The many faces of a modal with diﬀerent forces

(1)

The many faces of a modal with different forces

Igor Yanovich

Universität Tübingen

XLSX @ University of Amsterdam November 21, 2013

(2)

Same modal, many forces

♦ modals vs. modals:

may, can vs. must, have to, should, ought

But cf. St’át’imcets (Salish) deontic ka:

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

(1) 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.’

(3)

Changes of perspective

Old perspective

Classification of modals: 1) ♦ ; 2) .

Newer perspective (2000-s)

Classification of modals: 1) ♦ ; 2) ; 3) variable force.

Present talk: Yet newer perspective?

Modal force is not always helpful as a guiding notion.

(4)

More variable-force examples, closer to Amsterdam...

Danish måtte:

[Brandt, 1999, pp. 51-54]

(2) Peter Peter

må måtte

bo live

i in

Paris Paris

Translation 1: ‘It is necessary for Peter that he lives in Paris, (perhaps because his sweetheart lives there or because he has a formal obligation to do so.)’

...orTranslation 2: ‘Peter is allowed to live in Paris’

(5)

More variable-force examples, closer to Amsterdam...

Old Saxon môtan (cf. Dutch moeten, German müssen):

(3) endi and

ûs us

is is

firinun urgent

tharf, need

<...>

that that

wi we

it it

an in

thesumu this

lande land

at from

thi you

linôn learn

môtin.

môtan

(Heliand 2428-30)

‘And there is an urgent need for us <...>

that wemaylearn from you (=Christ) in this land.’

There are also instances of môtan in the same 9th-century epic poem

that, according to philologists, convey necessity rather than possibility

(like the modern descendant modals)

(6)

Questions

1

Semantics of such modals?

Historical linguists of old: ambiguous between♦and Modern fieldwork semanticists: not quite ambiguous

2

Is there only one kind of variable force?

Historical linguists of old: not much space for cross-linguistic variation Modern fieldwork semanticists: even among three Pacific Northwest languages, each language shows a different pattern

(7)

Questions

3

How do hearers recover the exact intended meaning?

Historical linguists of old: hmmmm...

Modern fieldwork semanticists: well, maybe there is not much choice ([Deal, 2011] on Nez Perce); but otherwise, hmmmm...

4

Relation to “normal” ♦ s and s?

Historical linguists of old: historical development through acquiring/losing particular readings

Modern fieldwork semanticists: perhaps a parameter distinguishing between languages ([Rullmann et al., 2008]), but otherwise unclear

(8)

Questions and our roadmap

Three modals with many forces:

OEm¯otan: true variable force; a single meaning distinct from♦and MEm¯oten: genuine ambiguity betweenand non-

Ukr.maty: ,♦and future uses, but different from MEm¯oten

⇒ very many kinds of “modals with several forces”!

Recovering the right meaning:

in Middle English, the syntactic context may sometimes help

Relation to “normal” ♦ s and s:

English: variable force→-♦ambiguity→true Ukrainian: much messier development

(9)

The roadmap

1

Standard analysis of *m¯ otan>must

2

Variable-force modality

3

A few methodological issues

4

Alfredian *m¯ otan as a variable-force modal

5

Alfredian vs. Pacific-Northwest variable force

6

Early Middle English: genuine ambiguity between ♦ and

7

Ukrainian modal with many forces: MATY

(10)

Standard analysis of *m¯otan>must

Standard analysis of *m¯ otan>must

(11)

Old English *m¯ otan

(4) bruc enjoy

þenden while

þu you

mote

motan.3sg.subj

manigra many

medo rewards

(Beo 1177-8)

‘Enjoy, while youmot, many rewards’

The (near) consensus story:

1 Earliest recorded OE:*m¯otanambiguous between♦and

2 Very few-uses in Early OE (close to 0%)

3 Slow growth of-uses, reaching 100% in the 15-16th cent.

[Ono, 1958], [Tellier, 1962], [Visser, 1973], [Goossens, 1987]...; cf. [Solo, 1977]

(12)

Questions for the standard analysis

Modal meaning change is regular.

Development ofmustisregular: cf. Germanmüssen, Dutch moeten.

But no other known instances of the♦→shift

⇒ something special about *m¯ otan and its cognates

Meaning change involves semantic reanalysis. But reanalyze ♦ as ?

Through permission implying obligation? (e.g. [Traugott, 1989])

...but♦-deontics don’t regularly turn intos

Through “must not” ≈“may not”? (e.g. OED)

...but all♦deontics have fixed scope (¬>♦) ([van der Auwera, 2001]) ...and besides, won’t work for German, asnicht müssenis (¬>)

⇒ both stories overgenerate

(13)

Preview of my proposal for English

Old English *m¯ otan

not a ♦ , but a variable-force modal

⇓

Early Middle English *m¯ oten

♦ - ambiguity, with more frequent

⇓ Early Modern English must

pure : the less productive ♦ -uses have been lost

(14)

Variable-force modality

(15)

Variable-force modality

Variable-force modal: neither ♦ nor .

Unambiguous, but may be rendered by either ♦ -s or -s in English, due to the lack of a perfect correlate.

Nez Perce o’qa:

[Deal, 2011, (1)]

(5) Context: A friend is preparing for a camping trip. I am taking this person around my camping supplies and suggesting appropriate things. I hand them two blankets and say:

’inéhne-no’qa take-mod

’ee you

kii dem

lepít two

cíickan.

blanket

‘Youcantake these two blankets.’

or ‘Youshouldtake these two blankets.’

(16)

Pacific Northwest systems with variable force

NB: “variable force” is a descriptive term.

Different shapes of systems with variable force

Different underlying semantics creating the “variable-force effect”

St’át’imcets(Salish) [Rullmann et al., 2008]

deontic future various epistemic

♦ ka kelh k’a; ku7(?); -an’(?)

Consultants selectparaphrases for variable force modals more often

Gitksan(Tsimshian) [Peterson, 2010], [Matthewson, 2013]

circ. deontic

♦ da’ak

¯hlxw anook sgi ¯

epist.

ima(’a);gat

Consultants select♦paraphrases for variable force modals more often

Nez Perce(Sahaptian) [Deal, 2011]

circ. and deontic

♦ o’qa

—

(17)

Pacific Northwest systems with variable force

Different proposals about St’át’imcets, Gitksan and Nez Perce:

[Rullmann et al., 2008]: St’át’imcets modals ares, but they are subject to modal base narrowing via a choice function;

with a narrower modal base≈♦

[Peterson, 2010]: Gitksan epistemic modals are♦s, but they may come with domain narrowing via a Kratzerian ordering source;

does not derive a true— but♦with a smaller set of accessible worlds is stronger than♦with a bigger set;

Peterson also uses ordering source narrowing for St’át’imcets [Deal, 2011]: Nez Perceo’qais a regular♦, but it has no dual; no scalar implicature is generated in positive contexts, henceo’qa appears in contexts where Englishs would

(18)

Preview of my proposal regarding OE m¯ otan

OE m¯ otan was unambiguous — at least in Alfredian OE

However, it did not involve weakening or strengthening (cf. the analyses for St’át’imcets and Gitksan)

Also, it wasn’t a dual-less modal (cf. the analysis for Nez Perce)

Instead, the semantics of m¯ otan was such that ♦ and collapsed in the set of accessible worlds

When all accessible worlds arep-worlds,♦p⇔p

(19)

A few methodological issues

(20)

A few methodological issues

1

In-depth analysis of the data

Discovery of variable force⇐primary semantic fieldwork

Cf. [Matthewson, 2012] onhow to (not) uncover semantic variation

Considering examples out of context = failure(cf. [Fischer, 1994]) Elizabeth Traugott (p.c.): check at least 10 lines of text above your example

(21)

Methodological issues

2

Dialectal variation may be huge

Differences in deontics across the British Isles:

from [Tagliamonte and Smith, 2006]

(22)

Methodological issues

3

Change may be very fast

The deontic system of Toronto English changed in 3 apparent-time generations:

from [Tagliamonte and D’Arcy, 2007], Toronto English

(23)

Historical examples of fast meaning change in modals

Example 1: rise of deontic agan (>ought)

[Nordlinger and Traugott, 1997]: aganacquires semi-modal uses in the 11th cent., and true narrow-scope deontic uses by the 13th cent.

Wide-scope uses follow later (e.g., with inanimate subjects “around 1300”)

⇒already quite rapid

Even more rapid, in fact: wide scope uses inAncrene Wisse(c1225)

(6) Vre deorewurðe Leafdi, seinte Marie, þeahto alle wummen to beo forbisne, (AW 2:442)

‘Our beloved Lady, Saint Mary, whooughtto be an example to all women’

(7) þis nis nawt ibetxet ase wel as hitahte (AW Pref:15)

‘this is not yet atoned as well as itoughtto[be]’

(24)

Historical examples of fast meaning change in modals

Example 2: rise of deontic have to

[Brinton, 1991]: first obligation uses already in Old English

(cf. also [van der Gaaf, 1931], [Visser, 1973]) [Fischer, 1994]: in fact, no such uses throughout OE and ME under closer scrutiny.

Fischer attributes the onset of “modalization” to Early ModE (16th cent.) I found no clear obligation examples ofhave toin the mid-17th cent. section of PCEEC (≈350K words)

Even in mid-19th century,have tois a futurate, not a modal, for some authors:

(8) 1841,from Marryat’sMasterman Ready

A: “Wehave a great deal of work to do, <...>”

B: ”Why,what haveweto dobesides putting up the tents and shifting over here?”

A: “In the first place wehave tobuild a house, and that will take a long while.”

(25)

Methodological conclusions

Select a short time period

Preferably, only draw texts from a particular geographical area

Analyze each example in broad context, not in isolation

(26)

Historical datasets for OE/ME m¯ otan

Early OE prose: core Alfredian texts (late 9th/early 10th cent.)

C(ura) P(astoralis) (edition [Sweet, 1871])

Bo(ethius) (edition [Godden and Irvine, 2009])

Sol(iloquies) (edition [Carnicelli, 1969]) Best possible shot at geographical and temporal consistency for the period.

72 instances of*m¯otan

Early ME prose: ‘AB’ language (first half of 13th cent.)

S(einte) M(argarete) (edition [d’Ardenne, 1977])

A(ncrene) W(isse) (edition [Millett, 2005]) Written within a few miles from each other. SM predates AW by several decades.

76 instances of*m¯oten

(27)

Alfredian *m¯otan as a variable-force modal

Alfredian *m¯ otan as a variable-force modal

(28)

Possibility-necessity collapse: the intuition

(9) a. Hu how

mæg can

he he

ðonne then

beon be

butan without

gitsunge, avarice ðonne

when he he

sceal had.to

ymb about

monigra many

monna men’s

are property

ðencan, think gif

if he he

nolde would.not

ða ða when

he he

moste

motan.sg.past.subj ymb about

his his

anes?

only

(CP:9.57.19)

b. Translation by [Sweet, 1871]:

“How can he be without covetousness when he has to consult the interests of many, if formerly he would not avoid it when hehadto consult his own interests alone?”

c. Translation by H.W. Norman, printed in [Giles et al., 1858]:

“How can he be without covetousness when he must think about many men’s sustenance, if he would not when hemightthink about his own alone?”

Not much contrast between the ♦ and readings:

it was an open possibility for the subject to think only about their own benefit, but they also actually thought only about themselves before being promoted.

(29)

Possibility-necessity collapse: the intuition

(10) A typical “possibility example”:

Ac but

se that

ðe which

unwærlice unwarily

ðone that

wuda wood

hiewð, hews,

&

and sua so

his his

freond friend

ofsliehð, slays, him

to.him bið is

nidðearf necessary

ðæt that

he he

fleo flee.subj

to to

ðara those.gen

ðreora three.gen

burga city.gen

anre, one.dat ðæt

that on in

sumere some

ðara of.those

weorðe become.subj

genered, saved,

ðæt that

he he

mote

motan.prs.subj libban;

live

‘But he who unwarily hews wood and by that slays his friend, it is necessary for him that he flee to one of those three cities, so that he be saved in one of them, so that hemote

live.’ would≈mote≈may (CP:21.167.15)

(11) A typical “necessity example”:

ealneg always

hi they

wepað, weep

&

æfter after

ðæm the

wope weeping

hi they

gewyrceað obtain

ðæt that

hi they

moton motan.pres eft

again wepan.

weep

‘always they are weeping, and after the weeping they make it so that theymotonweep

again.’ have to≈moton≈may (CP:54.421.14)

(30)

Alfredian *m¯ otan: the collapse analysis

Observation

In all 72 examples, virtually no contrast between the ♦ and readings.

With regular♦modals,♦pdoes not entail that phas to happen.

(12) Youmaytake this apple. But it’s not that you have to.

(13) My electric billscanbe paid online, though I never tried.

In Alfredian OE, possibilities expressed bymagan‘can, may’ and aliefed‘permitted’ work the same way, being consistent with¬p.

But not*m¯otan!

(31)

Alfredian *m¯ otan: the collapse analysis

Analysis for m¯ otan(p)

Acc. relation: metaphysical modal base, stereotypical ordering source Presupposition: ♦ p → fut(p)

ifp has a chance to actualize, it will

Assertion: ♦ p

Metaphysical modal base: all w

⁰

sharing the history of the actual w Stereotypical ordering source: w

⁰⁰

where things go normally are best

E.g., nobody accidentally dies from heart attack, etc.

(32)

Alfredian *m¯ otan: the collapse analysis

m¯ otan(p) conveys both inevitability and possibility Variable-force effect:

Inevitability is stressed⇒translation

Openness of possibility is stressed⇒♦translation

Rarity of *m¯ otan:

Few contexts would support the collapse presupposition.

And indeed,*m¯otanis rare in Alfredian OE:

≈70*m¯otanvs.≈700sculan(>shall) and≈1000magan(>may)

Metaphysical+stereotypical may look circumstantial or deontic

In the data, no clear examples that distinguish the three modal flavors.

(33)

Alfredian vs. Pacific-Northwest variable force

(34)

Alfredian system vs. the known Pacific Northwest systems

Alfredian Old English ability circ. deontic

♦ magan magan non-modal

— sculan sculan

circ./deontic

♦+ collapse presup. motan

St’át’imcets([Rullmann et al., 2008]) deontic future various epistemic

♦ ka kelh k’a; ku7(?); -an’(?)

Consultants selectparaphrases for variable force modals more often

Gitksan([Peterson, 2010], [Matthewson, 2013]) circ. deontic

♦ da’ak

¯hlxw anook sgi ¯

epist.

ima(’a);gat

Consultants select♦paraphrases for variable force modals more often

Nez Perce([Deal, 2011]) circ. and deontic

♦ o’qa

—

(35)

Alfredian system vs. the known Pacific Northwest systems

Empirical picture:

St’át’imcets and Gitksan are genuinely different from OE:

no inevitability effects in St’át’imcets and Gitksan

different interaction with negation: for St’át’imcets and Gitksan,

“possibly not” readings are available, but not for OE Nez Perce is somewhat similar to Old English

Theoretical options:

with weakening [Rullmann et al., 2008]

♦with strengthening [Peterson, 2010]

regular♦without a dual [Deal, 2011]

upper-end degree modal(≈somewhat probable) [Kratzer, 2012, analysis I]

modal with only 1 accessible world [Kratzer, 2012, analysis II]

(36)

Other variable-force analyses

Fit to Old English *m¯ otan:

with weakening (for St’át’imcets) [Rullmann et al., 2008]

♦with strengthening (for Gitksan) [Peterson, 2010]

regular♦without a dual(for Nez Perce) [Deal, 2011]

upper-end degree modal (for St’át’imcets) [Kratzer, 2012, analysis I]

modal with only 1 accessible world (for no language in particular) [Kratzer, 2012, analysis II]

Collapse analysis vs. [Kratzer, 2012, analysis II]:

Similar intuition of♦-collapse

My analysis: collapse results from inevitability presupposition My analysis: there may be>1 accessible world

[Standop, 1957]: informal collapse analysis(forgotten in the later literature)

(37)

Deal’s account of Nez Perce

[Deal, 2011] for Nez Perce:

Observation 1: in downward-entailing contexts,o’qabehaves as a♦ Observation 2: no would-bedual foro’qa

Claim: o’qais a regular♦

Deriving variable force: without a dual, no scalar implicatures

Deal’s account does not work for Old English:

¬motan(p)conveys impossibility⇐predicted by [Deal, 2011]

But thereis a would-be dual: sculan(>modernshall)

(38)

Collapse analysis applied to Nez Perce?

Does my analysis for OE work for Nez Perce? Doesn’t seem so.

[Deal, 2011]: o’qa is a clear ♦ in DE contexts

(14) c’alawí if

saykiptaw’atóo-nm doctor-erg

háamti’c quickly

páa-x-no’qa, 3/3-see-o’qa

simíinikem-x Lewiston-to

hi-kiy-ó’qa 3subj-go-o’qa a. ‘If the doctorcansee him in a hurry, then he should head over to Lewiston.’

b. #‘If the doctorneedsto see him in a hurry, then he should head over to Lewiston.’

Compare Nez Perce 14 to Old English 9:

(9) “How can he be without avarice when he has to think about the benefit of many people, if[he didn’t want to when he motan.3sg think only about his]?”

(39)

OE m¯ otan and our typology of variable force

St’át’imcets and Gitksan: the effective modal force is determined by context (via choice functions or ordering sources)

Nez Perce: the distinction between forces is irrelevant in some cases due to the shape of the language’s modal system

Old English: the modal itself carries a presupposition that makes the

distinction between ♦ and irrelevant

(40)

Early Middle English: genuine ambiguity between♦and

Early Middle English: genuine ambiguity between ♦ and

(41)

Fast forward to Early Middle English!

‘AB’ language:

a literary dialect written in a small area of the Western Midlands for several decades in the early 13th century

...while the rest of England still rarely used written English

(42)

No ♦ - collapse in Early Middle English

Circumstantial necessity: >50% of uses in Ancrene Wisse

(15) (AW 8:90-9) “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

þenne then

mot moten.3sg

ha she

þenchen think

of of

þe the

kues cow’s

foddre fodder

<...>

‘For then she(=the anchoress)has tothink of the cow’s fodder <...>’

Nu Now

þenne, then

x^ef

if eani any

mot moten.3sg

nedlunge necessarily

habben have

hit, it,

loki see

þet that

hit it.nom

na no

mon man.acc ne

not eili ail

ne not

hearmi harm

‘Now then if any (anchoress) absolutelyhas tohave a cow, at least see to it that the cow does not hurt or ail anyone.’

(43)

...but Early ME *m¯ oten is not yet a pure

“Open possibility”: in≈5 out of 58 examples in AW, and more inSM, we seem to have a genuine existential meaning:

(16) Þah þe flesch beo ure fa, hit is us ihaten þet we halden hit up. Wa we motendon hit, as hit is wel ofte wurðe, ah nawt fordon mid alle;

(AW 3:284-5)

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

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

(44)

...but Early ME *m¯ oten is not yet a pure

Prayers:

(17) I þe wurðgunge, Iesu Crist, of þine tweof apostles, þet Ichmoteoueral folhin hare lare, þet Ichmotehabben þurh hare bonen þe tweolf bohes þe

bloweð of chearite, (AW 1:174-6)

‘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’

(45)

Another reading

“Moral instruction”: deontic

(18) < ... >teke this, hamotyet thurh hire forbisne ant thurh hire hali beoden

yeoven strengthe othre, ant uphalden ham, thet ha ne fallen i the dunge of

sunne. (AR 3:259)

‘...besides this, shemustalso through her example and through her holy prayers give strength to others, and hold them up so that they do not fall in the filth of sin.’

(46)

m¯ oten under attitudes

In attitudes: exact meaning unclear, but not empty; close to prayers

(19) Thet ich thurh the lare of the Hali Gastmotehalden foreward, he hit yetti

me thurh ower bonen. (AR 3:644-5)

‘That I, through the teaching of the Holy Spirit,maykeep the agreement, let Him (=God) grant it to me through your prayers.’

⇒this type of use is most frequent in the late entries of Petersborough chronicle (underask,agree,forbid,grant,decree)

(47)

*m¯ oten’s modal neighbors in the AB language

In OE, *m¯ otan was outside of the “regular” modal system:

ability circ. deontic

♦ magan magan non-modal

— sculan sculan

circ./deontic

♦+ collapse presup. motan

But in the 13th cent., *m¯ oten is an integral part of the system.

ahen(>modernought)

only deontic uses, mostly reportative sculen(>modernshall)

deontic uses, both performative and reportative future uses

“subjunctive” uses (≈modernwould)

(48)

Summary for *m¯ oten in Ancrene Wisse

58 instances of moten in Ancrene Wisse

(only 2 in negative clauses)

5 main types of uses:

unavoidability (circumstantial,≈modernhave to) moral instruction (deontic,≈modernmust,ought) wish, prayer

“open possibility”

under attitudes (grant,swear, etc.)

In Alfredian OE, all instances could be explained with one meaning.

Not anymore in the AB language!

(49)

*m¯ oten in the earlier Seinte Margarete

18 instances of moten in Seinte Margarete

(only 1 in a negative clause)

A slightly different, apparently more archaic distribution:

no strict demarcation between prayers and other♦types

⇒the prayer/wish type could have been forming

moral-instruction uses are emerging from circumstantialuses:

no clear, unambiguous moral instruction uses in Seinte Margarete (20) x^ef

if ha they

edstonden withstand

wulleð will

mine my

unwreste evil

wrenches tricks

ant and

mine my

swikele treacherous swenges

swings

wreastlin fight

ha they

moten moten

ant and

wiðerin struggle

wið with

ham them

seoluen.

selves

(The devil teaches Saint Margaret how to resist him:)

‘If they want to withstand my evil tricks and my treacherous swings, they have tofight and struggle with themselves’.

Continuation: ‘They cannot overcome me without overcoming themselves’.

(50)

A side note on the rise of deontic m¯ oten

The issue is far from simple. Already in Wulfstan (early 11th century, Late OE) we have examples that seem to feature “moral instruction” m¯otan.

(21) Witodlice certainly

witan know

we we

moton motan

hu how

we we

Criste Christ

geleanian pay

eal all

þæt that

he he

for for

us us

&

and for for

ure our

lufan love

þafode consented

&

and ðolode.

suffered

‘Surely weoughtto know how to repay Christ for all which he consented to and suffered for us and for (his) love of us’.

Potential explanations:

U-shape? Development→loss →new development

Dialects? Perhaps deonticrose earlier in Wulfstan’s variety than in the West Midlands

Notan explanation: accidental absence due to register difference.

Both Wulfstan’s homilies and SM were written to be read to people.

Both feature passages on what one should and shouldn’t do.

(51)

The change trajectory

“destiny”? “open possibility” collapse variable force

u} ow %- (

prayer attitude complements

unavoidability moral instruction

collapse variable force ⇒ circumstantial

Presuppositions can conventionalize into assertions

(cf. [Schwenter and Waltereit, 2010])

(old♦assertion) ∧(new collapse assertion) =assertion

circumstantial ⇒ deontic : a well-attested development

(52)

The functioning of an ambiguous modal

How do hearers recover the exact intended meaning of a modal with many forces?

In Middle English, it’s not just the modal force that distinguishes the readings!

Attitude complements, as well as prayers inAW, are clearly marked in syntax.

Purely circumstantial uses are descriptive and “ethically neutral”, and thus can be distinguished from deontic moral-instruction uses Only the marginal “openness” uses present a problem, but further empirical work may reveal their disambiguation cues.

(53)

Conclusions from the English data

Having many forces 6= true variable force

Distinction between true variable force (OE) and ♦ - ambiguity (ME)

Historical relations

True variable force of the OE type may develop into a ♦ - ambiguity

Semantics for many forces: many options

The variable-force effect may be created in very many ways

Next: yet another kind of modal with many forces, from Ukrainian

(54)

Ukrainian modal with many forces: MATY

Ukrainian modal with many forces: maty

(55)

The many faces of Ukrainian maty

Proto-Slavic èì³òè ‘have’ ⇒ future and/or obligation in many Slavic

Modern Ukrainian мати < Proto-Slavic èì³òè

English transliteration: maty

deontic necessity, epistemic necessity future

possibility

My Ukrainian examples come from the letters of Lesya Ukrayinka (late 19th century) and from the novelFieldwork in Ukrainian sexby Oksana Zabuzhko (late 20th century).

(56)

Deontic necessity maty

(22) Що what

ж part

до about

моєї my

повiстi, novel

то, part

далебi, truly

не not

знаю, know

як how

з with

нею it

буде, will.be бо

because не not

розумiю, understand

як how

маю maty

думати think

про about

вiдносини relations

“Зорi”

of.Zorya до to мене

me

‘Regarding my novel, I truly don’t know what will happen with it, as I don’t understand what Ishouldthink about how “Zorya” (a literary journal) views me.’

(57)

Future maty

(23) Сiчова Sich

кна-кна kna-kna

зайнята is.occupied

страшенно terribly

зборами with.gathering

радикалiв, of.radicals

що which мають

maty бути be

близько close.to

апрiля, April

через because.of

те that

кна-кна kna-kna в in

ажитацiї, excitement

немов as.if перед

before

виборами.

elections

‘The Sich kna-kna(family term for Ukrayinka’s brothers —IY)is greatly interested by the gathering of radicals whichwilltake place some time around April, and because of that the kna-kna is excited as if before the elections.’

Not pure future, but ratherplanned futureandpredicted future.

(58)

Possibility maty

(24) Ну, well

та this

es this

ist is

eine an

alte old

Geschichte, story

i, and

певне, surely

вона it

Вам to.you

так so

вже already сприкрилась

bored

досi, until.now

але but

мене me

жаль pity

бере, takes

що that

у at

нас us

на in

Українi Ukraine нiяк

in.no.way не not

скiнчаться end

одвiчнi eternal

сiї those

спори, quarrels,

та and

й part

як how

мають maty скiнчитись,

end

коли if

сперечники quarrelers

одно one

одного another

не not

розумiють.

understand

‘Well,es ist eine alte Geschichte, and surely by now you’ve had enough of it already, but still it pities me that for us in the Ukraine, those eternal quarrels never end, and indeed howcouldthey end if the quarrelers don’t understand each other.’

No reading “it’s abstractly possible” for such examples

Instead: “There are enough resources for the possibility to be realizable”.

(59)

Relationships between different meanings of maty

For ME m¯ oten in Ancrene Wisse, there was often clear demarkation:

deontic-for ethical contexts

circumstantial-for practical contexts

For maty, demarcation is much less clear:

“I don’t know what Ishouldthink” vs. “I don’t know what Imaythink”

“The gatheringwilltake place” vs. “The gatheringshouldtake place”

“Howcouldthose quarrels end” vs. “Howwouldthose quarrels end”

obligation maty ⇔ future maty ⇔ possibility maty

(60)

Semantics for different maty

Obligation maty(p): in all worlds where the current world’s obligations are met, p takes place.

Future maty(p): in all worlds that develop according to the current plans or predictions, p takes place

Possibility maty(p): the preconditions are met for bringing p about in every accessible world (where one would try doing so)

There are discussions in the literature as to whether ability modals are pure♦s, and the conclusion is that they are in fact more complex. See [Portner, 2009, pp. 201-3] and references therein.

(61)

maty and its cousins

The meanings of maty are clearly synchronically related...

...even though they feature different modal forces.

But the exact composition of the mix may differ for cognates:

Old Bulgarian (a.k.a. Old Church Slavonic)im³ti(10-11th centuries):

futurate

very few non-futurate meanings Middle Russianim³ti(14-17th centuries):

futurate (sometimes with modal overtones) however, virtually no clear modal meanings grammaticalized verb lost by the 17th-18th century Old Polishmiec(14-15 centuries):

obligational meaning common futurate meaning

possibility meaning — but not clear if it’s the same as in modern Ukr.

(62)

So what does maty tell us?

In terms of contextual entailments, different meanings of maty are often close to each other.

However, in terms of “modal force”, they are not.

Thus the paradigm of ♦ vs. is sometimes not very helpful Rather than focusing on the force, we might better ask:

“what does this modal do here?”

⇒ a more pragmatic, more “philosophical” perspective on meaning

(63)

Conclusion

Summary

Old English m¯ otan

Variable force with “inevitability collapse”: presupposes ♦ p → future (p) Middle English m¯ oten

Genuine ambiguity between and non- Ukrainian maty

Future, and ♦ readings Slavic cognates of maty

Related clusters of meanings, but differ by language

⇒ Multiple-force modals are not that rare, but they come in many kinds

(64)

Data for Alfredian Old English (original OE examples, modern philological translations, and Latin parallels forCPandBo): http://tinyurl.com/d7okrzz

This project has benefitted from discussions with Cleo Condoravdi, Antonette diPaolo Healey, Daniel Donoghue, Regine Eckardt, Kai von Fintel, Olga Fischer, Martin Hackl, Irene Heim, Sabine Iatridou, Natasha Korotkova, Ian MacDougall, Lisa Matthewson, Paul Portner, Katrina Przyjemski, Donca Steriade, Sali Tagliamonte, and Elizabeth Traugott. Earlier stages of this work were presented at University of Ottawa, Georgetown University, Rutgers University, NYU, UT Austin, and UC Santa Cruz, and benefitted from the comments made there. All remaining mistakes are my responsibility only.

Corpora used:

York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English prose (YCOE) Penn Parsed Corpus of Early Middle English (PPCEME)

Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence (PCEEC) USC Parsed Corpus of Old South Slavic

Russian National Corpus (www.ruscorpora.ru), the Middle Russian section The extensive commentary toBoethiusin [Godden and Irvine, 2009] was of great help in identifying the correspondences between the Latin original and the OE translation.

(65)

References

Brandt, S. (1999).

Modal verbs in Danish, volume 30 ofTravaux du cercle linguistique de Copenhague.

C. A. Reitzel.

Brinton, L. J. (1991).

The origin and development of quasimodal ‘have to’ in English.

Paper presented at The Workshop on Verbal Periphrases, Amsterdam.

http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/lbrinton/haveto.pdf.

Carnicelli, T. A. (1969).

King Alfred’s version of St. Augustine’s Soliloquies.

Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

d’Ardenne, S. (1977).

The Katherine Group edited from MS. Bodley 34.

Société d’Edition “Les Belles Lettres”, Paris.

Deal, A. R. (2011).

Modals without scales.

Language, 87(3):559–585.

Fischer, O. (1994).

The development of quasi-auxiliaries in English and changes in word order.

Neophilologus, 78:137–164.

van der Gaaf, W. (1931).

Beonandhabbanconnected with an inflected infinitive.

English Studies, 13:176–188.

Giles et al., editor (1858).

The whole works of king Alfred the Great: with preliminary essays illustrative of the history, arts, and manners of the ninth century.

Bosworth & Harrison, London.

(66)

References

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.

Kratzer, A. (2012).

Modals and conditionals.

Matthewson, L. (2012).

On how (not) to uncover cross-linguistic variation.

InProceedings of NELS 42.

Matthewson, L. (2013).

Gitksan modals.

International Journal of American Linguistics, 79(3).

Millett, B. (2005).

Ancrene Wisse. A corrected edition of the text in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 402, with variants from other manuscripts.

Drawing on the uncompleted edition by E.J.Dobson, with a glossary and additional notes by Richard Dance.

Nordlinger, R. and Traugott, E. C. (1997).

Scope and the developmen of epistemic modality: evidence fromought to.

English Language Linguistics, 1(2):295–317.

Ono, S. (1958).

Some notes on the auxiliary*motan.

Anglica, 3(3):64–80.

(67)

References

Peterson, T. (2010).

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

PhD thesis, University of British Columbia.

Portner, P. (2009).

Modality.

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

Modals as distributive indefinites.

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

Schwenter, S. and Waltereit, R. (2010).

Presupposition accommodation and language change.

In Davidse, K., Vandenalotte, L., and Cuyckens, H., editors,Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization. Mouton de Gruyter.

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.

Sweet, H. (1871).

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

Tagliamonte, S. and D’Arcy, A. (2007).

The modals of obligation/necessity in Canadian perspective.

English World-Wide, 28(1):47–87.

Tagliamonte, S. and Smith, J. (2006).

(68)

References

Layering, competition and a twist of fate. deontic modality in dialects of English.

Diachronica, 23(2):341–380.

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. (2001).

On the typology of negative modals.

In Hoeksema, J., Rullmann, H., Sánchez-Valencia, V., and van der Wouden, T., editors,Perspectives on negation and polarity items, pages 23–48. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

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

An historical syntax of the English language.

E. J. Brill, Leiden.