Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modals as distributive indefinites

  • Published:
Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Modals in St’át’imcets (Lillooet Salish) show two differences from their counterparts in English. First, they have variable quantificational force, systematically allowing both possibility and necessity interpretations; and second, they lexically restrict the conversational background, distinguishing for example between deontic and (several kinds of) epistemic modality. We provide an analysis of the St’át’imcets modals according to which they are akin to specific indefinites in the nominal domain. They introduce choice function variables which select a subset of the accessible worlds. Following Klinedinst, we assume distributivity over the resulting set of worlds. St’át’imcets modals thus receive a uniform interpretation as (distributive) pluralities. The appearance of variability in modal force arises because the choice function can select a larger or smaller subset of accessible worlds. Finally, we discuss the implications of our analysis for the investigation of modal systems in other languages.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abusch, D. 1985. On verbs and time. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Aikhenvald A. (2004) Evidentiality. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, C., B. Frank, G. Ned, D. Peters Sr., C. Shields, and R.A. Whitley. 2006. In Nqwal’luttenlhkálha: English to St’át’imcets dictionary. Vol. 2: Intermediate, ed. Henry Davis. Lillooet, BC: Upper St’át’imc Language Culture and Education Society.

  • Bybee J., Fleischman S. (1995) Modality in grammar and discourse. John Benjamins, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Chafe, W., and J. Nichols. eds. 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Advances in discourse processes, Vol. XX. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

  • Chung, S., and A. Timberlake. 1985. Tense, aspect and mood. In Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 3: Grammatical categories, ed. T. Shopen, 202–258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Condoravdi, C. 2001. Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past. In Stanford papers on semantics, ed. D. Beaver, S. Kaufmann, B. Clark and L. Casillas, 1–30. Stanford, CA: CSLI.

  • Copley, B. 2002. The semantics of the future. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

  • Cruse D.A. (1986) Lexical semantics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalrymple M., Kanazawa M., Kim Y., Mchombo S., Peters S. (1998) Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 159–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, H. 2006. A teacher’s grammar of Upper St’át’imcets. Manuscript, University of British Columbia.

  • Davis, H., and H. Demirdache. 2000. On lexical verb meanings: Evidence from Salish. In Events as grammatical objects, ed. C. Tenny and J. Pustejovsky, 95–142. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

  • Davis, H., L. Matthewson, and H. Rullmann. to appear. ‘Out of control’ marking as circumstantial modality in St’át’imcets. In Cross-linguistic semantics of tense, aspect and modality, ed. L. Hogeweg, H. de Hoop and A. Malchukov. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Demirdache, H. 1997. ‘Out of control’ in St’át’imcets and event (de)composition. In Theoretical issues at the morphology-syntax interface, ed. A. Mendikoetxea and M. Uribe-Etxebarria. Supplements to the International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology, XL, 97–144.

  • Enç M. 1996. Tense and modality. In Handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. S. Lappin, 345–358. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Faller, M. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.

  • Faller, M. 2003. Propositional- and illocutionary-level evidentiality in Cuzco Quechua. In Proceedings of SULA 2, ed. J. Anderssen, P. Menéndez-Benito and A. Werle, 19–34. Amherst, MA: GLSA, Dept. of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts.

  • Faller, M. 2007. The Cuzco Quechua reportative evidentials and rhetorical relations. In Endangered languages, Vol. 14 of Linguistische Berichte Sonderhefte, ed. P. Austin and A. Simpson. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.

  • Faller, M. to appear. Evidentiality above and below speech acts. Functions of Language. Special issue on evidentality, ed. C. Paradis and L. Egberg.

  • Frank, B., and R.A.Whitley. 1994. Preserving salmon at home. Lillooet, BC: Upper St’a´t’imc Language Culture and Education Society.

  • Gamut L.T.F. (1991) Logic, language, and meaning. Vol. 2: Intensional logic and logical grammar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillon, C. 2006. The semantics of determiners: Domain restriction in Sk̲wx̲wú7mesh. Ph.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia.

  • Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, ed. P. Cole and J. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in S. Davis (Ed.) (1991), Pragmatics: A reader, 305–315. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Horn, L. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.

  • Horn L. (1989) A natural history of negation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Iatridou S. (2000) The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 231–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Izvorski, R. 1997. The present perfect as an epistemic modal. In Proceedings of SALT VII, ed. A. Lawson, 222–239. Ithaca, NY: DMLL Publications, Cornell University.

  • Kissine M. (2008) Why will is not a modal. Natural Language Semantics 16: 129–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klinedinst, N. 2006. Plurality and possibility. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.

  • Klinedinst, N. 2007. Plurals, possibilities, and conjunctive disjunction. In UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 19, ed. R. Breheny and N. Velegrakis, 261–284. Department of Phonetics and Linguistics, University College London.

  • Kratzer A. (1977) What “must” and “can” must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 337–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Words, worlds, and contexts, ed. H.-J. Eikemeyer and H. Rieser, 38–74. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Kratzer, A. 1991. Modality. In Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. D. Wunderlich and A. von Stechow, 639–650. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Kratzer, A. 1998. Scope or pseudo-scope: Are there wide-scope indefinites? In Events in grammar, ed. S. Rothstein, 163–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Kratzer, A. 2003. A note on choice functions in context. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Martí, L. 2003. Contextual variables. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

  • Matthewson L. (1998) Determiner systems and quantificational strategies: Evidence from Salish. Holland Academic Graphics, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthewson L. () 1999. On the interpretation of wide-scope indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 7: 79–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthewson L. (2004) On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics 70: 369–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthewson L. (2005) When I was small – I wan kwikws: Grammatical analyis of St’át’imcets oral narratives. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthewson L. (2006) Temporal semantics in a supposedly tenseless language. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 673–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthewson L., Davis H., Rullmann H. (2007) Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St’a´t’imcets. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 7: 201–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Mithun M. (1999) The languages of native North America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Portner P. (1997) The semantics of mood, complementation, and conversational force. Natural Language Semantics 5: 167–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart T. (1997) Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 335–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley J., Szabó Z.G. (2000) On quantifier domain restriction. Mind and Language 15: 219–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Eijk J. (1997) The Lillooet language: Phonology, morphology, syntax. UBC Press, Vancouver

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eijk, J., and L. Williams. 1981. Lillooet legends and stories. Mount Currie, BC: Ts’zil Publishing House.

  • Vander Klok, J. 2008. Javanese modals: In between auxiliaries and verbs. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Canadian Linguistics Association, UBC, Vancouver, May 31–June 2, 2008.

  • von Fintel, K. 1994. Restrictions on quantifier domains. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • von Fintel, K., and I. Heim. 2005. Intensional semantics: Lecture notes. Unpublished manuscript, MIT.

  • Westerståhl, D. 1985. Determiners and context sets. In Generalized quantifiers in natural language, ed. J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen, 45–71. Dordrecht: Foris.

  • (1988) A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12: 51–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter Y. (1997) Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 399–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwicky, A., and J. Sadock. 1975. Ambiguity tests and how to fail them. In Syntax and Semantics IV, ed. J.P. Kimball, 1–36. New York: Academic Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, University of British Columbia, Totem Field Studios, 2613 West Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z4

    Hotze Rullmann, Lisa Matthewson & Henry Davis

Authors
  1. Hotze Rullmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisa Matthewson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Henry Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hotze Rullmann.

Additional information

We are very grateful to St’át’imcets consultants Laura Thevarge, Gertrude Ned, Rose Agnes Whitley, and the late Beverley Frank, who passed away during the writing of this paper, and to whose memory we dedicate it. We are also indebted to two anonymous reviewers, Ana Arregui, Rose-Marie Déchaine, Irene Heim, Nathan Klinedinst, Jean-Pierre Koenig, Fabrice Nauze, Paul Portner, Chris Potts, Martina Wiltschko and especially Angelika Kratzer for helpful feedback and suggestions, as well as to audience members at SULA 3, ESSLLI 2005, the 2005 LSA Summer Institute, the 40th and 41st International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, Simon Fraser University, the Paris Roundtable on Time and Modality, and the University of British Columbia. Errors are our own. This research has been supported by SSHRC grants #410-2002-1715, #410-2003-1138, and #410-2005-0875.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rullmann, H., Matthewson, L. & Davis, H. Modals as distributive indefinites. Nat Lang Semantics 16, 317–357 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-008-9036-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-008-9036-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation