Semantic Modality in Angkola Language: A Pragmatic-Semantic Analysis of Epistemic and Deontic Expressions

Semantic Modality in Angkola Language: A Pragmatic-Semantic Analysis of Epistemic and Deontic Expressions | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Semantic Modality in Angkola Language: A Pragmatic-Semantic Analysis of Epistemic and Deontic Expressions Muhammad Dalimunte, Awal Kurnia Putra Nasution, Muhammad Batubara This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7172075/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract 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 & Levinson, the research identifies key modal expressions—bope (possibility), adong (certainty), songonna (inference), unang (prohibition), bole (permission), and harus (obligation)—and analyzes their functions in natural discourse. The findings show that epistemic modality is employed to express varying degrees of belief and to mitigate speaker commitment, while deontic modality encodes social norms, authority, and culturally embedded obligations. Modal expressions in Angkola are also strategically used in politeness management, enabling 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. Social science/Anthropology Humanities/Cultural and media studies Social science/Cultural and media studies Humanities/Language and linguistics Social science/Language and linguistics Humanities/Philosophy Angkola Language Semantic Modality Epistemic Modality Deontic Modality Politeness Strategies 1. Introduction In everyday communication, people do more than convey straightforward information they also express belief, uncertainty, hope, permission, or obligation through language. These nuances are not incidental but are shaped by what linguists refer to as modality (Chiyah-Garcia et al., 2023; Hart & Marmol Queralto, 2021; Neary, 2015). According to Palmer (2001), modality is a linguistic device used to indicate a speaker’s attitude toward the truth or likelihood of a given proposition. Similarly, Lyons (1977) describes modality as a lens through which a speaker’s opinions, judgments, or beliefs about events and actions are revealed. In this sense, modality is not only a grammatical category but also a reflection of social relationships, cultural values, and communicative intentions (Chen & He, 2024; Wang & Huang, 2021). Modality becomes even more significant when viewed in the context of intercultural communication. In English, for instance, modal verbs such as must , may , or can can shape the perceived level of politeness, assertiveness, or softness of an utterance (Li, 2022; Shan, 2021). Cross-cultural differences in the interpretation of modality often lead to tension or misunderstanding. For this reason, understanding how modality functions across languages including local and minority languages is essential for building a broader awareness of the interplay between language and culture (de Varda & Strapparava, 2022; Durst-Andersen, 2023; Pescuma et al., 2023). Such an understanding not only enhances cross-linguistic pragmatics but also informs applied fields such as translation, language education, and intercultural negotiation. One such language that is rich in modal nuance yet remains understudied is Angkola, a variety of the Batak language spoken in South Tapanuli, North Sumatra. Angkola exhibits not only lexical and syntactic richness, but also reflects the social and cultural values of its speakers through how they express obligation, permission, possibility, or uncertainty (Dalimunte, 2024). Despite this richness, formal linguistic studies focusing on the modal system in Angkola particularly from a semantic and pragmatic perspective remain limited. This article seeks to address that gap. By examining both the structural patterns and the social functions of modality, the study aims to contribute to a more holistic understanding of how meaning is shaped in culturally grounded ways. Specifically, this study aims to describe the forms and functions of epistemic and deontic modality in the Angkola language. It analyzes the semantic distinctions and pragmatic implications of modal expressions as they occur in everyday communication, with particular attention to their roles in politeness strategies—such as hedged requests, mitigated directives, and context-sensitive prohibitions. In doing so, this research contributes to both theoretical discussions in semantic-pragmatics and the preservation of Indonesia’s rich linguistic heritage. 2. Literature Review The study of modality has become a central topic in semantics and pragmatics, particularly due to its capacity to express a speaker's stance, belief, or attitude toward a proposition. Palmer (2001) classifies modality into three principal types: epistemic, deontic, and dynamic. Epistemic modality relates to degrees of certainty or probability based on the speaker’s knowledge or assumptions, while deontic modality concerns social norms, obligations, permissions, and prohibitions (Rocci, 2017; Zhou, 2022). Dynamic modality, although closely related, refers to internal capacities or potentialities of the subject involved in the action. Lyons (1977) adds a further distinction by introducing the concepts of subjective and objective modality. Subjective modality reflects the speaker's personal judgment or belief, whereas objective modality presents a judgment that appears to stand independently from the speaker’s personal stance. For example, the statement “It may rain tomorrow” can function either as a subjective assumption or an objective conclusion based on scientific data. Halliday & Matthiesse, in his systemic-functional grammar, proposes that modality is not only a matter of type but also of value, indicating degrees of certainty, obligation, or inclination. He categorizes modality into high, median, and low values, each of which reflects different levels of commitment to the truth or desirability of the proposition. Modal verbs such as must , should , may , and might illustrate these values in varying strength, often influencing the interpersonal meaning of the utterance (Halliday & Matthiesse, 2014). Coates (1980) explores how modal auxiliaries like must , may , and can operate across epistemic and deontic domains, showing how context determines the interpretation of modality. The semantic ambiguity between obligation and logical necessity, or between permission and possibility, illustrates the pragmatic flexibility of modal expressions (Coates, 1980; Melia, 2014; Roca-Royes, 2023). From a pragmatic perspective, modality is deeply intertwined with politeness strategies. According to Brown (1987), speakers often use weaker modal forms to express negative politeness—respecting the interlocutor’s autonomy by softening directives or requests—while stronger modals tend to align with positive politeness by asserting solidarity or urgency (Levinson, 2011; Watts, 2019). The degree to which a speaker mitigates or emphasizes a proposition reflects not only linguistic competence but also cultural values and social relations. Despite the extensive studies on modality in English and other major languages, little has been done to explore how modality functions in regional and minority languages, particularly in relation to cultural pragmatics. The Angkola language, as a regional language spoken in North Sumatra, presents a valuable yet underexplored domain for examining modality in a linguistically and culturally rich context. The present study builds on this theoretical foundation by investigating epistemic and deontic modality in Angkola, analyzing both their semantic structures and pragmatic functions, especially in relation to politeness, authority, and sociocultural expectations. 3. Method This study employs a qualitative descriptive design to investigate the semantic and pragmatic characteristics of modality in the Angkola language, with a focus on epistemic and deontic expressions. Qualitative research is particularly suitable for exploring language in its natural context, where meaning is constructed through social interaction. This approach is further supported by (Cresswell, 2013), who emphasizes that qualitative methods allow researchers to interpret the meaning individuals or communities assign to linguistic phenomena. The research was conducted in several Angkola-speaking communities in South Tapanuli, North Sumatra, Indonesia, where the language is actively used in daily communication. In this context, field-based linguistic inquiry enables the collection of authentic, context-sensitive data, reflecting both the structural and cultural dimensions of modal expressions (Duranti, 2009). 3.1. Data Collection Primary data were obtained through fieldwork, consisting of participant observation, in-depth interviews, and audio recordings of natural conversations. A total of 15 native speakers of Angkola, aged between 30 and 70 years, were purposively selected to represent a range of social backgrounds, including elders, traditional leaders ( raja adat ), educators, and housewives. Informants were observed and interviewed in naturalistic settings, such as traditional gatherings, religious events, and casual family interactions. Spoken utterances containing modal expressions were recorded and transcribed, yielding a corpus of approximately 120 relevant clauses that demonstrated various uses of epistemic and deontic modality. Ethical clearance and informed consent were obtained prior to data collection. 3.2. Data Analysis The data were analyzed using a semantic-pragmatic framework, drawing upon Palmer’s (2001) classification of modality and Halliday’s (2014) concept of modality value (high, median, low). Each modal expression was identified, coded, and categorized based on its type—epistemic (e.g., possibility, certainty, inference) or deontic (e.g., obligation, prohibition, permission). To assess the pragmatic dimensions, the analysis incorporated Brown and Levinson’s (1987) theory of politeness strategies. Utterances were interpreted in their sociocultural context, with particular attention to the speaker-listener relationship, setting, and intended communicative effect. Modal forms were examined not only for their linguistic function but also for how they were used to maintain social hierarchy, express deference, or avoid confrontation. 3.3. Analytical Procedure The analytical process followed three interrelated steps: Segmentation: Identifying and isolating clauses that contain modal expressions in the corpus. Classification: Categorizing each expression semantically (type of modality) and evaluating its modal value. Interpretation: Analyzing the pragmatic use of modality in relation to politeness, speaker intent, and sociocultural norms. Through this multi-layered approach, the study aims to reveal the linguistic forms, interpersonal functions, and cultural meanings of modality in the Angkola language, providing an in-depth understanding of how grammar and culture interact in real-life communication. 4. Findings and Discussion 4.1. Epistemic Modality in the Angkola Language Epistemic modality in the Angkola language serves to express the speaker’s degree of certainty, probability, or assumption regarding a particular proposition. Drawing from Palmer’s (2001) classification, epistemic modality in Angkola is manifested through linguistic markers that denote possibility ( bope ), certainty ( adong ), and prediction or inference ( songonna ). These modal elements function to position the speaker in relation to the truth value of the utterance. Among these, bope appears most frequently in daily conversational contexts, reflecting the cultural tendency toward indirectness and verbal humility. 1) Possibility – Bope The term bope in Angkola functions as a modal marker indicating that something is possibly true, though not definitively confirmed. It is comparable to English modals such as may , might , or could . Example: Bope mambaen dia ho marsak do hami. (Perhaps because of you, we are now suffering.) Semantically, bope signals an epistemic stance grounded in tentative assumption, allowing the speaker to suggest a cause or reason without full commitment to its truth. This epistemic softness plays a key role in protecting the speaker’s face and maintaining social harmony. Pragmatically, this serves to mitigate the speaker's claim, thereby avoiding direct accusation or confrontation—particularly significant in social contexts where politeness and indirectness are culturally valued. 2) Certainty – Adong The marker adong conveys certainty or strong belief, roughly equivalent to must be or certainly is in English. It expresses a high level of epistemic commitment to the truth of a statement. Example: Adong do na mambuat dia i. (There must be someone who did it.) This construction asserts the speaker's strong conviction, often based on inference or observable evidence. Semantically, adong represents high-value epistemic modality. In pragmatic terms, it functions to strengthen the speaker’s position, especially in contexts that require persuasive or authoritative language. 3) Prediction or Inference – Songonna The modal songonna is used to express a logical prediction or inference based on prior knowledge or assumption. It is often used when the speaker wishes to make a probable projection. Example: Songonna do parjolo tu ruma i. (He must have been the first to go home.) Here, songonna acts as an inferential marker, signifying that the speaker draws a conclusion from indirect evidence. Semantically, it lies between possibility and certainty. Pragmatically, songonna enables the speaker to present a reasoned judgment without appearing overly assertive, allowing space for interpretation or disagreement. Taken together, the three epistemic markers reflect a cultural preference for graded expressions of belief rather than absolute judgments. These findings demonstrate that epistemic modality in Angkola is both semantically nuanced and pragmatically adaptive. The modal bope , for instance, serves not merely to express uncertainty but to mitigate interpersonal risk, a function that resonates strongly with the community’s communicative norms rooted in respect, indirectness, and non-imposition. This usage supports Brown and Levinson’s (1987) theory of negative politeness, where hedging devices reduce the threat to the interlocutor’s face. Interestingly, the prevalence of bope in daily interaction suggests that epistemic markers in Angkola are not only grammatical options but also culturally preferred strategies, used to maintain relational harmony and avoid overt assertion. In this respect, bope is less a marker of cognitive doubt than a rhetorical tool of social deference. Furthermore, the functional overlap between adong and songonna illustrates the dynamic gradience of speaker commitment in Angkola discourse. While adong signals categorical certainty, often tied to evidential inference, songonna reflects a subtler form of projected belief—anchored in context, shared experience, or prior knowledge. This distinction supports Coates’ (1980) observation that epistemic modality operates along a continuum of assertion strength, shaped by the speaker’s intent and audience sensitivity. Cross-linguistically, this kind of gradation has been observed in Japanese ( darou , kamoshirenai ) and Tagalog ( siguro , baka ) (Larm, 2018; Moriyama, 1992), indicating that Angkola shares typological traits with other high-context, relationally oriented languages, where epistemic modality is key to interpersonal alignment. Therefore, the Angkola modal system can be seen as a culturally embedded grammar of cognition and solidarity, subtly balancing belief, stance, and social awareness. While epistemic modality tends to express belief and assumption, deontic modality, discussed next, focuses more explicitly on socially regulated actions and obligations. 4.2. Deontic Modality in the Angkola Language Deontic modality in the Angkola language is primarily employed to express social obligations, permissions, prohibitions, and moral imperatives. As in other natural languages, deontic modality reflects not only grammatical necessity but also cultural norms and relational dynamics between speaker and listener. The Angkola language uses specific lexical and syntactic structures to mark deontic meanings, with common markers including unang (prohibition), bole (permission), and harus (obligation or necessity). These forms align with Palmer’s (2001) typology of deontic modality, illustrating how social authority, ethical judgment, and interpersonal considerations are linguistically encoded. 1) Prohibition – Unang The word unang is the prototypical marker of prohibition in Angkola, functioning similarly to English do not or must not . It serves to instruct, warn, or restrict action and is often used in imperative contexts. Example: Unang ho marroha-roha sude. (Don’t be so full of yourself.) Semantically, unang expresses a negative obligation, often grounded in moral or social appropriateness. Pragmatically, its use can range from mild advice to stern commands, depending on tone and context. Notably, unang is widely used in parental speech, indicating its cultural role in behavior regulation. 2) Permission – Bole The modal bole denotes permission and is often used in speech situations where a speaker grants or inquires about the allowance of an action. It parallels the English modal may or can in its permissive usage. Example: Bole do hami mandok i? (Are we allowed to say that?) In terms of semantic value, bole marks low to medium deontic force, often functioning to signal speaker deference or to confirm social boundaries. From a pragmatic standpoint, it reflects politeness strategies, particularly negative politeness, by allowing the interlocutor to maintain autonomy and choice. 3) Obligation or Necessity – Harus Though not exclusively indigenous, the term harus has been widely integrated into Angkola usage as a marker of obligation or strong necessity. It denotes moral or practical compulsion and corresponds to English must or have to . Example: Harus do hami manompak i jolo. (We must arrive there first.) Compared to unang or bole , harus appears more frequently in formal or collective speech contexts such as ceremonies or communal tasks. Its pragmatic strength lies in signaling responsibility, urgency, or non-negotiable expectations. It is commonly employed in situations involving duty, norms, or external requirements. Deontic expressions like these do not operate in isolation; they are intricately linked to cultural expectations regarding power, authority, and communal order. The next section explores how these modal choices intersect with politeness strategies in Angkola interaction. The analysis of deontic modality in the Angkola language reveals that modal expressions are deeply embedded in social regulation and cultural expectation, functioning beyond their surface-level grammatical roles. The modal unang , for example, is more than a prohibitive marker; it reflects a culturally sanctioned mode of discipline, particularly within familial and intergenerational interactions. Its frequent use in parental discourse indicates its function as a norm-enforcing mechanism rooted in communal values. In pragmatic terms, unang carries varying degrees of directive force depending on the speaker’s authority and the relational proximity with the listener. This variation supports the claim that deontic modality is relationally constructed, operating as both a linguistic and a moral tool for shaping behavior (Becker et al., 2017; Olajimbiti, 2025). Moreover, the presence and usage of bole and harus illustrate a nuanced system of permissions and obligations that are socially contingent and hierarchically negotiated. The choice of bole often serves as a politeness buffer, especially in situations involving lower-status speakers seeking approval or avoiding imposition. This reflects the Angkola community’s emphasis on relational harmony and deference to authority, aligning with negative politeness strategies as theorized by Brown and Levinson (1987). In contrast, harus is typically reserved for contexts that demand communal responsibility or urgent compliance, such as religious rituals or adat (customary) events. Its integration into formal speech contexts suggests that obligation in Angkola is collectively oriented, and that modal expressions are pivotal in sustaining cultural rituals and social cohesion. These patterns indicate that deontic modality in Angkola is not only rule-governed, but culturally ritualized, reflecting deeper social logics of duty, hierarchy, and communal life. This table 1, shows how modal forms in Angkola operate within distinct semantic categories yet perform overlapping pragmatic functions, such as politeness management, hierarchy negotiation, and norm reinforcement. The epistemic forms are primarily oriented toward belief expression and stance, while deontic forms are geared toward social control and behavioral regulation. Table 1. Comparison of Epistemic and Deontic Modality in Angkola Language Modality Type Modal Form Semantic Function Pragmatic Function Typical Context Epistemic bope Possibility Hedges assertion; softens claim Expressing uncertainty, avoiding confrontation adong Certainty Asserts strong belief; persuades Logical inference, emphasis in explanation songonna Inference/Prediction Projects reasoned judgment without overcommitment Indirect assumptions, reasoned speculation Deontic unang Prohibition Directs or restricts action; can vary in force Parental instruction, social sanctions bole Permission Requests/grants allowance; respects autonomy Seeking approval, offering polite options harus Obligation/Necessity Commands or expresses collective duty Rituals, formal speech, shared responsibility 4.3. Modality and Politeness Strategies Building upon the semantic and pragmatic features of epistemic and deontic modality, this section examines how these forms operate as vehicles for politeness in Angkola discourse. In this language, modality is not only a marker of speaker stance or obligation but also a powerful strategy for managing social interaction and maintaining interpersonal harmony. Following the framework of Brown and Levinson (1987), Angkola speakers employ modal forms to enact both negative politeness—which emphasizes respect and avoidance of imposition—and positive politeness, which highlights solidarity and social cohesion. Epistemic Modality and Negative Politeness Epistemic modals such as bope (possibility) and songonna (inference) are frequently used to soften assertions and reduce the risk of face-threatening acts. This is especially common when expressing opinions, assumptions, or critiques in sensitive social situations. Example: Bope ho do na mangalahon i. (Maybe you are the one who caused it.) In this usage, bope does not only convey uncertainty, but also signals caution and deference, allowing the speaker to express doubt or blame indirectly. This aligns with a broader cultural expectation in Angkola society to prioritize harmony over confrontation. Deontic Modality and Authority Dynamics Deontic modals like unang (prohibition) and harus (obligation) are highly sensitive to social hierarchy. A speaker may express the same imperative differently depending on the interlocutor’s age, status, or familiarity. When used toward someone of higher rank or outside the speaker’s peer group, deontic modals are often mitigated or combined with epistemic forms to reduce directive force. Example (direct): Unang ho manjalang marhusip! (Don’t speak arrogantly!) Example (mitigated): Bope unang pe diujari nunga lam tu hauma. (Maybe it’s better not to say that here.) The addition of bope in the second example represents a layered politeness strategy, blending deontic and epistemic modality to cushion the prohibition. Modal Value and Contextual Calibration Speakers in Angkola frequently modulate their modal expressions to reflect degrees of politeness and urgency. Low-value modals ( bope , bole ) are generally more polite and indirect, while high-value modals ( adong , harus ) indicate certainty or strong obligation. This gradient allows speakers to tailor their utterances based on context, relationship, and communicative goal, reinforcing modality as a pragmatic tool of social alignment. While politeness strategies shape individual utterances, they are also grounded in deeper cultural logics that define acceptable behavior. The final section turns to these cultural foundations to understand how modality reflects the values of Angkola society. The interplay between modality and politeness in Angkola discourse illustrates a linguistically encoded sensitivity to social roles and expectations. Modal expressions are not only shaped by grammatical categories, but also by relational positioning, where the speaker’s linguistic choices are strategically tailored to reflect their awareness of hierarchy, familiarity, and social obligation. For example, the combination of epistemic and deontic markers—such as bope unang —serves to mitigate imposition while maintaining the core message, demonstrating what Holmes and Schnurr (2005) describe as “relational work” in speech. In this context, modal forms do more than convey certainty or obligation; they index the speaker’s stance toward the hearer and the situation, allowing for flexible, context-sensitive negotiation of face and authority (Holmes & Schnurr, 2005). Moreover, the use of low-value modals as markers of indirectness reveals a culture of communicative caution, particularly in situations involving criticism, disagreement, or instruction. The Angkola speakers’ preference for softening mechanisms aligns with a broader pattern seen in many Austronesian languages, where linguistic indirectness is a valued communicative norm (Kikusawa, 2015; Riesberg et al., 2018). This suggests that the Angkola modal system operates not simply as a tool of linguistic economy, but as a means of enacting social etiquette, where the speaker is expected to balance clarity of intent with respect for interpersonal harmony. In doing so, modal expressions become vehicles for performing politeness, encoding culturally shared assumptions about when and how obligation, belief, or restraint should be communicated. 4.4. Cultural Values Reflected in Angkola Modality The strategic use of modality in Angkola is inseparable from the cultural worldview that informs speaker choices. Far beyond grammatical convention, modal expressions encode key cultural principles such as respect for elders, communal responsibility, and verbal modesty. Expressions like unang , bope , and harus are often used in tandem with culturally appropriate forms of address, silence strategies, and non-verbal cues. These modal verbs serve as linguistic proxies for values associated with the Angkola philosophical framework, notably Dalihan Na Tolu , which governs kinship, respect, and social conduct. Example: Bope unang ho martabe i tu hamu. (Perhaps you shouldn’t talk that way to him.) In this case, the speaker uses bope to mitigate the directness of unang , honoring the listener’s status and avoiding offense. Such usage reflects relational positioning, a key tenet in Angkola interaction. Moreover, modal expressions function to reinforce collective norms and expectations. For instance, harus is often invoked in ritual or communal contexts, not just to enforce rules, but to reaffirm shared values and social roles. In this way, modality becomes a mechanism of cultural reproduction, preserving not only linguistic structure but also the moral and ethical framework of the community. From an ethnolinguistic standpoint, this reflects a deep integration of language, thought, and culture. Modal usage in Angkola is thus a vivid example of how grammatical categories—when examined in context—can reveal the internal logic of a society’s values, relational ethics, and communicative ideals. The Angkola case supports what (Duranti, 2009) and (Wierzbicka, 2003) have argued: that language is not only a means of communication, but also a tool for expressing and reproducing cultural knowledge. Modal verbs in Angkola reflect not merely individual speaker choices but also community-sanctioned norms about how, when, and to whom things should be said. The use of bope to temper unang , or harus in ceremonial discourse, illustrates a culturally internalized ethic of balance between speech and silence, assertion and restraint. These patterns reveal that modality is not a universal category applied similarly across contexts, but a culturally indexed system of encoding relational values, where what one can , should , or must say is dictated as much by custom as by logic. Furthermore, the Angkola system of modality echoes the moral ontology of Dalihan Na Tolu, the triadic value system of Batak culture encompassing somber , kahanggi , and anak boru —roles that carry inherent duties and expectations in communication (Harahap et al., 2023; Hutagaol et al., 2020). Modal forms such as harus and unang are used in alignment with these roles, reinforcing not just authority but moral reciprocity within kinship and community structures. This finding aligns with linguistic anthropology’s broader assertion that grammar can serve as a repository for cultural ideology, and that modality, far from being a neutral syntactic feature, plays a central role in shaping how knowledge, responsibility, and respect are communicated. The Angkola case thus highlights how modal forms mediate between individual agency and collective cultural identity, acting as both constraints and resources in maintaining the ethical order of speech. 5. Conclusion This study has examined the semantic and pragmatic dimensions of epistemic and deontic modality in the Angkola language, based on field data and anchored in established linguistic frameworks. The findings demonstrate that modality in Angkola is not merely a set of grammatical markers, but a culturally embedded linguistic system that reflects and regulates social interaction, hierarchy, and communicative intent. Epistemic modality is primarily expressed through forms such as bope (possibility), adong (certainty), and songonna (inference), each representing a nuanced degree of speaker belief and assumption. These expressions serve not only to convey epistemic stance but also to mitigate assertions and preserve politeness, functioning as key tools in maintaining interpersonal harmony. Deontic modality, encoded through unang (prohibition), bole (permission), and harus (obligation), carries normative force grounded in cultural expectations. These forms are sensitive to social roles and are often modulated in accordance with the speaker-listener relationship, reflecting values of deference, collective responsibility, and ethical conduct. The study further shows that modality in Angkola operates as a strategic component of politeness management. Speakers adjust modal strength to align with context, using softer expressions to express caution or indirectness, and stronger forms to assert solidarity or communal norms. This pragmatically driven use of modality illustrates the community’s culturally shaped approach to face management and verbal modesty. Crucially, modality in Angkola also reflects the moral logic of the Dalihan Na Tolu system, reinforcing kinship roles and societal expectations. Modal expressions are thus more than linguistic devices—they are instruments of cultural continuity and social coherence. By revealing how modality intersects with meaning, hierarchy, and values, this research contributes to the broader fields of linguistic typology, pragmatics, and ethnolinguistics. It highlights the importance of minority languages in theorizing the interface between grammar and culture. Future studies may extend this inquiry by investigating other modal domains (e.g., dynamic or volitional modality), or by undertaking comparative studies across Austronesian languages to further explore the cultural grounding of modality. Declarations Funding Declaration This research received no external funding. Ethical Approval This study involved non-interventional linguistic research with adult participants. According to the institutional regulations for social sciences and humanities research at UIN Sumatera Utara, formal approval from an ethics review board was not required. The exemption was confirmed by the Research and Community Service Institute (LPPM) of UIN Sumatera Utara. All procedures performed in this study were conducted in accordance with institutional guidelines and the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (2013 revision), with full respect for participants’ rights, dignity, and anonymity. Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained orally and in writing from all participants included in the study. Consent was obtained by the principal investigator (Dr. Muhammad Dalimunte) prior to each interview and audio recording session, conducted between January 2025 and May 2025. Participants were informed about the purpose of the research, the voluntary nature of their participation, their right to withdraw at any time without consequence, and the measures taken to ensure confidentiality and anonymity. Consent covered participation, data recording, use of data for academic research, and publication of anonymized excerpts. References Becker, M., Palmer, A., & Frank, A. (2017). Semantic clause types and modality as features for argument analysis1. Argument \& Computation , 8 (2), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.3233/AAC-170019 Brown, P. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). 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. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:2307.15554 , 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 . Lancaster University (United Kingdom). Cresswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Dalimunte, M. (2024). Semantic Modality . CV. Manhaji Medan. http://repository.uinsu.ac.id/22493/2/Semantic Modality.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., & Matthiesse, C. M. I. M. (2014). Introduction to functional grammar . 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 . 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). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/452/1/012054 Kikusawa, R. (2015). The Austronesian language family. In 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 BT - International Perspectives on Translation, Education and Innovation in Japanese and Korean Societies (D. G. Hebert (ed.); pp. 161–170). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68434-5_11 Levinson, S. C. (2011). Universals in pragmatics. In 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. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=idKaEUGPTLkC Melia, J. (2014). Modality . Routledge. Moriyama, T. (1992). On the epistemic modality of Japanese. GENGO KENKYU , 1992 (101), 64–83. https://doi.org/10.11435/gengo1939.1992.101_64 Neary, C. (2015). Stylistics, point of view and modality. In 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 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-025-00188-3 Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and Modality . Cambridge University Press. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=xKUvDFTARR8C 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. In Perspectives on Information Structure in Austronesian Languages (pp. 1–428). 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.), Argumentation Library (Vol. 29, pp. 197–274). Springer Netherlands. 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 , 09 (09), 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). 2. Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: Reconsidering claims for universality. Politeness in Language: Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice , 59 , 43–60. 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 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7172075","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":590270417,"identity":"153cf8c7-a3a3-4349-a64e-dd9c388554f3","order_by":0,"name":"Muhammad Dalimunte","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitas Islam Negeri Sumatera Utara","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Muhammad","middleName":"","lastName":"Dalimunte","suffix":""},{"id":590270418,"identity":"ffca8e07-03be-4ed5-8fa3-1b9a9a906801","order_by":1,"name":"Awal Kurnia Putra Nasution","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitas Islam Negeri Sumatera Utara","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Awal","middleName":"Kurnia Putra","lastName":"Nasution","suffix":""},{"id":590270419,"identity":"c73ef050-31bc-4d70-a52a-b8746fbf9fdd","order_by":2,"name":"Muhammad Batubara","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"STAIN Mandailing Natal","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Muhammad","middleName":"","lastName":"Batubara","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-21 00:38:12","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7172075/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7172075/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":104016761,"identity":"dfdf1b67-8883-4b2c-ac1f-95038ebc2163","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-05 17:10:38","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":597482,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7172075/v1/54dc72b8-342d-414e-81c2-9eca334d04e6.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Semantic Modality in Angkola Language: A Pragmatic-Semantic Analysis of Epistemic and Deontic Expressions","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn everyday communication, people do more than convey straightforward information they also express belief, uncertainty, hope, permission, or obligation through language. These nuances are not incidental but are shaped by what linguists refer to as \u003cem\u003emodality\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Chiyah-Garcia et al., 2023; Hart \u0026amp; Marmol Queralto, 2021; Neary, 2015). According to Palmer (2001), modality is a linguistic device used to indicate a speaker\u0026rsquo;s attitude toward the truth or likelihood of a given proposition. Similarly, Lyons (1977) describes modality as a lens through which a speaker\u0026rsquo;s opinions, judgments, or beliefs about events and actions are revealed. In this sense, modality is not only a grammatical category but also a reflection of social relationships, cultural values, and communicative intentions (Chen \u0026amp; He, 2024; Wang \u0026amp; Huang, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eModality becomes even more significant when viewed in the context of intercultural communication. In English, for instance, modal verbs such as \u003cem\u003emust\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003emay\u003c/em\u003e, or \u003cem\u003ecan\u003c/em\u003e can shape the perceived level of politeness, assertiveness, or softness of an utterance (Li, 2022; Shan, 2021). Cross-cultural differences in the interpretation of modality often lead to tension or misunderstanding. For this reason, understanding how modality functions across languages including local and minority languages is essential for building a broader awareness of the interplay between language and culture (de Varda \u0026amp; Strapparava, 2022; Durst-Andersen, 2023; Pescuma et al., 2023).\u0026nbsp;Such an understanding not only enhances cross-linguistic pragmatics but also informs applied fields such as translation, language education, and intercultural negotiation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne such language that is rich in modal nuance yet remains understudied is Angkola, a variety of the Batak language spoken in South Tapanuli, North Sumatra. Angkola exhibits not only lexical and syntactic richness, but also reflects the social and cultural values of its speakers through how they express obligation, permission, possibility, or uncertainty (Dalimunte, 2024). Despite this richness, formal linguistic studies focusing on the modal system in Angkola particularly from a semantic and pragmatic perspective remain limited. This article seeks to address that gap.\u0026nbsp;By examining both the structural patterns and the social functions of modality, the study aims to contribute to a more holistic understanding of how meaning is shaped in culturally grounded ways.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSpecifically, this study aims to describe the forms and functions of epistemic and deontic modality in the Angkola language. It analyzes the semantic distinctions and pragmatic implications of modal expressions as they occur in everyday communication, with particular attention to their roles in politeness strategies\u0026mdash;such as hedged requests, mitigated directives, and context-sensitive prohibitions. In doing so, this research contributes to both theoretical discussions in semantic-pragmatics and the preservation of Indonesia\u0026rsquo;s rich linguistic heritage.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature Review","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study of modality has become a central topic in semantics and pragmatics, particularly due to its capacity to express a speaker\u0026apos;s stance, belief, or attitude toward a proposition. Palmer (2001) classifies modality into three principal types: epistemic, deontic, and dynamic. Epistemic modality relates to degrees of certainty or probability based on the speaker\u0026rsquo;s knowledge or assumptions, while deontic modality concerns social norms, obligations, permissions, and prohibitions (Rocci, 2017; Zhou, 2022). Dynamic modality, although closely related, refers to internal capacities or potentialities of the subject involved in the action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLyons (1977) adds a further distinction by introducing the concepts of subjective and objective modality. Subjective modality reflects the speaker\u0026apos;s personal judgment or belief, whereas objective modality presents a judgment that appears to stand independently from the speaker\u0026rsquo;s personal stance. For example, the statement \u0026ldquo;It may rain tomorrow\u0026rdquo; can function either as a subjective assumption or an objective conclusion based on scientific data.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHalliday \u0026amp; Matthiesse, in his systemic-functional grammar, proposes that modality is not only a matter of type but also of value, indicating degrees of certainty, obligation, or inclination. He categorizes modality into high, median, and low values, each of which reflects different levels of commitment to the truth or desirability of the proposition. Modal verbs such as \u003cem\u003emust\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eshould\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003emay\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003emight\u003c/em\u003e illustrate these values in varying strength, often influencing the interpersonal meaning of the utterance (Halliday \u0026amp; Matthiesse, 2014).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCoates (1980) explores how modal auxiliaries like \u003cem\u003emust\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003emay\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003ecan\u003c/em\u003e operate across epistemic and deontic domains, showing how context determines the interpretation of modality. The semantic ambiguity between obligation and logical necessity, or between permission and possibility, illustrates the pragmatic flexibility of modal expressions (Coates, 1980; Melia, 2014; Roca-Royes, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom a pragmatic perspective, modality is deeply intertwined with politeness strategies. According to Brown (1987), speakers often use weaker modal forms to express negative politeness\u0026mdash;respecting the interlocutor\u0026rsquo;s autonomy by softening directives or requests\u0026mdash;while stronger modals tend to align with positive politeness by asserting solidarity or urgency (Levinson, 2011; Watts, 2019). The degree to which a speaker mitigates or emphasizes a proposition reflects not only linguistic competence but also cultural values and social relations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite the extensive studies on modality in English and other major languages, little has been done to explore how modality functions in regional and minority languages, particularly in relation to cultural pragmatics. The Angkola language, as a regional language spoken in North Sumatra, presents a valuable yet underexplored domain for examining modality in a linguistically and culturally rich context. The present study builds on this theoretical foundation by investigating epistemic and deontic modality in Angkola, analyzing both their semantic structures and pragmatic functions, especially in relation to politeness, authority, and sociocultural expectations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Method","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employs a qualitative descriptive design to investigate the semantic and pragmatic characteristics of modality in the Angkola language, with a focus on epistemic and deontic expressions. Qualitative research is particularly suitable for exploring language in its natural context, where meaning is constructed through social interaction. This approach is further supported by (Cresswell, 2013), who emphasizes that qualitative methods allow researchers to interpret the meaning individuals or communities assign to linguistic phenomena.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research was conducted in several Angkola-speaking communities in South Tapanuli, North Sumatra, Indonesia, where the language is actively used in daily communication. In this context, field-based linguistic inquiry enables the collection of authentic, context-sensitive data, reflecting both the structural and cultural dimensions of modal expressions (Duranti, 2009).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1. Data Collection\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrimary data were obtained through fieldwork, consisting of participant observation, in-depth interviews, and audio recordings of natural conversations. A total of 15 native speakers of Angkola, aged between 30 and 70 years, were purposively selected to represent a range of social backgrounds, including elders, traditional leaders (\u003cem\u003eraja adat\u003c/em\u003e), educators, and housewives. Informants were observed and interviewed in naturalistic settings, such as traditional gatherings, religious events, and casual family interactions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSpoken utterances containing modal expressions were recorded and transcribed, yielding a corpus of approximately 120 relevant clauses that demonstrated various uses of epistemic and deontic modality. Ethical clearance and informed consent were obtained prior to data collection.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.2. Data Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data were analyzed using a semantic-pragmatic framework, drawing upon Palmer\u0026rsquo;s (2001) classification of modality and Halliday\u0026rsquo;s (2014) concept of modality value (high, median, low). Each modal expression was identified, coded, and categorized based on its type\u0026mdash;epistemic (e.g., possibility, certainty, inference) or deontic (e.g., obligation, prohibition, permission).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo assess the pragmatic dimensions, the analysis incorporated Brown and Levinson\u0026rsquo;s (1987) theory of politeness strategies. Utterances were interpreted in their sociocultural context, with particular attention to the speaker-listener relationship, setting, and intended communicative effect. Modal forms were examined not only for their linguistic function but also for how they were used to maintain social hierarchy, express deference, or avoid confrontation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.3. Analytical Procedure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analytical process followed three interrelated steps:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"1\" type=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSegmentation: Identifying and isolating clauses that contain modal expressions in the corpus.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eClassification: Categorizing each expression semantically (type of modality) and evaluating its modal value.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInterpretation: Analyzing the pragmatic use of modality in relation to politeness, speaker intent, and sociocultural norms.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThrough this multi-layered approach, the study aims to reveal the linguistic forms, interpersonal functions, and cultural meanings of modality in the Angkola language, providing an in-depth understanding of how grammar and culture interact in real-life communication.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Findings and Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.1. Epistemic Modality in the Angkola Language\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEpistemic modality in the Angkola language serves to express the speaker\u0026rsquo;s degree of certainty, probability, or assumption regarding a particular proposition. Drawing from Palmer\u0026rsquo;s (2001) classification, epistemic modality in Angkola is manifested through linguistic markers that denote possibility (\u003cem\u003ebope\u003c/em\u003e), certainty (\u003cem\u003eadong\u003c/em\u003e), and prediction or inference (\u003cem\u003esongonna\u003c/em\u003e). These modal elements function to position the speaker in relation to the truth value of the utterance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong these, \u003cem\u003ebope\u003c/em\u003e appears most frequently in daily conversational contexts, reflecting the cultural tendency toward indirectness and verbal humility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1) Possibility \u0026ndash; \u003cem\u003eBope\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe term \u003cem\u003ebope\u003c/em\u003e in Angkola functions as a modal marker indicating that something is possibly true, though not definitively confirmed. It is comparable to English modals such as \u003cem\u003emay\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003emight\u003c/em\u003e, or \u003cem\u003ecould\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExample:\u003cbr\u003e\u003cem\u003eBope mambaen dia ho marsak do hami.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(Perhaps because of you, we are now suffering.)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSemantically, \u003cem\u003ebope\u003c/em\u003e signals an epistemic stance grounded in tentative assumption, allowing the speaker to suggest a cause or reason without full commitment to its truth. This epistemic softness plays a key role in protecting the speaker\u0026rsquo;s face and maintaining social harmony. Pragmatically, this serves to mitigate the speaker\u0026apos;s claim, thereby avoiding direct accusation or confrontation\u0026mdash;particularly significant in social contexts where politeness and indirectness are culturally valued.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2) Certainty \u0026ndash; \u003cem\u003eAdong\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe marker \u003cem\u003eadong\u003c/em\u003e conveys certainty or strong belief, roughly equivalent to \u003cem\u003emust be\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003ecertainly is\u003c/em\u003e in English. It expresses a high level of epistemic commitment to the truth of a statement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExample:\u003cbr\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdong do na mambuat dia i.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(There must be someone who did it.)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis construction asserts the speaker\u0026apos;s strong conviction, often based on inference or observable evidence. Semantically, \u003cem\u003eadong\u003c/em\u003e represents high-value epistemic modality. In pragmatic terms, it functions to strengthen the speaker\u0026rsquo;s position, especially in contexts that require persuasive or authoritative language.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3) Prediction or Inference \u0026ndash; \u003cem\u003eSongonna\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe modal \u003cem\u003esongonna\u003c/em\u003e is used to express a logical prediction or inference based on prior knowledge or assumption. It is often used when the speaker wishes to make a probable projection.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExample:\u003cbr\u003e\u003cem\u003eSongonna do parjolo tu ruma i.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(He must have been the first to go home.)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHere, \u003cem\u003esongonna\u003c/em\u003e acts as an inferential marker, signifying that the speaker draws a conclusion from indirect evidence. Semantically, it lies between possibility and certainty. Pragmatically, \u003cem\u003esongonna\u003c/em\u003e enables the speaker to present a reasoned judgment without appearing overly assertive, allowing space for interpretation or disagreement. Taken together, the three epistemic markers reflect a cultural preference for graded expressions of belief rather than absolute judgments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings demonstrate that epistemic modality in Angkola is both semantically nuanced and pragmatically adaptive. The modal \u003cem\u003ebope\u003c/em\u003e, for instance, serves not merely to express uncertainty but to mitigate interpersonal risk, a function that resonates strongly with the community\u0026rsquo;s communicative norms rooted in respect, indirectness, and non-imposition. This usage supports Brown and Levinson\u0026rsquo;s (1987) theory of negative politeness, where hedging devices reduce the threat to the interlocutor\u0026rsquo;s face. Interestingly, the prevalence of \u003cem\u003ebope\u003c/em\u003e in daily interaction suggests that epistemic markers in Angkola are not only grammatical options but also culturally preferred strategies, used to maintain relational harmony and avoid overt assertion. In this respect, \u003cem\u003ebope\u003c/em\u003e is less a marker of cognitive doubt than a rhetorical tool of social deference.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the functional overlap between \u003cem\u003eadong\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003esongonna\u003c/em\u003e illustrates the dynamic gradience of speaker commitment in Angkola discourse. While \u003cem\u003eadong\u003c/em\u003e signals categorical certainty, often tied to evidential inference, \u003cem\u003esongonna\u003c/em\u003e reflects a subtler form of projected belief\u0026mdash;anchored in context, shared experience, or prior knowledge. This distinction supports Coates\u0026rsquo; (1980) observation that epistemic modality operates along a continuum of assertion strength, shaped by the speaker\u0026rsquo;s intent and audience sensitivity. Cross-linguistically, this kind of gradation has been observed in Japanese (\u003cem\u003edarou\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ekamoshirenai\u003c/em\u003e) and Tagalog (\u003cem\u003esiguro\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ebaka\u003c/em\u003e) (Larm, 2018; Moriyama, 1992), indicating that Angkola shares typological traits with other high-context, relationally oriented languages, where epistemic modality is key to interpersonal alignment. Therefore, the Angkola modal system can be seen as a culturally embedded grammar of cognition and solidarity, subtly balancing belief, stance, and social awareness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile epistemic modality tends to express belief and assumption, deontic modality, discussed next, focuses more explicitly on socially regulated actions and obligations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.2. Deontic Modality in the Angkola Language\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDeontic modality in the Angkola language is primarily employed to express social obligations, permissions, prohibitions, and moral imperatives. As in other natural languages, deontic modality reflects not only grammatical necessity but also cultural norms and relational dynamics between speaker and listener. The Angkola language uses specific lexical and syntactic structures to mark deontic meanings, with common markers including \u003cem\u003eunang\u003c/em\u003e (prohibition), \u003cem\u003ebole\u003c/em\u003e (permission), and \u003cem\u003eharus\u003c/em\u003e (obligation or necessity). These forms align with Palmer\u0026rsquo;s (2001) typology of deontic modality, illustrating how social authority, ethical judgment, and interpersonal considerations are linguistically encoded.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1) Prohibition \u0026ndash; \u003cem\u003eUnang\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe word \u003cem\u003eunang\u003c/em\u003e is the prototypical marker of prohibition in Angkola, functioning similarly to English \u003cem\u003edo not\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003emust not\u003c/em\u003e. It serves to instruct, warn, or restrict action and is often used in imperative contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExample:\u003cbr\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnang ho marroha-roha sude.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(Don\u0026rsquo;t be so full of yourself.)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSemantically, \u003cem\u003eunang\u003c/em\u003e expresses a negative obligation, often grounded in moral or social appropriateness. Pragmatically, its use can range from mild advice to stern commands, depending on tone and context. Notably, \u003cem\u003eunang\u003c/em\u003e is widely used in parental speech, indicating its cultural role in behavior regulation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2) Permission \u0026ndash; \u003cem\u003eBole\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe modal \u003cem\u003ebole\u003c/em\u003e denotes permission and is often used in speech situations where a speaker grants or inquires about the allowance of an action. It parallels the English modal \u003cem\u003emay\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003ecan\u003c/em\u003e in its permissive usage.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExample:\u003cbr\u003e\u003cem\u003eBole do hami mandok i?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(Are we allowed to say that?)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn terms of semantic value, \u003cem\u003ebole\u003c/em\u003e marks low to medium deontic force, often functioning to signal speaker deference or to confirm social boundaries. From a pragmatic standpoint, it reflects politeness strategies, particularly negative politeness, by allowing the interlocutor to maintain autonomy and choice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3) Obligation or Necessity \u0026ndash; \u003cem\u003eHarus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThough not exclusively indigenous, the term \u003cem\u003eharus\u003c/em\u003e has been widely integrated into Angkola usage as a marker of obligation or strong necessity. It denotes moral or practical compulsion and corresponds to English \u003cem\u003emust\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003ehave to\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExample:\u003cbr\u003e\u003cem\u003eHarus do hami manompak i jolo.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(We must arrive there first.)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompared to \u003cem\u003eunang\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003ebole\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eharus\u003c/em\u003e appears more frequently in formal or collective speech contexts such as ceremonies or communal tasks. Its pragmatic strength lies in signaling responsibility, urgency, or non-negotiable expectations. It is commonly employed in situations involving duty, norms, or external requirements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDeontic expressions like these do not operate in isolation; they are intricately linked to cultural expectations regarding power, authority, and communal order. The next section explores how these modal choices intersect with politeness strategies in Angkola interaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of deontic modality in the Angkola language reveals that modal expressions are deeply embedded in social regulation and cultural expectation, functioning beyond their surface-level grammatical roles. The modal \u003cem\u003eunang\u003c/em\u003e, for example, is more than a prohibitive marker; it reflects a culturally sanctioned mode of discipline, particularly within familial and intergenerational interactions. Its frequent use in parental discourse indicates its function as a norm-enforcing mechanism rooted in communal values. In pragmatic terms, \u003cem\u003eunang\u003c/em\u003e carries varying degrees of directive force depending on the speaker\u0026rsquo;s authority and the relational proximity with the listener. This variation supports the claim that deontic modality is relationally constructed, operating as both a linguistic and a moral tool for shaping behavior (Becker et al., 2017; Olajimbiti, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoreover, the presence and usage of \u003cem\u003ebole\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eharus\u003c/em\u003e illustrate a nuanced system of permissions and obligations that are socially contingent and hierarchically negotiated. The choice of \u003cem\u003ebole\u003c/em\u003e often serves as a politeness buffer, especially in situations involving lower-status speakers seeking approval or avoiding imposition. This reflects the Angkola community\u0026rsquo;s emphasis on relational harmony and deference to authority, aligning with negative politeness strategies as theorized by Brown and Levinson (1987). In contrast, \u003cem\u003eharus\u003c/em\u003e is typically reserved for contexts that demand communal responsibility or urgent compliance, such as religious rituals or adat (customary) events. Its integration into formal speech contexts suggests that obligation in Angkola is collectively oriented, and that modal expressions are pivotal in sustaining cultural rituals and social cohesion. These patterns indicate that deontic modality in Angkola is not only rule-governed, but culturally ritualized, reflecting deeper social logics of duty, hierarchy, and communal life.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis table 1, shows how modal forms in Angkola operate within distinct semantic categories yet perform overlapping pragmatic functions, such as politeness management, hierarchy negotiation, and norm reinforcement. The epistemic forms are primarily oriented toward belief expression and stance, while deontic forms are geared toward social control and behavioral regulation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1. Comparison of Epistemic and Deontic Modality in Angkola Language\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eModality Type\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eModal Form\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSemantic Function\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePragmatic Function\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTypical Context\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEpistemic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ebope\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePossibility\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHedges assertion; softens claim\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExpressing uncertainty, avoiding confrontation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eadong\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCertainty\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAsserts strong belief; persuades\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLogical inference, emphasis in explanation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003esongonna\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInference/Prediction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProjects reasoned judgment without overcommitment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndirect assumptions, reasoned speculation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDeontic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eunang\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProhibition\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDirects or restricts action; can vary in force\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParental instruction, social sanctions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ebole\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePermission\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRequests/grants allowance; respects autonomy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSeeking approval, offering polite options\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eharus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eObligation/Necessity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCommands or expresses collective duty\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRituals, formal speech, shared responsibility\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.3. Modality and Politeness Strategies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBuilding upon the semantic and pragmatic features of epistemic and deontic modality, this section examines how these forms operate as vehicles for politeness in Angkola discourse. In this language, modality is not only a marker of speaker stance or obligation but also a powerful strategy for managing social interaction and maintaining interpersonal harmony.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFollowing the framework of Brown and Levinson (1987), Angkola speakers employ modal forms to enact both negative politeness\u0026mdash;which emphasizes respect and avoidance of imposition\u0026mdash;and positive politeness, which highlights solidarity and social cohesion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEpistemic Modality and Negative Politeness\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEpistemic modals such as \u003cem\u003ebope\u003c/em\u003e (possibility) and \u003cem\u003esongonna\u003c/em\u003e (inference) are frequently used to soften assertions and reduce the risk of face-threatening acts. This is especially common when expressing opinions, assumptions, or critiques in sensitive social situations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExample:\u003cbr\u003e\u003cem\u003eBope ho do na mangalahon i.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(Maybe you are the one who caused it.)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this usage, \u003cem\u003ebope\u003c/em\u003e does not only convey uncertainty, but also signals caution and deference, allowing the speaker to express doubt or blame indirectly. This aligns with a broader cultural expectation in Angkola society to prioritize harmony over confrontation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDeontic Modality and Authority Dynamics\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDeontic modals like \u003cem\u003eunang\u003c/em\u003e (prohibition) and \u003cem\u003eharus\u003c/em\u003e (obligation) are highly sensitive to social hierarchy. A speaker may express the same imperative differently depending on the interlocutor\u0026rsquo;s age, status, or familiarity. When used toward someone of higher rank or outside the speaker\u0026rsquo;s peer group, deontic modals are often mitigated or combined with epistemic forms to reduce directive force.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExample (direct):\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnang ho manjalang marhusip!\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(Don\u0026rsquo;t speak arrogantly!)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExample (mitigated):\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBope unang pe diujari nunga lam tu hauma.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(Maybe it\u0026rsquo;s better not to say that here.)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe addition of \u003cem\u003ebope\u003c/em\u003e in the second example represents a layered politeness strategy, blending deontic and epistemic modality to cushion the prohibition.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eModal Value and Contextual Calibration\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSpeakers in Angkola frequently modulate their modal expressions to reflect degrees of politeness and urgency. Low-value modals (\u003cem\u003ebope\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ebole\u003c/em\u003e) are generally more polite and indirect, while high-value modals (\u003cem\u003eadong\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eharus\u003c/em\u003e) indicate certainty or strong obligation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis gradient allows speakers to tailor their utterances based on context, relationship, and communicative goal, reinforcing modality as a pragmatic tool of social alignment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile politeness strategies shape individual utterances, they are also grounded in deeper cultural logics that define acceptable behavior. The final section turns to these cultural foundations to understand how modality reflects the values of Angkola society.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe interplay between modality and politeness in Angkola discourse illustrates a linguistically encoded sensitivity to social roles and expectations. Modal expressions are not only shaped by grammatical categories, but also by relational positioning, where the speaker\u0026rsquo;s linguistic choices are strategically tailored to reflect their awareness of hierarchy, familiarity, and social obligation. For example, the combination of epistemic and deontic markers\u0026mdash;such as \u003cem\u003ebope unang\u003c/em\u003e\u0026mdash;serves to mitigate imposition while maintaining the core message, demonstrating what Holmes and Schnurr (2005) describe as \u0026ldquo;relational work\u0026rdquo; in speech. In this context, modal forms do more than convey certainty or obligation; they index the speaker\u0026rsquo;s stance toward the hearer and the situation, allowing for flexible, context-sensitive negotiation of face and authority (Holmes \u0026amp; Schnurr, 2005).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoreover, the use of low-value modals as markers of indirectness reveals a culture of communicative caution, particularly in situations involving criticism, disagreement, or instruction. The Angkola speakers\u0026rsquo; preference for softening mechanisms aligns with a broader pattern seen in many Austronesian languages, where linguistic indirectness is a valued communicative norm (Kikusawa, 2015; Riesberg et al., 2018). This suggests that the Angkola modal system operates not simply as a tool of linguistic economy, but as a means of enacting social etiquette, where the speaker is expected to balance clarity of intent with respect for interpersonal harmony. In doing so, modal expressions become vehicles for performing politeness, encoding culturally shared assumptions about when and how obligation, belief, or restraint should be communicated.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.4. Cultural Values Reflected in Angkola Modality\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe strategic use of modality in Angkola is inseparable from the cultural worldview that informs speaker choices. Far beyond grammatical convention, modal expressions encode key cultural principles such as respect for elders, communal responsibility, and verbal modesty.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExpressions like \u003cem\u003eunang\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ebope\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eharus\u003c/em\u003e are often used in tandem with culturally appropriate forms of address, silence strategies, and non-verbal cues. These modal verbs serve as linguistic proxies for values associated with the Angkola philosophical framework, notably \u003cem\u003eDalihan Na Tolu\u003c/em\u003e, which governs kinship, respect, and social conduct.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExample:\u003cbr\u003e\u003cem\u003eBope unang ho martabe i tu hamu.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(Perhaps you shouldn\u0026rsquo;t talk that way to him.)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this case, the speaker uses \u003cem\u003ebope\u003c/em\u003e to mitigate the directness of \u003cem\u003eunang\u003c/em\u003e, honoring the listener\u0026rsquo;s status and avoiding offense. Such usage reflects relational positioning, a key tenet in Angkola interaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoreover, modal expressions function to reinforce collective norms and expectations. For instance, \u003cem\u003eharus\u003c/em\u003e is often invoked in ritual or communal contexts, not just to enforce rules, but to reaffirm shared values and social roles. In this way, modality becomes a mechanism of cultural reproduction, preserving not only linguistic structure but also the moral and ethical framework of the community.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom an ethnolinguistic standpoint, this reflects a deep integration of language, thought, and culture. Modal usage in Angkola is thus a vivid example of how grammatical categories\u0026mdash;when examined in context\u0026mdash;can reveal the internal logic of a society\u0026rsquo;s values, relational ethics, and communicative ideals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Angkola case supports what (Duranti, 2009) and (Wierzbicka, 2003) have argued: that language is not only a means of communication, but also a tool for expressing and reproducing cultural knowledge. Modal verbs in Angkola reflect not merely individual speaker choices but also community-sanctioned norms about how, when, and to whom things should be said. The use of \u003cem\u003ebope\u003c/em\u003e to temper \u003cem\u003eunang\u003c/em\u003e, or \u003cem\u003eharus\u003c/em\u003e in ceremonial discourse, illustrates a culturally internalized ethic of balance between speech and silence, assertion and restraint. These patterns reveal that modality is not a universal category applied similarly across contexts, but a culturally indexed system of encoding relational values, where what one \u003cem\u003ecan\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eshould\u003c/em\u003e, or \u003cem\u003emust\u003c/em\u003e say is dictated as much by custom as by logic.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the Angkola system of modality echoes the moral ontology of Dalihan Na Tolu, the triadic value system of Batak culture encompassing \u003cem\u003esomber\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ekahanggi\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eanak boru\u003c/em\u003e\u0026mdash;roles that carry inherent duties and expectations in communication (Harahap et al., 2023; Hutagaol et al., 2020). Modal forms such as \u003cem\u003eharus\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eunang\u003c/em\u003e are used in alignment with these roles, reinforcing not just authority but moral reciprocity within kinship and community structures. This finding aligns with linguistic anthropology\u0026rsquo;s broader assertion that grammar can serve as a repository for cultural ideology, and that modality, far from being a neutral syntactic feature, plays a central role in shaping how knowledge, responsibility, and respect are communicated. The Angkola case thus highlights how modal forms mediate between individual agency and collective cultural identity, acting as both constraints and resources in maintaining the ethical order of speech.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study has examined the semantic and pragmatic dimensions of epistemic and deontic modality in the Angkola language, based on field data and anchored in established linguistic frameworks. The findings demonstrate that modality in Angkola is not merely a set of grammatical markers, but a culturally embedded linguistic system that reflects and regulates social interaction, hierarchy, and communicative intent. Epistemic modality is primarily expressed through forms such as \u003cem\u003ebope\u003c/em\u003e (possibility), \u003cem\u003eadong\u003c/em\u003e (certainty), and \u003cem\u003esongonna\u003c/em\u003e (inference), each representing a nuanced degree of speaker belief and assumption. These expressions serve not only to convey epistemic stance but also to mitigate assertions and preserve politeness, functioning as key tools in maintaining interpersonal harmony. Deontic modality, encoded through \u003cem\u003eunang\u003c/em\u003e (prohibition), \u003cem\u003ebole\u003c/em\u003e (permission), and \u003cem\u003eharus\u003c/em\u003e (obligation), carries normative force grounded in cultural expectations. These forms are sensitive to social roles and are often modulated in accordance with the speaker-listener relationship, reflecting values of deference, collective responsibility, and ethical conduct. The study further shows that modality in Angkola operates as a strategic component of politeness management. Speakers adjust modal strength to align with context, using softer expressions to express caution or indirectness, and stronger forms to assert solidarity or communal norms. This pragmatically driven use of modality illustrates the community\u0026rsquo;s culturally shaped approach to face management and verbal modesty. Crucially, modality in Angkola also reflects the moral logic of the \u003cem\u003eDalihan Na Tolu\u003c/em\u003e system, reinforcing kinship roles and societal expectations. Modal expressions are thus more than linguistic devices\u0026mdash;they are instruments of cultural continuity and social coherence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy revealing how modality intersects with meaning, hierarchy, and values, this research contributes to the broader fields of linguistic typology, pragmatics, and ethnolinguistics. It highlights the importance of minority languages in theorizing the interface between grammar and culture. Future studies may extend this inquiry by investigating other modal domains (e.g., dynamic or volitional modality), or by undertaking comparative studies across Austronesian languages to further explore the cultural grounding of modality.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding Declaration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research received no external funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study involved non-interventional linguistic research with adult participants. According to the institutional regulations for social sciences and humanities research at UIN Sumatera Utara, formal approval from an ethics review board was not required. The exemption was confirmed by the Research and Community Service Institute (LPPM) of UIN Sumatera Utara. All procedures performed in this study were conducted in accordance with institutional guidelines and the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (2013 revision), with full respect for participants\u0026rsquo; rights, dignity, and anonymity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed Consent\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained orally and in writing from all participants included in the study. Consent was obtained by the principal investigator (Dr. Muhammad Dalimunte) prior to each interview and audio recording session, conducted between January 2025 and May 2025. Participants were informed about the purpose of the research, the voluntary nature of their participation, their right to withdraw at any time without consequence, and the measures taken to ensure confidentiality and anonymity. Consent covered participation, data recording, use of data for academic research, and publication of anonymized excerpts.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBecker, M., Palmer, A., \u0026amp; Frank, A. (2017). Semantic clause types and modality as features for argument analysis1. \u003cem\u003eArgument \\\u0026amp; Computation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(2), 95\u0026ndash;112. https://doi.org/10.3233/AAC-170019\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBrown, P. (1987). \u003cem\u003ePoliteness: Some universals in language usage\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 4). Cambridge university press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChen, C., \u0026amp; He, Q. (2024). A Corpus-Based Study of Metaphor of Modalization in English Academic Writing. \u003cem\u003eSAGE Open\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(1), 21582440241229810. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241229809\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChiyah-Garcia, J., Suglia, A., Eshghi, A., \u0026amp; Hastie, H. (2023). \u0026lsquo;What are you referring to?\u0026rsquo; Evaluating the Ability of Multi-Modal Dialogue Models to Process Clarificational Exchanges. \u003cem\u003eArXiv Preprint ArXiv:2307.15554\u003c/em\u003e, 175\u0026ndash;182. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.sigdial-1.16\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCoates, J. (1980). \u003cem\u003eThe semantics of the modal auxiliaries: A corpus-based analysis with special reference to contemporary spoken English\u003c/em\u003e. Lancaster University (United Kingdom).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCresswell, J. (2013). \u003cem\u003eQualitative inquiry \u0026amp; research design: Choosing among five approaches.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDalimunte, M. (2024). \u003cem\u003eSemantic Modality\u003c/em\u003e. CV. Manhaji Medan. http://repository.uinsu.ac.id/22493/2/Semantic Modality.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ede Varda, A. G., \u0026amp; Strapparava, C. (2022). A Cross-Modal and Cross-lingual Study of Iconicity in Language: Insights From Deep Learning. \u003cem\u003eCognitive Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e(6), e13147. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13147\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDuranti, A. (2009). \u003cem\u003eLinguistic anthropology: A reader\u003c/em\u003e. John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDurst-Andersen, P. (2023). Language, culture and society: Modality, face and societal logic. \u003cem\u003eGlobe: A Journal of Language, Culture and Communication\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e, 83\u0026ndash;93. https://doi.org/10.54337/ojs.globe.v17i.8201\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHalliday, M. A. K., \u0026amp; Matthiesse, C. M. I. M. (2014). \u003cem\u003eIntroduction to functional grammar\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHarahap, A. S., Mulyono, H., Milhan, M., \u0026amp; Siregar, T. (2023). Dalihan Na Tolu as a Model for Resolving Religious Conflicts in North Sumatera: An Anthropological and Sociological Perspective. \u003cem\u003eSamarah\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1943\u0026ndash;1970. https://doi.org/10.22373/sjhk.v7i3.13091\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHart, C., \u0026amp; Marmol Queralto, J. (2021). What can cognitive linguistics tell us about language-image relations? A multidimensional approach to intersemiotic convergence in multimodal texts. \u003cem\u003eCognitive Linguistics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(4), 529\u0026ndash;562. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2021-0039\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHolmes, J., \u0026amp; Schnurr, S. (2005). \u003cem\u003ePoliteness, humor and gender in the workplace: Negotiating norms and identifying contestation\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHutagaol, B. E., Simamora, N., \u0026amp; Silitonga, S. (2020). The Study about the Relationship of \u0026ldquo;Dalihan Na Tolu\u0026rdquo; with Batak Traditional Architecture; Case Study Huta Raja Village Samosir. \u003cem\u003eIOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e452\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/452/1/012054\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKikusawa, R. (2015). The Austronesian language family. In \u003cem\u003eThe Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 657\u0026ndash;674). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315794013.ch31\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLarm, L. (2018). \u003cem\u003eOn the Teaching of Japanese Epistemic and Evidential Markers: Theoretical Considerations and Practical Applications BT \u0026nbsp;- International Perspectives on Translation, Education and Innovation in Japanese and Korean Societies\u003c/em\u003e (D. G. Hebert (ed.); pp. 161\u0026ndash;170). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68434-5_11\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLevinson, S. C. (2011). Universals in pragmatics. In \u003cem\u003eThe Cambridge encyclopedia of the language sciences\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 654\u0026ndash;657). Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLi, L. X. (2022). Developmental patterns of english modal verbs in the writings of chinese learners of english: a corpus-based approach. \u003cem\u003eCogent Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(1), 2050457. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2050457\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLyons, J. (1977). \u003cem\u003eSemantics: Volume 2\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=idKaEUGPTLkC\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMelia, J. (2014). \u003cem\u003eModality\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMoriyama, T. (1992). On the epistemic modality of Japanese. \u003cem\u003eGENGO KENKYU\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1992\u003c/em\u003e(101), 64\u0026ndash;83. https://doi.org/10.11435/gengo1939.1992.101_64\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNeary, C. (2015). Stylistics, point of view and modality. In \u003cem\u003eThe Routledge Handbook of Stylistics\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 184\u0026ndash;200). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315795331.ch10\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOlajimbiti, E. O. (2025). Deontic Modality and Evaluation of Obligations in Children-related X (Twitter) Interactions. \u003cem\u003eCorpus Pragmatics\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-025-00188-3\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePalmer, F. R. (2001). \u003cem\u003eMood and Modality\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=xKUvDFTARR8C\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePescuma, V. N., Serova, D., Lukassek, J., Sauermann, A., Sch\u0026auml;fer, R., Adli, A., Bildhauer, F., Egg, M., H\u0026uuml;lk, K., Ito, A., Jannedy, S., Kordoni, V., Kuehnast, M., Kutscher, S., Lange, R., Lehmann, N., Liu, M., L\u0026uuml;tke, B., Maquate, K., \u0026hellip; Knoeferle, P. (2023). Situating language register across the ages, languages, modalities, and cultural aspects: Evidence from complementary methods. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e, 964658. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.964658\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRiesberg, S., Shiohara, A., \u0026amp; Utsumi, A. (2018). Perspectives on Information Structure in Austronesian Languages. In \u003cem\u003ePerspectives on Information Structure in Austronesian Languages\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 1\u0026ndash;428). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1402571\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRoca-Royes, S. (2023). \u003cem\u003eModality\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRocci, A. (2017). Relative modality and argumentation. In A. Rocci (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eArgumentation Library\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 29, pp. 197\u0026ndash;274). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1063-1_4\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShan, Y. (2021). Analysis of a Grammatical Category in English\u0026mdash;Modal Verbs. \u003cem\u003eOpen Journal of Social Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e09\u003c/em\u003e(09), 271\u0026ndash;278. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2021.99020\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWang, X., \u0026amp; 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. \u003cem\u003eSAGE Open\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(3), 21582440211031556. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211031556\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWatts, R. J. (2019). 2. Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: Reconsidering claims for universality. \u003cem\u003ePoliteness in Language: Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e59\u003c/em\u003e, 43\u0026ndash;60.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWierzbicka, A. (2003). \u003cem\u003eCross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction\u003c/em\u003e. Mouton de Gruyter.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhou, J. (2022). Evidentiality and other types readjusted: Interpersonal modality revisited. \u003cem\u003eJournal of World Languages\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(1), 119\u0026ndash;140. https://doi.org/10.1515/jwl-2021-0011\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Angkola Language, Semantic Modality, Epistemic Modality, Deontic Modality, Politeness Strategies","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7172075/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7172075/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"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 \u0026 Levinson, the research identifies key modal expressions—bope (possibility), adong (certainty), songonna (inference), unang (prohibition), bole (permission), and harus (obligation)—and analyzes their functions in natural discourse. The findings show that epistemic modality is employed to express varying degrees of belief and to mitigate speaker commitment, while deontic modality encodes social norms, authority, and culturally embedded obligations. Modal expressions in Angkola are also strategically used in politeness management, enabling 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.","manuscriptTitle":"Semantic Modality in Angkola Language: A Pragmatic-Semantic Analysis of Epistemic and Deontic Expressions","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-13 11:37:41","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7172075/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"3ccdf59d-7050-4784-be4a-a4f269d49a84","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 13th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":62811143,"name":"Social science/Anthropology"},{"id":62811144,"name":"Humanities/Cultural and media studies"},{"id":62811145,"name":"Social science/Cultural and media studies"},{"id":62811146,"name":"Humanities/Language and linguistics"},{"id":62811147,"name":"Social science/Language and linguistics"},{"id":62811148,"name":"Humanities/Philosophy"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-05T17:10:23+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-13 11:37:41","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7172075","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7172075","identity":"rs-7172075","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}