Semantic Modality in Angkola Language: A Pragmatic-Semantic Analysis of Epistemic and Deontic Expressions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1602.33Keywords:
Angkola language, semantic modality, epistemic modality, deontic modality, politeness strategiesAbstract
This study explores the semantic and pragmatic dimensions of epistemic and deontic modality in the Angkola language, a regional variety spoken in South Tapanuli, Indonesia. Drawing on the theoretical frameworks of Palmer, Halliday, and Brown and Levinson, the research identifies key modal expressions—bope (possibility), adong (certainty), songonna (inference), unang (prohibition), bole (permission), and harus (obligation)—and examines their roles in natural discourse. The findings indicate that epistemic modality is used to express different levels of belief and to moderate speaker commitment, while deontic modality encodes social norms, authority, and culturally embedded obligations. Modal expressions in Angkola also function as strategies of politeness, allowing speakers to adjust modal strength according to social status, context, and relational goals. Furthermore, modality serves as a reflection of core cultural values such as deference, social harmony, and the Dalihan Na Tolu system. By uncovering how modality indexes interpersonal and cultural meaning, this study contributes to the semantic-pragmatic analysis of under-documented languages and enhances understanding of the interface between grammar and culture.
References
Becker, M., Palmer, A., & Frank, A. (2017). Semantic clause types and modality as features for argument analysis. Argument & Computation, 8(2), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.3233/AAC-170019
Brown, P. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Chen, C., & He, Q. (2024). A corpus-based study of metaphor of modalization in English academic writing. SAGE Open, 14(1), 21582440241229810. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241229809
Chiyah-Garcia, J., Suglia, A., Eshghi, A., & Hastie, H. (2023). “What are you referring to?” Evaluating the ability of multi-modal dialogue models to process clarificational exchanges. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue (SIGDIAL) (pp. 175–182). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.sigdial-1.16
Coates, J. (1980). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries: A corpus-based analysis with special reference to contemporary spoken English [Doctoral dissertation]. Lancaster University, UK.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Dalimunte, M. (2024). Semantic modality. CV. Manhaji Medan. Retrieved June 20, 2025, from http://repository.uinsu.ac.id/22493/2/Semantic%20Modality.pdf
de Varda, A. G., & Strapparava, C. (2022). A cross-modal and cross-lingual study of iconicity in language: Insights from deep learning. Cognitive Science, 46(6), e13147. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13147
Duranti, A. (2009). Linguistic anthropology: A reader. John Wiley & Sons.
Durst-Andersen, P. (2023). Language, culture and society: Modality, face and societal logic. Globe: A Journal of Language, Culture and Communication, 17, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.54337/ojs.globe.v17i.8201
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Routledge.
Harahap, A. S., Mulyono, H., Milhan, M., & Siregar, T. (2023). Dalihan Na Tolu as a model for resolving religious conflicts in North Sumatera: An anthropological and sociological perspective. Samarah, 7(3), 1943–1970. https://doi.org/10.22373/sjhk.v7i3.13091
Hart, C., & Marmol Queralto, J. (2021). What can cognitive linguistics tell us about language-image relations? A multidimensional approach to intersemiotic convergence in multimodal texts. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(4), 529–562. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2021-0039
Holmes, J., & Schnurr, S. (2005). Politeness, humor and gender in the workplace: Negotiating norms and identifying contestation. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 121–149. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.121
Hutagaol, B. E., Simamora, N., & Silitonga, S. (2020). The study about the relationship of “Dalihan Na Tolu” with Batak traditional architecture: Case study Huta Raja Village Samosir. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 452(1), 012054. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/452/1/012054
Kikusawa, R. (2015). The Austronesian language family. In C. Bowern & B. Evans (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 657–674). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315794013.ch31
Larm, L. (2018). On the teaching of Japanese epistemic and evidential markers: Theoretical considerations and practical applications. In D. G. Hebert (Ed.), International perspectives on translation, education and innovation in Japanese and Korean societies (pp. 161–170). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68434-5_11
Levinson, S. C. (2011). Universals in pragmatics. In P. Hogan (Ed.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of the language sciences (pp. 654–657). Cambridge University Press.
Li, L. X. (2022). Developmental patterns of English modal verbs in the writings of Chinese learners of English: A corpus-based approach. Cogent Education, 9(1), 2050457. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2050457
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics: Volume 2. Cambridge University Press.
Melia, J. (2014). Modality. Routledge.
Moriyama, T. (1992). On the epistemic modality of Japanese. Gengo Kenkyu, 101, 64–83. https://doi.org/10.11435/gengo1939.1992.101_64
Neary, C. (2015). Stylistics, point of view and modality. In M. Burke (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of stylistics (pp. 184–200). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315795331.ch10
Olajimbiti, E. O. (2025). Deontic modality and evaluation of obligations in children-related X (Twitter) interactions. Corpus Pragmatics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-025-00188-3
Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Pescuma, V. N., Serova, D., Lukassek, J., Sauermann, A., Schäfer, R., Adli, A., Bildhauer, F., Egg, M., Hülk, K., Ito, A., Jannedy, S., Kordoni, V., Kuehnast, M., Kutscher, S., Lange, R., Lehmann, N., Liu, M., Lütke, B., Maquate, K., … Knoeferle, P. (2023). Situating language register across the ages, languages, modalities, and cultural aspects: Evidence from complementary methods. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 964658. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.964658
Riesberg, S., Shiohara, A., & Utsumi, A. (2018). Perspectives on information structure in Austronesian languages. De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1402571
Roca-Royes, S. (2023). Modality. Cambridge University Press.
Rocci, A. (2017). Relative modality and argumentation. In A. Rocci (Ed.), Modality in argumentation: A semantic-pragmatic approach (Argumentation Library, Vol. 29, pp. 197–274). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1063-1_4
Shan, Y. (2021). Analysis of a grammatical category in English—Modal verbs. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 9(9), 271–278. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2021.99020
Wang, X., & Huang, C.-R. (2021). From contact prevention to social distancing: The co-evolution of bilingual neologisms and public health campaigns in two cities in the time of COVID-19. SAGE Open, 11(3), 21582440211031556. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211031556
Watts, R. J. (2019). Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: Reconsidering claims for universality. In R. J. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. 43–69). De Gruyter.
Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Mouton de Gruyter.
Zhou, J. (2022). Evidentiality and other types readjusted: Interpersonal modality revisited. Journal of World Languages, 8(1), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1515/jwl-2021-0011
