Article published in:
Modes of Modality: Modality, typology, and universal grammar
Edited by Elisabeth Leiss and Werner Abraham
[Studies in Language Companion Series 149] 2014
► pp. 89–126

The syntax of modal polyfunctionality revisited

Evidence from the languages of Europe

| Universität Regensburg
This paper deals with the semantics and the syntax of modal constructions from a cross-linguistic perspective. It focuses on the syntactic representation of modal polyfunctionality, usually understood as the semantic alternation between root and epistemic readings. This ambiguity is not an idiosyncratic feature of the Germanic languages, as it is also found in other non-related language families. In this contribution, the empirical base is broadened by discussing the data taken from Hansen and de Haan (2009), which covers all major languages spoken in Europe. I discuss the notion of modal polyfunctionality and give a first account of cross-linguistic morpho-syntactic variation among modal constructions in the languages of Europe. The hypothesis is forwarded that there is cross-linguistic evidence for the syntactic relevance of the distinction between epistemic-root polyfunctionality (EPI-ROOT) and alternations within root modality (ROOT). The relative semantic uniformity of modals contrasts with their structural diversity. It will be shown that modals in the languages of Europe vary with respect to two features: (i) the encoding of the subject and (ii) inflectional categories. It is shown that modal constructions are not restricted to canonical subjects, encoded in the default (nominative) case, but also allow for cases other than nominative, or null subjects. Thus, canonical subject constructions appear to be best suited to fully-fledged EPI-ROOT polyfunctionality, whereas quirky or null subjects tend to be restricted to alternations within the semantic domain ROOT. Categories such as the latter need not be marked on the modal itself, but can be assigned to a lexical verb or the copula – a fact which provides evidence for the claim that polyfunctionality is not restricted to ‘modal verbal status’. In the second part of the paper, the following question will be addressed: Which syntactic features are cross-linguistically connected to polyfunctionality? These chapters focus on (a) the distinction between verbs and auxiliaries in modal constructions, (b) raising vs. control status on the modal, and, (c) the coherence of modal verbal complexes. The subsequent analysis presents clear evidence for the tendency towards a loss of inflectional categories, but, on the other hand, does not lend itself to corroboration of the claim that modals form a syntactic category sui generis (cf. Reis 2001). The conclusion is drawn that the distinction raising vs. control is best suited to explain the syntactic prerequisites of polyfunctionality. It will be argued that modals with canonical subjects displaying full EPI-ROOT involve a raising structure, whereas modals with non-canonically case marked subjects displaying only ROOT alternations form control constructions (cf. Abraham 1989, 2001, 2002 on modals in Germanic).
Published online: 24 January 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.149.04han
References

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
1998 The aspectual source of the epistemic-root distinction of modal verbs in German. In Sprache in Raum und Zeit. In Memoriam Johannes Bechert. Band 2: Beiträge zur empirischen Sprachwissenschaft, Winfried Boeder, Christoph Schroeder, Karl Heinz Wagner & Wolfgang Wildgen (eds), 231–249. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2001 Modals: Toward explaining the ‘epistemic non-finiteness gap’. In Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen [Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 9], Reimar Müller & Marga Reis (eds), 7–36. Hamburg: Buske.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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 Modalität und Modalverben. Wohin führt uns die Syntax – inwieweit brauchen wir die Pragmatik? In Diathese, Modalität, Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Festschrift für Odleif Leirbukt zum 65. Geburtstag, Beate Lindemanne & Ole Letnes (eds), 3–14. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
2009 Die Urmasse von Modalität und ihre Ausgliederung. Modalität anhand von Modalverben, Modalpartikel und Modus. Was ist das Gemeinsame, was das Trennende, und was steckt dahinter? In Modalität. Epistemik und Evidentialität bei Modalverb, Adverb, Modalpartikel und Modus [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 77], Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds),251–302. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
2010 Modalitäts-Aspekt-Generalisierungen Interaktionen und deren Brüche: Wo kommen die epistemischen Lesarten her? In Modalität/Temporalität in kontrastiver und typologischer Sicht [Danziger Beiträge zur Germanistik 30]e, Andrzej Kątny & Anna Socka (eds), 13–28. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2012 Covert modality in typology. In Covert Modality, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 386–439. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Anderson, Gregory David Shelton
2006 Auxiliary Verb Constructions. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barbiers Sjef
2005 The syntax of modal auxiliaries. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol V., Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 1–23. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bech, Gunnar
1955/1957 Studien über das deutsche verbum infinitum, 2 Vols. København: Munksgaard in Komm.Google Scholar
Besters-Dilger, Juliane, Drobnjaković, Ana & Hansen, Björn
2009 Modals in the Slavonic languages. In Hansen & de Haan (eds), 167–199.Google Scholar
Breu, Walter
2009 Modals in Albanian. In Hansen & de Haan (eds), 229–266.Google Scholar
Cornillie, Bert, De Mulder, Walter, Van Hecke, Tine & Vermandere, Dieter
2009 Modals in the Romance languages. In Hansen & de Haan (eds), 107–137.Google Scholar
de Haan, Ferdinand
1997 The Interaction of Negation and Modality. A Typological Study. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
de Haan, Ferdinand & Hansen, Björn
2009 Introduction. In Hansen & de Haan (eds), 1–8.Google Scholar
Elšík, Viktor & Matras,Yaron
2009 Modality in Romani. In Hansen & de Haan (eds), 267–322.Google Scholar
Francis, Elaine J. & Michaelis, Laura A.
(eds) 2003 Mismatch: Form-function Incongruity and Architecture of Grammar. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Hansen, Bj
örn 2013 Yiddish modals. With special reference to their polyfunctionality and constructional properties. In Yiddish Language Structures, Björn Hansen & Marion Aptroot (eds),146–192. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Björn & de Haan, Ferdinand
2009 Concluding chapter: Modal constructions in the languages of Europe. In Hansen & de Haan (eds), 511–559.Google Scholar
(eds) 2009 Modals in the Languages of Europe. A Reference Work [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 44]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd
1993 Auxiliaries. Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel
2009 Modals in Baltic. In Hansen & de Haan (eds), 199–228.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars
2009 Modals in Turkic. In Hansen & de Haan (eds), 487–510.Google Scholar
Kehayov, Petar & Torn-Leesik, Reeli
2009 Modals in Balto-Finnic. In Hansen & de Haan (eds), 363–401.Google Scholar
King, Alan R.
2009 Modality in Basque. In Hansen & de Haan (eds), 457–486.Google Scholar
Körtvély, Erika
2009 Modals in Hungarian. In Hansen & de Haan (eds), 403–430.Google Scholar
Kyncl, Jaroslav
2008 Semi Lexical Heads in Czech Modal Structures. PhD dissertation, University of Wolverhampton.Google Scholar
Laitinen, Lea
1992 Välttämättömyys ja persoona. Suomen murteiden nesessiivisten rakenteiden semantiikkaa ja kielioppia (Inevitability and Person. Semantic and Grammatical Properties of Finnish Necessive Constructions). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
McQuillan, Peter
2009 Modals in Irish. In Hansen & de Haan (eds), 71–105.Google Scholar
Mettouchi, Amina
2009 Mood and modality in Berber. In Hansen & de Haan (eds), 431–456.Google Scholar
Mortelmans, Tanja, Boye, Kasper & Van der Auwera, Johan
2009 Modals in the Germanic languages. In Hansen & de Haan (eds), 11–69.Google Scholar
Öhlschläger, Günter
1998 Zur Syntax und Semantik der Modalverben des Deutschen [Linguistische Arbeiten 11]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan
(eds) 1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ramat, Paolo & Ricca, Davide
1998 Sentence adverbs in the languages of Europe. In Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 20(3)], Johan van der Auwera (ed.), 187–277. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reis, Marga
2001 Bilden Modalverben im Deutschen eine syntaktische Klasse? In Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen [Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 9], Reimar Müller & Marga Reis (eds), 287–331. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
2007 Modals, so-called semi-modals, and grammaticalization in German. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 12(1): 1–57.Google Scholar
Rezac, Milan
2005 The syntax of clitic climbing in Czech. In Clitics and Affix Combinations. Theoretical Perspectives, Lorie Heggie & Francisco Ordóñez (eds), 103–140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roeder, Carolin F.
& Hansen Björn 2006 Modals in contemporary Slovene. Wiener slawistisches Jahrbuch 52: 153–170. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Słodowicz, Szymon
2008 Control in Polish Complement Clauses. München: Sagner.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur & Vikner, Sten
1995 Modals and double modals in the Scandinavian languages. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 55: 51–88.Google Scholar
Tsangalidis, Anastasios
2009 Modals in Greek. In Hansen & de Haan (eds), 139–163.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan, Kehayov, Petar & Vittrand, Alice
2009: Acquisitive modals. In Crosslinguistic Semantics of Tense, Aspect and Modality [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 148], Lotte Hogeweg, Helen de Hoop & Andrej Malchukov (eds), 271–302. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan & Plungian, Vladimir A.
1998 Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2(1): 79–124. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vanhove, Martine, Miller, Catherine & Caubet, Dominique
2009 The grammaticalisation of modal auxiliaries in Maltese and Arabic vernaculars of the Mediterranian area. In Hansen & de Haan (eds), 325–361.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn
2010 Hearsay in European languages: Toward an integrative account of grammatical and lexical marking. In Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages, Gabriele Diewald & Elena Smirnova (eds) 59–129. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zagona, Karen
2007 On the syntactic features of epistemic and root modals. In Coreference, Modality, and Focus [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 111], Luis Eguren & Olga Fernández-Soriano (eds) 221–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffmann, Ludger & Strecker, Bruno
1997 Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, 3 Vols. [Schriften des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache 7]. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Abraham, Werner
2020.  In Modality in Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics, Crossref logo
LINDSTRÖM, LIINA & VIRVE-ANNELI VIHMAN
2017. Who needs it? Variation in experiencer marking in Estonian ‘need’-constructions. Journal of Linguistics 53:04 ► pp. 789 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 03 april 2021. 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.