1 Langacker’s ‘subjectification’ and ‘grounding’: a more gradual view Tanja Mortelmans 1. Introduction As is well-known, the English modal verbs are generally considered to be ‘grounding predications’, i.e. highly grammaticalized linguistic elements the function of which consists in specifying how the designated entity (in this case: the complement process) relates to the ground (defined as the speech event, its participants, and its immediate circumstances, cf. Langacker 1991a) in regard to basic epistemic notions like time and reality. A crucial feature of grounding predications is the subjective construal of the ground, i.e. the fact that despite its pivotal role, the ground remains off-stage: grounding predications by definition do not profile the grounding relationship, but the grounded entity (represented in the case of the modals by the complement process expressed in the infinitive). Assuming that the English modals function as grounding predications, they cannot profile the modal relationship (anchored in the ground), as this would imply that the ground is not construed in a maximally subjective way. So, the modal must, for instance, is said to profile the process deemed necessary in the complement and not so much the modal relation of necessity (Langacker 1991b: 335). On the whole, the German modals 1 are less grammaticalized than their English counterparts 2 . This is the main reason for Langacker to claim that they have not acquired the status of grounding predication, but that they are grounded themselves – by tense, person and mood inflections (see Langacker 1991b: 335 for the German modals, and Achard 1998 for a similar claim pertaining to the French modals). This implies that in the German equivalents of the English sentences (1a) (2a) and (3a), it is the relation expressed by the modal verb that is grounded by the mood inflection, such that the modal relation is situated within immediate 1 I will consider the German modals sollen (‘shall’), wollen (‘will’), müssen (‘must’), dürfen (‘may’), können (‘can’) and mögen (‘like’). I will also pay some attention to the future/modal auxiliary werden, which is to some extent integrated in the German paradigm of modal verbs (compare for instance Vater 1975, 1997) 2 In contrast to the English ones, the German modals allow for (ungrounded) non-finite forms (e.g; zu können vs. * to can). More generally, the German modal verb category shows a greater paradigmatic variability as far as modal and temporal forms are concerned than the English ones (the German modals appear in the present and past tense, have perfect forms and can be combined with werden to form a future tense; as for mood, only the imperative is ruled out - which can be accounted for on semantic grounds).