1. Introduction

We discussed the multidimensional classification of modality and pointed out that there are broad and narrow definitions of modality, but many scholars believe that modality is a semantic category. However, this viewpoint raises issues such as the inability to distinguish the multifunctionality of semantics and pragmatics, the inability to clarify the discourse orientation of deontological modality, and the inability to unify the interpretation of modality usage. Therefore, the classification of modal meanings requires a comprehensive consideration of both semantic and pragmatic dimensions. This article takes modal particles as the research object, explores semantic modality types, modality gradients, and discourse modality, aiming to reveal the connection and expression of semantic modality and discourse modality.

2. Modal properties of pragmatics

Deeply explored the pragmatic properties of modality, especially discourse modality. The classification of modal semantics is usually based on two parameters: type and gradient, but scholars have also focused on the pragmatic dimension of modality. Maynard first proposed the concept of discourse modality, emphasizing its importance in interpreting propositional content and conveying the speaker's subjective attitude. Kratzer and Portner distinguished subjective modality from objective modality from a semantic perspective, and classified modality into intra sentential modality, sentential modality, and discursive modality. Discourse modality is independent of truth conditions, but contributes to discourse meaning. Bybee et al. classified modality into agent oriented, speaker oriented, epistemic modality, and subordinate modality in linguistic typology, among which speaker oriented modality and subordinate modality have pragmatic properties. Narrog divides modality into speech act oriented and event oriented modalities based on its relationship with speech acts or situations. The Chinese academic community has also paid attention to the meaning and function of modality in discourse. This article points out that the research object of discourse modality should be modal components with high grammaticalization and gradient differences, which have the following characteristics: 1) Discourse modality is not the core semantic of modal components, but emerges in specific contexts; 2) Discourse modality and semantic modality are not complementary distributions. Dynamic modality, deontological modality, and epistemic modality can also express discourse modality.

3. Contextual types of discourse modality generation

In depth exploration of the close relationship between the generation of discourse modality and contextual types, it is pointed out that the collocation of modality components, syntactic structure, and logical relationships or emotional tendencies in discourse play a decisive role in conveying discourse modality. Specifically, the collocation context of modal components, such as person, negation, tense aspect, etc., has a collocation tendency and selection restriction relationship with modal semantic types and gradients. The interaction between these collocation items and modality also affects the expression of discourse modality.

4. The Relationship between Modal Meaning in Semantic and Pragmatic Dimensions

In depth exploration of the relationship between modal meaning in semantic and pragmatic dimensions, and analysis of how modal semantic types and gradients affect the formation of discourse modality. The article divides discourse modality into three types: speaker oriented, listener oriented, and discourse oriented, and points out the constraining effects of modality semantic types and gradients on discourse modality types. At the same time, the key role of context in establishing the relationship between semantic modality and discourse modality was emphasized, and it was believed that the mapping from semantic modality to discourse modality is not a one-way implication relationship, but a dynamic process influenced by context. In addition, the theory of grammaticalization cannot fully explain the changes in modal meaning, and advocates understanding the organic connection between modal meaning in semantic and pragmatic dimensions from the perspective of construction grammar. As a product of the combination of intrinsic semantics and external context of modal components, discourse modality has unpredictable form and meaning, and its formation and development are influenced by frequency of use and contextual collocation tendencies. The article also points out that there are shortcomings in the analysis of modal meaning from the perspective of construction, and it is necessary to comprehensively consider multiple factors such as modal components, collocation context, syntactic structure, and discourse logical relationships in order to have a more comprehensive understanding of the multidimensional classification and discourse function of modal meaning.

5. Conclusion

The descriptive framework that emphasizes modality needs to consider the relationship between semantic modality and discourse modality, and discourse modality can supplement the limitations of semantic modality in interpretation. The article analyzes the contextual types of modal components, the relationship between the two modalities, and how discourse modality is expressed through semantic modality. The mapping from semantic modality to discourse modality is limited by semantics, and context is the bridge between the two. Studying discourse modality helps to understand the value of construction grammar in modality research, as well as the importance of modality gradients in discourse expression, and calls for a more refined characterization of modality gradient structures.