Tense and Modality in Nominals

  • Jacqueline Lecarme
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 75)

Abstract

It has been shown that, at least in certain languages, tense is represented in nominals (Lecarme, 1996, 2004). It is therefore important to consider whether the interplay between tense and modality which is commonly found in clauses exists in the nominal domain as well. This article investigates the non-temporal meanings of nominal tenses in Somali, an Afroasiatic language. It explores the conditions under which nominal past morphology is interpreted in the modal dimension, contributing either a quantificational reading of the past DP (comparable to English -ever in e.g., ‘whenever’) or an evidential reading focusing on the visible / non-visible distinction. It is argued that the common abstract feature underlying the various meanings of past morphology in nominals is a more primitive feature of “exclusion/dissociation” (Iatridou, 2000). To account for the link between direct evidentiality and visual perception in nominals, it is proposed to extend Kratzer’s (1981, 1991) theory of ‘doubly relative’ modality to include a perceptual component. In this revised framework, past morphology gives rise to ‘non-actual’, ‘unknown’ or ‘invisible’ modal meanings, depending on different choices of modal base and ordering source.

Keywords

Tense modality evidentiality definite articles demonstratives visual perception 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, Stephen, Lea Brown, Alice Gaby, and Jacqueline Lecarme. 2006. Life on the edge: There’s morphology there after all! In Lingue e Linguaggio, volume 1, pages 1-16.Google Scholar
  2. Bach, Emmon. 1981. On time, tense, and aspect: An essay in English metaphysics. In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, pages 62-81. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  3. Bhatt, Rajesh and Roumyana Pancheva. 2006. Conditionals. In Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, volume 1, pages 638-687. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burton, Strang. 1997. Past tense on nouns as death, destruction, and loss. In Kiyomi Kusumoto (ed.), NELS, volume 27. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.Google Scholar
  5. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Gram-mar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Carlson, Gregory. 1995. Truth conditions and generic sentences: Two contrasting views. In Gregory Carlson and Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, pages 224-237. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chafe, Wallace and Johanna Nichols (eds.). 1986. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, pages 89-156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, pages 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero, and Maria-Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspec-tive. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dayal, Veneeta. 1997. Free relatives and ever: Identity and free choice readings. In Aaron Lawson and Eun Cho (eds.), SALT VII Proceedings, pages 99-116. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  15. De Haan, Ferdinand. 1998. The category of evidentiality. Manuscript, University of New Mexico.Google Scholar
  16. De Haan, Ferdinand. to appear. Visual evidentiality and its origins. Diachronica.Google Scholar
  17. Diesing, Molly. 1988. Bare plural subjects and the stage/individual contrast. In Manfred Krifka (ed.), Genericity in Natural Language: Proceedings of the 1988 T übingen Conference, pages 88-42. T übingen: Seminar f ür nat ürlich-sprachliche Systeme.Google Scholar
  18. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dretske, Fred I. 1969. Seeing and Knowing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Dretske, Fred I. 1990. Seeing, believing and knowing. In: Daniel N. Osherson, Stephen M. Kosslyn, and John M. Hollerbach (eds.), Visual Cognition and Action: An Invitation to Cognitive Science, volume 2, pages 129-148. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Embick, David and Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 32(4):555-595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Enç, Mürvet. 1981. Tense without Scope: An Analysis of Nouns as Indexicals. Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  23. Enç, Mürvet 1986. Towards a referential analysis of temporal expressions. Linguis-tics and Philosophy, 9:405-426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry, 22(1):1-25.Google Scholar
  25. Faller, Martina. 2002. Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Stanford.Google Scholar
  26. von Fintel, Kay. 2000. Whatever. In Brenda Jackson and Tanya Matthews (eds.), Pro-ceedings from the Conference on Semantics and Linguistics (SALT, volume 10. CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Garrett, Edward. 2002. Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
  28. Goodale, Melvyn and David Milner. 1992. Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends in Neuroscience, 15:20-25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
  30. Heim, Irene and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  31. Higginbotham, James. 1983a. The logic of perceptual reports: An extensional alter-native to situation semantics. Journal of Philosophy, LXXX:100-127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Higginbotham, James. 1983b. Logical form, binding, and nominals. Linguistic Inquiry, 14:395-420.Google Scholar
  33. Higginbotham, James. 2008. Evidentials: Some Preliminary Distinctions. In Robert Stainton and Christopher Viger (eds.), Compositionality, Context, and Semantic Values. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  34. Hiraiwa, Ken. 2005. Dimensions of Symmetry in Syntax: Agreement and Clausal Architecture. Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  35. Iatridou, Sabine. 2000. The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry, 31.2:231-271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Iatridou, Sabine, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Roumyana Izvorski. 2001. Some observations about the form and meaning of the perfect. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, pages 189-238. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Iatridou, Sabine and Spyridoula Varlokosta. 1997. Pseudoclefts crosslinguistically. Natural Language Semantics, 6(1):3-28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Imai, Shingo. 2003. Spatial Deixis. Ph.D. thesis, State University of New York at Buffalo.Google Scholar
  39. Izvorski, Roumyana. 1997. The present perfect as an epistemic modal. In Aaron Law-son and Eun Cho (eds.), SALT VII Proceedings, pages 99-116. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Kirk, John W. C. 1905. A Grammar of the Somali Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In: Hans-J ürgen Eikmeyer and Hannes Rieser (eds.), Worlds, words, and contexts, pages 38-74. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  44. Kratzer, Angelika. 1989. An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistic and Philosophy, 12:607-653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In Arnim von Stechow and Dietrich Wunderlich (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, pages 639-650. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  46. Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In Gregory N. Carlson and Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  47. Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Ivan Sag and Anna Szabolsci (eds.), Lexical Matters. Stanford, CA: CLSI Publications.Google Scholar
  48. Larson, Richard K. 1987. Missing prepositions and the analysis of English free relative clauses. Linguistic Inquiry, 16:239-266.Google Scholar
  49. Larson, Richard K. and Sungeun Cho. 1999. Temporal adjectives and the structure of possessive DPs. In Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D. Haugen, and Peter Norquest (eds.), WCCFL, volume 18, pages 299-311. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  50. Larson, Richard K. and Sungeun Cho. 2003. Temporal adjectives and the structure of possessive DPs. Natural Language Semantics, 11:217-247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lecarme, Jacqueline. 1996. Tense in the nominal system: the somali DP. In Jacqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstamm, and Ur Shlonsky (eds.), Studies in Afroasiatic Gram-mar. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphic. Papers from the 2nd Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, Sophia Antipolis, 1994.Google Scholar
  52. Lecarme, Jacqueline. 1999a. Focus in somali. In Georges Rebuschi and Laurie Tuller (eds.), The Grammar of Focus, pages 275-309. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  53. Lecarme, Jacqueline. 1999b. Nominal tense and tense theory. In Francis Corblin, Car-men Dobrovie-Sorin, and Jean-Marie Marandin (eds.), Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics, volume 2, pages 332-354.Google Scholar
  54. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. Selected Papers from the Colloque de Syntaxe et S émantique à Paris (CSSP).Google Scholar
  55. Lecarme, Jacqueline. 2002. Gender ‘polarity’: Theoretical aspects of somali nom-inal morphology. In Paul Boucher (ed.), Many Morphologies, pages 109-141. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  56. Lecarme, Jacqueline. 2003. Nominal tense and evidentiality. In Jacqueline Gu éron and Liliane Tasmowski (eds.), Tense and Point of View. Presses de l’Universit é Paris X-Nanterre.Google Scholar
  57. Lecarme, Jacqueline. 2004. Tense in nominals. In Jacqueline Gu éron and Jacqueline Lecarme (eds.), The Syntax of Time, pages 441-475. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  58. Lewis, David. 1975. Adverbs of quantification. In Edward Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics in Natural Language, pages 3-15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, volume 1 and 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Milner, David and Melvyn A. Goodale. 1995. The Visual Brain in Action, volume 27 of Oxford Psychology Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Musan, Renate. 1995. On the temporal interpretation of noun phrases. Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  62. Musan, Renate. 1997. Tense, predicates, and lifetime effects. Natural Language Semantic, 5:271-301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Nordlinger, Rachel and Louisa Sadler. 2004. Nominal tense in a crosslinguistic perspective. Language, 80(4):776-806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Oswalt, Robert L. 1986. The evidential system of Kashaya. In Wallace Chafe and Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, vol-ume 20 of Advances in Discourse Processes, pages 29-45. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  65. Palmer, Franck R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Papafragou, Anna. 2006. Epistemic modality and truth conditions. Lingua, 116:1688-1702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Partee, Barbara. 1983. Genitives—a case study. published as an appendix to Theo Jansen, Compositionality. In Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen (eds.), Handbook of Logic and Language, pages 464-470. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Also published by North Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  68. Partee, Barbara. 2000. Some remarks on linguistic uses of the notion ‘event’. In Carol Tenny and James Pustejowsky (eds.), Events as Grammatical Objects, pages 483-495. Stanford: CLSI Publications.Google Scholar
  69. Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C: Causes and consequences. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, pages 355-426. Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  70. Postma, Gertjan and Johann Rooryck. 1996. Modality and Possession in NPs. In Kiy-omi Kusumoto (ed.), Proceedings of NELS, volume 26, pages 87-100. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University and MIT.Google Scholar
  71. Roehrs, Dorian. 2006. The morpho-syntax of the Germanic Noun Phrase: Determin-ers move into the Determiner Phrase. Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University, Blooming-ton, IN.Google Scholar
  72. Schlenker, Philippe. 2004. Conditionals as definite descriptions (a referential anal-ysis). In Ruth Kempson and Klaus von Heusinger (eds.), Research on Language and Computation, volume 2, pages 417-462. Special issue on ‘Choice Functions in Semantics’.Google Scholar
  73. von Stechow, Arnim. 2002. Temporal prepositional phrases with quantifiers—some additions to Pratt and Francez (2001). Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(5-6):755-800.Google Scholar
  74. von Tiling, Rainer Maria. 1919. Die Vokale des bestimmten Artikels im Somali. Zeitschrift f ür Kolonialsprachen, 9(3):132-166.Google Scholar
  75. Tonhauser, Judith. 2006. The temporal semantics of noun phrases: Evidence from Guaraní. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  76. Van der Does, Jaap and Michiel Van Lambalgen. 2000. A logic of vision. Linguistics and Philosophy, 23(1):1-92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Willett, Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistics survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language, 12:51-97.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacqueline Lecarme
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Linguistique FormelleCNRS-Université Paris Diderot (Paris 7)France

Personalised recommendations