ntfffl~iitil'iJf~ J ~ 9%@20071F[~(20071F) pp.73-88
B :<js:~{fffliffiii$4<)jli]

On Epistemic Modality:
A Pragmatic Approach*
Harumi Sawada

Epistemic modals or predicates in English and Japanese are analyzed from three viewpoints: (i) reality of p (=propositional content), (ii) time of p, and (iii) causality of p, andthree conditions are proposed: the Reality Condition, the Actuality Condition, and the
Present Condition, which are in a hierarchical order. It is argued that when the epistemic modal expresses a cause inference, the p must be present or past, but not future
which is expressed by the future will, in the real world.

Hey words: epistemic modality, cause inference, result inference, Reality Condition,
Actuality Condition, Present Condition

1. Introduction
Modality has been studied repeatedly within various frameworks in modern linguistics over the past fifty years (Palmer 19902, 200F; Langacker 1991; Sawada 1993, 1995,
2006; Bybee, and Fleischman (eds.) 1995; Papafragou 2000; Barbiers, Beukema, and vander Wurff (eds.) 2002; Facchinetti, Krug, and Palmer (eds.) 2003; Klinge and MUller (eds.)
2005; Frawley, ( ed.) 2006). As Nuyts (2005: 5) puts it, modality is 'one of the golden oldies'among the basic notions in the semantic analysis of language.' It seems very likely thatevery language has some m eans of expressing the concept of modality. If this is the case,modality can be considered a universal category. For the moment, along the lines of
Sawada (2006), I define modality as follows:(1) Modality is a semantic category which expresses how t he propositional conten t(i.e., the event or state of affairs) should be, not just how it is (or true), or the
speaker's or the subject's perception and feeling of it.
(Sawada 2006: 2)

If we represent modality and its propositional content by M and p, respectively, we canget the following formula:(2) M [p]In order to make the concept of modality clearer, let us compare the following two exan1ples:(3) a. John is in his office. (non-modal)b. John may be in his office.

(modal)(Klinge 2005: 170)

In (3), (3a) is non-modal in that p (="John is in his room.") is asserted, but not modalized,
while (3b) is modal in that p is modalized, but not asserted, because the speaker of (3b) is
not sure whether or not John is in his office (see Palmer (200F : 3-4) concerning the notionof assertion). If modality is used in the utterance, by Grice's (1989: 27) Maxim of Quantity(="Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence." ) of The Cooperative Principle,
there arises the implicature that the speaker is not sure about its truth.
The purpose of this paper is to consider e pistemic modality, i.e. modality of judgment,in terms of propositional-content conditions in English and Japanese from the three viewpoints in (4):(4) (i) reality ofp(ii)temporality of p(iii) causality of p

This paper makes it clear that when the epistemic modality expresses a cause inference,
i.e. an inference on the cause of p (=the event or the state of affairs), the p must be pastor present in the r eal world, but not the kind of future which is expressed by simple- 74 -

On Epistemic Modality

future will. I hope this paper will shed some light on the problem of what the nature ofinference in our cognition of the outer world is.

2. What is Epistemic Modality?
2. 1. Characterization of Epistemic Modality
As is well-known, Palmer (19902, 200F, 2003) classifies modality into two main categories: propositional modality and event modality, and the former is subcategorized into
epistemic and evidential types, whereas the latter is subcategorized into deon tic anddynamic types.
Observe the following examples of epistemic, deontic, and dynamic modals (see Nuyts
2006: 2):(5) epistemic:She{may!might/couldlshould/must}h ave

missedh er

train.

(inference/possibility)(6) deontic:

a. This is a terrible party.

We really must go home. (obligation)b. {May I Can} I put the TV on? (permission)c. You shall have all you wish for. (promise)(7) dynamic:
a. I can read Italian, but I can't speak it.(ability)b. I really will stop smoking. (will)

Palmer (200P : 8-9) explains the above categories as follows: with epistemic modality
speakers express their judgments about the factual status of the proposition, whereas
with evidential modality they indicate the evidence they have for its factual status.
~

·.-::

Furthermore, deontic modality relates to obligation or permission, which comes from anexternal source, whereas dynamic modality relates to ability or willingness, which comesfrom the individual concerned ''· Palmer (19902: 12) states that there appears to be no evidential modality in English.

- 75-

2. 2. Epistemic Modality and Evidential Modality
Within a cognitive framework (Langacker 1991: 271, 2002a, 2002b: 13; 2004, 2006: 19,
Yamanashi 2000), modality is regarded as expressing a grounding relationship which
relates the conceptualizers (i.e., the speaker and the hearer) on the ground to the objective process (=[p]) on the stage. Therefore, in his framework modality is regarded as a
subjective, but not objective, entity in that it is not profiled on the stage, as in:(8) Langacker's Model
I

I

[iJ
h.
II
II

II
II

---- -- ---I

In the above figure, p is an objective process on the 'stage,' C is a conceptualizer who con-strues the p , D is the conceptualizer's cognitive domain, and the double arrow representsa grounding relationship (Langacker 2004: 545). If we assume here that p is a propositional content and the modality is a propositional, but not an event, modality, the modality in question is epistemic or evidential.
Unlike English, there is evidential modality in Japanese, because in the modal rashii'seem' is ambiguous between epistemic and evidential meanings. Observe the following
examples in (9):(9) a. dooyara ano josei-wa..····.:.·

kono ko -no

hahaoya-rashii.

Perhaps that woman-TOP this child-GEN mother -seem'Perhaps, that woman is this child's mother.'b. terebi-ni-yoruto,
TV-to-according thesonoeiga -waomoshiroi-rashii.

movie-TOP interesting -seem.

'According to the TV, the movie is interesting.'-76-

On Epistemic Modality

In (9a), the modal adverb dooyara 'perhaps' and the modal auxiliary rashii 'seem' express
the speaker's judgment about the factual status of the proposition that that woman is thischild's mother. Though the woman and the child show remarkable resemblance, thespeaker is avoiding his assertion because h e is not certain about its truth. Therefore,rashii in (9a) is epistemic.
On the other h and, in (9b), rashii expresses the information that the movie is interesting based on external information source, such as hearsay, a rumor, a book, a newspaper, TV, etc. In the case of (9b), the information source is TV. Therefore, rashii in (9b) isevidential. The cognitive difference between epistemic and evidential modalities seems tobe that the former expresses the speaker's own judgment, while the latter conveys theinformation source.
One of the arguments for postulating both epistemic and evidential modalities inJapanese comes from the fact that unlike epistemic modality, evidential modality cannot
express a past modality. For example, epistemic rashii, but not evidential rashii, canexpress his or her past judgment. To put it differently, epistemic rashii, but not evidential

rashii, can occur in the past tense:(10) a. Taroo-wa

isogashii-rashi -katta.

Taroo-TOP busy

-seem -PAST'Perhaps, Taroo seemed to be busy.' (Epistemic)
b. *terebi-ni-yoruto,

sono

eiga-waomoshiroi-rashi-katta.

TV -to-accordingthemovie-TOP

interesting-seem -PAST'According to TV, the movie was said to be interesting.' (Evidential)

The difference of acceptability between (lOa) and (lOb) can be attributed to the fact thatthe temporal contrast between the present judgment and the past judgment is meaningful, but the temporal contrast between the the present information based on the present
TV information and the past information based on the past TV information is not, at leastin Japanese modality. However, I would like to leave as an open question why it is that
evidential modality cannot b e past in Japanese.

-77-3. Reality Condition
Let us assume here that p can be classified into (i) real and (ii) hypothetical (or irreal), and that, basically in English, a real p is expressed by an indicative mood, wh ereas ahypothetical p is expressed by a subjunctive mood

(Sawada 2006: 117). A real p is a pwhich is regarded as existing in the real world, and a hypothetical p is a p which isregarded as not existing or unlikely to exist in the real world.
Let us now consider the following example from the viewpoint of the real-hypothetical contrast:(11) If

the

enemy

attacked,thebridge

could

be

blown

up.

(Declerck and Reed 2001: 235)

(11) is hypothetical because the verb attacked and the modal could is in a past subjunctive
form. Could in (11) is ambiguous: on e meaning is epistemic (=judgment) and the other isdynamic (=possibility or ability). It refers to the speaker's inference in the former interpretation (= it is possible that t h e bridge would be blown up. ), whereas it refers to the'dynamic' possibility in the latter interpretation (= it would be possible for the bridge to
be blown up.).
Let us now consider what other modals can occur in (12) in an epistemic meaning:(12) a. If the enemy attacked, the bridge( might/could/should/*must} be blown up. (epistemic)b. If Holmes h ad been playing, Scotland(may/might/could/should/*must} have won. (epistemic)

It is important to notice that epistemic must is unacceptable in th e group of epistemic

modals in (12). Why is it unacceptable? It is possible to explain the non-acceptability ofepistemic must by the following condition:(13) Reality Condition:
The p must be real: it must be a real, but not hypothetical, situation.

Epistemic must is unacceptable in (12) because it violates t h e Reality Condition in (13).
Next, let us consider t h e situation of Japanese epistemic modals. Observe the follow--78-

On Epistemic Modality

ing example:(14) Kar e-ga

ima

He -NOMnow

kore-omi-tara, okoru-daroo.

this-ACC see-if,

angry -would'Ifhe saw this now, he would be a ngry.'This sentence is a hypothetical conditional, which implies that h e isn't h ere now, so hecannot see this, and that therefore, his anger is irreal. The epistemic modal daroo 'would'
is used her e to r efer to t h e speaker's inference of a hypoth etical situation.
Now, compare the following two sentences:(15) Kare-ga ima kore-o mi-tar a, okoru-kamosirenai.
h e -NOM now this-ACC see-if, angry-might'If he saw this now, h e might be a ngry.'(16)*Kare-ga ima k ore-o mi-tara, okoru-rashii.
h e -NOM now this-ACC see-if, angry-seem'*If h e saw this now, h e seems to be angry.'

Notice that unlike (15), (16) is unaccepta ble in Japanese a nd English. The difference
between (15) and (16) lies in the kind of the modal which is used in an apodosis of the
hypothetical conditional: kamosirenai 'might' is well-formed, but rashii 'seem to' is not.
This contrast of acceptability can also be explained on the basis of the Reality Conditionin (13): epistemic rashii 'seem to', but not kamosirenai 'might,' violates this condition.
The above a nalysis leads to the following observation:(17) The p which is r eferred to by epistemic must or epistemic rashii, but not epistemic might or epistemic kamosirenai, must be real, but not hypothetical.

This observation shows that the Reality can be applied to English and Japanese irrespective of the typological difference between the two languages.
Let us assume now t h at p can be classified into real and hypothetical p's, and eachcan be further classified into definite and non-definite p's. A definite p can be defined asa p which th e sp eaker can assert as true, whereas a non-definite p can be defined as a p. ·I

which h e or sh e cannot assert as true .
Epistemic modals refer to a non-definite p because the speaker will not e mploy-79 -modals if he or see is certain about the situation and can assert its truth. The examples
in (12) , (15), and (16) show that a more severe condition is imposed on epistemic must in
English or rashii in Japanese than epistemic might and should in English or epistemic

daroo or and kamosirenai in Japanese.
Now, why cannot epistemic must or epistemic rashii refer to a hypothetical situation?
We can find the answer in the difference of inferential systems in epistemic modals. Thisis the theme of the next section.

4. Actuality Condition
This section argues for another condition : the Actuality Condition. Observe
the following examples of epistemic modals:(18) You (may!might/could/*must} feel better after a good night's sleep.

.,· ..

(19) Don't wait for me - I lmay/might/couldl*must }be a few minutes late .

Notice that only epistemic must is unacceptable among the four epistemic modals in (18)and (19). Why is it unacceptable?
Along the line of Sawada (2006: 260), I will propose the following condition on epistemic must:(20) Actuality Condition:
The p must be actual: it must be past or present in the real world, but not thekind offuture which is expressed by simple future will.

Compare (18) with (21) below. Interestingly, (21) is well-formed, unlike (18):(21) You must feel better after h aving h ad a good night's sleep. (E)............
: .
The Actuality Condition in (20) enables us to explain this fact in a natural way, because
epistemic must in (21) refers to the present state of affair s , but not to the kind of future
which is expressed by simple future will.

In the case of a simple future sentence, the p refened to by the sen tence belongs to afuture domain, which is temporally far away from a present domain. This is wh at
Langacker (1991: 277-278) calls projected reality, as in:-so-On Epistemic Modality

'

. .·

Reality

Projected Reality

1

I

I

/

'\
\

I

:::::::>(22)

The process in question is in a form of a cylinder which moves from past to future along
the time axis. The situation in the projected reality is sure to occur (Langacker 1991: 278).
C stands for the conceptualizer and the double arrow stands for the evolutionary momentum.
Now, how can we explain the Actuality Condition from a cognitive viewpoint? I will
explain this as follows: when the speaker is inferring the p by using epistemic must, theinference is usually based on some direct evidence such as sound, sight, smell, or taste,etc. However, if the pis a future situation which is expressed by a simple future will, the.,speaker cannot have access to such direct evidence. In that situation, we cannot use epistemic must because it expresses the speaker's inference based on direct evidence at thetime of utterance.

5. Causality
When the speaker infers p, his inference is u sually based on some evidence. Thenthe evidence and the inferred p can be safely said to form a cause-and-effect relationship.
Now, does the inferred p correspond to the result of the evidence , or does it correspond to the cause of the evidence?

This section argues that the causality of p plays animportant role in our inference system.

- 81 -

5.1. Patterns of Inference: Result Inference and Cause Inference
Let us assume here that our inference can be divided into two types: a result inference and a cause inference (Sawada 2006: 243ff.). A result inference is an inferen ce on the
result of evidence, whereas a cause inference is an inference on the cause of the evidence.
Let us consider the type of inference in epistemic must in the following example:(23) Caroline pushed her spectacles up and looked at me.
'You seem very grumpy, James. It must be your liver. A blue pill, I think,tonight.'(A. Christie, The Murder of Roger Ackroyd) (Underline is mine)

In this situation, the speak er, Caroline, tells the hearer, Dr. Shepard, to take a blue pill

because she can observe that he is very grumpy now. The inferred p of epistemic must,
i.e. that "it is your liver ," is in a causal relation to the evidence: Shepard's liver is thecause of his grumpiness (=bad temper). Therefore, epistemic must in (23) can be regarded
as expressing a cause inference.
Interestingly, in the case of a cause inference, epistemic may, might, or could , but
not should, can be substituted for epistemic must, as shown by (24):(24) It {must/*should/maylmight/could) be your liver.

(24) shows that epistemic should , but not epistemic may, might, or could, cannot express
a cause inference.

5.2. Causality and Epistemic Modality in English
Let us n ow consider which type of inference English modals express, i.e. a result
inference or a cause inference? Observe the following examples:(25) a. It is twelve, he {may/might/could/ should/must) be at work n ow.
b. According to the schedule, they{may I might/ could/should I must) be working on the engine now.
(26) a. He looks tired, he {may/mightlcould/*should/must)
be working too much these days.
b. I can't hear any noise, h e {may/might/could/*shouldlmust)-82-

On Epistemic Modality

be asleep.

As Riviere (1981) and Sawada (2006) observe, epistemic should is well-formed in(25), but not in (26). The difference of (25) and (26) lies in the type of inference:the epistemic modals in (25) express a result inference in that the time schedule is a
cause, and the working is its result, whereas the epistemic modals in (26) express a
cause inference in that his excessive work is a cause of his tiredness, or his sleep isa cause of his silence.
The above data suggest (27) and (28):(27) The Symmetry of the Direction of Inference:
Both a result inference and a cause inference are possible in the case of epistemic

must, may, might, and could.
(28) The Asymmetry of the Direction of Inference:
A result inference, but not a cause inference, is possible in the case of epistemic

should.

5.3. Causality and Epistemic Modality in Japanese
What about the case of epistemic predicates in Japanese? Do they express a result
inference or do they express a cause inference? Compare the following examples:(29) Watashi-wa
Imada kawa -o

mite-i-nai-ga,

yetriver-ACCsee-not-but,

ooame-ga

fut-ta

-TOP

yuube

kara,

last night heavy rain-NOM fall-PAST because
kawa-wahanran-site-iru

river-TOP

flooded -be{nichigainai (=must)/ *no-nichigainai (=must)/ kamoshirenai(=may/might) !*no-kamoshirenai (=may!might)l*rashiil(=seem to/appear to)!*yooda (=seem to/appear to)/ hazuda (=should)/

daroo (=willlwould)!*no-daroo (=will/would)).
'I haven't seen the river yet, but the river {must/should/may/*seems to/*appearsto) b~ flooded because it rained heavily last night.'-83 -(30) Kodomo-ga hitoride naite-i-ru. Maigo

ni nat-ta

child -NOM alone cry-PROG-PRES lost child to become-Past(nichigainai (=must)! no-nichigainai (=must)/ ?kamoshirenai(=may/might) /no-kamoshirenai (=may/might)/ rashiil(=seem to/appear to )lyooda (=seem to/appear to)/ *hazuda (=should)/*daroo (=will/would)lno-daroo (=will/would)}.
'A child is crying. He (must/*should/may/seems to/*would} be lost .'Let us consider (29) first. In (29) the speaker is inferring that the river is swollen
based on the fact that it rained heavily last night. However, in this case ther e is a lack ofobservation, so the speaker's inference is not based on direct evidence, but on his own
deduction that a heavy rain will cause a flood. Therefore, the epistemic modals express a
result inference in (29). In this type of inference, nichigainai 'must', kamoshirenai'may/might,' haz uda 'should,' and daroo 'will/would' are all well-formed. However, rashii'seem/appear to,' yooda 'seem/appear to,' and all of the no 'fact/thing' forms are ill-formed,
because they express a result inference based on direct evidence.
Next, let us consider (30). In contrast to (29), in (30) the speaker is inferring that thechild is lost based on the fact that h e or she is crying alone. Unlike (29), in this case thespealcer's inference is not based on just deduction or calculation but on direct evidence:
being lost is clearly the cause of crying. Therefore, the epistemic modals express a cause
inference in (30). In this type ofinference, rashii 'seem/appear to,' yooda 'seem/appear to,'and all of the no 'fact/thing' forms are well-formed. However, nichigainai 'must',

kamoshirenai 'may/might,' hazuda 'should,' and daroo 'will/would' ar e all ill-formed,
because they express a r esult inference, but not a cause inference.
Let us now consider the example below. Its context is the speaker's reaction when heor sh e hears the news that the levee of the river is broken :(31) Sore-wa

taihen-da.

That -TOP
yuube

terrible-beooame -ga

fut-takara,

last night heavy rain-NOM fall-PAST because
kawa-wahanran-site-iru

river -TOP

flooded-be(nichigainai (=must)/ no-nichigainai (=must)/ ?kamoshirenai-84 -On Epistemic Modality(=m ay/might) /no-kamoshirenai (=may/might)/ rashiil(=seem to/appear to )lyooda (=seem to/appear to)/ *hazuda (=sh ould)/*daroo (=will/would)/no-daroo (=will/would)}.

'That's terrible! The river {must/*should/may/seems to/*would} beswollen because it rained heavily last night.'

Interestingly, the acceptability of (31) is not parallel with (29), but with (30). Why is it so?
Context plays a vital role here. That is to say, in (31) t h e fact that the r iver isswollen because of the heavy rain is not the result of som ething else, but a direct cause of
the break of t h e levee, which has been referred to in the preceding utteran ce. Therefore,(31) describes a cause inference as (30) does.

6. Present Condition
It is a well-known fact that in the case of some epistemic modals in Old J apanese,they observe a condit ion more severe than the Actuality Condition: the Present Condit ion(Matsuo (1969), Yoshida (1973)). For example, the epistemic modal rashi 'seem to /appear
to' only expresses the speaker's inference of the present situation in the real world. The
following example is adduced from Man'yo-shuu, an anthology consisting of 4,516 p oems
compiled in the middle of the 8th century:(32) Kasuga-no-ni

keburi tatsu mi-yu otome-rashi haru-no-no

Kasuga-plain-in kemuri rise see
uhagi

tsumi

-te

starwort picking andmaidens

spring-field-of-rashi-mo.

ruboiling -seem-EXC(Man'yo-shuu, Volume 10, 1879)'I can see the smoke
Rising from Kasuga plain;
Perhaps som e maidens
Have gathered starworts of spring
And then they are now boiling.'(Translated by Teruo Suga)In (32) rashi 'seem to /appear to' is used on the basis of direct evidence to express the-85 -speaker's inference that the situation exists or is true at the present moment. Thus, in(32) the speaker sees smoke rising in the field of Kasugano, and infers, based on thesmoke, that girls are cooking young herbs. Notice that in (32) rashi expresses a cause
inference, but not a result inference, in that boiling young herbs is a cause of the smoke(Nakanishi 1996: 225). In such a cause inference, direct evidence based on the five sensesof vision, sound, taste, smell, and touch is the direct reflection of some other unseen situation. We can conclude from the above analysis that rashi observes the following condition:(33) Present Condition:
The p must be present.

7. Conclusion
This paper has analyzed epistemic modals or predicates in English and Japanesefrom three viewpoints: (i) reality of p, (ii) time of p, and (iii) causality of p.
We have argued for the three conditions: the Reality Condition, the Actuality
Condition, and the Present Condition. It is important to notice that they are in a hierarchical order as in:(34) Present Condition > Actuality Condition > Reality Condition

Furthermore, it is possible to conclude as in (47) concerning the relationship of theabove epistemic hierarchy and the type of inference:(35) A cause inference must observe the Actuality Condition.

This condition states that when the epistemic modal expresses a cause inference, the pmust be present or past, but not future which is expressed by the future will, in the realworld. This condition is reasonable in that, unlike a result, a cause already exists prior toa result.
We must emphasize now that pragmatic factors play an important role in epistemic
modality, because the speaker's cognition of the causal relation is crucially based on theimmediate context of the utterance and the spealrer's encyclopedic knowledge and the historical background of the utterance. This strongly suggests that modality is closely related to pragmatics.

- 86-

.·.: IOn Epistemic Modality

Notes*This article is based on a special lecture delivered at the Ninth General Meeting of the Pragmatics
Society of Japan, held at St. Andrew's University, Osaka, on Dec. 9, 2006. I would like to thankProfessor Richard Cleveland at Kansai Gaidai University for his valuable comments.
1) However, as Nuyts (2006: -1) discusses, dynamic modality is not necessarily concerned with theindividuals' internal properties, but with external environments in the followi ng sentences:(i) a. The book need not be in the library. It can also be on my desk.
b. We all have to die someday.

(Nuyts 2006: 4)

References

Barbiers, S ., F. Beukema, and W. van der Wurff (eds.). 2002. Modality and its Interaction with the

Verbal System. Amsterdam: J oh n Benjamins.
Brisard, F. (ed.). 2002. Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Bybee, J. and S. Fleischman (eds.). 1995. Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Facchinetti, R., M. Krug, and F. Palmer (eds.). 2003. Modality in Contemporary English . Berlin :Mouton de Gruyter.
Declerck, R. and S. Reed . 2001. Conditionals:A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Frawley, W. (ed.). 2006. The Expression of Modality. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grice, H.P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Klinge, A. 2005. "Where There Is a Will, There Is a Modal." In A. Klinge and H. H . Miiller (eds.), 169186.
Klinge, A. and H . H . Muller (eds.). 2005. Modality: Studies in Form and Function. London: Equinox.
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Vol.II. Descriptive Application. Stanford,
Cal.: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 20022a . Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter,
Langacker, R. W. 2002b. "Deixis and Subjectivity." In F. Brisard (ed.), 1-28.
Langacker, R. W. 2002c. "Remarks on the English Grounding Systems." I n F. Brisard (ed.), 29-38.
Langacker, R. W. 2004. "Aspects of the Grammar of Finite Clauses." In M . Achard and S. Kemmer(eds.) Language, Culture and Mind, 535-577. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Langacker, R. W. 2006. "Subjectification, Grammaticalization, and Conceptual Archetypes." I n A.
Athanasiadou , C . Canakis, and B. Cornillie (eds .) Subjectification: Various Paths to

Subjectivity,1-38. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Matsuo, S. 1961. Jodoosi-no Kenkyuu (A Study of Auxiliaries). Tokyo: Hakuteisha .
Nakanishi, U. 1996. Kodaigo Bunpooron: Jodooshi (The Grammar of Old Japanese: Auxiliaries).
Osaka: Izumishoin.

-87-

Nuyts, J. 2005. "The Modal Confusion: on Terminology and the Concepts behind It." I n A. Klinge andH. H. Muller (eds.), 5-38.
Nuyts, J. 2006. "Modality: Overview and Linguistic Issues." In W. Frawley (ed.), 1-26.
Palmer, F .R. 19902 . Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman .
Palmer, F.R. 200F. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F.R. 2003. "Modality in English: Theoretical, Descriptive and Typological Issues." In R.
F acchinetti, M. Krug, and F. Palmer (eds.), 1-17.
Papafragou, A. 2000. Modality: Issues in the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Riviere, C. 1981. "Is Should a Weaker Must?." Journal of Linguistics 17, 179-195.
Sawada, H. 1995. Studies in English and Japanese Auxiliaries: A Multi-stratal Approach. Tokyo:
Hituzi Shobo.
Sawada, H . 2001. "Ninshiki-no Patan-to Hoojodoosi-no Imi-kaishaku" (The Pattern of Cognition andt he Interpretation of Modals). (1)-(2) Rising Generation, 147-3, 185-1 89; 147-4, 225-229.
Sawada, H . 2006. Modality. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Yoshida, K. 1973. Joodaigo Jodooshi-no Shiteki Kenkyuu (A Historical Study of Auxiliaries in Old
Japanese). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.
Yamanashi, M. 2000. Ninchi Gengogaku Genri (Principles of Cognitive Linguistics). Tokyo: Kuroshio.

- 88 -