Abstract
This paper develops an account of mood selection with attitude predicates in French. I start by examining the “contextual commitment” account of mood developed by Portner and Rubinstein (in: Chereches (ed) Proceedings of SALT 22, CLC Publications, Ithaca, NY, pp 461–487, 2012). A key innovation of Portner and Rubinstein’s (P&R’s) account is to treat mood selection as fundamentally depending on a relation between individuals’ attitudes and the predicate’s modal backgrounds. I raise challenges for P&R’s qualitative analysis of contextual commitment and explanations of mood selection. There are indicative-selecting predicates that are felicitous in contexts where there isn’t contextual commitment (in P&R’s sense); and there are subjunctive-selecting predicates that involve no less contextual commitment (in P&R’s sense) than certain indicative-selecting verbs. I develop an alternative account of verbal mood. The general approach, which I call a state-of-mind approach, is to analyze mood in terms of whether the formal relation between the predicate’s modal backgrounds and an overall state of mind represents a relation of commitment. Indicative mood in French presupposes that the informational-evaluative state determined by the predicate’s modal backgrounds is included in the informational-evaluative state characterizing the event described by the predicate. The account provides an improved explanation of core mood-selection puzzles, including subjunctive-selection with emotive factives, indicative-selection with fiction verbs, indicative-selection with espérer ‘hope’ versus subjunctive-selection with vouloir ‘want’, and indicative-selection with commissives versus subjunctive-selection with directives. Subjunctive-selection with modal adjectives is briefly considered. The mood-selection properties of the predicates are derived from the proposed analysis of mood, independently attested features of the predicates’ semantics, and general principles of interpretation.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Alston, W.P. 1988. The deontological conception of epistemic justification. Philosophical Perspectives 2: 257–299.
Anand, P., and V. Hacquard. 2013. Epistemics and attitudes. Semantics and Pragmatics 6: 1–59.
Anand, P., and V. Hacquard. 2014. Factivity, belief and discourse. In The art and craft of semantics: A festschrift for Irene Heim, vol. 1, ed. L. Crnič and U. Sauerland, 69–90. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Bennett, J. 1990. Why is belief involuntary? Analysis 50: 87–107.
Bittner, M. 2011. Time and modality without tenses or modals. In Tense across languages, ed. M. Rathert and R. Musan, 147–188. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Błaszczak, J., A. Giannakidou, D. Klimek-Jankowska, and K. Migdalski (eds.). 2016. Mood, aspect, modality revisited: New answers to old questions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Bolinger, D. 1968. Post-posed main phrases: An English rule for the Romance subjunctive. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 14: 3–30.
Charlow, N. 2011. Practical language: Its meaning and use. PhD thesis, University of Michigan.
Clark, H.H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Condoravdi, C. 2002. Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past. In The construction of meaning, ed. D.I. Beaver, L.D.C. Martínez, B.Z. Clark, and S. Kaufmann, 59–88. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Farkas, D. 1992. On the semantics of subjunctive complements. In Romance languages and modern linguistic theory, ed. P. Hirschbühler and E. Koerner, 69–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Farkas, D. 2003. Assertion, belief and mood choice. Paper presented at ESSLI, Conditional and unconditional modality workshop, September 2003, Vienna.
Farkas, D.F., and K.B. Bruce. 2010. On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 27: 81–118.
von Fintel, K. 1999. NPI licensing, Strawson entailment, and context dependency. Journal of Semantics 16: 97–148.
von Fintel, K., and A.S. Gillies. 2010. Must... stay... strong!. Natural Language Semantics 18: 351–383.
Frank, A. 1996. Context dependence in modal constructions. PhD thesis, University of Stuttgart.
Giannakidou, A. 1994. The semantic licensing of NPIs and the modern Greek subjunctive. Language and cognition 4: Yearbook of the research group for theoretical and experimental linguistics, 55–68. Groningen: University of Groningen.
Giannakidou, A. 1995. Subjunctive, habituality, and negative polarity items. In Proceedings of SALT 5, ed. M. Simons and T. Galloway, 94–111. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Giannakidou, A. 1997. The landscape of polarity items. PhD thesis, University of Groningen.
Giannakidou, A. 1999. Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 367–421.
Giannakidou, A. 2016. Evaluative subjunctive and nonveridicality. In Błaszczak et al. (2016), 177–217.
Giannakidou, A., and A. Mari. 2016. Epistemic future and epistemic MUST: Nonveridicality, evidence, and partial knowledge. In Błaszczak et al. (2016) 75–117.
Gibbard, A. 1990. Wise choices, apt feelings: A theory of normative judgment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Gibbard, A. 2005. Truth and correct belief. Philosophical Issues 15: 338–350.
Ginzburg, J. 2012. The interactive stance: Meaning for conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giorgi, A., and F. Pianesi. 1997. Tense and aspect: From semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goble, L. 2013. Prima facie norms, normative conflicts, and dilemmas. In Handbook of deontic logic and normative systems, vol. 1, ed. D. Gabbay, J. Horty, X. Parent, R. van der Mayden, and L. van der Torre, 241–352. London: College Publications.
Gowans, C.W. (ed.). 1987. Moral dilemmas. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Grant, C. 1949. Promises. Mind 58: 359–366.
Gunlogson, C. 2001. True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. PhD thesis, UC Santa Cruz.
Gunlogson, C. 2008. A question of commitment. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 22: 101–136.
Hacquard, V. 2006. Aspects of modality. PhD thesis, MIT.
Hacquard, V. 2009. On the interaction of aspect and modal auxiliaries. Linguistics and Philosophy 32 (3): 279–315.
Hacquard, V. 2010. On the event relativity of modal auxiliaries. Natural Language Semantics 18 (1): 79–114.
Harnish, R.M. 1990. Speech acts and intentionality. In Speech acts, meaning, and intentions: Critical approaches to the philosophy of John R. Searle, ed. A. Burkhardt, 169–193. New York, NY: de Gruyter.
Heim, I. 1991. Articles and definiteness. In Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich, 487–535. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Heim, I. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9: 183–221.
Iatridou, S. 2000. The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31 (2): 231–270.
Kratzer, A. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Words, worlds, and contexts: New approaches in word semantics, ed. H.J. Eikmeyer, and H. Rieser, 38–74. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Kratzer, A. 1991. Modality/Conditionals. In Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. A. von Stechow, and D. Wunderlich, 639–656. New York, NY: de Gruyter.
Kratzer, A. 2012. Modals and conditionals: New and revised perspectives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lassiter, D. 2011. Measurement and modality: The scalar basis of modal semantics. PhD thesis, New York University.
Lassiter, D. 2015. Epistemic comparison, models of uncertainty, and the disjunction puzzle. Journal of Semantics 32: 649–684.
Lauer, S. 2013. Towards a dynamic pragmatics. PhD thesis, Stanford University.
Lewis, D. 1979. A problem about permission. In Essays in honour of Jaakko Hintikka, ed. E. Saarinen, R. Hilpinen, I. Niiniluoto, and M. Hintikka, 163–175. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Lochbaum, K.E. 1998. A collaborative planning model of intentional structure. Computational Linguistics 24 (4): 525–572.
MacFarlane, J. 2014. Assessment sensitivity: Relative truth and its applications. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Makinson, D. 1993. Five faces of minimality. Studia Logica 52 (3): 339–379.
Malamud, S.A., and T. Stephenson. 2015. Three ways to avoid commitments: Declarative force modifiers in the conversational scoreboard. Journal of Semantics 32: 275–311.
Marques, R. 2009. On the selection of mood in complement clauses. In Crosslinguistic semantics of tense, aspect, and modality, ed. L. Hogeweg, H. de Hoop, and A. Malchukov, 179–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ninan, D. 2005. Two puzzles about deontic necessity. In New work on modality, ed. J. Gajewski, V. Hacquard, B. Nickel, and S. Yalcin, 149–178. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Noonan, M. 1985. Complementation. In Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 2, Complex constructions, ed. T. Shopen, 52–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F. 1977. Modals and actuality. Journal of Linguistics 13: 1–23.
Palmer, F. 1986. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Piller, C. 2006. Content-related and attitude-related reasons for preferences. In Preferences and well-being, ed. S. Olsaretti, 155–182. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Plantinga, A. 1993. Warrant: The current debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Portner, P. 1997. The semantics of mood, complementation, and conversational force. Natural Language Semantics 5: 167–212.
Portner, P. 2004. The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. In The Proceedings of SALT 14, ed. K. Watanabe and R. Young, 235–252. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Portner, P. 2007. Imperatives and modals. Natural Language Semantics 15 (4): 351–383.
Portner, P. 2009. Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Portner, P., and A. Rubinstein. 2012. Mood and contextual commitment. In Proceedings of SALT 22, ed. A. Chereches, 461–487. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Portner, P., and A. Rubinstein. 2016. Extreme and non-extreme deontic modals. In Deontic modals, ed. N. Charlow and M. Chrisman, 256–282. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Quer, J. 2001. Interpreting mood. Probus 13: 81–111.
Roberts, C. 1996. Information structure: Towards an integrated theory of formal pragmatics. In OSU Working papers in linguistics, Vol. 49: Papers in semantics, ed. J.H. Yoon and A. Kathol. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
Rubinstein, A. 2012. Roots of modality. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Rubinstein, A. 2014. On necessity and comparison. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 95: 512–554.
Schlenker, P. 2005. The lazy Frenchman’s approach to the subjunctive (Speculations on reference to worlds and semantic defaults in the analysis of mood). In Romance languages and linguistic theory 2003, ed. T. Geerts, I. van Ginneken, and H. Jacobs, 269–309. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Siegel, L. 2009. Mood selection in Romance and Balkan. Lingua 119: 1859–1882.
Silk, A. 2012. Modality, weights, and inconsistent premise sets. In Proceedings of SALT 22, ed. A. Chereches, 43–64. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Silk, A. 2016. Discourse contextualism: A framework for contextualist semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Silk, A. 2017. Modality, weights, and inconsistent premise sets. Journal of Semantics 34 (4): 683–707.
Silk, A. 2018. Weak and strong necessity modals. In Meaning, decision, and norms: Themes from the work of Allan Gibbard, eds. D. Plunkett and B. Dunaway. Ann Arbor: Michigan Publishing. http://goo.gl/xY9roN
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. 1988. Moral dilemmas. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Smirnova, A. 2011. Evidentiality and mood: Grammatical expressions of epistemic modality in Bulgarian. PhD thesis, The Ohio State University.
Stalnaker, R. 1978. Assertion. Context and content: Essays on intentionality in speech and thought, 78–95. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stalnaker, R. 1984. Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stalnaker, R. 2014. Context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Starr, W. 2010. Conditionals, meaning, and mood. PhD thesis, Rutgers University.
Stephenson, T. 2007. Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 487–525.
Swanson, E. 2011. On the treatment of incomparability in ordering semantics and premise semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 40: 693–713.
Swanson, E. 2016. The application of constraint semantics to the language of subjective uncertainty. Journal of Philosophical Logic 45: 121–146.
Villalta, E. 2000. Spanish subjunctive clauses require ordered alternatives. In Semantics and Linguistic theory (SALT) 10, ed. B. Jackson and T. Matthews, 239–256. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Villalta, E. 2008. Mood and gradability: An investigation of the subjunctive mood in Spanish. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (4): 467–522.
Werner, T. 2003. Deducing the future and distinguishing the past: Temporal interpretation in modal sentences in English. PhD thesis, Rutgers University.
Williamson, T. 2000. Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yalcin, S. 2007. Epistemic modals. Mind 116: 983–1026.
Zanuttini, R., M. Pak, and P. Portner. 2012. A syntactic analysis of interpretive restrictions on imperative, promissive, and exhortative subjects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30 (4): 1231–1274.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to three anonymous referees, the copy-editor, and the editors for comments. This research has benefited from the support of an AHRC Early Career Research Grant (AH/N001877/1).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Silk, A. Commitment and states of mind with mood and modality. Nat Lang Semantics 26, 125–166 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-018-9144-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-018-9144-4