Mood and modality

By Kees Hengeveld. 2004

1,089 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bf9d097e664fef8304789fd2b75c6facede0fab1

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Stance taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity (2006, background): “considered one of the most frequent manifestations of subjectivity in language (Lyons 1977; Palmer 1986).”
The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English (2005, background): “…Halliday who has argued convincingly that such structures are ‘modal’ rather than experiential or informational in their communicative functionality.5 This view is shared by Palmer who, for example, holds that formulations such as I think act to indicate ‘epistemic judgement’ (Palmer 1986: 168).”
Sentiment Analysis: An Overview from Linguistics (2016, unknown): “…(Aikhenvald 2004, Chafe & Nichols 1986), attitudinal stance (Biber & Finegan 1988, Biber & Finegan 1989), modality (Bybee & Fleischman 1995, Palmer 1986, Portner 2009) and appraisal (Martin & White 2005), to mention just a few in each area, all aim at explaining how we use language to…”
The Voices of History: theorising the interpersonal semantics of historical discourses (2002, background): “Some of the most relevant work for the theoretical framework reported on in this article, includes work on epistemic modality (Lyons 1977; Palmer 1986), evidentiality (Chafe 1986), intensity (Labov 1984), face (Brown and Levison 1987), hedging (Hyland 1996, 1998) and stance (Biber and Finnegan 1988,”
Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide (2012, background): “In particular, these orientations are reflected in the epistemic and deontic modality (Givón, 2005, p. 149–177; Palmer, 2001).”
Facts, norms and dispositions: practical uses of the modal verb would in police interrogations (2006, background): “Palmer (2001) provides a finer-grained distinction between two kinds of ‘event modality’, deontic (external to the person: constraints, permission, etc.) and dynamic (internal to the person: ability, willingness, etc.).”
Two Puzzles About Deontic Necessity (2005, background): “Thus, the infelicity of (4) would derive from the fact that (4) entails the infelicitous (9).”
Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St'át'imcets (2008, background): “Faller notes that it has been claimed in some literature that epistemic modals do not contribute to the proposition expressed (e.g., by Lyons 1977, Sweetser 1990, Palmer 2001, Papafragou 2000).”
Book Review: Ontological Semantics, by Sergei Nirenburg and Victor Raskin (2004, methodology): “The somewhat shaky status of methodology in linguistic theory is an example of what can be termed a “subject-specific methodological problem” (Pandit 1991: 167-168). In AI, the other parent of NLP, we find modeling as the only methodological verity in the discipline. Under the “strong AI thesis” (we”
Embedding epistemic modals in English: A corpus-based study (2012, background): “…rather illocutionary markers which express a speaker’s comment about, or commitment to, the proposition expressed by the prejacent (cf. Halliday 1970, Bybee et al. 1994, Bybee & Fleischman 1995, Palmer 2001): (2) “[Epistemic modality] is the speaker’s assessment of probability and predictability.”
Moral logic and logical morality: Attributions of responsibility and blame in online discourse on veganism (2005, background): “qualification by the speaker of his or her commitment to the truth or believability of the proposition of an utterance (Lyons, 1977; Palmer, 1986).”
On the event relativity of modal auxiliaries (2010, background): “This crosslinguistic trend supports a Kratzerian analysis, where each modal has a core lexical entry and where the difference between an epistemic and a root interpretation is contextually determined.”