Motaleat-e-zaban-e-farsi

Motaleat-e-zaban-e-farsi

Analysis of the Discourse and Grammatical Levels of Modality in the Persian Language

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Mahmood Mobaraki 1
maryam jalili 2
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics, Jahrom University, Jahrom, Iran (Corresponding author).
2 Master's degree in Linguistics, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran.
10.22034/jmzf.2026.550321.1256
Abstract

1. Introduction
In the past, modality was associated with the syntactic category of “mood,” and gradually, linguists such as Tavangar and Amouzadeh (2009), with reference to Lyons (1977), Palmer (1986), Bybee et al. (1944), Fillmore (1986), Givón (1995), Palmer (1998), and Narrog (2005), arrived at a distinction between semantic modality and grammatical modality. Research of this kind must be conducted in accordance with the nature of each language and its compatibility with the capacities and resources of that language. Since different approaches have each addressed a particular aspect of modality and there is no general agreement among them regarding the dimensions of modality, the authors seek to answer the question: What are the overall dimensions of modality? Despite intermittent descriptive and theoretical studies in the field of modality, scholars have still not reached an agreed-upon definition of this concept, and this in itself is evidence of the importance and complexity of modality. The aim of the present study is to introduce all dimensions of modality and provide a comprehensive representation of it.

2. Methodology
This research was conducted using a library-based method. In this manner, different views concerning modality were examined and, based on their differences and similarities, were placed into separate categories in the form of distinct perspectives. After comparing the proposed perspectives, the authors put forward another perspective that encompasses all of these viewpoints.

3. Discussion
There are four perspectives on modality, each of which approaches the subject from a different angle. Naghizadeh et al. (2011) regard modality primarily as semantic information related to the speaker’s insight or viewpoint concerning what is being said. Palmer’s (1990) perspective on modality is limited solely to grammatical modality, or, in other words, grammatical mood, because it is applicable only to verbs. The third perspective encompasses the views of grammarians and modern linguists, each of whom has described the concept of modality in a different way. Although each has adopted a different approach, they share one common point, namely that, in examining modality, they have focused only on the grammatical structure and surface structure of language. In the fourth perspective, Portner (2009) divides modal elements into three categories: sentential modality, subsentential modality, and discourse modality. Each of these perspectives offers a single version for all languages with regard to modality; however, the category of modality is entirely language-specific and is reflected across languages in various and diverse ways. It is therefore impossible to provide criteria that represent the category of modality uniformly across all languages. Research of this kind must be conducted in accordance with the nature of each language and its compatibility with the capacities and resources of that language. Accordingly, in the discussion of modality, emphasis should be placed on two important points: first, the examination of modality as language-specific; and second, the examination of modality at the discourse, sentential, and subsentential levels. This means that the rules of modality in one language cannot be imposed upon another language, because the structural configuration of modality differs from one language to another. Furthermore, in examining modality, all of its dimensions must be taken into consideration.

4. Conclusion
Drawing upon and synthesizing the various approaches to modality, the authors have presented the overall structure of the modality system in the form of a diagram. This diagram, which encompasses all dimensions of modality, including discourse modality, grammatical modality, and semantic modality, can serve as a credible model for examining modality in the Persian language. In the proposed diagram, the overall structure of modality is divided into three sections: the examination of contextual (discourse) modality; modality that is neither lexicalized nor grammaticalized. Subsentential modality; modality that is expressed only in sentence elements such as a lexicalized adjective. Sentential modality; modality that is grammaticalized in the verb.
Keywords
Mood
grammatical modality
semantic modality
discourse modality
کتاب­شناسی
الف: کتاب­ها
1)      ایلخانی پور، نگین (1394)، صفات وجهی در زبان فارسی، چاپ اول، تهران: مرکز.
2)      باطنی، محمدرضا (1370)،  توصیف ساختمان دستوری زبان فارسی، چاپ چهارم، تهران: امیرکبیر.
3)      رضایی، والی و فاطمه بهرامی(1394)، مبانی رده‌شناسی زبان، تهران: مرکز چاپ و انتشارات دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
4)      لاینز، جان(1981)، درآمدی بر معنی‌شناسی زبان، ترجمۀ کوروش صفوی، چاپ اول، تهران، علمی.
5)      ناتل خانلری، پرویز (1354)، تاریخ زبان فارسی، چاپ اول، تهران: بنیاد فرهنگ ایران.
ب: مقاله­ها
1)       اخلاقی، فریار (1386)، «بایستن، شدن و توانستن: سه فعل وجهی در فارسی امروز»، مجلۀ نامه فرهنگستان. جلد سوم، شمارۀ 3،صص 82-129.
2)       رحیمیان، جلال (1378)، «وجه فعل در فارسی امروز»، مجلۀ علوم اجتماعی و انسانی دانشگاه شیراز، دورۀ 14، شمارۀ 2،صص41ـ 52.
3)      طاهری، حمید و یوسف اسفندیار (1396)، «تأثیر بافت در شناخت صور وجهی»، دومین کنفرانس بین‌المللی ادبیات و زبان‌شناسی، تهران.
4)       عموزاده، محمد و حدائق رضایی (1389)، «ابعاد معناشناختی «باید» در زبان فارسی»، نشریۀ پژوهش‌های زبانی، شمارۀ 1، صص 57-78.
5)      کریمی دوستان، غلامحسین و نگین ایلخانی­پور (1391)، «نظام وجهیت در زبان فارسی»، نشریۀ پژوهش‌های زبانی، شمارۀ1، صص 77ـ 98.
6)      میرسعیدی، عاطفه السادات (1391)، «فارسی کنونی به‌عنوان یک زبان جنسیت گرا»، دو فصل­نامۀ زبان­پژوهی دانشگاه الزهرا (س)، سال سوم، شمارۀ6، صص 202ـ 222.
7)      نقی‌زاده، محمود، محمد عموزاده و منوچهر توانگر (1390)، «بررسی مفهوم ذهنیت در افعال وجهی در زبان فارسی»، نشریۀ پژوهش‌های زبانی، شمارۀ 1، صص 1-20.
ج: منابع لاتین
 
1.      Brinton, Laurel J.& Elizabeth C. Traugott )2005(. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.      Bybee, J. L., R. D. Perkins and W.Pagliuca(1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the language of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.      Crystal, David )2008(. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (6thed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
4.      Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In: Bach, E., Harms, R.T. (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York, Holt Rinehart and Winston Inc, 1–88.
5.      Frawley, W. (1992). Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.      Givon, T. (1995). Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
7.      Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.      Lyons, John(1997). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.      Narrog, H. (2005). On Defining Modality Again. Language Sciences 27, 165–192.
10. Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
11. Palmer, F. R. (1990). Modality and the English Modals. London, Longman.
12. Palmer, F. R. (1998). Mood and Modality: basic principles. In: Brown, K., Miller, J. (Eds.). Oxford: Elsevier, 229–235. Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories.
13. Palmer, Frank R. (2001). Mood and Modality (2nded.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Portner, Paul(2009). Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Saeed, J. I. (2009). Semantics, 3rd ed., Hong Kong: Willey- Blackwell.
16. Taleghani, Azita H. (2008). Modality, Aspect and Negation in Persian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.
17. Tavangar, Manoochehr & Mohammad Amouzadeh(2009). “Subjective Modality and Tense in Persisn”. Language Sciences. 31.pp.853-873.

  • Receive Date 01 October 2025
  • Revise Date 29 December 2025
  • Accept Date 02 May 2026