Cover not available
Part of
Historical Linguistics 2019: Selected papers from the 24th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Canberra, 1–5 July 2019
Edited by Bethwyn Evans, Maria Kristina Gallego and Luisa Miceli
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 367] 2024
► pp. 216–239

Chapter 9
Modality across semantic spaces

Modal ‘have to’ in Slavic and theoretical implications

| Heidelberg University
This paper investigates the principles of modal development across modal domains, and the capacity of modal maps to account for these developments. The starting point is a relative newcomer in Slavic, the modal ‘have to’ + infinitive construction, which came to partially replace the older dative plus infinitive and ‘so as to’ constructions during the Middle Ages and developed across the full modal spectrum in its kernel area of West Slavic. What were the sources and the principles of this development? The paper answers these questions and draws some general conclusions about modal domains and the role of language hierarchies. The first section gives a contemporary survey, the second discusses the historical development, and the third section discusses theoretical implications.
Keywords: modal meanings, scope, hierarchy, synchrony, diachrony, Croatian, Czech
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Modal ‘have to’ among the core modals in contemporary Slavic
    • 2.1Modal ‘have to’ in contemporary Slavic
    • 2.2Types of action narrowly averted (ANA) in Slavic
  • 3.Modal ‘have to’ in the history of Croatian and Czech
    • 3.1‘Have to’ in the history of Croatian
    • 3.2‘Have to’ in Old Czech
  • 4.Theoretical implications
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Sources of data
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.367.09gvo
References (46)
References
Adamec, Petr. 1974. Muset nebo mít? K vyjadřování kategorie obligatornosti v současné češtinĕ na pozadí ruštiny [Must or ought to? About the emergence of the category of obligation in contemporary Czech compared with Russian]. In Konfrontační studium ruské a české gramatiky a slovní zásoby [Comparative study of Russian and Czech grammar and vocabulary]. Vol. 1: 133–152.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 2006. Periphrastic futures in Slavic: Divergence and convergence. In Kerstin Eksell & Thora Vinther (eds.), Change in verbal systems: Issues in explanation, 9–45. Frankfurt/Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Besters-Dilger, Juliane, Ana Drobnjaković & Björn Hansen. 2009. Modals in the Slavonic languages. In Björn Hansen & Ferdinand de Haan (eds.), Modals in the Languages of Europe, 167–197. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Birnbaum, Henrik. 1958. Untersuchungen zu den Zukunftsumschreibungen mit dem Infinitiv im Altkirchenslavischen: Ein Beitrag zur historischen Verbalsyntax des Slavischen [Examinations of the future form with the infinitive in Old Church Slavic: A contribution to the historical verbal syntax of Slavic]. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Browning, Robert. 1969. Medieval and Modern Greek, 1st edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Buráňová, Eva. 1979. Vztah mezi pravdepodobnostní, dispoziční a zamĕrovou modalitou [The relation between probability modality, modality of disposition, and intentional modality]. Slovo a slovesnost 2. 98–101.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Danesi, Serena, Cynthia A. Jonhson & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2018. Where does the modality of Ancient Greek modal verbs come from? Journal of Greek Linguistics 18. 45–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Haan, Ferdinand. 2005. Modality in Slavic and semantic maps. In Björn Hansen & Petr Karlík (eds.), Modality in Slavonic languages: New perspectives. München: Sagner.Google Scholar
Faßke, Helmut. 1981. Grammatik der obersorbischen Schriftsprache der Gegenwart [Grammar of the contemporary Upper Sorbian standard language]. Bautzen: Institut für sorbische Volksforschung [Institute for Sorbian folk research].Google Scholar
Ferenčiková, Adriana & Ivor Ripka. 2006. Slovník slovenských nárečí [Dictionary of Slovak dialects]. Bratislava: Veda.Google Scholar
Fortuin, Egbert. 2005. From necessity to possibility: The modal spectrum of the dative-infinitive construction in Russian. In Björn Hansen & Petr Karlík (eds.), Modality in Slavonic languages: New Perspectives, 39–60. Munich: Verlag Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Grepl, Miroslav. 1979. K podstatĕ modálnosti [On the essence of modality]. Otázky slovanské syntaxe [Questions of Slavic syntax] III. 23–38 (Brno).Google Scholar
Gvozdanović, Jadranka. 2012. Perfective and imperfective. In Robert Binnick (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect, 781–802. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2019. Changes of tense in Late Medieval Slovene: Transference, extension or both? In Lars Heltoft, Iván Igartua, Brian D. Joseph, Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh & Lene Schøsler (eds.), Perspectives on Language Structure and Language Change: Studies in Honor of Henning Andersen, 395–409. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Björn. 2000. The German modal verb müssen and the Slavonic Languages: Reconstruction of a success story. Scando-Slavica 46. 77–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Das slavische Modalauxiliar: Semantik und Grammatikalisierung im Russischen, Polnischen, Serbischen/Kroatischen und Altkirchenslavischen [The Slavic modal auxiliary: Semantics and gramaticalisation in Russian, Polish, Serbian/Croatian and Old Church Slavic]. Slavolinguistica 2. München: Sagner.Google Scholar
. 2009. The hypothetical use of Polish ‘mieć plus Infinitive’ revisited. In Tilman Berger (ed.), Von grammatischen Kategorien und sprachlichen Weltbildern — Die Slavia von der Sprachgeschichte bis zur Politsprache: Festschrift für Daniel Weiss zum 60. Geburtstag [On grammatical categories and linguistic worldviews — The Slavic lands from linguistic history to the language of politics: A Festschrift for Daniel Weiss for his 60th birthday], 173–181. München: Sagner.Google Scholar
Hansen, Björn, Veronika Wald & Zrinka Kolaković. 2018a. Subjektkasus und Finitheit: Eine korpusbasierte Studie zur Mikrovariation und zur Entwicklung kroatischer Modalkonstruktionen: Teil I. Mikrovariation im modernen Kroatischen [Subject case and finiteness: A corpus-based study of micro-variation and of the development of Croatian modal constructions: Part I. Micro-variation in modern Croatian]. Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 74(1). 113–195.Google Scholar
. 2018b. Subjektkasus und Finitheit: Eine korpusbasierte Studie zur Mikrovariation und zur Entwicklung kroatischer Modalkonstruktionen: Teil II. Die historische Entwicklung [Subject case and finiteness: A corpus-based study of micro-variation and of the development of Croatian modal constructions: Part II. The historical development]. Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 74(2). 257–289.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In M. Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language, vol. 2, 211–243. New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hertzenberg, Anne Johanne. 2012. The use and development of habere plus infinitive: An LFG approach. In Ans van Kemenade & Nynke de Haas (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2009: International Conference on Historical Linguistics (ICHL) 19, Nijmegen, 10–14 August 2009, 373–398. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Holvoet, Axel. 2012. Polish mieć and the semantic map of interpretive deontics. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 57(2). 129–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jembrih, Alojz. 2007. Stipan Konzul i „Biblijski zavod“ u Urachu [‚Stipan Konzul and the „Biblical institute” in Urach”]. Zagreb: Teoloŝki fakultet Matija Vlačić Ilirik.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian. 2000. Textual authenticity: Evidence from Modern Greek. In Susan Herring, Piet van Reenen & Lene Schøsler (eds.), Textual parameters in older languages, 309–330. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania. 1998. On identifying an evasive gram: Action narrowly averted. Studies in Language 22, 113–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. 2012. Modality, subjectivity, and semantic change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panevová, Jarmila, Eva Benešová & Petr Sgall. 1971. Čos a modalita v češtinĕ [Time and modality in Czech]. Prague: Carolinum.Google Scholar
Pinkster, Harm. 1987. The strategy and chronology of the development of future and perfect tenses in Latin. In Martin Harris & Paolo Ramat (eds.), Historical development of auxiliaries, 185–193. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Přikrylová, Milena. 1998. Semantika konstrukcí se slovesem mít ve staroslovenských biblických textech a vývoj techto konstrukcí do češtiny a bulharštiny. Slavia 67(1–2). 67–72.Google Scholar
Růžička, Josef (ed.). 1966. Morfológia slovenského jazyka [Morphology of the Slovak Language]. Bratislava: Slovenská Akadémia Vied, Ústav slovenského jazyka.Google Scholar
Šipková, Milena. 1985. The English equivalents of the Czech modal verb mít. Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty Brneňské Univerzity [Collected works of the Philosophical faculty of the University of Brno] (Studia Minora Facultatis Philosophicae Universitatis Brunensis 7), Brno Studies in English 16. 109–121.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan and Vladimir Plungian. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2, 79–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan, Petar Kehayov & Alice Vittrant. 2009. Acquisitive modals. In Lotte Hogeweg, Helen den Hoop & Andrej Malchukov (eds.), Cross-linguistic semantics of tense, aspect, and modality, 271–302. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sources of data
Digital
Codex marianus
http://www.helsinki.fi/slaavilaiset/ccmh/MAR.TXT
Corpus of Old Czech texts, Czech Academy of Sciences [URL]
Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache von 1600 bis heute [URL].
hrWaC 2.1 (cf. Ljubešić and Klubička 2016) [URL]
Hektorović, Petar, Ribanje i ribarsko prigovaranje [URL]
Šenoa, August. Zlaratovo zlato. [URL]
Tertullian, Adversus Iudaeos [URL]
Vinodolski zakon [URL]
Printed
Luther, Martin. Der Kleine Catechismus. Fuer die gemeyne Pfarherr vnd Prediger. Rhode, Marburg 1529.Google Scholar
. Enchiridion. Der kleine Catechismus. Für die gemeine Pfarherr vnd Prediger. Valentin Babst, Leipzig 1547.Google Scholar
, Doktora Martina Luthera Malý katechismus, z německého jazyka do českého převedl Daniel Bohumil Molnár, Praha: D.B. Molnár, 1862, 36 s.Google Scholar
Trubar, Primož. Catechismus. 1555. (Repr. Ljubljana 1992).Google Scholar