Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 317–357 | Cite as

Modals as distributive indefinites

Article

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.

Keywords

Modals Evidentials Choice functions St’át’imcets Lillooet Salish 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abusch, D. 1985. On verbs and time. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  2. Aikhenvald A. (2004) Evidentiality. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Bybee J., Fleischman S. (1995) Modality in grammar and discourse. John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  5. Chafe, W., and J. Nichols. eds. 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Advances in discourse processes, Vol. XX. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Copley, B. 2002. The semantics of the future. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  9. Cruse D.A. (1986) Lexical semantics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Dalrymple M., Kanazawa M., Kim Y., Mchombo S., Peters S. (1998) Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 159–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis, H. 2006. A teacher’s grammar of Upper St’át’imcets. Manuscript, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. Enç M. 1996. Tense and modality. In Handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. S. Lappin, 345–358. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Faller, M. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Faller, M. to appear. Evidentiality above and below speech acts. Functions of Language. Special issue on evidentality, ed. C. Paradis and L. Egberg.Google Scholar
  20. Frank, B., and R.A.Whitley. 1994. Preserving salmon at home. Lillooet, BC: Upper St’a´t’imc Language Culture and Education Society.Google Scholar
  21. Gamut L.T.F. (1991) Logic, language, and meaning. Vol. 2: Intensional logic and logical grammar. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  22. Gillon, C. 2006. The semantics of determiners: Domain restriction in Sk̲wx̲wú7mesh. Ph.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. Horn, L. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
  25. Horn L. (1989) A natural history of negation. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  26. Iatridou S. (2000) The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 231–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. Kissine M. (2008) Why will is not a modal. Natural Language Semantics 16: 129–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klinedinst, N. 2006. Plurality and possibility. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. Kratzer A. (1977) What “must” and “can” must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 337–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. Kratzer, A. 1991. Modality. In Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. D. Wunderlich and A. von Stechow, 639–650. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  34. Kratzer, A. 1998. Scope or pseudo-scope: Are there wide-scope indefinites? In Events in grammar, ed. S. Rothstein, 163–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  35. Kratzer, A. 2003. A note on choice functions in context. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  36. Martí, L. 2003. Contextual variables. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
  37. Matthewson L. (1998) Determiner systems and quantificational strategies: Evidence from Salish. Holland Academic Graphics, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  38. Matthewson L. () 1999. On the interpretation of wide-scope indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 7: 79–134Google Scholar
  39. Matthewson L. (2004) On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics 70: 369–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Matthewson L. (2005) When I was small – I wan kwikws: Grammatical analyis of St’át’imcets oral narratives. UBC Press, Vancouver, BCGoogle Scholar
  41. Matthewson L. (2006) Temporal semantics in a supposedly tenseless language. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 673–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Matthewson L., Davis H., Rullmann H. (2007) Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St’a´t’imcets. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 7: 201–254Google Scholar
  43. Mithun M. (1999) The languages of native North America. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Portner P. (1997) The semantics of mood, complementation, and conversational force. Natural Language Semantics 5: 167–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reinhart T. (1997) Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 335–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stanley J., Szabó Z.G. (2000) On quantifier domain restriction. Mind and Language 15: 219–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Van Eijk J. (1997) The Lillooet language: Phonology, morphology, syntax. UBC Press, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  48. Van Eijk, J., and L. Williams. 1981. Lillooet legends and stories. Mount Currie, BC: Ts’zil Publishing House.Google Scholar
  49. 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.Google Scholar
  50. von Fintel, K. 1994. Restrictions on quantifier domains. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  51. von Fintel, K., and I. Heim. 2005. Intensional semantics: Lecture notes. Unpublished manuscript, MIT.Google Scholar
  52. 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.Google Scholar
  53. (1988) A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12: 51–97Google Scholar
  54. Winter Y. (1997) Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 399–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations