Cover not available
Part of
Modes of Modality: Modality, typology, and universal grammar
Edited by Elisabeth Leiss and Werner Abraham
[Studies in Language Companion Series 149] 2014
► pp. 19–42

Interpreting modals by phase heads

| Sophia University
This paper proposes that modal meanings are interpreted by modal features on phase heads (cf. Chomsky 2000, 2001). Epistemic modal auxiliaries are base-generated above v*P/vP, and they are in an Agree relation with a phase head C, which then carries an interpretable modal feature to be transferred to the semantic component. Root modals are base-generated under v*P and Agree with a phase head v*. In the syntax-semantics interface, modality is defined as information about possibility or necessity of proposition denoted by syntactic objects transferred to the semantic component, assigned by phase heads, which bear a discourse related property of the duality of semantics.
Published online: 24 January 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.149.02aki
References (54)
References
Abraham, Werner. 1989. Syntaktische Korrelate zum Lesartwechsel zwischen epistemischen und deontisch/volitiven Modalverben. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik (GAGL) 30: 145–166.Google Scholar
. 1991. Modalverben in der Germania. In Begegnung mit dem Fremden: Grenzen–Traditionen–Vergleiche, Akten des VIII. Internationalen Germanisten-Kongresses, Tokyo 1990, Band 4, Sektion 4: Kontrastive Syntax, Eijiró Iwasaki (ed.) 109–118. München: Iudicium.Google Scholar
. 2002. Modal verbs: Epistemics in German and English. In Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 47], Sjef Barbiers, Frits Beukema & Wim van der Wurff (eds) 19–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2001. ‘Inversion’ as focalization. In Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, Aafke C.J. Hulk & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds), 60–90. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2004. Aspects of the low IP area. In The Structure of CP and IP, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 16–51. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric & Stjepanović, Sandra. 2001. Head-ing toward PF. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 345–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brennan, Virginia. 1997. Modalities. Ms, Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
Butler, Jonny 2003. A minimalist treatment of modality. Lingua 113: 997–1029. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Step by Step: Essays in Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael J. Kenstowicsz (ed.),1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and Beyond, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 104–131. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-semantics, Uli Sauerland & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), 1–18. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2008. On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 133–166. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2005. A note on mood, modality, tense, and aspect affixes in Turkish. In The Verb in Turkish: The Core Element of Clause Structure [Linguistic Aktuell/Linguistics Today 44], Eser Erguvanlı Taylan (ed.), 47–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Drubig, Hans Bernhard. 2001. On the syntactic form of epistemic modality. Ms, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1978. The verbal complex V'-V in French. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 151–175.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert & May, Robert. 1994. Indices and Identity. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai & Iatridou, Sabine. 2003. Epistemic containment. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 173–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fukui, Naoki & Speas, Margaret.1986. Specifiers and projection. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 128–72.Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. 2006. Aspects of Modality. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
. 2011. Modality. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Hatural Language Meaning [HSK 33.2], Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds), 1484–1515. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 2010. The Syntax of German. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haraguchi, Tomoko & Shuhama, Yuji. 2012. On the cartography of modality in Japanese. In Online Proceedings of GLOW in Asia Workshop for Young Scholars 2011, Koici Otaki, Hajime Takeyasu & Shin-ichi Tanigawa (eds) 102–110. Mie: Mie University.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 2000. The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 231–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine & Zeijlstra, Hedde. To appear. Negation, polarity and deontic modals.
Idris, Abdul Aziz. 1980. Modality in Malay. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 5(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Jayaseelan, K.A. 2001. IP-internal topic and focus phrases. Studia Linguistica 55: 39–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kizu, Mika. 2009. Japanese modals at the syntax-pragmatics interface. In Japanese Modality: Exploring its Scope and Interpretation, Barbara Pizziconi & Mika Kizu (eds), 183–204. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1993. Modal phrase and adjuncts. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 2: 409–428.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Words, Worlds, and Contexts: New Approaches in Word Semantics, Hans-Jürgen Eikmeyer & Hannes Rieser (eds), 38–74. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 1991. Modality. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds), 639–650. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Maché, Jacob. 2007. The decline of argument structure. In Proceedings of the First Central European Student Conference in Linguistics. <[URL]>Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 69–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1996. On the scope of verb movement in Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 47–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Öhlschläger, Günther. 1989. Zur Syntax und Semantik der Modalverben des Deutschen [Linguistische Arbeiten 144]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank Robert. 1995. Negation and the modals of possibility and necessity. In Modality in Grammar and Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 32], Joan Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman (eds), 453–471. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Picallo, M. Carme 1990. Modal verbs in Catalan. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 285–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian 2010. Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schorlemmer, Eric & Temmerman, Tanja. 2012. Head movement as a PF-phenomenon: Evident from identity under ellipsis. Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 232–240.Google Scholar
Starke, Michal. 1993. En deuxième position en Europe Centrale. Mémoire, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 2004. Tense and modals. In The Syntax of Time, Jacqueline Gueron & Jacqueline Lecarme (eds), 621–636. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2003. On the edge. In Peripheries, David Adger; Cecile De Cat & Georges Tsoulas (eds), 259–287. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Tagawa, Takumi. 2006. Suiryoo keishiki no toogoronteki bunseki: Daroo to mai no hitaishousei (A syntactic analysis of conjecture in Japanese: Asymmetry between daroo and mai). Tsukuba Working Papers in Linguistics 25: 19–40.Google Scholar
Takayama, Yoshiyuki. 2002. Nihongo modaritii no shiteki kenkyuu (The Historical Studies on Modality in Japanese). Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo.Google Scholar
Ueda, Yukiko. 2008. Person restriction and syntactic structure of Japanese modals. Scientific Approaches to Languages 7: 123–150.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Akira. 1993. Agr-based Case Theory and its Interaction with the A-bar System. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure [Studies in Generative Grammar 55]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2008. Modal concord is syntactic agreement. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 17: 317–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 2001. Syntactic and phonological verb movement. Syntax 4: 34–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Yang, Barry C.-Y.
2021. Two types of peripheral adjunct WHATs. Concentric. Studies in Linguistics 47:1 ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Abraham, Werner
2020. Modality in Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.