Helen de Hoop and Sander Lestrade
Introduction
Aremarkablepropertyoflanguageisthatitallowspeopletotalkaboutunreal
events,andeventocreatewhollynewworldsinnarratives.1Butwhiletheanal-ysisofevery-daylanguageutterancesofthreeorfourwordsalreadyconstitutes
acomplexchallengetolinguists,thestructureandperceptionofnarratives
provideuswithanevengreaterpuzzletobesolved.2Inthischapter,wewill
examinefocalizationandepistemicmodalityinaliterarytext,whichreflect
thiscognitivefeat.TheliteraryworkthatweuseforourstudyisNabokov’s
novelLolita (1955),witharetrospective(unreliable)first-personnarrator,en-tailingdoublefocalization.3
Epistemicmodalityinordinarylanguageisseenasrelatingtothespeaker’s
degreeofcertaintyaboutwhattheactualworldislike.Inliterature,factscan
bepresentedthroughtheeyesofthecharacters,whilebeingreportedbythe
narrator.Moreover,thiscanbedonemoreorlessexplicitly.Therefore,aliter-arytextsuchasLolitaisanextremelyinterestingdomaintolookfortheuse
and interpretation of epistemic modality. Whose degree of certainty is ex- pressedwhenanepistemicmodalitymarkerisused,isitthenarrator’s(exter-nalfocalization),orisithispastself’s(internalfocalization)?4Maybeeven
moreimportantly,howdoweknow?Linguisticelementssteertheunderstand- ingofanarrativetext.Whereasresearchintosuchlinguisticfactorsisundoubt-edlyrelevantforliterarystudies,viceversa,theinvestigationofliterarytexts
cangivenewinsightinthemechanismsoflanguageandcommunication.The
languageusedbythewriterornarratoralreadyliftstheveilalittleontheirmo-tives,underlyingthoughts,strategiesandtheirrelationtotheirreaders.
1 WethankourcolleaguesoftheresearchgroupGrammarandCognitionandtheinterdisciplin-aryresearchgroupNarrativity,aswellastheaudienceoftheConferenceonText,Transmission,
andReception,heldinNijmegenatOctober2010,forhelpfulcommentsanddiscussion.A
specialwordofgratitudegoestoOlafHoenselaarforhisindispensablehelpinthefirststage
oftheresearchreportedhereandtoClaireStocksforhereditorialhelpinitsfinalstage.
2 Cf.Dancygier(2012).
3 Cf.Rimmon-Kenan(2002).
4 Cf.Rimmon-Kenan(2002).
© HelendeHoopandSanderLestrade,2015 | doi10.1163/9789004270848_007
ThisisanopenaccesschapterdistributedunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttribution-Noncommercial3.0Unported(CC-BY-NC3.0)License.
Onecrucialcharacteristicthatdistinguisheshumanlanguagefromthelan-guageandcommunicationmeansofotheranimals,isthatitcannotonlybe
usedtodescribetheactualworld,butalsotogobeyondthisworld.Oneex-amplefromtheanimalkingdomistheprairiedog.Inordertowarneachother
aboutdifferentspeciesofpredators,prairiedogsappeartohaveattheirdis- posaldifferentalarmcallswhichcontaininformationaboutwhothesepreda-torsare,whattheylooklike,andevenwhattheyaredoing.Dependentonthe
exacttypeanddegreeofdanger,differentalarmcallstriggerdifferenttypesof
(escape) behaviour among the other prairie dogs.5 We can interpret these
alarm calls of prairie dogs as stating facts about the actual world, such as
“There’sacoyote!”or“There’sahawkflyingaround!”Beingabletocommuni-catesuchstatementsabouttheworldcertainlyhelpsprairiedogstosurvivein
theirextremelydangerousenvironment.Atthesametime,however,prairie
dogswillpresumablynotbeabletosaythingstoeachotherlike“Theremight
beacoyote!”or“Theremustbeahawkflyingaround.”Theseareutterances
thatdonotstatemerefactsabouttheworldbutthatcanbeconceivedofas
hypothesizingaboutit,tostatewhattheworldmightormustbe.Bycontrast,
amajorfunctionofhumanlanguageisindeedtohypothesizeaboutwhatthe
actualworldislike.
Modalexpressionsinlanguageareusedpreciselyforthispurpose:toput
forwardhypothesesaboutwhattheworldislike.Assuch,theyweakenthe
factualityofthestatement.6Narrogdefinesmodalityintermsoffactuality:
“Modalityisalinguisticcategoryreferringtothefactualstatusofastateofaf-fairs.Theexpressionofastateofaffairsismodalizedifitismarkedasbeing
undeterminedwithrespecttoitsfactualstatus,i.e.isneitherpositivelynor
negativelyfactual.”7
Thus,ifaspeakersays“Joranisthemurderer,”thenasfarastheyarecon-cerned,thatisafactoftheactualworld.Itisthereforepresentedasafact,and
willbeinterpretedassuchbythehearer.Thisisnotthecase,however,whena
speakersays“Joranmightbethemurderer,”or“Joranmustbethemurderer.”
Althoughthesetwostatementsdifferinstrength(inthecaseofmust sheis moreconvincedthatJoranisthemurdererthaninthecaseofmight),inboth
casessheleavesopenthepossibilitythatJoranturnsoutnottobethemur-dererafterall.Hence,theuseofamodalexpressionindicatesthatthespeaker
doesnotpresentacertainfactabouttheworld,butratherpresentsherhy-pothesisabouttheworld.
5 FrederiksenandSlobodchikoff(2007).
6 Cf.Narrog(2005),FoolenanddeHoop(2009).
7 Narrog(2005)184.
Now,supposethewriterofanovelusesthesentence“Joranmightbethe
murderer.”Clearly,ifthenarratorisomniscient,thentheepistemicmodalityof
thisexpressionmight cannotbeattributedtothenarratoranymore,because
anomniscientnarratorwouldsimplyknowwhetherJoranwasthemurdereror
notinthefictiveworld.Itmightbe,however,thatthenarratorisnot(orpre-tendsnottobe)omniscientafterall,andthentheutteranceisstillinterpreted
asthenarrator’shypothesisaboutthe(fictive)world.Suchanarrator’sexpres-sionofuncertaintyturnsouttobeveryimportantforthereader’sperception
andappreciationofthenarrative,asshowninanexperimentbyDixonand
colleagues.8 They conducted an experiment in which readers read a story
(Emma ZunzbyJorgeLuisBorges)twice.Onegroupofreadersreadamanipu-latedversionofthestory,however,fromwhichepistemicmodalitymarkers
indicatinguncertaintyofthenarrator,suchasperhapsand might,werere-moved.Thishadacleareffectontheappreciationofthestorybyfrequentbut
untrainedreaders.Whilethereaders’appreciationoftheoriginalstorysignifi- cantlyincreasedafterrereading,thiswasnotthecaseforreadersofthema-nipulatedstory.
Epistemicmodalitymarkersdonotnecessarilyexpresstheuncertaintyof
thenarrator,however.Anotherpossibilityisthatthemodalexpressionisinter- pretedwithrespecttotheperspectiveofsomebodyelse,thatis,notthenarra-tor,forinstanceoneofthecharactersinthestory.Oneofthequestionswe
wishtoanswerinthischapteriswhether,andifsohow,wecaninterpretsuch
ashiftinperspectiveincasethecharacterandthenarratorrefertothesame
personinthefictiveworld.Howdoweknowwhetheranexpressionofmodal- ityreflectsthedegreeofcertaintyofthenarratororthatofacharacter,espe-ciallywhenthenarratorandthecharacterarethesameperson?
Inordertoaddressthisquestion,wewillfocusontheuseofepistemicmo-dalityinthenovelLolita (1955)byVladimirNabokov.Thefirstpersonnarrator
andmaincharacterofLolita isHumbertHumbert,amanobsessedwithhis
12-yearoldstepdaughter.Thestoryisaconfessionofanunreliablecharacter
and,therefore,isinterestingtostudyintermsofthemodalitymarkingusedby
thenarratortoreflecthisownuncertaintyeitherinhisguiseasdistancednar-ratorlookingbackoneventsorasthemaincharacternarratingthoseeventsas
theytakeplace.Ouraimistoanalyzeexpressionsofepistemicmodalityinthe
Englishnovelinrelationto(shiftsin)narrativepointofview.9Howdoesthe
narratorlookbackattheevents?Whatwashisroleandhowinevitablewere
somedevelopments?Thevariouslevelsofnarrationandthefluctuationin
8 Dixonetal.(1993).
9 Cf.Levie(2009).
timethatcharacterizeNabokov’sLolita makeitanextremelyrichsourceto
lookforinteractionsbetweenmodalityandnarrativepointofview.Forrea-sonsoftimeandspace,wewillfocusinthischapterononespecializedmarker
ofepistemicmodality,theauxiliarymight.
Modality in a Literary Text
Notoriously,therearedifferenttypesofmodalityfoundinlanguage,whichall
involvethenotionsofpossibilityandnecessity.10Forexample,deonticmodal-ityinvolvesexternalcircumstances,whichpermitorobligetheparticipantto
engageinthestateofaffairs.Twoexamplesofdeonticmodalityaregivenin(1)
and(2),broughtaboutbytheuseoftheauxiliariesmay andmustrespectively.
NotethatallexamplesinthischapteraretakenfromLolita, publishedinthe
Penguin Books, 1995 (page numbers given after each example; boldface is
ours):
(1) “Shemaymeetboysatherownlovelyhome,”Isaid.(p.195) (2) YoumustallowhertotakepartinThe Hunted Enchanters.(p.196) Sentence(1)illustratesacaseofdeonticpermission.Thefirstpersonnarrator
andmaincharacterfunctionsasanauthorityfigurehere,namelythefather,
whosaysthathisdaughtermaymeetboysathome.Insentence(2)weare
dealingwithacaseofdeonticnecessity:thistimetheheadmistressPrattisthe
authoritywhoinsiststhatthefatherwillallowthedaughtertotakepartina
play.Narrog’sfactualityapproachaccountsforalltypesofmodality,11including
deonticmodality.Intheabovetwosentences,theauxiliariesmay andmust makethestatementslessfactual.Thatis,eventhoughthefatherallowshis
daughtertomeetboysathome,thisdoesnotentailthatsheactuallymeetsor
willmeetboys(infact,it’sprobablynoteventruethathewouldallowher,de-spitewhathesays).In(2),eventhoughtheheadmistressinsiststhatthefather
wouldallowhisdaughtertotakepartintheplay,itisnotcertainthathewill.
Hence,bothstatesofaffairsinthescopeofthemodalauxiliariesareundeter-minedfortheirfactualstatus.
Aspointedoutabove,inaliterarytexttheuseofmodalitymayvarywiththe
persontowhomtheutteranceisascribed.Thus,modalitycanbeexpectedto
10 Cf.VanderAuweraandPlungian(1998).
11 Narrog(2005).
varywiththenarrativepointofview.Gavins,12withintheframeworkofText
World Theory,13 examines modalized propositions in literary fiction. Text
WorldTheory is a theory at the interface between linguistic and literature
study,andcanbeconsideredalinguistictheorydealingwiththeworldscreat-edinliteraryfiction.Gavinsfocusesonthoseworldswhicharecreatedasa
resultofdepartingfromthetext-worldinitiallyestablishedbyaparticulartext,
theso-called“sub-worlds.”Sub-worldscanbeconstructedbydiscoursepartici- pants(andarethus“participant-accessible”)orbycharacterswithinthetext-world(“character-accessible”).Character-accessiblesub-worldsarebuiltupon
epistemic modals in Text World Theory. Gavins notes that the text-world
frameworkcannotprovideafullpictureoftheimportantliteraryeffectsof
modalization,suchaspointedoutbySimpson,14becauseithasneglecteda
crucialelementofliterarynarrative,namelyfocalization.AccordingtoGavins,
focalizednarrativesrepresentonlywhatonecharacterbelievestobethecase,
andthereforeconstituteanepistemicmodalworldwhichisonlycharacter-accessible.
However,Gavinsdoesnotdiscussindetailhowmodalexpressionsareused
toswitchbetweenworlds.Whatarethelinguisticmeansthatwritershaveat
theirdisposaltomakesurethattheuncertaintyexpressedbytheuseofamod-alauxiliaryisattributedbythereadertotherightperson,beitthenarratoror
oneofthecharacters?
Assaidabove,Lolita isaninterestingtexttolookatfortheinteractionof
perspectiveandmodalitybecauseitisaframestoryinwhichthenarratorand
themaincharacterareoneandthesame,andmoreoverareunreliable.This
unreliabilityisparticularlyinterestingforusifitaffectstheuseofepistemic
modalitymarkers.Itisonepistemicmodalitythatwewillfocusfortheremain- derofthischapter,sinceitprovidesthemostfruitfulwayofexploringtherela-tionship between modality and narrative point of view or focalization.
Epistemicmodalityisillustratedinthefollowingexample:
(3) Theremay havebeentimes–theremust havebeentimes,ifIknowmy
Humbert–when(…).(p.69–70)
Thetwomodalauxiliariesin(3)areusedtoexpressthedifferentdegreesof
certaintyofthenarratorhimself.Thenarrator,lookingback,couldhaveut-teredthattherewere timeswhen…Inthatcase,hewouldhavepresentedhis
12 Gavins(2005).
13 Werth(1999).
14 Simpson(1993).
propositionasafactoftheactual(albeitfictive)world.Instead,heweakens
thefactualityofhispropositionbystatingthattheremayhavebeentimes
when…(wheremay indicatesepistemicpossibility),andthen,whilegaining
confidence, he corrects himself and adds that theremust have been times
(wheremustindicatesepistemicnecessity).Fromthelinguisticcontextitis
clearthatweareinvitedtotaketheperspectiveofthenarratorandnotthe
maincharacterHumberthere,alsobecauseinthisexampletheauto-obser-vantfirstpersonnarratorHumbertreferstothecharacterHumbertbytheuse
ofthethirdpersonpropername.Often,however,thecharacterHumbertis
referredtobythefirstperson,justlikethenarratorHumbert,anditisaninter-estingquestionastohowtheauthordealswithepistemicmodalityfromthe
differentperspectives:theperspectiveofthenarratorI(Humbert)versusthat
ofthecharacterI (Humbert).
Inprinciple,thefirstpersonnarratorinLolita canuseepistemicmodalityin
twosituations.First,hecanuseitatahigherlevel,asin(3)above,takingastep
backfromtheplot.Anotherexampleofthisisgivenin(4):
(4) Perhaps,mylearnedreadersmayperkupifItellthemthatevenhadwe
discovered a piece of sympathetic seaside somewhere, it would have
cometoolate,sincemyrealliberationhadoccurredmuchearlier:atthe
moment,inpointoffact,whenAnnabelHaze,aliasDoloreslee,alias
Loleeta,hadappearedtome,goldenandbrown,kneeling,lookingup,on
thatshoddyveranda,inakindoffictitious,dishonest,buteminentlysat- isfactoryseasidearrangement(althoughtherewasnothingbutasecond-ratelakeintheneighbourhood).(p.167)
Bycommentingonthehypothesizedlearnedreadersofhisstory,thenarrator
becomesacharacterhimselfatahigherlevelofnarration(or:partoftheworld
heishypothesizingabout).Atthislevel,heusestheepistemicmodalmayin
(4)above.Thenarratorisnotcertainofthefactthatthereaderswillperkup,
buthypothesizesthatthismaybethecase.
Second, the narrator can use epistemic modality when representing the
thoughtsofacharacter,forexampleindirectspeech.Inthatcase,themodality
expressesthelackofconfidenceofthecharacter,notofthenarratorhimself.
Thecharacterthattheepistemicmodalityisattributedtocaneitherbethe
characterHumbert(whohappenstobethesamepersonasthenarrator,butat
adifferenttimeinthestory),oranyoftheothercharacters.In(5)anexample
oftheformerisgiven,in(6)twoexamplesofthelatter.
(5) Icontrolledmybreathandsaid:“Dolores,thismuststoprightaway.Iam
readytoyankyououtofBeardsleyandlockyouupyouknowwhere,but
thismuststop.(…)”(p.205)
(6) [Context:aletterfromLolitatoHumbert]Pardonmeforwithholdingour
homeaddressbutyoumaystillbemadatme,andDickmustnotknow.
(p.266)
Inboth(5)and(6)itisobviousthatthemodalexpression(auxiliary)should
notbetakentoexpresstheuncertaintyofthenarrator.Instead,ithastobeat-tributedtoacharacter.In(6)themodalexpressionsmay andmustareusedby
LolitainalettertoHumbert,andtherefore,itisclearthatitisthecharacter
Lolitawhoweakensthefactualityofthepropositionssheuttersbyusingthe
modalauxiliaries.SheconsidersthepossibilitythatHumbertisstillmadat
her,andsheinsiststhatDick,herhusband,shouldnotknow.In(5)theeffectof
focalizationisalittlemorecomplicatedbecausethenarratorandthemain
characterHumbertareoneandthesameperson,butbecausedirectspeechis
useditisclearthatitisthecharacterHumbert(atthatpointintime)whoex-pressesthat“itmuststop”rightnow.Atthatmoment,itisnotclearofcourse
whetheritwillindeedstop,andthereforethemodalauxiliaryweakensthefac-tualityofthestatementofthecharacter,whowantsittostopbutwhocannot
besurethatitwillactuallystop.Thusweviewthisutterancefromtheperspec-tiveofthecharacterHumbert.Forthenarratorwouldhaveknownwhetheror
nottheactionstopped,andsocouldhavepresenteditasfact.Thecharacter
Humbert,however,doesnotstatethatitstops,whichwouldhavebeenafact
ofthefictiveworldatthetimeofutterance,butratherexpresseshisopinion
thatitshouldstop.
Both(5)and(6)thuslinguisticallyencodethefactthatthemodalexpres-sionisnottobeinterpretedwithregardtothenarrator,butratherwithregard
toacharacter,Lolitain(6),andHumbertasacharacterin(5).Thewriteruses
linguisticmeansbywhichthereaderunderstandsthemodalityinaccordance
with the perspective of somebody other than the narrator.The question is
whetherawriteractuallyneedstomarkashiftinperspectivelinguistically,
andifso,whetherforeachexpressionofmodalityinaliterarytextithastobe
encodedtowhomthemodalityisattributed.Wewillfocusontheuseofthe
epistemicmodalauxiliarymightinordertoseewhetherandhowtheswitchin
focusbetweenthenarratorHumbertandthecharacterHumbertislinguisti-callyencoded.
Epistemic Might and Perspective in Lolita
Theauxiliarymight inEnglishisratherspecialasithastheepistemicmodal
readingasitsbasic,canonicalreading.Usually,modalauxiliarieshaveother
modalreadingsastheirbasicreading,suchasthedeonticmodalreadingfor
must and the participant-internal modal reading forcan.15 By contrast, the
auxiliarymightisspecializedforepistemicmodalityreadings,justlikeepis-temicmodaladverbssuchasperhaps andprobablyare,andthereforethisaux-iliaryisparticularlyusefulforastudyoftheencodingofperspectiveshiftsin
theinterpretationofepistemicmodality.Consideranexampleontheuseof
theepistemicmodalauxiliarymightinLolita:
(7) Itippedthechauffeurandhopedhewouldimmediatelydriveawayso
thatImight doublebackunnoticedtomyhotelandbag;buttheman