The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries in Contemporary German 9783110849097, 9789027923905

Citation preview

JANUA LINGUARUM STUDIA MEMORIAE NICOLAI VAN WIJK DEDICATA edenda curat C. H. V A N

SCHOONEVELD

Indiana University

Series

Practica,

146

THE SEMANTICS OF THE MODAL AUXILIARIES IN CONTEMPORARY GERMAN by

LOWELL B O U M A The University of Georgia

1973

MOUTON THE HAGUE • PARIS

© Copyright 1973 in The Netherlands. Mouton & Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague. No part of this book may be translated or reproduced, in any form, by print, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.

microfilm,

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 7 0 - 1 8 9 698

Printed in Hungary

PREFACE

The theory of (grammatical) meaning which underlies the semantic description presented in this monograph has a rather long tradition; it goes back at least to the Prague school linguists. The main ideas which have guided this study can be found in Roman Jakobson's "Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre", and more specifically in the following two quotes from Hjelmslev, which Jakobson cites with approval: Ein Kasus wie eine Sprachform überhaupt bedeutet nicht einige verschiedene Dinge; er bedeutet ein einziges Ding, er trägt einen einzigen abstrakten Begriff, aus dem man die konkreten Verwendungen ableiten kann. 1 La structure du système linguistique n'est pas telle qu'il soit possible de maintenir la distinction entre un terme positif et un terme négatif... L'opposition réelle et universelle est entre un terme défini et un terme indéfini.2 The first quote reflects in essence what I mean by the terms "basic meaning" and "use" (Jakobson: Gesamtbedeutung and konkrete Verwendung, respectively). The second quote can be taken as a rather general definition of the notion of the unmarked versus the marked opposition. Although I would like to consider this study chiefly as a contribution to the theory of grammatical meaning, I feel certain t h a t my findings can in large part be incorporated into any comprehensive grammar of the German language. I t is well known t h a t the English and German modal auxiliaries require special attention and are a source of considerable difficulty, both in grammars for second language learning and in purely descriptive grammars. When I originally began exploring the intricate modal system of German several years

1

Roman Jakobson, "Beitrage zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre", Travaux guistique de Prague V I (1936): 244. 2 Jakobson, "Beitrage zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre", 246.

du cercle lin-

8

PREFACE

ago, my interests were purely scientific; I was not concerned with the potential pedagogical implications. To my pleasant surprise I have discovered meanwhile from my own teaching and from the comments of some of my colleagues and students that, even on the first year level, students can benefit from the systematic description presented here. But considering the nature of language learning, this is what we should expect. The rather messy details are much easier comprehended when seen in the light of a schema or system which lays bare the essential relationships of the members of a subtle but cohesive set of grammatical items like the modal auxiliaries. Little is gained by cataloguing the many nuances, unless the underlying system is first made clear. The basic arguments of this monograph were first presented in a seminar paper in 1966. The seminar paper served as the core of a doctoral thesis which was completed in June of 1968 at the University of Wisconsin. Since the thesis was written with publication in mind, relatively few substantive changes have been made in this final version. I wish to express my sincerest gratitude to Martin Joos for interesting me in the modals in the first place and for his further encouragement, guidance and stimulating comments in the early stages of my research. To Lester Seifert I owe very special gratitude for his many valuable comments and for his careful reading of the manuscript while it was in preparation.

CONTENTS

Preface

7

List of Abbreviations and Figures

10

0. Introduction

11

1. Background 1.1. Data

13 13

1.2. Method

19

2. Semological Sketch of the Modal System

25

3. The Imminent Modals: MUSS and WILL 3.1. WILL 3.2. MUSS 3.3. The Future and the Past of the Imminent Modals 4. The Precarious Modals: DARF and KANN 4.1. DARF 4.2. KANN 4.3. DARF in the Past 4.4. KANN in the Past

38 40 48 60 68 68 73 82 83

5. The Biased Modals: SOLL and MAG 5.1. SOLL 5.2. MAG 5.3. The Past of SOLL and MAG

85 85 92 97

6. The Modals in the Subjunctive

100

7. Negation of the Modals

113

8. Conclusion and Summary

122

Selected Bibliography Index of Important Terms and Authors

124 127

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND FIGURES

ABBREVIATIONS B D H L W OB — — D216f

Citation from Heinrich Böll, " Z u m Tee bei Dr. Börzig", in Erzählungen, H ö r spielen, Aufsätze (Köln, Berlin, Kiepenheuer & Witsch., 1965). Citation f r o m Friedrich D ü r r e n m a t t , Der Richter und sein H e n k e r (Einsiedeln, Benziger Verlag, 1962). Citation from Bernt von Heiseler, " E i n e ländliche Winterkomödie" in Schauspiele, vol 1 (Gütersloh, Bertelsmann, 1951). Citation f r o m Siegfried Lenz, Der Mann im Strom (Hamburg, H o f f m a n n & Campe, 1957). Citation f r o m Klaus Welke, Untersuchungen zum System der Modalverben in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart (Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1965). Citation from Gunnar Bech, " D a s semantische System der deutschen Modalv e r b a " , T r a v a u x du cercle linguistigue de Copenhague IV (1949): 1-46. Change of speaker in t h e cited conversation. The cursive capital letter refers t o t h e author, t h e n u m b e r indicates t h e page reference and t h e lower case letter designates t h e number of t h e modal on t h a t page.

FIGURES

Figure 2

16 18

Figure 3

35

Figure 1

0

INTRODUCTION

This study was inspired chiefly by Martin Joos' The English Verb: Form and Meaning1 and owes a great deal to him both in technique and in content. But it should be said at the outset that the semantic description of the German modal system as it is presented here is vastly different from the one which Joos displays for the English modals. My analysis also differs extensively from any other description, though many of the individual remarks made here can be found scattered throughout the various studies on the German language, and in particular in those which deal exclusively with the modals. Only Gunnar Bech2 attempts to set up a neatly closed system for the German modals in the way Joos has done for English. Thus, the present study could be considered as an alternative solution to Bech's. Bech's analysis has either been accepted, sometimes with slight modification (cf. Brinkmann), 3 or rejected in favor of a looser cataloguing of the uses (Bedeutungsvarianten) of the modals, with less attention to their systematic relationships (cf. Welke),4 but I am not aware of any other attempts to present a different structural description which more closely fits the facts. I t is not my intention, nor would it have much value, to cite and take issue with every work consulted in which there is either significant agreement or disagreement, although the bibliography contains references to all the recent works I have consulted which deal at significant length with the modals as a special class of verbs. The pertinent treatises on this topic will be subjected to critique and comparison as I present my analysis.

1

(Madison, Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Press, 1964). See especially pages 147-201. 2 "Das semantische System der deutschen Modalverba", Travaux du eerie linguistique de Copenhague IV (1949); 1-46. 3 Hennig Brinkmann, Die deutsche Sprache: Gestalt und Leistung (Düsseldorf, Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann, 1962), pp. 359£f. 4 Klaus Welke, Untersuchungen zum System der Modalverben in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart (Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1965).

12

INTRODUCTION

For the purposes of this study I am interested in only those six auxiliaries (können, müssen, wollen, sollen, mögen, dürfen) which are conventionally labelled as modals. To a certain extent this is an arbitrary decision since, as Klaus Welke unequivocally states: "Eine formale Besonderheit, die nur den sechs MV zukommt, gibt es nicht". 5 I t is clear, for example, that the modals differ from other verbs in their morphology, but this difference also applies to wissen. Welke shows that there are no other formal criteria which clearly set the modals off as a special class. Since he discusses in some detail the formal features (syntactic and morphological) characteristic of the modals, a treatment of that topic here would be superfluous.6 Thus in my analysis, the exclusion of all other elements from the set of modals is justified not by formal, but by semantic criteria. The modals are considered an exclusive set because they enter into a peculiar systematic semological relationship with each other, a relationship in which no other verbs fully participate, namely that which is explained in Chapter 2.

6 6

Welke, Untersuchungen, Welke, Untersuchungen,

p. 8. pp. 8 - 2 3 .

1 BACKGROUND

1.1. DATA

In the selection of data I have by and large followed Joos' technique of using closed texts ae the chief corpus. But instead of one novel I have chosen from four different contemporary writers four different types of literary works. The novel is represented by Siegfried Lenz' Der Mann im Strom,1 the dramatic form by Bernt von Heiseler's "Eine ländliche Winterkomödie2 and two Hörspiele by Heinrich Boll.3 I have also included Friedrich Dürrenmatt's Der Richter und sein Henker;4 which can be classified as a type of detective story. The choice of these particular works is not meant to indicate that they necessarily offer the most representative German of today, but rather that they contain a type of German which would not be considered atypical by a native speaker of that language. Except for a few instances of dialect in "Eine ländliche Winterkomödie", the above-mentioned works are written in standard German. I made it a point to select works from authors who are native to different parts of the German-speaking area, so that my corpus will be as extensive as possible without becoming unmanageable in a study of this size. No attempt is made to grade the selected material in terms of its accuracy in representing contemporary German, but it could be safely said that in form and situation Der Mann im, Strom and "Eine ländliche Winterkomödie" are the least stylized. It should also be noted that von Heiseler frequently uses shortened and elided forms (e.g. hält, nich, darf8, for darf es) in an apparent attempt to represent the Umgangsprache as closely as is possible in a literary text. The others use the standard spelling throughout. In any case, the salient points of the semantic 1

(Hamburg, Hoffmann & Campe, 1957). (Gütersloh, Bertelsmann, 1951), vol. 1. 3 "Zum Tee bei Dr. Börsig" and "Bilanz", in Erzählungen, Berlin, Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 1965). 4 (Einsiedeln, Benziger Verlag, 1962). 1

Hörspiele, Aufsätze

(Köln,

14

BACKGROUND

structure of the German modal system are clearly evident on the basis of this corpus. The discussion of the meaning of each of the modals will be based on examples quoted from the above-mentioned works. The citations will be listed as follows: Z>27b

Sie sehen, Tschanz, ich bin schon im Mantel. Wir konnen gehen.

The term 'CITATION' will be used to refer only to the clause or sentence which contains the modal and does not include any additional context which may be included, as above, to clarify the meaning of the modal. Each citation is prefaced by a unique designation. The capital cursive letter refers to the author: B = Boll, D = Diirrenmatt, H = Heiseler, and L = Lenz. The number is the page reference and the small letter designates the number of the modal on that page. If the additional context contains another modal, it will be given a citation designation only if the discussion also involves that modal. Although I have studied every occurrence of every modal in these works, I am not interested in cataloguing all the different uses of each modal, but rather in displaying the underlying structure of the modal system as such and the place and meaning of each modal within this system. Once the system has been explained it can be checked against any uses of the modals which may not have been included here. A statement made by John Lotz in his analysis of the meaning of the Hungarian tenses very concisely sums up my conception of the place and importance of data in a description of grammatical meaning: In two respects structural analysis in semantics goes beyond a mere atomistic inventory of the usages, which only outlines the semantic extension of the grammatical category in question. It requires (a) that the general value of the category be established by setting up the semantic feature which defines the category, and (b) that the place of the category in the relational network of the grammar be determined by accounting for the pertinent semantic oppositions.5 Most of this study is concerned with fulfilling the two requirements proposed by Lotz. For rather extensive information on usage one could refer to those studies which have recently been done as dootoral theses at Stanford University, where an attempt is made to give a comprehensive list of the various uses of the modals.6 In a sense my description can be said to cover both written and spoken German, since I am accepting the conversation in my sources as spoken contemporary German. At the very least it can be said to cover written German 5

John Lotz, "Semantic Analysis of the Tenses in Hungarian", Lingua X I (1962), 256' See in the Selected bibliography, the works of F. X . Allard, H . G. Laetz and H . Maxwell. Such a cataloguing would, however, be more useful and meaningful if it were done within the framework of a larger semantic theory of the whole modal system. The lists tend to obscure rather than elucidate the central meaning of a modal and its relationship to the others. 6

BACKGROUND

15

which purports to imitate the spoken language. But since the corpus is limited, it cannot contain all uses of all the individual modals, in which case either those occurrences in the spoken language, which are not treated here will consist of a few (or many) uses which I have not surveyed, but which nevertheless do conform to the analysis, or there will be two different descriptions possible of two different ways of speaking (at least as far as the modals are concerned), which could eventually be fruitfully compared and contrasted. In order to minimize the possibility that my data are insufficient, I have taken the precaution of searching through recent treatises on the modals for uses which differ significantly from any I have uncovered in my corpus. These will be discussed in conjunction with the treatment of the pertinent modal. I make no reference to those citations mentioned by others which are not significantly different from those in my corpus. In this connection it is interesting to make note of the frequency of the modals, relative to each other and to other verbs. J. Alan Pfeffer's recent study represents perhaps the most comprehensive work currently being done on the frequency of contemporary German vocabulary.7 It is significant that, of the verbs, only the three common auxiliaries, haben, sein, and werden occur more often in his collected material than the two most frequently occurring modals, können and müssen. And only 22 non-modal verbs occur more often than dürfen, the most infrequent modal. If the modals are treated as six different shades of a single category of modality, as I propose to do, their frequency relative to the other verbs is even more impressive. In order to give an indication of the frequencies of the modals relative to each other, I have prepared some graphs which display the count made from my corpus together with a few other counts. The first graph, (Figure 1) on the following page, compares five different modal counts: (1) 1590 examples from the five works I have investigated, (2) 9259 from the above-mentioned work by Pfeffer, (3) 2343 from Hans-Heinrich Wängler,8 (4) 158,316 from F. W. Kaeding,9 and (5) 357 from Heinrich Scholz.10 Before discussing the significance of this graph it is appropriate to explain the source of each of the counts illustrated, other than that of my own corpus. Pfeffer's count was made on the basis of the recorded responses of 450 informants (including the eight interviewers). The informants were asked rather specific topical questions, but were allowed to talk quite freely in answer to the 7

J. Alan Pfeffer, Basic (Spoken) German Word List (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentioe-Hall, Inc. 1964). This book gives only the frequency of occurrence, the modals have not yet been published in their environmental contexts. I have thus not been able to study this collected material. 8 Rangwörterbuch hochdeutscher Umgangsprache (Marburg, W. G. Elwert Verlag, 1963). 3 Die Hilfszeitwörter in ihrem Verhältnis zum deutschen Wortschatz (Steglitz bei Berlin, Selbstverlag des Verfassers, 1897). 10 Geschichte der Logik (Berlin, Dünnhaupt Verlag, 1931).

16

BACKGROUND

50%

können K 52,384 Pf 3,856 709 W BDHL 577 Sch 178

II IV in (%) müssen (%) wollen (%) sollen (%) (33.1) 30,350 (19.2) 27,834 (17.6) 23,910 (15.1) (41.6) 2,546 (27.5) 1,186 (12.8) 764 (18.3) (30.3) 665 (28.4) 473 (20.2) 338 (14.4) (36.3) 384 (24.2) 341 (21.4) 157 (9.9) (49.9) 77 (21.6) 9 (2.5) 21 (6.9)

Kaeding Pfeffer

BDHL Wängler

mögen 14,406 536 96 91 7

(%) dürfen (%) (9.1) 9,432 (5.9) 372 (4.0) (5.8) (4.1) 62 (2.6) (5.7) 40 (2.5) (2.0) 65 (18.2)

Scholz

Tig. 1

questions. 11 Wangler's count was more randomly done in that he collected much of his material from people who were unaware that they were being recorded.12 The 2343 examples from Wangler do not include his count of those which he collected from written material. Kaeding's count was made from all kinds of written material, and, of course, predates the beginning of the 20th century. The 357 from Scholz represent my own count of the modals which occur in the work referred to in footnote 10 of this chapter. Although this study is chiefly limited to the use of the modals in literary German, I have included this count in the graph, because of its extreme irregularity relative to the other counts. 13 I t demonstrates how far an individual can stray from the frequency 11

Pfeffer, Basic German, p. 9. Wängler, Bangwörterbuch, p. 8. I am indebted to Klaus Welke for bringing this work to my attention. See Welke, Untersuchungen, p. 106.

12

13

17

BACKGROUND

norm (as indicated by the other counts) without employing abnormal uses of the modals. For I have carefully checked all of the examples of the modals in this work and found no uses which do not fit into my description of the semantic structure of the modal system. 14 The interesting fact about the other counts is t h a t können always has the highest frequency and dürfen the lowest, with the others almost describing a parabolic curve between these two extremes. Rather surprising, since they both supposedly represent spoken German only, is the rather large discrepancy between the counts of Pfeifer and Wangler, especially in regard to können and ivollen. The difference is very probably attributable to the different methods of data collection. I t is also worth noting t h a t the relative frequencies in Kaeding's count of 19th century German differs very little from those of contemporary German, except t h a t there seems to be a tendency toward greater extremes between the lowest and highest frequency modals. The second graph, (Figure 2) on page 18, displays the relative frequencies of the modals as they were found in the four different authors of my corpus. In spite of the diversity in geographical origin and type of work, the distribution of the modals is rather even, the greatest discrepancy being between the frequency of müssen in Boll and Dürrenmatt. Rather more striking is the extremely low incidence of mögen and dürfen in the latter. I have not been able to discover any essential reason for this imbalance, b u t it is probably due more to the situations in which the authors place their characters than to a personal preference of the authors themselves. Thus the fact t h a t Boll uses wollen far more than müssen can be traced, to a certain extent, to the fact t h a t his characters frequently confront each other with their desires and intentions, so t h a t in "Bilanz" over 50% of the time wollen is used with the pronoun ich. Such considerations, however, need not detain us here. What is perhaps of more interest than these variations in the frequencies of the modals is the frequency of all of the modals taken together in relation to the number of words of text. I have estimated the number of words in each of the texts of my corpus and compared them in terms of the frequency of the modals. The result is as follows: H : 1 modal per 47 words of text, or

2.05 ^ ^ ; 22,300 words

B : 1 modal per 54 words of text, or

1.79 ^ ; 17,150 words

L : 1 modal per 82 words of text, or

1.22

^

; 44,600 words

See page 72 for a, partial explanation of the irregularities in frequency noted here.

18

BACKGROUND

1.14

D : 1 modal per 87 words of text, or

; 24,000 words

1.47 ^ ; 108,050 words

Total: 1 modal per 68 words of text, or

Immediately apparent is the fact t h a t the modals occur at a considerably lower ratio in the prose works than in the play by von Heiseler and the Hörspiele by 50%

50%

können (%) 206 (37.9) 170 (37.2) 106 (33.4) 95 (34.8)

40%--

--40%

30%--X

--30%

20%

--20%

10%

--10%

müssen (%) 128 (23.6) 105 (22.8) 58 (18.3) 93 (34.0)

Lenz

in

IV

wollen (%) 124 (22.8) 86 (18.8) 78 (24.6) 53 (19.4)

sollen (%) 57 (10.5) 39 (8.5) 35 (11.0) 26 (9.5)

von Heiseler

—

Böll

mögen (%) 21 (3.9) 87 (8.1) 20 (9.2) 4 (1.6)

dürfen (%) 7 (1.3) 20 (4.4) 11(3.4) 2 ( .07) Dürrenmatt

Fig. 2

Boll. This fact, which indicates that the modals play a greater role in the dramatic situation than in narrative style, is born out by a glance at some of the data in Lenz. Fewer than 15% of the modals in his work occur in the author's narration, which, however, comprises approximately half of the total words. The

BACKGROUND

19

lower ratio of modals in Boll than in von Heiseler is due to the fact t h a t Boll's characters quite frequently narrate a rather long series of events, whereas the characters in von Heiseler's play are almost continuously engaged in lively conversation and confrontation. A final note of interest concerning the frequencies of the modals is the fact t h a t Pfeffer's informants used the modals at the rate of one per 65 words, very close to the average rate of my total corpus. This would seem to indicate that a considerable amount of his recorded material is in the narrative style, something we should expect, considering the fact t h a t his informants were asked to speak on given topics. 15 I n light of the above it seems almost incredible, on the other hand, t h a t Wängler's informants used the modals at the rate of 1 per 34 words. 16 1.2. METHOD

Alphonse Juilland makes the interesting observation t h a t the scientific method . . cares little about means of discovery and concentrates on the means for verifying discoveries. There is only one fundamental requirement imposed by the logic of scientific discovery: that statements of finding be subject to empirical verification. It is true that conclusions drawn from consideration of meaning are sometimes difficult to verify. . The semological structural system of the modals as it is laid out in Chapter 2 was discovered on the basis of the examination of relatively few examples in "Eine ländliche Winterkomödie". Most of this study (almost everything which follows t h a t chapter) is concerned with verifying the initial discovery. The goal of the verification is to show t h a t in a representative sampling of data there are no examples which run counter to the discovered system. The procedure of verification is basically the commutation test, but, as will be seen, attention must be paid to context and situation also. The important fact is that the discovery itself and the resulting statements about the meaning of the modals can be empirically verified. I n dealing with meaning it is a common practice to distinguish between grammatical and lexical meaning. According to Juilland, this is a very valid and useful distinction and one which is made either implicitly or explicitly in every one of the hundreds of grammars which he examined. 18 Among theoreti-

16

I n Basic German, page 9, Pfeffer states t h a t his material includes 595,000 total words. Wangler, lsee Rangworterbuch, page 8, where he gives the total number of words as 80,266. 17 Alphonse Juilland, Structural Relations (The Hague, Mouton & Co., 1961), p. 42. 18 Juilland, Structural Relations, p. 43. 16

20

BACKGROUND

cians who take issue with the view expressed by Juilland, Uriel Weinreich is perhaps the most outspoken in his claim t h a t "there is no special kind of meaning such as 'grammatical meaning' . . . only this position [i.e. that grammatical meaning is not of a special kind] is tenable, as it is the only one which conforms with the requirement that semantic and grammatical criteria must be autonomous". 19 I t is interesting, however, t h a t in his more recent work, in which he abandons the notion t h a t " a grammatical description be autonomous vis-a-vis the semantic description of a language", 20 he simultaneously destroys his argument against the suggested two different kinds of meaning. Furthermore, in another recent treatise, he seems to imply a difference between lexical and grammatical meaning by discussing only the former and by his use of the terms " m a j o r " and "minor" classes in reference to grammatical categories. 21 I n general it is assumed in generative-transformational grammars that a semantic description does not need to distinguish between lexical and grammatical (structural) meaning. Chomsky labels the distinction as "quite suspect" 22 and the topic is not even brought up by K a t z and Postal. 23 John Lyons, who discusses the matter in some detail, 24 argues t h a t the distinction was made already by Aristotle. Although Lyons clearly feels t h a t there is some merit in classifying linguistic units as members of either a closed (grammatical) or an open (lexical) set, he does not find an adequate basis for correlating these different sets with two kinds of meaning: . . . there seems to be no essential difference between the "kind of meaning" associated with lexical items and the "kind of meaning" associated with grammatical items in those cases where the distinction between these two classes of deep-structure elements can be drawn.25 For Lyons, a strong case can apparently be made for such a distinction only in relation to the surface structure and is therefore not essential to a semantic theory. 19

Uriel Weinreich, "On the Semantio Structure of Language", in Universale of Language, 2nd ed., ed. J. H. Greenberg (Cambridge, Mass., London, The M.I.T. Press, 1966), p. 169. 20 Weinreich, "Semantic Structure", p. 193. This statement occurs in a section entitled "Postscript 1965", which is appended to his article in the 1st edition, dated 1963. Here he is referring to the work mentioned in footnote 21 of this chapter. 21 Uriel Weinreich, "Explorations in Semantic Theory", in Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. I l l , ed. T. A. Sebeok (The Hague, Mouton & Co., 1965), 432ff. 22 Noam Chomsky, Syntactic Structures (The Hague, Mouton & Co., 1957), p. 108. 23 Katz, J. J. and P. M. Postal, An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions (Cambridge, Mass., The M.I.T. Press, 1964). 24 John Lyons, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1968), pp. 435-442. 25 Lyons, Theoretical Linguistics, p. 438.

BACKGROUND

21

Presumably from the point of view of transformational-generative grammar, grammatical formatives that are not sufficiently treated in the phrase structure rules can be described in the semantic component in terms of distinctive features. However, there is currently so much disagreement concerning the place and nature of semantics in the grammar that it would be unwise to insist that the distinction between lexical and grammatical meaning is not useful and valid. In any case, it seems to me that valuable insights can be gained into the nature of language by studies concentrating on the analysis of the meaning of grammatical categories and that the findings of such studies can be partially incorporated into grammars which do not share the same theoretical basis. For the present, I am willing to accept the statement by Juilland quoted above that all grammars make either an explicit or an implicit distinction between lexical and grammatical meaning. In this connection it is interesting to take a brief look at how grammarians have treated the problem of whether the German modals belong to the grammar or to the lexicon. As an example of the traditional approach, Curme treats the modals in a special section under irregular verbs, but notes their "Past-Present" status and their function as auxiliaries, which seems to imply that he considers them to be grammatical formatives rather than lexical verbs.26 The very common practice, found both in teaching and in descriptive grammars, of treating the modals as auxiliaries can also be considered an implicit recognition of their use as grammatical signals; Confusion arises in the mind of the student chiefly because this practice is not consistently carried out; the modals are glossed and treated semantically as if they are lexical items (full verbs) with rather odd behavior. Hanz Glinz, in Die innere Form des Deutschen,27 completely avoids any discussion of the modals as a special class, thus leaving open the question of their status or implying that they function as full verbs. Brinkmann devotes a special section to what he calls Modalität, which he breaks down into four separate categories: (1) modal adverbs: doch, wohl, etc., (2) mood, (3) modal infinitive: "Er hat zu kommen", (4) the modal auxiliaries. For each of these categories he posits a rather unitary grammatical meaning.28 His interpretation of the meaning of the modal auxiliary category will be taken up in the next chapter, together with Admoni's interpretation, 29 which is very similar. In transformational-generative grammar two alternative descriptions have been suggested. Bierwisch first derives the modals together with tense and person from AUX, but immediately following he suggests that one could per26

George O. Curme, A Grammar of the German Language, 2nd revised edition (New York, Ungar, 1952), pp. 316ff. 27 H a n s Glinz, Die innere Form des Deutschen, 4th edition (Bern, Munich: Francke, Verlag, 1965). 28 Brinkmann, Die deutsche Sprache, pp. 345ff. 29 V. G. Admoni, Der deutsche Sprachbau (Leningrad, 1966), pp. 168ff.

22

BACKGROUND

haps just as well consider the infinitive complement as an embedding and the modal as the main verb. 30 In a later paper Moulton argues further for the second alternative, thus treating the modals as full verbs rather than as auxiliaries. 31 But since both Moulton and Bierwisch are interested chiefly in the formal syntax of the modals, one can only speculate on how they would treat their meaning. The argument concerning the usefulness of a distinction between grammatical and lexical meaning will not be further pursued here and may be considered still open to question. A case could perhaps be made for assigning the modals to a class of ". . . morphemes whose categorical status is somewhere between t h a t of lexemes and t h a t of grammemes". 3 2 Or perhaps, as Nida seems to suggest, all lexical items have a grammatical meaning which is simple and must be considered apart from their reference to the real world. 33 But for the purposes of this study it is sufficient to say t h a t I follow Joos in recognizing two different kinds of meaning. I n Joos' view, "grammatical signals do not admit of polysemy", 34 but "multiplicity is at home in lexical meanings of words: the polysemy of lexemes". 35 The former he demonstrates very clearly in The English Verb by positing a basic meaning for each of the verbal categories of English. Lexical polysemy is treated briefly in his article entitled "Semology: A Linguistic Theory of Meaning", 36 and is of little concern in the present study, since I am dealing only with the modals, which I treat as grammatical signals. Weinreich asserts t h a t polysemy is characteristic of grammatical as well as of lexical items, b u t it is noteworthy t h a t his only example of the polysemy of a grammatical signal, "the English preterit: '1. past, 2. (in conditions) counterfactual'", 3 7 has been very neatly resolved by Joos, who assigns the basic meaning "remote" to both of these uses. 38 I n the same way it is my purpose here to demonstrate t h a t not only the category "modal verb" but, in addition, t h a t each of the six modals has a basic meaning which is present in all of the different uses. 30

Manfred Bierwisch, Orammatik des deutschen Verbs, in Studio, Grammatica II (Berlin, Akademie-Verlag, 1963), pp. 66ff. 31 W. G. Moulton, "On the Nature of 'Aux' in a Transformational Grammar of German", Unpublished Paper (read at 1966 LSA Meeting). 32 Juilland, Structural Relations, p. 47. Juilland suggests the existence of such a class, but does not go further into it. 33 Eugene A. Nida, "Linguistic and Semantic Structure", in Studies in Language and Linguistics, ed. A. H. Marckwardt (Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1965); 13-16. 54 Martin Joos, Review of Tense and Aspect in Present-day English, by Akira Ota, Language X L (1964); 89. 86 Joos, Review of Ota; 496. 38 Martin Joos, SIL X I I (1958); 53-70. 37 Weinreich, "Semantic Structure"; 178. 38 Joos, The English Verb-, 120ff.

BACKGROUND

23

The basic meaning of a grammatical signal can be defined as that distinctive semantic feature which cannot vanish in any one of its uses. "Use" is my term for what is often called variation in meaning or contextual meaning. The range of the uses is determined by the basic meaning somewhat analogous to the way in which the range of a grazing horse is set by the central stake to which it is tethered. Thus as a technical term, "basic meaning" does not correspond to Haupt- or Grundbedeutung, but to Oesamtbedeutung as Jakobson uses it in his discussion of the Russian case system. 39 His English term for this concept is "general meaning". 40 According to Joos, "Finding, inventing, positing the (or 'an') adequate single meaning for a grammatical signal is a cut-and-try procedure, and we can only guess that we have found it when a large mass of data offers no counterexample". 41 This statement explains my method and use of the data which I have assembled and to which I refer in this study. By opposing the "modal system" to the "indicative system", William Diver in effect suggests that the modals have the function of a mood in English.42 This approach is not possible in dealing with the German modal system unless one is willing to assert that what looks like the indicative of a modal is not generally parallel in use with the indicative of a full-verb such as gehen. The latter position would be difficult to defend in view of the fact that subjunctive and indicative in German contrast in the modal category in much the same way as they do in the use of lexical verbs, whereas in English, as Joos has shown, past tense and subjunctive (irreality) collapse into one basic category. For this reason I have chosen to present the modals as a small set of verbs comprising a special grammatical category, which adds its own unique dimension to the verbal system. This special verbal category I call "modality", which includes only the six modals and is not to be confused with Modalität as Brinkmann, for example, uses it. Since it is my contention that the combination of a modal with the various other verbal categories has interesting semantic consequences, I discuss the different tenses and moods of the modals separately rather than together as is done in most treatises on this topic. The basic meaning of each modal will be demonstrated and discussed first on the basis of its use in the present tense with a simple infinitive. The occurrences of the modals in the past and subjunctive will be treated separately and only insofar as there are interesting linguistic consequences, though, by definition, the basic meaning is the same

39

R o m a n Jakobson, "Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre". See especially page 244. R o m a n Jakobson and Morris Halle, Fundamentals of Language (The Hague, Mouton & Co., 1956), p. 61. 41 Joos, R e v i e w of Ota; 489. 2 William Diver, "The Modal System of the English Verb", Word X X (1964); 322ff. 40

24

BACKGROUND

in every occurrence of a given modal. Negation is given special treatment because of its peculiar effect on modality and because of its interesting contrast with subjunctive. I n an analysis of the whole verbal system the above-mentioned facts and the grammatical meanings of all of the verbal categories would, of course, have to be given a much fuller treatment than is done here. But since I am interested in offering an intensive analysis of the modal system only, I will draw on the findings of others, where necessary, for information on the rest of the verbal system.

2 SEMOLOGICAL SKETCH OF T H E MODAL SYSTEM

VV. G. Moulton makes the interesting observation t h a t traditional terminology does not normally allow us to distinguish clearly between the category and the function of a verb. We say t h a t a noun functions as the subject of the sentence, etc., but usually that a verb functions as ". . . the V E R B of the verb p h r a s e using the word verb as a term for category and as a term for function". 1 Joos avoids this confusion by taking "Function" as one of the verbal categories alongside "Tense", "Voice", etc., and by treating "Verb" as a marked signal analogous to " R e m o t e " tense and "Passive" voice. "Verb" as a grammatical signal is paradigmatically opposed to its alternative signal "Propredicate", and at the same time it is syntagmatically compatible with either of the two grammatical signals in each of the other five categories. Thus, if a modal is used, the category "Assertion" is marked "Relative" as opposed to its absence, which would be "Factual" assertion. 2 I n Joos' analysis it is exactly as compulsory for a speaker to choose between " F a c t u a l " (verb or propredicate without a modal) and "Relative" (verb or propredicate plus a modal) assertion as it is for him to choose between "Neutral" (Active) and "Passive" voice. I maintain t h a t , in this respect, German and English are very much alike. Since every modal can be used as an "auxiliary" of any verb (in its infinitive form), 3 it is possible to characterize every narrated event 4 in terms of whether it con1

Moulton, "On the Nature of 'Aux'"; 1-2. Moulton suggests using "verbal" to designate the function of the verb. 2 Joos, The English Verb, pp. 81-82 and 147ff. His schema is as follows: Category

Tense

Assertion

Phase

Aspect

Voice

Function

Unmarked Marked

Actual Remote

Factual Relative

Current Perfect

Generic Temporary

Neutral Passive

Propredicate Verb

Markers

-D

WILL etc.

HAVE -N B E -ING

B E -N

SHOW etc.

8

Welke, Untersuchungen, p. 22. * Cf. Roman Jakobson's statement that "any verb is concerned with a narrated event". Shifters, Verbal Categories and the Russian Verb (Russian Language Project, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, Harvard University, 1967), p. 3.

26

8EM0L0GICAL SKETCH OF THE MODAL SYSTEM

tains a modal or not; the speaker is always faced with an either-or choice just as much as he is with the verbal categories of tense and mood. Following Joos, I will use relative assertion to refer to a clause with a modal and factual assertion when there is no modal present. Whether relative assertion in German can be considered marked over against unmarked factual assertion (as in Joos' analysis) will not be a matter of concern here, since it would necessarily involve an analysis of the whole verbal system in German. I will also leave open the question whether or not the Geman modals act as privative markers as they do in English. Relative assertion, as a verbal grammatical category, has a basic meaning which opposes it to factual assertion. Joos gives the basic meaning of these two kinds of assertion as follows: Factual Assertion: The specified event itself is asserted, and the assertion has truth value: it is true or false. Relative Assertion: There is no such truth-value with respect to occurrence of the event; what is asserted is instead a specific relation between that event and the factual world, a set of terms of admission for allowing it real-world status. 5 The key words (relative, relation, assertion, event) in this definition need some clarification. With the use of a modal the speaker does not report an event as such b u t he reports on the RELATION of t h a t event in terms of its potential for realization or fulfillment (relationship to reality). 'Relative' is, in other words, to be understood as an approximate synonym of 'relational': Since there are six modals, there are six kinds of relation available to the speaker (1) as opposed to the simple reporting of an event in (2): (1) (2)

Der Junge muß /soll/darf/will/möchte/kann/ den Apfel essen. Der Junge ißt den Apfel.

If (2) focuses on an event (reports an event) then (1) focuses on a relationship (reports a relation). The term EVENT as a technical term is intended to express what Gunnar Bech does with "Subjekt-Infinitiv-Prädikation". 6 Bech's term makes it clear t h a t the subject (actor) is p a r t of the event. Thus the event of the above sentences could be paraphrased in English as 'the boy's eating of the apple'. The event itself is exactly the same in both sentences; what is different is the speaker's view of its relation to reality. I n other words, event is used here as a 6

Joos, The English Verb, p. 149. Bech, "Das semantische System"; 3: "In einem Satze mit modaler Prädikatsform wird Subjekt-Infinitiv-Prädikation genannt: die aus dem grammatischen Subjekt und dem vom Modalverbum regierten Infinitiv ( + evt. Erweiterungen, wie: Objekt, Präpositionsverbindung . . .) bestehende logische Prädikation".

6

SEMOLOGICAL SKETCH OF THE MODAL SYSTEM

27

t e r m for what is often called the proposition or propositional content in philosophy. I n the words of John Searle: Stating and asserting are acts, but propositions are not acts. A proposition is what is asserted in the act of asserting, what is stated in the act of stating. 7 For Searle, assertion is merely one of the many kinds of speech act which may accompany a propositional act, for "propositional acts cannot occur alone". 8 Sentences (1) and (2) could, for example, occur as questions: (3) (4)

Muß . . . der Junge den Apfel essen ? I ß t der Junge den Apfel ?

I n this case the speech act is one of questioning, but the propositional content (event) is still exactly the same. Thus in Searle's sense, one ought not call (3) and (4) examples of the act of assertion but of the act of questioning, for . . a n assertion is a (very special kind of) commitment to the t r u t h value of a proposition". 9 I t is obvious from his work t h a t Joos intends assertion to be understood in a much more general sense so t h a t it is practically equivalent to Searle's notion of speech act. Thus for Joos, (1) and (3) are both examples of relative assertion and (2) and (4) represent factual assertion. I t is not necessary here to devise a new term for assertion, in spite of possible confusion in terminology, because my main purpose here is to deal with the modals (relative assertion), not to focus on the relationship between what Joos calls relative and factual assertion. I n an interesting recent paper on the English modal auxiliaries, Boyd and Thorne 1 0 have taken a cue from J o h n Austin and J o h n Searle. They also use propositional content the way I use event and " . . . treat the modal verbs as indicating the illocutionary potential of the sentences in which they occur". 1 1 The term "illocutionary potential" approximates what I (and of course, Joos) mean by the basic meaning of a grammatical signal, b u t there is no a t t e m p t made by Boyd and Thorne to arrive a t a UNITARY basic meaning of each of the modals, from which all of the various uses can be derived. On the contrary, it is suggested t h a t not every use of a modal marks illocutionary potential: In fact, can is a modal verb, that is, marks the illocutionary potential of the sentences, only when it is an alternative form for may (or in the case of cannot, must).12 i John Searle, Speech Acts (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 29. » Searle, Speech Acts, p. 29. 9 Searle, Speech Acts, p. 29. 10 Julian Boyd and J. P. Thorne, "The Semantics of Modal Verbs", Journal of Linguistics V (1969); 57-73. 11 Boyd and Thorne, "Modal Verbs"; 62. 12 Boyd and Thorne, "Modal Verbs"; 71.

28

SEMOLOGICAL SKETCH OF THE MODAL SYSTEM

Thus they neither show the internal cohesiveness of the modals as a unique set, nor do they explain a variety of uses (variations in meaning). I n this study I propose to do both for the German modals. I t should be clear from the above discussion that grammatical formatives which are constituents of the verb (e.g., markers of tense, mood, person, modality) are not to be considered as part of the event. This means that Joos' suggestion that the event is ". . . what would be specified by the whole clause minus the modal" 1 3 is not precise enough and does not seem to be what he actually means, for the whole purpose of his book is to show how the verbal categories function as grammatical relators. As a more accurate formulation, I suggest: in the formula, "X MUSS Y", whatever is put into the X and the Y specifies the event. The capitalized finite form of a modal is meant to be an abstraction which stands for any finite form of that modal. (It will be used throughout this monograph in that fashion.) In other words, it carries what Brinkmann calls the "Satzintention" — so called because tense and mood, etc., are constituents of the whole sentence (the rest of it, i.e. the event), not of the verb alone or any other constituent. 14 To use Brinkmann's term, I am saying that the modal is part of the Satzintention. In the light of some recent studies, it would seem that the class of Modalwörter should also be excluded from the event. This is in effect the import of the suggestions made by linguists with very diverse methodological approaches. Both Admoni and Brinkmann 15 make the point that, in a sentence such as "Vielleicht ist er krank", the Modalwort "vielleicht" is a constituent of the whole sentence or predication (event), not just of the verb. Any adverb that is a constituent only of the verb is not a Modalwort — by definition. The function of the Modalwörter is to show the attitude of the speaker in regard to the reported event (sentence): "Ihre Leistung ist die Stellungnahme". 16 In the transformational-generative description of Bierwisch, the category of Modalwörter is derived together with negation from what he terms the Präverb.17 That is, the speaker has the option of negating or affirming every sentence (event) by using either a positive (5) or negative (6) morpheme: (5) (6) (7)

Klaus kauft sich das Buch bestimmt. Klaus kauft sich das Buch nicht. Klaus kauft sich das Buch.

«

Joos, The English Verb, p. 152. Brinkmann, Die deutsche Sprache, pp. 463ff. 16 Admoni, Der deutsche Sprachbau, pp. 199-204; Brinkmann, Die deutsche Sprache, 345-346. 16 Brinkmann, Die deutsche Sprache, p. 345. 17 Bierwisch, Grammatik des deutschen Verbs, pp. 65 and 104ff.

14

pp.

SEMOLOGICAXi SKETCH OF THE MODAL SYSTEM

28

Or, as in (7), no Präverb at all. I t is interesting to note t h a t Bierwisch also argues elsewhere 18 t h a t the Präverb should be derived from A U X along with the modals and other grammatical formatives (tense, mood, etc.). To my way of thinking, this is t a n t a m o u n t to saying t h a t the category Präverb (negative and positive Modalwörter) is not p a r t of the event (propositional content), but is a grammatical category with grammatical, not lexical meaning. Although Bierwisch barely scratches the surface on this topic, I think his argument is basically correct. Fundamental questions need to be answered, such as, what are the positive and negative adverbs which can function as Modalwörter, and which ones can be used as constituents of each other or of the same sentence. I t seems quite possible to me t h a t the members of the Präverb set can be described in terms of distinctive features as I have done for the modals in this study. I have taken only a small step in this direction by devoting a separate chapter to the negation of the modals. The six relations which are expressed by the modals can be displayed in the form of a semological schema, in which each modal can be said to be composed of two distinctive features. From the matrix given below it is evident t h a t the six-member set of modals is comprised of two subsets (objective and subjective) 19 of three members each, or of three subsets (imminent, biased, and precarious) of two members each.

objective subjective

imminent

baised

precarious

MUSS WILL

SOLL MAG

DARF KANN

The terminology itself will require a rather detailed explanation which is given in p a r t immediately following and is expanded in the discussion of the citations. Perhaps the most important feature of this matrix is t h a t the vertical and horizontal sets represent what could be called two different dimensions. The horizontal scale (objective/subjective) represents the speaker's view of the aotor's involvment or participation in the (potential) realization of the event. The three features on the vertioal scale can be read roughly as points on a probability continuum. They represent the speaker's view of the potential for fulfilment (reality) of the whole event, the probability ranging from 50/50 (precarious) to near certainty (imminent). The failure of most other descriptions to recognize this two-dimensional character of the modals prevents an ade18 Manfred Bierwisch, "Über die Rolle der Semantik bei grammatisohen Beschreibungen", in Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Volkshunde und Literatur forschung, Feschrift Steinitz (Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1965); 44-60. la My use of the terms 'subjective' and 'objective' is in no w a y connected with the use of these terms b y Schulz and Griesbach, Grammatik der deutschen Sprache (Munich, Max Huebner, 1966), pp. 66-72. Their terminology has reference to what I call evidential use of the modals. See page 66ff.

30

SEMOLOGICAL SKETCH OF THE MODAL SYSTEM

quate description of the modal system. Both Admoni 20 and Brinkmann 2 1 for example, define the modals as showing only the relationship between the actor (grammatical subject) and the event. The classification of the modals as either objective or subjective does agree, however, rather closely with an observation made by Brinkmann, but his otherwise almost complete acceptance of Bech's analysis seems to have prevented him from expanding this notion. He writes: Die Modalverben unterscheiden sich danach, ob sie als Handlungsverben verwendet werden können oder nicht. Das Handlungsverbum setzt voraus, daß das grammatische Subjekt als Agens aufgefaßt ist und nach außen wirkt. Darum verschließen sich die Verben sollen, müssen und dürfen, einem Objektakkusativ; denn sie setzen voraus, daß das grammatische Subject unter dem Einfluß einer fremden Instanz steht. Dagegen können wollen, (mögen) und können einen echten Objektakkusativ erhalten, weil bei ihnen vorausgesetzt ist, daß die Richtung auf den Vollzug vom Subjekt ausgeht.22 He is referring here to Bech's observation t h a t only the subjective modals can take true objects. Bech's examples are "ich kann einen Trick, ich mag ihn nicht, ich will keinen Kaifee". 2 3 If any of the objective modals were substituted in these examples, the result would be ungrammatical or a specific infinitive would be understood. More important than this interesting syntactic structural fact is Brinkmann's observation t h a t the modals can be classified into two distinct sets on the basis of whether the subject is under the influence of "einer fremden Instanz" or not. This is the crucial point in my analysis. I t should be pointed out t h a t Gunnar Bech recognizes that feature, but for some reason considers only wollen and dürfen to be subject to this opposition. 24 A semi-formal definition of the subjective/objective opposition can be expressed as follows: X MUSS, SOLL, D A R F Y:

The imminence, bias, precariousness of the realization of the event is created or initiated by something other than the actor.

-X" WILL, MAG, K A N N 7 :

The imminence, bias, precariousness of the realization of the event is created or initiated by the actor.

20

Admoni, Der deutsche Sprachbau, p. 168. Brinkmann, Die deutsche Sprache, p. 359. 22 Brinkmann, Die deutsche Sprache, pp. 360-61. 23 Bech, "Studien über das deutsche Verbum Infinitivum", Dan. Hist. Filol. Medd. X X X V (Copenhagen, 1956); 87. 24 Bech, "Grundzüge der semantischen Entwicklungsgeschichte der hochdeutschen Modalverba", Dan. Hist. Filol. Medd. X X X I I (Copenhagen, 1951); 7. Bech's terms for this opposition (intrasubjektiv for wollen; extrasubjektiv for dürfen) have the advantage of being more descriptive, but the disadvantage of being less generalized. 21

SEMOLOGICAL SKETCH OF THE MODAL SYSTEM

31

I t should be emphasized that the definitions as given here always represent the point of view of the speaker (narrator). By using an objective modal the speaker conveys the information that, from his vantage point, circumstances outside of the actor are responsible for the particular relation (imminence, bias, precariousness) of the event to reality. The actor is seen as an object upon which external circumstances operate. When the subjective modals are used the focus is on the actor as creator or initiator of the (potential) realization of the event; the nature of the actor (as opposed to that of the external circumstances) is the determining factor. The speaker sees the actor as an agent operating on its environment or as a subject in which the initiation for the realization of the event originates. The subjective/objective opposition can be observed in t h e following citations: £ 2 3 l a and b "Sie wollen mit dir selber reden. Du sollst morgen hinkommen, Hinrichs". The actor of ¿231a (die Behörde) is clearly the initiator in this citation and at the same time functions as the external agency in respect to ¿231b. The significance of this opposition for each of the modals will be adequately demonstrated in the following chapters. The terms IMMINENT, BIASED and PRECARIOUS are in a sense also used as cover symbols to represent distinctive features, whose meaning or function cannot be clearly specified by any one word. These terms, however, have been chosen because their meaning in ordinary usage quite closely corresponds to their technical meaning as used in this study. A complete delimitation of the range of each of these sub-categories will be presented in the discussion of the individual citations, where adequate examples will be referred to. Here I will provide just enough information for a brief sketch of the semological system of the modals. The use of an imminent modal means that the speaker views the specified event as being on the verge of becoming reality, that its realization cannot be prevented unless the actor changes his mind (WILL) or if the external circumstances are not what they appear to be (MUSS). The two following examples resemble each other in context and in the fact that the event is immediately realized: _ffl98d "Ich weiß, was mit Ihn'n los is' und will's Ihn'n auch sagen: verliebt haben Sie sich"; # 1 3 6 d "Ich muß es g'schwind der Sixtina sagen". In ¿7198d the event is imminent because the actor desires it to be. The imminence of the event in the second example stems from an instance over which the actor has no control, namely the unexpected early arrival of dinner guests; the maid, Sixtina, has to know about it. PRECARIOUS is meant to indicate that the event has a 50-50 chance of becoming reality; the speaker sees the event as hanging in the balance between non-occurrence and occurrence. Which course the event takes is up to the actor. The opposition between the precarious modals can be best demonstrated by means of a bit of conversation in which the two forms occur in almost immediate succession. Kienlechner, the painter, asks: #153c "Wie darf ich denn sagen?" and receives the reply: .Hl53d "Lore Hedrich könn'n Sie sagen, oder sonst-

32

SEMOLOGICAL SKETCH OF THE MODAL SYSTEM

wie . . ." By using DARF in his question, Kienlechner politely acknowledges his companion as a source of authority who has the right to grant him a specific choice. But by using KANN in her answer Lore Hedrich refuses to accept the opportunity to act as an external circumstance; as far as she is concerned, he is free to choose because of his nature (because of who he is). I t is not often that the opposition between the two members of one of the sets is so clearly demonstrated by their use in close succession, but this opposition is nevertheless always there and is what governs the choice of one modal over against its contrasting member in a given set. The word BIASED as used in this study is used in the sense of 'inclined toward'. The speaker uses the biased modals to indicate that the event appears to be inclined towards realization, but the evidence on which he bases his statement is neither sufficiently present to warrant the use of an imminent modal nor sufficiently lacking to shift the choice to a precarious modal. Thus, in terms of distinctive features, the biased modals can be sufficiently (uniquely) designated as 'minus imminent, minus precarious'. This analysis can be graphically displayed in a matrix as follows: MUSS WILL DARF KANN SOLL objective imminent precarious

+ -f —

— + —

+ — +

— — +

+ — —

MAG — — —

The subjective modals are listed as minus objective rather than as plus subjective because, as will be seen later, they can be considered unmarked in respect to the objective modals. The decision to eliminate 'biased' from the matrix is not an arbitrary one, but is suggested by the fact that SOLL and MAG stand midway between the imminent and precarious modals, which are polar opposites. I t is also possible to conceive of the distinctive features imminent, biased and precarious as three stopping points on a probability continuum, so that the use of the biased modals would mean that the probability of the occurrence of the event is less than imminent but more than precarious. By using MAG rather than SOLL in the following sentence, the speaker recognizes that Sixtina (the actor) initiates the bias of the event towards reality: Z7143d " . . . und da steht die Sixtina und mocht gern ihr Essen auftischen, vor es verbrutzelt ist". The use of MAG rather than WILL is appropriate here because Sixtina, being a maid, is in no position to view this particular event as imminent. KANN, in this context, since it conveys only the 50-50 chance of occurrence of the event, would not give any of the necessary information about the inclination or intention of the actor. In the sentence Jil93g "Bei dem soil ich um fiinfe sein", the bias is imposed by the referent of the dem or by the arrangements made with him, rather than by the actor. MUSS would have

SEMOLOGICAL SKETCH OF THE MODAL SYSTEM

33

characterized this event as more urgent and immediate and D A R F would have had the opposite effect . This matter of contrast is present in every use of every modal; a modal is what it is, or means what it does because of its opposition to (its not-being) its neighbor modals. Or to quote Pike: "One does not know what an item is until one knows what it is not". 25 in defining the basic meanings of the modals I have tried to use terminology which is neutral in respect to the type of actor involved. The labels (distinctive features) used are as broad and as general as possible so that they apply with equal accuracy, whether the actor is human, animate or whatever. I have avoided terms which imply that basic meanings are best discovered by appealing to those instances in which the actor is human. For this reason I cannot accept Bech's use of Wille and Lustgefühl in his Hauptdefinitionen of the modals. His use of Wille, for example, in his definition of wollen necessitates a separate explanation of those examples in which the subject does not contain a will.26 I t seems very possible t h a t Bech was too much influenced by the historical derivation of wollen in determining its basic meaning. Since he is chiefly concerned with the basic structural meanings of the modals, it is less likely that he considers his definition a Hauptdefinition only because of the high frequency of occurrences of WILL with a human subject. I submit t h a t the features which define the modals synohronically in contemporary German should be so general and non-restrictive that they cover uses of the modals with all types of actor. By this I mean that the description of the modal in the following sentence as SUBJECTIVE IMMINENT applies with the same exactness as it does in any sentence with a human actor: "Das Feuer will ausgehen". I n my analysis the speaker asserts t h a t the specified event is imminent because of the nature of the fire. As is indicated by an accurate translation ('The fire is about to go out'), there is no need to assume t h a t the speaker is anthropomorphizing the fire by assigning a will to it. In fact, it is just such uses which show how completely integrated into the modal system WILL is, in spite of its historical origin. If a modal signifies something about the ability or the will of the actor, this significance is fortuitous, secondary, connotative, or derived — t h a t is, attributable to context and situation. This notion will become clear in the detailed discussion of the individual modals. . There is nevertheless one very interesting aspect of the semology of the modals that pertains chiefly to those instances in which the actor is human. This characteristic aspect involves the actor's choice. Each of the three twomember sets can be characterized in respect to what it expresses about the choice of the actor. When a speaker uses an imminent modal, he is asserting

23

Pike, "On Systems of Grammatical ¡Structure", Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguistics, ed. H . G. L u n t (The H a g u e , Mouton & Co., 1964); 145. 20 Beeh, " D a s semantische System"; 5-10.

34

SEMOLOGICAL SKETCH OF THE MODAL SYSTEM

t h a t the actor no longer has a choice concerning t h e realization of t h e event. This feature is immediately apparent in t h e use of MUSS, b u t w h a t of W I L L ? I suggest t h a t when this modal is used the actor is considered to have no choice because he has already chosen, his mind is made up. And once the mind is made up, another choice would involve a new decision, t h e expression of which would require an additional assertion. I t is clear, for example, t h a t t h e speaker of the following sentence assumes t h a t t h e actor currently has no choice b u t to do what she has planned: i H 3 0 b "Ich weiß, daß sie absolut in die Stadt ziehen will, weil es ihr bei uns zu abgelegen ist". I n respect to t h e feature of choice then, MUSS and W I L L are alike, being differentiated only in respect to the subjective/objective feature. I t is interesting in this connection to note t h a t b o t h wählen a n d wollen go back to Gmc. *wel-P This root, looked a t purely in terms of the contemporary situation, has t h u s split into two aspects of one basic concept: wählen, 'to choose'; wollen, 'to have chosen'. This peculiarity a t least partially explains t h e close semological alliance of wollen with t h e other modals, in spite of t h e fact t h a t its history is quite different f r o m t h a t of the so-called preterite-present verbs. E. A. Makaev suggests t h a t w h a t originally united t h e modals as a special set was " . . . a single principle a t t h e basis of which lay t h e expression of the 'state' of t h e subject . . ," 28 I n a very general sense, as can be seen b y my analysis, this still holds t r u e today a n d is w h a t unites W I L L with t h e other modals. When the speaker assumes t h a t t h e actor has a free choice whether or not to realize the event, the precarious modals are used. I n the case of K A N N t h e freedom to choose arises f r o m the n a t u r e of t h e actor. Thus when N a n n a Wolpert says to t h e painter Kienlechner, .0175c " . . . alle diese Leute kannst du nach u n d nach malen . . .", she is not giving him permission b u t is citing a choice t h a t she thinks he is capable of making. W i t h D A R F t h e right to make t h e choice is granted to t h e actor f r o m some external authority. The biased modals are used when the actor's choice is limited, either as a result of external commitment (SOLL) or because of the actor's own n a t u r e (MAG). When Lore Hedrich says i?193g "Bei dem soll ich u m f ü n f e sein", her choice is limited by her previous arrangements a n d by the fact t h a t t h e person she plans to meet is leaving a t the specified time; yet she still feels t h a t she has t h e (limited) option of not being there — or she would have used MUSS. The feature of choice involved in t h e semological struoture of the modals once again demonstrates t h e polar opposition between the imminent (no choice)

27

Kluge, Friedrich, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, 18th ed. (Berlin, Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1963), p. 870. 28 E. A. Makaev, "The Morphological Structure of Common Germanic", Linguistics X X (1964); 30.

SEMOLOGICAL SKETCH OF THE MODAL SYSTEM

35

and the precarious (free choice) modals, with the biased modals (limited choice) somewhere in between these two extremes. The effect of negation on the meaning of the modals is very interesting and it reinforces this analysis: the opposite« are, in a sense, brought together again. For example, MUSS negated means t h a t the actor has a free choice in respect to the realization of the event: " E r muß nicht zu Hause bleiben". If D A R F is negated, the event is weighted towards imminent non-realization, so t h a t the actor has no choice: " E r darf nicht zu Hause bleiben". Since a negation of the biased modals simply amounts to the opposite of the positive, the semological structure of the modals suggests the shape of a geometric ring, which can be graphically displayed as follows (Figure 3):

Fig. 3

At first glance, W I L L and K A N N do not seem to be either polar opposites or bound together by means of negation as MUSS and D A R F are. But on closer examination it becomes clear t h a t the relationship is very much the same. I t is immediately obvious t h a t K A N N negated means t h a t the actor has no choice: " E r kann nicht zu Hause bleiben". B u t it is more difficult to see t h a t the negation of W I L L means t h a t the actor has free choice. However, if we keep in mind t h a t the meaning of W I L L is t h a t the event is imminent because the actor has made a choice, then it is clear t h a t the negation of WILL can mean t h a t the actor has free choice because he has not (yet) chosen. The sentence " E r will nicht zu Hause bleiben" can imply t h a t the actor still has the choice to either stay or not stay home. I t will be seen later t h a t this brief sketch needs some modification, especially with reference to WILL, but in general the following description holds true: DARF negated: actor has no choice, non-realization of event is imminent. KANN

36

SEMOLOGICAL SKETCH OF THE MODAL SYSTEM

MUSS WILL

negated: actor has free choice, non-realization (or realization) of event is precarious.

This peculiar effect of negation is not limited to those cases in which the actor is human, but seems to be essential to the semological structure of the modal system itself, so that, for the sake of complete accuracy, the above statements could be generalized to include non-human actors. I n any case, it is always either the nature of the actor (subjective modals: WILL and KANN) or the nature of the external circumstances (objective modals: MUSS and DARF) which determines whether the event is seen to be imminent or precarious. At this point it would be possible to write an excursus on the cultural, psycholinguistic and philosophical implications of the meaning of the modals as exhibited in language usage. But such a discussion would diverge too greatly from my main purpose of presenting a detailed abstract linguistic explanat ion of the semological structure of the modals. I t is nevertheless worth noting hero t h a t the modal system, especially in the objective/subjective opposition is capable of representing a deep-seated notion involved in the thought of speakers of European languages: the age-old conflict between the individual and his environment. If one also keeps in mind the importance of choice, as outlined above, in the use of the modals it is not difficult to accept the statement by the Danish philosopher, Frithiof Brandt, t h a t the German modal system encompasses the entire realm of ethics.-" Within this system can be seen the theological problem of free-will against determinism or man against fate. When a subjective modal is used, the actor is seen as dynamically affecting his environment; with the objective modals the actor is considered as being affected by his surroundings. A precarious modal depicts the actor as standing before one of the thousands of choices which will confront him in a lifetime and which can change the course of his life. The use of an imminent modal presents the actor as committed by choice (WILL) or by circumstances (MUSS). In the case of the biased modals the choice is still the actor's to make, b u t by choosing against the realization of the event he would either flout authority (SOLL) or deny his inclination (MAG). ..It is interesting to note that in the realm of morals and social customs-in everday life it is not difficult to find an ordinary word which rather closely corresponds to the meaning of each of the six modals. Following is one such possibility: Obj. Subj.

MUSS (compulsion) WILL (intention)

SOLL (duty) MAG (inclination)

DARE (right) K A N N (opportunity)

2a L . L . H a m m e r i c h , " U b e r d i e M o d a l v e r b a d e r n e u g e r m a n i s c h e n S p i a c h e n " , ZfdWf X V I (1960); 69. H a m m e r i c h r e f e r s t o B r a n d t ' s r e m a r k , b u t h e g i v e s n o s o u r c e r e f e r e n c e .

SEMOLOGICAL SKETCH OF THE MODAL SYSTEM

37

Although the contrast between the subjective and objective feature can also be seen in the words suggested here, these words cover only a part of the vast area which is taken care of by the modals. Anyone interested in doing a thorough study of the paralinguistic significance of the modal system would do well to examine carefully the works of Karin Pontoppidan—Sjovall (seethe Selected Bibliography). A s a psychologist she is interested in discovering how the study of language and psychology might aid each other. The following statement is worth quoting in full to demonstrate that much of the apparatus she lias conceived for the analysis of impersonal constructions in Russian could be applied to the use of the modals in German: The separation from the outside world of the conscious ego implies apprehension of the subject-object duality. This isolation of the self is based on the representation of man as a permanent entity and of the ego as a unit vis-a-vis its environment; and it is natural that such a conception developed among peoples for whom the outside world was viewed as a challenge, as a result of which this contrast arose. A clear subject-object contrast was a necessary stage towards a fuller realization of the potentialities of the human intellect. By this method the utterances of the individual are perceived and transmitted into language as permanent entities such as ability, will etc., which are opposed to one another and emphasized by the contrast of subject versus object/ 50 The entities "ability, will etc." in the above quotation correspond to the area covered by the modals in German. The close relationship between Pontoppidan—Sjovall's discovery and my own is perhaps no accident, since the Russian language, not having modals in the sense that German does, uses the impersonal constructions to convey in part what the modals do in German. According to Hammerieh, the functioning of the modals as a separate linguistic category in Germanic also corresponds semantically to the impersonal constructions in Latin (e.g. WILL: placet; MAG: libet).si

30

Karin Pontopiddan —Sjövall, "The E g o as Agent and as Object»", Scando-Slavica (1964); 205-6. 31 Hammerieh, " Ü b e r die Modalverba"; 68.

X

3 THE IMMINENT MOD ALS: MUSS AND WILL

Of the 341 examples of WILL which I have encountered in my corpus, 156 are not negated and occur in the present tense with a simple infinitive complement or with no other verb at all; 229 of the 384 occurrences of MUSS fit into this category. These examples will supply the basis for the verification of the basic meaning of the individual modals. The use of the modals in the other tenses will be briefly discussed immediately following this major verification. Negation and subjunctive of all of the modals will be treated at the end of this study. The reason for including the occurrences of the modals that lack an infinitive together with the others is that, as both Bech1 and Welke2 have also noted, these usages involve no essential difference in meaning. There are five different syntactic types in which the infinitive is lacking: (1) if its clause contains an idea of motion, in the broadest sense, often coupled with an adverb of direction: "nun soll ich auch hin",3 (2) if the infinitive is implied by the immediate context: "es geschieht nur, was muß",4 (3) if it is substituted by a neutral pronoun: "sie versuchte zu sprechen, konnte es aber nicht".5 With these three types it is possible to speak of a specifically implied infinitive, so that no essential syntactic difference exists. (4) In this type, however, a specific infinitive could not be predicted: "er mag die Farben auf ihrem Gesicht nicht" and "er kann Bulgarisch".6 Yet even though the modals as used in the fourth type seem to have left the modal system by becoming independent verbs, their distinctive features as outlined in the last chapter are the same. The system is different here only in that the objective modals (MUSS, SOLL, DARF) are not capable of the fourth type. It might be pointed out, in addition, that English also uses full verbs to translate this type, e.g., "ich will einen Kaffee, ich mag moderne 1 2 8 4 6 8

Bech, "Das semantische System"; 3-4 and 44-46. Welke, Untersuchungen, p. 16. Bech, "Das semantische System"; 3. Bech, "Das semantische System"; 4. Bech, "Das semantische System"; 6. Bech, "Das semantische System"; 46.

THE IMMINENT MOD ALS: MUSS A N D WILL

39

Musik, ich kann Englisch" translate as " I want, I like, I know". (5) Here a dependent clause is the object, a type not mentioned by Bech as a separate category, but referred to by Bettridge: "Kann ich dafür, daß meine Kusine in Köln wohnt?" and "Ich will auch nicht, daß meine Mutter sich ärgert". 7 This type is also confined to the subjective modals, MAG being substitutable for WILL in the above sentence. I will discuss the modals individually, although some references to the other modals will have to be interspersed at certain points to show contrast. For various reasons, which will become evident throughout the discussion, it will be necessary to distinguish between five different classes in the category of person: (1) ich; (2) du, ihr, Sie; (3) wir; (4) er, sie (sing.), es, sie (pi.), and nouns to which they refer; (5) man. Du will be used as a cover symbol for all second person pronouns, er stands for all third person pronouns and nouns except man. I t is in order at this point to make some statements concerning the use of these different person categories which hold true for all of the subjective modals. When the actor in an utterance is ich, actor and speaker are always identical. This has the special effect with the subjective modals that the actor, as the source of the potential realization, reveals his nature by speaking. When the actor is any one of the other four categories of persons, the speaker (as non-actor) stands apart from the source and interprets the nature of the actor. This last statement will be qualified later, since the speaker must be included when the actor is wir, may be included when the actor is man. The peculiar status of the first person singular has also been noted by Karin Pontopiddan—Sjövall. She maintains that 'I' as a subject is opposed to any other subject. 'I', owing to its psychological content of ego function, which is not to be found in any other grammatical subject, represents something quite unique . . . All other agents (grammatical subjects) have the psychological content of field function and are linguistic analogies of 'I'. 8 She is speaking here of such 'actor-action-structured' sentences as 'I work', in which she holds that " ' I ' is the grammatical subject, the agent, presented as the 'cause' of the event". 9 It is interesting to note that this last statement corresponds quite closely to what I have been saying about the subjective modals (WILL, MAG, KANN). But as will be seen later, ich used with an objective modal does not have the same unique function in regard to the other persons, even though its function still distinctly contrasts with that of all the other persons. This is true because an ich-actor, in this case, is not an active 7

H. T. Bettridge, "An Experiment with the German Modals (III)", Modem Languages X L I (1960); 60. " 'I solidarize myself with my action' ", StudiaLinguistica X X (1967); 67-8. B y "field function" is meant the function of the subject when it is not ich. 9 Pontopiddan—Sjövall, " 'I solidarize myself" '; 67.

8

40

THE IMMINENT MOD ALS: MUSS AND

WILL

agent but, in effect, an object in respect to a p a r t of its environment. This is t h e crucial fact t h a t forces the objective/subjective classification. Thus t h e concept of the subject-object duality, so important in European thought, is clearly exemplified in the semological structure of the modal system.

3.1. WILL

Following is a representative sampling of the 31 occurrences of W I L L with ich as t h e subject. 1 0 D21d . . . ich will Ihnen das glauben. Aber das erklärt immer noch nicht . . . D24f Ich will nach Lamboing fahren und sehen, was ich herausfinde. H 199a U n d jetzt will ich Ihnen ein Geheimnis verraten . . . X80d Versuch, aufzustehen. J a ich will es versuchen. L121d, e Ich will fort . . . ich muß jetzt gehen. 7j151c P a ß genau auf, was ich dir sagen will, und spiel nicht den großen Mann: ich wußte immer . . . L166 Ich will mal nachsehen. Vielleicht schaffe ich es. L201d Du bist in zwei Tagen in Ordnung . . . - - Teil will es hoffen . . . Although an accurate translation of each of these uses would require several different English phrases, they are all explainable in terms of t h e basic meaning. I n each case t h e actor reveals himself as t h e source of the realization of an imminent event. _D24f is perhaps the best example of the very common use of W I L L for which 'want to' is t h e usual gloss. The actor simply reveals a plan or intention (a choice t h a t has been made). The contrast with MUSS is shown by the fact t h a t if it were substituted for W I L L in any of the above frames, t h e source of the imminence would clearly lie outside the actor. Thus 7>121d is not a repetition of ¿121c b u t is an explanation of the actor's intention to leave; she first reveals her intention with W I L L and then, by using MUSS, explains t h a t her decision is in harmony with the external circumstances. # 1 9 9 a , £80d, L151c and ¿ 1 6 6 could be translated with 'I'll', ' I ' m going to' or 'let me'. This corresponds to Bech's example " n u n will ich dir das Nest zeigen", which he lists under the heading, "das angeschlossene F u t u r u m " . 1 1 However, it should be pointed out t h a t , especially when the actor is ich, there is very frequently a notion of f u t u r i t y inherently involved in the use of W I L L . 10

The citations are always listed in alphabetical and numerical order. A double dash means a change of speaker in the conversation. Since most of the citations occur in conversation, those which do not will be specifically designated as either 'stage direction' or 'author's narration'. 11 Bech, "Das semantische System"; 6.

THE IMMINENT MODALS: MUSS A N D WILL

41

But this futurity is a secondary or derived feature, no matter how dominant it appears to be in a given utterance, since in many other cases, e.g. Z>21d and L20\d it is not essential to the meaning of W I L L . However, in every use of W I L L the speaker-actor sees the event as imminent and is clearly presented as the initiator of this imminence. The potential realization of the event often falls in the future as a natural consequence of the fact t h a t it has not occurred by the time of speaking. Thus the present tense of W I L L (as well as that of any other modal) can be used to express a relative assertion about a future event in the same way t h a t non-modal verbs can express future factual assertion. B u t those uses, which are governed by context or situation, do not deviate from the basic meaning of the modal. I n my corpus I have found no occurrences of WILL in which it functions purely as a future tense marker. The following citation is interesting in t h a t it clearly shows the importance of the contrast of WILL with its neighboring modals. L7Gc

Ich will jetzt wissen, wo das Mildchen i s t !

The use of WILL here lias the effect of demand (even without the special emphasis indicated by the exclamation mark) because it means, in contrast to MUSS, t h a t the actor was not driven by external circumstances, but lias made the choice himself. The significance of the contrast with [MAG can perhaps be demonstrated most clearly by comparing Zr76c with'the following sentence: 7)55c

. . . ich mochte nun wirklich einmal ganz genau wissen, warum ihr meinem braven Gastmann den Schmied auf den Hals gehetzt habt.

Both of the speaker-actors in these two sentences are extremely desirous of seeing the specified event realized, but their choice of language must be commensurate with their peculiar situations. The speaker of L76c, Hinrichs, is an older man addressing a young lad for whom he has no respect, and hence finds no need to exercise caution. But von Schwendi in D55c is addressing detectives, who would not tolerate a (potentially insulting) firm demand. He therefore states his demand as a bias (inclination) but strengthens it with "nun wirklich einmal ganz genau". It would, of course, be impossible and unnecessary to discuss all, or even a majority, of the occurrences of the modals which reflect such subtle nuances in particular social situations. However, it is my thesis that, in everyday ordinary usage of contemporary German, the semological structure of the modal set is well suited for just such purposes. X>21d can be explained on the basis of its following sentence, which indicates that, although the actor is willing to initiate the completion of the event, there may be some circumstances which frustrate his efforts. The same arguments can also, explain L201d. At the time of speaking the actor views his situation as so dim t h a t he can only express his willingness to hope, not hope itself; by using

42

THE IMMINENT MOD ALS: MUSS A N D WILL

relative assertion instead of factual assertion he states that his hoping is imminent, but does not yet belong to the world of reality. When the actor is wir the speaker is always included. Following are ten of the 27 occurrences found in my corpus. D93c //160d H210e //216c //40a ¿128b //136a L138b ¿21 lb,

Seien Sie bitte nicht so unbarmherzig . . . wir wollen uns doch nur etwas unterhalten. Wir wollen zur Frau Wolpert. Wir wollen also jetzt nur noch grade verabreden, wann ich am besten reise. Mama, wir wollen noch hinaus, einen Spaziergang machen. Manfred und ich wollen heiraten. Wollen wir's zusammen versuchen, Lena? Schlaf, Junge . . . Morgen wollen wir uns beide darum kümmern. Morgen werden wir alles in Ruhe besprechen. Komm, Kind, wir wollen schlafen gehn. c Willst du gleich sprengen? — — Erst einmal wollen wir den Schaden besichtigen . . .

Since the speaker and actor partially coincide, the use of wir (like ich) also reveals the nature (intention, will, desire, etc.) of the actor. The difference here is that there is always at least one other member involved. The other member(s) can either include the addressee or not. If the addressee is included, the effect is similar to English 'let's', and often has the effect of a gentle command (X138b) by assuming that the addressee is not at the time of the same mind as the speaker. In ¿211b the use of wir in the response to the du of the previous question gives the effect of the editorial we. However, it is also possible that the speaker, since he is in charge, includes the addressee (and one other member) because he assumes that they surely will not contradict him. Thus, when the addressee is included in wir, the speaker usually reveals himself as the ultimate initiator of the event, although, as //210e shows, this fact does not have to indicate some sort of command. By means of a question (¿128b) the speaker can check whether the addressee views the event as he himself does. In //160d, //216c and ¿40a the addressee is not included. In the first two this fact is clear only from further context. It is interesting that, translated into English, this group would be set off from the previous one with the translation 'want to'. In this use the speaker includes the other member as initiator on the basis of evidence of agreement received prior to the time of speaking. The unity of the individual members of wir is usually accepted by the addressee, but because of the inherent potential ambiguity of this pronoun, there may be occasional need for clarification, such as is demonstrated by the hearer's response to ¿40a: "Willst du ihn heiraten oder er dich?" Here the question is whether

THE IMMINENT MODALS: MTTSS AND WILL

43

both components of wir are truly the source of the imminence; the listener wants to know whether the speaker is speaking for both or chiefly for either one. Z)93c shows another type of ambiguity, which could not be disambiguated without further context or information on the situation. I t is not clear whether the addressee or only the speaker's companion is included. ¿136a brings up the problem of the difference between WILL and the 'auxiliary' iverden. Here, as in most cases, both of these verbs are used in clauses which have specific reference to events not yet realized. For werden Hans Glinz has suggested the definition "noch ausstehend", which is meant to cover both the idea of probability ("er wird krank sein") and the future. In the case of probability the event is seen as still outstanding because the speaker lacks evidence that it has actually occurred ("Ausstehen des Beleges für etwas vielleicht real schon Erfülltes"). In the use of the future it is the realization of the event itself which is seen to be outstanding ("Ausstehen der realen Erfüllung"). However, Glinz considers both to be "eben gleich wirklich". 12 This, I think, makes clear the essential difference between the use of werden and any one of the modals. The significant function of modality is to express a relation of the event to reality, whereas a clause without a modal is concerned with the event as reality. Furthermore, werden is neutral in respect to the subjective/objective opposition which is inherent to the modal system. Thus by using wir wollen rather than wir werden in ¿136a, the actor (Hinrichs) avoids being too harsh to his son by including him as co-initiator (reinforced by beide) of the imminence of the event; once this union is established, werden can be used in the next clause. Welke suggests that the use of WILL is "verhältnismäßig irrelevant" in certain "Formulierungen, die sich auf den Fortgang einer (wissenschaftlichen) Untersuchung beziehen, diese näher charakterisieren usw." and that the substitution of werden or the simple omission of the modal would not substantially change the "kommunikativer Effekt" (KE).13 Following are some of the sentences he gives as illustrations: Wir wollen aber jedenfalls feststellen, daß . . . Wir wollen uns das durch eine Gegenüberstellung veranschaulichen . . ,14 I t is true that, because of context and situation, the omission of WILL in these sentences (and in ¿136a above) would not bring about as drastic a change in the KE of the sentence as a whole as it would in most of the usages which I have discussed so far. However, this does not mean that the basic meaning has vanished, but simply that the focus is more heavily placed on the 12 1S 14

Glinz, Die innere Form des Deutschen, pp. 339ff. Welke, Untersuchungen, pp. 79-80. Welke, Untersuchungen, p. 80.

44

THE IMMINENT MOD ALS: MUSS A N D WILL

event itself than it is on its relation to reality or on the source of its initiation. Context and situation never completely knock out the basic meaning of the modals, no matter how much they widen or restrict its range. If the uses of WILL in Welke's examples were compulsory by syntactic convention, it could then be said that their meaning would be zero, 15 or, in other words, that the opposition between relative and eventual assertion is neutralized in these instances. But since the modal is not syntactically obligatory, it is the speaker's choice to include it.. Using the editorial wc, the author of the above sentences employs WILL to reveal his plan and leaves it up to the reader to decide whether he has attained his goal. As a result of the use of WILL, the event is not stated as reality. Remaining to be discussed is the use of WILL with du, er, and man. These will be treated more or less as a group since they share a common feature: when the actor is not the first person, the speaker (as a non-actor) necessarily interprets the nature of the actor in designating him as the source of the imminence. The citations below should illustrate quite clearly what I mean by this. The preponderance of these citations from H is somewhat representative of the distribution of WILL with du and er in this work, but it is also due to the fact that these examples with their context are especially demonstrative. B232c //130b 7/130d H14'Se 7il54e H 176e H 192e //204b X228 7>231d

. . . ich höre, Sie wollen heiraten, habe ich recht gehört? Ich weiß nur, daß sie absolut in die Stadt ziehen will, weil es ihr bei uns zu abgelegen ist. Sei nur still, Sixtina, mit deinem Erziehungsgesicht. Ich weiß schon, was du sagen willst . Sie will den Koffer aufnehmen. Kienlechner nimmt ihn ihr aus der Hand, [stage direction] Und zu mir will er "gnädige F r a u " sagen ! Ich habe nicht wissen können, daß du lieber mit der Hedrich tanzen gehen willst . . . . . . und Sie wollen den Mund auftun gegen Ihre Mitmenschen. — — Nein, will ich nicht. Den ganzen Tag hab ichs gespürt , daß er mir was sagen will. . . . . . der Chef hat schon telephoniert. Vielleicht will er etwas wissen von dir über den Jungen. Ich glaube, sie wollen dir etwas anhangen, Hinrichs.

The speaker interprets the behaviour (in the broadest sense: actions, speech, etc.) of the actor as a reflection of the latter's nature: 5232c, //130d, //143e, /7154e, £/192e, //204b, /7130d, together with its following sentence, clearly 15

On the matter of syntactic convention, see C. E. Bazell, "The Sememe", Litera

(1954), 21.

I

THE IMMINENT MODALS: MUSS A N D WILL

45

shows that both past and present behaviour of the actor are valid in the speaker's interpretation. In this particular situation the speaker expects a certain reaction from the addressee because of the latter's current behaviour, which has apparently also occurred frequently in the past. Sometimes the nature of the actor is not sufficiently revealed, so that the speaker interprets an event as imminent that is not (II 192e), confesses that the actor's nature was concealed (//176e), or qualifies his interpretation for want of binding evidence (7,228, L231d). //130b and / / 143e show that, for an event to be interpreted by a speaker as imminent, its realization does not have to be immediate or inevitable. Any imminent event can be blocked completely (7/143e) or delayed (7/13Ob, the speaker knows that the actor cannot move until she finds a place in town) by circumstances outside the actor. The important point is that, at the time of speaking, the actor is seen to be committed to the realization of the event in spite of (7/130b) or in ignorance of (7/143e) the frustrating counter-events. Similarly, in H 154e the speaker docs not mean to say that the actor is just then about to say "gnädige Frau", but rather that it is his custom to use that phrase when addressing her. Thus, immediacy can fade into the background when the focus is more heavily placed on the interpretation of the nature of the actor or when the present form of WILL is used in a general sense to cover a repeated or temporally non-bound event. D62, H 152e, LI 79c and /,233d, immediately following, represent a similar use; the generality of the latter three is reinforced by the use of the neutral actor 7ii(i7i or the interrogative pronoun wer. 1)62 II 152e //177c /,179c /,233d

Man verhandelt offiziell, die Diplomaten wollen doch was zu tun haben. Da sagt man etwas Angenehmes, wenn man ein höflicher Mensch sein will! Es hat mich nur so aufgeregt . . . weil man ja wirklich dein Bestes will und . . . Bevor man andern predigen will, rnuss man sich selbst predigen. Aber wer alt ist, Chef, und neu anfangen will der kann sich gleich zum alten Eisen werfen lassen.

//177c is the only other occurrence in my corpus of man as actor used with the present tense of WILL. The use of man is interesting here in that the speaker seems to be referring chiefly to herself with it, but wants to generalize and broaden the source of the imminence and thereby broaden the responsibility for her actions, which she presently is undertaking to explain. It is linguistically interesting that, of the 58 occurrences in which the actor is du, 34 are questions and only two f_B232c and II 192e above) are independent

46

THE IMMINENT MODALS: MUSS A N D WILL

declarative sentences. On the other hand, there are only four questions out of 35 in which the actor is er and none with ich. Given the basic meaning of WILL these statistics should come as no surprise. When the actor is ich there is no need for a question because the speaker-actor knows his own nature. When the actor is du or er the speaker usually asks the question precisely because the actor's nature is not clear to him. Following are six citations to demonstrate the uses of WILL in types of questions not previously discussed. £284e Z)24e 2)34c ¿52a L82a

X218a

Willst du zur Tür gehen ? Die Tür ist offen. Was wollen Sie nun tun, Tschanz ? Und Sie wollen diesen Mann fangen, Tschanz, vor dem Sie Respekt haben? — — Ich hoffe, Kommissär. Willst du einen Zug ? Er hatte das Halsstück mit der Rasierklinge in der Hand, und der Junge sah eine ganze Weile darauf und sagte [author's narration]: Willst du wieder radieren ? Wie will er das überhaupt machen?

L82& is one of the most common types of question when the actor is du. The speaker asks the question in order to check whether he has correctly interpreted the behaviour of the actor, whether the actor does actually intend to initiate the specified event. When the actor gives no indication of this nature, the speaker asks a question such as D42e or L52&. If, on the other hand, the speaker feels he is quite certain about what the actor has in mind he can employ a declarative form with question intonation, as in Z)34c. If the actor is er the speaker asks another party for revelatory information (X218a). Although the use exemplified by _B284e occurred only once in my corpus, it cannot be considered an anomaly in modern German. By asking whether the actor is about to initiate a certain event (desired by the speaker), the speaker actually makes a gentle request. Gerhard Kaufmann lists some examples in which a request has a more obvious imperative sense:16 Willst du wohl machen, daß du fortkommst, du Lausbub ! Willst du wohl jetzt deine Suppe essen ! Willst du wohl den Finger aus dem Mund nehmen ! As is indicated by the exclamation mark, the intonation pattern of these sentences is not that of a genuine question. As a result, a speaker can effect almost the same message as he could with MUSS ("du musst. . ."), since both 16 Gerhard Kaufmann, "Der Gebrauch der Modalverben sollen, müssen und wollen I I " Deutschunterricht für Ausländer X I I I (1963); 50.

THE IMMINENT MODALS: MUSS AND WILL

47

MUSS and WILL mean that he views the event as imminent. As will be seen later, with the use of MUSS a speaker can command (effect an imperative message) by serving as the external circumstance which initiates the realization of the event; in these examples with WILL, the speaker effects a command or strong request by firmly suggesting that the actor fulfill the specified event. This usage demonstrates once again how the total message effect of relative assertion can be shifted by structural context (here: a different intonation pattern) while the basic meaning is held constant. In my corpus I have encountered only one occurrence of WILL for which 'claim to' could be given as a possible gloss: D20

Wir wissen nur, wie Schmied ermordert wurde. — — Wie wollen Sie das nun wieder wissen ?

In this type of use the notion of futurity fades out altogether, that is, imminence includes the time of speaking. The importance of the use of WILL here in contrast to a non-modal sentence is that it focusses on the actor as initiator, that is, the speaker disclaims responsibility for the reality of the event and inquires about the actor's basis for his claim. A more ambiguous sentence is given in the declarative by Schulz and Griesbach: "Er will viel Geld verdienen". 17 Without any further disambiguating context it is not clear whether a speaker of this sentence would mean that the actor INTENDS to earn a lot of money or is giving the impression (at the time of speaking) of DOING SO. In any case, the latter of these two possible messages does not depart from the basic meaning: the speaker interprets the behaviour of the actor as a reflection of his nature and designates him as the initiator. The English gloss 'claim to' is rather inadequate, since the use of WILL in this sense does not have to mean that the actor expresses himself verbally in respect to the event, but only that the speaker gets the impression from some behaviour of the actor. It is interesting to note that each of the other modals put into the frame "er — viel Geld verdienen" is capable of the same two kinds of interpretation that WILL is. Significantly, if an objective modal (MUSS, SOLL or DARF) is put into the same frame, the impression which the speaker has of the actor always derives from external circumstances. These uses will be discussed further in connection with the appropriate modal and especially in the treatment of MUSS. Since I have not encountered any examples of WILL in the present tense with a non-human actor, the presentation of this phenomenon will be deferred to the discussion of the past tense.

17

Schulz and Griesbach, Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, p. 66.

48

THE IMMINENT MODALS: MUSS AND WILL 3.2. MUSS

Bech's definition of MUSS, which states t h a t MUSS characterizes the event as causal necessity, 18 is on the surface not so very different from mine. B u t his treatment of this modal is nevertheless insufficient. First, he does not recognize t h a t MUSS shares the distinctive feature OBJECTIVE with SOLL and DARF. Second, his suggestion t h a t MUSS shares a feature of causality with K A N N is not acceptable, since the basic meaning of every modal involves the notion of causality, for the speaker's use of any modal locates the source (or cause) of the event either outside the actor (MUSS, SOLL, DARF) or not (WILL, MAG, KANN). Therefore causality itself cannot serve as a distinctive feature to classify a subset of modals. I n other words, it would be possible to characterize the opposition between MUSS and W I L L in terms of externally and internally caused imminence, respectively. The fact t h a t we are inclined to see MUSS as an expression of necessity and W I L L as an expression of demand is directly attributable to the objective/subjective opposition. That is, when the source is external to the actor it. is naturally considered to be more clearly beyond his control. Thus necessity can be a connotation of MUSS, but it is not essential to its basic meaning. In regard to the oppositions on the horizontal scale we could speak of MUSS and W I L L as representing strong causation. This latter possibility is in fact suggested by Leech as the semantic feature which sets off such lexical items as 'make' and 'compel' from 'let' and 'allow'.182c Z)141f ff 186c //195f _L57c L66a

. . . geübt warst du darin, den Blickwinkel deiner Augen gerade um soviel schräg zu stellen, daß du an mir vorbeisehen konntest. Dieses Gesicht, das mich rasend machen konnte, weil es wie trunken war von Gleichgültigkeit . . . Die Dummköpfe konntest du besiegen, aber ich besiegte dich. Nur noch Schmieds Mappe konnte dir helfen. Da bin ich sehr froh, daß ich mit Ihnen hab Rücksprach nehmen können. . . . und er hatte doch auch nur so in Andeutungen schreiben können. . . . die Kleinbahn fuhr hoch über dem Strand an der Küste entlang, und man konnte weit aufs Meer sehen. Damals konnten wir uns noch sehen lassen. Heute habe ich Angst vor den Photographen.

As with DARF the past of KANN is used to refer to an event that was precarious prior to the time of speaking and now no longer is. In most instances the specified event was also realized previously, but this fact is irrelevant or of only secondary interest. Of significance is what the actor was capable of doing, what position he was in at a certain point in the past. Thus it is only from the larger context of the story that we learn that the event in D141f never was realized. On the other hand, nowhere is it clearly indicated whether the events in Lblc and L66a ever were completed — although it can be assumed that they were. It is interesting to note in this connection that half of the occurrences of both KANN and DARF in the past are negated. I t is therefore easy to see why the events in the non-negated occurrences were for the most part completed prior to the speech event: when the event has not been previously realized it is usually negated. This equal distribution can also be taken as substantiating evidence that the basic meaning of the precarious modals is that the event has a 50-50 chance of realization. There is a total of 26 non-negated occurrences of KANN in the past in the author's narration, 21 with er and five with man as the actor. As is the case

84

THE PRECARIOUS MODALS: DARF A N D

KANN

with the other modals, most of the time KANN is used by the author in narration as if he were an observing bystander. This is true of most of the following citations, but especially clear in such examples as D24b, Z>98a and ¿168a. Z>6a D42b Z>63a ¿23b

Z86 L98a L168b L17oa

Clenin, der sie hervorzog, konnte ohne Mühe feststellen, daß es sich beim Toten um Ulrich Schmied handelte . . . Bevor jedoch Bärlach weiterfahren konnte, wurde der Oberst noch wilder als der Nationalrat. Lutz war so hilflos geworden, daß der Nationalrat nun mit ihm machen konnte, was er wollte. . . . und der Hafen war sehenswert, ohne Zweifel: das hatten schon frühere Staatsbesuche versichert. Ihn konnte man jederzeit vorweisen, er war ein rechtes Schaustück . . . . . . jetzt konnte sie den Polizisten erkennen, einen großen Mann mit glattrasiertem Gesicht. Er erhob sich, er konnte gearde aufrecht stehen in der Kammer, und er sah . . . auf sie hinab. . . . er konnte eine Eisendrahtechlinge mit den Händen erfassen, und er schleppte sich hinauf. Von hier aus konnte er das niedrige Haus auf dem Sandhügel sehen; es war still, niemand erschien am Fenster . . .

Erlebte Rede occurs only once: in ¿23b. The previous sentence, especially the phrase, "ohne Zweifel", makes it quite clear that the author is reporting the thoughts of another, in this case that of the city officials. Although KANN itself occurs so infrequently in erlebte Rede, it. frequently occurs in L in a clause which precedes an apparent use of erlebte Rede, such as in £86 and LI 75a. I say 'apparent use' because it is not unambiguously certain whether the reported facts, "einen grossen Mann . . ." and "es war still. . ." are to be taken as observations by the author or by the character in question.

5 THE BIASED MODALS: SOLL AND MAG

5.1. SOLL

If we consider the frequencies of the modals in terms of the contrastive pairs, SOLL and MAG with their combined total of 247 occur much less than half as often in my corpus as either one of the other two pairs (MUSS and WILL: 725; DARF and KANN: 617). The reason for this is very probably due to the fact that the biased modals stand mid-way between the two outside extremes which are represented by the imminent and the precarious modals. It would of course be too tedious to show in every case how SOLL and MAG occupy this central position, but this fact should become sufficiently clear as the discussion of these modals proceeds. Of the 157 occurrences of SOLL only 77 are non-negated and in the present tense indicative. This rather low ratio is partially accounted for by a characteristic which SOLL shares with MAG, namely, a high percentage of occurrences of the subjunctive: SOLL, 34%, MAG, 63% of the total versus only 16% with KANN, which has the next highest percentage. Although some of these uses of SOLL with subjunctive form can scarcely be said to have subjunctive meaning, it is not necessary to include them here since those in the indicative are sufficient for verifying the basic meaning of SOLL. By using a biased modal the speaker asserts that the event is inclined or biased towards realization. As with the other objective modals (MUSS and DARF), the use of SOLL as the marked modal places the focus on a source outside the actor as the initiator or imposing circumstances. That is, it is irrelevant whether the bias is also in the actor — whether the actor concurs as initiator. For example, in £7l93g and ¿118 below it is only clear from the broader context of the story what the speaker-actor's own attitude is, that he does in fact concur as initiator. D24a

Wenn ich mit Ihnen zusammenarbeiten soll, muß ich wissen, gegen wen sich meine Untersuchung richten muß . . .

86 //147a ff 193g LI 18

THE BIASED MODAUS: SOLL AND MAO

. . . habe ich mir gedacht: . . . ich werd nicht wissen, was ich mit ihm reden soll, well ich mich genier, Mir hat der Postautomann . . . versprochen, mich heute mitzunehmen. Bei dem soll ich um fünfe sein. Ja, was ist? — — Ich soll noch mit drauf nach Schweden.

ff 193g and LI 18 also demonstrate quite nicely the relationship of SOLL to its neighboring modals. By using SOLL instead of MUSS the speaker indicates that he still has a choice in the matter, but his choice is limited because of Iiis commitment or obligation, although he could still refuse to honor the commitment — and suffer the consequences; the ac tor feels obligated, not compelled. The use of DARF would mean that the speaker-actor considered the choice to be a completely free one, to be weighted as much towards realization as against it. If MAG (möchte) were substituted for SOLL, the assertion would give no indication of the actor's recognition of the external circumstances which bias the event; the bias would be located in the nature of the speaker. Assuming that my corpus is a representative sampling of the use of SOLL in conversation, it would seem that when the actor is ich, there is not often an occasion for a speaker to report in a simple declarative statement that an event is objectively biased, for H 193g and LI 18 above are the only two such citations in my corpus. In every other case the speaker-actor makes known a lack of certainty about the source of the bias. This uncertainty can be registered by means of the conditional (_D24a) or with an indirect interrogative (ff 147a). But the most common type of sentence with ich as the actor is the direct question, which represents almost 75% of the occurrences (16 of 22) of ich with SOLL. 5232a jß286f Dl5b

. . . sagen Sie mir, soll ich mehr Gewissen haben als die Konkurrenz ? Wo soll ich hier 'raus? — — Zum Fenster hinaus. Soll ich Sie in die Stadt fahren, Herr Kommissär ? — — Nein, fahre mich heim . . . ff 152b Ich habe kein Geld. Was soll 'ne alleinstehende Frau denn machen? .ff201a Soll ich dir helfen mit den Karotten, Sixtina ? LI7 Soll ich Tee kochen, Vater? Nein . . . L76a, b . . . laß mir das Mädchen in Ruh ! Aber was soll ich tun, wenn sie mich nicht in Ruhe läßt ? Soll ich sie stehen lassen ? LI58a Mach den Mund auf! Wieso ? Warum soll ich reden ? ff 152b has been included in this group, since the speaker actually refers to herself with the phrase "alleinstehende Frau". In every case, by questioning the listener, the speaker makes an effort to find out what is expected of him, to get information on the listener's view of the speaker's obligation. In some instances, D75b, H201a and L17, in which the speaker, in effect, is offering his

THE BIASED MODALS: SOLL A N D MAG

87

services, SOLL seems semantically closer to DARF than to MUSS. In 5232a, ¿76a and ¿76b, and LI58a the opposition of SOLL to MUSS is more pertinent, for the speaker in these citations is challenging or, at least, questioning the authority which the listener represents; MUSS would weaken the challenge. The speaker of B286f wants to know what the listener's plan is and uses SOLL to register his limited option not to go along with it. The interrogative also has a high frequency when SOLL is used with wir: four of the eight citations in my corpus occur in this sentence type. The fact that all eight are found in L seems to be an accident of situation and thus not attributable to the author's own style or dialect. ¿53 7/82d ¿123b ¿155d ¿212b ¿226a

Und jetzt ? Wohin sollen wir gehen ? — — Irgendwohin. Wir sollen raufgehen in schwedische Gewässer, und weil wir an Land wohnen werden, brauchen sie alle unsere Papiere . . . Sie sagte, wir sollen aufpassen auf ihn. Sollen wir hier warten ? Nein, wir bringen sie zum Kantor rüber. Und wie sollen wir die Batterien rausholen? Mit dem Boot, Kleiner. Wir sollen dich abholen . . .

The use of wir is naturally very similar to that of ich and therefore requires little discussion. By asking a question, ¿53, ¿155d and ¿212b, the speaker offers to give the initiative to the listener. In each of these citations the listener is included in wir, but it is easy to imagine a situation in which this was not the case. In the declarative sentences, ¿82d, ¿123b and ¿226a, the listener is included only in ¿123b. Both ¿123b and ¿226a can be considered the speaker's report of a previous imperative, but the original command could also have contained SOLL. As is the case with the other objective modals (MUSS and DARF) SOLL also occurs less frequently with du than with ich. In my corpus there are only 15 such citations with du as the actor, ten of which are listed below. 22228b jB231e /)19b //122a //152 //212a ¿28a

Sie, lieber Wilke, sollen für uns dieses Material sammeln, es auswerten... Ich kann mich keinesfalls dazu entschließen . . . Wer spricht davon, daß Sie sich hier und sofort entscheiden sollen ? Wir müssen den Fall Schmied besprechen. Sie sollen ihn der Hauptsache nach übernehmen, ich bin nicht so gesund. Was sollst du droben bei den Preußen oder Schlesiern, oder was weiß ich, sitzen . . . Sie sollen mich hübscher malen wie ich bin . . . Aber nein ! Du sollst ja grad dabei sein . . . Du sollst jetzt runter und nachschaun, was unten los ist mit dem Frachter...

88 L81 L I 15a L231b

THE BIASED MODALS: SOLL AND MAG

Solange ich da bin, sollst du schlafen. Ich glaube, Sie sollen auch m i t . . . Ich habe Ihr Taucherbuch in dem Stapel gesehen. Sie wollen mit dir selbst reden. Du sollst morgen hinkommen, Hinrichs.

I n most of these citations the speaker acts as the source or author of the bias, which he imposes on the listener. I n these instances the use of MUSS would be too forceful, D A R F on the other hand would tend to conceal the speaker's attitude (that the event is inclined towards realization). I n B228b, for example, the speaker is addressing a potential employee and cannot afford to appear to force the issue; if the actor were already in his employ, MUSS would have been more appropriate. Z>19b is interesting in t h a t it shows SOLL and MUSS in close conjunction with each other: MUSS is correct when the speaker includes himself, b u t not when he functions as the imposing circumstance, even though he clearly designates the ultimate source as his own poor health. I n two citations, Z115a and I/231b, the speaker functions as the interpreter rather than as the source of the bias. B u t there is an interesting difference between the two examples. I n L231b the speaker specifies the source with "Sie wollen . . . " i n the previous sentence so t h a t his own view point is not revealed. ¿115a is an example of the evidential, since the speaker bases his assertion on the evidence available to him, as is clear from the following sentence and the phrase "Ich glaube". Without this context these two uses could not be differentiated from the others. H 122a is the only example of SOLL with du in an interrogative in my corpus. The speaker anticipates a negative answer to her rhetorical question and in so doing is, in effect, suggesting t h a t there is no reason for her to believe t h a t the specified event is biased. SOLL occurs both more frequently (24 times) and with greater diversity with er, than it does with the other person categories. I will t r y to give some idea of this diversity by discussing the uses in several different groups. I n the following citations the speaker acts as the initiator of the bias, a use which was also seen to be so common with du. 5288a ¿ZI45b L42a L75a £121f

Grüß Vater, und Albert, Clara und Joseph. Ich habe sie lange nicht gesehen, sie sollen mich mal besuchen. Grüß sie. Sie sollen mich in R u h lassen. Es ist ihm nicht gut gegangen. Nun wird er hierbleiben. E r soll bleiben, wo er will. I n dieses Haus kommt er nicht. Ich habe Lena nicht gesagt, daß sie weggehen soll von zu Hause. Ich habe ihm nur gesagt, daß Sie hier sind und daß er Sie abholen soll, mehr nicht.

THE BIASED MOD ALS: SOLL AND MAG

89

When the speaker functions as the initiator, the use of SOLL is semantically similar to the imperative, as is quite clear from B288a and H 145b. Since the actor is not present, he, of course, cannot be directly addressed. Therefore, these citations are similar to ¿75a and LI 21f, in which the use of SOLL could be considered a substitute for the imperative in indirect discouse. It is interesting that in all four of these citations, the speaker could conceivably use either SOLL or the imperative if he addressed the actor directly. Since the imperative form itself cannot be used in indirect discourse, SOLL is quite well suited as a substitute because it inherently (being an objective modal) conveys the information that the initiation of the event comes from outside the actor. The following citation resembles the above, except that the external agency is represented by somebody other than the speaker. 7?233b

Deshalb kam ich zu Ihnen . . . als ich erfuhr, daß er tun soll, was mein Vater getan hat.

It is clear only from the larger context of the play that the use of SOLL here is not the evidential. That is, the speaker has in mind certain demands that are being made on the actor. Welke suggests that it is especially this imperative-like use of SOLL which provides evidence for Bech's notion that SOLL and WILL should be paired as opposites. In Welke's view, the message conveyed by "Hans soll sofort kommen" can be equally well conveyed by "Ich will, daß Hans sofort kommt". 1 Since he does not support this view by citing any examples from his corpus (the above mentioned sentences are his own), I see no argument against assuming that "Hans soll sofort kommen" is, on the contrary, a close equivalent of "Ich möchte, daß Hans sofort kommt". In which case, "Ich will, daß Hans sofort kommt" can be considered a near equivalent of "Hans muß sofort kommen' '. This suggestion is in keeping with my thesis that MUSS and WILL are paired as the imminent, SOLL and MAG as the biased modals. In support of my description of the semantic relationships of the modals, I would like to refer briefly to two of the above citations, jB288a and HI4oh. There is no reason to assume that a rephrasing of either one of these citations with a subjective modal would require WILL rather than MAG. On the contrary, if one takes into consideration the particular situation in each case, who the speaker is, etc., a rephrasing with "ich möchte, daß" would be more suitable. The evidential use of SOLL is very common, since it allows the speaker to make a rather noncommital assertion that there is considerable evidence favoring the realization of the event. As the following citations show, the evidence can stem from a variety of sources. 1

Welke, Untersuchungen, p. 90.

90 7)105b

77178c 77191a

THE BIASED MODALS: SOLL AND MAÖ

Und jetzt . . . da ich einmal eine Chance habe . . . soll meine einmalige Gelegenheit hinaufzukommen . . . zugrunde gehen! Nur Sie können das noch änderen, Kommissär . . . Es soll nämlich eine Klage der Militärregiei'ung gegen sie unterwegs sein. Die ganze Zeit wünscht man sich was . . . und wenn's dann endlich so weit kommen soll, dann heult man !

771 78c perhaps represent« the most common use of the evidential, which is usually called hearsay ('they say' or 'it is said'). The speaker simply asserts, often without specifying the source, that the event appears to be inclined towards realization. If the evidence were stronger, MUSS would be in order; if the evidence were complete, no modal would be necessary. In both Z)105b and 77191a the speaker bases his assertion on his observation of other events which tend to make the event in question seem biased. In some independent clauses, such as the following, the use of SOLL is not easy to explain. 7?214b

77128c 77174b

Ich weiß, Prokolorit war ein Fehlschlag . . . Es war ein Fehlschag aber ich will nicht hoffen, daß Ihr "war" bedeuten soll, daß Sie, Prokolorit aufgeben. Wer wird zu einem Kind Fräulein Wolpert sagen? Versteht ja kein Mensch, wer das sein soll. . . . ich will mich auch nicht mehr in das Schwere und Schmerzliche . . . einschließen . . . Man muß das Herz auftun, wenn die Welt aufgehen soll!

72214b probably belongs in the immediately previous group, since the speaker seems to be basing his assertion on the evidence before him. A substitution of any one of the other modals for SOLL in 77128c indicates that this use can also be called the evidential. The indirect question is used to ask about the evidence. The sentence preceding 77174b shows that man in the second clause has reference to the speaker herself. I f we take "wenn die Welt aufgehen soli" as a transform of "die Welt soil aufgehen", then the speaker is clearly the initiator and there is nothing difficult about the use of SOLL here. A more satisfying interpretation of such citations could perhaps be made by means of a more thorough analysis of the effects of sentence type, but there is not sufficient space for that in this study. The following list of citations represents the variety of uses of SOLL with er in questions found in my corpus. In every case the listener functions as the initiator, yet there seems to be a greater diversity possible than with the other person categories in questions.

THE BIASED MODALS: SOLL A N D MAG

H 132e //157d ¿65b ¿212a ¿232b

91

Ich möchte nicht gern, daß du den Christian Kienlechner mit einer solchen . . . Laune behandelst. . . Was soll er von dir denken ? Was soll denn das da oben 'rum? — — Das kommt noch? Wann soll es losgehen ? Und wenn jemand kommt ? — — Wer soll kommen ? Sollen sie dir das Geld schicken ? — — Das ist egal. . .

The use of SOLL in //132e seems at first glance to be synonymous with wird. But there is an important difference: by using SOLL the speaker makes it clear that she holds the listener responsible for what the actor will be inclined to think. Since wird does not enter into the objective/subjective opposition which is inherent to the modal system, part of the message would be lost through its substitution. This opposition to wird also is significant in H 157d, ¿65b and ¿212a. In //157d the speaker is questioning the listener about the dim outlines in a picture the latter is painting and wants to know what kind of an existence he is imposing on the referent of the das, that is, what he expects or plans for it to be. The speaker of ¿65b also uses SOLL in an effort to discover the current plans of the listener who has authority over the reference of the es (a salvage operation). The sentence preceding ¿212a shows that the speaker is asking for the listener's opinion, not for his plan or intention. But the use of SOLL here eliminates the necessity of meinen or glauben in the question. It should be noted that, although in each of these citations the listener functions as the initiator, this is not a compulsory fact. The speaker could, in other words, be questioning the listener about a third party. For example, it is only the context, the sentence following ¿232b, which makes it clear that the .speaker is inquiring about the wish of the speaker and not about that of someone else. Finally, I include here the only four occurrences of SOLL with man in the present indicative in my corpus. //119d .0132c //168b ¿151b

Aber was soll man denn mit ihm reden? . . . du willst nicht haben, daß man dir Kindskopf sagen soll [sie], aber du bist ja doch wirklich einer! Was soll man da erzählen ? Hoffentlich haben Sie mehrGlück. Wie meinst du das? Man soll seinen Mitmenschen Glück wünschen . . .

In i/119d and //168b man refers to the speaker, so that there is very little difference between these two citations and those listed above with ich. In keeping with its usual function, however, man does tend to universalize the actor. The speaker wants to know what sort of bias a universal code imposes on any person in such a case (cf. denn and da). This same sort of universality is

92

THE BIASED MODALS: SOLL AND MAG

apparent in t h e other citations, although in H 132c the speaker clearly means to designate t h e listener as t h e initiator r a t h e r t h a n some sort of general law.

5.2. MAG

Gunnar Bech gives some indication of the complicated status of the semantic structure of MAG by expressing doubt whether it is possible to discover a unified basic meaning which takes into account all of the diverse uses of this modal. 2 I hope to show, however, t h a t my definition of MAG as a subjective biased modal is adequate to cover all of the uses in mv corpus and, presumably, if not all, t h e n a t least t h e significant majority of uses which are current in t h e German language today. One of t h e problems in the semantic analysis of MAG has to do with t h e fact t h a t it is t h e only modal which occurs more frequently in t h e subjunctive form t h a n in t h e indicative form. The reason for this apparent imbalance is due to t h e fact t h a t the subjunctive form (möchte) of MAG very often does not have subjunctive meaning. This fact is not widely acknowledged either in teaching or in theoretical grammars of German, although it is quite explicitly stated by Welke: "mögen im K o n j u n k t i v Imperfekt h a t die Funktion eines Verbs im Indikativ Präsens. Eine relativ selbstständige F u n k t i o n ' K o n j u n k t i v ' besitzt mögen nicht" , 3 This means t h a t t h e subjunctive of MAG has in p a r t been specialized for use as an indicative. Unfortunately, Welke makes no a t t e m p t to explain how it differs in meaning f r o m the indicative form. I n addition to verifying the basic meaning of MAG, and demonstrating how this modal fits into t h e semantic modality matrix, t h e following discussion will also a t t e m p t to define the difference between the meaning of the indicative of MAG and t h e subjunctive form with non-subjunctive meaning. The use of MAG with subjunctive meaning will be treated with the subjunctive of the other modals in t h e next chapter. I t will therefore not be necessary here to discuss t h e difference between t h e subjunctive and indicative of MAG. I n order to simplify t h e representation, t h e indicative form of MAG will henceforth be referred to as MÖG, the subjunctive form with indicative meaning as MÖCHT and, as previously, MAG will include b o t h of these. Another peculiarity about the use of MAG is the extremely high incidence of citations with ich as the actor: over 61% of t h e total of 91. The list below contains a representative sampling of the occurrences of this person category with MÖCHT and also offers adequate evidence t h a t this subjunctive form is not always subjunctive in meaning. 2 3

Bech, "Das semantische System"; 21. Welke, Untersuchungen, p. 114.

THE BIASED MODALS: SOLL A N D MAG

£216(1 i?274f 5285g D17d _D55c ¿Z151c iZ181c Z/54d L102b L178d

93

. . . natürlich möchte ich mich erst von seiner Qualität überzeugen. Willst du es wissen? Nein. Nur eins möchte ich wissen: warum hast du es getan ? Aber ich möchte mit dir sprechen; auch mit Vater. . . . ein Glas Neuen möchte ich jetzt gerne trinken. . . . ich möchte nun wirklich einmal ganz genau wissen, warum ihr meinem braven Gestmann den Schmied auf den Hals gehetzt habt. Zuerst möcht ich unsern Gast feierlich bewillkommen. Ich möcht ganz gern meine Pinsel auswaschen und mich wieder ein bissei zivilisieren. Du wirst mich mitnehmen, Manfred, sonst geh ich allein . . . Jetzt möchte ich bei dir bleiben. Ich habe keine Angst. Dieser hier ist es, der Geburtschein. Ich möchte eine Abschrift davon. Geh fort, Manfred. Ich möchte, daß es dir gut geht. Aber bleib nicht hier. Geh!

Brinkmann suggests the main feature which distinguishes MÖCHT from MÖG is as follows: "Ein Wunsch wird ausgesprochen, ohne Rücksicht darauf, ober realisiert werden kann; es kommt allein auf das Ausprechen des Wunsches an". 4 But a glance at the above citations shows that such is no more the case than with the indicative form. For example, the surrounding contexts of i?181c and ¿102b show that the speaker-actor is quite intent on the realization of the event. Thus MÖCHT parallels the indicative of WILL, and is used here precisely because the speaker views the event as neither imminent (WILL) nor precarious (KANN), but somewhere in between. To express this concept positively, I say the speaker asserts that the event is biased or inclined towards realization. I t is true, however, that MÖCHT is usually semantically closer to WILL than to KANN, and therefore quite suitable for the expression of intention. In most of the above citations, including the two just mentioned, MÖCHT is more suitable than WILL because the speaker-actor acknowledges the possibility of an obstacle blocking the realization of the event; under the circumstances, he chooses to assert that the event is less than imminent. Thus in -B285g, .0181c, £54d and ¿102b the speaker knows that he can be overruled by the addressee. Since the actor's intent is made sufficiently clear with MÖCHT, there is no need for WILL in such instances. L178d is approximately semantically equivalent to "ich hoffe", which is more appropriate here than WILL, since the speaker is fully aware that she has no control over the listener's destiny. In some cases MÖCHT has the effect of expressing politeness on the part of the speaker, not because MÖCHT is subjunctive in meaning but because of its contrast with WILL. This is clearly the case, for example, in JB216d, D55c 4

Brinkmann, Die deutsche Sprache, p. 364.

94

THE BIASED MODALS: SOLL AND MAG

and //151c, in which the social situation is such that the use of WILL would make the speaker-actor appear too aggressive. In /?216d the addressee is a potential employer and in //151c the speaker is addressing friends and family. Z)55c was discussed previously in connection with WILL (cf. page 41). That MAG pairs with SOLL as the biased (non-imminent, non-precarious) modal can be demonstrated quite simply by means of a substitution of SOLL for MAG in the above citations. In every case the use of SOLL would locate the source or initiator outside of the actor. I t should be noted, however, that such a substitution would yield an ungrammatical sentence in the case of _L178d and rather unlikely sentences in the case of Z)17d and //181c. The reason for the latter, of course, is due simply to the lexical item gem which consorts much more freely with MAG than with SOLL. In all of the above citations, since they have ich, as the actor and since MAG is a subjective modal, the speaker-actor presents himself as the initiator of the event. When the actor is du or er, as in the following citations, the speaker always plays the role of interpreter of the nature of the actor as initiator, in the same way as with the other subjective modals (WILL and KANN). /?267f

//134c //143d //156c //183a L48a L215d

Ist dir nie aufgefallen, wie lächerlich die winzigen Sekundenzeiger sind, immer hinter etwas her, das sie nie einholen werden, nie; sie sind so fleißig, sinnlos fleißig, sie holen das, was sie einholen möchten, nie ein. Wie du heut daherredest! Du möchtest wohl gern einen Schuldigen finden ? — — Nein, Mama, nein! . . . und da steht die Sixtina und möcht gern ihr Essen auftischen . . . Möchten Sie nicht einen Moment zu mir herüberschaun, Frau Hedrich . . . Der Herr Polizeikommissar in Buchdorf möcht aber haben . . . daß eine persönliche Nachforschung g'macht wird. Und jetzt gehe icli nicht mehr fort. Oder möchtest du, daß ich nach Hause gehe ? Willst du runter? . . . Es ist, als ob du in Teer tauchst. Das schnürt dir die Brust zusammen, daß du dauernd um Hilfe rufen möchtest.

In these citations also MÖCHT is semantically quite close to WILL, so that it is possible to say that in each case the speaker asserts that the event is less than imminent instead of more than precarious. This can be seen best in H 143d and //183a. The speaker of //183a, a police officer and friend of the listener, avoids making the request sound too demanding by not using WILL. The actor in //143d is the maid, and the speaker, her mistress, who would have interpreted the maid's apparent impatience as impertinence or aggressiveness if she had used WILL.

THE BIASED MODALS: SOLL A N D MAG

95

Four of the five citations in my corpus (not all listed above) which have du as the actor are interrogative sentences. Thus MÖCHT and WILL also resemble each other in this respect. By presenting his assertion in the form of a question the speaker acknowledges that the actor's nature (desire or intention) is not entirely clear. InL215difat is used in the sense of the universal personal pronoun (man) in much the same way as 'you' in English. The speaker posits the likelihood of the occurrence of the event on the basis of his own experience. Man itself does occur twice with MÖCHT, but in both cases it actually refers to the speaker. Those two citations are listed below together with the only occurrence of MÖCHT with wir. //150a H 166f //203a

Aber wir möchten dir alle gern unsere Freude . . . zeigen. . . . man . . . möchte auch mal wieder unter Menschen, und vergnügt sein, und seinen Kummer mal 'n Abend lang vergessen. . . . ich hab heut so einen Abend, weißt du, wo man glauben möcht, daß es gar nicht schwer ist, die ganze Welt und alle Menschen glücklich zu machen.

//203a is interesting in that it is the only instance in which MÖCHT seems to be semantically as close to KANN (könnte) as to WILL. Again this fact is due to context and situation. The citations with MÖCHT were presented first because the use of this form seems to run more closely parallel to the indicative of the other modals than the use of MÖG does. The difference in meaning between MÖG and MÖCHT is a rather subtle one and perhaps not completely stable in contemporary German but I believe this difference can be essentially discovered by means of a comparison of the following two citations. L48c Z/236

Oh, ich mag so gern jemanden abholen, der irgendwo herkommt. Es ist so schön, wenn man erwartet wird. Ich habe auf dich gewartet, Vater . . . Ich möchte dich immer abholen, Vater.

The significant difference here has to do with the speaker's view of the event and the nature of the actor, whether or not speaker and actor are identical as above. With MÖG the speaker does not have in mind, at the time of speaking, the potential realization of the event on any specific occasion. Thus the event in //48c is regarded as a rather general state, so that the infinitive is strictly verbal; the speaker envisions, at the time of speaking a particular occasion. For this reason lexical items with specific reference (dich; immer = jeden Tag) consort more freely with MÖCHT, whereas more general or abstract words (jemand; irgendwo) are more likely collocations of MÖG. An interchange between the modal forms in L48c and ¿236 would result in two grammatically correct but rather unlikely sentences. Such an interchange,

96

THE B I A S E D MODALS: SOLL A N D MAG

especially if one also substitutes er for ich, reveals what effect the different modal forms have on the way the actor is viewed by the speaker. MÖG is used for characterizing a more general or permanent bias or inclination of the actor; with MÖCHT the speaker tends to characterize a temporary bias at a specific point of time. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the difference is one of focus between the general-permanent and specific-temporary. In any case, the difference can also be seen in the English translations: "ich mag . . . abholen" = " I like calling for . . ."; "ich möchte . . . abholen" = "I'd like to call for . . ." The following three citations are the only others in my corpus which resemble ¿48c above. 7il45a #170d L119d

Du könntest dich auch noch etwas herrichten, Kleines, wie ? — — Herrichten — hinrichten . . . ich mag nicht. . . . kochen mag ich heute nich', dafür is' Sonntag. Sie werden etwas essen. — — Nein, ich mag nichts essen. Ich habe keinen Hunger.

I t is perhaps significant that all of these are negated. 5 If it is true, as I suggest above, that MÖG is used when the speaker does not have in mind a specific realization of the event, then negation naturally can occur quite freely in this use. The speaker of iil45a is responding to the previous sentence, but is actually talking to herself. The two infinitives clearly have nominal function here. HllOd is the only other citation in my entire corpus in which the infinitive precedes the modal, a fact which seems to reinforce its semi-nominal character. The phrase "dafür is' Sonntag", by cancelling out the specificness suggested by heute, explains why the actor does not care about cooking on this particular day: it is generally not her custom to do so on Sundays. Thus the specificness of MÖCHT would be inappropriate. By using MÖG instead of MÖCHT in L119d the speaker asserts that she doesn't "care about eating", not that she doesn't "care to eat". Though the difference between the two uses would be less significant in this citation than in the others, the contrast between the two forms is also present here. If MÖCHT were used the negative adverb nicht would be more likely to occur than the abstract semi-nominal form nichts. If one keeps in mind the above use of MÖG, one can perhaps see how this modal form can also be used as a full verb, as in the citations below. There is also a high incidence of negation with this use; only two of the thirteen citations in my corpus are not negated. 5221d 5232b 4

. . . es ist, weil sie so nett war zu mir. Und dich mag sie auch . . . Ich mag die jungen Leute nicht, die einem gleich recht geben.

Cf. Welke, Untersuchungen, p. 115. He states that this use of MAG seems to be ". . . a n das gleichzeitige Auftreten einer Negation gebunden . . .".

THE BIASED MODALS: SOLL A N D MAG

H 189a H212b

97

. . . der Kunstmaler mag die Erau Wolpert. Vielleicht mag sie dich gar nicht.

This use of MÖG has in effect left the modal system, since the object is not the object of an unexpressed complementing infinitive but of the modal itself. Here MAG does not mean that the speaker asserts that the event is biased towards reality, but rather that the actor bears a bias or inclination towards the object. There is thus an undeniable semantic similarity between this and the immediately previous use of MÖG. The only other use of MÖG in my corpus is the evidential, as represented by the following examples. 5218d 5226a 5237c 5284d 5292a H22Oa 521 lf

. . . es mag sein, daß die Erwachsenen unfair gegen die Kinder sind, aber die Kinder sind auch unfair gegen die Erwachsenen . . . . . . und morgens, wenn Sie erwachen, der Brechreiz, von dem Sie nicht wissen, woher er wohl kommen mag . . . . . . es mag gut klingen . . . aber . . . es wäre ein wenig Betrug dabei . . . . . . wie ein junger Priester seinen Zeus, seine Athene umarmt haben mag . . . Wo mag Joseph sein — und warum hören wir nichts von Clara ? Wie es [das Leben] auch sein mag — man kriegt doch eigentlich nie genug davon. Mag sein, daß wir noch paarmal hierherkommen müssen. So schnell geht das nicht.

This use is semantically so close to KANN that one might raise the question whether the opposition between MAG and KANN is neutralized here. I believe, however, that there is a discernible difference in the above citations. When the speaker uses MAG in contrast to KANN he concedes that the realization of the event is more than just possible; the evidence weights the event towards reality. This is quite clearly the case with 5218d, 5237c and 521 If. In a direct or indirect interrogative (5292a and 5226a, respectively) the speaker questions whether or not the event is in fact biased. 5.3. THE PAST OF SOLL AND MAG

Fewer than 10% of the occurrences of the biased modals are attested in the past tense in my corpus. The form sollte can be either indicative or subjunctive and it is therefore not always clear from the context just how it should be interpreted. But since these few borderline cases (such as 543b below) do not add anything especially interesting to a discussion of the semantic structure of SOLL, they need not be treated separately. Of the 14 examples of SOLL which are clearly in the past, the following list supplies representative examples.

98 _D6b D\lb Z)43b LI Ob L171

LI 84b

THE BIASED MODALS: SOLL A N D MAG

Clenin wußte nicht recht, was er tun sollte . . . Er lief am Straßenrande hin und her. . . . aber man hat nichts Schlimmes dabei gedacht. — — Natürlich, wie sollte man auch. . . . er zögerte einen Moment, welchen Titel er jetzt wählen sollte . . . . . • und warteten auf Kuddl, der sie hinüberbringen sollte über den Strom. Sie pfiffen bereits, sie riefen ungeduldig nach ihm . . . . . . eine besondere Erwartung [beherrschte] auch Gäste und Ehrengäste, die dem Taufakt beiwohnen sollten. Die Gäste saßen auf splittfreien Holzbänken . . . . . . sie sahen auch jetzt noch die einzige Möglichkeit einer Bergung darin, und Hinrichs sollte den Ausschlag geben mit seiner Erkundung.

The use of SOLL in the past is further limited in my corpus in that, except for Z)17b, it occurs only in the author's narration, which fact accounts for the lack of any citations from B and H. The speaker (author) uses the past of SOLL in narration in reference to an event which he views as having been objectively biased prior to the speech event itself (the time of speaking). As is especially clear from the last three citations, the speaker, in his role as interested observer, anticipates the realization of the event in the future. 6 Thus the fact that the event was biased in the past does not have to mean that it no longer is, but rather the focus is on the prior initiation of the event by a source external to the actor. In ¿70b, for example, the actor (Kuddl) appears to the speaker to be committed (biased) towards realizing the event. While the previous event (warteten) and the subsequent events (pfiffen and riefen) were occurring, the event with SOLL was yet to be realized. In his role as involved bystander the author in this way relates past events to each other in terms of their relation to reality. This much is narrative or literary technique; it does not alter or depart from, but rather takes advantage of the range of possibilities which the basic meaning of SOLL allows it. In addition to the above citations, there are two which are found in erlebte Rede in my corpus. £ 185a LI85b

6

. . . Gulaschkanonen . . . standen wie zu einer makabren Inspektion da: wo waren die Männer, für die sie kochen sollten ? An welchen Küsten hatte es geschehen sollen, in welchen Ländern?

Because it spans the speech event in this way, Maxwell labels this use "past-future" and assumes that it has no modal meaning. But in spite of its peculiarities, it cannot be said that this use runs counter to the basic meaning of SOLL as I have defined it. See Maxwell, "The Usages of sollen"; 53-55.

THE BIASED MOD ALS: SOLL A N D MAG

99

It is quite clear from the text that both of these citations, spoken in immediate succession, are meant by the author to be understood as the thoughts of the diver surveying the inside of a sunken ship. The speaker again uses SOLL in reference to events that were not completed prior to the speech event. Below are listed seven of the ten occurrences of MAG in the past. The three not listed are similar to _B284d. Only four of the ten are not negated and just one occurs in the author's narration. 5283g 5284b -B284d //126c //139c Z/191d Z/58d

Dich mochte ich . . . Von den Kindern mochte ich Lorenz am liebsten. . . . du hast die Menschen nicht gemocht. . . Er hat [mich] einfach nicht [malen] mögen, das war's. . . . ich mochte wollen oder nich', ich mußt 'n anbehalten . . . Rechts und links, wo man hinhörte, wen man auch fragen mochte: nichts wie Unglücksnachrichten. Und Lena stellte sich vor, was das für Menschen sein mochten, die hier schliefen . . .

This small number of citations represents a rather large variety of uses, but none which do not also occur in the present tense. It is not relevant whether an assertion with the past of MAG still holds true for the time of speaking. What is interesting about these citations is that they all seem to be the past of MÖG rather than of MÖCHT, except perhaps H 126e, which could apparently be interpreted as the past of either of these two forms. This fact lends credence to the suggestion of Schulz and Griesbach that the past of MÖCHT is formed with WILL. 7 Although there is no other direct evidence in my corpus which supports this view, one might cite the fact that the frequency of the past of WILL (33% of the total) is higher than that of any other modal.

7

Schulz and Griesbach, Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, p. 70.

6

THE MODALS IN THE SUBJUNCTIVE

The chief purpose of the three previous chapters was to verify and discuss in detail the basic meaning of each of the modals. That task can now be considered completed. Since the underlying semological structure of the modal system itself (i.e., the systematic relationships of the modals to each other) is the same in the subjunctive as it is in the indicative, the following discussion can be viewed as a somewhat peripheral matter. The reason for treating the citations in the subjunctive as a separate topic is to show how the verbal categories modality and subjunctive react in combination with each other. But before proceeding with the discussion of these citations it is appropriate to discuss briefly the meaning of subjunctive and indicative as contrasting categories. Recent grammarians of German treat the indicative, in. effect, as the unmarked and subjunctive as its marked counterpart. Though it is not explicitly stated as such, this view is implicit in the following remark by Walter Flämig, who has done the most recent thorough study of the subjunctive in contemporary German. Der Indikativ stellt die allgemeingültige neutrale Grundform der Modi dar, von der man nur abweicht, wenn eine besondere Stellungnahme zur Geltung einer Äußerung ausdrücklich werden soll.1 In the present study it will simply be assumed that the notion of markedness versus unmarkedness holds true for the subjunotive and indicative throughout the verbal system, that is, inoluding their use with the modals. An elaboration of this theory is not germane to the main task of describing the modal system. Hennig Brinkmann, who in general shares Flämig'B viewpoint of the relation between the subjunctive and indicative, offers the following rather workable definition of the indicative: 1

"Zur Funktion des Verbs II: Modus und Modalität", Deutsch als Fremdsprache

(1966); 1.

II

101

THE MODALS IN THE SUBJUNCTIVE

Was der Indikativ mitteilt, ist im Regelfall als gegeben anzusehen, d. h.: vom Sprecher als "gegeben" hingestellt, ohne daß es deswegen in der Wirklichkeit vorhanden zu sein braucht. 2 This very general definition thus embraces a wide variety of subcategories, including, for example, the "Absichtssatz": "Ich gebe dir Geld, damit du dich erholst"; and the "Bedingungssatz": "Wenn ich Geld habe, werde ich verreisen". 3 In order to bring Brinkmann's definition into harmony with the way in which I have been discussing modality, I suggest the following rephrasing of his statement: the speaker asserts t h a t the event belongs (did belong, etc.) to the world of reality. Now, when a modal is used in the indicative, it is a particular modal relation (imminent, etc.) which is asserted as belonging to the world of reality. That is, the indicative of the modals is parallel with the indicative of a lexical verb. The event itself is thus one remove, as it were, from reality — not unreal or irreal, but standing in a particular relationship to reality. As is well known, the subjunctive has two chief functions in German, which may be called contrary-to-fact (subjuntive I I : Hätte er Geld . . .) and quotative (subjunctive I : Er habe Geld). I n summarizing his findings of the use of the subjunctive, Flämig explains the function of the two different forms as follows: Im Konjunktiv I I gilt das Geschehen als "nur gedacht, nur vorgestellt". Der Konjunktiv I gibt an, daß die Äußerung nicht als ursprünglich gesetzt, sondern als "vermittelt" gilt.4 In his larger work, in which he details the great variety of uses of these two subjunctive forms, Flämig makes the important point t h a t the subjunctive itself never gives any indication of the possibility of the realization of the event specified. 5 If an assertion in the subjunctive is to be understood, for example, as an expression of a wish or command, it is not the subjunctive which conveys such a message, but the syntactic structure or the lexical items. In other words, the basic meaning of the subjunctive is that the assertion is either not original with the speaker ("vermittelt") or imagined ("nur vorgestellt"). The important feature which is shared by both forms is the fact t h a t the speaker does not assert the event as reality (cf. Brinkmann's gegeben) or t h a t the event necessarily stands in any relation to reality. As opposed to the indicative, there is thus a certain negative quality involved in an assertion with either of the forms of subjunctive. As a unified meaning to express this concept Brinkmann suggests t h a t what is expressed with the subjunctive lies outside the horizon of the speaker, whereas with the indicative 2

Brinkmann, Die deutsche Sprache, p. 352. Brinkmann, Die deutsche Sprache, p. 352. 4 Flämig, "Zur Funktion des Verbs"; 2. 5 Walter Flämig, Zum Konjunktiv in der deutschen Sprache Akademie Verlag, 1959), pp. 10-12 and 51. 3

der Gegenwart

(Berlin,

102

THE MODALS IN THE

SUBJUNCTIVE

is asserted, "was in den Horizont des Sprechers (als 'gegeben') eingeschlossen ist". 6 In other words, by using the subjunctive the speaker asserts that he is not (was not, etc.) a witness to the realization of the specified event. Whether or not such a very general unified definition of the subjunctive is actually useful need not be considered here. What is important to keep in mind is that with the subjunctive the speaker asserts, as it were, that the event is one remove from reality. When used with a modal, which also places the event one remove from reality, the addition of the subjunctive can be expected to mean that the event is two removes from reality, and, as will be seen, that is what if often does mean. Subjunctive and modality contrast in that the former focusses on the fact that the event stands in no designated relation to reality, whereas in the latter the focus is on a particular relation (imminent, etc., cf. page 25ff of this work). Since the use of the subjunctive I I in the conditional construction is the most consistent and transparent, it will be taken as the starting point. In my corpus this is a rather small category, the following being almost the only examples of it out of the 256 occurrences of the subjunctive I I form. B224d 5238b i?267i

Es würde lange dauern, wenn ich Ihnen alles erklären wollte. Wenn ich Sie einmal wiedersehen dürfte, wäre ich froh. Martin, sag mir alles, was du mir sagen würdest, wenn du es zugeben könntest. . . Z)64f . . . der gern alles gegeben hätte, wenn er jetzt Schmied persönlich hätte fragen können. H 125a Wenn man das Rechte zu der Zeit schon hätt wissen können, hätts der Papa auch gewußt. •ffl65b,c Er müßte ein Esel sein, wenn er nicht merken sollte, was man von ihm h ä l t . . . iil86e,f Sollt mich freuen, im Interesse der Frau und Überhaupts [sich], wenn sich die Sach so günstig aufklären möcht. H 193c, d . . . ich müßte lügen, wenn ich behaupten wollte, daß . . . In each of these citations the speaker asserts the unreality of a certain modality, that is, the subjunctive clearly pertains to the modal. D64f, for example, means that the realization of the event was not precarious, the actor did not have the chance to (couldn't) ask. The event itself is thus removed once by the subjunctive and once by modality. In i?224d and Äl65b it is the imminence which the speaker asserts as unreal; by doing so the speaker-actor indicates in the former example that he does not intend to explain everything and in the latter that he does not see strong evidence (MUSS is the evidential here) that the speaker is an ass. 6

Brinkmann, Die deutsche Sprache, p. 352.

THE MODALS IN THE

SUBJUNCTIVE

103

As will be seen later, when MAG and SOLL are used in the subjunctive, it almost always pertains to the event and not to the modal. In fact, J7186f is the only example of MAG in my corpus in which the subjunctive does pertain to the modal. Here the speaker indicates that he is not entirely noncommital or that he harbors some doubt whether the event is biased towards realization. The use of SOLL in #186e and i?l65c is more problematical and is usually considered to be practically identical with würde? If this is true, then it is an example of the neutralization of the opposition between these two forms. But at least in the case of .H186e, SOLL can perhaps be explained just as well in terms of its status as a biased modal, so that the significant difference between SOLL and würde still prevails. The speaker uses SOLL to focus on the source of the potential happiness; by combining it with the subjunctive he points to the weakness of the bias, namely, that it does not appear at the time that he will be made happy. Explained in this way, it is the intricate combination of grammatical features which shifts the meaning of SOLL toward that of würde. i?165c could possibly be explained similarly, but as an example of the evidential. Somewhat more frequent are the constructions in which the subjunctive clause functions, in effect, as one half of the above type of conditional construction, of which either the wenn-clause or the conclusion clause is missing. In which case, as the following citations show, other grammatical constructions often take the place of the we7m-clause. ß218d _B228d,

H 143a H 154c TA55e 7>163a

Glaube mir, ich bin kein Kind mehr . . . — — Dann müßtest du wissen, daß ich nicht leichten Herzens zu Börsig gehe . . . e Aber ich sehe nicht, was ich tun könnte, oder tun sollte, um ein solches Präparat zu propagieren . . . Wenn man nur ihn aus seinem Rahmen herunterholen und lebendig zwischen uns ins Zimmer stellen könnte! Ohne den Pelzmantel könnt ich hier gar nich' existieren. Nein, wir bringen sie zum Kontor . . . Wir müßten sie später doch r überbringen. E r dachte: Gott sei Dank, daß jetzt keine Strömung geht. Du würdest nicht einen Meter schwimmen können in Richtung auf dein Ziel.

Frequently a clause with a non-finite verb or prepositional phrase performs the same function as the wenw-clause. In H 154c, for example, the phrase "ohne den Pelzmantel" conveys the same message as "wenn ich den Pelzmantel nicht hätte". In i?228d the um . . . zw-construction could be transformed as "wenn ich . . . propagierte". In Z155e and Z/163a the immediately preceding sentence has the same effect as it would have if it were transformed into a werm-clause, 7

See for example Welke, Untersuchungen,

p. 99.

104

THE MODALS I N THE

SUBJUNCTIVE

e.g., "wenn eine Strömung ginge", forL163a. 5 2 1 8 d is very similar to these two, except t h a t the sequence signal, dann, with its reference to the previous sentence, renders a wenn-clause unnecessary. I n all of the citations in the two above groups the subjunctive pertains to the modal, so t h a t it is a particular modal relation of the event to reality which the speaker asserts as contrary-to-fact. T h a t this use of subjunctive is especially closely related to the negation 8 can be made clear by means of an analysis of one example, L155e above. This citation could be paraphrased as, "wir müssen sie dann später nicht rüberbringen", or, since MUSS and D A R F are polar opposites, the speaker could presumably have conveyed much the same message positively b y saying "wir dürfen dann später davon wegbleiben". What complicates the use of subjunctive with modality is the fact t h a t when it is not used in the conditional or quasi-conditional construction, the grammatical meaning of the subjunctive usually pertains to the event rather t h a n to the modal. In my corpus this is the case in the majority of examples and can be demonstrated best with the following citations, in which the past subjunctive is used. 5236b 5293c Z)130c //136b /7140b /7177h L47e L233b

. . . ich wünsche, ich h ä t t e ihm anders helfen können als dadurch, daß ich bloß recht h a t t e . . . Mutter ist tot, vor ein paar Sekunden noch h ä t t e sie deine Stimme hören können. Schmied hätte sich uns anvertrauen sollen. Aber er war jung u n d ehrgeizig. E r h a t sich ja nicht einmal gleich gemeldet. . . sonst hätten wir ihn zu Weihnachten schon bei uns haben können. . . . wie ich da auf einmal auf dem Bahnhof den Schlitten aus Ried entdeckte. Ich h ä t t e ja sonst bis um neune warten müssen. Man hätte ja auch die Sache mit der Hedrich verschieben können. Vielleicht hättest du doch da bleiben sollen. Ich glaube, es wäre besser gewesen. Du hättest früher dran denken müssen. J e t z t ist es zu spät.

I n these citations the subjunctive pertains to the modal only in 5236b, 5293c, /7136b and //140b. I t is significant t h a t it is only the context which makes this fact clear. Thus sonst in /7136b and /7140b functions as a sequence signal with reference to a quasi-weim-clause (e.g., for /7136b, "wenn er sich gemeldet hätte"). I n /7140b, for example, the speaker indicates t h a t she didn't have to wait. If sonst were deleted, the subjunctive could pertain either to the modal ('I would have had to wait') or to the event itself ('I should have waited'). 8 In acknowledgement of this fact, Flämig speaks of "mittelbare Negation". Flämig, Zum Konjunktiv, p. 10f.

THE MODALS IN THE SUBJUNCTIVE

105

I n the other citations in this group the context shows t h a t the subjunctive pertains to the event. I n L233b the speaker asserts t h a t the actor didn't think of it earlier, not t h a t he didn't have to. I n this use of modal subjunctive the focus is on the non-occurrence of the event. The two 'removes' from reality are thus also preserved here, but simply distributed differently. I n D130c the speaker indicates t h a t the actor didn't confide in him, a fact for which he offers an explanation in the subsequent sentence. I n my corpus there are no uses of this sort with SOLL in which the subjunctive pertains to the modal. That this is not grammatically obligatory can be determined by means of inserting sonst in Z>130c. My corpus contains no examples of MAG in the past subjunctive I I and only one each of W I L L and DARF. These are listed below, together with a similar' example of MAC which is cited by Flämig." -B290d #193j

Warum mußte er es wissen ? E r hätte es nicht erfahren dürfen . . . Ich muß freilich dem Autofritzen dafür von meinen Zigaretten abgeben, die ich eigentlich gern alle meinen Mann hätte mitnehmen wollen. Den Atem hätte ich einbehalten mögen die ganze Zeit . . .

I n i?290d the subjunctive clearly pertains to the event, and, since two negatives make a positive, the speaker's assertion indicates t h a t the event did occur. The citation with WILL (i?193j) is somewhat more problematical. One should expect a present rather than past tense here, since, as the previous clause shows, the speaker has reference to her current situation. She says, in effect, ' I would have liked to, but I see t h a t I can't'. That is, the event is not imminent; the subjunctive pertains to the modal. I t is possible t h a t the past is used because it is unambiguously subjunctive, whereas wollte could also be interpreted as a past indicative. The present subjunctive of the modals, when not used in the conditional construction is more complicated. I t rarely pertains to the modal and in many cases has very little to do with the contrary-to-fact concept, so t h a t it is sometimes difficult to see just what function the subjunctive serves. But first a representative sampling is listed of those citations in which the use of the subjunctive is similar to its use in the past. 5217g 5231i

9

Ein wenig könntest du dich auch freuen. — — Freust du dich denn so sehr? Eine sehr gute Idee, doch scheint mir, wir sollten nicht stundenlang so ernste, so tiefschürfende Gespräche führen . . .

Flamig, Zum Konjunktiv,

p. 24. This example ia taken from Thomas Mann.

106

//138a //144f //166a

¿116b L151a

THE MODALS IN THE

SUBJUNCTIVE

So ein alter Hausfreund, mit dem man bald zwanzig Jahre bekannt ist! Er könnt ja leicht dein Vater sein . . . Du könntest dich auch noch etwas herrichten, Kleines, wie? . . . und ich möchte ganz gern haben, daß Sie mich auch richtig verstünden. Denn vermutlich denken Sie doch bloß über mich, daß ich eine von den zudringlichen Weibern bin . . . . . . ich sollte zuschlagen. Du hättest es verdient, und es wäre das beste . . . Aber vielleicht ist es noch zu früh. Du hattest überhaupt eine Menge Pech in der letzten Zeit. Fast könnte man dich bedauern.

If these citations are transformed into the past, it becomes clear that the subjunctive pertains to the event, except in ¿151a, which is disambiguated by means of the adverb fast. By using subjunctive instead of indicative in /?217g and //166a the speaker, in effect, gently chastises the actor for not completing the event. In /?231i the subjunctive and nicht combine as two negatives to make a positive, so that the speaker conveys the message that the event is being completed. If the speaker of L116b used the indicative of SOLL he would conceal his reservations — at least until the subsequent utterances were made. That the speaker of //166a considers the event of the modal clause to be contrary-to-fact is suggested by the subjunctive of the das.s-clause and also by the statement following it. Compare, for example the following citation, in which the ites-clause is in the indicative. 2/178d

Geh fort, Manfred. Ich möchte, daß es dir gut geht.

If ginge were substituted for geht in that clause, the modal would also convey the negativeness of the contrary-to-fact concept, which is evident in all of the uses of subjunctive listed so far. In the uses of the subjunctive form of the modals yet to be discussed, the speaker does not seem to view either the event or the modal relation as contrary-to-fapt, so that it is often questionable whether or not a certain use is subjunctive in both form and meaning. As was mentioned in the previous chapter in the discussion of MAG, the subjunctive form of this modal is usually not subjuntive in meaning. Below are listed a few examples from that chapter plus two others {B220i and i/134j). /?220f

Ach, ich möchte lieber mit dir ins Kino gehen . . . — — Es würde nichts ändern. 5285g Aber ich möchte mit dir sprechen; auch mit Vater. j/134i, j Mama, ich muß auch einmal hinaus ! Ich möcht auf ein Schiff steigen, das irgendwohin f ä h r t . . . //151c Zuerst möcht ich unsern Gast feierlich bewillkommen.

THE MODALS I N THE

L54d

SUBJUNCTIVE

107

Du wirst mich mitnehmen, Manfred . . . Jetzt mochte ich bei dir bleiben.

B220i and H 134j resemble each other in that the speaker-actor does not visualize the prospects of realizing the event as immediate. But there is an important difference between the two. In B220i the speaker indicates with the insertion of lieber that he does not intend to complete the event, a fact which is also made clear by the subjunctive in the listener's response. Furthermore the factual (deletion of the modal) of B220i could very well be ginge. Thus B220f is subjunctive in meaning as well as in form. In 7/134j, as well as in the others listed here, there is no subjunctive meaning, as could be demonstrated by deleting the modal. The indicative of #134i and the relative clause following ,ffl34j also support this view. One might expect WILL in J?134j, especially since it immediately follows the previous citation with MUSS. However, the situation is such that the speaker is constrained to assert that the event is less than imminent. Although it is clear that B220f and HY.W] are subject to two different interpretations, it has been argued that examples such as 7/134j nevertheless have subjunctive meaning, that they represent a different use of subjunctive. 10 As was indicated above, I do not share this view in regard to the subjunctive form of MAG, but it does not appear that the other modals have developed to the same extent a use of their subjunctive form which is independent of subjunctive meaning. There nearly always seems to be a residue of the contrary-to-fact concept or at least doubt in the speaker's mind whether the event is realizable. Since the subjunctive in these cases always pertains to the event, one can understand how the modal form itself can be specialized (as was seen to be the case with MOCHT) as an alternative to the indicative form. The fact that SOLL and MAG are biased modals perhaps has something to do with their sharing of a high incidence of the use of the subjunctive form in other than the conditional or quasi-conditional construction. In my corpus 50 of the 157 examples of SOLL are subjunctive I I in form, of which only a few are used in the conditional construction. This high ratio suggests that this form is developing a special use parallel to that of MOCHT. However, the evidence in my corpus does not force this analysis. First some examples of SOLL with ich, man, and wir as the actor.

10 This is approximately what has been traditionally assumed in regard to the so-called special uses of the subjunctive with the modals. W. G. Moulton, for example, uses the phrase "softened statements". "Summary of German Grammar" in German—English English—German Dictionary of Everyday Usage, ed. J. Alan Pfeffer (New York, Henry Holt & Company, 1950).

108

Z)100d

Z)121a l?I92c ¿52c ¿54a ¿176c

THE MOD ALS IN THE

SUBJUNCTIVE

Ich habe es mit einem wirklichen Gastmann zu tun . . . Ich sollte wissen, ob das Bild, das Sie mir gezeigt haben, das Bild Gastmanns ist oder jenes Ihrer Träume. Den Fontane sollte ich doch endlich einmal zahlen. Manche Menschen sollte man vielleicht mal bis aufs Hemd ausziehen, damit ihnen die arme Kreatur zum Bewußtsein kommt. Vielleicht sollten wir das Geld behalten und uns morgen früh etwas zu essen kaufen. Ich bin müde, Lena. Wir sollten schlafen gehen. Aber du kannst nicht mitkommen. Nein, Manfred. Es hat keinen Zweck . . . Wir sollten unsere eigenen Wege gehen und nicht mehr zusammenkommen. Wir passen nicht zueinander.

DIOOd and ¿176c are perhaps the closest parallels to the non-subjunctive use of MÖCHT, for the speaker is quite committed to the realization of the event. The use of the subjunctive in ¿176c could, however, be explained as an indication of the speaker's awareness that the listener (the other member of wir) is not of the same mind, a fact which diminishes the degree of certainty. A similar argument explains ¿52c and ¿54a. In ¿)121a the speaker is riding past the store where he owes the money and does not plan to stop to pay it just then. If he did, SOLL would be more appropriate. The use in .HI 92c is similar to this one. Significantly, whatever information the subjunctive conveys pertains to the event, not to the modal. To express doubt about the modal relation, a modal particle, such as the adverb vielleicht in J?192c and ¿52c, is added. As with MÖCHT the subjunctive of SOLL is used most frequently with ich and wir, but it is not uncommon with other actors. The following citations are representative of SOLL with du and er. 5224b 5276b D28a Z)57c

Sie sind krank, gnädige Frau, Sie sollten sich wirklich schonen. . . . vielleciht solltest du seiner Wirtin telegrafieren, die wohl weiß, wo er ist. Sie sollten zu Hause bleiben, Herr Bärlach, es ist kaltes Wetter und es regnet. Ich meine . . . daß die Polizei. . . untersuchen muß, aus was für Gründen Schmied bei Gastmann war. — — Die Polizei sollte vor allen Dingen zuerst etwas über Gastmann wissen . . .

As was pointed out in the discussion of SOLL in the indicative, when the actor is du the speaker usually functions as the initiator of the event, so that the message effect is similar to the imperative. As D28a, 5224b and 5276b show, the addition of the subjunctive moderates the imperativeness by indicating that

THE MODALS I N THE SUBJUNCTIVE

109

the speaker does not plan to force the issue (the realization of the event). As a result, this use (also in Z)57c) has the effect of politeness on the part of the speaker. With the other modals there are very few examples which are not best explainable as part of a quasi-conditional construction. The following are some of the most common with KANN. B21\i 25291b #165d, #197b ¿103a

Ich könnte Kramer anrufen. Aber sicher ist er schon unterwegs nach Bahnweiler. In zehn Minuten wird Albert anrufen . . . Vielleicht könnte er bei Clara vorbeifahren. e Oder wir könnten schon um sieben hingehen und dort erst zusammen Abendbrot essen, was ? — — Können wir auch. . . . ich könnte niemals glauben, daß . . . Frau Hedrich etwas Unanständiges tun würde. Hinrichs betrat den Laden, und der Besitzer kam aus einer verkleideten Nische hervor . . . [author's narration] Ich könnte eine alte Maschine gebrauchen . . .

With all of these there is an element of negativeness discernible as with the similar examples of the subjunctive of SOLL. In fact, 527 If and ¿103a are best explainable as examples of the quasi-conditional construction. The unspoken part for 5271f would be "wenn er nicht unterwegs wäre", and for Z/103a "wenn ich eine hätte", so that the subjunctive pertains to the modal. 5291b is similar in that the subjunctive conveys the speaker's hesitance to assert that the event is precarious. In H197b the subjunctive seems to pertain to the event, unless one can assume an unuttered completion clause, such as, "auch wenn ich wollte". 27165d is interesting in that it evokes a response in the indicative. As was pointed out in the discussion of the subjunctive of SOLL with wir, the speaker can use the subjunctive out of deference to the listener, who is the other member of wir. The following list concludes the citations of the modals with the contrary-tofact subjunctive. 5266a Es könnte Antwort da sein, wenigstens von einem der Kinder. 5277a, b . . . aber Clara müßte doch zu Hause sein, nicht wahr? Ja, du hast recht, ich könnte hinfahren, nachsehen, ob . . . — Nein, bleib, bleib bei mir. -D23a Ich habe eigentlich nur eine Idee, wer als Mörder in Betracht kommen könnte . . . H 144b Ich wollte, sie wären alle schon da. Mein Essen wird jetzt nicht mehr besser.

110 /7168a

THE MODALS I N THE

SUBJUNCTIVE

Ich wollte, Sie erzählten einmal etwas von Ihrer Soldatenzeit. — — Was soll man denn erzählen ?

i?266a, -S277a and D23a are representative examples of the use of the evidential, in which the speaker reveals his hesitance to assert t h e reality of the modal relation or t h a t t h e evidence is in fact apparent. The use of W I L L in # 1 4 4 b a n d H 168a occurs only in H, b u t it is common enough in contemporary German so t h a t it cannot be considered peculiar to a certain dialect or idiolect. Although it is indisputable t h a t W I L L is subjunctive here, it does not pertain to the modal b u t rather to an assumed infinitive like haben. By means of the subjunctive t h e speaker-actor implies t h a t he is not getting w h a t he wants. The above discussion quite certainly does not exhaust t h e topic concerning the subtle intricacies of t h e use of the contrary-to-fact subjunctive with the modals, b u t it does, I believe, give a true picture of its essential semantic structure in contemporary German. An extensive examination of more d a t a would, however, very probably t u r n u p some additional interesting details. The quotative subjunctive, as it appears in my corpus, is much less interesting linguistically. F o r this reason and because my corpus contains relatively few examples, it will be treated in a rather cursory fashion. I t s chief function, as evidenced in t h e group of citations below, is to show t h a t t h e assertion is not original with the speaker, who thus, in effect, avoids asserting it as reality. I n such instances t h e subjunctive pertains to t h e entire clause, to b o t h modal a n d event. All of these citations, except 5215c, are found in t h e author's narration and are taken f r o m D ü r r e n m a t t , because he is t h e only one of t h e four writers who consistently uses subjunctive I in this fashion. The a u t h o r functions as the reporter. jB215c Z)15b X>1(3 Dl8 1)41 a Z>41 b 2)91 D144

Wieso? Glauben Sie, er könne uns gute Slogans machen? E r leide o f t an Magenbeschwerden . . . wolle d a n n den Fall mehr vom Schreibtisch aus behandeln. Der Kommissär sagte, daß es ihn freue, einen Mann kennenzulernen, der selber denken könne. . . . denn er erklärte am nächsten Morgen, er habe die ganze Nacht erbrechen müssen. . . . u n d f ü g t e hinzu, daß sie unbedingt Herrn Gastmann sprechen müßten. . . . er sei erstaunt, daß man einen H u n d töten müsse, u m mit Herrn Gastmann zu sprechen . . . E r . . . fragte nur, was die Polizei von ihm wolle. Mühsam befahl der Alte, Hungertobel zu benachrichtigen, jetzt sei Dienstag u n d man könne ihn operieren.

THE MODALS I N THE

SUBJUNCTIVE

111

In each of these examples, it is clear that the original statement would be in the indicative and that the meaning of the modals is exactly the same as it was described in the previous chapters. Déla was put in this group because it is obvious that subjunctive I I is used only because subjunctive I would not be distinct from the indicative. 5215c is one of two examples of subjunctive I with the modals in Boll; it does not occur at all in von Heiseler. When subjunctive I I is used as the quotative subjunctive, the original statement is not always unambiguously retrievable, that is, it could have been in the subjunctive itself. As in Dürrenmatt, the quotative subjunctive occurs only in the author's narration in Lenz, but never with subjunctive I. .B219d //217c LI 02c Z/116d L131c //229a

. . . ich . . . entnahm nur dem Gerede, daß es ein Hotel oder ein ganz kleiner Ort sein müßte. Ihr könnt . . . ihn fragen, wann er euch frühestens von der Kanzel abkünden könnte. . . . und er dachte, daß es in dieser Stadt wohl hunderttausend Schreibmachinen geben müßte . . . Manfred überlegte eine Sekunde, wie er am schnellsten an Hinrichs vorbeikommen könnte . . . . . . und er behauptete die ganze Zeit, daß er das Schwein allein holen wollte. Er dachte nicht an das, was der Chef ihn fragen könnte, er dachte an keine Antworten, die er geben würde . . .

Presumably the original statement of H2\lc, ¿116d and L229a could also be in the subjunctive. L116d, for example, could be a transform of "wie könnte ich . . . ?" However, it is reasonable to assume that all are examples of subjunctive I I used for quoting an indicative assertion. In any case, these examples offer no essentially new information on the meaning of the modals that has not been treated previously. The following citations exemplify a problem already touched on in the discussion of SOLL, namely the indirect quoting of imperative statements. i?221e D43d _D46b Diña»

D l 16 Z/154d

. . . der Herr Doktor sagte mir nicht, daß ich sie mitbringen solle. Man solle ihn entschuldigen, fuhr er f o r t . . . Tschanz . . . entgegnete, man sollte noch bei andern nachfragen, die auch an diesem Tag bei Gastmann gewesen seien. Eigentlich sei es nun der richtige Moment, mit dem Alten über Gastmann zu sprechen, und daß man ihn in Ruhe lassen müsse, dachte Lutz . . . Er telephonierte Tschanz, er solle kommen. Ich glaube, der Ofen brennt nich' mal mehr. — — Sie haben recht. Nanna hat mir ja noch gesagt, vor dem Weggehen, daß wir tüchtig nachlegen müßten.

112

THE MODALS I N THE SUBJUNCTIVE

In all these citations, except Z)46b (or is it possibly a paraphrase of "Eragen w i r . . . nach!"?), the original statement could conceivably contain either the modal or be in the imperative. But it is reasonable to assume that at least Z)43d is derivable from an imperative and Z)75a from a clause with a modal (MUSS). On the other hand, i7154d could very well derive from an imperative statement, such as the following: " L e g t bitte . . . nach", the bitte, of course, being deleted in the quoted statement. In any case, it is clear that both MUSS and SOLL are well suited to replace the imperative in indirect discourse. Since Diirrenmatt consistently uses subjunctive I as the quotative, it can be safely assumed that the modal form in Z)46b is the same as if it were directly quoted. This is thus the use of the contrary-to-fact subjunctive as it was discussed above, which has no special form in indirect discourse. The use of the quotative subjunctive in the verbal system as a whole is considerably more complicated than the above discussion would suggest. Walter Flamig, for example, devotes much more than half of his study of the subjunctive to this topic.11 A more complete analysis of the quotative subjunctive, with the modals would very likely provide some additional interesting facte but it would require more data than is found in my corpus or than is given by Flamig, who treats the subjunctive of the modals rather cursorily.

11

Flamig, Zum Konjunktiv, pp. 43£f.

7 NEGATION OF THE MODALS

A complete discussion of the negation of the modals should perhaps be coupled with a study of adverbial modifiers in general, as is also suggested by Welke.1 Such a study would presumably have to classify a series of negative morphemes, including, for example, nie, unmöglich and perhaps words like nur and kaum which only limit rather than negate. In the present study the discussion will be restricted to the use of obvious negatives (such as nicht and kein = nicht ein) with the modals and will attempt to present only the essentials of the relationship between modality and negation. As was seen to be the case with the contrary-to-fact subjunctive, negation can also pertain either to the event or to the modal. With the aid of paraphrases, Bierwisch suggests that negation pertains to the event (Hauptverb) in the case of SOLL, to the modal in the case of MUSS, DARF and KANN, and to either one or the other, when WILL is used ("Er will nicht kommen = Er hat nicht die Absicht, zu kommen" or "Er hat die Absicht, nicht zu kommen".)2 He does not mention the use of MAG with negation, but as will be demonstrated from my corpus, negation of this modal pertains chiefly to the event. Bierwisch's analysis suggests that there is a certain asymmetry within the modal system in respect to negation in that it does not have the same effect on WILL as it does on MUSS. That is, each member of the imminent set reacts differently to negation, whereas with the other modals both members of a set are affected the same by negation (DARF and ICANN: modal negation; SOLL and MAG: eventual negation). Yet, as will be shown below, the parallelism between MUSS and WILL in negation is sufficiently evident, so that there is some validity in assuming that the negation of these imminent modals is conceptually equivalent to the positive of the precarious modals (DARF and KANN; cf. Chapter 2, pp. 35ff). Before discussing this problem in detail, it should be noted that the objective/ subjective opposition remains essentially intact in the negative. This fact can 1 s

Welke, Untersuchungen, p p . 64-5. Bierwisch, Grammatik des deutschen Verbs, p. 128.

114

NEGATION OF THE MODALS

be demonstrated on the basis of the following citation together with the other examples, in which each of the other modals is substituted for KANN. L57a

Ich Ich Ich Ich Ich Ich

bin bin bin bin bin bin

nicht nicht nicht nicht nicht nicht

müde müde müde müde müde müde

. . . Ich kann noch nicht schlafen. . . . Ich möchte noch nicht schlafen. . . . Ich will noch nicht schlafen. . . . Ich darf noch nicht schlafen. . . . Ich soll noch nicht schlafen. . . . Ich muß noch nicht schlafen.

I n spite of the fact t h a t the sentence preceding the citation has specific reference to the actor's nature, a normal interpretation of the last three (objective) modals would indicate reference to an agency outside of the actor as the initiator. For instance, in the example with MUSS, the speaker could have in mind a specific rule or even a general custom which says that he doesn't have to go to sleep until he is tired. If the sentence preceding the citation were deleted, the use of K A N N could very well function as the unmarked substitute for DARF, whether negated or not. Thus in theory the objective/subjective opposition is not affected by negation. The symmetry of this system is in practice, however, not much in evidence, since, as will be illustrated from my corpus, MUSS is rarely used in negation. The asymmetry in the relationships between MUSS and W I L L on the one hand, and D A R F and K A N N on the other, is more complicated. As can be seen from the above examples, the negation of K A N N and D A R F always pertains to the modal, so t h a t it is t h e precariousness which is negated, whch in fact does not simply mean the absence or non-existence of precariousniss, b u t rather t h a t the non-realization of the event is imminent (very probabee). Since the negation of MUSS also pertains to the modal, it means t h a t the imlminence is negated, which again does not mean the absence of the modal relation, b u t rather t h a t the realization of the event is precarious. Following the suggestion of Bierwisch, the negation of WILL can be expressed in either of two ways: (1) the realization of the event is not imminent (the actor is not intent on its realization), or (2) the non-realization of the event is imminent (the actor is intent on its non-realization). The first is similar, but not exactly parallel with the negation of MUSS, and the second is similar, but not equivalent to the negation of KANN. Furthermore, as Welke suggests, there is often not a significant difference in meaning between the two different possibilities, so t h a t a distinction need not be made; 3 it is also often difficult to discern whether the negation pertains to the modal or to the event. If we consider these doubtful cases as a third possibility, W I L L plus negation can be treated in three different 3

Welke, ZJntersuchungen,

p. 86.

NEGATION OF THE MODALS

115

groups. Since the dividing lines between these groups are blurred by context and situation, this classification is not to be considered binding, b u t is designed to serve as a basis for a discussion of the problems involved in the negation of WILL. The following list of citations contains the use of WILL in which it seems t h a t the negation pertains chiefly to the modal so t h a t it parallels the use of MUSS plus negation. £230c £ 2 6 7a J5267g Z)64g #152a

H 170a ¿41c

. . . wir wollen aus dem Tod kein Geschäft machen . . . Ich will dich nicht zwingen, mir genau zu wiederholen, was er gesagt hat. Ich will nicht wissen, was er dir gesagt hat. Ich will niemand verdächtigen . . . Ich will nich' sagen, daß ich f ü r Kunst, wenn sie hübsch is', nichts übrig hätte. Ich will mich nicht besser machen wie ich bin . . . . . . sie wollen nicht lernen, sondern gleich etwas sein und eine Menge Geld verdienen.

I n these citations it is not possible to say t h a t the actor is intent on the nonrealization of the event, b u t rather t h a t he simply is not intent on its realization. For example, it is more accurate to say in J3267g t h a t the actor is not intent on knowing than that he is intent on not knowing. The approximate parallelism of the negation of WILL and MUSS can be demonstrated by comparing these modals in identical contexts. As an example ¿41c is listed below, together with the same citation in which MUSS is substituted for WILL. ¿41 c

. . . sie wollen nicht lernen, implies: aber sie können es . . . sie müssen nicht lernen, implies: aber sie dürfen es. The implied interpretation of each of these examples indicates t h a t WILL plus negation relates to K A N N as MUSS plus negation does to DARF. The reason t h a t the parallelism does not appear to be complete in these two isolated examples is t h a t with W I L L the event seems to be inherently weighted towards negation, whereas the negation of MUSS seems to indicate t h a t the non-realization of the event is truly precarious. This fact is very probably a result of the objective/subjective opposition, so that the actor is naturally passive with MUSS and active with WILL. However, if MUSS were substituted for W I L L in each of the citations in the previous list (which would result in some rather unusual sentences), the event would still appear, as a result of the context, to be weighted towards non-realization, thus preserving the parallelism. I n my corpus there are relatively few citations for which it can be assumed t h a t the negation pertains chiefly to the event, and even here one could perhaps

116

NEGATION OF THE MODALS

argue that it is the context and situation rather than modal negation which makes it appear that the speaker is asserting that the non-realization of the event is imminent. D143 //139b LI 34b L137c ¿199c

Aber geh ! Irgendwohin ! Ich will dich nie mehr sehen. Aber Herr Kienlechner wollt es ja durchaus nich' zulassen . . . Ich wollte sie nicht reinlassen. Aber dann merkten sie, daß ich allein war, und sie sind reingegangen. Ich bin einfach weggegangen von ihm, und ich will ihn nie mehr sehn. Wir wollen nicht lange bleiben, wir wollen nur mal sehen, wie es Kuddl geht.

To be parallel with the negation of WILL the meaning of MUSS plus negation would presumably have to be equivalent to English 'mustn't' if it were substituted in ¿>143, ¿137c, and ¿199c. For example, it is clear from the clause following LI 99c that it is the actor's firm intention not to stay long, so that a substitution of KANN would change the message effect less than the substitution of MUSS would. If this clause were deleted, the use of WILL here could be considered a closer parallel of MUSS. In D143 and ¿137c it is apparently the use of nie which weights the event heavily towards non-realization. The past tense of ¿/139b and XI 34b has a similar effect. The reason that the use of the negation of WILL discussed in the above paragraph is infrequent can be explained by comparing the negation of WILL with that of KANN, which is so perfectly suited for expressing imminent nonrealization, as in the following citations. ¿ 1 17a ¿177h ¿201f

Wir können die Batterien nicht draußen lassen. Ich kann nicht mit dir gehen, Manfred. Laß uns doch in Frieden. Und wir können nicht sehr lange bleiben, Kuddl. Der Junge ist allein zu Haus.

¿201f is especially interesting in that it is almost identical with ¿199c above, except for the modal. In ¿2Olf the speaker-actor leaves no room for the realization of the event and suggests with the subsequent sentence that his decision was at least in part dictated by external circumstances. In the use of WILL by itself in ¿199c, on the other hand, the precariousness is not completely cancelled out as it is with KANN. That is, the assertion is presented with less finality. Even though the actor in both ¿117a and ¿177h is completely responsible for the decision not to realize the event (clear from the context), KANN rather than WILL is used to exclude all precariousness. Thus, even in the second group of citations, the negated use of WILL is not equivalent to that of KANN, nor is the parallelism with MUSS entirely lacking. The same argument naturally holds true for those citations which could be interpreted as belonging to either of the two above groups, such as the following.

NEGATION OF THE MODALS

jB2671i 5274g H 126c /7174h L195d

117

Wir wollen nicht darüber streiten: du weißt es, ich weiß es. . . . warum hast du es getan ? Ich weiß nicht, warum. Ich will nicht davon sprechen. Mich hat er damals nicht malen wollen. Aber du willst, scheints, meine Neuigkeit gar nicht hören . . . E r hat es gesagt, weil ich nicht mitgehen wollte.

In concluding the discussion of W I L L it should be pointed out t h a t there is a difference between the negation of MUSS and W I L L in t h a t the latter modal can be used more readily to express what approaches imminent non-realization. When the negation pertains chiefly to the modal, the parallelism with MUSS is quite evident; when it does not, the parallelism is not altogether lost. The negation of the other modals is quite consistent and therefore requires little discussion. In addition to those listed above, the following are sufficient to demonstrate the normal negation of KANN". D78a 7)81 a /7131a

U n d ich kann mich jetzt nicht operieren lassen, ich muss mich stellen. Der arme Kerl konnte nicht schwimmen und . . . Der Schlitten, der den Herrn Kienlechner bringt, kann nicht mehr lange ausbleiben. /7162a . . . u n d ich k a n n ja doch nich über F r a u Wolperts Küche gehen, während se nicht da i s t . . . /7214a . . . mehr als hart kann das Ei nicht sein. ¿49c, d Du kannst da nicht hinkommen, Lena, es ist furchtbar. Ich kann dich nicht mitnehmen. L\ni Ich muß hierbleiben . . . ich kann jetzt nicht weg. Dl 8a and LIT Ii are interesting in their rather close conjunction with the positive of MUSS. K A N N here takes advantage of its unmarkedness in contrast to D A R F , which is otherwise the polar opposite of MUSS. The modal clause with MUSS makes it clear t h a t the initiation comes from an outside agency, so t h a t D A R F is not necessary. Since it is the nature of the actor in Z381a and //214a which is responsible for the non-realization of the event, D A R F could not be substituted here without a considerable change of meaning. H 162a can be interpreted either like D78a and Z177f, or like the examples of K A N N cited on page 116, in which it resembles the negative of W I L L . Following is the only example of K A N N in my corpus in which the negation pertains to the event rather t h a n to the modal. i?217f

Aber daß du ernsthaft zu glauben scheinst, daß ich könnte nicht hingehen, das verstehe ich nicht.

I t is obvious t h a t the shift in meaning here is due to the major stress on nicht and to the unusual word order.

118

NEGATION OF THE MODALS

D A R F with negation is completely consistent in t h a t the negation always pertains to the modal so t h a t the precariousness is cancelled out, in which case the focus is on the imminent non-realization of the event. _B237e Z?280f 5283h i?124c #219j L 144c

Ich durfte sie nie lutschen, weil sie so schädlich sind. Ins Gericht durfte ich nicht. . . . und Becher, weißt du, den Priester, der nicht mehr zelebrieren durfte . . . . . . man darfs ja gar nicht laut sagen, wie er daran geglaubt hat. Die gnädige Frau darf aber jetzt nicht traurig sein. Reg dich nicht auf . . . es hat keinen Zweck. — — Ich darf nicht daran denken . . .

The most interesting aspect of D A R F in the negative is the fact that it can be used in an imperative-like sense (e.g., H 124c and //219j) in much the same way t h a t MUSS and SOLL can be used in the positive. MUSS occurs only four times in my corpus with negation. H 162b #198c ii209d ¿20

Meistenteils is' man froh, daß man nich' so was Kleines noch mit durchschleppen muß, durch die Elendzeit. Sie müssen nur gut darauf achtgeben und ihn [den Mantel] sich nicht stehlen lassen. Du mußt übrigens nicht meinen, daß ich nicht gegen mein Gefühl angekämpft hätte . . . . . . sie hatte nicht einmal zurückgefragt, sich nicht einmal vergewissern müssen, [author's narration]

I n /7162b and ¿ 2 0 the negation obviously pertains to the modal so t h a t the imminence is cancelled out. As was seen to be the case with the negation of WILL, in these two uses of MUSS, the event is not seen to be truly precarious, b u t is weighted toward non-realization. This holds true even more so for i/209d, which could perhaps be represented in English with either 'mustn't' or 'don't have to', b u t the larger context eliminates the second possibility. That is, by asserting t h a t there is no immediate cause (objective imminence) for the realization of the event, the speaker simply conveys his preference to the listener, which is certainly not equivalent to what D A R F would express if it were substituted for MUSS here. i/198e is more problematical, since it seems clear that the negation pertains to the event, in which case the substitution of D A R F would yield the same message effect, namely, the imminent non-realization of the event. I t is quite probably true, as Bech suggests, 4 t h a t this phenomenon is usually limited to the type of sentence in which MUSS governs two infinitives, one of which is negative and the other positive. 4

Bech, "Das semantische System"; 31.

NEGATION OF THE MODALS

119

The above citations represent less than 1% of the total occurrences of MUSS in my corpus. 5 No other modal occurs less than 15% of the time with negation. As a possible explanation for this low ratio, Marvin Folsom suggests t h a t brauchen is usually substituted for MUSS in the negative. 6 This argument seems to have validity, since brauchen with an infinitive is used almost exclusively with the negative and limiting modifiers (nur, etc.) 7 so that brauchen plus negation is nearly in complementary distribution with MUSS, which is rarely used with either negative or such modifiers. The data from my corpus can perhaps be considered partial corroboration for this theory. I have counted 21 examples of brauchen with the infinitive, of which five occur with nur, one with weniger, and fifteen with nicht. Curiously, seventeen are from Lenz, only two from von Heiseler and one each from Boll and Dürrenmatt. This would seem to indicate that, at least for some speakers, there is little need for the negation of MUSS, or t h a t it is taken care of by some other means, perhaps by means of a positive expression of precariousness with either KANN or DARF. The following is a representative number of the citations from Lenz, together with all of those from the other authors. -B223 Z)88 7/174 H197 L13 Z/121 L150 ¿187 L207 Z/231

Sie [you] brauchen sich nicht zu entschuldigen . . . Es ist g u t . . . am Montag brauchen Sie nicht zu kommen. . . . ich hab . . . etwas für dich angebahnt . . . damit du . . . nicht als Müßiggänger herumzusitzen brauchst. Das macht die Sixtin ganz geschwind. Sie brauchen nicht nervös werden. Du wirst auch deiner Schwester nichts sagen. Lena braucht das nicht zu wissen. Sie brauchen nicht allein zu gehen. Ihr Vater wartet auf Sie. Wenn du dich benimmst, passiert dir nichts. Du brauchst von den andern nichts zu erwarten. Die sind fertig. Vielleciht brauchen wir ein Patsch gar nicht machen zu lassen . . . Sie brauchten die Köpfe nicht einzuziehen . . . sie konnten ohne Schwierigkeiten hindurch . . . Danke, Chef. — — Du brauchst dich nicht zu bedanken, Hinrichs.

The use of brauchen is formally distinguished from the modals by means of the zu which precedes the infinitive in every case except Z/197. But semantically there seems to be little difference between the negation of brauchen in these 5

Bettridge also makes a special note of the low frequency of MUSS plus negation: 3% in his corpus. "An Experiment With the German Modals II", Modern Languages X L I (1960): 17. 6 Marvin Folsom, "Brauchen as a Modal Auxiliary", MLJ XLVII (1963): 187. 7 Folsom, "Brauchen as a Modal Auxiliary; 187-8.

120

NEGATION OF THE MODALS

citations and the negation of MUSS in the previous list of citations. In other words, MUSS could be substituted in each of these citations with no significant difference in meaning, except for the fact that brauchen does not participate in the objective/subjective opposition which is inherent in the modal system. Thus by using brauchen rather than MUSS in examples such as 5223, D88 and ¿231, the speaker avoids presenting himself as the external agency. When the speaker is rather intent on the realization of the event, the meaning can be close to SOLL (¿13) or KANN (¿150 — clear from the larger context of the story), but MUSS could presumably be used here with the same effect (cf. #209d above). Perhaps the main impetus for the substitution of brauchen for MUSS in the negative can be found in the use of MUSS plus negative in the Umgangsprache, where it is often equivalent to English 'mustn't'. The following examples are taken from Kaufmann: 8 Das müssen Sie nicht sagen! Das mußt du nicht noch einmal tun ! Das müßt ihr nicht wieder tun! Das muß man nicht tun ! These sentences do not seem to put the same forceful constraint on the actor as would the use of DARF plus negation, but clearly the speaker is not implying that the actor has free choice — as is the case for the other uses of negated MUSS (cf. page 34 of this work). In other words, with both WILL and MUSS negation can pertain to either the event or to the modal in much the same way that subjunctive can. However, the use of MUSS with either kind of negation is apparently severely limited. When it is used with SOLL, negation always pertains to the event, which means that the speaker considers the event to be biased toward non-realization. The following examples are sufficiently representative: i?234d J5269c DIOOa /7171b ¿117e ¿176b

Er hätte gar nicht mit ihnen reden sollen. Warum hast du mir das gesagt ? Nicht um dir weh zu tun. Es sollte dir nicht weh t u n ! Tut es weh ? Sie [you] sollen auch keinen Pfennig dafür geben. Du solltest ihn auch nicht immer wieder über den Krieg befragen, Kind. . . . und ein Vermögen soll man nicht draußen liegenlassen. Es hat keinen Zweck. Wir sollten uns nicht wiedersehen.

Kaufmann, "Der Gebrauch der Modalverben sollen, müssen und wollen II"; 46.

NEGATION OF THE MODAL8

121

When negated, SOLL is semantically closer to D A R F than to MUSS (just as it is closer — usually — to MUSS when it is not negated), a fact which can be demonstrated by means of substituting either of these modals for SOLL in the above list. i?234d is interesting in t h a t it illustrates how the negativeness of the contrary-to-fact subjunctive and nicht combine as two negatives to make a positive: the speaker implies t h a t the actor did talk. Similarly the speaker of # 1 7 l b implies t h a t the actor does keep asking. The fact t h a t subjunctive and negation do not combine in this way in i?269c and ¿176b makes it doubtful whether SOLL is actually subjunctive in meaning here. That is, it seems to be parallel with the indicative of MUSS and SOLL and the use of MÖCHT with non-subjunctive meaning (cf. pages 93—94 of this work). The use of the negative of MAG is similar to t h a t of W I L L in t h a t the great majority of the occurrences of both have ich as the actor. With WILL, only 27 of the 43 are not used with ich; //175k and Z>16g below are the only two examples of the fourteen in my corpus in which the actor is not ich when MAG is used together with negation. 5284c Z>57d //175k ZI6g £47d £56a LlOlb Jill9d

U n d ich mochte die Menschen nicht. . . . und ich möchte auch nicht, daß du dich mit ihm abgibst oder sonst jemand von der Polizei. . . . ich weiß, daß du die Nichte von der alten Arnsdorf nicht so magst... . . . sie schicken dich weg aus lauter Güte und Rücksicht, weil sie dir die Arbeit nicht zumuten möchten . . . Ich möchte jetzt nicht mehr nach Hause. Ich möchte hier nicht bleiben . . . aber eine Nacht halte ich es schon aus. Es ist nur eine Kleinigkeit, ich möchte Sie nicht stören. Nein, ich mag nichts essen. Ich habe keinen Hunger.

As is the case with the negation of SOLL, it can be said of MAG that the negation pertains chiefly to the event; t h a t is, MAG plus negation does not mean t h a t the event is not biased, but t h a t it is biased towards non-realization. This is quite clearly true of the last four citations. However, as with WILL, there is some ambiguity, so t h a t in some instances (D57d and Z16g) it is not so easy to determine whether the negation pertains to the modal or to the event, or whether there is any significant difference in meaning between the two possibilities. This peculiarity perhaps has to do with the fact t h a t MOCHT is closer to W I L L than to K A N N (cf. page 94 of this work). Finally, when MAG is used as a full verb, as in 2?284c and H 175k, negation necessarily pertains to the modal.

8 CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY

The description of the contemporary German modal system which is presented in this study has shown that modality can be treated as a grammatical category analogous to other grammatical categories (subjunctive, etc.). As a grammatical category, modality stands in contrast to the factual (absence of a modal in an utterance) and is, by means of the six different modals, capable of expressing six different kinds of relation to reality. These six relations can be graphically displayed in a matrix as follows:

objective subjective

imminent

biased

precarious

MUSS WILL

SOLL MAG

D A R F (marked) K A N N (unmarked)

Each modal is thus in turn a grammatical category within the category of modality itself and can be defined in terms of a unified basic meaning, which is available for a wide variety of uses. Although no attempt was made to catalog these various uses, it was shown t h a t all those encountered are derivable from the basic meanings suggested by the above matrix. The labels used in the matrix are meant to represent the semantic distinctive features inherent in the modal system. When a speaker uses an objective modal it means t h a t he views the event as being initiated by an agency outside of the actor; if a subjective modal is used it either means t h a t the actor is the initiator or t h a t the operation of an outside agency is irrelevant to the speaker at the time of speaking (hence the unmarkedness of the subjective modals). The superior labels can be taken roughly as points along a probability continuum, in which the imminent and the precarious modals represent extreme opposites. That is, the use of MUSS and WILL means t h a t the speaker considers the realization of the event to be very probable (imminent), whereas D A R F and K A N N mean t h a t the event has a (precarious) 50-50 chance of realization. SOLL and MAG are used to represent a position between these two extremes. Thus it is sufficient to circumscribe the meaning basic to all uses of MUSS, for

CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY

123

example, with t h e label objective imminent, which a t the same time sets off MUSS from all t h e other modals. T h e various uses (senses) result f r o m (linguistic) context and (non-linguistic) situation, so t h a t they seem to be, as Bech suggests, theoretically infinite. 1 The grammatical device (i.e., the above matrix) within which t h e uses are generated, on the other hand, is finite and relatively simple. Context and situation can affect a modal in such a way t h a t t h e meaning of t h e utterance as a whole would on t h e surface be approximately t h e same if a certain one of its neighboring modals were substituted, e.g., the relationship between W I L L and MAG as described on page 41. The difference between the message conveyed by two neighboring modals thus frequently involves rather subtle social distinctions. The modals are therefore well suited for use in the verbal confrontation found in ordinary conversation, in the give-and-take, so to speak, of everyday life. In order to explicate the significance of the objective/subjective opposition inherent in the modal system it was found necessary to discuss the modals in terms of five different actors (ich, du, er, wir, man). I t was also discovered t h a t there is a certain a m o u n t of correlation between sentence type and actor. The fact t h a t t h e objective modals can be considered marked as opposed to the unmarkedness of the others, explains, among other things, t h e use of both K A N N and D A R F in the sense of 'permission'. The neat symmetrical patterning which is suggested by the above matrix is somewhat strained in practice by two factors. First, the frequency of occurrence of t h e modals is very uneven so t h a t , for example, K A N N is used fifteen times more frequently t h a n D A R F . Second, t h e modals do not always react in parallel fashion in combination with other grammatical categories. However, it has been shown t h a t , in spite of these surface discrepancies, there is adequate justification for insisting t h a t the explanation of each of the modals in terms of its opposition to the others is valid and accurate.

1

Bech, "Das semantische System"; 5.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Admoni, V. G., Der deutsche Sprachbau (Leningrad, 1966). Allard, Francis X., "A Structural and Semantic Analysis of the German Modal mögen", Doctoral Dissertation (Stanford University, 1969). Austin, John, How to do Things with Words (Oxford, 1962). Bach, Emmon, Review of Grammatik des deutschen Verbs by Manfred Bierwisch, Language X L (1964); 605-615. Bazell, C. E., "The Sememe", Litera I (1954); 17-31. Bech, Gunnar, "Grundzüge der semantischen Entwicklungsgeschichte der Hochdeutschen Modalverba", Dan. Hist. Filol. Medd. X X X I I (1951); 2-38. —, "Das semantische System der deutschen Modalverba", Travaux du cercle linguistique de Oopenhague IV (1949); 1-46. —, "Studien über das deutsche Verbum Infinitivum", Dan. Hist. Filol. Medd. X X X V (Copenhagen, 1955). Bettridge, H. T., "An Experiment with the German Modais", Modern Languages X L (1959) 128-136; X L I (1960); 16-23, 59-64. Bierwisch, Manfred, Grammatik des deutschen Verbs, in Studia Grammatica I I (Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1963). —, „Über die Rolle der Semantik bei grammatischen Beschreibungen", in Beiträg zur Sprachwissenschaft, Volkskunde und Literaturforschung. Festschrift Steinitz (Berlin, Akademie-Verlag, 1965); 44-60. Boll, Heinrich, "Zum Tee bei Dr. Börsig" and "Bilanz" in Ersählungen, Hörspiele, Aufsätze (Köln, Berlin, Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 1965). Boyd, Julian and J . P. Thorne, "The Semantics of Modal Verbs",.Journal of Linguistics V (1969); 57-73. Brinkmann, Hennig, Die deutsche Sprache: Gestalt und Leistung (Düsseldorf, Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann, 1962). Chomsky, Noam, Syntactic Structures (The Hague, Mouton & Co., 1957). Curme, George O., A Grammar of the German Language, 2nd revised edition (New York, Ungar, 1952). Diver, William, "The Modal System of the English Verb", Word X X (1964). Dürrenmatt, Friedrich, Der Richter und sein Henker (Einsiedeln, Benziger Verlag, 1962). Ebeling, C. L., "A Semantic Analysis of the Dutch Tenses", Lingua I X (1962); 86-99. Flämig, Walter, Zum Konjunktiv in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart (Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1959). —, "Zur Funktion des Verbs I I : Modus und Modalität", Deutsch als Fremdsprache I I (1965); 1-9. Folsom, Marvin H., "Brauchen as a Modal Auxiliary", MJL XLVII (1963); 187-89. Glinz, Hans, Die innere Form des Deutschen, 4th ed. (Bern, Munich, Francke Verlag, 1965). Hammerich, L. L., "Über die Modalverba der neugermanischen Sprachen", ZfdWf X V I (1960); 47-70.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

125

von Heiseler, Bernt, "Eine ländliche Winterkomödie" in Schauspiele, vol. 1 (Gütersloh, Bertelsmann, 1951). Hoffmeister, Werner, Studien zur erlebten Rede bei Thomas Mann und Robert Musil (The Hague, Mouton & Co., 1965). Jakobson, Roman, "Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre", Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague VI (1936); 240-88. —, Shifters, Verbal Categories and the Russian Verb (Russian Language Project, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, Harvard University, 1957). Jakobson, Roman and Morris Halle, Fundamentals of Language (The Hague, Mouton & Co., 1956). Joos, Martin, Review of Tense and Aspect in Present-day English by Akira Ota, Language X L (1964). —, "Semology: A Linguistic Theory of Meaning", SJL X I I (1958); 53-70. —, The English Verb: Form and Meaning (Madison, Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Press, 1964). Juilland, Alphonse, Structural Relations (The Hague, Mouton & Co., 1961). Kaeding, F. W., Die Hilfszeitwörter in ihrem Verhältnis zum deutschen Wortschatz (Steglitz bei Berlin, Selbstverlag des Verfassers, 1897). Käroly, S., "Kinds of Sentences Examined from the Point of View of Funotion and Form", Acta Linguistica X I I I (1963); 225-35. Katz, J . J., and P. M. Postal, An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions (Cambridge, Mass., The M.I.T. Press, 1964). Kaufmann, Gerhard, "Aussageweisen in Verbindung mit Modalverben", Deutschunterricht für Ausländer XIV (1964); 1-14. —, "Der Gebrauch der Modalverben sollen, müssen und wollen", Deutschunterricht für Ausländer X I I (1962); 154-172. —, "Der Gebrauch der Modalverben sollen, müssen und wollen I I " , Deutschunterricht für Ausländer X I I I (1963); 41-51. Kluge, Friedrieh, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, 18th ed. (Berlin, Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1963). Laetz, Hans G., "Analysis of the Syntactical and Semantic Usages müssen in Contemporary German", Doctoral Dissertation (Stanford University, 1969). Leech, Geoffrey, Towards a Semantic Description of English (Bloomington & London, University of Indiana Press, 1970). Lenz, Siegfried, Der Mann im Strom (Hamburg, Hoffmann & Campe, 1957). Lötz, John, "Semantic Analysis of the Tenses in Hungarian", Lingua X I (1962); 256-262. Lyons, John, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1968). Makaev, E. A., "The Morphologioal Structure of Common Germanic", Linguistics X X (1964); 23-50. Maxwell, Harry, "The Syntactical and Semantic Usages of sollen in Contemporary German", Doctoral Dissertation (Stanford University, 1964). Moulton, William G., "On the Nature of 'Aux' in a Transformational Grammar of German", Unpublished Paper (read at 1966 LSA meeting). —, "Summary of German Grammar", in German—English English—German Dictionary of Everday Usage, ed. J . Alan Pfeffer (New York, Henry Holt and Company, 1950). Newmeyer, Frederick J., "The 'Root Modal': Can it be Transitive?", Papers in Linguistics Monograph Series I (1970); 189-196. Nida, Eugene A., "Linguistic and Semantic Structure", in Studies in Language and Linguistics, ed. A. H. Marckwardt (Ann Arbor, University of Miohigan Press, 1965). Pfeffer, J . Alan, Basic (Spoken) German Word List (Engelwood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 1964). Pike, Kenneth L., "On Systems of Grammatical Structure", Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguistics, ed. H. G. Lunt (The Hague, Mouton & Co., 1964). Pontoppidan—Sjövall, Karin, "The Ego as Agent and as Object", Scando-Slavica X (1964); 194-209.

126

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

—, " ' I Solidarize Myself w i t h m y Action' Studio, Linguistica X X (1967); 65-74. Scholz, Heinrich, Geschichte der Logik (Berlin, D ü n n h a u p t Verlag, 1931). Schulz, D o r a , a n d Heinz Griesbach, Grammatik der Deutschen Sprache (Munich, M a x H u e b n e r , 1965). Searle, J o h n , Speech Acts (Cambridge, Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1969). Wängler, H a n s - H e i n r i c h , Rangwörterbuch hochdeutscher Umgangssprache (Marburg, W . G. E l w e r t Verlag, 1963). Weinreich, Uriel, " O n t h e S e m a n t i c S t r u c t u r e of L a n g u a g e " in Universals of Language, ed. J . H . Greenberg, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, Mass., L o n d o n , T h e M.I.T. Press, 1966). —, ' ' E x p l o r a t i o n s in S e m a n t i c T h e o r y ' ' in Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. I l l , ed. T . A . Sebeok (The H a g u e , M o u t o n & Co., 1965). Welke, Klaus, Untersuchungen zum System der Modalverben in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart (Berlin, A k a d e m i e Verlag, 1965). Wells, R u l o n , " I s A S t r u c t u r a l T r e a t m e n t of Meaning Possible? ", Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguistics, ed. E v a Sivertsen (Oslo, Oslo U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1958); 654-666.

INDEX OP IMPORTANT TERMS AND AUTHORS

assertion: definition, 26-7; factual, relative, 25-6 and passim

26;

Baeh, E., 56 basic meaning: definition, 23; discovery of, 23; use of terms for, 33 Bech, G., 11, 26, 30, 33, 39, 40, 48, 73, 92, 118, 123 biased: definition of, 32 Bierwisch, M., 28, 29, 113 brauchen: as a substitution for negation of MUSS, 119-20 Brinkmann, H., 28, 30, 93, 101, 102 choice, 33-4 citation: method of citing, 14; source of citations, 13 corpus: use of, 14-15; works cited from, 13 D A R F : analysis of, 69-73, 82-3, opposition to KANN, 31-2, 57-8, 69-70, 72, 74, 76-7, 82; unusual frequency of, 72 erlebte Rede, 62-3 event, 26-9 and passim evidential: in general, 56-8; of K A N N , 80-1; of MAG, 97; of MUSS, 59-60, 62; of SOLL, 89-90; of W I L L , 47 Flämig, W „ 101, 102, 104, 105, 112 Folsom, M., 119 Frequency: of moduls in various frequency counts, 15-19; of modals with different person categories, 45-6, 51, 62, 69, 74, 76, 86, 88, 92 Glinz, H., 43 grammatical meaning, 20-21, 22-23 imminent: definition, 31 and passim imperative: with D A R F , 118; with K A N N , 77; with MUSS, 51-2; with SOLL, 89; with W I L L , 46 Jakobson, R., 5, 56 Joos, M., 11, 22-3; schema for English verb, 25

K A N N : analysis of, 73-81, 83-4; in sense of "permission", 69; opposition t o D A R F 31-2, 57-8, 69-70, 72, 74, 76-7, 82 K a u f m a n n , G„ 46, 67, 120 MAG: analysis of, 92-9; opposition to SOLL, 32-3, 57-8, 85-6, 89, 94; relation of mag and möchte, 92, 95-6; relation to W I L L , 93, 94; subjunctive of, 92f., 107 marking: as a linguistic device, 50-1, 6970, 86 method, 19f. modality m a t r i x : 29; explanation of, 29-37 MUSS: analysis of, 48-60; opposition t o W I L L , 31, 48-9, 50, 53, 57-8, 89; polar opposite of D A R F , 35 n a t u r e of actor, 42 and passim negation: 35-6, 113ff;. as a constituent of t h e event, 113-4, 121; as a constituent of t h e modal, 113-4, 116 objective: definition and explanation of, 29-31; opposition to subjective, 30 person: category of, 39-40; significance for distribution of the modals, 54 and passim Pfeffer, J., 15, 17, 19 precarious: definition, 31-2 Schulz—Griesbach, 29 SOLL: analysis of, 86-92; relation to werden, 91; opposition to MAG, 32, 57-8, 85-6, 89, 94 speaker, 31, 44, 49, 88 and passim subjunctive: as a category, 101-3; as a constituent of the event, 103-6; as a constituent of t h e modal, 102-4; relation to meaning of modals, 102ff.; relation to negation, 109 Wängler, H., 15, 17, 19 Welke, K., 39, 43, 89, 92, 96, 103, 113 werden, 43 W I L L : analysis of, 40-7, 63-7; opposition to MUSS, 31, 46-7, 48, 53, 57-8, 89; polar opposite of K A N N , 35-6, 114-5; relation to MAG, 41, 95