Commitment and states of mind with mood and modality

Open Access
Article
  • 175 Downloads

Abstract

This paper develops an account of mood selection with attitude predicates in French. I start by examining the “contextual commitment” account of mood developed by Portner and Rubinstein (in: Chereches (ed) Proceedings of SALT 22, CLC Publications, Ithaca, NY, pp 461–487, 2012). A key innovation of Portner and Rubinstein’s (P&R’s) account is to treat mood selection as fundamentally depending on a relation between individuals’ attitudes and the predicate’s modal backgrounds. I raise challenges for P&R’s qualitative analysis of contextual commitment and explanations of mood selection. There are indicative-selecting predicates that are felicitous in contexts where there isn’t contextual commitment (in P&R’s sense); and there are subjunctive-selecting predicates that involve no less contextual commitment (in P&R’s sense) than certain indicative-selecting verbs. I develop an alternative account of verbal mood. The general approach, which I call a state-of-mind approach, is to analyze mood in terms of whether the formal relation between the predicate’s modal backgrounds and an overall state of mind represents a relation of commitment. Indicative mood in French presupposes that the informational-evaluative state determined by the predicate’s modal backgrounds is included in the informational-evaluative state characterizing the event described by the predicate. The account provides an improved explanation of core mood-selection puzzles, including subjunctive-selection with emotive factives, indicative-selection with fiction verbs, indicative-selection with espérer ‘hope’ versus subjunctive-selection with vouloir ‘want’, and indicative-selection with commissives versus subjunctive-selection with directives. Subjunctive-selection with modal adjectives is briefly considered. The mood-selection properties of the predicates are derived from the proposed analysis of mood, independently attested features of the predicates’ semantics, and general principles of interpretation.

Keywords

Mood Mood selection Modality Events Context-sensitivity Attitude ascriptions 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to three anonymous referees, the copy-editor, and the editors for comments. This research has benefited from the support of an AHRC Early Career Research Grant (AH/N001877/1).

References

  1. Alston, W.P. 1988. The deontological conception of epistemic justification. Philosophical Perspectives 2: 257–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anand, P., and V. Hacquard. 2013. Epistemics and attitudes. Semantics and Pragmatics 6: 1–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anand, P., and V. Hacquard. 2014. Factivity, belief and discourse. In The art and craft of semantics: A festschrift for Irene Heim, vol. 1, ed. L. Crnič and U. Sauerland, 69–90. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, J. 1990. Why is belief involuntary? Analysis 50: 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bittner, M. 2011. Time and modality without tenses or modals. In Tense across languages, ed. M. Rathert and R. Musan, 147–188. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  6. Błaszczak, J., A. Giannakidou, D. Klimek-Jankowska, and K. Migdalski (eds.). 2016. Mood, aspect, modality revisited: New answers to old questions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bolinger, D. 1968. Post-posed main phrases: An English rule for the Romance subjunctive. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 14: 3–30.Google Scholar
  8. Charlow, N. 2011. Practical language: Its meaning and use. PhD thesis, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, H.H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Condoravdi, C. 2002. Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past. In The construction of meaning, ed. D.I. Beaver, L.D.C. Martínez, B.Z. Clark, and S. Kaufmann, 59–88. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Farkas, D. 1992. On the semantics of subjunctive complements. In Romance languages and modern linguistic theory, ed. P. Hirschbühler and E. Koerner, 69–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  12. Farkas, D. 2003. Assertion, belief and mood choice. Paper presented at ESSLI, Conditional and unconditional modality workshop, September 2003, Vienna.Google Scholar
  13. Farkas, D.F., and K.B. Bruce. 2010. On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 27: 81–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. von Fintel, K. 1999. NPI licensing, Strawson entailment, and context dependency. Journal of Semantics 16: 97–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. von Fintel, K., and A.S. Gillies. 2010. Must... stay... strong!. Natural Language Semantics 18: 351–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frank, A. 1996. Context dependence in modal constructions. PhD thesis, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  17. Giannakidou, A. 1994. The semantic licensing of NPIs and the modern Greek subjunctive. Language and cognition 4: Yearbook of the research group for theoretical and experimental linguistics, 55–68. Groningen: University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  18. Giannakidou, A. 1995. Subjunctive, habituality, and negative polarity items. In Proceedings of SALT 5, ed. M. Simons and T. Galloway, 94–111. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  19. Giannakidou, A. 1997. The landscape of polarity items. PhD thesis, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  20. Giannakidou, A. 1999. Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 367–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Giannakidou, A. 2016. Evaluative subjunctive and nonveridicality. In Błaszczak et al. (2016), 177–217.Google Scholar
  22. Giannakidou, A., and A. Mari. 2016. Epistemic future and epistemic MUST: Nonveridicality, evidence, and partial knowledge. In Błaszczak et al. (2016) 75–117.Google Scholar
  23. Gibbard, A. 1990. Wise choices, apt feelings: A theory of normative judgment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gibbard, A. 2005. Truth and correct belief. Philosophical Issues 15: 338–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ginzburg, J. 2012. The interactive stance: Meaning for conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Giorgi, A., and F. Pianesi. 1997. Tense and aspect: From semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Goble, L. 2013. Prima facie norms, normative conflicts, and dilemmas. In Handbook of deontic logic and normative systems, vol. 1, ed. D. Gabbay, J. Horty, X. Parent, R. van der Mayden, and L. van der Torre, 241–352. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Gowans, C.W. (ed.). 1987. Moral dilemmas. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Grant, C. 1949. Promises. Mind 58: 359–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gunlogson, C. 2001. True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. PhD thesis, UC Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  31. Gunlogson, C. 2008. A question of commitment. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 22: 101–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hacquard, V. 2006. Aspects of modality. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  33. Hacquard, V. 2009. On the interaction of aspect and modal auxiliaries. Linguistics and Philosophy 32 (3): 279–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hacquard, V. 2010. On the event relativity of modal auxiliaries. Natural Language Semantics 18 (1): 79–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harnish, R.M. 1990. Speech acts and intentionality. In Speech acts, meaning, and intentions: Critical approaches to the philosophy of John R. Searle, ed. A. Burkhardt, 169–193. New York, NY: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  36. Heim, I. 1991. Articles and definiteness. In Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich, 487–535. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  37. Heim, I. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9: 183–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Iatridou, S. 2000. The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31 (2): 231–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kratzer, A. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Words, worlds, and contexts: New approaches in word semantics, ed. H.J. Eikmeyer, and H. Rieser, 38–74. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  40. Kratzer, A. 1991. Modality/Conditionals. In Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. A. von Stechow, and D. Wunderlich, 639–656. New York, NY: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  41. Kratzer, A. 2012. Modals and conditionals: New and revised perspectives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lassiter, D. 2011. Measurement and modality: The scalar basis of modal semantics. PhD thesis, New York University.Google Scholar
  43. Lassiter, D. 2015. Epistemic comparison, models of uncertainty, and the disjunction puzzle. Journal of Semantics 32: 649–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lauer, S. 2013. Towards a dynamic pragmatics. PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  45. Lewis, D. 1979. A problem about permission. In Essays in honour of Jaakko Hintikka, ed. E. Saarinen, R. Hilpinen, I. Niiniluoto, and M. Hintikka, 163–175. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lochbaum, K.E. 1998. A collaborative planning model of intentional structure. Computational Linguistics 24 (4): 525–572.Google Scholar
  47. MacFarlane, J. 2014. Assessment sensitivity: Relative truth and its applications. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Makinson, D. 1993. Five faces of minimality. Studia Logica 52 (3): 339–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Malamud, S.A., and T. Stephenson. 2015. Three ways to avoid commitments: Declarative force modifiers in the conversational scoreboard. Journal of Semantics 32: 275–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Marques, R. 2009. On the selection of mood in complement clauses. In Crosslinguistic semantics of tense, aspect, and modality, ed. L. Hogeweg, H. de Hoop, and A. Malchukov, 179–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ninan, D. 2005. Two puzzles about deontic necessity. In New work on modality, ed. J. Gajewski, V. Hacquard, B. Nickel, and S. Yalcin, 149–178. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  52. Noonan, M. 1985. Complementation. In Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 2, Complex constructions, ed. T. Shopen, 52–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Palmer, F. 1977. Modals and actuality. Journal of Linguistics 13: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Palmer, F. 1986. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Piller, C. 2006. Content-related and attitude-related reasons for preferences. In Preferences and well-being, ed. S. Olsaretti, 155–182. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Plantinga, A. 1993. Warrant: The current debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Portner, P. 1997. The semantics of mood, complementation, and conversational force. Natural Language Semantics 5: 167–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Portner, P. 2004. The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. In The Proceedings of SALT 14, ed. K. Watanabe and R. Young, 235–252. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  59. Portner, P. 2007. Imperatives and modals. Natural Language Semantics 15 (4): 351–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Portner, P. 2009. Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Portner, P., and A. Rubinstein. 2012. Mood and contextual commitment. In Proceedings of SALT 22, ed. A. Chereches, 461–487. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  62. Portner, P., and A. Rubinstein. 2016. Extreme and non-extreme deontic modals. In Deontic modals, ed. N. Charlow and M. Chrisman, 256–282. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Quer, J. 2001. Interpreting mood. Probus 13: 81–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Roberts, C. 1996. Information structure: Towards an integrated theory of formal pragmatics. In OSU Working papers in linguistics, Vol. 49: Papers in semantics, ed. J.H. Yoon and A. Kathol. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  65. Rubinstein, A. 2012. Roots of modality. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
  66. Rubinstein, A. 2014. On necessity and comparison. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 95: 512–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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 Romance languages and linguistic theory 2003, ed. T. Geerts, I. van Ginneken, and H. Jacobs, 269–309. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Siegel, L. 2009. Mood selection in Romance and Balkan. Lingua 119: 1859–1882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Silk, A. 2012. Modality, weights, and inconsistent premise sets. In Proceedings of SALT 22, ed. A. Chereches, 43–64. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  70. Silk, A. 2016. Discourse contextualism: A framework for contextualist semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Silk, A. 2017. Modality, weights, and inconsistent premise sets. Journal of Semantics 34 (4): 683–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Silk, A. 2018. Weak and strong necessity modals. In Meaning, decision, and norms: Themes from the work of Allan Gibbard, eds. D. Plunkett and B. Dunaway. Ann Arbor: Michigan Publishing. http://goo.gl/xY9roN
  73. Sinnott-Armstrong, W. 1988. Moral dilemmas. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  74. Smirnova, A. 2011. Evidentiality and mood: Grammatical expressions of epistemic modality in Bulgarian. PhD thesis, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  75. Stalnaker, R. 1978. Assertion. Context and content: Essays on intentionality in speech and thought, 78–95. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Stalnaker, R. 1984. Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  77. Stalnaker, R. 2014. Context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Starr, W. 2010. Conditionals, meaning, and mood. PhD thesis, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  79. Stephenson, T. 2007. Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 487–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Swanson, E. 2011. On the treatment of incomparability in ordering semantics and premise semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 40: 693–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Swanson, E. 2016. The application of constraint semantics to the language of subjective uncertainty. Journal of Philosophical Logic 45: 121–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Villalta, E. 2000. Spanish subjunctive clauses require ordered alternatives. In Semantics and Linguistic theory (SALT) 10, ed. B. Jackson and T. Matthews, 239–256. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  83. Villalta, E. 2008. Mood and gradability: An investigation of the subjunctive mood in Spanish. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (4): 467–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Werner, T. 2003. Deducing the future and distinguishing the past: Temporal interpretation in modal sentences in English. PhD thesis, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  85. Williamson, T. 2000. Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Yalcin, S. 2007. Epistemic modals. Mind 116: 983–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zanuttini, R., M. Pak, and P. Portner. 2012. A syntactic analysis of interpretive restrictions on imperative, promissive, and exhortative subjects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30 (4): 1231–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations