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. 193–218

Deontic or epistemic? habēre as a modal marker of future certainty in Macedonian

| FON University, Skopje
| University Ss Cyril & Methodus, Skopje
The Macedonian verb ima ‘have’, which is primarily used for possession and existence, can acquire various modal meanings in construction with the untensed da-clause. According to their semantic and syntactic properties, these constructions can be grouped into classes that represent different levels of grammaticalization. In this paper, we examine the most advanced grammaticalized constructions with inflected and uninflected ima, and we differentiate them on semantic grounds. The analysis focuses on uninflected ima, which exhibits a range of deontic and epistemic meanings which are of theoretical and typological significance. What is especially challenging is the meaning of future certainty that renders a future epistemic qualification. We propose that these meanings of uninflected ima cannot be understood properly without taking into account discourse factors.
Published online: 24 January 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.149.07mit
References (30)
References
Abraham, Werner. 1999. On the syntax and semantics of the modal verbs in German. <[URL]> (7 July 2012).Google Scholar
. 2012. Illocutive force is speaker and information source concern. What type of syntax does the representation of speaker deixis require? Templates vs. derivational structure? In Modality and Theory of Mind Elements across Languages [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 243], Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds) 67–108. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asenova, Petya. 2002. Balkansko ezikoznanie: Osnovni problem na balkanskija ezikov sǎjuz (Balkan Linguistics: The Basic Problems of the Balkan Spachbund). V. Tǎrnovo: Faber.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Emil. 1975. Problemi opšte lingvistike (Problèmes de linguistique générale). Beograd: Nolit.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1991. The origin and development of quasimodal have to in English. A paper presented to the 10th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Amsterdam 1991. <[URL]> (15 February 2012).Google Scholar
Bužarovska, Eleni. 2002. The purpose-modification continuum: Purposive da-relative clauses. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 21(1): 67–99.Google Scholar
Bužarovska, Eleni & Mitkovska, Liljana. 2011. Ličnite ima da-konstrukcii vo makedonskiot jazik (Personal ima da-constructions in Macedonian). Makedonski jazik LVII: 120–133.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago Il: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Čašule, Ilija. 1989. Modalnite glagoli vo makedonskiot jazik (Modal verbs in Macedonian). Prilozi 14(2): 89–117.Google Scholar
Ciconte, Francesco Maria. 2011. The emergence and the reanalysis of the existential proform: Evidence from early Italo-Romance. Transactions of the Philological Society 109(3): 284–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cyhun, Gennadij A. 1981. Tipologicheskie problemy balkanoslavyanskogo yazykogo areala (The typological problems of Balkan Slavic Sprachbund). Minsk: Nauka i tehnika.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1990. Syntax: Functional introduction, Vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hansen, Björn. 2001. Das slavische Modalauxiliar: Semantik und Grammatikalisierung im Russischen, Polnischen, Serbischen/Kroatischen und Altkirchenslavischen. München: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Hansen, Björn & de Haan, Ferdinand. 2009. Concluding chapter: Modal constructions in the languages of Europe. In Björn Hansen & Ferdinand de Haan (eds), Modals in the Languages of Europe, 511–559. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Ilievski, Petar H. 1988. Balkanološki lingvistički studii (Balkan Linguistic Studies). Skopje: IMJ.Google Scholar
Koneski, Kiril. 2000. Makedonski jazik za stranci: Sreden kurs (Macedonian Language for Foreigners: Intermediate course). Skopje: UKIM.Google Scholar
Kramer, Christina E. 1986. Analytic Modality in Macedonian. München: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Lunt, Horace. 1952. A Grammar of Macedonian Literary Language. Skopje: Državno Knigoizdatelstvo.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1995. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Epistemic Modality, Language and Conceptualization [Human Cognive Processing 5]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1998. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2009. Modality. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Topolinjska, Zuzana. 1995. Makedonskite dijalekti vo Egejska Makedonija. Sintaksa, Tom I. (Macedonian Dialects in Aegean Macedonia, Syntax 1). Skopje: MANU.Google Scholar
. 2000. Polski-makedonski: Gramatička konfrontacija. Studii od morfosintaksata (Polish-Macedonian: Grammatical Confrontation. Studies in Morphosyntax). Skopje: MANU.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Dasher, Richard B. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan & Plungian, Vladimir. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2: 79–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Izre'el, Shlomo
2022. The syntax of existential constructions. Journal of Speech Sciences 11 ► pp. e022001 ff. 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.