Contrastive Study Of Modality Between English And Javanese

Studi Kontrastif Modality Antara Bahasa Inggris dan Bahasa Jawa

Authors

  • Nuraini Politeknik Negeri Medan Author
  • Putri Syuhada Politeknik Negeri Medan Author
  • Ermyna Seri Politeknik Negeri Medan Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.64674/boraspatijournal.v2i2.17

Keywords:

Modality, Semantics, Contrastive Analysis, Cross-linguistic Communication

Abstract

This study investigates the expression of modality—the linguistic means of conveying certainty, obligation, and speaker attitude—in English and Javanese short stories through a contrastive analysis. While modality plays a critical role in both languages, its realization exhibits notable cross-linguistic differences. Drawing on semantic and pragmatic frameworks, particularly the typology of modality proposed by Palmer (1986) and Nguyen Hoa (2004), this study categorizes and examines epistemic, deontic, dynamic, and intentional modalities. The findings reveal that English modal verbs tend to maintain relatively fixed meanings, whereas Javanese modality is characterized by greater contextual flexibility, often influenced by affixation and nuanced cultural cues. These contrasts underscore the linguistic richness of Javanese and highlight the importance of understanding modality in second language acquisition. The study contributes to the fields of language pedagogy, translation, and intercultural communication by emphasizing the need for accurate interpretation of modality across linguistic and cultural boundaries.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bagha, A. K. (2011). Modality in English and Persian: A cross-linguistic study. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(9), 54-63.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Pearson Education Limited.

Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. John Benjamins.

Cheng, L. L.-S., & Kuo, J.-J. (2000). A Grammar of Taiwanese Southern Min. De Gruyter Mouton.

Frawley, W., & Charles, W. (1992). Linguistic semantics. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. Edward Arnold.

Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research (pp. 639–650). De Gruyter.

Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge University Press.

Mihas, E. (2015). Language contact and change in the indigenous languages of the Americas. De Gruyter Mouton.

Nguyen Hoa. (2004). Understanding semantics. Nhà Xuất Bản Đại học Quốc Gia Hà Nội.

Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and modality (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

van der Auwera, J., & Ammann, A. (2014). Overlap between situational and epistemic modal marking. In F. R. Palmer (Ed.), Mood and modality (pp. 181–219). De Gruyter Mouton.

Viberg, Å. (1983). The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics, 21(1), 123-162.

Widhyasmaramurti, S. (2008). Morfologi Bahasa Jawa. Penerbit Ombak.

Ziegler, J. (2008). Honorific modality in Javanese. Studies in Language, 32(2), 405–438.

Downloads

Published

2025-05-07 — Updated on 2026-02-03

Versions

How to Cite

Contrastive Study Of Modality Between English And Javanese: Studi Kontrastif Modality Antara Bahasa Inggris dan Bahasa Jawa. (2026). Boraspati Journal: Journal of Bilingualism, Organization, Research, Articles, Studies in Pedagogy, Anthropology, Theory, and Indigenous Cultures, 1(3), 163-170. https://doi.org/10.64674/boraspatijournal.v2i2.17 (Original work published 2025)

Similar Articles

11-15 of 15

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.