Linguistics and Philosophy

, 31:467 | Cite as

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

Research Article


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.


Subjunctive mood Propositional attitudes Focus Semantics of comparison 


  1. Bartsch R., Venneman T. (1973) Semantic structures: A study in the relation between syntax and semantics. Athenäum Verlag, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck S. (2006) Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14: 1–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. 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).Google Scholar
  5. Bierwisch M. (1989) The semantics of gradation. In: Bierwisch M., Lang E. (eds) Dimensional adjectives. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 71–261Google Scholar
  6. Boër S. (1979) Meaning and contrastive stress. The Philosophical Review 2: 263–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolinger D. (1968) Postposed main phrases: An English rule for the romance subjunctive. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 10: 125–197Google Scholar
  8. Bolinger D. (1972) Degree words. De Hague, MoutonGoogle Scholar
  9. Borgonovo C. et al (2003) Mood and focus. In: Quer J. (eds) Romance languages and linguistic theory 2001. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp 17–30Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Cresswell M.J. (1976) The semantics of degree. In: Partee B.H. (eds) Montague grammar. Academic Press, New York, pp 261–292Google Scholar
  12. Doetjes, J. (1997). Quantifiers and selection: On the distribution of quantifying expressions in French, Dutch and English. PhD dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
  13. Dretske F. (1972) Contrastive statements. Philosophical Review 81: 411–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dretske F. et al (1975) The content of knowledge. In: Freed B. (eds) Forms of representation. North Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp 77–93Google Scholar
  15. Erteschik-Shir N. (1997) The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Farkas D. (1985) Intensional descriptions and the romance subjunctive mood. Garland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 69–103Google Scholar
  18. Farkas, D. (2003). Assertion, belief and mood choice. Ms., University of Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  19. Giannakidou, A. (1997). The landscape of polarity items. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  20. Giannakidou A. (1998) Polarity sensitivity as (Non) veridical dependency. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
  21. Giannakidou A. (1999) Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 367–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giorgi A., Pianesi F. (1997) Tense and aspect, from semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Givón T. (1994) Irrealis and the subjunctive. Studies in Language 18(2): 265–337Google Scholar
  24. Heim, I. (1985). Notes on comparatives and related matters. Ms., University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
  25. Heim I. (1992) Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9: 183–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heim I. (2000) Degree operators and scope. In: Jackson B., Matthews T. (eds) Semantics and linguistic theory (Vol. 10). CLC Publication, Ithaca, NY, pp 40–64Google Scholar
  27. Hintikka J. (1962) Knowledge and belief. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  28. Hintikka J. et al (1969) Semantics for propositional attitudes. In: Davis J.W. (eds) Philosophical logic. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 21–45Google Scholar
  29. Hooper J. (1975) On assertive predicates. In: Kimball J. (eds) Syntax and semantics Vol. 4. Academic Press, New York/London, pp 91–124Google Scholar
  30. Jakobs J. (1983) Fokus und Skalen. Tübingen, Max Niemeyer VerlagGoogle Scholar
  31. Jakobs J (1991) Negation. In: Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds) Semantik/semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research. de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  32. Kadmon N., Landman F. (1993) Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 353–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kamp H. (1975) Two theories of adjectives. In: Keenan E. (eds) Formal semantics of natural language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 123–155Google Scholar
  34. 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.Google Scholar
  35. 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 143–154Google Scholar
  36. Kennedy C. (1999) Projecting the adjective. The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. Garland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Kennedy C. (2001) Polar Opposition and the ontology of ‘degrees’. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 33–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kennedy C., McNally L. (2005) Scale structure and the semantic typology of gradable predicates. Language 81(2): 1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kiefer F. (1987) On defining modality. Folia Linguistica 21: 67–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Klein E. (1980) A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 1–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Klein E. (1991) Comparatives. In: Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds) Semantik/semantics. An international handbook of contemporary research. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 673–691Google Scholar
  42. Krasikova, S. (2007). Universal modals in comparative clauses. In A. Grønn (Ed.), Proceedings of SUB12, Oslo.Google Scholar
  43. Kratzer A. (1977) What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 337–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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 38–74Google Scholar
  45. Kratzer A. (1991) Modality. In: Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds) Semantik/semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 639–650Google Scholar
  46. Krifka M. (1995) The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25: 209–257Google Scholar
  47. Lee, Y., & Horn, L. (1994). Any as indefinite plus Even. Manuscript, Yale University.Google Scholar
  48. Lewis D. (1973) Counterfactuals. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  49. Lewis D. (1981) Ordering semantics and premise semantics for counterfactuals. Journal of Philosophical Logic 10: 317–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lewis D. (1986) Philosophical papers. (Vol. II). Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  51. Linebarger M. (1987) Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistic and Philosophy 10: 325–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Panzeri, F. (2002). Mood and assertion. PhD dissertation, Universita degli Studi di Milano.Google Scholar
  53. 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.Google Scholar
  54. 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 159–189Google Scholar
  55. 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.Google Scholar
  56. Portner, P. (1992). Situation theory and the semantics of propositional expressions. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  57. Portner P. (1997) The semantics of mood, complementation, and conversational force. Natural Language Semantics 5: 167–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Portner P. (1999) The semantics of mood. Glot International 4: 3–9Google Scholar
  59. 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 47–77Google Scholar
  60. 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, NKGoogle Scholar
  61. Portner P. (2007) Imperatives and modals. Natural Language Semantics 15(4): 351–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Quer, J. (1998). Mood at the interface. PhD dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  63. Quer J. (2001) Interpreting mood. Probus 13: 81–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ridruejo E. (1999) Modo y Modalidad. In: Elmodoenlassubordinadassustantivas. Bosque I., Demonte V. (eds) Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Espasa, Madrid, pp 3207–3251Google Scholar
  65. Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  66. Rooth M. (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rullmann, H. (1995). Maximality in the semantics of wh-constructions. PhD. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  68. 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 269–309Google Scholar
  69. Seuren P. (1973) The comparative. In: Kiefer F., Ruwet N. (eds) Generative grammar in Europe. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 528–564Google Scholar
  70. Sloman A. (1970) Ought and better. Mind 79: 385–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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.Google Scholar
  72. Stalnaker R. (1984) Inquiry. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  73. Terrell T.D., Hooper J. (1974) A semantically based analysis of Mood in Spanish. Hispania 57: 484–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  75. von Fintel K. (1999) NPI-licensing, Strawson-entailment, and context-dependency. Journal of Semantics 16: 97–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. von Fintel K., Iatridou S. (2007) Anatomy of modal construction. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 445–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. von Stechow A. (1984) Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3: 1–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. von Stechow A. (1984) My reaction to Cresswell’s, Hellan’s, Hoeksema’s and Seuren’s comments. Journal of Semantics 3: 183–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. von Stechow, A. (2007). Times as degrees. MS. Tübingen.Google Scholar
  80. von Wright G.H. (1963) Practical inference. The Philosophical Review 72: 159–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Villalta, E. (2006). Context dependence in the interpretation of questions and subjunctives. PhD dissertation, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
  82. Westerståhl, D. (1985). Determiners and context sets. In G. Van Benthem & A. Ter Meulen (Eds.), Generalized quantifiers in natural language (pp. 45–72).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations