IV. Modal Co-occurrence in Mandarin Chinese
4.2 Modal Co-occurrence within Semantics-Pragmatics Interface Approach
4.2.4 Discussion
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
precedes mowe in the Middle English multiple modal construction. Concerned with
those modal co-occurrences in Modern English dialect as identified by Fennell (1993),
following Klinge’s (1993) analysis, may and its past form might usually precede can
and its past form could because may involves more speaker’s attitude than can. On the
other hand, must also usually precedes can and would because must has highest
STRENGTH of prediction than the other two modals. Therefore, our alternative methodology of semantics-pragmatics interface approach not only provides the
Chinese multiple-modal construction with a principled exposition but accounts for
other examples of modal combination cross-linguistically.
4.2.4 Discussion
As we have indicated in the very beginning, the previous literatures (Chao, 1968;
Tsao, 1993; Her, 2008) assure that there exists restriction of multiple-modal
co-occurrence but do not provide mechanism governing this ordering constraint.
Following Hofmann’s (1993) traditional descriptive-oriented approach, Huang (1999)
first examines the various modal interpretations of Chinese polysemous modal verbs
and generates five major modality types (Capacity, Deontic, Epistemic, Generic and
Volition). Then she utilizes this classification as her basis to explicate that the
ordering restriction of multiple-modal construction in Mandarin Chinese accords with
the following tendency: Logic-oriented (Epistemic) > Discourse-oriented (Deontic) >
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Subject-oriented (Capacity, Generic and Volition). However, such analysis which
assumes that each polysemous modal verb encodes multiple modal expressions has
some drawbacks. First, this traditional approach cannot ensure the exact collection of
various modal senses to each polysemous modal verb because the determination of
modal interpretation is merely based on the author’s intuition. Thus, different
analysts’ work (Lyons, 1977; Coates, 1983; Palmer, 1990, 2001) on modality
basically depends on his/her own paraphrase (Klinge, 1993:316-317; Wu, 2009: 90).
Second, descriptive approach cannot predict the ungrammatical modal co-occurrence
which should be able to co-occur in theory. For example, back to our analysis of
Sentence (90b): ?Ni neng hui zhuan da qian ‘You will be able to earn much money’,
NENG here has deontic interpretation denoting personal promise while HUI has dynamic interpretation denoting ability. Under the descriptive-oriented approach, this
co-occurrence should be correct in theory but eventually results in semantically
unacceptable modal combination to most native speakers. Third, regarding the same
pattern of modal co-occurrence, the traditional descriptive approach will result in
various ambiguous multiple-modal variants. For instance, in the sentence ‘Ta yinggai
yao lai xuexiao 他應該要來學校’, one possibility is that it constitutes an [epistemic-judgment + dynamic-volition] multiple-modal expression which is
translated as ‘It is supposed that he will come to school’ while the other possibility is
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
that it constitutes identical ‘deontic-obligation’ interpretation which is translated as ‘It
is necessary that he should come to school’. Therefore, it adds the complexity of
accounting for every possible multiple-modal variants in Mandarin Chinese.
Nevertheless, these disadvantages raised by traditional descriptive-oriented
approach can be resolved in our current semantics-pragmatics interface approach. In
our alternative framework suggested by Klinge (1993), we contend that these various
modal expressions are not encoded in lexical item but are contextually derived. They
are actually related to our assumption of different situation types that is waiting to be
verified in the real context. According to Klinge (1993), these different situation types,
i.e. SITUATION REPRESENTATIONS, can be generated to two major categories:
WORLD-EVENT which signals the naturally occurring event or AGENT-EVENT which is induced by the agent himself/herself or by other unspecified sources, e.g. law or
morality. Hence, modals are no longer encompassing multiple modal meanings in
their intrinsic lexical semantics but are assigned a core of meaning to indicate the
POTENTIAL correspondence between unverified SITUATION REPRESENTATION and real context, i.e. WORLD SITUATION. Additionally, in light of the systematic account
for different core meanings of each polysemous modal verb, we find that they
constitute three different levels of procedural information: 1) an indirect way of
saying correspondence by rejecting non-correspondence between SITUATION
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
REPRESENTATION and WORLD SITUATION; 2) a direct way of saying correspondence between SITUATION REPRESENTATION and WORLD SITUATION; 3) co-existence of
correspondence and non-correspondence between SITUATION REPRESENTATION and
WORLD SITUATION. After investigating the corpus data of Chinese modal
co-occurrence, we find that the data distribution truly accords with our hypothesis of
which the modals that have more STRENGTH of prediction occupy the higher position
in multiple-modal construction and vice versa. In other words, we argue that these
three levels of procedural information naturally formulate a rigid sequence in the
utterance containing two or more modals. They are generally governed by the
STRENGTH of prediction to the correspondence between SITUATION REPRESENTATION and WORLD SITUATION. In addition to the ordering restriction across different levels,
we also discuss the ordering constraint of modals inside the same level. In the second
level, YAO and HUI can interchange but the ordering of their scope will influence
which interpretation of event types, i.e. WORLD-EVENT or AGENT-EVENT, is prominent
(See the discussion of (125) and (126)). In the third level, on the other hand, KEYI and
NENG generally follow the ordering constraint based on the involvement of speaker’s
attitude. In other words, KEYI involves more speaker’s expectation than NENG so the
former generally precedes the later.
In sum, the semantics-pragmatics interface approach used in the present study
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
modifies the drawbacks of traditional descriptive-oriented approach in several aspects.
First, our framework suggested by Klinge (1993) ensures that every polysemous
modal verb in Mandarin Chinese is assigned only a core of meaning and regarded as
an unambiguous and consistent element with their intrinsic lexical semantics. Such
alternative analysis can avoid the complexity of which the modals encode inconsistent
collection of multiple modal expressions raised by previous studies of descriptive
approach. Second, the present methodology can also best explicate the distribution of
all utterances encompassing two or more modals. For example, the reason why
Sentence (90b) is semantically unacceptable for most native speakers is that NENG
has less STRENGTH of prediction than HUI because NENG only signals both
correspondence and non-correspondence between unverified SITUATION
REPRESENTATION and referential WORLD SITUATION while HUI directly specifies that
SITUATION REPRESENTATION truly describes WORLD SITUATION. Thus, NENG generally occurs after HUI in separate level according to the prediction of our
framework. Third, regarding the same pattern of multiple-modal sentence with
ambiguous modal expressions, we argue that these modal interpretations are not
encoded in modal verbs but are derived from context. Consider the following
examples:
(129) a. 今天是返校日他 應該 要 來學校
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
jintian shi fanxiao-ri ta yinggai yao lai xuexiao today is returning school day he must should come school ‘Today is Student Returning Day so he should come to school.’
b. 他 應該 要 來學校因為他書本忘了帶回家
ta yinggai yao lai xuexiao yinwei ta shuben wang-le dai hui jia he probably will come school because he book forget-PRT bring back home ‘He probably will come to school because he forgot to bring his book home.’
In utterance (129a), Student Returning Day is one of the school regulations so it
provides a specified obligated source to bring about an OBLIGATION situation type, i.e.
an AGENT-EVENT where the third person singular subject is required to come to school
because of school policy. On the other hand, in utterance (129b), the proposition ‘he
coming to school’ demonstrates an unverified WORLD-EVENT which involves
speaker’s own judgment because the speaker holds the objective evidence ‘he forgot
to bring his book home’. In terms of these two modals in their utterance, YINGGAI and
YAO both assure that the unverified situation types, either AGENT-EVENT or
WORLD-EVENT, will be realized in real WORLD SITUATION. In short, this analysis not only reduces the complexity of investigating the modal expressions of utterances
containing two or more modals but generates various modal interpretations into two
major categories of situation types: WORLD-EVENT and AGENT-EVENT.
4.3 Summary
Based on our discussion so far about multiple-modal construction within
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
semantics-pragmatics interface approach, the utterances of sentences encompassing
two or more polysemous modal verbs in Mandarin Chinese can be translated into the
following schema:
[MODALA [MODALB [MODALC [ PROPOSITIONAL CONTENT]
The inferential process of this multiple-modal schema can be depicted as follows: first,
the elements denoted by PROPOSITIONAL CONTENT together formulate an input of
concepts to our mental SITUATION REPRESENTATION which is unverified in the future
and waiting to be clarified with the referential WORLD SITUATION. Second, this
SITUATION REPRESENTATION can be verified by either a WORLD-EVENT or an
AGENT-EVENT. The former is specified by a naturally occurring event (epistemic) while the later produces an intentional activity that is motivated by the agent
himself/herself (dynamic) or by other conditional and obligated sources than the agent
himself/herself (deontic). Third, MODAL has this future unverified SITUATION
REPRESENTATION, either WORLD-EVENT or AGENT-EVENT, as its SCOPE to signify the
POTENTIAL correspondence between SITUATION REPRESENTATION and referential
WORLD SITUATION. Fourth, when two or more MODALS together account for
POTENTIAL the correspondence between SITUATION REPRESENTATION and referential
WORLD SITUATION, the SCOPES of these MODALS naturally formulate a rigid sequence in one utterance. The ordering of this rigid sequence is governed by the STRENGTH of
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
prediction to the POTENTIAL correspondence between SITUATION REPRESENTATION
and referential WORLD SITUATION. Such STRENGTH represented by Chinese
polysemous modal verbs can be generalized into three levels as the following figure
shows:
LEVEL I
An indirect way of saying correspondence by rejecting non-correspondence between
SITUATION REPRESENTATION and WORLD SITUATION
LEVEL II
A direct way of saying correspondence between SITUATION REPRESENTATION and
WORLD SITUATION
LEVEL III
Parallel existence of correspondence and non-correspondence between SITUATION
REPRESENTATION and WORLD SITUATION
KEYI >NENG YAO >HUI
HUI >YAO
YINGGAI Future Unverified
SITUATION REPRESENTATION
LEVEL I LEVEL II LEVEL III
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
111
Conclusion
This thesis aims to formulate a schematic representation of modal form-meaning
correspondence to explicate what mechanism governs the selection of modal
interpretation within sentences containing multiple modal verbs. The main approach
applied in this study is semantics-pragmatics interface analysis suggested by Klinge
(1993) and Papafragou (2000) in which each modal encodes a core of meaning for a
basis to derive the vast range of possible interpretations which the modal’s meaning
may contextually receive. Back to our research questions as addressed in the very
beginning and repeated as follows,
I. How the following three-layer modal expressions: epistemic, deontic, and
dynamic, are captured in the multiple-modal construction, for instance, the
involvement of context information or unspecified semantic source?
II. In light of the principled account for each polysemous modal verb’s different
modal interpretations, how can we specify the regularity of modal
co-occurrences?
we have proved these two questions can be best answered under the alternative
methodology of semantics-pragmatics approach. Adopting from Klinge’s (1993)
analysis, the modal represents POTENTIALITY to operate on linguistic semantics at the
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
sentence level and specifies a POTENTIAL that the SITUATION REPRESENTATION is a
true description of WORLDSITUATION or not. Thus, regarding Question I, these
three-layer modal expressions - epistemic, deontic and dynamic - which traditionally
has long been distinguished in descriptive-oriented approach are actually derived from
different conceptions of the SITUATION REPRESENTATION, i.e. WORLD-EVENT and
AGENT-EVENT that the sentence brings about because of assumptions about the
WORLD SITUATION in separate event types. These three-layer modal expressions thereby need to be re-defined according to our current framework:
Epistemic (POSSIBILITY, PREDICTION, GENERIC) A WORLD-EVENT with no agent control inferred
Deontic (OBLIGATION, PERMISSION)
An AGENT-EVENT motivated by the obligated or permissive sources other than the agent himself/herself
Dynamic (VOLITION, ABILITY)
An AGENT-EVENT motivated by the agent himself/herself
In sum, these modal expressions are not encoded in modal lexemes but brought about
by the following inferential process. The modal verbs which share the same semantic
field of POTENTIALITY specify the POTENTIAL correspondence between the different
concepts of situation type, i.e. WORLD-EVENT and ANGENT-EVENT and assumptions
about the referential situation, i.e. WORLD SITUATION.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Additionally, the core meanings of the intrinsic lexical semantic of five major
polysemous modal verbs, YINGGAI, NENG, KEYI, YAO and HUI, are also discussed and
depicted as follows:
YINGGAI plays a role of which it first rejects the non-correspondence between
SITUATION REPRESENTATION and WORLD SITUATION so that the whole utterance interpretation derives that the SITUATION REPRESENTATION turns out to have
highly possible correspondence with WORLD SITUATION.
NENG and KEYI do not assure the SITUATION REPRESENTATION is a true
description of WORLD SITUATION. The difference is that NENG always stay in a
neutral position while KEYI involves an ‘either true or false’ implication.
HUI and YAO denote the assertion about the highly possible correspondence
between SIUATION REPRESENTATION and WORLD SITUATION. The difference is
that HUI is unspecified about the choice between WORLD-EVENT and
AGENT-EVENT while YAO prefers to induce an interpretation of AGENT-EVENT. Thus, in answering Question II based on the elaboration above, we argue that the
STRENGTH of prediction to the POTENTIAL correspondence between SITUATION
REPRESENTATION and WORLD SITUATION governs the ordering restriction in multiple-modal construction. The more STRENGTH of prediction a modal verb
possesses, the higher position in multiple-modal construction it occupies.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
To sum up, throughout the whole discussion of the present study, we have developed a
systematic argument to explicate the connection between modal interpretation and
utterances of sentences containing multiple modals in Mandarin Chinese. However,
due to the time and space limitation, the present study only deals with the affirmative
sentences encompassing these five polysemous modal verbs but neglects the
interaction with other identified elements such as modal adverb, modal particle and
aspect marker. The scope of negation is also another interesting issue that adds
complications in the multiple-modal sentences. These issues all remain for further
research.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
115
Bybee, Joan L., William Pagliuca, and Revere D. Perkins. 1994. The Evolution of
Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Bybee, Joan, and Suzanne Fleischman (eds.). 1995. Modality in Grammar and
Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chao, Yuen-ren. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom
Helm.
Fennell, Barbara A. 1993. Evidence for British Sources of Double Modal
Construction in Southern American English. American Speech 68(4). p430-437.
Fillmore, Charles J., and Berl T. Atkins. 1992. Towarda frame-based lexicon: The
semantics of risk and its neighbors. Frames, Fields, and Contrasts, ed. by
Adrienne Lehrer and Eva Feder Kittay, 75-102. Hillsdale: NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Goossens, L. 1982. On the Development of the Modlas and of the Epistemic Function
English. In Papers from the 5th International Conference on Historical
Linguistics (A. Alqvist, ed.), p74-84. Benjamins, Amsterdam.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Guo, Jian-sheng. 1994. Social Interaction, Meaning, and Grammatical Form:
Children’s Development and Use of Modal Auxiliaries in Mandarin Chinese.
Ph.D Dissertation, Berkley: University of California.
Heine, Bernd. 1995. “Agent-Oriented vs. Epistemic Modality: Some Observations on
German Modals.” In Modality in Grammar and Discourse, ed. J. Bybee and S.
Fleischman, 17-53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Her, One-Soon. 2008. Grammatical Functions and Verb Subcategorization in
Mandarin Chinese. Taipei: The Crane Publishing.
Herndobler, Robin, and Andrew Sledd. 1976. Black English—Notes on the Auxiliary.
American Speech 51(3/4). 185-200.
Hofmann, T. R. 1993. Realms of Meaning. New York: Longman Publishing.
Hsieh, Chia-Ling. 2002. Hanyu de Qingtai Dongci (Modal Verbs in Mandarin Chinese).
Doctoral Dissertation. National Tsing Hua Univesity.
Hsieh, Chia-Ling. 2005. Modal Verbs and Modal Adverbs in Chinese: An
Investigation into the Semantic Source [electronic version]. UST Working Papers
in Linguistics, 1, 31-58.
Hsieh, Chia-Ling. 2006. Hanyu Qingtaici de Yuyi Jieding: Yuliauku wei Ben de Yianjiu
(The Semantic Definition of Chinese Modals: A Study Based on Corpus). Zhongguo
Yuwen Yianjiu 21: 45-63.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Hsin, Ai-Li. 2000. Huayu Qingtai Dongci de Yuyi Yu Jufa Chengfen Zhi Hudong (The
Interaction between Syntax and Semantics of Modal Verbs in Mandarin Chinese).
Diliujie Shijie Huayuwu Jiaoxue Yantaohui (6th Chinese Language Teaching).
258-279. Taipei: Shijie Huawen.
Hsu, Yu-Yin. 2004. The Syntactic Structure and Pedagogical Grammar of Modals in
Mandarin Chinese. M.A. Thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.
Huang, Yu-Chun. 1999. A Semantic Study of Modal Verbs in Chinese. M.A. Thesis,
National Taiwan Normal University
Huang, Wan-Ju. 2008. On the Non-existence of the Adjective Category in Mandarin
Chinese. M.A. Thesis, National Chengchi University.
Huang, Xiao-You. 2009. Multiple-Modal Constructions in Mandarin Chinese: A View
from Cartography and MP. M.A. Thesis, National Tsing Hua University.
Klinge, Alex. 1993. The English Modal Auxiliaries: From Lexical Semantics to
Utterance Interpretation. Journal of Linguistics 29:315-357.
Leech, G. N. 1987. Meaning and the English verb. London: Longman.
Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional
Reference Grammar. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Lin, Jo-Wang., and C.C. Jane Tang. 1995. Modals as Verbs in Chinese: A GB
perspective. The Bulletin of the Institute of History and Phiology, Academic
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Sinica 6.1: 53-105. Taipei, Taiwan.
Liu, Mei-Chun, and Yi-Ching Wu. 2004. A Frame-based Analysis of
Polysemous-verbs of Encoding in Mandarin. Paper presented in the 12th Annual
Conference of IACL. Naikai University. Tianjin, China.
Liu, Yue-Hua, Wen-Yu Pan, and Wei Gu. 1996. Shiyong Xiandai Hanyu Yufa (Practical
Modern Chinese Grammar). Taipei: Normal University Publishing.
Lu, Shu-Xiang. 1980. Xiandai Hanyu Babai Ci (Eight Hundred Words in Modern
Chinese). Hong Kong: Shang Wu Publishing.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mishoe, Margaret, and Michael Montgomery. 1994. The Pragmatics of Multiple
Modal Variation in North and South Carolina. American Speech, 69(1). 3-29.
Nagle, Stephen J. 2003. Double Modals in the Southern United States: Syntactic
Structure or Syntactic Structures? Modality in Contemporary English, ed. by
Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug, Frank Palmer, 349-372. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Ogura, Michiko. 1993. Shal (not) mowe, or Double Auxiliary Constructions in Middle
English. The Review of English Studies 44(176). 539-548.
Palmer, F. R. 1990. Modality and the English Modals. 2nd ed. London; New York:
Longman.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Palmer, F. R. 2001. Mood and Modality. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Papafragou, Anna. 2000. Modality: Issues in the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface.
Amsterdam: New York.
Perkins, Michael R. 1983. Modal Expressions in English. Norwood, New Jersey:
ABLEX Publishing Co.
Shepherd, S. 1982. The Acquisition of Modality in Antiguan Creole. In Papers from
the 5th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (A. Alqvist, ed.),
p171-185. Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Sperber, D., and D. Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition.
Blackwell, Oxford.
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects
of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science
2: 49-100.
Tang, Ting-Chi, and Chih-Chen Jane Tang. 1997. Hanyu Qingtaici Xulun
(Introduction to Modal Words in Mandarin Chinese). Diwujie Shijie Huayuwu
Jiaoxue Yantaohui (5th Conference of World Chinese Language Teaching).
177-197. Taipei: Shi Jie Hua Wen.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Tang, Ting-Chi. 2000. Hanyu de Qingtai Fuci: Yuyi Neihan yu Yufa Gongneng
(Modal Adverbs in Mandarin Chinese: Semantic Content and Syntactic Function).
Collection of Sinica Academia 71:199-219.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An
Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change. Language 65: 31-55.
Tsai, W.-T. Dylan, and Paul H. Porter. 2008. Adverb-Modal Interactions and Actuality
Entailments in Chinese. Paper presented at IsCLL-11, National Chiao Tung
University, Taiwan.
Tsao, Feng-Fu. 1990. Sentence and Clause Structure in Chinese: a functional
Perspective. Taipei: Student Book, Co.
Wu, Chun-Hui. 2009. Polysemous Modal Verbs in Mandarin Chinese. MA thesis.
Taipei: National Chengchi University.
曹逢甫. 1993.《台灣話動詞研究》，國科會研究計畫報告(NSC 81-0301-H-007-508).
曹逢甫. 1993.《台灣話動詞研究》，國科會研究計畫報告(NSC 81-0301-H-007-508).