Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Uralic Linguistics
Vol. 3:1 (2024) ► pp.87–117

The modal analysis of the Hungarian future auxiliary fog ‘will, be going to’

ORCID logo | University of Debrecen , Hungary

In this paper it is argued that the Hungarian future auxiliary fog is a modal rather than a temporal operator. As opposed to previous findings in the literature, the paper claims that it can be used when the proposition is inferred, therefore it can have an epistemic modal base. The results of a questionnaire study and introspective data are presented to support this claim. Based on these data, it is argued that the distributional difference between fog and the non-past cannot be explained by the presence or absence of temporal ambiguity only, the choice also depends on the context. Namely, the use of the non-past is marginal if the speaker infers the truth of the proposition from contextually known facts, while fog is natural and acceptable in such cases. The Hungarian data presented further strengthen the hypothesis that there is a strong connection between future-referring morphemes and epistemic modality.

Keywords: future time reference, future auxiliaries, epistemic modality, Hungarian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous studies
    • 2.1Is the English auxiliary will a modal operator?
    • 2.2The literature on the Hungarian auxiliary fog
    • 2.3 Fog and the non-past
  • 3.The modal analysis of fog
    • 3.1On the properties of fog that classify it as a modal
    • 3.2On the modal base of fog
    • 3.3The semantic analysis of fog
    • 3.4The distribution of the non-past and fog
  • 4.A pilot questionnaire study
    • 4.1 Type 1 situations
    • 4.2 Type 2 situations
    • 4.3 Type 3 situations
    • 4.4Overall results and consequences
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 May 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jul.00027.vir
References (28)
Abush, Dorit
1988 Sequences of tense, intensionality and scope. In Hagit Borer (ed.), Proceedings of the Second West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 1–14. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Abusch, Dorit
1997 Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy 201. 1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 Generalizing tense semantics for future contexts. In Susan Rothstein ed., Events and Grammar, 13–33. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Condoravdi, Cleo
2002 Temporal interpretations of modals: modals for the present and the past. In David Beaver, Stefan Kaufmann, Brady Clark & Casillas Martinez (eds.), Construction of meaning, 59881. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2003 Moods and modalities for will and would . Workshop on Mood and Modality Amsterdam Colloquium. December 21, 2003.Google Scholar
Copley, Bridget
2009 The semantics of the future. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Csató, Éva Ágnes
1994 Tense and actionality in Hungarian. In Rolf Theiroff & Joachim Ballweg (eds.), Tense systems in European languages, 231–246. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen
2000 The grammar of future time reference in European languages. In Östen Dahl (ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe, 309–328. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Winter, Joost & Dodou, Dimitra
2010 Five-point likert items: T test vs Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, Vol. 15, article 11 1, 1–16.Google Scholar
Enç, Müvet
1996 Tense and modality. In Shalom Lappin (ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 345–158. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul
1975 Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds.), Speech acts (Syntax and Semantics 3), 41–58. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989 Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gugán, Katain & Mónika Varga
2018 Fogos kérdések [Questions with fog ]. Nyelv és Tudomány, 2018. július 25. [URL]
Karttunen, Lauri
1972 Possible and must. In John P. Kimball (ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 1, 1–20. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, Stefan
2005 Conditional truth and future reference. Journal of Semantics 221. 231–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc
2012 Some observations on the Hungarian adverbial particle majd . Acta Linguistica Hungarica 591. 427–438. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kissine, Mikhail
2008 Why will is not a modal. Natural Language Semantics 161. 129–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klecha, Peter
2014 Diagnosing modality in predictive expressions. Journal of Semantics 311. 443–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lotz, John
1962 Semantic analysis of the tenses in Hungarian. Lingua 111. 256–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Novák, Attila, Katalin Gugán, Mónika Varga & Adrienne Dömötör
2018 Creation of an annotated corpus of Old and Middle Hungarian court records and private correspondence. Language Resources and Evaluation 521. 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogihara, Toshiyuki
1996 Tense, attitudes, and scope. Dordrecht and Boston: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palffy-Muhoray, Nicole
2013 Future reference in Hungarian with and without future marking. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Vol. 19. Issue 1, Article 17.Google Scholar
2016 Hungarian temporal and aspectual references in the absence of dedicated markers. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University dissertation.
Portner, Paul
2009 Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prior, Norman Arthur
1967 Past, present, and future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sherwood, Peter
2006 Hungarian has no future. Hungarológiai Évkönyv Vol. 7. Issue 1, 39–43.Google Scholar
Thomas, Guillaume
2014 Circumstantial modality and the diversity condition. In Urtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Fălăus, Aritz Irurtzun & Bryan Leferman (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18 1, 433–450. Bayonne and Vitoria-Gasteiz.Google Scholar
Werner, Thomas
2006 Future and non-future modal sentences. Natural Language Semantics 141. 235–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar