Modal Auxiliaries in Sorani Kurdish

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Abstract

“Modality is concerned with the status of the proposition that describes the event” (Palmer, 2001: 1). This grammatical category is common to every language, shown by the help of some grammatical or lexical elements such as mood, auxiliaries, clitics, etc. because it’s a universal concept. This article deals with this notion in Sorani Kurdish from the viewpoint of modal auxiliaries. As this study is the first one on modal elements in this language, it has a descriptive sense, but in order to reach this description, the author tries to use some formal tests when interpreting the modal’s different modal meanings. These tests are gotten from Palmer (2001) and some work based on Kratzer (1977). It becomes clear that Sorani uses the auxiliaries “ʔeshe”, “bu:in” and “twanin” to show modality, each one stating three of the four main kinds of modality introduced by Palmer (2001); naming epistemic, dynamic and deontic, without conveying any meaning for evidential modality. The elements that help distinguish their different modal interpretations rest upon modal degrees (necessity and possibility) and their kinds (speculative, deductive and assumptive for epistemic modality; laws, norms and personal power as the sources for deontic modality, and desire and ability for dynamic) which all are determined by the context in which they occur.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

اخلاقی، فریار (١٣٨٦). بایستن، شدن و توانستن؛ سه فعل وجهی در فارسی امروز. مجلۀ دستور، شمارۀ ٣، ٨٢-١٣٢.
باطنی، محمدرضا (١٣۵٤). استعمال باید در فارسی امروز. در: محمدرضا باطنی، مسائل زبانشناسی نوین(صص ١٢۵-١٣٠).تهران: آگاه.
رحیمیان، جلال (١٣٨٨). جنبه­های صوری و معنایی عناصر معین فارسی در جمله­های وابسته. مجلۀ زبانشناسی و گویش­های خراسان، شمارۀ ١، ٨۵-٩١.
عموزاده مهدیرجی، محمد و حدائق رضایی (١٣٨٩). ابعاد معنی شناسی باید در زبان فارس. مجلۀ پژوهش­های زبانی، شمارۀ ١، ٧٨-۵٧.
مرادی، روناک (1391). وجه­نمایی و وجه در کردی سورانی: رویکردی نحوی و معنایی، رسالۀ دکتری زبان‌شناسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.
Barbiers, S. (2005). The Syntax of Modal Auxiliaries. In: M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. vol. 5., (chap. 70: pp. 1–22). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Butler, J. (2003). A Minimalist Treatment of Modality. Lingua, 113, 967-996.
ـــــــ (2006). The Structure of Temporality and Modality (or, Towards Deriving Something Like a Cinque Hierarchy). In: P. Pica (Ed.), Linguistic Variation Yearbook, (6: pp. 161–201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Chung, S. and A. Timberlake (1985). Tense, Aspect, and Mood. In: T. Shopen(Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Describtion. Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, (pp. 202–258). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kiefer, F. (1994). Modality. In: R. E. Asher (Ed.). The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, (pp. 2515-2520). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kosur, H. M. (2010). A Linguistic Typology of Modality. Retrieved from:
http://ilstu.academia.edu/HeatherMarieKosur/Papers/335073/A_Linguistic_Typology_of_Modality.
Kratzer, A. (1977). What ‘Must’ and ‘Can’ Must and Can Mean. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1: 337-55.
ـــــــ (1981). The Notional Category of Modality. In: H. J. Eikmeyer & H. Rieser (Eds.), Words, Worlds, and Contexts, (pp. 38–74). Berlin: de Gruyter.
ـــــــ (1991). Modality. In:  A. Von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantics: an International Handbook of Contemporary Research, (pp. 639–650).Berlin: de Gruyter.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F. R. (1994). Mood and Modality. In: R. E. Asher (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, (pp. 2535-2540).Oxford: Pergamon Press.
ـــــــ (2001). Mood and Modality. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taleghani, A. H. (2006). Modality, Aspect and Negation in Persian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.
Research in Western Iranian Languages and Dialects
Volume 1, Issue 2 - Serial Number 2
December 2013
Pages 117-134

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics