On the representation of modality

Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (3):357 - 379 (1977)
In this paper I argue that noun complement modality cannot be treated as dependent on the meanings of lexical embedding predicates or of abstract performatives. Using two types of complement modalities, I show that their meanings and restrictions remain distinct and invariable regardless of the meanings of their embedding predicates. Then, using embedding predicates that can take both types of modalities, I show that the embedding predicates retain their meanings, regardless of the different modalities of their complements, and they can undergo deletions requiring their identity.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF00353454
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 16,667
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
James D. McCawley (1968). The Role of Semantics in a Grammar. In Emmon Bach & R. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston 124--169.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Martin Huntley (1984). The Semantics of English Imperatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 7 (2):103 - 133.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

6 ( #336,406 of 1,726,249 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

2 ( #289,836 of 1,726,249 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.