The semantic roots of positive polarity: epistemic modal verbs and adverbs in English, Greek and Italian

Abstract

Epistemic modal verbs and adverbs of necessity are claimed to be positive polarity items. We study their behavior by examining modal spread, a phenomenon that appears redundant or even anomalous, since it involves two apparent modal operators being interpreted as a single modality. We propose an analysis in which the modal adverb is an argument of the MUST modal, providing a meta-evaluation \(\mathcal {O}\) which ranks the Ideal, stereotypical worlds in the modal base as better possibilities than the Non-Ideal worlds in it. MUST and possibility modals differ in that the latter have an empty \(\mathcal {O}\), a default that can be negotiated. Languages vary in the malleability of this parameter. Positive polarity is derived as a conflict between the ranking imposed by \(\mathcal {O}\)—which requires that the Ideal worlds be better possibilities than Non-Ideal worlds—and the effect of higher negation which renders the Ideal set non-homogenous. Applying the ordering over such a non-homogeneous set would express preference towards both p and \(\lnot p \) worlds thus rendering the sentence uninformative. Negative polarity MUST and possibility modals, on the other hand, contain an empty \(\mathcal {O}\), application of higher negation therefore poses no problem. This account is the first to connect modal spread to positive polarity of necessity modals, and captures the properties of both in a unified analysis.

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

References

  1. Anand, P., & Brasoveanu, A. (2010). Modal concord as modal modification. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 14, pp. 19–36).

  2. Asher, N., & Morreau, M. (1995). What some generic sentences mean. In G. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book. Chicago: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Beaver, D., & Frazee, J. (2016). Semantics. In The handbook of computational linguistics. Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199573691.013.29.

  4. Bertinetto, P. M. (1979). Alcune ipotesi sul nostro futuro (con alcune osservazioni su potere e dovere). Rivista di grammatica generativa, 4, 77–138.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bonami, O., & Godard, G. (2008). Lexical semantics and pragmatics of evaluative adverbs. In L. McNally & C. Kennedy (Eds.), Adverbs and adjectives: Syntax, semantics and discourse (pp. 274–304). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Condoravdi, C. (2002). Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past. In D. Beaver, L. D. Cassillas Maritinez, B. Z. Clark, & S. Kaufmann (Eds.), The construction of meaning. Stanford: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cui, Y. (2015). Modals in the scope of attitudes: A corpus study of attitude-modal combinations in Mandarin Chinese. Ph.D. thesis, Georgetown University.

  8. de Marneffe, M., Manning, C., & Potts, C. (2012). Did it happen? The pragmatic complexity of the veridicality judgement. Computational Linguistics, 38, 300–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrech: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ernst, T. (2009). Speaker oriented adverbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 27, 497–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Farkas, D. F. (1985). Intensional descriptions and the romance subjunctive. New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Farkas, D. F. (1992). On the semantics of subjunctive complements. In P. Hirschbühler et al. (Eds.), Romance languages and modern linguistic theory (pp. 69–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Geurts, B., & Huitink, J. (2006). Modal concord. In P. Dekker & H. Zeijlstra (Eds.), Concord and the syntax–semantics interface (pp. 15–20). Malaga: ESSLLI.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Giannakidou, A. (1994). The semantic licensing of NPIs and the Modern Greek subjunctive. In A. de Boer, H. de Hoop, & H. de Swart (Eds.), Language and cognition. Yearbook of the Research Group for Theoretical and Experimental Linguistics (Vol. 4, pp. 55–68). Groningen: University of Groningen.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Giannakidou, A. (1997). The landscape of polarity items. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen, Amsterdam.

  16. Giannakidou, A. (1998). Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Giannakidou, A. (1999). Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22, 367–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Giannakidou, A. (2009). The dependency of the subjunctive revisited: Temporal semantics and polarity. Lingua, 120, 1883–1908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Giannakidou, A. (2011). Positive polarity items and negative polarity items: Variation, licensing, and compositionality. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (2nd ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Giannakidou, A. (2012). The Greek future as an epistemic modal. In Proceedings of ICGL 10.

  21. Giannakidou, A. (2013). Inquisitive assertions and nonveridicality. In M. Aloni, M. Franke, & F. Roelofsen (Eds.), The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of \(\phi \), \(?\phi \) and possibly \(\phi \) , a feestschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof and Frank Veltman (pp. 115–126). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.

  22. Giannakidou, A., & Mari, A. (2012a). Italian and Greek futures as epistemic operators. Proceedings of CLS, 48, 247–262.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Giannakidou, A., & Mari, A. (2012b). The future of Greek and Italian: An epistemic analysis. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 17, pp. 255–2700). http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/Dk3NGEwY/GiannakidouMari.pdf.

  24. Giannakidou, A., & Mari, A. (2013). A two dimensional analysis of the future: Modal adverbs and speaker’s bias. Proceedings of the Amsterdam Colloquium, 2013, 115–122.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Giannakidou, A., & Mari, A. (2016a). Emotive predicates and the subjunctive: A flexible mood OT account based on (non)veridicality. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 20, pp. 288–305).

  26. Giannakidou, A., & Mari, A. (2016b). Tense, mood, and modality: New perspectives on old questions. Epistemic future and epistemic MUST: Nonveridicality, evidence, and partial knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Giannakidou, A., & Mari, A. (2017). La dimension épistemique du futur: le rôle des adverbes. In L. Baranzini & L. de Saussure (Eds.), Le Futur dans les langues Romanes. Bern: Peter Lang AG.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Giannakidou, A., & Mari, A. (2018). A unified analysis of the future as epistemic modality: The view from Greek and Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic theory, 36, 85–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Giorgi, A., & Pianesi, F. (1997). Tense and aspect: Form semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Grosz, P. (2010). Grading modality: A new approach to modal concord and its relatives. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 14, pp. 185–201). http://www.univie.ac.at/sub14/.

  31. Grosz, P. (2012). On the grammar of optative constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  32. Hacquard, V. (2006). Aspects of modality. PhD thesis, MIT.

  33. Hacquard, V. (2010). On the event relativity of modal auxiliaries. Natural Language Semantics, 18(1), 79–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hacquard, V., & Wellwood, A. (2012). Embedding epistemic modals in English: A corpus-based study. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(4), 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Harris, J. A., & Potts, C. (2009). Perspective-shifting with appositives and expressives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 32(6), 523–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and belief. Cornell: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Homer, V. (2015). Neg-raising and positive polarity: The view from modals. Semantics & Pragmatics, 8, 1–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Horn, L. (2001). A natural history of negation. University of Chicago Press.

  39. Huitink, J. (2012). Modal concord. A case study in Dutch. Journal of Semantics, 29(3), 403–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Huitink, J. (2014). Modal concord. In L. Matthewson, C. Meier, H. Rullman, & T. E. Zimmermann (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to semantics. Oxford: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Iatridou, S., & Zeijlstra, H. (2013). Negation, polarity and deontic modals. Linguistic Inquiry, 44, 529–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Israel, M. (1996). Polarity sensitivity as lexical semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19(6), 619–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Karttunen, L. (1972). Possible and must. In J. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 1, pp. 1–20). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Knobe, J., & Szabo, G. S. (2013). Modals with a taste of the deontic. Semantics and Pragmatics, 6, 1–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research (pp. 639–650). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Krifka, M. (2015). Bias in commitment space semantics: Declarative questions, negated questions, and question tags. In: Proceedings of SALT (Vol. 25, pp. 328–345).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Landman, F. (1992). The progressive. Natural language semantics, 1(1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lasersohn, P. (2005). Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28, 643–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Lassiter, D. (2016). Must, knowledge, and (in)directness. Natural Language Semantics, 24, 117–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Lauer, S. (2013). Towards a dynamic pragmatics. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.

  51. Liu, M. (2009). Speaker-oriented adverbs of the German-wise sort. In Proceedings of Sinn ind Bedeutung (pp. 333–346).

  52. Liu, M. (2012). Multidimensional semantics for evaluative adverbs. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Mari, A. (2003). Principes d’identification et de catégorisation du sens: le cas de ‘avec’ ou l’association par les canaux. Paris: L’Harmattan.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Mari, A. (2005). Intensional and epistemic wholes. In E. Machery, M. Werning, & G. Schurz (Eds.), The compositionality of meaning and content. Vol I: Foundational issues. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Mari, A. (2009a). Disambiguating the Italian future. In Proceedings of generative lexicon (pp. 209–216).

  57. Mari, A. (2009b). Future, judges and normalcy conditions. Selected talk at Chronos 10, Austin, Texas. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/ijn_00354462/.

  58. Mari, A. (2014). Each other, asymmetry and reasonable futures. Journal of Semantics, 31(2), 209–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Mari, A. (2015a). Modalités et Temps. Bern: Peter Lang AG.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Mari, A. (2015b). French future: Exploring the future ratification hypothesis. Journal of French Language Studies. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269515000289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Mari, A. (2015c). Overt and covert modality in generic sentences. Cahiers Chronos, 27, 265–288.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Mari, A. (2016). Assertability conditions of epistemic (and fictional) attitudes and mood variation. Proceedings of SALT, 26, 61–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Mari, A. (2017). Actuality entailments: When the modality is in the presupposition. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 191–210). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Mari, A. (2018). Believing and asserting. Evidence from mood shift. Workshop InqBnB2, Amsterdam, December 18–20, 2018. http://jakubdotlacil.com/inqbnb2/alda.pdf.

  65. Mari, A., Beyssade, C., & Del Prete, F. (2012). Introduction. In A. Mari, C. Beyssade, & F. Del Prete (Eds.), Genericity (pp. 1–92). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Matthewson, L., Rullmann, H., & Davis, H. (2007). Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St’at’imcets. The Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 7, 201–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Mayol, L., & Castroviejo, E. (2013). (Non)integrated evaluative adverbs in questions: A cross-Romance study. Language, 89(2), 195–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Moss, S. (2015). On the semantics and pragmatics of epistemic vocabulary. Semantics and Pragmatics, 8, 1–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Narrog, H. (2012). Modality, subjectivity, and semantic change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Nilsen, Ø. (2004). Domains for adverbs. Lingua, 114(6), 809–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Portner, P. (1998). The progressive in modal semantics. Language, 74(4), 760–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Portner, P. (2009). Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Portner, P., & Rubinstein, A. (2016). Extreme and non-extreme deontic modals. In N. Charlow & M. Chrisman (Eds.), Deontic modality. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Potts, C. (2007). The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics, 33(2), 165–197.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Progovac, L. (1994). Positive and negative polarity: A binding approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar: A handbook of generative syntax (pp. 281–337). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Rubinstein, A. (2014). On necessity and comparison. Pacific Philosophical Quaterly, 95, 512–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Smirnova, A. (2013). Evidentiality in Bulgarian. Journal of Semantics, 30, 479–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Staraki, E. (2013). Greek modality. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation.

  80. Stephenson, T. (2007). Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(4), 487–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Szabolcsi, A. (2004). Positive polarity—Negative polarity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22, 409–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. van der Wouden, T. (1994). Negative contexts. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen.

  83. von Fintel, K., & Gillies, A. (2010). Must...stay... strong !. Natural Language Semantics, 18, 351–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. von Fintel, K., & Iatridou, S. (2008a). Time and modality. In J. Guéron & J. Lacarme (Eds.), How to say ought in foreign: The composition of weak necessity modals (pp. 115–141). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  85. von Fintel, K., & Iatridou, S. (2008b). How to say ought in foreign: The composition of weak necessity modals. In J. Guéron & J. Lacarme (Eds.), Time and modality (pp. 115–141). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Willer, M. (2013). Dynamics of epistemic modality. Philosophical Review, 122, 45–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Willett, T. (1988). A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language, 12, 51–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Wolf, L. (2013). Degrees of assertion. Ph.D. dissertation, Ben Gurion University.

  89. Yalcin, S. (2007). Epistemic modals. Mind, 116, 983–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Zanuttini, R. (1992). Negation and clausal structure: A comparative study of romance languages. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

  91. Zeijlstra, E. (2017). Universal quantifiers PPIs. Glossa, 2, 91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

No work is done in isolation, and we want to thank the many colleagues that became familiar with our work and offered us comments when we presented material related to this paper, as early as the ‘Futur dans les langues Romanes’ workshop held in Neuchâtel in 2012, the Amsterdam Colloquium in 2013, and the Linguistics and Philosophy seminar in Chicago in 2014. The specific shape of the material discussed in this paper owes a lot to the insights and advice we received from our editor Paul Portner, who went beyond the call of duty to encourage us to develop our arguments to their fullest. We are thankful for his help. Many thanks also to Jason Merchant and Hedde Zeijlstra for their suggestions on the more syntactic aspects of the paper, to Mingya Liu, Claire Beyssade and Lavi Wolf for their comments on epistemic commitment and to the anonymous reviewers of Linguistics and Philosophy for their careful reading of the paper, and for offering generously their suggestions and insights. Alda Mari gratefully thanks the ANR-10-LABX-0087 IEC and ANR- 10-IDEX-0001-02 PSL.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alda Mari.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Giannakidou, A., Mari, A. The semantic roots of positive polarity: epistemic modal verbs and adverbs in English, Greek and Italian. Linguist and Philos 41, 623–664 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-018-9235-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Positive polarity
  • Modal spread
  • Epistemic modality
  • Epistemic adverbs
  • Ordering semantics