1
Associate Professor of Linguistics, University of Bvlysyna, Hamedan, Iran
2
Ph.D. student in linguistics, Bu Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran
Abstract
Modality is a grammatical feature which plays a crucial role in determining the ultimate interpretation of propositions. Different languages make use of different linguistic elements like mood, modal auxiliaries, modal verbs, modal adjectives and adverbs for encoding the concept of modality. Despite of its importance in the overall structure of any language, little attention has been paid to the study of modality in Iranian Languages. The present paper focuses on the analysis of the modal auxiliaries in Hawrami. After taking a short look at the concept of modality and getting familiar with the Palmer's (1999, 2001) basic classification of modal systems, these three modals are introduced:"mašjo/mašjā: must", "biey:become", "tāwāy: can". It is argued that among the other modals, only "mašjo" is used to denote the degree of "necessity" in both "epistemic" and "deontic" modal systems. "biey" and "tāwāy", on the other hand, exhibit the concept of "possibility" in "epistemic" and "deontic" systems. Moreover, "biey" and "tāwāy" encode different types of dynamic modality. Although "biey" can also be used to indicate "necessity" in deontic system as well, it imposes less severe obligations on the agent compared to the deontic "mašjo". It is also shown that "mašjā" is the only modal verb which can convey the "deontic" reading in the past tense constructions. None of the aforementioned modal auxiliaries encode evidentiality in Hawrami. Key Words: modal auxiliaries, epistemic modality, deontic modality, dynamic modality, Hawrami.
اخلاقی، فریار (1386). «بایستن، شدن و توانستن: سه فعل وجهی در فارسی امروز». مجله دستور. ش3. صص82-132.
ارانسکی، ای ام (1358). مقدمه فقه اللغه ایرانی. ترجمه کریم کشاورز. تهران: پیام.
ایلخانی‌پور، نگین (1391). نگرشی معنایی- نحوی به وجهیّت در فارسی. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد. تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
رحیمیان، جلال و محمد عموزاده (1392). «افعال وجهی در زبان فارسی و بیان وجهیّت». مجلةپژوهشهای زبانی. د 4. ش 1. صص 21- 40.
طبیب‌زاده، امید (1391). دستور زبان فارسی براساس نظریه گروه‌های خودگردان در دستور وابستگی. تهران: مرکز.
عموزاده، محمد و حدائق رضایی (1389). «ابعاد معناشناسی «باید» در زبان فارسی». مجله پژوهش‌های زبانی. ش 1. صص 57-78.
کریمی‌دوستان، غلامحسین و نگین ایلخانی‌پور (1391). «نظام وجهیّت در زبان فارسی». مجله زبان‌پژوهشی. ش 4. صص 77-98.
مرادی، روناک (1391). وجه‌نمایی و وجه در کردی سورانی: رویکردی نحوی و معنایی. رساله دکتری. تهران: دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.
نقشبندی، زانیار (1390). ساخت‌های کنایی در گویش هورامی. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد. سنندج: دانشگاه کردستان.
نقشبندی، شهرام (1375). نظام آوایی گویش هورامی (گونه شهر پاوه) از دیدگاه واج‌شناسی زایشی و واج‌شناسی جزء مستقل. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد. تهران: دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.
همایون‌فر، مژگان (1392). «بررسی روند دستوری‌شدگی فعل‌های وجهی زبان فارسی براساس پارامترهای لمان». مجلة دستور. ش 9. صص 50-73.
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. New York: Oxford university Press.
Bally, Ch. (1965). Linguistique Generale et Linguistique Francaise. Bern: Francke.
Bybee, J.; R. Perkins & W. Pagiluca .(1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the world. London: University of Chicago Press.
Chung, S. & A. Timberlake. (1985). Tense, Aspect and Mood. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description. T. Shopen (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fillmore, Ch. (1968). The Case for Case. In universals in Linguistic Theory, E. Bach and R.T. Harms (ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehartand Winston.
Haig, G. (2004). Alignment in Kurdish: A Diachronic Perspective. Unpublished Habilitationsschrift: philosophische fakultat der Albrechts-Universitat zu Kiel.
Jespersen, O. (1992). The Philosophy of Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kiefer, F. (1987). On Defining Modality. Folia Linguistic. 21/1. Pp. 67-94.
Kratzer, A. (1981). “The notional category of modality”. In Worlds, Words, and Contexts: New Approaches in World Semantics. H.J. Eikmeyer and H. Rieser (ed.). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Kratzer, A..(1991). Modality. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. A.von Stechow, and D. Wunderlich (ed.). Pp. 639-650. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Lazard, G .(2001). “On the grammaticalization of evidentiality”. Journal of Pragmatics. 33. pp. 359-367.
Lehman, Ch. (2002). Thoughts on Grammaticalization. A Programmatic Sketch; second revised edition. Arbeitspapiere des seminars fur sprachwissenschaft der universitat Erfurt 9.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mahmudweyssi, P. & G. Haig .(2009). The typology of Modality in Some West Iranian Languages. In From Daena to Din Religion, Kultur and Sparche in der iranischen Welt Festschrift fur Philip Kreyenbroek, H. von Christine Allison, A. Joisten-Pruschke and A. Wendtland (ed.). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
MacKenzie, D. N. (1981). Kurdish Dialect Studies I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Narrog, H. (2005). On defining modality again. Language Sciences. Vol. 27. Pp. 165-162.
Palmer, F. (1999). Mood and Modality: Basic Principles. In Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories, K. Brown and J. Miller (ed.). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Palmer, F. (2001). Mood and Modality (2th edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taleghani, A. (2008). Modality, Aspect and Negation In Persian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.
Tavangar, M. & M. Amouzadeh. (2009). “Subjective modality and tense In Persian”. Language Sciences. Vol. 31. Pp. 853-873.
Portner, P (2009). Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van der Auwera, J. & V. A. Plungian (1998). “Modality's semantic map”. Linguistic Typology. Vol. 2. Pp. 79-124.
Von Fintel, K. (2006). Modality and Language. In Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2th edition), D.M. Borchert (ed.). Detroit: MacMillan Reference USA.
Language Related Research