978-9949-32-962-5 DISSERTATIONES LINGUISTICAE UNIVERSITATIS TARTUENSIS 25 DISSERTATIONES LINGUISTICAE UNIVERSITATIS TARTUENSIS 25 MIINA NORVIK Future time reference devices in Livonian in a Finnic context University of Tartu, Institute of Estonian and General Linguistics Dissertation accepted for the commencement of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy on September 1st, 2015 by the Committee of the Institute of Estonian and General Linguistics, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Tartu Supervisors: Professor Karl Pajusalu, University of Tartu Professor Helle Metslang, University of Tartu Opponent: Professor Andra Kalnača, University of Latvia th Commencement: November 12 , 2015 at 14.15, room 139 in University main building, Ülikooli 18, Tartu This study has been supported by the European Social Fund Copyright: Miina Norvik, 2015 ISSN 1406-5657 ISBN 978-9949-32-962-5 (print) ISBN 978-9949-32-963-2 (pdf) University of Tartu Press www.tyk.ee FOREWORD In autumn 2004, I came to the University of Tartu with the idea of studying English language and literature as my major and law as my minor. But after I attended the first introductory course in general linguistics taught by Renate Pajusalu, I changed my mind and decided to go deeper into linguistics. So I took Estonian and Finno-Ugric linguistics as my minor. I became interested in tense, aspect and modality when being a Bachelor’s student. In a seminar paper I discussed the use of past tenses; in my Bachelor’s thesis I concentrated on the progressive aspect in English and Estonian.
    [Show full text]
  • CLIPP Christiani Lehmanni Inedita, Publicanda, Publicata Speech-Act
    CLIPP Christiani Lehmanni inedita, publicanda, publicata titulus Speech-act participants in modality huius textus situs retis mundialis http://www.christianlehmann.eu/publ/lehmann_modality.pdf dies manuscripti postremum modificati 15.06.2012 occasio orationis habitae International Conference on Discorse and Grammar, Ghent University College, May 23-24, 2008 volumen publicationem continens ignotum annus publicationis ignotus paginae ignotae Speech-act participants in modality Christian Lehmann University of Erfurt Abstract Semantic accounts of subjective modality commonly assume that the speaker is the source of modal attitudes. However, there is a large body of data to suggest that attribut- ing a certain subjective modality to the speaker is the default only for the declarative sen- tence type. In interrogative sentences, it is often systematically the hearer who is credited with the modal attitude. For instance, Linda may go is commonly interpreted as ‘I allow Linda to go’. However, the interrogative version may Linda go? usually means ‘do you allow Linda to go?’ rather than ‘do I allow Linda to go?’ Modal operators from a small set of diverse language (English may , German sollen , Ko- rean -kess , Yucatec he’l , the Amharic and Kambaata jussive) are analyzed from the point of view of the shift of the modal assessor depending on sentence type. Some parallels from evidentiality and egophora are drawn. The result may be summarized as follows: By inferences or rules of grammar , subjective modalities may be attributed to a speech-act participant as their source. In declaratives, that is the speaker. In interrogatives, the speaker cedes the decision on the pragmatic focus to the hearer.
    [Show full text]
  • Andra Kalnača a Typological Perspective on Latvian Grammar
    Andra Kalnača A Typological Perspective on Latvian Grammar Andra Kalnača A Typological Perspective on Latvian Grammar Managing Editor: Anna Borowska Associate Editor: Helle Metslang Language Editor: Uldis Balodis Published by De Gruyter Open Ltd, Warsaw/Berlin Part of Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Munich/Boston This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 license, which means that the text may be used for non-commercial purposes, provided credit is given to the author. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/. Copyright © 2014 Andra Kalnača ISBN 978-3-11-041130-0 e- ISBN 978-3-11-041131-7 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. Managing Editor: Anna Borowska Associate Editor: Helle Metslang Language Editor: Uldis Balodis www.degruyteropen.com Cover illustration: © Ieva Kalnača Contents Abbreviations I Introduction II 1 The Paradigmatics and Declension of Nouns 1 1.1 Introductory Remarks on Paradigmatics 1 1.2 Declension 4 1.2.1 Noun Forms and Palatalization 9 1.2.2 Nondeclinable Nouns 11 1.3 Case Syncretism 14 1.3.1 Instrumental 18 1.3.2 Vocative 25 1.4 Reflexive Nouns 34 1.5 Case Polyfunctionality and Case Alternation 47 1.6 Gender 66 2 The Paradigmatics and Conjugation of Verbs 74 2.1 Introductory Remarks 74 2.2 Conjugation 75 2.3 Tense 80 2.4 Person 83 3 Aspect 89
    [Show full text]
  • A Linguistically-Motivated Annotation Model of Modality in English and Spanish: Insights from MULTINOT
    LiLT volume 14, issue (4) August 2016 A linguistically-motivated annotation model of modality in English and Spanish: Insights from MULTINOT Julia LAVID, Marta CARRETERO and Juan Rafael ZAMORANO-MANSILLA, Universidad Complutense de Madrid Abstract In this paper we present current work on the design and validation of a linguistically-motivated annotation model of modality in English and Spanish in the context of the MULTINOT project.1 Our annotation model captures four basic modal meanings and their subtypes, on the one hand, and provides a fine-grained characterisation of the syntactic realisations of those meanings in English and Spanish, on the other. We validate the modal tagset proposed through an agreement study per- formed on a bilingual sample of four hundred sentences extracted from original texts of the MULTINOT corpus, and discuss the difficult cases encountered in the annotation experiment. We also describe current steps in the implementation of the proposed scheme for the large-scale annotation of the bilingual corpus using both automatic and manual procedures. 1The MULTINOT project is financed by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, under grant number FF2012-32201. We gratefully acknowledge the support provided by the Spanish authorities. We also thank the comments and suggestions provided by the anonymous reviewers which have helped to improve the current manuscript. 1 2 / LiLT volume 14, issue (4) August 2016 1 Introduction In this paper we describe the construction and empirical validation of a modality annotation scheme for English and Spanish in the context of the MULTINOT project, whose main aim is the development of a parallel English-Spanish corpus which is balanced – in terms of register diversity and translation directions – and whose design and enrichment with multiple layers of linguistic annotations focuses on quality rather than on quantity (see Lavid et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Modality and the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface
    Modality and the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface Anna Papafragou Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Ph.D. University College London 1998 (LONDON) To my family with love and gratitude Abstract This thesis explores certain aspects of the structure of lexical semantics and its interaction with pragmatic processes of utterance comprehension, using as a case-study a sample of the English modal verbs. Contrary to previous polysemy-based accounts, I propose and defend a unitary semantic account of the English modals, and I give a relevance-theoretic explanation of the construction of their admissible (mainly, root and epistemic) contextual interpretations. Departing from previous accounts of modality, I propose a link between epistemic modality and metarepresentation, and treat the emergence of epistemic modal markers as a result of the development of the human theory of mind. In support of my central contention that the English modals are semantically univocal, I reanalyse a range of arguments employed by previous polysemy-based approaches. These arguments involve the distributional properties of the modals, their relationship to truth-conditional content, the status of so-called speech-act modality, and the historical development of epistemic meanings: it turns out that none of these domains can offer reasons to abandon the univocal semantic analysis of the English modals. Furthermore, I argue that the priority of root over epistemic meanings in language acquisition is predicted by the link between epistemic modality and metarepresentation. Finally, data from a cognitive disorder (autism) are considered in the light of the metarepresentation hypothesis about epistemic modality. The discussion of modality has a number of implications for the concept of polysemy.
    [Show full text]