Modality and Subordinators
Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS) This series has been established as a companion series to the periodical StudiesinLwrgmrge.
Editors Werner Abraham
Elly van Gelderen
l.'nrvemtyofV,.nn;
Ari.wno.Stottz39A8-1984
p.
<m.l~tud!tlll.lnguagtComparuon~; )6»4 · 1010 "'" Amstrrdam l1t. N John Benjamin> North AmmIXA
TWIXB
Soun:esforthetypologicalsun·eys
Languagemdex Subj...:tmdex
28i
Preface and acknowledgements
anc~stors Jdt Africa some 60- 70 000 years ago, they were endowed l>1th their quick colonization of the globe. They were probabl)·notuniquemhavingalanguage.oiSstudtesoftheNeanderthalgenomehave r..vealed(Krausertal.2007).However.thosuddeoappearanceofartob)eCtsandrock· carvingssuggeststhattheywereporhapsuniqueintheirabilitytocommunicateabout things that were imaginary (irreal). Tho pnmar)· functmns of language. probably not onlytothatofmodernhumans.canbesaidtobrtorefertothingsintherealworld. and to perform speech-acts. such as assertions. commands. reque•ts etc. However. when humans communicate about imaginal)· events. the)· go beyond these functions ThLS unique ability made it p=ible for our ancestors to commumcate what potential consequencesahypothetJCalactloncouldbringabout.howhkely•twasthatacertain event would occur and whatthmgs they hoped or feared would happen. This. in turn. made the listeners more able to make the nght .:h01ces for the future Th~ present book is about the abd1ty to refer to imaginal)· events. Resear<ehrrs who studylanguageshavefoundthattherearecertainkmdsofmorphernesthatappearto denote th1s. namely m!lectmnal morphrnu·s (mood). part1drs. or auxiliary verbs (modal markers). Thelanguage(s) spoken by our ancestors most hkely had such gram· matlcal markers. However. there is at..o another. more fundamental .:omponentto the expression of Imaginary ..vents. Since imagmar)· evrnts are removed from the speech situat•onandtheobservedreallty.thecorrespondmguUeraTKesarenotassertmns.but morel)· propositions. To al'Oid expressmg assertions. subordmation 1s emplo)-ed (Cri•tofaro2003).Thus.imaginaryevenl5trndtoberfalizedassubordmatedau•es (cond•tionalpmtase•.complementclausesofpredicatesofbelid.doubt.hopeand fearetc.).ltisalsotyp1Call)·insubordinateclausesthatirrealismarkerssuchasthe subjun<etiveandcond•tmnalarefound.Thepresentim·e•tigationexploresthehypoth· eSisthatthesestrategJesaremfacttwoSidesofthesame.:oin.thatsubordmatorsare markersoftherealls·ITrealLSdistinclion The author wishes to express her gralltude towards the following people: Christer Platzack, C\olarit )uhen. Kristin Eide. Henrik Rruenkvist. Katarma Tucker Spijksma. Werner Abraham. EUy van Gelderen. Terje lohndal. lars·Olof Delsmg. Halld6r Sigun'lsson. Kasper Boy'. mark mterrogative and cond1· Ilona! subordinate clauses (in e.g. Old Swedish and kdandic; WHHH~R only mark> interrogative ones). Lastly. complementilen.the indkative-subjuncm·e. :rndepistemiC modal markers all haw ~cope over the whole proposition Thcconnectionbetw~npropositionalmodalityandgeneralsubordinatorsissup·
ported by the f~ct that the subjunctive is typically a submdina\e dau~ mood.lndeN, at a more fund~mentallevel. the common denominator between the subjunctive and subordinator. ~ems to be that b-oth Jack illoc:mionary force (assertiveness; see Cristofarol003forsuclladerinitionofsubordinalion}.lnterestmgly.whenthesub· junctiveandthegeneralsubordinatorsdootcurinmainclauoes.theybothtendto have speecll-act meanings, e.g. the optath·e- Furthermo..,, it woll be •hown that the ind1Cati1·e and TJIAT and the ~ubjuncth·e and t~/wu~TH~R. re•pectively. are hcen~d b)· mo"' or less the same predicates in the Germanic languages. Semifutiw predicates tJ1)1Callylicencetheindicatii'CandTHAT,whe..,asinterrogattveanddubitattveprNi· cate• rypically hcencethe subjunctive and 1~/WHHHER Another syntactic piece of evidene< is the fact that rimte wrb• in mam clarnesoccupy the same syntactic position ascomplemcntizers do in subordinate clauses in the as~mmetric Germanic \'2-languages (in front of the canonical subject posilion. ~~ e.g.den8esteni983,P!31Zackl9i16a,b).lndedarativeclauses.thefiniteverbstandsm complementary ~·tUactic distribution to THAT. whereas, in interrogative and conditional clauses, it stands in complementary S)'TitaCik dtstribution to •• and/or wunu~R. The(fucialpointhereisthatthefiniteverbcamesorrepre<entsthemarkerofpropo· Sltoonalmodality,throughmoodormodalverbs-indeedoneofthecharacterimcsof the ep,temic modal verbs in the Germanic languages is that they are almost always finite. Furthermore, in Swedish, the epie identified with propositional modahty. L'nder more fine-gramN generativeanalyses.Complementizerierhont<stenastoobroadforbcmgapphcabletoatypologtcalcat· egoryfurthermore,themdlolhesi< becomes mvaltd LanGuage T;'Pology and Generative Grammar contam many other premt<es.assumptionerStnbution. Some values are more common, are wed 111 moR constructtons.mdhaveawJdersemanucexten
tioncd (the last one bemg the most pertinent for th>S mwshganon; the \'alues arc presented as unmarked<markcd): Aspect (lmperfectJwsedonthea.<sumpuonthattbefacuhy oflanguage(Fl.)ismnatetohumans,e>·engenettcallydeternuned. "vtnuaU)·shared among hlllnans and m crunal respects unique to them, hence a kmd ot ~pecies propeny" (Chomskr 2007. l). At kast m the narrow sense. u is assumed to be autonomous andseparatedfromtheconcej>t-intenttonalandthesensory-motorsystems.Ratber than being a part of these two systems. tt is a way of linkmg them. Chomsky argues The Mmimalist Program attempts to formulate what is mmimaUy requtred for Fl. (in the narrow sense)to function. ltts assumed that Fl. works "'~th lexteal ttems that meet mtcrpretability condmons for both the phonologkal and semanuc components Categones wtthout mterpretable features for these components are not "well formed syntacucobJct:IS:th~"notonlyrmghtnotextst.butcannotemtonratherplausible
auumptton< (Chomsky 2000. 138tf). These lextcal ttems are then arranged in syntacticstructurcsthatalsomeetthelegibtbtycondllions.mthesensethatnonewdements areintroduceddurmgthecourseofthederi•·auon(ThelndustvenessCondiuon)and that theleJtical items remam unaltered (:-.lo-TampenngCondtuon). Thts useofOccaJn:. raznr rids the theory of some of tl< earlier less well-moU\'ated auumptions (such a.< bar-kvels,projecnons,deepstructure.andSicyl995:240).lnEngli>h. the declarattve islexicalized b)' thm. with "a nuU option" in main clauses (ibid). The interrogative is lexicalized b)' if in subordinatedauordtnota"
Theverbalfunctionalcatcgoricsareassumedtoselec!oneanothermaartam order: Complcmcntiur s.tlects tense which <ekcts light-verb (which select• tho lexical verb). Therefore, in languages such as English. the complementizer comes before the temporal auxiliary, which in turn comes before the main verb. In so-calkd head·tinal languageo, e.g. japanese. wlleu the llead word is always to the right of its complement. exactlytllereverseorderofEng!ish is found. Notethattllere isnoum•·ersalorder withintheactualsetsformedbyFL.Whetlleraparticularlanguagetshead·mitial. head·tinalorbothdependsnnphonologicalruksinthatparticularlanguage. ltiseasytoseethatthehicrarchkalorderoffunc\lonalcategoriesassumedwithin theframeworkofGenerativeGrammarhasadire, that there are univet5al utegorie.andthattheseselectoneanotherinacertainorder.ltwillalsobeassumed thatthereis•omekindoflanguagefacuhy,butlea\'ethequestmno~nastowhether
it i>autonomou~rderivcdfromothercogniti\'esystems.ltistruethat neurologist• have located sp«ific areas that are used in language production and comprehension (Broca"sandWernicke"sareas)andthatgenetkistshawfoundaspeciticgenethati•
Chopterl.[ntroduo:oon connc,tedtolanguageproducuon(FoxP;seee.g Ernordetal2002).Howe,-er,the<e lindingsdonotnece>Smlyleadtothe,oncluUchareoftenmultifunctional Palm~r (200 l) propo,;es that modality can he divided into two domains: propoSJ· tionalmodahty,whichstandsfrthrspeaker)'Stem and the indicath-e-subJuncth·e and realts-irrealis in the mood syst~m. and event modality, which speci~es condi(ins on the agent wnh respect to the main eVmnmmcnt to truth of proposition"' (more or le<S correspondingtopropo<Jhonal modalit)· in Palmer's 2001 framework). However, smce she could not find morphosyntacttc suppnrtforadtvi
A dubtlativc [... ] i> u•wl1y dosmbed ""cxpro.,mg an dement o( doubt that the o•·cmdo>cnbedinlhcprp
11
n
Modahry•ndSubord1na1ars A< was pointed out in the previous section, Bybee's ( 1985) and Bybee &Fleischman's ( 1995) definitions of epistemic modality ditfer somewhat from that of Palmer (2001) \\'hereas Palmer (2001) 4
.l.lodohtyondSubordtnota" 2.1.5 "lheconditional Theconditoonalisanothermndalitycategorythatishighlyrrlevantforthepresent mvesligalion.sincetheCiermanictFamongotherthingsh3s3conditionalfunctoon.in the sense that ot introduce~ conditinnal protase< lnPalmer(2001).theconditionali.<subsum«lundrrprnposillonalmodalJty.and in Bybee (1985: 170) it i~ placed together "ith the indtC31l\"e-subjuncllve tfutinctmn and epLStemic modality in the proposed functional (mood) category ··commitment to truthofproposihon~Conccptually.theconduionalcouldbecountedasamemberof
rroposihonal modality ~ince conditional c~u<es art alwap; semantically non-factual; thej·denoteh)"potheticalnrcounterfactualpropote that the truth of the rrnposition is left open. that itishypothetkal.wherea.unrealonesdenotethattheproposttioni.-.ntmodahty.doubt(=7babow).andinconditmnalcon· strucuon.,butalsoalterpred.icatesthatexpresscomment,astllefollowingSpanish examplesllows(Noonan2007:109f (15) Lamwt que Juanwlga estanoche. regret.ISGCOMP Johnleave.lsG.SUBtthis mght lregrettllatfohnwillleavetonight' Themdicativeisusedafterpredocatesexpressingknowlodge(•ee7aabovef,unerance and belief. Since complement clauses of commentatove predicates are presupposed to betrue,andthereforecanbesaodtobeequallyunwortllyofbeinga.sertedaspotential, dubitativeand conditional clauses. the indicative-subJunctovediStinctioncan be said tobeoneof...,.rtionvs.non-assertionintheselanguages,Noonan(2007:109,followmgKleml975],argues,althougllheadmitsthatnotallofthemdicativecomplements mtheselanguagescanbeconsideredassertionsmthe"technicalsense"oftheterm. Palmer (1986), who prefers a umfied drliniuon of the mdteati>"O·subjunctive dis· tinctmn,arguesag;nnsttlleanalysisoftlleSpamshindicatove-subjuncuvedJStinction mtermsofassertionandolfersanotherexplanationthatiscompatiblewiththefactualityanaly"s.TheuseoftllesubjunctiveinSpanisllcomplernentdausesofcommenta· live predocatesgives the clause an emotive-evaluative interpretauon, he argues. This willbedealtwothinmoredetailbelow. One problem woth any definihon of the mdicative-subjunctive distinctoon is. as Palmer (2001: Bllf. 1381f) silo""'· that subjullcltve morphemes also tend to denote
Chapter2_ M·emmodalsystemlasiti>in Palmer 1986). They are dearly scmantkallj• related to obligative and >-olitive modality and determine that the event is non-actualized. Furthermore, when expressed by e>pe· ciall)·dedkatedmorphemes(ratherthanby!hesubjunctive),theyoccurinmodalor mixed ')'stems in S!ltne languages (Palmer 200L SOtf)_ On the other hand, Palmer {2001:80)arguesthattheimperativeandjussivcshouldbedistinguishedfromob~ga·
uve modaltty in the sense that they are performative {speech-acts): "the speaker actu· aUygtvesthe'command'intheactofspeaking'~Thiratherthan unrealized
s.
llshouldbepOintedoutthatthertwereanuollyembedd.edtmp!derattveloptativeustofthesubjunctwernayha>..,anon-factual explanauon.thet3ctthatthesubjunctivecanbeustdtodenotespeech·actnouons "Aiieri'm~one,youwiUsutfer.'
The first sentence describes events that arc not predetermined to occur. but rather dependonthespeaker.Thesecondreferstotheinel-'itable(Le.presuppfeonl)'nc>elf lcrm>,CL!hcr'md>calivt:'and'subjunchvc'or'rcol"''and'un:ah>forbothscl'"f dota.pn:fcrablythcformcr.Huwc'"''·'h"''-'P'obably•mpracllcalnuwthatbo!h !rodotoon>orelinnlye,,toblishcd (Palmcr200l:L48tf) The terms reabs-irrealis are m fact rdattvdy young and what some researchers today wouldlabdasrealLS-orrealJS(cg.Mithun 1999,f-oleyl9116),appearstohavebeenlabelledindkative-subjuru:uveearher(eg.inBoasl91l-38,Wurml975).0nesuchexampleismfactCaddu.Parks(t976)caUsthcmoodprefixesra-/ro-:mdo.-ll:-mdicative andsubjunctiverespecnvely.whlleChde(t995·35llf)callsthemreallSandurcali< Onerealmer 2001 5). This follows from the fact that theuldbcappropnolctoreindicatesthatthefoca!meaningofthe irrealisandsubjunctivet~todenoteuncenainty(i.e.propositiona!moda!ity)
Chapter2. Modohty On~
problem ~>ith the separation of the Realis-lrrealis dmmc!ion from categories suchasthefuture,negative,imperative,jussive.interroga!iveandeventmodahtyJS that the.., categories to some extent alw denote that the ewnt "non-factual. However, itmustbestresuswil!(detinitely)comebackagain' d. Dusupi te)'U -lo -Ia Dusupi fall -n:T -possts 'Dusuptmightfall' Sosopa yele-lo -pit/ ~>-otia -It pato Centipede bite·FUT ·COND be.sore -No.,zR btg 'lfacentipedcbitesyou,it"sverysore' Theseexamplesclearlyshowthatthefutureisnotamarkerofnon-factuahtyoruncer· tamtypor>c.butonlycompatiblewithsuch markcrs.ltcanbeaddedthatWinford (2000)wentthroughthemarkingofthefutureandtheirrealisintheCreolelanguages oftheworldandfoundthat"'Thcrealityisthatallcreolesdistingnishfutureten·entonly. Thedivistonwas supported by the fact that dconttc md dynamic modaUty. tn contrast to epiestnSpami!Uationthroughtheuseofthe pluperfect.(40b)isstillanassertion.though.whichshowothattheassertive-non·as· sertivedistinctionisnotemplo}"edinthiscase ThesamecanbesaidabouttheuscofthesubjunctiveinSpanishforoldinformauon. As in the case with the polite imperative atld the emotive complement clause. bothtobefoundinSpanish.thes~akerusesthesubjunctivetoremm·ethepropo"·
uonfromthespeechsituation,thepresentreality.intotherealmofthought.inthis casemordernottobesupertluous.Therei<noreasontoaS>umethatthea.>ser\Jve· non·a.>sertl\'edistinctinnplaysaraleinanyoftheseca.>e>.lnfact,mtheimperatiw case,Jtcannotplayarok,>inceimpentivesarennn-assrrtivetobegmwith lncondusinn.theweofthesubjunctiveinpresuppo..,dcornplementdausesin the Romanct languages may have several related explanatmns. It may be emottveleva.luative, admtrative, evidential or simply removed from the s~ech situa· tton.ltmusta.ls.nbeaddedthatthesituationinSpanishisrathurare(lcdaodiclS.a. wa•saidabove.anotherexample).MostlanguageswithanindicativelsubjunctivedlS· tmctionusethesubjunctiveinpresupp<edsubordinateclauses(~oonan2007:t091f)
Examples of languages of the latter kind are Russian, Persian and German 1411 a. Karl nkuptim. dass Helga abgerdst is//
.,!~JSenbergl00 6 b:Jll)
Karl accepts that Helga depaned be-'""' be.sust "Karl accept~ that Helga has departed' (Noonan2007:109) Sotdlcju. tto [vanuctkr segodnja1·eCcrorn evening regret.Js(; (:UMP [van ltal"t'.3«•-f~T-tNU today 'lregretthatlvan"'illleaV('tonight" If the indLCative-subjuncti\'C distinctio>n deno>ted assertio>n vs. no>n-assenion. thi< would mean that preSUj>posed clauses are asserted in e.g. Russian. Peman and German. whichwouldgnagainstthetraditionalviewofpresnpposttionandasserllona.) m the mood system andthatthedeclantivedenntesfactualityratherthanaertion.Thelatterconclu.>ton was drawn from the fact that declarative complement clauses can be selected by pred· icatesofbe~efand even disbelief in the Germanic longuagesandthattherearo Jan· guageswherewhatcorrespondstothedcdarath·eintheEuropeanlanguagesJ>based onbeliefratherthannnknowledgeandiscontrastedwithacategorica.lassertJOn.The .. mecanbesaidabnuttheindicativeandrea)is.Theindicati..-.isalsoacategorythat
4~
~ldalnyondSubonhnators
notonl)·occursafterknowle.lgcprcdicatef posslblfctc.) and thructhatexpresscommenu and lgt· cally presuppo.e that the complement is factual (so-called facm-e predtcatcs)
Languageswnhanindtcall\'e-subjunctivedistinction{orrelatedmoodsdistinctions) almrutalwaysu,;,:thembJunctive{etc.)afterprcd!catesthatstgnalth.atthepropruition potei\Ual After propostttonal altitude prediCates. the most common mategy is to uetweenthe main clause "I will come" and the complement clause "that! will come"_ Both arepropositions.butonlytheformerisanassertion. Hence.anassertionis"a(veryspeeial kindo(}commitmenttothetruthofaproposition"(Searlel969:29) The present in,·estigation adopts Seark's distinction between speech-acts and propositions.andtheideathatsubordinatedausesaremerelypropositions.Le.lack illocutionaryforce.lndeed,hisscopehierarchybetweenforce-indicatorsandpropositionalindicatorlement dauo;es alter the latter j>redtcates can bcseenasspeechacts,atldwhatcon•·enuot~alforcethatcouldhebehtndsuchanut
teranceTheydonolexhortthehstenertothtnkthattheproposttionalcontenti<true, nordoesthespeakercommtthimlhcrselftothetruthoftheutlerance.sotluttfll provesfalse,slhe~·idential)andthe subjunctivecanbeusedto}'leldacoonter·e~pectalive(admoratiw)meaning.lnSpan
ish,thesubjuncllve!SalsousedinpresupposeddaU<esinnewspaperartideswhenthe propositoonhasbeenmentionedinpre,·iouscditions.lnthisca..,,itwasarguedthat the subjunctive is used to remove the proposition from the SJ"'eSiconic
diStance. The~thewholepropositionratherthanjustthewrb;itindica!esthespeaker's commitmentto"-ards the truth of the proposition and what the speaker wants to do withttmthedi.scour~(Bybeel98S:20tf)
Thehypothesisalsomakessnmepredictions.First.themostrelnlhc>isnufd.clarali>-.::>inceitcontrastswithantnterrug•U>-c.whillhcln dtcativcruntr,.l>WlthaSubjuncti\'cUraConditiun•landthus1Sn> a de daratiV>Withthi>ba>l< uucrane-the>pcechacttyp"e ha. umque expre>Sion propertirsnot paralleled branyother markers" (Rrbee 1985: 192).11 wa5 always a suf· fix and usual])· otood farthest away from the stem, out5uk agreement suffixes (Bybee 1985:169-189) As was sard in 2. U, Bybee (1985) did not include eYent modality in tllese proposedmoodgroup5,sinco>heconsideredittobemoreagentandewntrdated.Thl5 line of reasoning was supported b)· the fact that 0\'ent modality wa. extremely rare as an inHectmnal marker in Bybee's (1985: 20tf, 1651J) ,.mple. What she did lind, how· """'·were examples of event modality a> deri>;J]orderoffunrlionolrategorie•bclongingtlhcrnn«tionoldo mainaccordingtoCmqoc(l'l99)
ChoplenltgtX(accordmgto)>faknskl(actuaUy)>tyvarrl turligtnog(un/fortunatelyJ>antagligen/kanske(pmbably/perhaps) ThalmeansSpeecbact>Ev•dcntial>"aciUally">E•·aluatwe>'Eptstem£rlrrealis" Ascanbeseen.S..,..,JishandNor..,..,gianap(>arentlyhavesomewhatdJiferentorders On the other hand, SAG altnbutwn uf cpi;tcmk clousol adplaced
beforett>liglttlymoreoftentltanafterit,whcreaslleces.smilyisplacedbeforerltcllm every fourth case. Only pos.sib/ycan definitely be .aid to be placed after rltw.lhe situ· ationisbynomeansasdear-cutasCinque(i999)mightsuggest Cinque"s(l999}independentevidencethatpastandfutu..,aretno..,peripheralfunctionalcategoriesthan"moodirrealis"canalsobcdisputed.TheanalystsoftheSamoan Example(48)isquestiontdbyPratt(l984:20.262)whomggeststhatsit(set)denotesa mild tmperattve. MortOver, Ct.mpbcll (2000: 1438) classifies,..·; a> optative. These dasstficatmns would t>etter suit the meaning of (48). whkh appears to he a suggestion Theanalysioot'theNdyukaExample(49)canal;dynka (Cinque's example again). fromgoi11g to. These are thns considered both fu. lure and irrealis markers. In Sranan. which is closely related to Ndj'llka. so and o may evenheusedsimuhaneouslyaseitherfulureorirrealismarkers(Winford2000).ln
ChoplerJ. Thomorphosynlocl>e~, and epistcmk-evidential modality onto seven d!f· ferent functional categories. and placing some of them "'inside'' pa>t and future, these shouldbeconsideredmembersafthesamefunctionalcategory.propruotionalmodalil)'· as m Palmer ( 19!16, 2001). This nid, Cinque (1999) .rill has the benefit of dividing the inflectional domain into a more fine-grainnl mucture. Furthermore, Cinque draws a di>tmctoon between s~ech-act modality and Realis-Jrrealis, something that is alsodoneinthepresentinvcstigation.Lat the most peripheral category"Spee.:h-act"intheinflectionaldomaincomesdore.:tlymsideofthemostcen· tral category m the complementizer domain. formmg a contmuum of dtscrele functionalcategones.lnfact,itcouldbeargucdthattheproposeddornainspartlyoverlap. 1\s was pomted out above, "Speech-acl in Cinque's ruodel corresponds tn Torci' m Rizzi's(1997,2002)model,aninsorneelaborationsofthelaHer,thernostcentralcate· gory"Fmitene.s"isidentifiedwiththesubjuncti>-.:.epistemiCmodalityandtheRealis· lrrealisdistinction(~4.2below).Themainrcasonforthisoverlapmaybethemis·
conceptton th>t inflection on])' belongs to the "inflectmnal domain': and not the "cornplementizer domain': Jntlectionandcomplemeouizersare different forrnalsptems that work on different lewis nflanguage (syntax and morphologj·). Howewr, they can arguablydenotethesamefunctinnalcategory.evcnsimultaneously. Therearenumerousexamplesnffunctionalcategoriesbeingdcnotnlsynthetkallyandanal)1tcaUyat the same time, especially when there IS a shift in a IJnguage from a syntheltc to an analyticalsystem (e.g.thegenerallya.sumedreplacementofmood intlectionbymodal verbs m many Germanic languages). There is no restriction that the intlected \'erb must belocatedinthesyntacticpos.itinnassociatedwiththefunctionalcategorythattheverb ismllectedt0r.Chnmsky(2001)spcculatcsthat\" -tya I•IJJantyuuy
-PAH·N~O
·SJY
yi
-1nl
IRRh3\'(ll\(TCY-PH'l )'OU-IJAl
'ldtdn'tmtendtnshowyoumercy' Julten« ( 1985), Julien (2002: 100) separ~s th~ dcdara\1\'C from the mdtcatJVc. md put.> dedaraU\'C together with the sp«ch-:u:t moods. To tUustratc thl two langua~ (Haruai (h these with twu other languag"' (Goom)"mdi (Bunahm) and lilup1aq (Esktmn-Aieut)) with tndicauvc morph~mes instdc tcttse morphem.:-Nl"' GCINU;
Haimml98D-236) Kamant" -Kt' past kzo -gu -e Kamam -LOM letter wrl!C -t"Ul ·11I>H·
'ifJshouldeverseU[n['
seJJ
Chapta3. Themorpho5)TI1ae morphemes change the semanucsottheverb,Jnsthkedcn'·ationalmorphemesdo,andtheyarephonolog~callydependrntontheverb(McGregor2002·41ff)Whattsmterestmgabout
these"dassdieri:asMcCiregnrcallsthem.isthattheyarelne affixes. In the example above. the dassdier" the morpheme -~m-la(actually-/'l"LN0.\1' t-a'e,.tend'J S!ncethetenseandmoodaffixesare affil(Csoftheda.>pectprefuesratherthan suffi,..s,ituhtghlydoubtfulifGoontyandicouldbeconSideredanmdtcatlonthat prnpo.sitionalmodalitytsamnrecentralcategmythantense lnaddiuontothtsttshouldal -3st; 'ShewiUeat.' The Ialter is. as was shown above, also the case in Greenlandic, which belongs to the same dialect continuum as lflupiaq (lulkn 2002: 273). Furthermore. Yupik (Esk1mo-Aleut) appears to have the overall suffix order V-T-M, where M among oliler things consists of tbe indicative and T mdudes 1he past (Mithun 1999:409).
tncondusion,i!isdoubtfuliflt\upiaqcanbeusrdasanindicalionlhatprop· osilionalmodalityisamnrecentralcategorythantense.ltisequaUyanindication of the opposite. H..aw (H11awmr). According to Julien's source of information (Slam; & Erickson Hollenbach l%9),tlledubitativeissituateddnsertotheverbthanthefuturem Huave(Julien2002:290): (77)
ap- kc-
rna-
mng
FUl'·UL'B· )St;· do Ma)•behewilldo.' However, Noyer (1993), based on Stairs & de Hollenbach (1981) and Suarez (1975),statesthatthennn-pastaffixmandpastaffixtattachdireC<JU.JI)·onindi ofproposttionalrnodalJ1you1sideof1ensecompared1o2t2=-4language•wtthmark· ersofproposi1ionalmodalityinsideoften5e.lnpercen1.1ha1meansJ3/37,89.2%.Jf oneadoptsthea.. umption1ha1uniYersalca1egorieshaveacertainumversalorder.J1i• almostnine1imesmorelikely1ha1proposi1ionalmodali1ytsarnoreperipheralca1ego· 1)"1han1ense.than1heopprutte J.S.l Independent surYey ohhe mternal order between propositional modality and tense in the languages of the world Jnordertodrawa.:onclusion1hathasany•1a1is1icstgnilicance.anindependen15urvey mus1~conduc1ed. Foran inven1of)"of1helanguage•and language famihe•of1he world. Etlmologue.(om has ~en consulted.~ goal of !he sur.-q has ~en 1o ob1am descrip1mns from "'"f)" language famil)· in a wider sense. and ideally from ~•ry lan· guagegenus.excep1for1he38generaalreadycOYeredby1helastsurvoy.Arestric1ion !hat has nar"""'d down the sample has been !he requiremen11ha11he)· must have a modern. we51ern grammatiCal des.:ription. For some language• m !he more remote ar· eas of !he world. !here are only descriptions made by le" grammatically oriented an· 1hropologi515orlaypersons.EYenwithou15uchares1nction.however.alargeportionof !he language• of the world cannot ~ included •impl)· because !hey lack obtainable grammahcal des.:riptions. Many languages in !he more remote areas of !he world do not even have a wri11enlanguage ...... nle5Sagramm.a1JCaldescnptton.lnpartieemto 1.
jac~nai>OhO>-.>na~·ourofcountor••J>CteMr. In thl> <enso. ll 1}'picallr occur< m independent
(<xampkfrootAbraham1009:J) (i)
llusil Jd
ou•!
I'Oulook rurout "Why,youarelktnghke>Ome~no 1 "
ad~matJ>-.
dau>
~l
H
,\\od.oluyondSuOOnhnotor> signal an appeal for consent (example from DM
Dtgilal~ Worl~rbt~eh
der
d~tmcllm
Spt~dr~. wwwdwds_d~)
(86)
urnere Zuwrsteht, da6 das Gluck _in doch emma! kommcn mlisse my irmer confidencethattheluck ro\ltTPo\Rlottce come must 'm}' mnu confidence that my luck must surely change o~~e day' motside?"
ChoJ"eJ4_ Subordin;uorsondmodaln)-
At th~same time, Bhatt ( 1999) argues that the two functions mood and subordmatmn should be sun as separate fun([ional categories. In German, Dmch, and th~ Mainland Scandmavian languages, the finite verb it Program of Generative Grammar. such categories are assumed nottoexist"(Chomsky2001) Second. the as~umption that the finite verb marks thedause I)~ in main clauses. whereas the complementizer marks the clause type in embedded clauses in asyrnntel· nc \'2-languages implies that the finite verb does not mark clause!)~ m embedded clauses m these languages. However, in German. the finite verb carries mood markmg mbothmainandsubordinatedauses.andinalloftheselanguages,theretsadear
6.
lton.or. d>stmction betw«n anon-modal dcdarative form ;md modal wrhs m both main and subordmateclauses Third. the suggesl>on that the dosely related languages kdand>c and Mainlmd Scandinavi;m,YiddishandGermanshouldha\'l!Cog>13teWmplemenhzersthatdonot lexkalllethesamefuncuonalcategontstsnotveryplausihklnfact,aswillbcd!scuss.:d 1n more detad m Chapter 9 hdow, lcelandJc. Norwegian and Dutch aU have the possJbdtt)' of constructing If with rHAT m interrogati\'e md cond>tional claus.:< {thela11cratleastmkeland>candNorwegian,Vangsnes2006 3,Z""artl993 43) {91) a
Einmgva"' ga~nan :Wheyra cfai'J fOlk er ailvinna he.PK~.'-'1!81 fun lo hear 1f that people are to work also \'lil ai'J hi'Ja atlra componenu/modules wilh to trmslate other component<Jmodules 'It would also be fun to hear 1f people are workmg on transJatmg other components/modules'
b_ Ofte kan '~ lure p.i omM endringen •lqer for oftencmwewonderontf thatthechangehappensfor re(ormens egensk}·ld? the reform'• own ~akc 'Oftcn,wccanwondertflhechangehappcnsforthcs;ill,ofthcretorm>UCIP' Pietvroeg of/oldm /an Mane kuste Pietaskffl >filfthat /an Mane kused Pteta•kdtf/mkmedMane' ThiS would be unexpe.:ted >fcomplemcntirerslexkalised both subordination and clause type in h'orwegtan and Dutch but on])' subordinauon m kdand!c. In aU these examples, IF do:arl)' lex>cal~zes both cia~ type and subordmal>on (mterrogatl\~ or condttional)whereasTHATtSbaskall)'redundant ltisapparentthatthesepantion bct•~eendauset)'Peandsubordmauon isnotver)'tcnable f'Ourth.>he·anthen-. Theideathatthefinitenesscategorycanbeassociatedwithatleastthesnbjnnctn·e hasalsobeenputforwardbyGiorgi&Pianetan•ultan' To explain these facts- Stroh-Wnllin {2002· l881f) aMumes that SoM represents a more pCI'ipheral ftmcnonal c;uegory than Fmiteness-modal Smce rdat
}lot only the relation between the md~eati\'C and the dedaram.., but also between thesecategonesandli.nllenesscanbemadeclearwhenonelooksatthedescripllonof theKherwarianlanguages(.\1unda:Austro-A
peratweorsubordmate,Anderron2008·13l) lnthedescnpuonofHo.Jastly.-a!·elsoflanguage(syntaxandmorphologyrespec!Lwlylandthereisnoconditionthat themflectedYerbmustraLsetothesyntactJCpruitionassociatedwithtlleinflection. althoughitcandosoinsomelanguages.
4-3 Compkmentiurs and modality from a typological penp..:tive Wherfas 4.2 laid emphaSis on the complementary syntachc distribution between complementizers and the timte Yerb m the Germanic \'2 language• and presented research that connected thJS with propoSitional modal it~·. the remaming chapter wiU be de\uted totypologJCalim·estigationsthathawfoundconnectmnsbetweencomplementJzen; and modality. 4·3·' Complementizer5 and the realis-irrealis distmct1on in the language• of the world (Noonan 2007) As was said in 2.4.1. ~oonan (2007) 1s a survey of complernentahon m the languages of the world. As regards the relation between complementation and modallly. Noonan pomtsoutthatthereJSadistinctionbetwernmdJCatJVeandsubjunctive(orrealisand irrealis) complements in many language•. lndJCatJve and subjunctive mmplements can of course be distinguished by mood. as was shown in 2.2.1. but :-loonan point• out that the chmce of complemen!izers can also determme whether the complement 15 indicatJVeorsubjunctive. lnsornelanguages.suchaslangoandlou.mdJCatiYeandsubjunctJVecomplementshaw the same complemrn!izer. ln other languages, how.... er. such as Rumanian andBulgarian.indicatiYeandsub)unctivecomplementshawditferentcomplementLZers
(Noonan2007:62).lntheselanguage.,thecompkmentizersalsodenotetheindica· live·subjunctiw(or~alLs·irrealis)dLSlinction:
(96) a
(Noonan2007:6l) El spuM cd cite11e o carte he says UJMP rnd.3s
b. M1..tja d~ ida. think.!S7
Furth~rmore,
in Kin)'arwanda, the complemcntizer< ko and ngo md1cate a neutral ver· sus negati~epropositional attitude on the p,lrtoftllespraUr(:-loonan2007: 125lf): {99) a
~'ateUrefe ko amazi yari mare-mare think.3sJtiontsnon-actual.flnthcanbesaidtodenotelrreali•modality. Toconclude,Noonan's(2007)datasupportthehypothesi•thatgeneralsubord.ina· torsdenotepropositumalmnd.ality.Thefactthathepoint•outthatEnglishifdenotes lrreali5ishighlyrelevant.lnChaptcr8.amoredetaoledim'entoryoftheusesofthe G~rmanic THAT and tf wiU be prescntl.'d that lends further support to this claim. 4·3-l Complementizers as modal categories (frajzrngier 1995)
Onelanguage-typolagicalinvestigationthatactuallyexploresthehypothesisthatcomplementizersshouldbe,;eenasmodalmorphemesisFraJzyngoer(l995).Frajzyngier ( 1995) argues that cnmplementizers primarily denote modality and that the functmn of introducing complement dawes is ,;econdary. In support of this. he presents data from a hattdful of languages. One piece oft\•i~M.,G.PERF.PAEM.SlLPHEPASl "Did she came?"
toa ModohtyandSubordm•tors Normally.polarqu~snonshavequesuonmtonanon Wh~ndtr.ctpolarquestion•are introducedbyccy.howev~r.thequemonintonationdoesnothav~tobeused. Therefore.ucouldbearguedthatrz)•andthequesuontntonanonfillthesamefunction Se.:ond. French qm "that' can be used a.< an optative marl= (Fra)zyngter 1995 480)
(102)
Qu'ilp~n..,e!
'Mayhepensh!' Here.itcouldbeaddedthatEngltshi/lmlyandSwedishomandM/mracanalsobeuscd a.< optative markers (the b-example i~ the Swedish translanon of the a-example)· (!03)
a !fonlyyou'dtoldmeearher! b
Omandliduhadeberattatlbrmigtidtgare'
The reason why dedoraltve main clauses do not com am complemeunzers ts becau<e theyrepresenttheunmarkedvalue,Frajzyngkr(l995 480)argues.Themdlcativel' not morphologically marked either. A< fnr the marked modahtrvalue, thts t< typically marked byothu modal particles, word order or mtonauon m mam darnes. Asregardswordorder.Fra)Z}11gier(l995:497)connectsmvemnnmmamclJzyngterS(l9%)analy·Saj"·RUIPMH·LI(;-2t•L
"Ihatabo)·stoodthere.sowcthought' Mangarayi (Gunwmgguan: Australian) has an ~rrealts prefix (y)a-thatdcnotesthe potential in rnam clauses but mark< subordination m subordinate chluscs (Palmer2001.1431J). Wargarnay and Ny;"'"'YGi (O)irtbal: Pama-:-entanllidiatl; Krishnamurti 19'98: 220). It is abo common among the languages of the world to have a parllcular mood for condttional clauses, whose meaning in protasis clauses is therefore identical to the GermaniC subordinator n. One illustrative example" Caddo (Chak 19'95: 356): (110)
hiyt"bahw t:ONil· i.AG.tkH· see 'iflseeit'
In some of these languages, the condillonal mood co-occurs "~th conditional particles/subordmators. On example is Middle Kipchak (Turkish; Berta 1998: 164): (Ill)
quara(lowel~9:2771f)
Ch•pl..- 5 ln\"<SllgotlJiof "'monHc.tuncuonal .nd notoUn.l[ "milantle< ns Anotherproblem\>11hthecondiuonalh~stodowithtts51atusasasubordinating
mood. As was stated m 4.1. Hopper & Traugott (2{103) :uno11g01hers ha,·e pomted out that adverbial dau.es are nOl always subordmate clauses. 111 many la11guages. they shouldralhcrheseenasmterde~lldent(cosubordmale)dawes.Thtstsalsopartly
truetOrcolldinollalprotasisdau.ses,alldmayrellc.:tthedualllatureoftheconditional (adverbtaltirreahs).Smcetbcpresellllll\'Cf· clause> but also complement clauses alter verbs ot thinking. m whi.:h case tt is translatedas'maybe~Withthismeaning.itcanalsoimroduceindependentspecu
Jativeclauses(Lichtenberkl995:3l5tf} In Coos (C{I(ISan), there are two preverbal conditional panicles, ytJL and ya11L, translatedas'if:thatareusedinprotasisdauses.Theseareinmmplementary distribuuontothepartidesfiL 'should'andfuturelrmrL,whtchlj-ptcaUy"'curin theapodosis(Frachtenbergl922b:391tf) In l\la'ala (Central Papuan Family: Western m (May"' l'l:ck & l'crk ]966: 187), S-anuma (Y•noman~; Borgman 1990. 102). P~umori {Arauan: Arawak Chopm>II & Drrbphire 1991: l46tn
S-3 Realis and irrealis subordinalon A third t)-pological pi~c~ of evid~nct that suppnrt> tht conn~ctmn ~twe.n propoS!· tmnal modality and ~uOOrdinaton< is the fact tbat there are subordinators in many languages of the world that are dassi!icd or described as R~alts "' lrr~alls etc.: lnSupyire(Guro:-liger-Congo). Rcaliscornplernentdarnesarernarkdbyhigh toneonthesubjectpronoun(Carlson t994:42l).Carlsoncallsthisarealiscom· plrmentizer. Furthermore, Sup]'irc has a compkmentizer ua "that: whtch can in· tmducecomplement clauses of verbs of sa)ing. ~lief, and knowledge and oertain subjunctil'e complement clauses of manipulative 1~rbs. After verbs of behef and knowledge, t~ na-complernent clause must be in rhe indicatn·e. Supyire also has a conditmnal complemcntizer/subordinator (k)ampyi'iC which indicates "a sub· je
Zhitn Jean
it P~R>
po come
In Hdi (Chad. Afro-Astatic), there is a complementizer of mduect SJ>ffCh kJSuscdwhcn slltetsuruure(J.e.ilierverbsofbehd.opm!on,anddoubt;ChelhahJ997:300tf) All or• bose
ltJStruethatthenotinnsnfnominalizationandsubordinationshouldgenerallybe keptapart(althoughtheyoverlapinmanyrespee,thetruthof the complement clau>e i5 pre•upposed, wherea> in the latter. tt i5 commumcated by the speaker. Thi• contra>t become• even more apparent after negated semifactwepredicates,t.e.whenthetruthofthepropositmni>unknownforthematrix subjectHere,thetranslationofgtOts'if'{Rice 1989: 1248-1257): (130) a.
1d;i t;ihla gti kodt•yihsJui yile boat 3.arrived thattheconditionexpressedbythedependentdauseisnotfulfilled,but hypotheticai"(Oiawsky2006:7401f).Vrarinaalsohasanirreali5sutfixthatcanbe addedtotheverbinthrapodosi>(>ee5.2). lntheprota>ts.howe\.. r,theurealJS suffix is not possible sin•• "the urealts meamng of the clause i• kyW06:7401f) (131) kana ke neherati -akanatkwaaun-era.:ne ltothettcal.counterfactualetc.).Thtsi>supportedbythe<eornplexori· ginofcondttionalprota>ismarkmfoundbyTraugott(J985:290tf).Manyhaveepis-temic,optativeorinterrogattveorigin:
tl}
1:14 ModahtyondSubordmators Cayuga (lroqu»n). lJe kwa' 'mayblon l•'whothoi Hua'-L'<ml~rrugat•v·enllanguagcsfrorn ennrdydllferent languagefanuhc• and rcg~onsoftheworldshowSlrnilar pattern
Modality and subordinators in the Germanic languages
In ~he ptC\'IOU> chapters, cross·hngutstlc premtscs "'ere established that enabled a ~y pologKaltn\'entoryoftheconnccttonbctwecngeneral subordinatorsandproposttional modalil)' In the following chapters. thchyp<J~hesisthatgeneralsubordmators belongtothesamefunuonalcategoryasthemdicahve-subjuncnvemoode morphemes. wh1ch thcrsomehmesdonotshare.Thesearethcspe.:ch-actfuncllnmofthetsuse.lnthe modern GermaniC languages wuh a morphologiCal subJunmve (Icelandic and German),theoptativefuncnonbmarginalltl'>nainlrfoundmlex~ealizedphra<es
withbiblicalconnotatmns.lnteresungly.tbelcelandicoptanvehagrn.butthenon-factualprcsent subjunctweingurenon Th>< number may seem small. butu must be added to It all the case< wheretheoptatJVeiSexpressedbymodalverbs lnpartkular,theoptauvemoodis common among the CancaS!an languages, "'hkh are charactemed as polysynthehc andaggluhnallve.Smcethe<e!anguagestypkallyhaveonernorpherneperlunction. thctacttluu theoptatn·efunwonisfullilledby~nespec>allytkdJCatedmorpbeme suggee.nappearsthatthcptati\•eandhortauveusesofthesubjunctl\'Uve and iUb)uncuwaopropoetngpredlCatcd.rathtr thanconstitunngthetrownutterances. TheuscofthesubJuncm·ecanbe-'31dtobe Jicensedbythenon-(f)actua!(lrrea!is)contextwhtchthedestderauveanddirectl\~
predicatesentatl(theeven\Jsmerelypotenual, Palmer200l, Noonan2007). Thus. ratherthanbemgoplaltveorhortati•~ljusstve.thesubjunctivets"mplynon-factualin
theseca<e< lndeed.mthesecontexts.thesubjuncti\·ewasnotrestnctedtothepresent tense. which 11 appeared to be in e>ptati\~ and hortative/juses,opta\lvc,hortam-c-)USSI\'e,andpohtcllllperaiJVCare margmal.rcstrJCted.andsecomdar)"IOthcnon-factualn""ll'espee.:h-actuscsarelypl· callyfnundinmamcl.>uses.whcreasthenon-factualuseJthcmoreperipheralfunctionalca!CgorySp«ch-actnmdaloty.SinccthJScatego1)' ts asswno:d not to be present m >Ubotdmatc clauses. lhc uses are confined lo mam clauses lnttre even more alJke
1 E.g Bantu (~urs< & Plulhpsnn !otll) Old SemliJC •nd Elh1opJC S.m11JC (Hetuon J?\17 6~-219.424-'>l~).Af..-(East Cu.
Eighok tkra vaka. num prester ,,;/; ,.,uerbondi not and more wake, unless priest want.PRE>.,. D tbr potent..! (eputemt< pl ""b)uncnwdenol the counterfactn;ol Malboon (t~H:ltllf].h01.VU;!Gr~nlandsgrundserdu>lretdanlegaynmlcgtforvttrulegt
Theprrsentsubjunctivetsalroobltgatorymexcepttvecond>lionalprotases(Thrains.son 1994 184) lncompanrontothemdtcauve,thepresentsuhjunchvecandenotethat theproposittontsrnoreuncertam('"6•is.sa·;lTlll469) The kdandtc past subjuncm·e. on the miter hand. ts used lredr m condttional dausetrl milulv;egur. Olaf ••••not that you are.st:B tmportant "Olafcannot•eethatyoushouldbeimportant' 6lafur JCr ckkiail ~,; erl mikilv;egur. Olaf see• not that you are.INI> important "Olafdoe>notsee/reahze(thefact)thatyouaroimportant'
Furthemloro,whenasornifactivepred"atosuchassjtii•negat..dandthesubJ"'Iand •peakeristhe.amoperson.theclausomwtbointhesubJUOCILw.•incethespeaker doesnotsoeetc.whetherornottheprop05itioni•true(Stgur&son200ll:l7): (144) Eg>i: ekkiail j:>U '•·rtf s-erbsof.a}1np;andasserting cannotbeinthesubjuncti•-ewhenthesubjecti•inthelstperson.ltwouldbeoddto bereservedinreganltothetruthofoni•ownstatement (149) ldt wgedir. dasser krank •..,; ist I tellyouthathesick ts.SL"BI/i5.1XU Tmtellingyouthathei•sirk" The Old Swedi•h indicaltve-subJunrti•·• distinction ran also be conne.;ted with facto· ality'o"S.non-factualityinthesensethatOldSwedishalsod•splayedthesubJUUctJvem complement dau5es of non-factive predicates. particularly after predicates of belief and emotmn kg. /roo. "be~evi milghellker"posstble" and ntdltas "fear" Mattsson 1933) Nordstr0m(l009)performedaninwsttgationofthefrequencyohhesubJuncti•·eafter
Cbopter6 Th (KS:84) messages "1\ow,rtcanhardl)·bepo<Siblctbatthesetwd\'ea.Usendme<Sages"
a_
oc nu '""/drs moy"'s at han"'""' wredhir. and now fear.K~FL Moses tbathe was>UBJ angry ·andnowMosesfearsthatheisangry"
Cf.
(152)
{PP·2611)
Cf. b. a:npharaokonungirnMhrs at locustur word!Jo hans butPharaokmg feared.KHLthatlocum became.tNL>hi.
"OII)Iri>rlfl '(mi>)lrust", lmkubjunctivcform• hl·3rdog.
S!mn~\-erlt>hndudmgirft8UI.lfYnCho·Squarc A
retationsare notpo>5iblehere. ThisisastrongindicatinnthattheGermanicindicatwe-subjunctivedistinctiondoes notdenoteassertion\"S.non-assertion.sincepresnppoo.itionandassertionaregeneraUyheldtobeincomplementarydimibutinn lnthissection,ithasbeenshownthatthereisacorrelationbetweenbctualityand the nse of the tndicative-subjunctive in compkment clauses in the Germanic languag· es.Setnlfact!VeprNicat~areconstructedwithindicativecornplernents.whereasnon
facti.-eprediCates(can)becnnstructedwithsubjunctivecomplernents.Corpussearches showed that this was al-"1 true for Old Swedish. Interestingly, there is a certain variationmtheGermaniclanguagesafternon-factivepredicatr>.lnGerman.therels achoicebetweenthesubjuncti.-eandtheindicativeafkrverbsofsaymg.dependmgon whotherornntthespeakeracceptsthetrutholtheprop<Jsition.lnkelandJsofllearing.reading. andnegatedverbsofpercepuonetc.alsovarydependingonwhetllerornotthespeak· eracceptstll~propoSitionastrue.TheoveraUpatternhasbeensupponedb)·datafrom
tllerelatedRomancelanguages(theformsbemgcognates). A.sinSpamsh.kelandicalsonsesthesubjunctiveincomplemontclau..,soffacti>-. emollve predicates. At a first glance, this may seem to go agamst the idea that the chmceJx.tweentlleindicauveandsubjuncltvedependsontllefactualityoftllepmpo· sition.smcefacti>-.complementdau..,sarelogicaUypresupposedtobetrue.Asmtlle caseofSpanish.llowewr.theuseofthesubJUIICIIvehasbeeng>Venanexplanationthat
Chapter 6 Th< Germam< tndtcaUve andsnb)onctlvt a< propont!onal mo>dolt~ morktn 147
ts compaubk wtth th~ non-factual analysis ot th~ mbJoncnv~. II has be~n pomted out that factive pred!Cat~s oh~n have an emouve-evaluanve m~anmg and that the modal •~rb skuluu obligatory m thesedau~sm lcdandk (although not confined to the past tense) lnEngbshandSwrd•~h.correspondingdau~swith.., morphologicalmarkeronthe•·erb.itcouldbeargue'tillha<propn~itionalmodalityasafuru:tionalcategnrymtheGermanic
languageswithoutmoodmarkers.lftheliniteverbisphonologicallystressedmadedarative clause (1.e. without modal morphemes). the truth of the proposition b
ModolttyondSul>ordtnot~ro
bysomekindoflrrealis(non-reality)marking.Thusbothindau.sesinvolvingempha!IC do-msertmn and negativedo-insenion. do can be seen a> a markrofproposttmnal mo· dahty (plus tens-e and subjea agreement). Reali< a.nd lrrealis respectively. Thatthetinitevtrbcarriesapropositional-modalvalueintheGermamclanguag· escanalsobeseenwhenitisphnnologicallystressedinlrrealtswmexts.lnterestingly. theinterprnationisradicallydilferentinprotasesofcondillonaldausescornparedto dedarattveclau>e>(theb-exarnpleistheSwcdilayacomplemen· tary syntactic distributi<m in the asymmetric Germanic \'2-languages. llhouldbesubsumedunderpropositionalmodality,ttisimportant toshowthattheVIorderinpolarquestionsandconditionalprotasesmdtheV2order indedarativeclausesandcontentquestionscanalsobedirectlyconnectedwtthprop· ositmnalmodalitv.Thereareseveralfactsthatindicatethatthistsmdeedthecase. TheVl-orderinpolarquestionsandcondi(ionalprotases(optional)isincornplt· rnentary distribution with u and WHHH~Il (the latter only in embedded polar quos· tiom). The commoo dennminalnr between (hese dause !}-pes is that they are both notatmnallylrrealis.Polarquestionsarelrrealisinthesensethatthetruthoftheprop· ruition "unknown by the speaker (SAG IV: 730). whereas condtltonal prola5e5 are lrreali•inthesensethatthepropruitionishypotheticalormunterfactuai.Anmtere•t· mgob5ervationasregard.sEnglishpolarquestinnsisthefactthatolo-msertlonappltes when no other auxiliary 1~ a\·ailablc, md. a< was shown abo1•e, at le"-'t emphatiC and neg.ativedo-insertaoncanbeconncctedwithpropruitionalmodalit~·- ,\sregardscon· dttionalprouses,ill51'Cf)'intercstingtonotethatinkelaru:lic,conditmnalprotasesin lhepre•enttensecannotbeinthesubjunc(iveifthewordordertssubordinator-sub· 1ect- fimte •·erb, but must be in the subjunctive when the word order is VI {IT Ill: 470; see6.2.1 abm'e).,\swillbearguedinthenextch~pter.thisisbe~th propoSitional mo· dality•nthepres.ent(ramework.VJ inpolarquestionsandconditionalprota5esinlhe
Ch.pler7. Modolmarkcuand,ordordamlheCenuanlClongu"l:e< Gcrmank languages can thu~ be conn«tcd with propostllonalmodalit)'. lrreabs in particular Another dauoe I)'Pt that dtsplays Vl 1 1n the Germanic languages ts the imperative one. R«aUthat theimperativei'
(GP04)
The1D>JJ(200f.)fOJ>JmllaraiguRI<JJbandGiannak•dou(l998),whorelalPolanl)" >ilmlylo \"end>
b
leg /viler p;i at IPAS"[ "1111e"" wnhuplo
hrotto.slrould German:mu.JUJJ/e (194) a
Hanm·e): Swedish/ar.sko-sk"/lc Germanso/1-sollte.wiii-IVolile
{197) a b
Hon/arhastuderatLHeLdelberg. "SheiS•aidtohavestudiedmHeidelberg." Hanskahavantenmycketdukt"Cntnu>"idential modality have scope over and determine the whole propom1on. II was also proposed m 2 24 thai .-·en\ modaluy has the pussibiliq· of a'«•gning themauc roles to the subject, e.g. maleliClary (tmM. Jila/1), benefiCiary {may). or expmencer (wan/. mn: see Abraham 2002 38tffor a Similar analym). Thus. event modalnv belongs to the derivanonaldomalnratherthanthemtlectlonalone !>lrvertheless. as was saJd m 2 1.3. the o:konuc and dynam.K modal verbs seem to belong to the same formal sy~tem as the rp1stenuc and ~v•o:koua! modal v~rbs do in the Germanic languages. Many of the modal can express both functmns, namely the foUowmg: -
Swedish mdeontic and dynamiC modal verbsaremorecentralthantense.Genera!ly,Gerrnanicepi
(SAGl\':292)
Ui6 :\lod•IJt)"andSubordm:uors b. Marymigl11beattheschoolbyuow. Marywou/,/beattheschoolbynow. d
(Palmerl001:3l) (Ibid)
ManmJchle meinen. dass ... one might.SURJ think that "Onem1ghtthmkthat.. ."
(ibid)
Erkii1111/c kranksein. he could.SUbiiU "Hecouldbe1ll."
(ibid)
Thissuggeststhatep1Stemicmodal1tfliesoutSidethescopeofteuseasafunctioual category. The onginal past tense form has grammaticallzed into a modal one (modal past). lmportamly.thepastvariantsaremthesubjunctiveiuGermau.ThiSstrength· enstheconn..:tionbetl'.-.,enthepastformandnon·factualltj-" lmerestmgly.someep!stemiCandendeullal\-.,rbsdonothaveditferenttenseforms. but are invariablyeitherpresentorpast:thereis.e.g.nopasttenseformofSwedishlnr "oughtto.besaid.to:tnpanicular.manyepistemicandeVtdentl.al\-.,rbsaremvanablyin the past tense. the present form beiug deontic or dynamic: hypothetical skulle. sh01dd and sollto;sp..:ulam-.,co!lldand,/ilrfte{note.pastsubjuncli>..,).ThiSotfersanexplanationfor the grammatiCal>zation of so1ne of the dromic·dynamic ,-.,rbs into epistemiC·evidential ones iu the Germamc languages. The ep1StemiC·endenllal wrbs have developed from the deonllc·dyna.mc ones through the modal past. Skala and shall are particularly telling here.siucetheyhaveat..odevelopedmtofutureauxillariesinSwedishandEnglish.Agam. the development from"'"""' to epistemic modalitj-·seems to be through tense. l.astly.itmustbesaidthatsomeepistem~e·evidenllal>·erbsdonothaveanalterna·
tl\'e deol\tic-dyuamic meamng in Swedish. These are the reportati>-.,lassumpllve ldr andtheassumptivelcmlo
].] Modal particles Onthesideofthemodalwrbs.therearemanyfree partidesorad>-.,rbs in theGerma.uc languagesthatcarryepistemlidenllalmeanings.Allofthesewillnotbedealt withhere.butthereisaparticularsetolpartidesthatisofspecialmterest.namely thosethataredenvedfrommodalverbs: mayloeinF.nglish:kallske.kalllll markers ond Wrd order in the GermaniC lansuas•• 167 b
Kan hmola ar
the! ena ryktc! ;ir kommet aff thet andra of the other can happen that the one rumour is come "ltmaybethecasethatoncrumourcomesfromtheother." M maybe 11 not sit really yet "MaybelllSn"tquitethercyct!"
(GPO!)
b. Kamke du simile ta och rekr),era honom som PR-chd till as PR-ch1et to maybe you should take and recrun h1n1 TheEntpue> The Empue Maybeyoushouldrccrul\hlmasPRchiefatTheEmpue?'(GPlll)
Chapter 7_ Ma maj•be you thowdoyoulonk?!" German wohl and Swedish val have an as>umptive meaning (examples li-om Abraham 2009:6,SAGIV: 116) {ll7) a
l.tider verschlechtern sich die For"hungavailable.Joismserttdinbothl·erum·feu<expreiorutocarrythestre"(em· phatJCdo·insertion)and inwrb-rai~ingcon<tructionsofthetypesjustmentioned in order to lexicaltu the Complenn•mizer position (V2 & VI) A rolated phenomenon is the usc ofV2 in da.belongtolhe>amefunctional cat"Sory(propositionalmodalityin the present framework). Strikinglr.kmukcand ka~llllmlacanel-enoccurclauseinitially.withthefinite\"erbremammginlheverb
phrase.}'leldmgaVI-Iikemucture.Ol'tentheseclausesareinterpreledaspoliteques· lions or suggestions, clauses which normally dies after verb> of doubt(Carlsonl994:446tf:sce5.3) Since 1~ can mtmduce an types of condiHonal dames in the Germanic languages. e.g."real"(i.e.h)-polbetical),"unrcal""(dubitati\·eandcoumerfacmal).andconcesswe ones(mcon)uncuonwithadverbslikec••e11),itisreasombletoa..,urnethattfmitself denotesthatthepropositionisbypothcticalandthatrnood.tense.and,intbeconces· sivecase.adverbs,arerespon.undetcrminedtruth-valueandneutralfactualtty. whl
Ad
'[lt~llbon:hnolPrn>edegreeunpheslhaclheyarcM HmrikRosenkV>st(p.c)pouusouc.itisinfactperfe.:tlycorreC!tosaythacSheprclmd~d slunrl>edaorwulatedasahypmheucalcomparacivedause lnthiscase.kardanser,GPOI· (228) a
b
LchwiUhedealtwithinSe.:uonll4) Otherpre.:hcatescanbeconstructed witheitheraltorom. Thesew11l bedealtw11h in8 2 I 3 helm.·. SAG (IV: 549tf) hsts bothkindtharr(thcl~bels~repar!l}'theauthor's,allare
non-facti•-el
1. Most ol these pmhca>es can al$0 sekla cendc v•d'payheNto:ignorem'ignore:srrumai'notcareabout',taluinsyntil/'consider'; av>lg t8J
OmC.medafterthesepredicatestoindicatethatthespeakerand/ormatnxsubJectof the matrix dame doe~ not know whether the propmition of the complement clause" true or not. Afterthesemifactivepredicates,omisparticularlyusedwhenthepredicatei•n•· gated.sincenegatedsemifactivesmeanthatthesubjeillanslutasigtill gemensammareg!er. (GPOl) "GreatBritainandlrelandwiU!aterannouncewhetherthey"illenterinto joint reguLation" KontrollernakniiJitgltOIIINrnctfoljersinknrvaochgeengissningom hurlingtbarnetkanblisom•·uxen (GPOl) "The examinations are able to say whether the child follows its cnrve and gweahinta~tohowtallthechildntaybc.:omeasanadult:
d. laboratorietesterskavimomdedi>dabarpit.viruoet. (GPO-I) "laboratory!estswillshowifthedeceasedcarriedthevirus: Daknlljagstomdedyuatisardlerskatfatbarn (GPO-I) 'Then 1 will be able ln see whetherthey ha•·e moved apart or got children."
186 Mod•htpndSulxmhnators
g.
... som vli.nd~r >.ig IIU hiigr~ myndighder fiir att l1iira om det ilr fntt fram fiir kommun~n att filrsamra ""rv!Cen. (GP04) ·.. who turns to higher authonties to hear 1fthe mumcipality now has free handstoimpairthe..,rVICe." Manblir ltte orolig fOr om det !inns migonframtid one becomes little worried about if there exists any future fiir SSt.: Giiteborg. siiger han (GPOJ) for s:~r.: (iothenburg says he 'One becomes a little worried about the future ofSSU Gothenburg. he says."
The common denominator forallthe..,dau..,ststhat the sp~akerdoesnotknow whether or not the propo>.itmn is or will be true. Thts is conSistent with what S1tta {l97l)foundinGerman(see8.2.2below).Thecontextsthatlicen..,do/Jafterverbsof sa~~ng and the like were negation, modal verbs. the future. and questions. The com· mondenominatorbetweenthesecontexlsiS,aCCordingtoS•tta{l97l:l98)"dasMo· rnentderN~eht-Festgelegtheit,Unsicherhe•t".lnfact,allofthe..,arelrrealiscontexts
A.swasstatedabove,omisparticularlycommonafternegated..,mifacti>..,pred•· cates. This follow• from the fact that the meaning of the predicate then becomes one of uncertamty {the ''ignorativ~'"). Indeed, tf om denotes nndeternuned factual it)• it should bo the norm after negated senufactove predicates. This is also confirmed to be the case bytheaforemenltonedcorpnssearchinSpr;ikbankenskonkordanser. Press76forthe different ten.., forms of vetd 'know: Among the r~sults were 35 cases of itJie'not" + l'-ctyp>ea!lynccursnotonl)'minterrogauvecontplementclausesandcondtUona! protases but also in dubJtaltvc complement dau.se< The use ot om anu dubttauve prcdtcate< may foUow from thelog>e that whatts doubtedtd/er mtc ]I "doubtfultf Maria Reynolds has \\TUten them or not
tB7
188 ModalnyandSubordmaitdernellermte. ltisundearwhetherornotMarlaReynold>haswrutenthern"
Thefactthatom<SusrdmsuchdubllaliVofdoubtanduncomotl tl".E:tarnpks (247) a.
ldecember2003sadchanock.ein inte har omd· dent.laghaUermedhonnm.VarldenarbattreutanSaddarnHussein "In ~cember 2003, he abo said that theonewho donbts that the world" asaferplacewithoutSa.ddamHusseindoe<nothaveenoughjudgement to be president. I agree with him. The world is a better place 1\~thout SaddamHussein b. Exitlrisilrvanavidattstotapi.fordomaron>k>innligamusiker.folkiYIY· lmpdattdekan>pelabaratOrandeartjejer. "Exit Iris are accustnmed to meeting with preJudice> about female musi· dans;penpledoubtthattheycanplayonlybecametheyaregirls."
Clu.pt~ra.
C.cnnol •ubordtnaWr< and propo.,Uonal modality in the Germanic lanBu•g,lhadstrongdoubtsthatanyparentalguidanceprogram in the world could help these families. But it.,.,.., fanta.tic to see how quicklytherdationsbetween,hildrcnandpMentscouldimprove" Hadevivaritdetminstaill'iw/ommtallt still! r:ittttU hade vi dtrekt tagitinfarjanp;ivarv. "Had we been in the slightest doubt that ever}thing wa• m ord•r. we would haveimmediatelytakcntheftrr)'Onservice" Bland dessa fanns Sydat"rika< president Thabo Mbeki. Han uUryckte vid mi>tetl~iwlpiiallaidsbrhvcrbehandlasmedicirukt
'Among these was theSouthAfrkanpresidentlhaboMbekl. Henpressed doubtsthat,\idsneedstobetreatedmedicallj'.· ThJSalonecannotexplainthelargemajorit}'Ofnrtafterrvivlnpriandrvivd.howe"\"er. e~n le>S the complete dominanct ot" nil after loen•rv/n (there are ne\·erthdess a few instances of Wrrir/11 om at Googksc). Another e~plana1ion ha5 to do With what ex· actlj'i5beingdoubled.Mterrvit-loplu m~r "now: lhese tmply that the complement clause has been uttered by thesubJC.:loncebefore.ln (2~9b),on the other hand. it is the ae~.,....,.y·.bcstm/en'deny".lcugneu
'deny". bawe1(dn"doubt", bcllllli8CII'certify', b~dauem!bcda~~Crllchsein!Bedaucrn "regretlregretable/regret'.sicll(reueu/Freudc"re)oicc",nrilllgse•n'accurate"
..
jragen!Frage 'ask/quesuon", nachjorJc/1en .find om', untersuchw 'mvesugate". prujen!Probe 'try", Erku11d1gen 'ask", emv,·hcn, ueugeng mu curious', zw,•Jje/ 'doubt',l'nrersrhm/'dllference" ThelilllgroupconsJStsofcertamfactiwprediCateerkommt 'SheknowsJf/thathecomes"
(E1senberg2006b:321)
Ch•pt~r~. (0on~rol sul>ordtnat~«
b
d
and propog; 19;
(Ei.enberg20()6b:320) Stefanie!>ewm>r.dass/obduda<wa.rpW. dass Helga schlili 'PaulclaimsthatHelga~Jeeps'
Wir befurduml wrmutm! de>tke11. d11ss/"ob er 1\uto fahrt. We fear/ presume/ think that/whether he car 'Wefearlpresumelthinkthatheisdriving.'
l!f6 Mod•IJtyandSul>ordm:uors Although the fa'''imilar difference m Swedtsh between /vrv/am/. Te11•/a p;! can be constructed With om, but 1111" the norm. For 11•ek:illml, in contrast. om is more or less the only optmn. As regards lt•rv/a pd (andbeh·idingular form and one >ource.A·ImwlrcmJerMorgell AsinthecorrespondingS~dishinvestigation,negatedpredintes(lliChtzu
ZWii!fd" 'not doubt", ktilltt! Grund zu zwd{d11 'no cause to doubt'). predr with a negatedsuhject(lliemllndzweifdr'no-onedoubt5)oranegaledlemporaladverb(me zwei[e/11 'nt\'er doubt') were disregarded. Disregarded were also matrix dame> with kmmr 'hardly" (kaum Zh bezWiiifdn 'hard!}' to be doubted'), 'few' (wemge zwei[e/11 'few doubt'), construeliotu like zmlrcUtlllbese•tigen aile Z..mfcl "lo dJSpd all doubti and rhetorical questions like Weraber wUrde damn zw~•(cln "who would doubt: The>e are all litotes or understatetmnU that are used to indicate that the ·~ak~r {and sometimesthesubject)belit\'es.anddoesnotdoubt.ThtsmeantthatforzWii!fdn,dass, no less than 121 out of 264 hiu ~re disregarded Compare that to zwe(fdn, ob, where only 2 out of 433 were left out. For <Weife/n damn, dn« no les> than 407 out of 689 were leftout;withzwcifeln olarau, obonlyoneoutofl33. Forbezweifeln,do,..93outof 697hitsl'.-ereleftout;forbezweifeln.obnoneoutof252.Thisdearlydemonstratesthat negateddubJtativeconstructionsandthelikeonlytakedass.Sincetheseconstructmns arenottruedubitativesbutrathertheopposile,thisiswhatoneshouldexpect. There>ultsactuallyshowthatthesituationisnotasdearcutasthehteratureotates Allpredicatescanbeconstructedwithbothtlassandob.Zw.·i{d/mfristheonethatis most often constructed with ob. followed by Zweifel and zweifc/11. B..-zw••!fe!n "the one thati>mostoftenconstructedwithdoss.butthereareal..omanycaseswitholr.
,,...,;,gc
""
'"'' There are certain patterns to be not~d among the result>. First, even more than in Swedish, it is common among the dass-daus.:s after zweJfcl" that the >peaker questiotu thevahdityofthedoubt:
1~7
t!JII .\lodolttyondSubordtn.o.to"
(261) a
Wer jetzt noch zwetjC/r, dass Osterreich im [ahr 2002 zur Endrunde nach )apanundSUdkoreafahrt.istsdberschuld \Vhoever still doubts that Aumio will go to Jopan md South Koreo m the final,is~lftoblame'
b.
Die~s neue Fossil ist einer der stark.sten und letzten N:igd tm SargJener. die zwcifdH, d~ss Dinosaurier etwas mit drr Entstehung von Vilgeln zu tunhaben 'ThisnewfossilisCineCifthestronGtsta:udlastnailsmthemtlinofthn~ whodoubtthattheDinoSilurshavesomethingtodowttht~de,..,Jnp·
mentofbirds.' "Jch ware ja ein :.:arr, wenn ich die,;en historischen Erfolg zerst that the speaker knows what the subject said. With whetlrer!if. the only interpretation would be that the speaker for some reason chooses not to betray the knowled~ to the listener. nacdy as in Sw~ish (CGEL 982): {267) a. Shedidn'tsayifthedoorwaslocked b. Shelllid?IJ!thtltthedoorwaslocked Arguabl}'. there is yet anotherinterpll'tationofthe if-\-ersionof(267b).namelythat thesp~akerhasforgottenwhatthematrixsubjcetsaid
ChapterS C.enero! subordtnat~" and propollinnistruc,s/hestilldo-esnotknowthatitts
8.} The grammaticalization of IF and a typological comparison In the las! two s~lions. it wa~dcmonstl rHATandtFmdicateditfer ao- len> l thinking :-:uo.do l vo~- go Dllll :-. and THAT· tf is the way in which the members of both pairs are used altemattvoly in order to denotecenainfactualdistincllons.Aswasshownab"'"·tfcanbeusedafterverbsof knowingmthealfirmativetodenotethatthespeaker,incontrasttothesubject.does not know whether the propoSition LStrue. Conversely. !"HAT can be used afterdubtta· llvepred!Calestoindicatethatthespeaker.incontrasttothesubjeCt.bolievesorknows ratherthandoubtsthatthepropositiontstrue.lnasomewhatsimtlarway.thesubjunctiveisusedafterverbsofreadingandhearinginkolandicandverbsofsa~~ngm (iermantoind~
,..,,b!;
(278) Yano sabia que el csMI>a! momcraahi [ natknewthathebe.3S\i.PAST.ISD/SL'BI here 'ldtdnotkn<W.·thathewasthere' This appears ta came very dose to the variatian betweeo mtheGermaniclanguages
THAT
and'" in the-se contexts
(279) lolidn'tknowrhar/ijhewasthere Thefactthat1'HATalsacaversthepotentialdomainintheGermaniclanguageshasthe seemingly problematic elfe.:t in lcdandic that a Realis (n~) and an lrreahs (subjunc· llw)morphemeo.curtogetherinthesan\ecbu<e (280)
)6n hdd~r otJ tunglidsC ilr osti )onthmks that moan issurof cheese ')onthinksthatthemaonismadeofchee<e'
(Thr~m .. on
1994: 183)
Hm'"''"''· this tS not as problematic 35 it may seem. First, it will be shown iu the ""XI •ecliontbatGermanicTHATactuallyhasaweakerstatrnafterpredicatrsofbehrland report than after predicates af knowledge ~nd commem_ Second, the indicah•·e can also be used after predicates ofbelid and repart in Cil subon:hnator>and propmmonal modoltt\" to theGemtamc lanBu•g•• >U
b.
Dethkymrurmig'(all)hanfursOkerskuldbel~ggaoss
'htroublesmethathetslrpngtolaytheblameonw.' /agarg/nd(nrt/duothe•izedthatManaiSpregnant.'
In the !i.rst sentence, essen: ism the past. The ennttime of the complement clause does nolonrlap With the utteranceltme,and the mterpretalion IS that Marta mayor may not haw been pregnant in the past, depending on whether or not Gianm was right m his hypothesizmg. Here, dte·omission is p0551ble.ln the latter case, essen: ISm the present Ierne and MariaS pregnancy owrlaps with both Gianni's hypotheSizing in the past and theullerancemthepresent.Sincethespeakerconnectslt"iththeutterancetime,the inlerpretatmnisthatMariaismfactpregnant.lnthiscase,rhccannotbeomtnede>-en thoughit .. embeddedunderaspeculativepredlCateandtheverbi•mthesubjunctJVe. Tocondude,thereareslrong indi(ahonsthat THAT has twodilferenl uses, one afterfactin-andsemifactivepredicatestomarkthepropruttionasfactual,anotheraf· lerspeculativeandreportativepredicatestomdteatethatthespeakerholditaspossible orlikelythattheproposilionlStrue.lnthelattercase,tthasaweakersemanticstatus and may therefore be omitted. ThiS IS especially the case when the clause i• marked as lrrealis by the subjunctive, as both German and ltaltan show. In German, dass is then tj'])iCaUyddetedandreplacedsyntactlCallybythesubjunctiveverb(mformalstyle) Thesubjuncti\'eanddnss-deletionsuggestthatthespeakerreser\'eshlm/herselfinre· gard to the truth of the propruitmn. ThiS is dearly a Realis·lrrealis dJStmction Strilungl)·. THAT·omission m the Germanic languages has a duect parallel in a language which IS completely unrelated to them, namely Yolngu (Pama·Nyu~an Australian;Morphy 1983: J27Jf). Yolngu has a part ide (ltmht which partly functions as a deictic demonstratin pronoun 'that' and partly as a subordinator that can be
Ch.opler H Generol
suborrhnot~r< ond
propoutoonol modol•n· m the Gern•ont< langu•ll"•
translatedas"that"Jmeresttngly.subordinatingl}lllliticanbennultedtfthesubnrdinate clausecnntainsthe~rreahsparticle>Jllli(Mnrphyl983:l29.71).
()01) (>Jllllh1)1Jlllinhe nha -ma ba)l]U·ll)' wapn -g11 qah that IKR you.,.,OM S« ·UNM none ·PRO ammal ·HAT ]UlJ,\l..lN(;~!UD· known.ie notonl)·aftermterrogatil'epredicatcsbutafterpredtcatesnfinvesugaunn. debate.ul\cenam[j·.ande>·el!doubt.Furthermore.hke•f.ncanbeusedafterccrtain factwe,semifacti~"
Enspectaltagmngarp;~rlamentarikerochandrahogtuppsatlatjanstcman
attforklarahur.Mdndesamarbetade med underrattelsetjiinsten under kommumstaren. "Onespecoal lawforcesparliamentariansandmherhighoflictalstoexplain whether they cooperated wnb theinteUogence servkedunngthc Communostyears." g. ochlwlskeardet\llgverketsberaknmgarsomliggk_Theform
johnKerrykanvinnavalet (GP04) "flutwhatSnewtsthattbeFrcnchnotonlydoubttf/obnKerrycan""in the electron" b. Ocb omdet trd1garevarok/~rt !{a/Ide b.idalagrensatnarbetade. content questmnsareintheindicativc(Mithunl999:H9).Thus.contentquestionsaretheoppostleofpolarquestionsasregardspropositillM]nmdality. f11rtherevidencethatwasgiven in7A wasthefactthatcontentquestionsasopposedtopolarqueslions.cannot licence""negative""polarityitems.exceptwhenthe questiontSrhetorical(320c).inwhkhcasethesubjectratherimpliesthatthepropllsttilln "not true (the negative polarity item in the following examples is muclt): (320) a. Doyoulikehermuch? b. Howcomeyoulikeher'much? c. 1\'l!ocaresnwclraboutit.allyway"
(CGEL834) (CGEL835)
AswasshOI\-nin7.4,""negative"polarityitcm<aredearlyUcen!<edbylrreabsmnteJcts Theydonotonlyoccurinnegativecontextsbutinconditionalprntases.polarquestooru.. andcomplementclaus.esofprdicat:sexpr.:sbeingques\tooed.lnpolarquc>tions.th:rrnrhofrhepropo>ttmnJ>heingques· tinned. Thu.,themterrogativehasscopcoverrhepropositionin thesecontext .. Jn conteotquesltons,however,itisonlythcidentityofaconstituentrhatJShemgques· tione'
It would be appealing to draw a parallel between suM- and no-insertion in ILon>. Howe1·er, an independent content question with a subj'"e nexus rclationbetwttn thesubj'"·erbsandvowd·raismgt0rsomestrong>..,rbs)and2nd pers.pl.(-(e)l!
lmperauve and mterrogauvc thus stand tn .:ompkmemary dtstnbuuon. This is suppnrtedbythe~r!ormal<mhnators Th~factthatrnainlandScandinav!anembeddedcontentquestionsareconstructed
with the othe'"~'~ relative suM was gtven two explan•tions. First, both restrictiw relative dames and content questions are .. manl!cally Reahs. Second. the wh-word is focw.andacommonstrategyintheScandinaVIanlanguagesofmarkingfocusisto us~dethng construcuons, which. in tum. also imul>-.s relatiw SOM. lnthelastseciLon,itwasarguedthatLmp~rativedauseshaveastrncturethatts
SLmLlartopolarquestions,exceptthatthespeech-actcategor)·hasthevalne[Lmperativel. Contrary to Platzack & Rosengren (19981. it was argued that Lmperam·e clauses are finite and project the propoSitional-modality category. 1\lthough the 1mpera1tve form is tdenucal to the mlinitive form or the bare stem m many Germanic languages and others worldwide (WALS 287). it was pomted out that WALS (286) found many other languages whereth~ imperauve paradigm was dtstmguiShedalongother functional parameterssuchaspoliteness,tense,aspect,and number. lndeed,mtheGerman" languages, German, lcdandLC, and Old Swedish Imperatives distinguish number. Fur· thermore,itwaspointedoutthatalthoughimperativedauseslackannbhgatorysub· je.tttyondSubordtnoto" tt would be convenient to subsum~ cnmpkmentizers under propositional mndahty andputasidead,•erbialdawelinkers On the other hand, the situation is nnt that simple_ Ftrst, to assume thatnnlycnm· plementizers lexicalize propositional mndalny would mean that conditional tf cannot be cnnsitthat there has worked at him inlast.year 'lknowafarmhandthatworkcdforhiml3'tyear.' ThisLSalsothecaseinembeddedcontentquestionsincotloquialDanish(Vangsnes 2006:5):
(343) ...hwmsomat hargjon det who soMthathasdoneit · whohasdoneit' Furthennore. 111 the Danish diale.:t of Bornholm. som can even be dd..ted befo"' at (Ha~rlandl994:345),}ieldingwhatloolv.likcanEnglishrestrictiv•"'latwelhat..dause:
{344) Brygjninjenva etarbeaja kvinjfolken skulle passa the.brewing wa~a job that the.women.folkshoutd mind 'Brewing wa~ a job that the women should take care of ThefactthatDanishcaninsertannratierrelatiwsomisnotantsolatedphenomenon butpartofageneraltendenc)'inDanishandNorwegianofbeingmoreanalyticthan e.g.Swedishinrespe.:ttofunctionalword.
as true as tllatGoran linan>minister,
~rssnnat
present
is both pnmeand
'AssureasGtJranPerson,atpresent.isbothprime-andfinancenunister.' (Verux 200!: 5. "liniversitet bor s!cltfa en prngram fOr Agenda 2!": www verttx.umea.comlnrS-Oi/ai.htmiJ
1.44 ModahtyondSubordmators SincerdauveandcornparanvesoMhavethe
(BNC)
A!thoughStroh-Wolhn's(2002)obsen·auonU.VJ(andcnmparam•etHA.:46 .\1od.odtl}"ondSubmdmotor>
b.
Bodstriim ar bra. Blinre iln rmg faktiskt "BodstrOm ts good. Bener than me actually."
.
\"M Gill be omttted when the relativized COILithm any constituent of the nucleuS (Hopper & Traugott 2003: 176) Interdependent clauses represent the mtermed1ate stage between independent and subordinateclausesandcanbothbe introducedbycoord.inatmgconJunctiornand adwrb1aldause·hnkers. Within the framework of GeneratiYe Grammar, complementizers are thought to lexJCahzethemostpenpheralfunctJOnalcategorJ·Iiesmtheclause.Coordinatingcon· JUnctions,ontheotherhand,arenotseenasmembersofafunctionalcategoryinthe clausebutratherasextradausal.Thestatusofthead>"erbialsubordinatorsisuncertain,
Chapter tO Rebuveandadverbiolsubord•nolor.; 149 butconSlderingthesemantic.functionalandlypologicalcharaclerislicsofad\·erb!al dawes. a plausible assumption would be also to consider them as rxtraclausal As was slated above, from a functional and <emantic pmnt of \~ew, ad\•erb1al sub· ordmalorsdonotmodifytheeventsnrthepropnsltinninre"(ci,I>I(/W»)oJ'inordcrto"
Swedish examples from Sprllkbmtkctts konkordamcr. GP 04 (364)
a.
Det kanns ii.ndi fcl darfor mr alia kan krmgg3.(ogen, it feels still wrong becausthelaw."
h. Hon har ingen adrcss i
Lnndon,,"ilkct krii.vs fOr all man •he has no address in London which is.requiredfor that one ska kunna friges mot borgcn •hall b...able.lo be.rdeased against bail "Sbeha.>noaJdressinLondonwhichi.nsibihtyforthesecurtty:
Note that the lirs1 elen~em denotes u11der what dn:umst;ID(es tbe rnatrtx e•~nt takes placc.TheSIIbm·dmatect..usespecifiesthesec!n:untstances.Noteal.rothattbefirstelementalmru;texclrntvelyhasadverbial,pup<Jsi1ionalorpup11S1Itonal-phraseorigill.lll fact.ltca!lbearguedthattheseelerncnuareSIIUadverbs.prepoSitl!lns.llrprcp<JSIIioMI phra.<eredskapmlel.,nl som C.pem'Ju>lO>,
t'llrll(>om)')usl..,.:S<Jmy<mhnators Moreo>'
is also th~ cas.e m German and English, although they hav~ actual wh-words in these tofill·in~rtionafterrela!i\..,somincolloquialDanish.
ln Modern Swedish,llilfCOUid be paraph rued with som (SAOB N: IO·B): (376) Nilr som 1i var sm;i. si sydde mamma sjal1· alia vara kl3.nningar. when SUM we were small. then sewed mom self all our dothes "When we were small. mom sewed aU ourdothes herself(Lagerlilf 1930) To conclude. thon SJttmg fnhetsberovad dcpnvedofh~rty
'Thec3,.,,sol,·cdmsofaraswehavetherigbtJ'
The arguments are cll dctf~klum all, oak/at detfaktum all.givel dctfaktum all: (3111) a
5.
Trol>detjilktumnllde!for!faranderaderollkLell!krigstiUstlindLBasrallr del 1prinClp bara civiltarbete som nu utfiirs aY mih!liren 1 Basra. (GP 03) Despit~ the fact that there is sliD an official stale of war in Basra, the mihtaryinB.asrabasicallyonlyperformciVilianwork:
Quukolol.(l985)hoYeol•ob«t~-ethe idJo~yncratic cbaracter1>tks of mtroducmg a non-tinite "daust" wtlh a suhject m the obhqur form
ChoplerJO_ Relatw Uit
As was stated in 4.2.2, this assumption bas in turn Men used as :m argument for the existenceofafunctionalcategor}•tbatdetermineswhetherthedauseislinite(that)or non-finite((or;Rizzil997).ln4.2.2,argument<wcrepresemedagain51tbeexistenceof such acategol)'. Below, 11 "ill ~demonstrated that _form tbe_for-/o-comtructmn must be comidered a preposition.likt its homonym from wbtch it deriYes. Interestingly, the _for-lo-corutruction can panlr M associated ..~th modality. Pesetsky&Torrego(2004)haveobservcdtbattbe_for-lo-constructionoccursin"irrea· hs""(non-actualized)orgenerkcnntexu (382)
a. lwouldprefer/likeforSuetobytbebook. b. lalwayspreferformystudentstobuytbisbook.
lnon-actualizedl [genencl
AccordmgtoPalmer(200l: t90tf),tbebabitnalc:malsobecategorizedaslrrealis, smce it refers to tendencies rather than actual events. FoUowing Palmer"s wide defimtmn oflrrealis,JOr may therefore be con~dered :m/rrealis complemenllzer, making 11 htghlyrelevantforthepresentinvestigation Morepre.:isely,thejor-to-conmuctioncanbeconnected"itheventmodality.The matrixpredkatecanhal·evolitive.ob!igative.orabilitati>·emeaninl}' (383) a. Wewonl/prtfer!drsircfor)"Outopartake b. It is mccuory/moHdatry/ob/igalory for you to panake c. ltispoui!>lridMI>Ic/fcosiblcforyoutopanake Furthermore.thefor-l·constructioncanbt:connectedwitbthefuture.anothernonactualizedcategory,inthesensethatitoftenhasfuturereference(sf'ordtnato" foHo-con.truction is not full-fledged subordinate daus~ but o to-mfimtiv~ with fort NPaoapre-modifi~r(specitier)
Flrsl, there is the problem that thefoHo-conmuction is non-finite,t.~.t!d""s not distinguish the finite categories tense. person. and number.lfth~construcllon does not r~alize these functional categories. it would be problematic to assume that t! r~al "~' th~ most peripheral functional category of the clause, namely Complementizer ("1thin the ti-amework nfGenerati\'C Grantmar). S.:cnnd, there is the ordinary prepo· sitional use ofjor, from which the for in thefr-ro-constructinn derives (CGEL 1181), and tl is sometimes dilficulttn tell them a~rt. Cf.· {386) a. thedesireforjusticetnhaveiucnurse b. tlledesireforjustice Thtrd, as Chomslq· & lasnik (1977: 448) pnint out. the _li>r-to-construction is only available as a complement of a noun when the ordinary_for-nbjer rliem to sec me like rltis ]compl~m~n! of o!lford] ltts!ruethatthere nta)'bedistributinna)dilferencesbetwe~nordinaryfor-object.and the_for·lo-corntruction,butthatdoesnotnecessaril)'entailthat_forintheji>r·lo·con· s\ructionisacomplementizer.Theheadofthe_fnr-Jo-constructionconldequall}'well bethemlinitivemarkerto,with_for+)<Pasitspre-modifi~r-
i'uregardsthelirstcontextwhereordinar}'_fr-obje.:tscannotoccurandthefor· to-construction can, it ~hoold be pnintcd nut that SionoffortNPinobjo(lpruitionleadstoaco·indexaltonofthe •ubject of the matrix clause and tho logical subj~l of tho lo·mfinitiw. Whenfor+NP refof5to someone else that the matnx subj~l. th1s re•ults in a d1fforent meanmg (392)
Howants(jorus)tostartimmodlately.
Thl5 howo\'er, only mearnthatjortNP in some cases i• nece5SM)' for theli•tener'• Cor· r«tJdentilicatmnofthe•ubjectofthelo·inlinitJ,...lt does not indicatethatforisa complolllentizor. As regards the fourth context. complement of nfford, 11 should be noted that for can be omJttod here, and that the oblique·Caso form then remain.. This i5 also true for complelllent•ofwtluletc. (393) a. lcan'taJford(jor)tiJonrto•eemolikethis b. Wewant{/or)hmttobehappy. lnthiscase,itappearsthattheXPirnteadrecei,..,obliquocasefromthematnxverb. That, howeYer, would be an exceptmnal·case·marking (ECMJ construction. In fact, II couldbearguedthatthefor·lo·ConstructionlsaYariantoftheECM·construction There are seYeral •irnilanlles between thefor·lo· and tho ECM·constructmn. As in ordinary ECM·constructions. the oblique constituent can somellmes be promoted to •ubje(lwhenthematrixdaU5eispa>SiYizod(rai•ingcon.tru(lions) (394) a. Wocornldorhortobeintelhgent. b. Sltei•con5ldtJedtobeintelhgont c. Theyintonded!arranged(for)tllef'SIVO. Tho NP·pruition in the matrix clause i5 then oc· cupiedbyanexpleti\'e: (395) a Woarrangedfortlteretobeheldse>~ralmeetings. b. We expecttltcroto be held ..,..raJ meeting>. c. 7/terearehkelytoboheldsewralmeeting>
lfor·lo( [ECM] (raosingl
>64 lrlod>.htyondSubordtnolnr.< CGEL {1182) uses the expletive for-to-construction as an argument against analysmg
for as a prepoSition, sincenrdinar)'/orcan!llll sekct expletives_ However. this is htghly remmiscent of the obligatory object position in ECM constructions. C"Jl0msky(200l:7tf,2005: lO)analy<esECM-andra~singconstructionsascon· sisting of an inliniti~e phrase without tense. person and number features. Crucially. tl lackstheComplementiztrcatcgnry.Withnutthe<efinitefeatures,thelogicalsubJOCI cannotrecen•enominali\'ecase.butinsteadr«ei\'esobliquecasefromthematrixverb. Analternah\'eistnfilltheargumcntposition"'ithe~pleti\'et!teN,leavmgthelogical
subjoctintheverbphraseasextrapn<ed.lnraisingconmuctionsandpam\'izedEC.\1 construcuons,thealreadypromotednbjectisfunherpromotedtomatrixsubJOCl.Exactlythesameappearstohappeninthe_for-to·construction:eitherthelogtcalsubJ..:l oftheinfimttvephra<eisrealisedasafor-obje.::t.ore~pletivetherc!Smsertedasafor·
complement, leaving the logical subject as m extraposed subject in the mfinill\'e VP. It i•therefore reasCinabletoanalysethefor-to-construction Jsconmtingofa to· infimtive with a prepositiCinal object (tor+NP) as a pre-modifier (sp.cifier). ThiS for· object L>IICI!an ordinaryprepCI~itional obj.ct in the matrix clause, smce it, hke the object of an ECM construction, does nntcarry a semantic role in the matnx event, but rather a role in the embedded event. The reason why it is realiztd as a prepoSitional obJeCtandnotasanominativesubj.ctofthero-infinitive(exceptasanexrraposed subject)isthatthero-inlinitivelack~theabiliryofassigningnominatiYecase.
Toconclude,althoughitwnuldhecon•-enienttocategorisef<Jrinthe_f<Jr-lo·con· structionasanlrrealiscnmplementizer.rhereare•·arioustacrsandindicationsthatcon· tradictthisanalysis.,\swiththcad•-erbialsubordinaron._f<Jrisbestanalysedasapreposition,lea•·mg the terms cnmplemenrizer 311d subordmator 10 THAT, ••· and WHErHU.
ro.4 Conclusion Thischaptcrhasdealtwithtillolllllmodnliry(tense(aspect(ewii/IIIOfiedasrealis,!rreaiLS,indLrrealLSormdicati>'e·subjunctive.lnotherlanguages, they are simply translated as 'that'or'if'butaredemonstratedtodenoteafactual-non·factualdistin·ealsofulfillsspe..,ch·actfunctiOns mlcelandic, Old Swedish, and (;.,rman, such as hortative, JUssive, and optative, it was argued. in lme with what has been said abO\-e, that propositional modality is it• mam funmon.TheoptauveuseofthoGermanicsubjunchvehasahistoricalexplanalton. The Germanic subjunctive den\'eS from thelndo·European optative, which was also multifunctional. However, in the modern GermanL< languages that dLSplay a morphologicalsubjuncti>'e,Cizedexpressions.FurtherniOre,inlcelandLtmkcn. This re\-.:aled that during the Early Old Swedish period (texts from l300-l330).thesubjuncti••ewasusedinapprox•mately 30% of the clauses after non-factive predicates. After semifactive predicates however. theu..,oftllesubjunctive••:asinsigniticant.Thereawnwhythesubjunctl\-.:wasnot
Co..pte thatossertedpropoSitionsarcfactual.lnEnglish.thJSLSachLewdthroughemphatic do-tn<ertln.whennoothrraUlllltarytsovailabkEmphancdocouldtheretOrebe>ecn a~alextcaln.ahonufpmpoS!tionalmodaltty(plustenseandsubJr'tagreement) In fact.itwasarguedthatothertnstancesotdo-supportinEnghshcouldalsobeconnrctedwnhpropoSLILonalmodalny.namdynegau•-e•lo-support(thenegau'' Conc!u..onand6nalrenLarkthctical). H•·isand wenn lexkaliu the adverbtal part. where"' tf lex>Calize• the modal one {d. Jwii om). Swedish ifooccurafterpredtcatesthatcanuotbeconstderedm
terroganve even m the -..,dest sense. as was demonstrated m Chapter 8. As wa< condudedmthatchaptrr,theyshouldberegardedasrnarkersofuncertamtyratherthan mterroganvur Thenextsecnondealtwnhcontentquesuons Contrarytodtrectpolarquesuons.. nwa•arguedthatcontentquesttonsareReahs. regards theadv~rbtalsubordinator< (indudmgcornparatn" SOM mentioned above). II l'o"a<argued,magr~ment l"'lh Eisenberg(2006b) and CGEL.thatthese shouldalsobeanalysedasprcpo~uons,prepositionalphrases,oradverbs,rathcrthan
ChopleTLL Condusionand6nal,..nJarlu 111) •ubordinators. FirsL, the ad\'frbial"subordinatori" have a ncher lextcal (adverbtal) contentthanthegeneralsubordinatorsandshouldtherdoreberegardeda•mernbers ofmorelexicalcategoriesthanthernostperiphcralfuncnonalcategor)"Oftheembed· dedclamf.S~ond,theadverbial"subordinators"oftenhawprepoSJtionaloradver· bialhomonymsorparallelu~s.Third,manyoftheadwrbialsubordinator>areorcan
beconstructed\\ithTHATOrtf.Fourth.thecomparative"subordina10r5canalso•e· lectnominalcomplements.assignobliquecasetothemandbestranded.lberefore.all these subordmators were analy~d as ad,·erbs or prepositions that select complement dauses.ratherthanintroducingthemthemselves (397) matrixpredicatelprepo.+lnch+Trane
M~wltl (Mab~n Nilo-S~hamn:
Julien 2002· 332)
Sub Agr+Caust verb+ Trme+Mood lherourceofthemformationisEdgar(l9ll9) lherdevantmoodsutfuthcreisthe condtuonal(-mJ/-en)1 lherearetwoverblotu>Ofprnpo.! (-g~J.less remote pa..,·personportman!eaupre!ix m!heArabicdialec!s!ha!issitua!edoul•idetheaspec!·!ense·personprefix'imper· feel' (Kay & Rosenhowe 1997; 191). furthermore, in Modern South Arabian, there i5 a subiuncti'" prefix that LS added !o !he ·,mperfect" pre!ixes (Simeone·Senelle 1997;40JIJ); (425) 1S~'B!· LMPf.ISe combined (Routamaa 1994). The realis mood suffix -po can be addedtuthefarpasttensesutfix-waandthefuturesuffix-lornustbefoUowedbyoue of the mood morphemes neutral {-amst!-cpo), reported {-qo) defimte {-p
/f)'"·r eat ·PR~> ·ISP
'he ate him'
·O~J.A(;R
AppendoxA.
Twolypol~goc3lsun-epol1hUJ ·USTI.S!;.Acc2.S!;.NO.'ol 'Maybeyou'llsayl'mJUS!pullmgyourleg·
Homona dap ]mysaak] ukO) ·llll<J·ma SOIIle\CrUI·nan ]S·do ·PRES·•t:BJ 'thatlmardo' According to Adelaar & Myusken (2004: l02ff) Chibcha ("Muisca"") also has the ftnal sulfixes-rinwh!Chexpre5SaSIIIlultanrousrealsubordinateeventand-.-an,whichex· pressesahypotheticalsubordinatee>-.nt.Unlike-non(whichtlleycallthecondition· all.·xinand-sonarenotaddedtothefiniteten..,sulfue•buttothepamcip•altense sulfue•presentandfutureagenti>-.partic•ple(->~t:L 'Jwa•notgoingtocook' 31. Kwa-.stiga!ionbemgthededarauve(ind!Cative).Theten..,sarethe future,thepast,andtheremotepast.ThededaraltvecanbesulfixedtoaUtenses.There isalsoapotentialsulfuwh!chtslocatedbetweenpersonandmood ltcanbecon· structed with the future. Lastly. there" also a final apparential suffix (Y.ith deduCti\"O/a .. umptr>-.lpotentialmeanings:vanderVoort2004:388tf.420IJ,605tf):
(457) a.
txa'hBbo ·iihB ·ird ·IS< path clear ·t:LAS.S.I'ATH ·~L'T· tJEt:l 'Hewantsi!Sgoingtocleartheroad'
b. ze'ziJU -dy ·rJB IJja .·.,a ·da ·l>y ·tsc Zezinho ·PUS ·t:LASS.AREA go ·~l:T ·IS ·PUT ·tJECL '[willgotoZezinho(oneofthe..,days)' kreBa-'na 1Jjo·'11d -celrere Gleba·L-e ·ovo,cognitiv.. ('think")-ov.r,anda.sertiwld..clarative·paarelocatedoul5idethetense •uffix.. spast ·Ia. contingent past ·dol, far past ·ga and future -ki (!'..eke 1973: 14-21. 381f) (458) a
kBwB ·yO -d.id1 b61pa i -k.i·la ·J>notor
cothcrlland.l-olllnollaran (l989:%fl)doesnotanal~ ·OI·>a.us thatAbbi"sanai)"SI.UU(16) H.. t~~·::;.Y· 2003. A G~1111mar C~SHIJIC
4
T~maIIy.
KroppDakubu.MoryE>ler.l988Th(il):
Wtlmeu. \Wham E.
1~76
A Gmmmarof\'at London: UntVllj"ofOkl•hom•.
of IZJ.
5oullt-Eas/ASiaandlhePacificOccan 0kAVJl>JA~(7}):
Sl«Wr.SanfordB 1\1118 771ll(e ldiii(IUip. Cokuna· Amhropo hg~Al(76): D~ler.Anthony. ZOO~. 17~tTa>·KndmLa"J1"111(«.
TAl
London Routlcdgo
(~8):
Stl"1d.l990"Tatlanguages""Jn("_omrte.B-ernard(ed)1Jtt.I-LrJ~rl..ollgo"t'•
ofErulaMSOllt/rEa>JAna.l9-l8.London:Routledge. Hudok.Thonwf 19\IO"lhat"JnComrte.Bern>rd(ed.)71rtM.tjrL411KJI"t'>of£a>t
411dSooll/oEa t-97 Ukorwnpa:Summerln· >ti!U!eofLmgwstt<s Hod. Hanna Mane, TarJ> lkh>d=48482 EAHI'AP~o\N(Jfi)
Chung. Chui·Hwo & Krung Jo Chung. 19% "K\101 grammar <Ssennal>." In Chiton. jolm M (rd) Two Nom·Amlrollrsonn Grammar> from tlod>laNd>. 1·75 Ulwumpo. Sum merlnst>tuteoiLmgu~>tiCS
Tem!L.Angd.a 2003 Agmmmarjlavuknlf"' Berhn MoutondeG"'J''Mlo\~l·Bo\!OA!
(6)
HOJ!sberger, Murray. Carol Hamberger & !an Tupper (eds) 2001! K""mlar> Phoi!O/"i:)" andGrammarEnrntoa!,. Ulwump;a, Slt·I'NG A< Publtomn
,..
Lo"~""t'
·s.G,..,-.nhage Manmu• N>·
SL"nt Bo~o·,Ht.AI>·T~>U>•·ALR·I'ANfAR(Jl) de \"roe'- touren .. 2004. A Sit<WI Grammar of '''"'"'"''m' Canberra· Aumaloan No· tiona!Umver.it}" TRAI·BULAKARIH•(J8) 5hun.)ae·Wook.2001! "ConJunmomonWop>"M• bttpllww..·.,Jorg/pahclpngl abIIJbolf.
31~
MdaluyondS..hordmalor>
CapWbSTUN(267) Cu.rULANI>>U
Pau.Elisabeth.l\1\ll."Djobugoy':lnD>xon.RabertM.W.&IIarryJ.BW<e(ed•.) Thf Ha11l I. 27-180. Am..,erdom: Johnll)
Eades. Diana 1979. "Gumbaynggir"- In Duon, Raben M. W. & Barry[. Blake (eds.) Ha11dh<X>k ~( Auok oJAumalian Ltuoguows. Volll 197-274_ Amm.-dam: John Btn)>mlns. O.nch, Al;m Chorlts. 1~1. '"i'anyjimO.In DIXOII,RobenM W&Barry). Bl.tko (ed>.) 11oelkmdbok of A11srralia" Long""~~"'- Vol IV: 124-243. Ox!O.-d: 0.: fordUnovor>it)'Pr<ss. Eumsoat.<Wpl.lao"''"'
Ln11gr~ng
Delmar, Ntw Yorio Caravan Book>
:--JOOTHCAUCM!AN(H):
H<Wltr.,ll. Georg
Bloomlield. l ofN~tr:w ..!rntrl11 \'ok!ng Fund !'ublt catoonlll Amen)" lnB=.Fronz(od.)lhuttlboolufAmmrttllirlrllnriLnllgu"Jr'"~Voll.875-965.Londott·
Routled8< L1pktnd. waborn. 1945 lVmrl. Fronz(«l.) flallrll•ookufAmmralllllrllal> lttnglln)1«,Yol.l.423-557.london:Routlod~.
Gorvin.PouiL. 1948. "Ku!<Tiallll:rnorphornodJ>!nbutiono(Prefu:.Th.. A A. 1~33-38. T.B. 1~71. "d.tl:un: A Pm,<W~ lnSowyttyofGtltformaPress. CtrtNl)OKAN(>) Bo"-'don:Roudedge Tst>t;trtAN(JJ Boos, Fr.nz. 19\17 (1911). "Tsintshtan': In llo ... Fnru. (ed.) Harulbook of Ammdon:Rou~edge.
OkeGONPhNUttAN()) Frarh.,bug,l.oo). 1922o."Stuslowan(l.omrrUmpquo)".lnBoo•(ed.)Harnlbookof A""""""lndrdiiLIIlg". In Ma)~S. !.brvm K. («i.)LntJgungRN
(7):
Derbyolnr~. O..<mondC. !979. Hoxkar}"l'>l4. AmS) HoJf. Borend ). 1968. 1lor Carob IA•tglNi)holf. Koehn. Edward. H. & Sally S. Koehn. 1986. "Apalaf: In D<Jby.hir~. O..mond c. & Grol
~".:~n~~.::,~~-1. IUIIIdbk of A•...,uo:ommr lm~guag<s. Vol I\-'. 487·617_ Berlin: Mouton d~ Gru
,.,
Gn:gon:•. En1ma & Iorge A. SU
Gro!h.C.Im>ta_l98S "SynliiXofthtphrosetype•mC.namari'lnFm1uneDoVldLee(ed.). /'o>Tio \'dl•o WOTtf'I(•J
llorgman. Donald M 1'190. 'Sonoma· In Derb)"hlf< D C & Gn«pnndplc and morpho•)"III>KI>eexplonottoJL In Ltngu"ll< I"'JUI')"
Baker. Marl< C. 1988 Morphology and •yntox. An >nterlodung mdeyendence In Morpho/"t}' and Modulamy. Mmm Eveotrt. Arnold Evermod"' und Hlokutton In S4/Z Ultd f{/o~1/IIDII, Vol I. Inger Ro«ngren (cd). 1-90 Tublngen MoxNteme)-e< Brandtler.!ohon Forthcommg.Phddttrtatton.LundL'mver.,ty Brendemoen, Bernt & Hm-dhougen. E'-en. 19\12. Tyrkl.ltiJ'ondSubordtnotor.
Cowan. Hendrtk Korol b.n. 11165. A GrriiJintar of rlt Smtani LaNg11ap-. S- "C.ravenlt"'l"' .'.lorhnus Ntjholf. Co•. ':;'.~'~.957. CandMht ...-rb inaffiion. /mmralk>rud /oNrrral of Ammmrt l.mgrmlrlzy ami UIIWtNrrls. Clfnbridge- CUP_ Crok,\\"lllt.U11.l000.Pon•of•p«U< Lm>gPcal Stud«> m Language lZ), Joan L Byl>« & Suzanne A> on Gernun Modals. In M...WII)' m Gmmmnr n~d p;,,·oar~ [T)l'ologi. Grorge B. Hewitt (ed.). J7-8H_ Delm:u- NYc Caravan Book.. Hnad. T.f. 1986. Thr Co11mt OJ;fonl DIC/Ionnry ~f £11~/ult Elymolo~r- Odord' Claundon p,,. Hockett, Charles F. 1\148. Potawalnml l·lll. /memnllonal/oomml ~( An1mcan LllIIC> U· 1-10.63-7l.l39-149.213-llS Hockett,Ch..-klmi!OII Languagrs, Robert M. W Dixon (ed.), 698 • 7U4_ Canberra· Austrahon huhtute of Abong<no.!Studlts. HOl HoiJ••· Harry 193l-193S Tonk.awa.ln Hm!dbook SLAl6:7J·9!1 lrwm. B..-ry 1974 .'Nill· 1'11rGmllll""'· Conborra. The AuM< 11111 .... llliJrgtrjTn.Lou&C=tn•ry •tnd1es m th< Mont longuag< BgdrngaN l11d1an La11g11g
ModahtyandSubordtn.ato"
Mur.tne, F.liubeth. ! 974. Dotga G"'mmar. Nomtan OK. Summer !ulStitute of Ltngui>Uc> Mu>tallo)a, Tauno F. 1960. A Middlr Eng/tsh !lyntax. Pan 1: Paru of Sp, H.rm011n & Wornu. &no.! Ail.-..:1 200&_ A11. M•m- In Lmtg""S-J9S.London:MoutondeGru)1er. P«Ks 111 .'i<muimavrm• Sy>IIngl't.p"''"·'inPre" Roomk\·1 dd Mar. Kreger Stairs. Glenn AU..rt & Emtly F. Sdurfe de Slom (comps.).283-38i. MOxico Df, [n. t"lf Teleman. Stallan Hellberg
& Enk Andersson
Sw11
