Skip to main content
Log in

Mood and gradability: an investigation of the subjunctive mood in Spanish

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In Spanish (and other Romance languages) certain predicates select the subjunctive mood in the embedded clause, while others select the indicative mood. In this paper, I present a new analysis for the predicates that select the subjunctive mood in Spanish that is based on a semantics of comparison. The main generalization proposed here is the following: in Spanish, a predicate selects the subjunctive mood in its embedded proposition if the proposition is compared to its contextual alternatives on a scale introduced by the predicate. In this proposal, predicates that select the subjunctive mood are thus analyzed as gradable predicates. Furthermore, the subjunctive mood morpheme is claimed to make a semantic contribution, namely to evaluate the contextual alternatives that are compared by the predicate. In comparing this proposal to other approaches, I show that it can more straightforwardly account for a number of properties of these predicates (entailment relations, practical inferences, and contexts with more than two alternatives). New empirical evidence for two crucial properties of the predicates that select the subjunctive mood is provided: these predicates are focus sensitive and they are gradable, two properties that follow directly from the proposal developed here. In the vast literature on mood, the link between the appearance of the subjunctive mood and these important properties has never been made before.

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

Access this article

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

  • Bartsch R., Venneman T. (1973) Semantic structures: A study in the relation between syntax and semantics. Athenäum Verlag, Frankfurt

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck S. (2006) Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14: 1–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck S. (2007) The grammar of focus interpretation. In: Sauerland U., Hans-Martin G. (eds) Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomskys minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics. Walterde Gruyter Gmbh, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhatt, R., & Yoon, J. (1991). On the composition of COMP and parameters of V2. In D. Bates (Ed.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. (Vol. 10, pp. 41–52).

  • Bierwisch M. (1989) The semantics of gradation. In: Bierwisch M., Lang E. (eds) Dimensional adjectives. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 71–261

    Google Scholar 

  • Boër S. (1979) Meaning and contrastive stress. The Philosophical Review 2: 263–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolinger D. (1968) Postposed main phrases: An English rule for the romance subjunctive. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 10: 125–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolinger D. (1972) Degree words. De Hague, Mouton

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgonovo C. et al (2003) Mood and focus. In: Quer J. (eds) Romance languages and linguistic theory 2001. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp 17–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Büring, D. (1999). Drinking, accents, and negation. In E. Benedicto, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the focus workshop (pp. 37–50). University of Massachusetts Working Papers 21. Amherst, MA: GLSAPublications.

  • Cresswell M.J. (1976) The semantics of degree. In: Partee B.H. (eds) Montague grammar. Academic Press, New York, pp 261–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Doetjes, J. (1997). Quantifiers and selection: On the distribution of quantifying expressions in French, Dutch and English. PhD dissertation, Leiden University.

  • Dretske F. (1972) Contrastive statements. Philosophical Review 81: 411–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dretske F. et al (1975) The content of knowledge. In: Freed B. (eds) Forms of representation. North Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp 77–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Erteschik-Shir N. (1997) The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Farkas D. (1985) Intensional descriptions and the romance subjunctive mood. Garland, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Farkas D. (1992) On the semantics of subjunctive complements. In: Hirschbuehler P., Koerner K. (eds) Romance languages and modern linguistic theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp 69–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Farkas, D. (2003). Assertion, belief and mood choice. Ms., University of Santa Cruz.

  • Giannakidou, A. (1997). The landscape of polarity items. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen, the Netherlands.

  • Giannakidou A. (1998) Polarity sensitivity as (Non) veridical dependency. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins

    Google Scholar 

  • Giannakidou A. (1999) Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 367–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giorgi A., Pianesi F. (1997) Tense and aspect, from semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Givón T. (1994) Irrealis and the subjunctive. Studies in Language 18(2): 265–337

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. (1985). Notes on comparatives and related matters. Ms., University of Texas, Austin.

  • Heim I. (1992) Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9: 183–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim I. (2000) Degree operators and scope. In: Jackson B., Matthews T. (eds) Semantics and linguistic theory (Vol. 10). CLC Publication, Ithaca, NY, pp 40–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka J. (1962) Knowledge and belief. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka J. et al (1969) Semantics for propositional attitudes. In: Davis J.W. (eds) Philosophical logic. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 21–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooper J. (1975) On assertive predicates. In: Kimball J. (eds) Syntax and semantics Vol. 4. Academic Press, New York/London, pp 91–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobs J. (1983) Fokus und Skalen. Tübingen, Max Niemeyer Verlag

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobs J (1991) Negation. In: Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds) Semantik/semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research. de Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadmon N., Landman F. (1993) Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 353–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamp H. (1975) Two theories of adjectives. In: Keenan E. (eds) Formal semantics of natural language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 123–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, E. G. (1991). The downward entailingness of conditionals and adversatives. In FLSM II: Papers from the 2nd Annual Meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Midamerica (pp. 217–243). Bloomington: IULC Publications.

  • Kempchinsky P. (1998) Mood phrase, case checking and obviation. In: Schwegler T., Uribe- Etxebarría M. (eds) Selected Proceedings of the 27th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 143–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy C. (1999) Projecting the adjective. The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. Garland, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy C. (2001) Polar Opposition and the ontology of ‘degrees’. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 33–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy C., McNally L. (2005) Scale structure and the semantic typology of gradable predicates. Language 81(2): 1–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiefer F. (1987) On defining modality. Folia Linguistica 21: 67–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein E. (1980) A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 1–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein E. (1991) Comparatives. In: Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds) Semantik/semantics. An international handbook of contemporary research. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 673–691

    Google Scholar 

  • Krasikova, S. (2007). Universal modals in comparative clauses. In A. Grønn (Ed.), Proceedings of SUB12, Oslo.

  • 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: Eikmeyer H.-J., Rieser H. (eds) Words, worlds, and contexts: New approaches in word semantics. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 38–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer A. (1991) Modality. In: Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds) Semantik/semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 639–650

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka M. (1995) The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25: 209–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y., & Horn, L. (1994). Any as indefinite plus Even. Manuscript, Yale University.

  • Lewis D. (1973) Counterfactuals. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D. (1981) Ordering semantics and premise semantics for counterfactuals. Journal of Philosophical Logic 10: 317–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D. (1986) Philosophical papers. (Vol. II). Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Linebarger M. (1987) Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistic and Philosophy 10: 325–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panzeri, F. (2002). Mood and assertion. PhD dissertation, Universita degli Studi di Milano.

  • Panzeri, F. (2003). In the (indicative or subjunctive) mood. In M. Weisgerber (Ed.), Proceedings of the Conference “sub7- Sinn und Bedeutung” (pp. 216–227). Arbeitspapier Nr. 114, FB Sprachwissenschaften. Germany: Universität Konstanz.

  • Partee B. (1991) Topic, focus and quantification. In: Moore S., Wyner A.Z. (eds) Proceedings of Semantic and Linguistic Theory I. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp 159–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B. (1993). On the ‘scope of negation’ and polarity sensitivity’. In E. Hajičová (Ed.), Functional description of language (pp. 179–196). Prague: Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University.

  • Portner, P. (1992). Situation theory and the semantics of propositional expressions. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portner P. (1999) The semantics of mood. Glot International 4: 3–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Portner P. (2003) The semantics of mood. In: Cheng L., Sybesman R. (eds) The second glot international state-of-the-article book. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 47–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Portner P. (2004) The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. In: Watanabe K., Young R. (eds) Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (Vol. 14). CLC Publications, Cornell University, Ithaca, NK

    Google Scholar 

  • Portner P. (2007) Imperatives and modals. Natural Language Semantics 15(4): 351–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quer, J. (1998). Mood at the interface. PhD dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht, the Netherlands.

  • Quer J. (2001) Interpreting mood. Probus 13: 81–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridruejo E. (1999) Modo y Modalidad. In: Elmodoenlassubordinadassustantivas. Bosque I., Demonte V. (eds) Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Espasa, Madrid, pp 3207–3251

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Rooth M. (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rullmann, H. (1995). Maximality in the semantics of wh-constructions. PhD. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Schlenker P. (2005) The lazy Frenchman’s approach to the subjunctive: Speculations on reference to worlds and semantic defaults in the analysis of mood. In: Geerts T., Gynneken I., Jakobs H. (eds) Romance languages and linguistic theory 2003. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp 269–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Seuren P. (1973) The comparative. In: Kiefer F., Ruwet N. (eds) Generative grammar in Europe. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 528–564

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloman A. (1970) Ought and better. Mind 79: 385–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, R. (1968). A theory of conditionals. In N. Rescher (Ed.), Studies in logical theory, American Philosophical Quarterly (pp. 98–112). Monograph: 2. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

  • Stalnaker R. (1984) Inquiry. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Terrell T.D., Hooper J. (1974) A semantically based analysis of Mood in Spanish. Hispania 57: 484–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • von Fintel K. (1999) NPI-licensing, Strawson-entailment, and context-dependency. Journal of Semantics 16: 97–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel K., Iatridou S. (2007) Anatomy of modal construction. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 445–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow A. (1984) Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3: 1–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow A. (1984) My reaction to Cresswell’s, Hellan’s, Hoeksema’s and Seuren’s comments. Journal of Semantics 3: 183–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow, A. (2007). Times as degrees. MS. Tübingen.

  • von Wright G.H. (1963) Practical inference. The Philosophical Review 72: 159–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villalta, E. (2006). Context dependence in the interpretation of questions and subjunctives. PhD dissertation, Universität Tübingen.

  • Westerståhl, D. (1985). Determiners and context sets. In G. Van Benthem & A. Ter Meulen (Eds.), Generalized quantifiers in natural language (pp. 45–72).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisabeth Villalta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Villalta, E. Mood and gradability: an investigation of the subjunctive mood in Spanish. Linguist and Philos 31, 467–522 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9046-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9046-x

Keywords

Navigation