Cover not available

Article published In: Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 12:2 (2014) ► pp.471–491

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Making sense of negated modals in English

With a glimpse at other Germanic languages

 | University of Hamburg
Published online: 31 October 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.12.2.08rad
The complexities of the interaction of modality and negation are well-known. They mainly arise from different scopes of negation. Thus, the negation in You mustn’t go has narrow scope while the negation in You can’t go has wide scope. This study adopts a cognitive approach to the issue of scope in negated modality. It examines negated modals within a conceptual matrix developed on the basis of conceptual distinctions that are crucial to modality. The distribution of negated modal verbs within the conceptual matrix reveals which modal concepts are coded in a given language and which ones are not. The study focuses on the system of English negated modals but also compares it to the systems of German, Dutch and Norwegian. In all four languages, the predominant way of negating modals is by using wide-scope negation. German, in fact, wholly relies on wide-scope negation, while English makes use of both scopes of negation. Its mixed nature leads to a number of “irregularities” in the use of modals, which, however, can still be shown to be motivated.
References (17)
Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London/Canberra: Croom Helm.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Haan, F. (1997). The interaction of modality and negation: A typological study. New York/ London: Garland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G.K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iatridou, S., & Zeijlstra, H. (2010). On the scopal interaction of negation and deontic modals. Logic, Language and Meaning, 315–324. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, G.N. (1969). Toward a semantic description of English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. 2 volumes1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Myhill, J. (1996). The development of the strong obligation system in American English. American Speech, 711, 339–388. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ostler, N., & Atkins, B.T.S. (1992). Predictable meaning shift: Some lexical properties of lexical implication rules. In J. Pustejovsky & S. Bergler (Eds.), Lexical Semantics & commonsense reasoning, Proceedings of SIGLEX workshop, Association for Computational Linguistics 1991. ([URL])
Palmer, F.R. (1990). Modality and the English modals. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2001). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pelyvás, P. (1996). Subjectivity in English: Generative Grammar versus the cognitive theory of epistemic grounding. Frankfurt/M: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2011). Motivation in English must and Hungarian kell. In K.-U. Panther & 
G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (pp. 171–190). Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Panther, K.-U. (2004). Introduction: Reflections on motivation. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 1–46). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 121, 49–100. Revised version in L. Talmy. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring (pp. 409–470). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

GÓRALCZYK, IWONA & JOANNA ŁOZIŃSKA
2021. Yoga instructions in Polish and Russian as directive speech acts: a cognitive linguistic perspective. Language and Cognition 13:4 ► pp. 613 ff. DOI logo
Benczes, Réka
2015. “Cognitive Linguistics is fun”. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13:2 ► pp. 479 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue