Modality_NN1 Introduction_NN1 This_DD1 is_VBZ a_AT1 book_NN1 about_II semantic_JJ theories_NN2 of_IO modality_NN1 ._. 
I_PPIS1 am_VBM not_XX too_RG comfortable_JJ trying_VVG to_TO define_VVI modality_NN1 ,_, but_CCB a_AT1 definition_NN1 provides_VVZ a_AT1 useful_JJ place_NN1 to_TO start_VVI :_: modality_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT linguistic_JJ phenomenon_NN1 whereby_RRQ grammar_NN1 allows_VVZ one_PN1 to_TO say_VVI things_NN2 about_RP ,_, or_CC on_II the_AT basis_NN1 of_IO ,_, situations_NN2 which_DDQ need_VM not_XX be_VBI real_JJ ._. 
Let_VM21 's_VM22 take_VVI an_AT1 example_NN1 :_: I_PPIS1 say_VV0 "_" You_PPY should_VM see_VVI a_AT1 doctor_NN1 ._. "_" 
I_PPIS1 am_VBM saying_VVG something_PN1 about_II situations_NN2 in_II which_DDQ you_PPY see_VV0 a_AT1 doctor_NN1 ;_; in_RR21 particular_RR22 ,_, I_PPIS1 am_VBM saying_VVG that_CST some_DD of_IO them_PPHO2 are_VBR better_RRR than_CSN comparable_JJ situations_NN2 in_II which_DDQ you_PPY do_VD0 n't_XX see_VVI a_AT1 doctor_NN1 ._. 
Notice_VV0 that_CST what_DDQ I_PPIS1 say_VV0 can_VM be_VBI useful_JJ and_CC true_JJ even_CS21 though_CS22 you_PPY do_VD0 not_XX see_VVI a_AT1 doctor_NN1 ._. 
Thus_RR ,_, what_DDQ I_PPIS1 say_VV0 concerns_NN2 situations_NN2 which_DDQ need_VM not_XX be_VBI real_JJ ._. 
This_DD1 definition_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX make_VVI plain_JJ exactly_RR which_DDQ features_NN2 of_IO language_NN1 are_VBR associated_VVN with_IW modality_NN1 ._. 
For_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, is_VBZ the_AT past_JJ real_JJ ?_? 
That_DD1 's_VBZ a_AT1 hard_JJ question_NN1 ,_, and_CC if_CS the_AT past_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX real_JJ ,_, according_II21 to_II22 the_AT definition_NN1 the_AT past_JJ tense_JJ counts_NN2 as_II a_AT1 modal_JJ expression_NN1 ._. 
Another_DD1 example_NN1 :_: what_DDQ is_VBZ it_PPH1 to_TO be_VBI kind_JJ ?_? 
I_PPIS1 help_VV0 those_DD2 around_II me_PPIO1 with_IW a_AT1 feeling_NN1 of_IO happiness_NN1 in_II my_APPGE heart_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB my_APPGE life_NN1 is_VBZ easy_JJ ,_, and_CC acting_VVG this_DD1 way_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX lead_VVI to_II any_DD difficulties_NN2 in_II my_APPGE own_DA life_NN1 ._. 
Is_VBZ this_DD1 enough_RR to_TO make_VVI me_PPIO1 kind_NN1 ?_? 
Or_CC does_VDZ kindness_NN1 also_RR require_VV0 that_CST I_PPIS1 would_VM continue_VVI to_TO help_VVI ,_, with_IW that_DD1 feeling_NN1 of_IO happiness_NN1 in_II my_APPGE heart_NN1 ,_, even_CS21 if_CS22 doing_VDG so_RR were_VBDR to_TO lead_VVI to_II difficulties_NN2 for_IF myself_PPX1 ?_? 
If_CS the_AT latter_DA ,_, the_AT word_NN1 kind_NN1 involves_VVZ modality_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 seems_VVZ that_DD1 modality_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX something_PN1 that_CST one_PN1 simply_RR observes_VVZ ,_, but_CCB rather_RR something_PN1 that_CST one_PN1 discovers_VVZ ,_, perhaps_RR only_RR after_II careful_JJ work._NNU 2_MC ._. 
Modal_JJ logic_NN1 2.1_MC Why_RRQ modality_NN1 is_VBZ important_JJ to_II logic_NN1 and_CC to_II semantics_NN1 Why_RRQ are_VBR we_PPIS2 so_RR interested_JJ in_II the_AT semantics_NN1 of_IO modal_JJ words_NN2 ?_? 
An_AT1 easy_JJ answer_NN1 for_IF a_AT1 linguist_NN1 to_TO give_VVI might_VM be_VBI that_CST we_PPIS2 're_VBR interested_JJ in_II the_AT semantics_NN1 of_IO all_DB kinds_NN2 of_IO words_NN2 ,_, and_CC we_PPIS2 might_VM as_RR21 well_RR22 attend_VVI to_II the_AT modal_JJ ones_NN2 now_RT rather_CS21 than_CS22 later_RRR ._. 
From_II this_DD1 perspective_NN1 ,_, we_PPIS2 could_VM have_VHI just_RR as_RR21 well_RR22 begun_VVN with_IW words_NN2 expressing_VVG family_NN1 relations_NN2 or_CC describing_VVG protein_NN1 sources_NN2 ._. 
Surely_RR there_EX are_VBR perspectives_NN2 on_II language_NN1 according_II21 to_II22 which_DDQ these_DD2 portions_NN2 of_IO the_AT vocabulary_NN1 have_VH0 as_RG much_DA1 of_IO a_AT1 claim_NN1 on_II our_APPGE attention_NN1 as_II the_AT modal_JJ expressions_NN2 ,_, but_CCB such_DA perspectives_NN2 do_VD0 not_XX motivate_VVI the_AT vast_JJ majority_NN1 of_IO contemporary_JJ work_NN1 in_II semantics_NN1 ._. 
Instead_RR ,_, semanticists_NN2 tend_VV0 to_TO think_VVI that_DD1 modality_NN1 is_VBZ really_RR very_RG important_JJ ._. 
Why_RRQ ?_? 
I_PPIS1 like_VV0 cute_JJ animals_NN2 :_: pandas_NN2 ,_, pigs_NN2 ,_, praying_VVG mantises_NN2 ._. 
But_CCB by_II studying_VVG the_AT meanings_NN2 of_IO the_AT words_NN2 panda_NN1 ,_, pig_NN1 ,_, and_CC praying_VVG mantis_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 's_VBZ unlikely_JJ I_PPIS1 'll_VM achieve_VVI even_RR a_AT1 glimmer_NN1 of_IO the_AT pleasure_NN1 I_PPIS1 feel_VV0 in_II learning_VVG about_II them_PPHO2 ,_, or_CC better_RRR yet_RR watching_VVG them_PPHO2 ._. 
I_PPIS1 'd_VHD better_RRR leave_VVI my_APPGE interest_NN1 in_II animals_NN2 as_II a_AT1 hobby_NN1 separate_VV0 from_II my_APPGE linguistics._NNU 2.2_MC Some_DD basic_JJ ideas_NN2 from_II modal_JJ logic_NN1 Here_RL is_VBZ a_AT1 certain_JJ kind_NN1 of_IO ant_NN1 which_DDQ identifies_VVZ its_APPGE sex_NN1 by_II smell_NN1 ._. 
Every_AT1 ant_NN1 gives_VVZ off_RP either_RR a_AT1 female_JJ smell_NN1 or_CC a_AT1 male_JJ smell_NN1 at_II all_DB times_NNT2 ._. 
Suppose_VV0 that_CST a_AT1 certain_JJ ant_NN1 wants_VVZ to_TO know_VVI if_CSW it_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 female_NN1 or_CC a_AT1 male_NN1 ._. 
All_DB it_PPH1 can_VM do_VDI is_VBZ smell_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB since_CS it_PPH1 works_VVZ in_II the_AT nest_NN1 and_CC is_VBZ surrounded_VVN by_II many_DA2 other_JJ ants_NN2 at_II all_DB times_NNT2 ,_, it_PPH1 ca_VM n't_XX just_RR smell_VVI itself_PPX1 ;_; the_AT smells_NN2 of_IO all_DB the_AT nearby_JJ ants_NN2 are_VBR mixed_VVN together_RL ._. 
However_RR ,_, the_AT ant_NN1 does_VDZ know_VVI that_CST its_APPGE own_DA scent_NN1 is_VBZ among_II all_DB of_IO the_AT ones_NN2 it_PPH1 smells_VVZ mixed_VVN together._NNU 2.3_MC A_ZZ1 linguistically_RR realistic_JJ version_NN1 of_IO modal_JJ logic_NN1 Modal_NN1 logic_NN1 provides_VVZ many_DA2 important_JJ insights_NN2 into_II the_AT meanings_NN2 of_IO modal_JJ expressions_NN2 ,_, but_CCB as_CSA has_VHZ been_VBN emphasized_VVN several_DA2 times_NNT2 ,_, its_APPGE goal_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX to_TO provide_VVI a_AT1 semantic_JJ analysis_NN1 of_IO natural_JJ language_NN1 ._. 
Semanticists_NN2 and_CC logicians_NN2 have_VH0 different_JJ goals_NN2 ._. 
When_CS it_PPH1 comes_VVZ to_II modality_NN1 ,_, the_AT primary_JJ goal_NN1 of_IO the_AT semanticist_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO provide_VVI a_AT1 precise_JJ theory_NN1 of_IO the_AT meanings_NN2 of_IO modal_JJ expressions_NN2 across_II languages_NN2 which_DDQ yields_VVZ an_AT1 accurate_JJ description_NN1 of_IO the_AT facts_NN2 and_CC an_AT1 explanation_NN1 of_IO linguistically_RR important_JJ generalizations_NN2 ._. 
The_AT goal_NN1 of_IO the_AT logician_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO systematize_VVI and_CC understand_VVI important_JJ features_NN2 of_IO reasoning_VVG with_IW the_AT concepts_NN2 of_IO necessity_NN1 ,_, obligation_NN1 ,_, and_RR31 so_RR32 forth_RR33 ._. 
Because_II21 of_II22 this_DD1 difference_NN1 ,_, modal_JJ logic_NN1 ignores_VVZ many_DA2 important_JJ features_NN2 of_IO the_AT meanings_NN2 of_IO modal_JJ expressions_NN2 which_DDQ are_VBR important_JJ to_II linguists_NN2 ._. 
For_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, it_PPH1 ignores_VVZ the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST in_II some_DD languages_NN2 epistemic_JJ modals_NN2 occurs_VVZ in_II a_AT1 different_JJ position_NN1 from_II deontic_JJ modals_NN2 ._. 
Just_RR as_RG importantly_RR ,_, modal_JJ logic_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX integrate_VVI its_APPGE ideas_NN2 about_II the_AT meanings_NN2 of_IO modal_JJ expressions_NN2 into_II a_AT1 general_JJ theory_NN1 of_IO natural_JJ language_NN1 ._. 
Though_CS sometimes_RT the_AT relationship_NN1 between_II modal_JJ meanings_NN2 and_CC other_JJ meanings_NN2 is_VBZ discussed_VVN (_( for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, the_AT relationship_NN1 between_II modality_NN1 and_CC tense_VV0 ;_; see_VV0 Section_NN1 5.1_MC and_CC Thomason_NP1 2002_MC for_IF a_AT1 survey_NN1 of_IO work_NN1 in_II logic_NN1 )_) ,_, modal_JJ logic_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX attempt_VVI to_TO do_VDI this_DD1 in_II a_AT1 comprehensive_JJ way._NNU 2.4_MC Looking_VVG ahead_RL A_ZZ1 basic_JJ understanding_NN1 of_IO modal_JJ logic_NN1 is_VBZ invaluable_JJ to_II linguists_NN2 who_PNQS study_VV0 modality_NN1 because_CS some_DD of_IO the_AT first_MD theoretically_RR precise_JJ ideas_NN2 about_II the_AT semantics_NN1 of_IO modal_JJ expressions_NN2 were_VBDR developed_VVN within_II modal_JJ logic_NN1 ._. 
Most_RGT fundamentally_RR ,_, the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO possible_JJ world_NN1 allows_VVZ us_PPIO2 to_TO represent_VVI directly_RR the_AT intuition_NN1 that_CST modality_NN1 has_VHZ to_TO do_VDI with_IW possible_JJ but_CCB not_XX necessarily_RR actual_JJ situations_NN2 ._. 
The_AT modal_JJ operators_NN2 are_VBR quantifiers_NN2 over_II possible_JJ worlds_NN2 ;_; in_RR21 particular_RR22 ,_, they_PPHS2 are_VBR universal_JJ (_( the_AT )_) or_CC existential_JJ (_( the_AT )_) quantifiers_NN2 with_IW a_AT1 domain_NN1 of_IO quantification_NN1 picked_VVD out_RP by_II an_AT1 accessibility_NN1 relation_NN1 ._. 
Within_II this_DD1 system_NN1 ,_, logicians_NN2 have_VH0 discovered_VVN that_CST formal_JJ properties_NN2 of_IO accessibility_NN1 relations_NN2 ,_, such_II21 as_II22 reflexivity_NN1 ,_, seriality_NN1 ,_, and_RR31 so_RR32 forth_RR33 ,_, correspond_VV0 to_II interesting_JJ logical_JJ properties_NN2 in_II the_AT operators_NN2 themselves_PPX2 ._. 
For_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, seriality_NN1 corresponds_VVZ to_II the_AT D_NP1 axiom_NN1 ,_, and_CC therefore_RR is_VBZ appropriate_JJ for_IF deontic_JJ logic._NNU 3_MC ._. 
Major_JJ Linguistic_JJ Theories_NN2 of_IO Modality_NP1 This_DD1 section_NN1 will_VM present_VVI three_MC semantic_JJ theories_NN2 of_IO modality_NN1 which_DDQ have_VH0 been_VBN developed_VVN within_II linguistics_NN1 ._. 
My_APPGE goal_NN1 here_RL is_VBZ to_TO provide_VVI a_AT1 clear_JJ ,_, detailed_JJ ,_, and_CC accurate_JJ understanding_NN1 of_IO each_DD1 theory_NN1 ._. 
In_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO achieve_VVI this_DD1 goal_NN1 ,_, we_PPIS2 will_VM focus_VVI on_II those_DD2 linguistic_JJ phenomena_NN2 which_DDQ have_VH0 been_VBN the_AT most_RGT important_JJ in_II developing_VVG the_AT theories_NN2 ,_, even_CS21 though_CS22 this_DD1 focus_NN1 necessarily_RR means_VVZ that_CST many_DA2 important_JJ issues_NN2 of_IO the_AT semantics_NN1 of_IO modality_NN1 will_VM be_VBI left_VVN out_RP ._. 
The_AT next_MD chapter_NN1 will_VM turn_VVI around_RP this_DD1 relationship_NN1 between_II theory_NN1 and_CC research_NN1 issues_NN2 :_: my_APPGE goal_NN1 there_EX will_VM be_VBI to_TO provide_VVI a_AT1 broad_JJ understanding_NN1 of_IO the_AT nature_NN1 of_IO modality_NN1 ,_, using_VVG theories_NN2 of_IO modality_NN1 as_II a_AT1 basis_NN1 ._. 
In_RR21 short_RR22 ,_, this_DD1 chapter_NN1 is_VBZ primarily_RR about_II theories_NN2 of_IO modality_NN1 ;_; the_AT next_MD chapter_NN1 is_VBZ primarily_RR about_II modality_NN1 itself_PPX1 ._. 
Of_RR21 course_RR22 the_AT ultimate_JJ goal_NN1 of_IO linguistics_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO unify_VVI the_AT goals_NN2 of_IO these_DD2 two_MC chapters_NN2 ,_, to_TO develop_VVI a_AT1 theory_NN1 of_IO modality_NN1 which_DDQ in_II itself_PPX1 provides_VVZ the_AT best_JJT possible_JJ understanding_NN1 of_IO the_AT nature_NN1 of_IO modality_NN1 ._. 
But_II21 for_II22 the_AT time_NNT1 being_NN1 ,_, while_CS our_APPGE theories_NN2 are_VBR still_RR imperfect_JJ ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ helpful_JJ to_TO look_VVI at_II the_AT topic_NN1 from_II two_MC angles_NN2 separately._NNU 3.1_MC The_AT work_NN1 of_IO Angelika_NP1 Kratzer_NP1 In_II a_AT1 series_NN of_IO writings_NN2 ,_, Angelika_NP1 Kratzer_NP1 developed_VVD a_AT1 theory_NN1 of_IO modals_NN2 and_CC conditionals_NN2 which_DDQ deserves_VVZ to_TO be_VBI called_VVN the_AT "_" standard_JJ theory_NN1 "_" of_IO modality_NN1 within_II formal_JJ semantics_NN1 :_: Kratzer_NP1 ._. 
This_DD1 work_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT standard_NN1 in_II that_DD1 it_PPH1 is_VBZ the_AT one_PN1 which_DDQ a_AT1 linguistically_RR oriented_JJ semanticist_NN1 is_VBZ most_RGT likely_JJ to_TO recommend_VVI to_II students_NN2 or_CC colleagues_NN2 who_PNQS wish_VV0 to_TO learn_VVI about_II the_AT theory_NN1 of_IO modality_NN1 ,_, and_CC in_CS21 that_CS22 it_PPH1 is_VBZ one_PN1 which_DDQ can_VM be_VBI taken_VVN on_RP as_II a_AT1 working_JJ assumption_NN1 in_II semantic_JJ research_NN1 without_RL there_EX being_VBG much_RR risk_VV0 that_CST other_JJ scholars_NN2 will_VM object_VVI that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 poor_JJ choice._NNU 3.2_MC Modality_NN1 in_II dynamic_JJ logic_NN1 To_TO be_VBI more_RGR precise_JJ ,_, there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 difference_NN1 between_II (_( 123a_FO )_) and_CC (_( 123b_FO )_) if_CS they_PPHS2 are_VBR thought_VVN of_IO as_CSA sequences_NN2 of_IO sentences_NN2 said_VVD by_II the_AT same_DA person_NN1 and_CC if_CS we_PPIS2 assume_VV0 that_CST the_AT weather_NN1 has_VHZ not_XX changed_VVN in_II the_AT meantime_NNT1 ._. 
The_AT '_" ..._... '_" indicates_VVZ that_CST some_DD time_NNT1 has_VHZ passed_VVN and_CC the_AT speaker_NN1 has_VHZ had_VHN a_AT1 chance_NN1 to_TO gain_VVI new_JJ information_NN1 ;_; perhaps_RR the_AT speaker_NN1 has_VHZ opened_VVN the_AT curtains_NN2 and_CC looked_VVN outside_RL to_TO check_VVI the_AT weather_NN1 ._. 
In_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO (_( 123a_FO )_) ,_, the_AT sequence_NN1 is_VBZ completely_RR natural_JJ ,_, whereas_CS (_( 123b_FO )_) indicates_VVZ that_CST the_AT speaker_NN1 has_VHZ changed_VVN her_APPGE mind_NN1 ,_, and_CC is_VBZ in_II this_DD1 sense_NN1 less_RGR natural_JJ ._. 
Without_IW this_DD1 opportunity_NN1 to_TO check_VVI the_AT weather_NN1 (_( that_REX21 is_REX22 ,_, replacing_VVG '_" ..._... '_" with_IW and_CC )_) ,_, both_DB2 sequences_NN2 are_VBR odd._NNU 3.3_MC Modality_NN1 in_II cognitive_JJ and_CC functional_JJ linguistics_NN1 In_II this_DD1 section_NN1 ,_, I_PPIS1 will_VM discuss_VVI work_NN1 on_II modality_NN1 which_DDQ has_VHZ been_VBN developed_VVN within_II two_MC traditions_NN2 which_DDQ are_VBR typically_RR seen_VVN as_CSA being_VBG opposed_VVN to_II ,_, and_CC incompatible_JJ with_IW ,_, the_AT theories_NN2 of_IO modality_NN1 based_VVN on_II possible_JJ worlds_NN2 ._. 
These_DD2 traditions_NN2 are_VBR cognitive_JJ and_CC functional_JJ linguistics_NN1 ._. 
Cognitive_JJ linguistics_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 theory_NN1 which_DDQ aims_VVZ to_TO explain_VVI the_AT nature_NN1 of_IO language_NN1 in_II31 terms_II32 of_II33 more_RGR general_JJ properties_NN2 and_CC capacities_NN2 of_IO the_AT mind_NN1 ._. 
Functional_JJ linguistics_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 particular_JJ theory_NN1 ,_, but_CCB rather_RG a_AT1 general_JJ perspective_NN1 on_II how_RGQ linguistic_JJ facts_NN2 are_VBR to_TO be_VBI explained_VVN ._. 
Generally_RR speaking_VVG ,_, functional_JJ linguistics_NN1 aims_VVZ to_TO explain_VVI the_AT nature_NN1 of_IO language_NN1 in_II31 terms_II32 of_II33 the_AT uses_NN2 to_II which_DDQ language_NN1 may_VM be_VBI put_VVN ,_, including_II both_DB2 information-based_JJ and_CC social_JJ uses_NN2 ._. 
Cognitive_JJ and_CC functional_JJ linguistics_NN1 do_VD0 not_XX necessarily_RR go_VVI together_RL ._. 
For_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, a_AT1 functional_JJ linguist_NN1 might_VM believe_VVI that_CST our_APPGE brains_NN2 have_VH0 a_AT1 separate_JJ language_NN1 faculty_NN1 (_( so_CS21 that_CS22 the_AT properties_NN2 of_IO language_NN1 are_VBR not_XX due_II21 to_II22 general_JJ capacities_NN2 of_IO the_AT mind_NN1 ,_, but_CCB rather_RR language_NN1 specific_JJ ones_NN2 )_) while_CS also_RR believing_VVG that_CST that_DD1 this_DD1 faculty_NN1 has_VHZ a_AT1 functional_JJ basis_NN1 (_( that_CST it_PPH1 has_VHZ evolved_VVN to_TO have_VHI the_AT properties_NN2 it_PPH1 does_VDZ because_CS they_PPHS2 allow_VV0 it_PPH1 to_TO serve_VVI particular_JJ functions_NN2 )_) ._. 
From_II the_AT other_JJ side_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 cognitive_JJ linguist_NN1 might_VM believe_VVI that_DD1 general_JJ properties_NN2 of_IO the_AT mind_NN1 explain_VV0 the_AT nature_NN1 of_IO language_NN1 completely_RR ,_, and_CC that_CST there_EX is_VBZ no_AT need_NN1 to_TO refer_VVI to_II the_AT uses_NN2 of_IO language_NN1 in_II giving_VVG the_AT explanation_NN1 ._. 
Nevertheless_RR ,_, cognitive_JJ and_CC functional_JJ linguistics_NN1 often_RR go_VV0 together_RL ;_; in_RR21 particular_RR22 ,_, cognitive_JJ linguistics_NN1 (_( the_AT younger_JJR of_IO the_AT two_MC traditions_NN2 )_) often_RR takes_VVZ a_AT1 functional_JJ perspective._NNU 4_MC ._. 
Sentential_JJ Modality_NN1 In_II Chapter_NN1 1_MC1 ,_, I_PPIS1 distinguished_VVD three_MC linguistic_JJ domains_NN2 in_II whichmodality_NN1 operates_VVZ :_: sentential_JJ ,_, sub-sentential_JJ ,_, and_CC discourse_NN1 ._. 
Sentential_JJ modality_NN1 operates_VVZ ,_, as_CSA the_AT name_NN1 suggests_VVZ ,_, at_II the_AT level_NN1 of_IO the_AT entire_JJ clause_NN1 ._. 
Most_DAT treatments_NN2 of_IO modality_NN1 take_VV0 sentential_JJ modality_NN1 to_TO be_VBI the_AT central_JJ case_NN1 ;_; for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, in_II English_NN1 ,_, we_PPIS2 see_VV0 an_AT1 emphasis_NN1 on_II the_AT semantics_NN1 of_IO modal_JJ auxiliaries_NN2 ._. 
While_CS these_DD2 modals_NN2 may_VM be_VBI important_JJ at_II the_AT sub-sentential_JJ and_CC discourse_NN1 levels_NN2 as_RR21 well_RR22 ,_, they_PPHS2 clearly_RR are_VBR grammatically_RR linked_VVN to_II the_AT sentence_NN1 ,_, and_CC they_PPHS2 have_VH0 an_AT1 obvious_JJ effect_NN1 on_II sentence_NN1 meaning_NN1 ._. 
They_PPHS2 interact_VV0 syntactically_RR and_CC semantically_RR with_IW other_JJ clause-level_JJ elements_NN2 ,_, such_II21 as_II22 negation_NN1 ,_, tense_VV0 ,_, and_CC aspect_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ their_APPGE sentence-level_JJ meaning_NN1 and_CC sentence-level_JJ grammar_NN1 which_DDQ we_PPIS2 aim_VV0 to_TO understand_VVI better_RRR in_II this_DD1 chapter._NN1 5_MC ._. 
Modality_NN1 and_CC Other_JJ Intensional_JJ Categories_NN2 In_II previous_JJ chapters_NN2 ,_, we_PPIS2 've_VH0 taken_VVN the_AT strategy_NN1 of_IO trying_VVG to_TO isolate_VVI modality_NN1 from_II other_JJ semantic_JJ categories_NN2 ._. 
The_AT purpose_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 strategy_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO look_VVI carefully_RR at_II the_AT nature_NN1 of_IO modality_NN1 in_BCL21 order_BCL22 that_CST we_PPIS2 can_VM develop_VVI a_AT1 precise_JJ ,_, explanatory_JJ theory_NN1 of_IO it_PPH1 ._. 
However_RR ,_, in_II reality_NN1 modal_NN1 semantics_NN1 is_VBZ intertwined_VVN with_IW many_DA2 other_JJ topics_NN2 ,_, and_CC in_II the_AT following_JJ sections_NN2 we_PPIS2 will_VM investigate_VVI several_DA2 :_: 5.1_MC Temporal_JJ semantics_NN1 ,_, including_II tense_JJ and_CC aspect_NN1 5.2_MC Conditionals_NN2 5.3_MC Mood_NN1 and_CC evidentiality_NN1 The_AT first_MD topic_NN1 we_PPIS2 'll_VM study_VVI in_II some_DD depth_NN1 ._. 
The_AT second_NNT1 we_PPIS2 will_VM examine_VVI in_II a_AT1 more_RGR cursory_JJ way_NN1 ,_, because_CS the_AT literature_NN1 on_II conditionals_NN2 is_VBZ so_RG vast_JJ that_CST another_DD1 entire_JJ volume_NN1 would_VM be_VBI needed_VVN ._. 
The_AT third_MD will_VM be_VBI treated_VVN in_II an_AT1 even_RR more_RGR superficial_JJ way_NN1 ,_, because_CS an_AT1 entire_JJ volume_NN1 on_II it_PPH1 is_VBZ due_JJ to_TO appear_VVI (_( Portner_NP1 ,_, forthcoming_JJ )_) ._. 
5.1_MC Modality_NP1 and_CC time_NNT1 I_PPIS1 'd_VM like_VVI to_TO divide_VVI up_RP the_AT ways_NN2 in_II which_DDQ there_EX is_VBZ an_AT1 important_JJ relationship_NN1 between_II modality_NN1 and_CC time_NNT1 into_II two_MC main_JJ areas_NN2 ._. 
First_MD ,_, as_CSA we_PPIS2 try_VV0 to_TO understand_VVI elements_NN2 like_II modal_JJ auxiliaries_NN2 ,_, whose_DDQGE meanings_NN2 are_VBR primarily_RR in_II the_AT modal_JJ domain_NN1 ,_, we_PPIS2 find_VV0 that_CST they_PPHS2 affect_VV0 the_AT temporal_JJ interpretation_NN1 of_IO the_AT sentences_NN2 they_PPHS2 occur_VV0 in_RP as_RR21 well_RR22 ._. 
I_PPIS1 discuss_VV0 the_AT temporal_JJ semantics_NN1 of_IO modal_JJ elements_NN2 in_II Section_NN1 5.1.1_MC ._. 
And_CC ,_, second_NNT1 ,_, as_CSA we_PPIS2 try_VV0 to_TO understand_VVI the_AT semantics_NN1 of_IO tense_JJ and_CC aspect_NN1 morphemes_NN2 ,_, whose_DDQGE meanings_NN2 are_VBR traditionally_RR conceived_VVN as_CSA having_VHG to_TO do_VDI with_IW time_NNT1 and_CC event_NN1 structure_NN1 ,_, we_PPIS2 see_VV0 that_CST they_PPHS2 also_RR introduce_VV0 modal_JJ meaning_NN1 into_II the_AT sentence_NN1 ._. 
In_II Sections_NN2 5.1.2-5.1.3_MCMC ,_, I_PPIS1 will_VM focus_VVI on_II modality_NN1 in_II the_AT semantics_NN1 of_IO tense_JJ and_CC aspect_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 hold_NN1 true_JJ ,_, as_CS31 long_CS32 as_CS33 the_AT metal_NN1 is_VBZ more_RGR reactive_JJ than_CSN the_AT support_NN1 ._. 
However_RR ,_, details_NN2 about_II the_AT temperature_NN1 dependence_NN1 and_CC shape_NN1 of_IO S_ZZ1 (_( &Theta;_NULL )_) are_VBR not_XX always_RR consistent_JJ with_IW simple_JJ capture_NN1 zone_NN1 models_NN2 ._. 
