Abstract
Crosslinguistically, the same modal words can be used to express a wide range of interpretations. This crosslinguistic trend supports a Kratzerian analysis, where each modal has a core lexical entry and where the difference between an epistemic and a root interpretation is contextually determined. A long-standing problem for such a unified account is the equally robust crosslinguistic correlation between a modal’s interpretation and its syntactic behavior: epistemics scope high (in particular higher than tense and aspect) and roots low, a fact which has led to proposals that hardwire different syntactic positions for epistemics and roots (cf. Cinque’s hierarchy). This paper argues that the range of interpretations a modal receives is even more restricted: a modal must be keyed to certain time-individual pairs, but not others. I show that this can be captured straightforwardly by minimally modifying the Kratzerian account: modals are relative to an event—rather than a world—of evaluation, which readily provides a time (the event’s running time) and (an) individual(s) (the event’s participants). I propose that this event relativity of modals can in turn explain the correlation between type of interpretation and syntactic position, without stipulation of an interpretation-specific height for modals.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abraham, W. 2001. Modals: Toward explaining the ‘epistemic non-finiteness gap’. In Modalitat und Modalverben im Deutschen, ed. R. Mueller and M. Reis, 7–36. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
Abusch, D. 1994. Sequence of tense revisited: Two semantic accounts of tense in intensional contexts, In Ellipsis, tense and questions, ed. H. Kamp, 87–139. DYANA deliverable R2.2.B, University of Amsterdam.
Abusch, D. 1997. Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy 20 (1): 1–50.
Alonso-Ovalle, L., and P. Menendez-Benito. 2003. Some epistemic indefinites. In Proceedings of NELS 33, ed. M. Kadowaki and S. Kawahara, 1–12. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Alonso-Ovalle, L., and P. Menendez-Benito. 2009. Modal indefinites. Natural Language Semantics. doi:10.1007/s11050-009-9048-4.
Ambar, M. 1999. Aspects of focus in Portuguese. In The grammar of focus, ed. L. Tuller and G. Rebuschi, 23–53. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Anand, P., and V. Hacquard. 2009. Epistemics with attitudes. In Proceedings of SALT 18. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. http://hdl.handle.net/1813/13025.
Bhatt, R. 1998. Obligation and possession. In Papers from the UPenn/MIT roundtable on argument structure and aspect, MITWPL 32, ed. H. Harley, 21–40. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Bhatt, R. 1999. Covert modality in non-finite contexts. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Brennan, V. 1993. Root and epistemic modal auxiliary verbs. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Boogart, R. 2007. The past and perfect of epistemic modals. In Recent advances in the syntax and semantics of tense, aspect and modality, ed. L. de Saussure, J. Moescher, and G. Puskas, 47–69. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Butler, J. 2003. A minimalist treatment of modality. Lingua 113: 967–996.
Bybee, J. 1995. The semantic development of past tense modals in English. In Modality and grammar in discourse, ed. J. Bybee and S. Fleishman, 503–517. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bybee, J., R. Perkins, and W. Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Carnap, R. 1957. Meaning and necessity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A crosslinguistic perspective, Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Coates, J. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
Condoravdi, C. 2002. Temporal interpretations of modals. In Stanford papers in semantics, ed. D. Beaver, S. Kaufman, and B. Clark, 59–88. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Cresswell, M. 1990. Entities and indices. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Davidson, D. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In The logic of decision and action, ed. N. Rescher, 81–120. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
DeRose, K. 1991. Epistemic possibilities. The Philosophical Review C(4): 581–605.
Drubig, H. B. 2001. On the syntactic form of epistemic modality, ms., University of Tübingen.
Egan A., Hawthorne J., Weatherson B. (2004). Epistemic modals in context. In: Preyer G., Peter G. (eds) Contextualism in philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 131–169
Farkas, D. 1997. Evaluation indices and scope. In Ways of scope taking, ed. A. Szabolcsi, 183–215. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Ferreira, M. 2005. Event quantification and plurality. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Fleischman, S. 1982. The future in thought and language: Diachronic evidence from Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ginzburg J., and I. Sag. 2001. Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning, and use of English interrogatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Groenendijk, J., and M. Stokhof. 1975. Modality and conversational information. Theoretical Lingustics 2: 61–112.
Gunlogson, C. 2001. True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. PhD dissertation, University of California at Santa Cruz.
Hackl, M. 1998. On the semantics of ability ascriptions, ms., MIT.
Hacquard, V. 2006. Aspects of modality. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Hacquard, V. 2008. Speaker-oriented vs. subject-oriented modality: A split in implicative behavior. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, 305–319. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
Hacquard, V. 2009. On the interaction of aspect and modal auxiliaries. Linguistics and Philosophy 32: 279–315.
Hacquard, V. to appear. Modality. In Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, ed. C. Maienborn, K. Heusiger, and P. Portner, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Heim, I. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Heim, I. 1994. Comments on Abusch’s theory of tense. In Ellipsis, tense and questions, ed. H. Kamp, 143–170. University of Amsterdam.
Hintikka, J. 1962. Knowledge and belief. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Iatridou, S. 1990. The past, the possible and the evident. Linguistic Inquiry 21 (1): 123–129.
Ippolito, M. 2002. The time of possibilities. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Karttunen, L. 1972. Possible and must. In Syntax and semantics Vol. 1, ed. J. Kimball, 1–20. New York: Academic Press.
Klein, W. 1994. Time in language. London/New York: Routledge.
Kratzer, A. 1977. What must and can must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 337–355.
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, Berlin: de Gruyter.
Kratzer, A. 1991. Modality, In Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenoessischer Forschung, ed. A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich, 639–650. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Kratzer, A. 1998. More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In Proceedings of SALT 8, ed. D. Strolovich and A. Lawson, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University.
Kratzer, A. 2006. Decomposing attitude verbs. Talk in honor of A. Mittwoch. July 4, 2006, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
Krifka, M. 2001. Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9 (1): 1–40.
Kripke, S. 1963. Semantical analysis of modal logic I, Normal propositional calculi. Zeitschrift für mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 9: 67–96.
Lee, F. 2008. Deriving subject scope in modal constructions: The case of modal have, ms., UCLA.
Lewis, D. 1968. On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
MacFarlane, J. 2003. Epistemic modalities and relative truth, ms., University of California at Berkeley.
Moltmann, F. 2003. Propositional attitudes without propositions. Synthese 135: 77–118.
Palmer, F.R. 2001. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Papafragou, A. 1998. The acquisition of modality: Implications for theories of semantic representations. Mind and Language 13: 370–399.
Partee, B. 1973. Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns. The Journal of Philosophy 70: 601–609.
Percus, O. 2000. Constraints on some other variables in syntax. Natural Language Semantics 8: 173–229.
Perlmutter, D. 1971. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Picallo, M. 1990. Modal verbs in Catalan. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 285–312.
Portner, P. 1998. The progressive in modal semantics. Language 74 (4): 760–787.
Portner, P. 2009. Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. L. Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Ross, J.R. 1969. Auxiliaries as main verbs. In Studies in philosophical linguistics (Series 1), ed. W. Todd, 77–102. Evanston, IL: Great Expectations Press.
Ross, J.R. 1970. On declarative sentences. In Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. R.A. Jacobs and P.S. Rosenbaum, 222–272. Waltham, MA: Ginn.
Shimada, J. 2008. Head movement, binding theory and phrase structure, ms., MIT.
Speas, P. 2004. Person (and mood and tense) and indexicality. Paper presented at the Harvard Workshop on Indexicals, Speech Acts, and Logophors, November 20, 2004, Cambridge, MA.
Stephenson, T. 2007. Toward a theory of subjective meaning. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Stowell, T. 2004. Tense and modals. In The syntax of time, ed. J. Guéron and J. Lecarme, 495–537. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sweetser, E. 1982. Root and epistemic modals: Causality in two worlds. In Proceedings of BLS 8, 484–507. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Tancredi, C. 2007. A multi-modal theory of I-semantics, ms., University of Tokyo.
Tenny, C., and P. Speas. 2004. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In Proceedings of UQAM Asymmetry Workshop, ed. A.M. Di Scullio.
Thomason, R. 1984. Combinations of tense and modality. In Handbook of philosophical logic, Vol. 2, ed. D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, 135–165. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Traugott, E. 1988. Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. In Proceedings of the 14th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser and H. Singmaster, 406–416. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
von Fintel, K. 2001 Advanced semantics seminar, lecture notes, Fall 2001, MIT.
von Fintel, K., and A. Gillies. 2007. An opinionated guide to epistemic modality. In Oxford studies in epistemology, ed. T. Gendler and J. Hawthorne, Vol. 2, 32–62. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
von Fintel, K., and A. Gillies. 2008. CIA leaks. Philosophical Review 117 (1): 77–98.
von Fintel, K., and I. Heim. 2001. Notes on intensional semantics, ms., MIT.
von Fintel, K., S. Iatridou 2003. Epistemic containment. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 173–198.
Westmoreland, R. 1998. Information and intonation in natural language modality. PhD dissertation, Indiana University.
Wurmbrand, S. 1999. Modal verbs must be raising verbs. In Proceedings of WCCFL 18, ed. S. Bird, A. Carnie, J. Haugen and P. Norquest, 599–612. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Yalcin, S. 2007. Epistemic modals. Mind 116: 983–1026.
Zagona, K. 2007. On the syntactic features of epistemic and root modals. In Coreference, modality and focus: studies on the syntax/ semantics interface, ed. L. Eguren, and O. Fernandez Soriano, 221–236. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Zubizaretta, M.L. 1982. On the relationship of the lexicon to syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Earlier versions of some of the material presented here can be found in Hacquard (2006, 2008). For very useful comments and discussion, many thanks to P. Anand, J. Anderssen, G. Chierchia, K. von Fintel, A. Kratzer, N. Klinedinst, I. Heim, S. Iatridou, P. Pietroski, P. Portner, A. Williams, audiences at UMass Amherst, UMD, and Sinn und Bedeutung 11, as well as two anonymous NALS reviewers.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hacquard, V. On the event relativity of modal auxiliaries. Nat Lang Semantics 18, 79–114 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-010-9056-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-010-9056-4