Possibility or collapse on the path to necessity?

(1)

Possibility or collapse on the path to necessity?

Igor Yanovich

MIT

Georgetown University November 5, 2012

(2)

Modal flavors of must in Present-Day English

(1) Deontic (=related to obligations):

Peter the father:

The kids must go to sleep at 10pm.

(2) Epistemic (=related to knowledge):

Jane the coworker:

It must be raining outside.

(3) Bouletic(=related todesires):

Rachel the get-out-the-vote activist: Obama must be our president!

(4) Teleological(=related to agoal, which is often expressed with an infinitive):

Mary the Canadian: You must take a plane to get to the Polar Bear Park.

(5) Metaphysical/circumstantial:

Ruth the philosopher:Everyone must die.

(3)

The meanings of modal words change over time: an example

Today, may can convey permission, but not ability:

(6) I may swim.6=I am physically able to swim.

Until recently, can was not used to express permission.

(

OED: late 19th century; [Visser, 1973] suggests an earlier date)

Up to Middle English, may was routinely used for ability/opportunity:

(7) (c1330,Speculum of Guy of Warwick, cited fromMED) Hou

How maitou

may.pres.2sg+you loue love

god god

whom whom

þu you

miht may.pres.2sg

sen see.inf

on in

none no

wyse?

ways

‘How can thou love god who thou might see in no ways?’

(8) (1452,Paston letters) I am sory Imaywrythe no bettyr at þis tyme, but I trvstx^e

wyl be pacient.

(9) (1478,Cely letters) Save as meche as yemay, for the exshange be syche it wyll be heuy to bare, the weche I praye God amente yt.

(4)

Pipelines of meaning change

may and can both went through the same semantic-change pipeline.

from [van der Auwera and Plungian, 1998]

(5)

Old English *motan: the received view

The plan

1

Old English *motan: the received view

2

Reinterpreting Old English data: the collapse hypothesis

3

Updating the story of how *motan turned into a necessity modal

(6)

So, what did must mean in Old English?

How do we know what a word meant in the past?

We have to rely on:

Plausibility of an interpretation in the context

Correspondences between the (Latin) original and its OE translation General principles of consistency

In the case of Early-OE *motan, scholars mostly agree that it usually signaled permission.

Later today, I will challenge that on the basis of an analysis of*motanin the core Alfredian prose.

(7)

Old English *motan

OE motan ⇒ ME moten ⇒ PDE must The Old English conjugation of motan:

Indicative Subjunctive

Present Sg 1 m¯ ot m¯ ote

2 m¯ ost m¯ ote

3 m¯ ot m¯ ote

Pl m¯ oton m¯ oten

Preterite Sg 1 m¯ oste m¯ oste 2 m¯ ostest m¯ oste 3 m¯ oste m¯ oste

Pl m¯ oston m¯ osten

(8)

A quick and incomplete guide to OE pronunciation

Fricativesf, s, þ/ð, and are voiced when between voiced segments, and voiceless otherwise. þ and ð are orthographic variants.

Examples: lifer‘liver’,hefig‘heavy’.

Before front vowels (i,e),cpalatalizes to [tS], andgpalatalizes to [j].

Examples: gicce(N) ‘itch’,cele(N) ‘chill, cold’

xis a variant forg.

scis read as [S] (cf.scip), andcgas [dZ] (cf.ecg).

Stress is usually word-initial, but verbalge-never receives stress.

(9)

The meaning of *motan: the received view

[Bosworth and Toller, 1898]: *motansense I: permission; sense II: obligation.

[Ono, 1958]:

In Beowulf (early OE, circa 8th century): 31 instance of “possibility*motan”, 1 instance of “necessity*motan”, and 1 unclear case

In Chaucer (late ME, 14th century): necessity uses 84%

[Goossens, 1987]:

48 permission vs. 14 obligation uses in a sample from late 10th cent.

[Tellier, 1962]:

in early OE*motansignals possibility created by some higher power (God, kings...) necessity uses become “well attested” in Ælfric (late 10th century)

inAncrene Riwle(13th century), M(iddle) E(nglish)motenmostly functions as a necessity modal, though it still has possibility uses in some contexts

(10)

The meaning of *motan: the received view

The consensus story:

1 Since the earliest OE,*motanwas ambiguous between possibility and necessity

2 However, in early OE necessity uses were marginal

3 The proportion of necessity uses grew slowly since the Early OE up to the 15-16th cent., when the possibility meaning disappears

Disagreements about certain details exist (cf., e.g., [Solo, 1977]), but

the general story above is widely accepted.

(11)

Exercise!

Try to translate these examples from Old into modern English:

(10) gedo make

me me

þæs so

wyrðne worthy

þæt that

ic I

þe you

mote

motan.pres.1sg geseon see.inf

(þe = God)

Translation:

(11) þæt that

gewyrð happens

[for for

þam the.dat

dysige]

folly.dat [þe that

ge you.pl

fægniað rejoice.pl [þæt

that ge you.pl

moton motan.pres.pl

sceppan create.inf

wone nightly

naman]]

names Translation:

Translation of the continuation of the sentence: “...calling those things felicity which are not such and that excellence which is no excellence.”

(12)

Open questions for the received view

1

How come a modal can remain truly ambiguous between possibility and necessity for at least 7 centuries? An unusual kind of ambiguity.

(12) You may leave now, ensign.

A look at Early Middle English later today will shed some light on it.

2

Two popular explanations for the shift from possibility to necessity:

Via negative contexts: must notfirst means “it is not possible thatp”, then is reanalyzed as “it is necessary that notp” (e.g.,OED)

Via inferring obligation from permission, as in 12 (e.g., [Traugott, 1989])

But neither theory has been put to a large-scale test.

(13)

The collapse hypothesis for OE *motan

Where we are

1

Old English *motan: the received view

2

Reinterpreting Old English data: the collapse hypothesis

1 OE*motanas a variable-force modal

2 A semantic study of*motanin Alfredian OE

3 Formal analysis for Alfredian*motan

3

Updating the story of how *motan turned into a necessity modal

(14)

Is there really that much of a difference?

Recall the received view: OE *motan is usually a permission modal, but it also has a few obligation uses.

However, scholars disagree about the interpretation of some examples:

(13) Gif þu nu demanmostest, hwæþerne woldest þu deman wites wyrþran,< ... > OEBoethius, ch.38, p.112, ln.28 in [Sedgefield, 1899]

(14) Translation of 13 by [Sedgefield, 1900]:

‘If youhadstto decide, which wouldst thou deem the more worthy of punishment,’

(15) Translation of 13 by [Godden and Irvine, 2009]:

‘If now you wereallowedto judge, which would you judge worthier of punishment,’

NB! Not much difference between the two interpretations, if we think

about what the speaker tries to convey.

(15)

The collapse hypothesis for OE *motan OE *motan as a variable-force modal

Is there really much of a difference?

If you have to judge, you also can, in this context.

If you are allowed to judge, you are supposed to actually judge, in this context.

⇒ The meanings of the two alternative modern translations

are more or less conversationally equivalent in this particular context.

(16)

OE *motan as non-ambiguous?

Hypothesis: OE *motan is not ambiguous.

*motan conveys neither pure possibility or pure necessity.

However, as MnE lacks a parallel word, we have to translate

*motan imperfectly, using possibility and necessity modals.

In the Pacific Northwest, there exist other modals like that!

St’át’imcets’s deontic modal ka may be translated by speakers into English as either possibility or necessity:

(16) lán-lhkacw already-2sg.subj

ka deon

áts’x-en see-dir

ti det

kwtámts-sw-a husband-2sg.poss-det

‘You must / can / may see your husband now.’

[Rullmann et al., 2008, ex. (31)]

(17)

Variable force in St’át’imcets

In some contexts, though, only one English translation makes sense:

(17) wa7 impf

ka deon

s-lep’

stat-bury i det.pl

k’ún7-a fish.egg-det

ku det

pála7 one

máqa7 snow

‘The eggscanstay in the ground for a year.’

Consultant‘s comment: “As long as one year. Some just stay buried for

three months.” [Rullmann et al., 2008, p. 329]

(18) Context: The speaker’s family ate several kinds of animals, not all of them prolific breeders, hence the possibility translation is inappropriate.

t’u7 but

wa7 impf

ka deon

n-scwákwekw-a 1sg.poss-heart-det

ts’áqw-an’-em eat-dir-1pl.erg

nilh foc

(t) (det) s-pápt-s-a

nom-always-3poss-det wa7 impd

tecwecw-wít increase-3pl

lh-as comp-3conj

kwís-alt fall-child

i det.pl sqweyíts-a

rabbit-det

‘But I think wehad toeat them because they were always having babies.’

[Matthewson, 2005, p. 98-99]

(18)

Variable-force modals

Several modals in St’át’imcets (Henry Davis, Lisa Matthewson, and Hotze Rullmann), Gitksan ([Peterson, 2010]), Nez Perce [Deal, 2011].

Not ambiguous, but can be imperfectly rendered into modern English with both possibility and necessity modals.

In some contexts, several renderings are possible. In others, only one.

Not clear if variable-force modals have the same semantics in all languages. At the moment it seems that there exist different types (cf. [Deal, 2011], [Kratzer, 2012, Ch. 2.5])

⇒ “Variable-force modal” is a descriptive, not theoretical notion.

(19)

OE *motan as a variable-force modal

Different translations into modern English are possible.

Even though in some contexts, one may seem to make better sense:

(19) æfter ðæm wope hi gewyrceað ðæt himotoneft wepan.

‘after their weeping they bring on themselves thenecessity of weeping again.’

OECura Pastoralis, ch. 54, p. 421, ln. 17 in [Sweet, 1871]

translation from the same edition

(20) ealle gesceaftamotanheora gewunan and heora willan bewitigan butan me anum.

‘all created things areallowedto keep their customs and their desires, except me alone.’

OEBoethius, ch.7, p.13, ln.23 in [Sedgefield, 1899]

translation from [Godden and Irvine, 2009]

(20)

OE *motan as a variable-force modal

Scholars of Old English concluded from the existence of examples like 19 and 20 that *motan was ambiguous.

But from the Pacific Northwest languages we know that a modal does not have to be ambiguous to show this pattern.

On a purely descriptive level, *motan is a variable-force modal.

(21)

The collapse hypothesis for OE *motan A semantic study of *motan in Alfredian OE

The semantics of Early OE *motan

But what did *motan actually mean?

Data sample: all 70 instances of *motan in the core “Alfredian prose”.

Three Latin books: Pope Gregory’sCura Pastoralis, Boethius’s Consolation of philosophy, and Augustine’sSoliloquies

Translated into Old English during or slightly after king Alfred’s reign (late 9th cent.); the translations are free, to different degrees

BoeandSolare likely to have been translated by the same person;CP, probably by a different author; still, the three OE texts are likely to represent more or less the same milieu(see a recent overview of the problem of authorship for the “Alfredian” prose in [Godden, 2007]).

(22)

OE *motan in the Alfredian prose

Deontic or metaphysical modal base:

allotment by God or fate

(21) Ac se anwealda hæfð ealle his gesceafta swamid his bridlebefangene and getogene and gemanodeswa þæthi nauþer ne gestillannemoton, ne eac swiðor styrian þonne he him

þæt gerum his wealdleðeres to forlæt. (Bo:21.49.2.883)

‘But the sole ruler has so embraced and drawn and instructed all his creatures with his rein that theymayneither cease nor also move further than he allows them the scope of

his bridle.’ [Godden and Irvine, 2009]

a ruling by a king, or a law

(22) He gehet Romanum his freondscipeswa þæthimostanheora ealdrihta wyrðe beon.

(Bo:1.7.7.56)

‘He [=Theodoric the Great] gave the Romans his friendship so that theymotan.past.pl be entitled to their old rights.

(23)

OE *motan in the Alfredian prose

Deontic or metaphysical modal base:

general metaphysical/circumstantial possibility

(23) and ic wolde mid unarimedum feo gebycgan þæt ic hitmostegesion. (Bo:34.89.29.1714)

‘and I would pay countless treasure so that Imightsee it.’ [Godden and Irvine, 2009]

in questions, the authority of the interlocutor

(cf. also 13)

(24) Motic nu cunnian hwon þin fæstrædnesse< ... >? (Bo:5.12.12.162)

‘MayI now explore a little your resolution< ... >?’ [Godden and Irvine, 2009]

(24)

The semantics of Alfredian *motan

*motan is a specialized word in CP, Bo and Sol.

*sculan(>MnEshall) has about 700 instances, compared to*motan’s 70.

“Alternatives” to *motan:

*sculanis a frequent modal of deontic necessity.

It is often used for deontic necessity stemming from God.

There are no competing modals conveying permission.

But there exist other lexical ways to express it: attitude verbs (lætan‘let, permit’), nouns (þafung ‘permission’), adjectives ((un)aliefed ‘(non)allowed’)

So what is the common feature of the contexts where we see *motan?

(25)

The semantics of Alfredian *motan

What is true when motan(p) is asserted:

1) p is an open possibility;

2) p is the only open possibility.

In other words, p is a potentiality such that if it gets a chance to be realized, it will be realized without question

This meaning can be most closely rendered into Present-Day English

using conjunctions: “can and will”, “may and will”, “can and should”...

(26)

An open possibility that will become actual

(25) Ðæm monnum is gecyðed hwelce stowe himotonhabban beforan urum fæder, swa swa we ær cwædon, ðæt hiesceoldenhabban ece eardungstowe on ðæs fæder huse furðor

ðonne his ægnu bearn. (CP:52.409.2.2812)

To these men it is proclaimed which places theymotan.pres.pl have before our father, as we said above, they must (=sceolden) have eternal mansions in the Father’s house in preference to his own children.

⇒If God decides you can have these particular seats in the paradise, you don’t respectfully say “No thanks”.

Level 1: which seats are an open possibility for these people

Level 2: whichever particular seats are available for them, those are the only option

(26) He gehet Romanum his freondscipeswa þæthimostanheora ealdrihta wyrðe beon.

(Bo:1.7.7.56)

He [=Theodoric the Great] gave the Romans his friendship so that theymotan.past.pl be entitled to their old rights.

⇒Once the king allows the Romans to have the rights, they have them.

Level 1: The Romans may be allowed or not allowed their old rights.

Level 2: Once the Romans are allowed the rights, the rights come into effect.

(27)

An open possibility that will become actual

(27) and ic wolde mid unarimedum feo gebycgan þæt ic hitmostegesion. (Bo:34.89.29.1714) and I would pay countless treasure so that Imightsee it. [Godden and Irvine, 2009]

⇒If I’d pay countless treasure to see something, I will see it if given a chance.

Level 1: Do I have an open possibility to see it?

Level 2: If I do, then Iwillsee it.

(28) Motic nu cunnian hwon þin fæstrædnesse< ... >? (Bo:5.12.12.162) MayI now explore a little your resolution< ... >? [Godden and Irvine, 2009]

⇒If the addressee does not protest, the speakerwillexplore their resolution.

Level 1: Does the addressee block the possibility or not?

Level 2: If the possibility is left open, it will be actualized.

(28)

An open possibility that will become actual

Repeated from 19 and 20:

(29) æfter ðæm wope hi gewyrceað ðæt himotoneft wepan.

‘after their weeping they bring on themselves thenecessityof weeping again.’

OECura Pastoralis, ch. 54, p. 421, ln. 17 in [Sweet, 1871]

translation from the same edition

⇒They make it so that it becomes possible for them to weep again, and things work in such a way that since they did so, they will inevitably weep.

(30) ealle gesceaftamotanheora gewunan and heora willan bewitigan butan me anum.

‘all created things areallowedto keep their customs and their desires, except me alone.’

OEBoethius, ch.7, p.13, ln.23 in [Sedgefield, 1899]

translation from [Godden and Irvine, 2009]

⇒It is deemed possible, by God, for all creatures to keep their customs, and they indeed do.

(29)

The collapse hypothesis for OE *motan Formal analysis for Alfredian *motan

Formal analysis: the collapse presupposition

Assertion of motan(p): p is an open possibility

Presupposition of motan(p): either p or ¬p is inevitable Assertion corresponds to “level 1”; presupposition to “level 2”.

(31) [[motan]]

^w,R

:= λp

_hs,ti

.[

defined iff ∃t ∈ {0, 1} : ∀u : wRu → p(u) = t;

when defined: ∃v : wRv ∧ p(v ) = 1]

whereRis an accessibility relation (which can be built from Kratzer’s modal base and ordering source)

⇒ When the presupposition is met, either all worlds quantified over

are p-worlds, or all are ¬p-worlds. Therefore ♦ and collapse.

(30)

The status of the lack-of-alternatives component

How do we know that the lack of alternatives is presupposed?

Three reasons to think so (each one is not a strict proof, though):

1 *motanseems to be restricted to contexts where the lack of alternatives is taken for granted

2 *motanand negation

3 *motanin antecedents of conditionals

(31)

Argument 1: restricted distribution

In all examples we saw, it is hardly taken for granted that p is necessarily possible.

But it does seem to be implicitly assumed that if p is possible, then p will also be the case.

(32) Hu micle suiðorsculonwe ðonne beon gehiersume ðæm ðe ure gæsta Fæder bið wið ðæm ðæt wemotenlibban on ecnesse! (cocura,CP:36.255.8.1668)

‘How much more, then,mustwe obey our spiritual Father, that wemaylive

eternally!’ [Sweet, 1871]

If *motan presupposes a collapse of ♦ and , such distribution is

expected.

(32)

Argument 1: restricted distribution

But if one says that*motanasserts thatpis an open possibilityandthere are no alternatives top, it is an unusual meaning that also might explain the distribution.

We know at least one other case where propositions “from several levels” are contributed by one word: x hopes that pseems to assert that 1)x considersp possible, but not necessary, and 2)x preferspto its alternatives (see

[Anand and Hacquard, 2012] for discussion)

One example where inevitability might be asserted, not presupposed:

(33) Gehiren ða fæstendan hwæt he eft cuæð, he cuæð ðæt gemostondrincan gewealden wines for eowres magan mettrymnesse.

(cocura,CP:43.319.5.2141)

Let the abstinent also hear what he said again; he said that “yemaydrink wine moderately for the weakness of your stomachs.” [Sweet, 1871]

(34) Gregory’s Latin original: Audiant isti: “Modico vinoutere[use.IMP]

propter stomachum et frequentes tuas infirmitates”

(35) Vulgate, 1 Tim 5:23: noli adhuc aquam bibere sed vino modicoutere propter stomachum tuum et frequentes tuas infirmitates

(33)

Argument 2: *motan and negation

Clausemate NEG

(≈20 cases)

: impossibility

(NEG>POSS; or NEC>NEG) (36) Se ilca forwyrnð þæræ sæ þæt heone motþone þeorscwold oferstæppan

þære eorþan mæru. (coboeth,Bo:21.49.22.896)

‘The same [=the power of God] restrains the sea so that itcannotcross the threshold of the earth’s boundary,’ [Godden and Irvine, 2009]

Upper-clause NEG: also impossibility

(NEG>POSS)

(37) Forðæm oft se mildheortaa Dryhten swiðe hrædlice ða geðohtan synna awegaðwihð, ðonne he himne geðafaððæt hi hi ðurhtionmoten.

(cocura,CP:53.419.1.2906)

‘For often the merciful Lord very quickly washes away the meditated sins, when he does not allow themto carrythem out.’ [Sweet, 1871]

(34)

Argument 2: *motan and negation

Our analysis predicts such meanings with either scope:

NEG(motan(p)):

Presupposition: All worlds quantified over are uniformlypor¬p.

Assertion: it is not that there are anyp-worlds.

motan(NEG(p)):

Presupposition: All worlds quantified over are uniformly¬porp.

Assertion: there are some¬p-worlds. Therefore, all worlds are¬p.

(35)

Argument 2: *motan and negation

An alternative, weaker presupposition for *motan(p):

“if some accessible worlds are p, then all accessible worlds are p”.

The stronger presupposition declares inevitability for bothpand¬p.

The weaker one declares inevitability only forp.

The weaker presupposition also makes correct predictions regardless of scope:

NEG(motan(p)):

Presupposition: If some accessible worlds arep, then all arep.

Assertion: it is not that there are anyp-worlds.

motan(NEG(p)):

Presupposition: If some accessible worlds are¬p, then all are¬p.

Assertion: there are some¬p-worlds. Therefore, all worlds are¬p.

Why this may be important: I assumed that the alternatives are alwayspand¬p. The above shows that all you really need the presupposition to do is to say that the argument ofmotanis inevitable in case it is an open possibility. Therefore if you replace¬pwith a set of contextual alternatives, after [Villalta, 2008], it does not change too much.

(36)

What if both components were in the assertion?

Suppose motan(p) asserts that p is open and p is inevitable.

NEG(motan(p)): “it is not open thatpor it is not inevitable that p” = “it is not inevitable thatp” (as the first disjunct implies the second)

motan(NEG(p)): “it is open that¬p, or it is inevitable that¬p”

= “it is open that ¬p” ≈“it is not inevitable thatp”

⇒ This is much weaker than what we actually see in the texts.

A pure possibility meaning would make correct predictions, as long as the scope is fixed as NEG>motan. But it is hard to explain the restricted distribution ofmotanif it conveys pure possibility.

Ambiguity between pure possibility and a 2-component meaning?

Not likely. Too many negative examples to assume that the 2-component meaning was just accidentally absent in all of them.

(37)

Argument 3: *motan in antecedents of conditionals

I argued that in 38

(repeated here from 13)

there is not much difference between ♦ and analyses.

(38) Gif þu nu demanmostest, hwæþerne woldest þu deman wites wyrþran,< ... > ^OEBoethius, ch.38, p.112, ln.28 in [Sedgefield, 1899]

The collapse presupposition makes correct predictions, but because of

the special context, purely assertive meanings for motan work as well.

(38)

Argument 3: *motan in antecedents of conditionals

But an indirect argument comes from a comparison between OE and Middle English.

Exercise! Translate the following two sentences into modern English:

(41) (AR 8:76-83)Beginning of the passage, in Modern English:

“You should have no animal but one cat only. An anchoress who has livestock seems more a housewife, as Martha was, she cannot easily be Mary, Martha’s sister, with her tranquillity of heart.”

For for

thenne then

mot moten

ha

she(=the anchoress)

thenchen think

of of

the the

kues cow’s

foddre fodder

<...>

Nu Now

thenne then

yef if

eani

any (anchoress) mot moten

nedlunge necessarily

habben have

hit, it(=a cow),

loki see thet

that hit it

na-mon no-man

ne not

eili ail

ne not

hearmi harm

(39)

Argument 3: *motan in antecedents of conditionals

Compare 38 and 42.

(42) Nu Now

thenne then

yef if

eani

any (anchoress) mot moten

nedlunge necessarily

habben have

hit, it(=a cow), loki

see thet that

hit it

na-mon no-man

ne not

eili ail

ne not

hearmi harm

⇒ The OE example in 38 is quite different from a case where we have

a real assertion of inevitability in the if-clause.

(40)

The collapse presupposition: summing up

My case for the collapse presupposition is not water-proof.

But it is supported by the evidence reasonably well.

Most scholars never considered a “variable-force” meaning for motan, but there is one exception: [Standop, 1957].

[Standop, 1957] argued that there were a very prominent third meaning of Old English*motanwhich is neither possibility nor necessity. He paraphrased it as follows: “mir ist vergönnt, mir wird zuteil” (p. 69), “mir est bestimmt” (p. 75),

“mir ist zugemessen” (p. 169) (“it is granted to me, it is bestowed upon me”, “it is determined for me”, “it is measured out for me”).

Unfortunately, later literature largely ignored Standop’s hypothesis.

The collapse hypothesis opens the way for a better story about how

motan became a pure necessity modal: the next section

(41)

Questions left open

I only examined in detail three Alfredian books. What about other Old English texts?

Other times? (later times: Ælfric’s OE, etc.; earlier times: some poetry, some runic inscriptions, perhaps some laws)

Other dialects? (not West Saxon)

The Germanic cognates of *motan (German müssen, Dutch moeten...) underwent similar changes. Did they also have a collapse meaning?

[Standop, 1957] suggests that at least some German dialects had his third meaning of “coinciding rights and duties”.

⇒ A lot of empirical material to test the collapse hypothesis further.

(42)

The plan

1

Old English *motan: the received view

2

Reinterpreting Old English data: the collapse hypothesis

3

Updating the story of how *motan turned into a necessity modal

(43)

The shift to necessity in Early Middle English

Old and Middle English

Earliest Old English: mostly poetry

“Alfredian” OE: a massive program of translations, late 9th century Ælfric and others: an even bigger peak in OE text production, late 10th century

Norman Conquest: 1066

Early Middle English: c1100–1350

Small number of texts; non-standardized, and reflecting the multilingual realities of the time (English, French, Anglo-Norman, various Scandinavian dialects in the Danelaw region, etc. etc.)

Late Middle English: 1350–c1500

(44)

Caveat: the gap between OE and ME

Late OE manuscripts transmitted a standardized language, thus representing an earlier (and likely regionally restricted) variety.

OE was not comprehensible to Early ME speakers

The Tremulous Hand of Worcester (13th century) may have been a first conscious scholar of Old English. He made a lot of mistakes, and clearly misunderstood a large portion of his OE texts, even though he worked on them for decades.

Due to the conquest, the literary tradition mostly disappeared.

Therefore the few emerging texts were under less pressure to conform.

Middle English texts show a number of colloquial features that seemed to have been suppressed in late OE texts. This has been shown for Norse borrowings, and we can expect the same for more “grammatical” features as well.

The gap makes it hard to trace the language’s evolution step by step.

(45)

Early ME: Ancrene Riwle

Ancrene Riwle (or Ancrene Wisse): one of the largest early ME texts, written with a high degree of linguistic consistency.

Some scholars consider the language ofAncrene Riwlea regional standard of a sort, in a period where English writing was not much standardized.

(46)

moten in Ancrene Riwle

57 instances of moten; only 2 of them in negative clauses.

4 main modal flavors can be clearly distinguished in the text:

unavoidability (≈modern “have to”) moral instruction

wish

“openness of the possibility”

It is often surprisingly easy to distinguish different meanings.

The most frequent indeterminacy is between unavoidability and moral instruction.

Possibly, we should also distinguish a flavor of “what is destined”, and

teleological-necessity flavor, but both would be rare in the sample.

(47)

Flavors of moten in AR

Unavoidability: lack of other options, given the circumstances

(43) For sum is strong, sum unstrong, ant mei ful wel beo cwite ant paie Godd mid leasse. Sum is clergesse, sum nawt, antmotte mare wurchen ant on

other wise seggen hire bonen. (AR Pref:47-49)

‘For one is strong, another weak, and may be excused and satisfy God with less. One is learned, while another is not, andhas towork more and say her prayers in a different way’.

(48)

Flavors of moten in AR

“Moral instruction”: a bouletic meaning; the sentence describes proper or beneficial behavior for the addressee.

This particular kind of bouletic flavor may be due to the special pragmatics ofAR;

the modal itself might be a generic bouletic.

(44) Thet is riht religiun, thet euch efter his stat borhi ed tis frakele world se lutel se ha least mei of mete, of clath, of ahte, of alle hire thinges. Notith thet ich segge

"euch efter his stat," for thet word is i-fetheret.Yemotemakien - thet wite ye - i moni word muche strengthe, thenchen longe ther-abuten, ant bi thet ilke an word understonden monie the limpeth ther-to. For yef ich schulde writen

al, hwenne come ich to ende? (AR 4:316-321)

‘That is the right religion, that each according to his state borrowed from this wicked world as little as she may of food, of clothing, of holdings, of all her things.

Note that I say “each according to his state”, because that word is loaded [with meaning].Youshouldtreat — as you know — many a word as very important, think long about it, and by that word understand many that pertain to it.For if I had to write everything, when would I come to an end?’

(49)

Flavors of moten in AR

Wish: occurs in prayers

(45) [I]the wurthgunge, Jesu Crist, of thine tweof apostles, thet ichmote over-al folhin hare lare, thet ichmotehabben thurh hare bonen the tweolf

bohes the bloweth of chearite (AR 1:145-147)

‘In honor, Jesus Christ, of your twelve apostles,mayI everywhere follow their teaching,mayI have through their prayers the twelve branches that blossom with love’

Note that grammatically, allARwish examples are in purpose clauses headed by “that”.

This is different from MnE main clause wishes withmay.

At the moment, I do not know which came earlier: purpose clauses turning into main clauses, ormayreplacingmustin such wishes.

(50)

Flavors of moten in AR

“Openness of the possibility” : several examples (≈5 out of 57) where we seem to have a genuine existential meaning.

(46) Thah the flesch beo ure fa, hit is us i-haten thet we halden hit up. Wa we moten don hit as hit is wel ofte wurthe, ah nawt fordon mid alle. (AR 3:231-232)

‘Though the flesh is our foe, it is commanded to us that we hold it up.

Woe wemaydo it as it is well often deserves, but we should not destroy it altogether.’

(51)

moten in AR and the collapse analysis for OE *motan

Unavoidability: presupposed inevitability→asserted inevitability

This shift would explain the “unavoidability” flavor, the one most frequent inAR.

“Moral instruction” must be an innovation: OE*motandid not seem to have any preference component to it.

Other examples of acquisition of an extra preference component are known: weak necessity modalsshouldandoughtseem to be examples of that.

The context of wishing needs to be investigated on its own: seems to be an innovation, but it is probablynotan expansion of a necessity meaning.

In late ME,mayreplacedmotenin wishes, and it clearly was not a necessity modal.

“Openness of the possibility” must be an archaic meaning.

More research is needed regarding where exactly this meaning appears. A good complete story would identify particular contexts favoring the old meaning.

(52)

moten in AR and the collapse analysis for OE *motan

Overall, not too bad an explanation!

A possible shift trajectory:

“open choice”? ♦-collapse

ks +3wishing

unavoidability desirability (“moral instruction”)

Remaining big questions:

What happens in other Early Middle English texts?

Can we identify contexts favoring the more archaic meanings?

Also, what about other necessity modals in EME?

(ARwidely usesouen>owe,oughtandshulen>shall)

(53)

moten in AR and the “negation hypothesis”

The negation hypothesis:

must not initially means “it is not possible that p”, then is reanalyzed as “it is necessary that not p” (e.g., OED).

⇒Only 2 negative examples inAR, out of 57 total.

What’s worse, they show different scope patterns:

(47) Non est qui se abscondat a calore ejus. “Nis nan thet mahe edlutien thet hane

mothim luvien.” (AR 7:198-199)

‘[Latin] There is no one who can escape his flaming heat. [ME] There is no one that can hide so that shedoes not have tolove him.’ (NEG>NEC) (48) Yet thet meast wunder is of al the brade eorthene mostehe habben a grot for-te

deien upon. (AR 4:999-1000)

‘Yet the greatest wonder is that of all the broad earth he[=Jesus]had tohave

nota single grain to die upon’ (NEC>NEG)

(The author alludes to the death on the cross, that is, not standing on the land.)

(54)

moten in Ancrene Riwle and the “inference hypothesis”

The inferred-obligation hypothesis:

The obligation meaning developed after it was often implied by a granted permission, as in “ You may go now” (e.g., [Traugott, 1989])

1. No examples where permission would imply obligation inAR.

So if the inference hypothesis is right, the change must have been completed by the time ofAncrene Riwle.

2. If the necessity meaning arose in contexts where permission implied obligation, why is “unavoidability” the most frequent meaning inAR?

Though perhaps one could argue that the “moral instruction” meaning is the direct descendant of the “implied obligation” meaning, and “unavoidability” is an

innovation

⇒Not impossible, but a lot of details need to be explained.

(55)

moten in Ancrene Riwle: summary

By the 13th cent., necessity readings are already dominant

(at least in AR’s dialect)

“Unavoidability” is the main meaning, ≈50% of instances The ♦ - collapse analysis of OE *motan is compatible with the observations from AR

The negation hypothesis is untenable.

The implied-obligation hypothesis might have a chance, but a lot of

work would be needed to fill in all the necessary details.

(56)

Conclusion

Detailed analysis of OE *motan in the Alfredian prose, enabled by insights from recent semantic fieldwork, leads to a better

understanding of the modal’s semantics.

Even if my particular implementation of the collapse semantics is wrong, any subsequent analysis will have to do at least as well when explaining the actual Old English distribution of*motan.

The new analysis for OE *motan allows for a more coherent explanation of must’s shift into a pure necessity modal in Middle English.

More work is needed before we can say we understand this semantic shift completely, but the prospects look promising.

(57)

Thank you!

(58)

Anand, P. and Hacquard, V. (2012).

Epistemics and attitudes.

Semantics and Pragmatics.

Bosworth, J. and Toller, T. N. (1898).

An Anglo-Saxon dictionary.

Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Deal, A. R. (2011).

Modals without scales.

Language, 87(3):559–585.

Godden, M. (2007).

Did King Alfred write anything?

Medium ævum, 76(1):1–23.

Godden, M. and Irvine, S. (2009).

The Old English Boethius.

Oxford University Press.

Goossens, L. (1987).

Modal tracks: the case ofmaganandmotan.

In Simon-Vanderbergen, A.-M., editor,Studies in honour of Rene Derolez, pages 216–236. Vitgeuer, Gent.

Hasenfratz, R., editor (2000).

Ancrene Wisse.

Medieval Institute Publications, Kalamazoo, MI.

A searchable online version provided by TEAMS (The Consortium for the Teaching of the Middle Ages).

Kratzer, A. (2012).

Modals and conditionals.

Matthewson, L. (2005).

(59)

References

When I was small – I wan kwikws: Grammatical analyis of St’át’imcets oral narratives.

UBC Press, Vancouver, BC.

Ono, S. (1958).

Some notes on the auxiliary*motan.

Anglica, 3(3):64–80.

Peterson, T. (2010).

Epistemic Modality and Evidentiality in Gitksan at the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface.

PhD thesis, University of British Columbia.

Rullmann, H., Matthewson, L., and Davis, H. (2008).

Modals as distributive indefinites.

Natural Language Semantics, 16(4):317–357.

Scheffler, T. (2008).

Semantic operators in different dimensions.

PhD thesis, UPenn.

Sedgefield, W. J. (1899).

King Alfred’s Old English version of Boethius De consolatione philosophiae.

Sedgefield, W. J. (1900).

King Alfred’s version of the Consolations of Boethius. Done into modern English, with an introduction.

Solo, H. J. (1977).

The meaning of*motan. A secondary denotation of necessity in Old English?

Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 78:215–232.

Standop, E. (1957).

Syntax und Semantik der modalen Hilfsverben im Altenglischen magan, motan, sculan, willan.

Pöppinghaus, Bochum-Langendreer.

(60)

Sweet, H. (1871).

King Alfred’s West-Saxon version of Gregory’s Pastoral Care, volume 45 and 50 ofEarly English Text Society.

Tellier, A. (1962).

Les verbes perfecto-présents et les auxiliaires de mode en anglais ancien: (VIII^eS. - XVI^e S.).

C. Klincksieck, Paris.

Traugott, E. C. (1989).

On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change.

Language, 65(1):31–55.

van der Auwera, J. and Plungian, V. (1998).

Modality’s semantic map.

Linguistic Typology, 2(1):79–124.

Villalta, E. (2008).

Mood and gradability: an investigation of the subjunctive mood in spanish.

Linguistics and Philosophy, 31(4):467–522.

Visser, F. T. (1963-1973).

An historical syntax of the English language.

E. J. Brill, Leiden.

(61)

Appendix: how to search for stuff

Types of resources for studying language change

Simple electronic editions of the older texts

Caveat: it’s important to know which print edition the text comes from, as old texts are usually printed according to the editor’s interpretation.

⇒

TheAncrene Riwledata for this talk come from [Hasenfratz, 2000], available online through TEAMS Middle English Texts Series.

Corpora of plain-text texts

Usually provide a balanced set of excerpts, with better coverage of genres and dialects.

⇒

E.g., the Helsinki historical corpus of English. There are also quite a few of more specialized corpora, e.g., the Corpus of Early Modern English dialogues (CED).

Corpora of morphologically tagged texts

E.g., the corpus of the Linguistic Atlas of Early Middle English 1150-1325 (LAEME).

Syntactically parsed corpora

⇒

The OE data were found using the YTH corpus of Old English Prose (YCOE).

(62)

Searching the Penn parsed corpora

Parsed historical corpora for English:

Distributed free of charge throughhttp://ota.ahds.ac.uk/:

Helsinki-York Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence (PCEEC), c1410–1695

York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose (YCOE), all OE prose

The Penn bundle:

Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English (PPCME2) Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (PPCEME) Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English (PPCMBE)

(63)

Appendix: how to search for stuff

Searching the Penn parsed corpora

Search tool: CorpusSearch 2, available free of charge http://corpussearch.sourceforge.net/

Calling CorpusSearch from the terminal:

java -classpath CS_2.003.jar csearch/CorpusSearch my_search_query.q PCEEC/2510/PCEEC/corpus/psd-cs2/*

This is for UNIX-based machines, like Mac OS. For Windows, the principles are the same.

See installing and running instructions at the project’s Sourceforge webpage.

NB: The terminal has to know the path to the .jar file in order to run it.

A simple query file motan-CP-Bo-Sol.q:

node: $ROOT

query: (MD* iDominates mo*) AND

(*cocura*|*coprefcura*|*boeth*|*cosolilo*|*coprefsolilo* inID)

(64)

Searching in plain text files

The Helsinki corpus of English texts (available through OTA)

The corpus is in simple text format. Therefore you’ll need:

⇒Your favorite text editor (e.g.,TextWrangler for MacOS)

⇒Preferably, command line search tools, or their equivalent

⇒A good dictionary, and preferably some knowledge of OE and ME orthography

Middle English Dictionary (MED): online and free of charge;

an excellent resourse!

Oxford English Dictionary (OED): your university might have subscription; less specialized, but still a very valuable tool

Dictionary of Old English (DOE): an ongoing project at UofT, A-G ready for now; requires subscription

Possibility or collapse on the path to necessity?