《645_认知语言学入门__2006_》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《645_认知语言学入门__2006_（202页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、present prototypically refers to the here and now of the ground, and its pro- totypical morpheme is treated as an unmarked form, or zero morpheme . This model therefore predicts that there will be four basic types of grounding predication, which are listed in (18).(18) a.IMMEDIATE REALITYe.g. , -s b
2、.NON-IMMEDIATE REALITYe.g. -ed c.IMMEDIATE IRREALITYe.g. can d.NON-IMMEDIATE IRREALITYe.g. couldWhile (18a) and (18b) relate to present and past tense, respectively, (18c) and (18d) relate to modality. Beyond these parameters of variation, tense and modality essentially belong to the same category i
3、n Cognitive Grammar: they are both types of grounding predication. As we saw in Chapter 16, thenominal grounding predication specifies an instance of a category and is itself a schematic nominal or THING. In the same way, a clausal grounding predica- tion is a schematic PROCESS, and specifies an ins
4、tance of the PROCESScategory. Compare the two examples in (19).(19) a.Lily was a rocket scientist. b.Lily to be a rocket scientistExample (19a) is a finite clause and is therefore grounded. This means that the location of the event described in the clause is established relative to the ground in ter
5、ms of (ir)reality. As a consequence, the clause is realised as a PROCESSand can stand alone as a communicative speech event. Example (19b), in contrast,is a non-finite clause. Because it is not grounded, which means that its reality status has not been established, it cannot stand alone as a communi
6、cative speech event. Clauses like this can only occur as embedded clauses, where the main clause is grounded (20). In this way, Langacker accounts for the fact thatmain clauses have to be finite.(20) George never wanted Lily to be a rocket scientist.Explaining the grammatical behaviour of the modals
7、Cognitive Grammar exploits this epistemic account of tense and mood to explain the special characteristics of the modal verb that were outlined above.Firstly, the fact that the modal does not inflect to form a participle or an infini-tive is consistent with its role as a grounding predication:partic
8、iples and infini- tives are ATEMPORAL RELATIONS, while the modal is a schematic PROCESS. Secondly,this analysis also explains the fact that the modal does not participateCOGNITIVE GRAMMAR: TENSE, ASPECT, MOOD AND VOICE629in subject-verb agreement (*Lily musts succeed). This is because the third pers
9、on present tense morpheme -s is itself a grounding predication with an opposing reality value,so the two are not expected to co-occur. Finally, the factthat the modal has to be followed by the bare infinitive form of the next verb in the string is accounted for on the basis that a grounding predicat
10、ion and its grounded element must match in terms of category. In other words, given that the modal represents a schematic PROCESS, its grounded element must also be a PROCESS. Of course, this claim cannot be maintained if the verb form thatfollows the modal is described as a bare infinitive,given th
11、at the infinitive rep- resents an ATEMPORAL RELATION. In Langackers model, the verb form that follows the modal is described as a simple verb, which counts as a PROCESS.In other words, it encodes a temporal relation, but is uninflected because the modal performs the grounding function.Potential and
12、projected realityIn the context of the epistemic distance model, the modals are characterised in terms of potential reality and projected reality. The distinction betweenthese explains the difference between the future time epistemic modals will and may. The modal will encodes projected reality (in
13、IMMEDIATE IRREALITY), and therefore gives rise to the future time interpretation. In contrast, may encodes only potential reality (although still in IMMEDIATE IRREALITY), hence a weaker epistemic reading. Along with Talmy (1985) and Sweetser (1990), Langacker adopts a force-dynamics model to capture
14、 this distinction between projectedand potential reality. If the event is construed as having sufficient momentumthat the speaker can be confident that it will reach the predicted reality status, this is projected reality. In contrast, an event that is construed as having weaker momentum has only po
15、tential reality status. The distal counterparts of these modals are analysed along the same lines,but involve a temporal reference point more distant from the ground.As we saw in Chapter 11,essentially similar considerations motivate the Mental Spaces approach to counterfactuals. The polysemy of the
16、 modal verbs is also explained in force-dynamics terms. The distinction between the deontic and epistemic readings, which is often not a clear-cut distinction,relates to whether the source of the momentum is salient. If the source of the momentum is salient,this gives rise to deontic interpretations (involving obligation, permission and so on). This is illustrated by examples (21a) and (22a), where the source of the momentum or force is understood as the speaker or some other authorit
