The syntax of modal polyfunctionality revisited

Abstract

This paper deals with the semantics and the syntax of modal constructions from a cross-linguistic perspective. It focuses on the syntactic representation of modal polyfunctionality, usually understood as the semantic alternation between root and epistemic readings. This ambiguity is not an idiosyncratic feature of the Germanic languages, as it is also found in other non-related language families. In this contribution, the empirical base is broadened by discussing the data taken from Hansen and de Haan (2009), which covers all major languages spoken in Europe. I discuss the notion of modal polyfunctionality and give a first account of cross-linguistic morpho-syntactic variation among modal constructions in the languages of Europe. The hypothesis is forwarded that there is cross-linguistic evidence for the syntactic relevance of the distinction between epistemic-root polyfunctionality (EPI-ROOT) and alternations within root modality (ROOT). The relative semantic uniformity of modals contrasts with their structural diversity. It will be shown that modals in the languages of Europe vary with respect to two features: (i) the encoding of the subject and (ii) inflectional categories. It is shown that modal constructions are not restricted to canonical subjects, encoded in the default (nominative) case, but also allow for cases other than nominative, or null subjects. Thus, canonical subject constructions appear to be best suited to fully-fledged EPI-ROOT polyfunctionality, whereas quirky or null subjects tend to be restricted to alternations within the semantic domain ROOT. Categories such as the latter need not be marked on the modal itself, but can be assigned to a lexical verb or the copula – a fact which provides evidence for the claim that polyfunctionality is not restricted to ‘modal verbal status’. In the second part of the paper, the following question will be addressed: Which syntactic features are cross-linguistically connected to polyfunctionality? These chapters focus on (a) the distinction between verbs and auxiliaries in modal constructions, (b) raising vs. control status on the modal, and, (c) the coherence of modal verbal complexes. The subsequent analysis presents clear evidence for the tendency towards a loss of inflectional categories, but, on the other hand, does not lend itself to corroboration of the claim that modals form a syntactic category sui generis (cf. Reis 2001). The conclusion is drawn that the distinction raising vs. control is best suited to explain the syntactic prerequisites of polyfunctionality. It will be argued that modals with canonical subjects displaying full EPI-ROOT involve a raising structure, whereas modals with non-canonically case marked subjects displaying only ROOT alternations form control constructions (cf. Abraham 1989, 2001, 2002 on modals in Germanic).

Who needs it? Variation in experiencer marking in Estonian ‘need’-constructions

“…without overt person marking) has received insufficient attention in the literature, and may affect the way we think of the binary distinction between arguments and adjuncts. Björn Hansen notes that omission of non-canonical modal subject arguments is common in East Slavonic, Baltic and Balto-Finnic languages (Hansen 2014 for Finnic languages; see also Kehayov & Torn-Leesik 2009), and, as we demonstrate, Estonian is no exception. However, the conditions, functions and consequences of this argument omission have not been elucidated.…”

“…Connections between dative case and allative case have been noted elsewhere as well (Blansitt 1988; Næss 2007; Creissels 2009: 621). Among European languages, non-canonical subjects are used in modal constructions primarily in East Slavonic and Baltic languages (Hansen 2014), but this pattern is also widespread in Balto-Finnic languages, including Estonian (Kehayov & Torn-Leesik 2009). Hence, this may be an areal phenomenon.…”

“…Typologically, null reference is rare in the oblique position (Siewierska 2003); however, it is frequently attested in Estonian experiencer constructions. Omission of the modal argument is also possible in some other languages that make use of non-canonical marking of modal experiencer subjects, such as Baltic (Holvoet 2007) and Slavic languages (Hansen 2014), but what motivates experiencer omission is not clear.…”

The MIHI EST construction

“…These structures express permission, necessity, possibility, but also internal disposition and predestination. They occur mostly with a dative argument, and, based on recent studies, they seem to be frequent in most languages in this area, and especially in Slavic languages, although this cannot be said with respect to all the varieties of this type of structure (Hansen 2014;Kor Chahine/Guiraud-Weber 2020, 9).…”

“…Structures that convey a modal value of necessity, or possibility, which implies permission and ability (Hansen 2014), as mentioned above, occur in Slavic and the languages in South-East Europe with a limited number of modal predicates meaning 'necessary', 'possible/allowed' and 'may/must/might/can (not)', reported to be progressively replaced by personal constructions in most Slavic languages (cf. Kor Chahine/Guiraud-Weber 2020, 9).…”