Variable-force modality

Variable-force modality
Igor Yanovich
Universität Tübingen
Rutgers University
February 14, 2014
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
1 / 70
Introduction
The plan
1
Introduction: modal semantics and modal quantificational force
2
A first glimpse into variable force: Old Saxon and St’át’imcets
3
Variable force in Old and Middle English
Single meaning vs. genuine ambiguity
4
Variable force in the Pacific Northwest
“True” variable force, and a ♦ without a dual
5
Variable force in Old and Modern Ukrainian
“Triangular” ambiguity
6
Conclusion: what we now know about the variable-force landscape
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
2 / 70
Introduction
A new type of modal quantificational force
Modals with the force of possibility (♦): can, may
Modals with the force of necessity (): must, have to, should
Variable-force modals:
sometimes are translated into English with ♦, other times with St’át’imcets: [Rullmann et al., 2008]
Gitksan: [Peterson, 2010]
Nez Perce: [Deal, 2011]
Old and Middle English: [Yanovich, 2013a]
Old and Modern Ukrainian: this talk
...older Germanic, Old Polish, Finnish, Danish, Burmese, and counting
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
3 / 70
Introduction
Semantic anatomy of a modal
A modal’s semantics = modal flavor + modal force
Modal flavors: epistemic, deontic, circumstantial, ability, etc. etc.
New modal flavors keep getting discovered:
[Portner, 2009] argues for quantificational modality
[Yanovich, 2013b] makes a case for suggestion/advice modality
[Knobe and Szabó, 2013] show the existence of mixed
deontic-circumstantial modality
But until recently, we only had ♦ and for modal force
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
4 / 70
Introduction
Variable-force modality is only a descriptive label
Variable-force modality need not be just one new modal force
[Rullmann et al., 2008], [Peterson, 2010], [Deal, 2011], [Kratzer, 2012]:
at most 3 different types of variable force, but 5 incompatible analyses.
[Yanovich, 2013a]: two other semantic types of variable force in Old
and Middle English
Old and Modern Ukrainian: a yet new type
The goal of this talk: build a semantic typology of variable force,
based on what we know at the moment
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
5 / 70
A first glimpse into variable force
Where we are
1
Introduction: modal semantics and modal quantificational force
2
A first glimpse into variable force: Old Saxon and St’át’imcets
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
6 / 70
A first glimpse into variable force
What variable force looks like: Old Saxon
Old Saxon môtan (cf. Dutch moeten, German müssen):
(1)
endi ûs is firinun tharf, <...> that wi it an thesumu lande at
thi
and us is urgent need
that we it in this
land from you
linôn môtin.
learn môtan.subj
(Heliand 2428-30)
‘And there is an urgent need for us <...>
that we may learn from you (=Christ) in this land.’
(2)
thes môtun gi
neotan forð, sô huue sô gerno uuili gode theonogean,
that môtan you.pl use
forth whoever gladly will god serve,
uuirkean aftar is uuilleon.
do
after his will
(Heliand 1144-6)
‘You must use that (=the saving force) from now on, every one of you who
wants to serve God gladly and to do after God’s will.’
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
7 / 70
A first glimpse into variable force
What variable force looks like: St’át’imcets
St’át’imcets (Salish) variable-force deontic ka:
(3)
lán-lhkacw
already-2sg.subj
ka
deon
áts’x-en ti
see-dir det
[Rullmann et al., 2008, (31)]
kwtámts-sw-a
husband-2sg.poss-det
‘You {must/can/may} see your husband now.’
How to visualize this? Think road traffic control.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
8 / 70
A first glimpse into variable force
Three possibilities for variable-force semantics
Possibility 1: variable-force modals have semantics different from
either ♦ or , with no perfect translation correlate
Possibility 2: variable-force modals are ambiguous between ♦ and Possibility 3: variable-force modals are regular ♦s or s, but the
overall system works so that their distribution ends up being wider
It turns out that each of the three possibilities is actualized in some
language.
Moreover, there are several subtypes of possibility-1 and possibility-2
systems.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
9 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
Where we are
1
Introduction: modal semantics and modal quantificational force
2
A first glimpse into variable force: Old Saxon and St’át’imcets
3
Variable force in Old and Middle English
Collapse variable force in Old English
Finnish variable force
True ♦/ ambiguity in Middle English
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
10 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
Collapse variable force in Old English
Old English *motan
(4)
bruc þenden þu mote
manigra medo
enjoy while you motan.3sg.subj many
rewards
(Beo 1177-8)
‘Enjoy, while you mot, many rewards’
The (near) consensus story:
1
Earliest recorded OE: *motan ambiguous between ♦ and 2
Very few -uses in Early OE (close to 0%)
3
Slow growth of -uses, reaching 100% in the 15-16th cent.
[Ono, 1958], [Tellier, 1962], [Visser, 1973], [Goossens, 1987]...; cf. [Solo, 1977]
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
11 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
Collapse variable force in Old English
Questions for the standard analysis: regularity
Meaning change is regular.
For m¯otan in Germanic, there is indeed regularity:
A very similar situation for m¯otan and its cognates in Old English, Old
Saxon, Old High German: a modal seemingly ambiguous between ♦
and , with ♦ prevalent.
The modern descendants of those modals (must, German müssen,
Dutch moeten) are familiar modals.
But other ♦ modals don’t just become ♦- ambiguous!
And they don’t turn into s either.
⇒ there must be something special about *motan and its cognates
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
12 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
Collapse variable force in Old English
Questions for the standard analysis: specific mechanism
Meaning change involves semantic reanalysis.
But why would speakers reanalyze ♦ as ?
Two explanations in the literature:
Through permission implying obligation (e.g. [Traugott, 1989])
“You may go” from an authority implies that “you must go”.
...but then any ♦-deontics would be able to turn into Through “must not” ≈ “may not” (e.g. OED)
The speakers reanalyze the negative instances, and after that take care
of the positive cases.
...but all ♦ deontics have fixed scope ¬ > ♦ ([van der Auwera, 2001]),
so again, any ♦ is predicted to be able to change into ...and besides, won’t work for German, as nicht müssen is ¬ > ...finally, where would the pressure to reanalyze positive cases come from?
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
13 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
Collapse variable force in Old English
Variable-force analysis of [Yanovich, 2013a, Ch.4]
Old English *motan
not a ♦, but a non-ambiguous variable-force modal
⇓
Early Middle English *moten
♦- ambiguity, with more frequent
⇓
Early Modern English must
pure : the less productive ♦-uses have been lost
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
14 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
Collapse variable force in Old English
How would you translate motan?
(5)
Ac se se ðe
unwærlice ðone wuda hiewð, & sua his freond ofsliehð,
but that that which unwarily that wood hews, and so his friend slays,
him
bið nidðearf ðæt he fleo
to ðara
ðreora
burga anre,
to.him is necessary that he flee.subj to those.gen three.gen city.gen one.dat
ðæt on sumere ðara
weorðe
genered, ðæt he mote
libban;
that in some of.those become.subj saved, that he motan.prs.subj live
‘But he who unwarily hews wood and by that slays his friend, it is necessary for him that
he flee to one of those three cities, so that he be saved in one of them, so that he mote
live.’
(CP:21.167.15)
(6)
ealneg hi
wepað, & æfter ðæm wope
hi
gewyrceað ðæt hi
moton
always they weep & after the weeping they obtain
that they motan.pres
eft
wepan.
again weep
‘always they are weeping, and after the weeping they make it so that they moton weep
again.’
(CP:54.421.14)
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
15 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
Collapse variable force in Old English
The main idea of the “collapse” analysis
5 is a typical “possibility example”, while 6 is a typical “necessity use”.
But in both cases, both ♦ and translation may be appropriate.
Imagine a set of accessible worlds uniform with regard to proposition p.
Given that set, ♦p ⇔ p. Either statement says the same.
Now, in natural language it’s not so clean because of the pragmatics.
When people talk about necessity, they often imply there is a force imposing it.
When they talk about possibility, they often imply somebody is interested in that
possibility.
⇒ unlike in logic, people may find one rendering better than the other.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
16 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
Collapse variable force in Old English
Possibility-necessity collapse: the intuition
(7)
a. Hu mæg he ðonne beon butan gitsunge,
how can he then be without avarice
ðonne he sceal ymb monigra monna are
ðencan,
when he had.to about many
men’s property think
gif he nolde
ða ða he moste
ymb his anes? (CP:9.57.19)
if he would.not when he motan.sg.past.subj about his only
b. Translation by [Sweet, 1871]:
“How can he be without covetousness when he has to consult the interests of many,
if formerly he would not avoid it when he had to consult his own interests alone?”
c. Translation by H.W. Norman, printed in [Giles et al., 1858]:
“How can he be without covetousness when he must think about many men’s
sustenance, if he would not when he might think about his own alone?”
Not much contrast between the ♦ and readings:
it was an open possibility for the subject to think only about their own benefit,
but they also actually thought only about themselves before being promoted.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
17 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
Collapse variable force in Old English
Possibility-necessity collapse: the intuition
(5)
A typical “possibility example”:
‘But he who unwarily hews wood and by that slays his friend, it is necessary for him that
he flee to one of those three cities, so that he be saved in one of them, so that he mote
live.’
(CP:21.167.15)
would ≈ mote ≈ may
(6)
A typical “necessity example”:
‘always they are weeping, and after the weeping they make it so that they moton weep
again.’
(CP:54.421.14)
have to ≈ moton ≈ may
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
18 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
Collapse variable force in Old English
A focused Old English dataset: Alfredian prose
Early OE prose: core Alfredian texts (late 9th/early 10th cent.)
C(ura) P(astoralis)
(edition [Sweet, 1871])
Bo(ethius)
(edition [Godden and Irvine, 2009])
Sol(iloquies)
(edition [Carnicelli, 1969])
Best possible shot at geographical and temporal consistency for the period.
72 instances of *motan
A caveat: though the situation in Alfredian OE seems close to that in other early
Old English texts and in other early Germanic, it is not identical.
Nor should we expect it to be: both range of dialectal variation and pace of
change may be significant with modals, as variationist sociolinguists showed.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
19 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
Collapse variable force in Old English
Why use a focused dataset I
1
Dialectal variation may be huge
Present-Day English, the use of different deontics across the British Isles:
from [Tagliamonte and Smith, 2006]
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
20 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
Collapse variable force in Old English
Why use a focused dataset II
2
Change may be very fast
The deontic system of Toronto English changed in 3 apparent-time generations:
from [Tagliamonte and D’Arcy, 2007], Toronto English
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
21 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
Collapse variable force in Old English
Alfredian *motan: the collapse analysis
What we can say about *m¯otan in the Alfredian dataset:
Observation
In all 72 examples, virtually no contrast between the ♦ and readings.
With a regular ♦, ♦p does not entail that p has to happen.
(8)
You may take this apple. But it’s not that you have to.
(9)
My electric bills can be paid online, though I never tried.
In Alfredian OE, possibilities expressed by magan ‘can, may’ and
aliefed ‘permitted’ work the same way, being consistent with ¬p.
But not motan!
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
22 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
Collapse variable force in Old English
Alfredian *motan: the collapse analysis
Analysis for motan(p)
Acc. relation: metaphysical modal base, stereotypical ordering source
Presupposition: ♦p → fut(p)
if p has a chance to actualize, it will
Assertion: ♦p
Metaphysical modal base: all w 0 sharing the history of the actual w
Stereotypical ordering source: w 00 where things go normally
E.g., the person in question doesn’t win a lottery, etc.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
23 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
Collapse variable force in Old English
How the collapse analysis works
(5)
A typical “possibility example”:
‘But he who unwarily hews wood and by that slays his friend, it is necessary for him that
he flee to one of those three cities, so that he be saved in one of them, so that he mote
live.’
(CP:21.167.15)
w : “purpose” worlds where the purpose clause is true
⇓
w 0 : metaphysical correlates for each w , sharing its history
⇓
w 00 : those metaphysical correlates where things proceed normally
Presupposition: either he lives in all w 00 , or doesn’t live in all w 00
Assertion: he lives in all w 00
Paraphrase: “given that either in all possible futures lives, or in all of them he dies,
it’s necessary for him to flee to one of those cities so that he may (would) live”.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
24 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
Collapse variable force in Old English
How the collapse analysis works
motan(p) conveys both inevitability (in the presupposition) and
openness of possibility (in the assertion)
Variable-force translation effect:
Inevitability is stressed ⇒ translation
Openness of possibility is stressed ⇒ ♦ translation
Rarity of *motan:
Few contexts would support the collapse presupposition.
And indeed, *motan is rare in Alfredian OE:
≈70 *motan vs. ≈700 sculan (>shall) and ≈1000 magan (>may)
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
25 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
Collapse variable force in Old English
Alternative explanations?
Could Alfredian *motan be genuinely ♦/ ambiguous?
Nope. If it were, we would find *motan not only where ♦ and collapse, but also where “must(p)” is different from “may(p)”
Could Alfredian *motan be regular ♦?
My analysis says that ♦ and collapse in the context where *motan
occurs. So a usual ♦ without a collapse presupposition would be just
as good.
But first, without the presupposition we cannot explain why *motan
only occurs in collapse contexts.
Second, we know that at some point, *motan cannot be analyzed as a
pure ♦ any longer. So saying it was a ♦ in Alfredian OE doesn’t add
any explanatory power.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
26 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
Collapse variable force in Old English
Modal flavor of *motan
(10) Metaphysical: worlds sharing the same history
It might rain every day this summer.
(11) Circumstantial: worlds where a given set of facts is true
During the next hurricane, this tree can easily fall onto my roof.
(12) Deontic: worlds where the rules are followed
You may take this apple.
Circumstantial and metaphysical are close: if the facts include
everything about the world, the two collapse
Deontic and metaphysical may be hard to distinguish in texts,
especially when it is about what God or fate allow
I found no examples that would clearly exclude the metaphysical
analysis. Hence my claim about the modal flavor. But it’s more a
reasonably-supported hypothesis than a proven fact.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
27 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
Collapse variable force in Old English
The shape of the Alfredian modal system
Alfredian Old English
♦
ability
magan
n/a
circumstantial
magan
sculan
♦ + collapse presupposition
deontic
non-verbal
sculan
metaphysical/circumstantial/deontic
motan
On the one hand, we have fairly regular ♦ and modals.
On the other, we have a special, very restricted variable-force modal.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
28 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
Finnish variable force
Where we are
1
Introduction: modal semantics and modal quantificational force
2
A first glimpse into variable force: Old Saxon and St’át’imcets
3
Variable force in Old and Middle English
Collapse variable force in Old English
Finnish variable force
True ♦/ ambiguity in Middle English
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
29 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
Finnish variable force
Are there more systems like that?
Finnish is possibly a good candidate.
Primary source: the description of Finnish modals in [Kangasniemi, 1992]
Secondary source: recent work by Kehayov and Torn on modals in Balto-Finnic
Most Finnish modals are familiar ♦s or s.
E.g., voida is a regular circumstantial/deontic ♦,
pitää is a regular deontic/teleological/circumstantial , and so forth.
But saada (historically from ‘to get’) may translate as a ♦ or a .
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
30 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
Finnish variable force
Finnish variable-force modal saada
(13) Hakaluissa
olevaa
A merkkiä
saavat
square.bracket.pl.iness be.part.prttv A symbol.prttv may.3pl
käyttää ainoastaan liittomme
jäneset.
use
only
union.gen.1pl member.pl
‘The symbol A in square brackets may only be used by the members of
our union.’ [Kangasniemi, 1992, p.91, (7)]
(14) ... me saimme
tämän Kariniemen
käskystä sittej jäädä
we have.to.pst.1pl this.gen Kariniemi.gen order.ela then stay
niin ku jälkeempäin asiaa
selvittämääj
...
so like afterwards matter.prttv clear.up.3inf.ill
‘... we then had to stay afterwards on this Kariniemi’s orders to clear the
matter up ...’ [Kangasniemi, 1992, p.102, (44)]
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
31 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
Finnish variable force
Reasons to think saada has a uniform meaning
[Kangasniemi, 1992, p.62]: “One motivation for the use of saada in expressions of
necessity may be the speaker’s or writer’s pursuit of irony, stating that the actor has the
possibility of doing something that he or she does not want to, and moreover, that all
other possibilities are excluded” (emphasis mine)
(15) Saat
lähteä matkalle taivaaseen.
saada-2sg go
trip-All heaven-Ill
‘You may/have to set out for your trip to heaven.’
[Kangasniemi, 1992, p.322-3]: “The interpretation of [15] depend[s] on whether the
agent wants to perform the act or not, i.e. whether the addressee of sentence [15] wants
to go for a trip to heaven ... . Thus sentence [15] could be interpreted as permission in
a religious context (which was in fact the case) but as an obligation or a threat in James
Bond adventure.”
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
32 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
Finnish variable force
Reasons to think saada is ambiguous
[Kehayov and Torn, 2005] examined saada’s cognates in other Finnic:
If saada and its cognates had a uniform meaning, we’d expect every
modal flavor to feature both ♦ and . The table shows it is not so.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
33 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
Finnish variable force
Old English *motan and Finnish saada
Old English *motan:
lexical source uncertain (but hardly ‘to get’)
non-ambiguous variable force, via the collapse presupposition
very restricted with regard to modal flavors: no strong evidence for
anything but metaphysical
predominantly looked like ♦ in OE, but later developed into Finnish saada:
lexical source: ‘to get’
semantics unclear
unclear if saada is (modal-force-)ambiguous or not
if saada has uniform force, it’s unclear whether it is due to the collapse
presupposition or something else
a wide range of modal flavors: circumstantial, deontic, epistemic
predominantly looks like ♦, future diachronic trajectory to be seen
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
34 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
True ♦/ ambiguity in Middle English
Where we are
1
Introduction: modal semantics and modal quantificational force
2
A first glimpse into variable force: Old Saxon and St’át’imcets
3
Variable force in Old and Middle English
Collapse variable force in Old English
Finnish variable force
True ♦/ ambiguity in Middle English
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
35 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
True ♦/ ambiguity in Middle English
A focused Middle English dataset: ‘AB language’
Early ME prose: ‘AB language’ (first half of 13th cent.)
A group of texts written within a few miles from each other. Clearly the product of a
single common writing tradition, written in the same dialect and sharing orthography.
Seinte Margarete (SM)
(edition [d’Ardenne, 1977])
Ancrene Wisse (AW)
(edition [Millett, 2005])
SM predates AW by several decades.
76 instances of *m¯
oten.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
36 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
True ♦/ ambiguity in Middle English
The Middle English descendant of *motan
Try to translate Middle English *moten in this passage:
(16) Hwen-se ye moten to eani mon ea-wiht biteachen, the hond
whenever you moten to any man give
the
hand not
ne
cume nawt ut
comes not out
“Whenever you mot give anything to anyone, the hand shouldn’t
come out.”
(AW 2:192-3)
This is a most typical kind of use of moten in AW.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
37 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
True ♦/ ambiguity in Middle English
The ME dataset: Ancrene Wisse and Seinte Margarete
58 instances of moten in Ancrene Wisse
(only 2 in negative clauses)
5 main types of uses:
unavoidability (circ. , ≈modern have to) accounts for >50%
moral instruction (deontic , ≈modern must, ought)
wish, prayer
“open possibility”
under attitudes (grant, swear, etc.), with unclear semantic import
18 instances of moten in Seinte Margarete
(only 1 in a negative clause)
A slightly different distribution:
no strict demarcation between prayers and other ♦ types
moral-instruction uses are emerging from circumstantial uses
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
38 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
True ♦/ ambiguity in Middle English
Deontic reading
“Moral instruction”: deontic
(17)
< ... > teke this, ha mot yet thurh hire forbisne ant thurh hire hali beoden
yeoven strengthe othre, ant uphalden ham, thet ha ne fallen i the dunge of
sunne.
(AW 3:259)
‘...besides this, she must also through her example and through her holy
prayers give strength to others, and hold them up so that they do not fall
in the filth of sin.’
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
39 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
True ♦/ ambiguity in Middle English
...but Early ME *m¯oten is not yet a pure “Open possibility”: in ≈5 out of 58 examples in AW, and more in SM, we
seem to have a genuine existential meaning:
(18)
Þah þe flesch beo ure fa, hit is us ihaten þet we halden hit up. Wa we
moten don hit, as hit is wel ofte wurðe, ah nawt fordon mid alle;
(AW 3:284-5)
‘Though the flesh is our foe, it is commanded to us that we hold it up.
Woe we may do it as it is well often worthy of, but we should not destroy
it altogether.’
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
40 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
True ♦/ ambiguity in Middle English
...but Early ME *m¯oten is not yet a pure Prayers:
(19)
I þe wurðgunge, Iesu Crist, of þine tweof apostles, þet Ich mote oueral
folhin hare lare, þet Ich mote habben þurh hare bonen þe tweolf bohes þe
bloweð of chearite,
(AW 1:174-6)
‘In honor, Jesus Christ, of your twelve apostles, may I everywhere follow
their teaching, may I have through their prayers the twelve branches that
blossom with love’
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
41 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
True ♦/ ambiguity in Middle English
*m¯oten under attitudes
In attitudes: exact meaning unclear, but not empty; close to prayers
(20)
Thet ich thurh the lare of the Hali Gast mote halden foreward, he hit yetti
me thurh ower bonen.
(AW 3:644-5)
‘That I, through the teaching of the Holy Spirit, may keep the agreement,
let Him (=God) grant it to me through your prayers.’
⇒ this type of use is most frequent in the late entries of Petersborough chronicle
(under ask, agree, forbid, grant, decree)
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
42 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
True ♦/ ambiguity in Middle English
*m¯oten’s modal neighbors in the AB language
In OE, *m¯otan was outside of the “regular” modal system:
ability
magan
—
♦
circ.
magan
sculan
deontic
non-modal
sculan
♦ + collapse presup.
circ./deontic
motan
But in the 13th cent., *m¯oten is an integral part of the system.
moten
circumstantial necessity
deontic necessity
various non-
ahen (>modern ought)
only deontic uses, mostly reportative
sculen (>modern shall)
deontic uses, both performative and reportative
future uses
“subjunctive” uses (≈modern would)
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
43 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
True ♦/ ambiguity in Middle English
*m¯oten in Ancrene Wisse: true ambiguity
5 main types of uses: circumstantial , deontic , prayer ♦-like use,
“open possibility” ♦, unclear use under attitudes
The readings are straightforward.
The non- readings are less so.
Consider prayers such as “May I everywhere follow the teaching of the apostles”.
Here, may is not a typical ♦ semantically. But at the same time, once moten loses
its other ♦ uses completely, it is replaced in prayers with may.
In Alfredian OE, all types of uses could be explained with one meaning.
Not anymore in the AB language! and non- cannot be unified.
⇒ ME *moten is a genuinely ambiguous variable-force modal.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
44 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
True ♦/ ambiguity in Middle English
Intermediate summary
Old English *motan: non-ambiguous “collapse” variable force, little
flavor flexibility
Middle English *moten: truly ambiguous between different and ♦
readings, significant flavor flexibility
NB: and ♦ uses do not come in pairs!
Finnish saada: unclear if ambiguous or not, significant flavor flexibility
⇒ can be similar to OE *motan, to ME *moten, or to neither
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
45 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
True ♦/ ambiguity in Middle English
Future directions for Germanic and Finnic...
Older Germanic are relatively well documented, so we can look at
*motan’s cognates, and at its development in English in more detail.
For example, what is the right semantics for môtan in Old Saxon Heliand, cf. 1
and 2? In the first approximation, OSa môtan seems to have several types of uses,
including “open possibility”, “destiny”, and perhaps a rare deontic as in 2, but do
they actually feature different meanings?
In Finnic, there seems to be microvariation which could shed light on
the underlying semantics of saada and its cognates.
Two directions to pursue: 1) study of naturally generated texts; 2) fieldwork.
Once the range of possible uses in Finnish is identified, one can proceed to the
smaller Finnic languages.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
46 / 70
Variable force in Northern Europe
True ♦/ ambiguity in Middle English
...and East-(South-)Asian..
[van der Auwera et al., 2009] discuss get-based modals in
South-(East-)Asian languages, and mention a few with ♦ and uses.
Example: Burmese ya’, [Vittrant, 2004, p.313]
(21) di ña’-ne
nin yoPSinyon ‘Twa lo’ ya’ tE
this night-day 2sg movies
go like get rea.ass
‘You can go to the movies tonight.’
(22) ‘min
ko
t9-son-t9-ya
me‘myan
khE’
2sg
obj one-clf-one-thing ask
pst
TwEP-TwEP-leP-leP
phye
ya’
mE
quickly
answer
get
irr.ass
yin
if
‘If he asks you something, you must answer him quickly.’
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
47 / 70
Variable force in the Pacific Northwest
Where we are
1
Introduction: modal semantics and modal quantificational force
2
A first glimpse into variable force: Old Saxon and St’át’imcets
3
Variable force in Old and Middle English
Single meaning vs. genuine ambiguity
4
Variable force in the Pacific Northwest
“True” variable force, and a ♦ without a dual
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
48 / 70
Variable force in the Pacific Northwest
Adding Pacific-Northwest variable force to the “map”
What we have seen:
Old English: non-ambiguous, narrow variable force
Middle English: genuinely ambiguous variable force
Adding St’át’imcets, Gitksan, Nez Perce:
St’át’imcets: exclusively variable-force modals
Gitksan: a mixed system with some epistemic variable force
Nez Perce: variable-force effects for a familiar ♦ in an unfamiliar system
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
49 / 70
Variable force in the Pacific Northwest
St’át’imcets
St’át’imcets (Salish family) is the only known language
where all modals are variable-force
We saw deontic ka in 3. And here is metaphysical/future kelh:
(23)
lh-tq-álk’-em-an
ka-gúy’t-kan-a
kélh tu7
comp-touch-string-mid-1sg.conj circ-sleep-1sg.subj-circ fut then
‘If I drive I might (accidentally) fall asleep.’
(24)
[Rullmann et al., 2008, (20)]
o, xílh-ts-kan
kelh áti7, nilh t’u7 s-lh-nás-acw
oh do-caus-1sg.subj fut deic foc just nom-comp-go-2sg.conj
í7wa7
accompany
‘Oh, I’ll do it, if you come along.’
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
[Rullmann et al., 2008, (25)]
50 / 70
Variable force in the Pacific Northwest
The place of St’át’imcets in the variable-force typology
The modal system of St’át’imcets:
♦-
deontic
ka
metaphysical/future
kelh
epistemic and evidential
k’a; ku7 (?); -an’ (?)
Properties of variable force in St’át’imcets
“Possibility” and “necessity” readings with the same flavors, suggesting
no true ambiguity
“Necessity” readings are the default ([Rullmann et al., 2008, Sec.2.4])
With negation: at least “possibly not”, sometimes also “necessarily not”
No collapse presupposition! See 23 and 24.
⇒ a different kind of unambiguous variable force than in Old English
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
51 / 70
Variable force in the Pacific Northwest
Gitksan
Gitksan (Tsimshian family): a mixed system, with variable force in the
epistemic-and-evidential domain
♦
circumstantial
da’akhlxw
¯
sgi
deontic
anook
¯
observable evidence
nakw
epistemic and evidential
ima(’a);
gat
[Peterson, 2008]: in most contexts, ima is variable-force.
But in observable-evidence contexts, it is in the same paradigm with nakw. In such contexts, ima uniformly conveys possibility.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
52 / 70
Variable force in the Pacific Northwest
The place of Gitksan in the variable-force typology
Properties of variable force in Gitksan
A mixed system, with variable force in the epistemic-evidential domain
Unlike in St’át’imcets, the default reading seems to be “possibility”
When variable-force ima is in a paradigm with naxw, ima uniformly
gets possibility translations
Interaction with negation:
Reportative evidential gat takes clause-level scope and doesn’t interact
with negation (“gat(p)” is “I heard that ¬p”, but never “I didn’t hear
that p”)
[Peterson, 2010, pp. 66-8, 149-50]
General-purpose inferential evidential ima only gets “possibly not”
readings
[Peterson, 2010, p. 45], [Matthewson, 2013, Sec. 3.1]
No ♦- collapse presupposition.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
53 / 70
Variable force in the Pacific Northwest
Nez Perce
Nez Perce (Sahaptian): a circumstantial/deontic variable-force o’qa.
[Deal, 2011]’s analysis for o’qa
Observation 1: in downward-entailing contexts, o’qa behaves as a ♦
Observation 2: no would-be dual for o’qa
Claim: o’qa is a regular ♦
Deriving variable force: without a dual, no scalar implicature ¬
Speaker says o’qa(p). That simply means that there’s an accessible
world where p is true.
Suppose that p is true in all accessible worlds. In English, you can
assert must(p) in this case. So when you say instead may(p), it’s
implicated that there are accessible ¬p worlds.
But in Nez Perce, there is no way to say must(p). Even if all worlds are
p-worlds, the only expression you have is o’qa.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
54 / 70
Variable force in the Pacific Northwest
The place of Nez Perce in the variable-force typology
Nez Perce vs. St’át’imcets and Gitksan:
In Nez Perce, o’qa with negation only means “necessary not”
⇒ not as St’át’imcets and Gitksan variable-force modals do
However, the competition effect for ima in Gitksan looks very similar to
Nez Perce. Unfortunately, it’s virtually impossible to check Gitksan ima in
other DE contexts, [Matthewson, 2013, Sec.3.1]
Nez Perce vs. Old English:
Interaction with negation is similar
Nez Perce has no collapse presupposition
Moreover, Old English *motan has a would-be dual: sculan
Nez Perce vs. Middle English:
Interaction with negation is different: in Middle English, both scopes
attested
Modal flavors for and non- readings of ME *moten do not have
the same range of modal flavors, unlike ♦ and uses of o’qa
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
55 / 70
Variable force in the Pacific Northwest
The emerging typology
Old English *motan: unambiguous “collapse” variable force
Middle English *moten: ♦- ambiguity
Finnish saada: could be like Old or Middle English
Nez Perce o’qa: usual ♦, but without a dual
St’át’imcets: unambiguous variable force
Gitksan ima and gat:
could be like Nez Perce o’qa, but hard to tell
Up next: Old and Modern Ukrainian
a yet different type of ambiguous variable force.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
Type 1a
Type 2a
Type 1a or 2a?
Type 3
Type 1b
Type 3 or 1c?
Type 2b
56 / 70
Variable force in Eastern Europe
Where we are
1
Introduction: modal semantics and modal quantificational force
2
A first glimpse into variable force: Old Saxon and St’át’imcets
3
Variable force in Old and Middle English
Single meaning vs. genuine ambiguity
4
Variable force in the Pacific Northwest
“True” variable force, and a ♦ without a dual
5
Variable force in Old and Modern Ukrainian
“Triangular” ambiguity
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
57 / 70
Variable force in Eastern Europe
Ukrainian: a HAVE-based variable-force modal
Proto-Slavic èì³òè > Old Ukrainian èìàòè > Mod. Ukrainian мати
In Old Ukrainian (14-16 centuries):
necessity (at least deontic)
futurate
possibility (at least deontic)
In Modern Ukrainian (late 19-21 centuries):
deontic and epistemic necessity
futurate
possibility
My sources: The book of Lutsjk castle, 1560-1; Documents from Volynj, 16th
century; the letters of Lesya Ukrajinka, late 19th cent.; Fieldwork in Ukrainian Sex
by Oksana Zabuzhko, born in Lutsjk.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
58 / 70
Variable force in Eastern Europe
maty and its cousins
Proto-Slavic èì³òè ‘have’ ⇒ future and/or obligation in many Slavic
Old Bulgarian (a.k.a. Old Church Slavonic)
im³ti
(10-11th centuries):
futurate
very few non-futurate meanings
Middle Russian
im³ti
(14-17th centuries):
futurate (sometimes with modal overtones)
however, virtually no clear modal meanings
lost by the 17th-18th century
Old Czech jmieti (13-15 centuries):
obligation
futurate
Old Polish miec (14-15 centuries):
obligation
futurate
possibility — but not clear if it’s the same as in Old Ukrainian
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
59 / 70
Variable force in Eastern Europe
Modern Ukrainian: deontic necessity maty
(25)
Що ж
до
моєї повiстi, то, далебi, не знаю,
як з
нею
what part about my novel part truly not know.1sg how with it
буде, бо
не розумiю,
як маю думати про вiдносини
will.be because not understand.1sg how maty think about relations
“Зорi” до мене
of.Zorya to me
‘Regarding my novel, I truly don’t know what will happen with it, as I don’t
understand what I should think about how “Zorya” [a literary journal] views me.’
NB: a possibility translation would also make some sense here (what I may think), but
hardly a future one.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
60 / 70
Variable force in Eastern Europe
Modern Ukrainian: future maty
(26)
Сiчова кна-кна зайнята
страшенно зборами
радикалiв, що
Sich
kna-kna is.occupied terribly
with.gathering of.radicals which
мають бути близько апрiля, через
те кна-кна в ажитацiї, немов
maty be close.to April because.of that kna-kna in excitement as.if
перед виборами.
before elections
‘The Sich kna-kna (family term for Ukrayinka’s brothers — IY) is greatly interested
by the gathering of radicals which will take place some time around April, and
because of that the kna-kna is excited as if before the elections.’
Not pure future, but rather planned future and predicted future.
NB: a necessity translation would also make some sense here (the elections must occur
around April), but not a possibility one.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
61 / 70
Variable force in Eastern Europe
Modern Ukrainian: possibility maty
(27)
Ну, та es ist eine alte Geschichte, i, певне, вона Вам так вже
well this this is an old story
and surely it
to.you so already
сприкрилась досi,
але мене жаль бере, що у нас на Українi
bored
until.now but me pity takes that at us in Ukraine
нiяк
не скiнчаться одвiчнi сiї
спори, та й
як мають
in.no.way not end
eternal those quarrels, and part how maty
скiнчитись, коли сперечники одно одного не розумiють.
end
if
quarrelers one another not understand
‘Well, es ist eine alte Geschichte, and surely by now you’ve had enough of it
already, but still it pities me that for us in the Ukraine, those eternal quarrels
never end, and indeed how could they end if the quarrelers don’t understand
each other.’
No reading “it’s abstractly possible” for such examples
Instead: “There are enough resources for the possibility to be realizable”.
NB: a future translation possible (how they would end), but not a necessity one.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
62 / 70
Variable force in Eastern Europe
Relationships between different meanings of maty
For ME m¯oten in Ancrene Wisse, we often had clear demarkation:
deontic- for ethical contexts
circumstantial- for practical contexts
with-♦ for prayer contexts
etc.
But the different meanings of maty are connected to each other.
future (ex. 26)
g
w
(ex. 25)
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
/ ♦ (ex. 27)
Variable-force modality
63 / 70
Variable force in Eastern Europe
Variable-force ambiguity in Middle English vs. Ukrainian
In Middle English (and presumably in other Middle Germanic as well),
the variable-force ambiguity didn’t exist for too long.
and non- readings were distributed by context, and pretty much
isolated from each other
Non- meanings became marginal and died out
Within Slavic, not all languages turned they HAVE-word in a
variable-force modal. Most just made out of it a futurate and a
deontic .
But in Ukrainian, once the ♦--futurate ambiguity arose, it was
present in almost the same form for half a millenium.
Why such a difference in stability?
⇒ Perhaps the interconnectedness of meanings makes “Type 2”,
ambiguity-based variable force more stable.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
64 / 70
Variable force in Eastern Europe
Semantics for different maty
Obligation maty(p): in all worlds where the current world’s obligations
are met, p takes place.
Future maty(p): in all worlds that develop according to the current
plans or predictions, p takes place
Possibility maty(p): the preconditions are met for bringing p about in
every accessible world (where one would try doing so)
There are discussions in the literature as to whether ability modals are
pure ♦s, and the conclusion is that they are in fact more complex. See
[Portner, 2009, pp. 201-3] and references therein.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
65 / 70
Conclusion
Where we are
1
Introduction: modal semantics and modal quantificational force
2
A first glimpse into variable force: Old Saxon and St’át’imcets
3
Variable force in Old and Middle English
Single meaning vs. genuine ambiguity
4
Variable force in the Pacific Northwest
“True” variable force, and a ♦ without a dual
5
Variable force in Old and Modern Ukrainian
“Triangular” ambiguity
6
Conclusion: what we now know about the variable-force landscape
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
66 / 70
Conclusion
Variable force on the map, before
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
67 / 70
Conclusion
Variable force on the map, now
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
68 / 70
Conclusion
The landscape of variable force
Three major types:
Type 1: unambiguous variable force (or variable force proper)
Type 2: genuine ♦- ambiguity
Type 3: familiar ♦ or modality in a system unusually shaped
Types 1 and 2 clearly have subtypes with different semantics:
Type 1: St’át’imcets vs. Old English
Type 2: Middle English vs. Ukrainian
Variable force is widely distributed geographically.
No clear correlation between the type of variable force and geography:
Type 1: Pacific Northwest and Europe
Type 2: Northern Europe and Eastern Europe
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
69 / 70
This project has benefitted from discussions with Cleo Condoravdi, Antonette diPaolo
Healey, Daniel Donoghue, Regine Eckardt, Kai von Fintel, Olga Fischer, Martin Hackl,
Irene Heim, Sabine Iatridou, Natasha Korotkova, Ian MacDougall, Lisa Matthewson,
Paul Portner, Katrina Przyjemski, Donca Steriade, Sali Tagliamonte, and Elizabeth
Traugott. If not for Lauri Karttunen, I wouldn’t have learned of [Kangasniemi, 1992].
The traffic control example is due to Frank Veltman.
Some parts of this work were presented at University of Ottawa, Georgetown, Rutgers,
NYU, Systematic Semantic Change at UT Austin, SALT at UC Santa Cruz, and at
University of Amsterdam. The project benefitted greatly from the comments I received
at those venues. All remaining mistakes are my responsibility only.
Corpora used:
York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English prose (YCOE)
Penn Parsed Corpus of Early Middle English (PPCEME)
Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence (PCEEC)
Russian National Corpus, historical part (www.ruscorpora.ru)
The extensive commentary to Boethius in [Godden and Irvine, 2009] was of great help in
identifying the correspondences between the Latin original and the OE translation.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
70 / 70
References
Carnicelli, T. A. (1969).
King Alfred’s version of St. Augustine’s Soliloquies.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
d’Ardenne, S. (1977).
The Katherine Group edited from MS. Bodley 34.
Société d’Edition “Les Belles Lettres”, Paris.
Deal, A. R. (2011).
Modals without scales.
Language, 87(3):559–585.
Giles et al., editor (1858).
The whole works of king Alfred the Great: with preliminary essays illustrative of the history, arts, and
manners of the ninth century.
Bosworth & Harrison, London.
Godden, M. and Irvine, S. (2009).
The Old English Boethius.
Oxford University Press.
Goossens, L. (1987).
Modal tracks: the case of magan and motan.
In Simon-Vanderbergen, A.-M., editor, Studies in honour of Rene Derolez, pages 216–236. Vitgeuer, Gent.
Kangasniemi, H. (1992).
Modal expressions in Finnish.
Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, Helsinki.
Kehayov, P. and Torn, R. (2005).
Modals in finnic.
Talk at the 38th Societas Linguistica Europea,
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fkodu.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
70 / 70
References
ut.ee%2F~pdkehayo%2Fmodal_power_presentation.ppt&ei=J_P6UvXuCM6B7QbK2IHoBQ&usg=
AFQjCNG2M5f4CNlgmdC7HAV_76ZdV_FjNA&sig2=iaO7w5VjW6zgkCs0DkGfPg&bvm=bv.61190604,d.ZGU&cad=rja.
Knobe, J. and Szabó, Z. G. (2013).
Modals with a taste of the deontic.
Semantics and Pragmatics, 6(1):1–42.
Kratzer, A. (2012).
Modals and conditionals.
Oxford University Press.
Matthewson, L. (2013).
Gitksan modals.
International Journal of American Linguistics, 79(3).
Millett, B. (2005).
Ancrene Wisse. A corrected edition of the text in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 402, with variants
from other manuscripts.
Oxford University Press.
Drawing on the uncompleted edition by E.J.Dobson, with a glossary and additional notes by Richard Dance.
Ono, S. (1958).
Some notes on the auxiliary *motan.
Anglica, 3(3):64–80.
Peterson, T. (2008).
Pragmatic blocking in gitksan evidential expressions.
In Schardl, A., Walkow, M., and Abdurrahman, M., editors, Proceedings of the 38th Meeting of the North
East Linguistic Society, pages 219–232, Amherst, MA. GLSA Publications.
Peterson, T. (2010).
Epistemic Modality and Evidentiality in Gitksan at the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface.
PhD thesis, University of British Columbia.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
70 / 70
References
Portner, P. (2009).
Modality.
Oxford University Press.
Rullmann, H., Matthewson, L., and Davis, H. (2008).
Modals as distributive indefinites.
Natural Language Semantics, 16(4):317–357.
Solo, H. J. (1977).
The meaning of *motan. A secondary denotation of necessity in Old English?
Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 78:215–232.
Sweet, H. (1871).
King Alfred’s West-Saxon version of Gregory’s Pastoral Care, volume 45 and 50 of Early English Text Society.
Oxford University Press.
Tagliamonte, S. and D’Arcy, A. (2007).
The modals of obligation/necessity in Canadian perspective.
English World-Wide, 28(1):47–87.
Tagliamonte, S. and Smith, J. (2006).
Layering, competition and a twist of fate. deontic modality in dialects of English.
Diachronica, 23(2):341–380.
Tellier, A. (1962).
Les verbes perfecto-présents et les auxiliaires de mode en anglais ancien: (VIIIe S. - XVIe S.).
C. Klincksieck, Paris.
Traugott, E. C. (1989).
On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change.
Language, 65(1):31–55.
van der Auwera, J. (2001).
On the typology of negative modals.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
70 / 70
References
In Hoeksema, J., Rullmann, H., Sánchez-Valencia, V., and van der Wouden, T., editors, Perspectives on
negation and polarity items, pages 23–48. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
van der Auwera, J., Kehayov, P., and Vittrant, A. (2009).
Acquisitive modals.
In Hogeweg, L., de Hoop, H., and Malchukov, A., editors, Cross-linguistic Studies of Tense, Aspect, and
Modality, pages 271–302. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Visser, F. T. (1963-1973).
An historical syntax of the English language.
E. J. Brill, Leiden.
Vittrant, A. (2004).
La modalité et ses corrélats en birman dans une perspective comparative.
PhD thesis, Paris 8.
Yanovich, I. (2013a).
Four pieces for modality, context and usage.
PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Directed by Kai von Fintel, Sabine Iatridou (committee chairs) and Irene Heim.
Yanovich, I. (2013b).
Symbouletic modality.
Talk at CSSP 2013. Handout available at
http://web.mit.edu/yanovich/www/papers/Yanovich-CSSP-symbouletic-modality-talk.pdf.
Igor Yanovich (Universität Tübingen)
Variable-force modality
70 / 70

Download Report