Difference between revisions of "Deontic modality"
Haspelmath (talk | contribs) (New page: {{other}} ===Other languages=== German deontische Modalität {{dc}}) |
Haspelmath (talk | contribs) (partially based on Tarsee Li's glossary in "The Verbal System of the Aramaic of Daniel") |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{ | + | '''Deontic modality''' is a kind of [[modality]] having to do with [[permission]] and [[obligation]]. |
| + | |||
| + | ===Examples=== | ||
| + | “You may/can go now,” “You must go now” (Palmer 2001: 71). | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Comments=== | ||
| + | Traditionally, deontic modality and epistemic modality were considered the major subdivisions of modality. Palmer (2001: 9-10) prefers to regard deontic modality and [[dynamic modality]] as the major subdivisions of [[event modality]], the basic distinction being that deontic modality involves an obligation or permission imposed externally, whereas dynamic modality expresses the ability or willingness of the individual. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The label “deontic” is avoided by Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994:176-181), who opt instead for labels such as [[speaker-oriented modality]], where the speaker imposes conditions on an addressee, and [[obligation]], a type of [[agent-oriented modality]] that reports the existence of external, social conditions compelling an agent to complete an action. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===References=== | ||
| + | *{{Bybee et al. 1994}} | ||
| + | *Palmer 2001 | ||
===Other languages=== | ===Other languages=== | ||
| Line 5: | Line 17: | ||
{{dc}} | {{dc}} | ||
| + | [[Category:Semantics]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Modality]] | ||
Revision as of 15:43, 5 June 2009
Deontic modality is a kind of modality having to do with permission and obligation.
Examples
“You may/can go now,” “You must go now” (Palmer 2001: 71).
Comments
Traditionally, deontic modality and epistemic modality were considered the major subdivisions of modality. Palmer (2001: 9-10) prefers to regard deontic modality and dynamic modality as the major subdivisions of event modality, the basic distinction being that deontic modality involves an obligation or permission imposed externally, whereas dynamic modality expresses the ability or willingness of the individual.
The label “deontic” is avoided by Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994:176-181), who opt instead for labels such as speaker-oriented modality, where the speaker imposes conditions on an addressee, and obligation, a type of agent-oriented modality that reports the existence of external, social conditions compelling an agent to complete an action.
References
- Template:Bybee et al. 1994
- Palmer 2001
Other languages
German deontische Modalität
