Cover not available

In:The Corpus Linguistics Discourse: In honour of Wolfgang Teubert
Edited by Anna Čermáková and Michaela Mahlberg
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 87] 2018
► pp. 205–221

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

Epistemic must in an English-Swedish contrastive perspective

 | University of Gothenburg
Published online: 6 December 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.87.09aij
Abstract
Must in English and måste in Swedish do not mean quite the same thing and they have different formal and functional properties as can be shown from a translation perspective. They occur for example with different frequencies in the two languages. Must is mainly epistemic while the deontic meaning predominates with måste. Several factors play a role for the semantic-pragmatic function of must such as the degree of speaker certainty and the type and source of evidence. It is shown that must is used both to express the speaker’s stance and with hearer-appeal in situations where the hearer is assumed to know more than the speaker. Måste is closely associated with certainty and with inferential meaning.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Material and method
  • 3.Epistemic and evidential meaning
  • 4.Frequencies
  • 5.The Swedish correspondences of English must
    • 5.1Must translated by expressions of certainty
    • 5.2Must translated by epistemic particles
    • 5.3Must with inferential meaning
    • 5.4Zero-correspondence
  • 6.The English correspondences of Swedish måste
    • 6.1Måste translated by expressions of certainty
    • 6.2Måste translated by expressions of evidentiality
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (20)
References
Aijmer, K. 2017. The semantic field of obligation in an English-Swedish perspective. In Contrastive Analysis of Discourse-pragmatic Aspects of Linguistic Genres [A special issue of the Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics], K. Aijmer & D. Lewis (eds), 1–32. New York NY: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Altenberg, B. 1999. Adverbial connectors in English and Swedish: Semantic and lexical correspondences. In Out of Corpora. Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson, H. Hasselgård & S. Oksefjell (eds), 249–268. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Altenberg, B. & Aijmer, K. 2000. The English-Swedish parallel corpus: A resource for contrastive research and translation studies. In Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory. Papers from the 20th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 20) Freiburg im Breisgau 1999, C. Mair & M. Hundt (eds), 15–33. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Altenberg, B., Aijmer, K. & Svensson, M. 2001. The English-Swedish Parallel Corpus (ESPC): Manual. Department of English, Lund University. <[URL]> (15 January 2017).
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. 1999. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cornillie, B. 2007. Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality in Spanish (Semi-)auxiliaries. A Cognitive-functional Approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Haan, F. 2009. On the status of ‘epistemic’ must. In Modality in English 3, R. Facchinetti & A. Tsangalidis (eds), 261–284. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haugen, E. 1976. The Scandinavian Languages: An Introduction to Their History. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mortelmans, T. 2000. On the ‘evidential’ nature of the ‘epistemic’ use of the German modals müssen and sollen. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 14: 131–148.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010. Falsche Freunde: Warum sich die Modalverben must, müssen und moeten nicht entsprechen. In Modalität/Temporalität in kontrastiver und typologischer Sicht, A. Katny & A. Socka (eds), 133–148. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2012. Epistemic must and its cognates in German and Dutch. The subtle differences. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 2150–2164.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nuyts, J. 2001. Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization [Human Cognitive Processing 5]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive and typological issues. In Modality in Contemporary English, R. Facchinetti, F. R. Palmer & M. Krug (eds), 1–18. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, N. 2003. Changes in the modals and semi-modals of strong obligation and epistemic necessity in recent British English. In Modality in Contemporary English, R. Facchinetti, M. Krug & F. R. Palmer (eds), 241–266. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Teleman, U., Hellberg, S. & Andersson, E. 1999. Svenska Akademiens grammatik, Band 4. Stockholm: Norstedt.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Teubert, W. 1996. Comparable or parallel corpora. International Journal of Lexicography 9: 238–264.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Dasher, R. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van der Auwera, J. & Plungian, V. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2: 79–124.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue