Cagliari, Italy  15-18 September 2003

ALT V Conference

 

 

Nina Dobrushina

Zooming into modality's semantic map: focus on volitionals.
 daniel@qub.com.
 

Several attempts have been made to classify modal categories (Chung & Timberlake 1985; Palmer 1986; Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994; Plungian 2000), to suggest most typical grammaticalization paths (Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994) and to ultimately build modality’s semantic map (van der Auwera & Plungian 1998).

However, there is a visible gap between the elaborated classification of modal meanings and the grammaticalization paths suggested for them. The problem is, the grammaticalization models operate with global categorial domains rather than with categories actually observed and used when describing particular languages.

For instance, on one hand, there is the observation that epistemic possibility normally develops from participant-external possibility (van der Auwera & Plungian 1998: 111; Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994: 240). On the other, a combination of Permissive, 3rd  person Imperative, Probabilitive, Factitive Optative, and Apprehensive in the same grammatical form is observed in Buriat. Permissive is a subtype of participant-external possibility, and Probabilitive is a  representation of epistemic possibility, so the combination of the two fits very well into the development model. However, it is much less evident what is the location of Apprehensive, 3rd person Imperative and Factitive Optative, what is probably their chronological order of appearance, and even which domains they belong to. One could say, grammaticalization paths suggested so far lead from domain to another domain much more than from a category to another category.

The state of affairs in modern descriptive linguistics is not good enough to suggest that some combinations of grammatical categories do not happen; we can not even reasonably argue that a given combination is unlikely - there are too few data for negative statements. In this paper, I will suggest a number of combinations of several categories within a relatively compact categorial domain in one formal means that do happen, isolate some that seem to be likely and suggest tentative grammaticalization paths.

The grammatical categories to be considered include 3rd person Imperative (Exhortative – van der Auwera, Dobrushina, Goussev to appear), 1st person plural imperative (Cohortative, ibidem), Permissive (the speaker permits P to happen), Noncurative (the speaker does not interfere with P), Probabilitive (the speaker estimates P as probable), Optative (the speaker wishes that P happens), Factitive Optative (the speaker expresses the blessing or cursing that is intended to cause P to happen), Apprehensive (the speaker expresses his fear that P might happen).

An example of a typical ‘complex category’ is the following combination - the 3rd person Imperative + Permissive + Noncurative + Factitive Optative; observed in Russian (see example (1)), Bagvalal (Daghestanian), Balkar (Turkic), etc. The same form with a marker of negation may in some languages express Apprehensive; e.g. the Khakas (Turkic) marker ‑syn / ‑zyn – ex. (2)). Another example is a combination of Permissive + Noncurative + Probabilitive (the Khakas marker –gaj – ex. (3)). Khakas –gaj does not express neither 3rd person Imperative nor Factitive Optative. Other languages, however, combine the 3rd person Imperative meaning with Probabilitive (e.g. some Indo-Aryan). For instance, Hindi “Subjunctive” is used for the 3rd person imperative + 1st plural Imperative + Factitive Optative + Probabilitive + Apprehensive.  

While investigating these ‘complex categories’, some non-trivial observations can be made regarding paths of grammaticalization of various modal categories. E.g. Khakas seems to have developed Apprehensive out of a combination of Factitive Optative and negative marker. On the other hand, Lavukaleve Apprehensive does not contain negation and is identical to Factitive Optative (Terrill, unpublished ms). The probable explanation is provided by the fact that the same form also expresses Probabilitive, so that Apprehensive may have developed from Probabilitive rather than from Factitive Optative (cf. English be careful, this dog might bite you).

 

References

Bybee, Joan & Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. University of Chicago Press.

Chung, Sandra & Alan Timberlake 1985. Tense, aspect and mood. In Timothy Shopen (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Volume 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon. CUP.

Palmer, Frank 1986. Mood and modality. CUP.

Terrill, Angela. A grammar of Lavukaleve: a Papuan language of the Solomon Islands. Unpublished ms.

van der Auwera, Johan & Vladimir Plungian 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic typology, Volume 2-1. Mouton de Gruyter.

van der Auwera, Johan, Nina Dobrushina & Valentin Goussev. To appear. “A semantic map for imperative-hortatives”. In: Willems, D.; Colleman, T.; Defrancq, B. & D. Noel (eds.) Points of Comparison in Linguistics: From Morphology to Discourse.


 

Russian (personal knowledge):

(1)(a) 3rd person Imperative

Pust’             on        prixod-it            v          shest’

PART           he        come-3SG        in         six

Let him come at six’

(b) Permissive

-        Mozhno            je-mu               voj-ti?

         is.allowed         he-DAT.SG      enter-INF

May he enter?

-        Pust’    vxod-it.

         PART  enter-3SG

Let him enter.

(c) Noncurative

- Vasja          lez-et                na        krysh-u.

Vasja                        climb-3SG        onto      roof-ACC.SG

Vasja climbs up the roof.

- Pust’           lez-et.

PART           climb-3SG

Let him climb (I don’t care).

(d) Factitive Optative

Pust’             sbudut-s’a                    vse       tvo-i                 zhelanij-a!

PART           come.true-REFL          all         your-PL           wish-NOM.PL

May all your wishes come true!

 

Khakas, Turkic (personal fieldnotes):

(2) Apprehensive

nik     aGYr-Sa,                     Ol        par-ba-zYn

cow   ill-PRS             die        go-NEG-IMP.3

The cow is ill, I’m afraid it may die.

(3) Permissive

(a)     -pYr     Sil        pa:zinaN           maSina             al-i-m                           me?

         one       year     through             car                   take-PROP-1SG           QU

May I buy a car in one year from now?

- al-Gaj-zYN

take-PERM-2SG

OK, buy it.

(b) Noncurative        

- iZe-m,         Ugre    xajnEp-Se

mother-1SG   soup     boil-PRS

Mummy, the soup is boiling!

- Xajn-aj.

boil-PERM

Let it boil (=I don’t care).

(c) Probabilitive

tasxar            sox       pol-zE,              olaGas  top       par-Gaj

outside          cold      be-COND        boy       freeze   go-PERM

If it’s cold outside, the boy may freeze.