Abstract
Epistemic modal verbs and adverbs of necessity are claimed to be positive polarity items. We study their behavior by examining modal spread, a phenomenon that appears redundant or even anomalous, since it involves two apparent modal operators being interpreted as a single modality. We propose an analysis in which the modal adverb is an argument of the MUST modal, providing a meta-evaluation \(\mathcal {O}\) which ranks the Ideal, stereotypical worlds in the modal base as better possibilities than the Non-Ideal worlds in it. MUST and possibility modals differ in that the latter have an empty \(\mathcal {O}\), a default that can be negotiated. Languages vary in the malleability of this parameter. Positive polarity is derived as a conflict between the ranking imposed by \(\mathcal {O}\)—which requires that the Ideal worlds be better possibilities than Non-Ideal worlds—and the effect of higher negation which renders the Ideal set non-homogenous. Applying the ordering over such a non-homogeneous set would express preference towards both p and \(\lnot p \) worlds thus rendering the sentence uninformative. Negative polarity MUST and possibility modals, on the other hand, contain an empty \(\mathcal {O}\), application of higher negation therefore poses no problem. This account is the first to connect modal spread to positive polarity of necessity modals, and captures the properties of both in a unified analysis.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Anand, P., & Brasoveanu, A. (2010). Modal concord as modal modification. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 14, pp. 19–36).
Asher, N., & Morreau, M. (1995). What some generic sentences mean. In G. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book. Chicago: CUP.
Beaver, D., & Frazee, J. (2016). Semantics. In The handbook of computational linguistics. Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199573691.013.29.
Bertinetto, P. M. (1979). Alcune ipotesi sul nostro futuro (con alcune osservazioni su potere e dovere). Rivista di grammatica generativa, 4, 77–138.
Bonami, O., & Godard, G. (2008). Lexical semantics and pragmatics of evaluative adverbs. In L. McNally & C. Kennedy (Eds.), Adverbs and adjectives: Syntax, semantics and discourse (pp. 274–304). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Condoravdi, C. (2002). Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past. In D. Beaver, L. D. Cassillas Maritinez, B. Z. Clark, & S. Kaufmann (Eds.), The construction of meaning. Stanford: CSLI.
Cui, Y. (2015). Modals in the scope of attitudes: A corpus study of attitude-modal combinations in Mandarin Chinese. Ph.D. thesis, Georgetown University.
de Marneffe, M., Manning, C., & Potts, C. (2012). Did it happen? The pragmatic complexity of the veridicality judgement. Computational Linguistics, 38, 300–333.
Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrech: Kluwer.
Ernst, T. (2009). Speaker oriented adverbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 27, 497–544.
Farkas, D. F. (1985). Intensional descriptions and the romance subjunctive. New York: Garland.
Farkas, D. F. (1992). On the semantics of subjunctive complements. In P. Hirschbühler et al. (Eds.), Romance languages and modern linguistic theory (pp. 69–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Geurts, B., & Huitink, J. (2006). Modal concord. In P. Dekker & H. Zeijlstra (Eds.), Concord and the syntax–semantics interface (pp. 15–20). Malaga: ESSLLI.
Giannakidou, A. (1994). The semantic licensing of NPIs and the Modern Greek subjunctive. In A. de Boer, H. de Hoop, & H. de Swart (Eds.), Language and cognition. Yearbook of the Research Group for Theoretical and Experimental Linguistics (Vol. 4, pp. 55–68). Groningen: University of Groningen.
Giannakidou, A. (1997). The landscape of polarity items. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen, Amsterdam.
Giannakidou, A. (1998). Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Giannakidou, A. (1999). Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22, 367–421.
Giannakidou, A. (2009). The dependency of the subjunctive revisited: Temporal semantics and polarity. Lingua, 120, 1883–1908.
Giannakidou, A. (2011). Positive polarity items and negative polarity items: Variation, licensing, and compositionality. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (2nd ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Giannakidou, A. (2012). The Greek future as an epistemic modal. In Proceedings of ICGL 10.
Giannakidou, A. (2013). Inquisitive assertions and nonveridicality. In M. Aloni, M. Franke, & F. Roelofsen (Eds.), The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of \(\phi \), \(?\phi \) and possibly \(\phi \) , a feestschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof and Frank Veltman (pp. 115–126). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Giannakidou, A., & Mari, A. (2012a). Italian and Greek futures as epistemic operators. Proceedings of CLS, 48, 247–262.
Giannakidou, A., & Mari, A. (2012b). The future of Greek and Italian: An epistemic analysis. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 17, pp. 255–2700). http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/Dk3NGEwY/GiannakidouMari.pdf.
Giannakidou, A., & Mari, A. (2013). A two dimensional analysis of the future: Modal adverbs and speaker’s bias. Proceedings of the Amsterdam Colloquium, 2013, 115–122.
Giannakidou, A., & Mari, A. (2016a). Emotive predicates and the subjunctive: A flexible mood OT account based on (non)veridicality. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 20, pp. 288–305).
Giannakidou, A., & Mari, A. (2016b). Tense, mood, and modality: New perspectives on old questions. Epistemic future and epistemic MUST: Nonveridicality, evidence, and partial knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Giannakidou, A., & Mari, A. (2017). La dimension épistemique du futur: le rôle des adverbes. In L. Baranzini & L. de Saussure (Eds.), Le Futur dans les langues Romanes. Bern: Peter Lang AG.
Giannakidou, A., & Mari, A. (2018). A unified analysis of the future as epistemic modality: The view from Greek and Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic theory, 36, 85–129.
Giorgi, A., & Pianesi, F. (1997). Tense and aspect: Form semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grosz, P. (2010). Grading modality: A new approach to modal concord and its relatives. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 14, pp. 185–201). http://www.univie.ac.at/sub14/.
Grosz, P. (2012). On the grammar of optative constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hacquard, V. (2006). Aspects of modality. PhD thesis, MIT.
Hacquard, V. (2010). On the event relativity of modal auxiliaries. Natural Language Semantics, 18(1), 79–114.
Hacquard, V., & Wellwood, A. (2012). Embedding epistemic modals in English: A corpus-based study. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(4), 1–29.
Harris, J. A., & Potts, C. (2009). Perspective-shifting with appositives and expressives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 32(6), 523–552.
Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and belief. Cornell: Cornell University Press.
Homer, V. (2015). Neg-raising and positive polarity: The view from modals. Semantics & Pragmatics, 8, 1–88.
Horn, L. (2001). A natural history of negation. University of Chicago Press.
Huitink, J. (2012). Modal concord. A case study in Dutch. Journal of Semantics, 29(3), 403–437.
Huitink, J. (2014). Modal concord. In L. Matthewson, C. Meier, H. Rullman, & T. E. Zimmermann (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to semantics. Oxford: Wiley.
Iatridou, S., & Zeijlstra, H. (2013). Negation, polarity and deontic modals. Linguistic Inquiry, 44, 529–568.
Israel, M. (1996). Polarity sensitivity as lexical semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19(6), 619–666.
Karttunen, L. (1972). Possible and must. In J. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 1, pp. 1–20). New York: Academic Press.
Knobe, J., & Szabo, G. S. (2013). Modals with a taste of the deontic. Semantics and Pragmatics, 6, 1–42.
Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research (pp. 639–650). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Krifka, M. (2015). Bias in commitment space semantics: Declarative questions, negated questions, and question tags. In: Proceedings of SALT (Vol. 25, pp. 328–345).
Landman, F. (1992). The progressive. Natural language semantics, 1(1), 1–32.
Lasersohn, P. (2005). Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28, 643–686.
Lassiter, D. (2016). Must, knowledge, and (in)directness. Natural Language Semantics, 24, 117–163.
Lauer, S. (2013). Towards a dynamic pragmatics. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.
Liu, M. (2009). Speaker-oriented adverbs of the German-wise sort. In Proceedings of Sinn ind Bedeutung (pp. 333–346).
Liu, M. (2012). Multidimensional semantics for evaluative adverbs. Leiden: Brill.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mari, A. (2003). Principes d’identification et de catégorisation du sens: le cas de ‘avec’ ou l’association par les canaux. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Mari, A. (2005). Intensional and epistemic wholes. In E. Machery, M. Werning, & G. Schurz (Eds.), The compositionality of meaning and content. Vol I: Foundational issues. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.
Mari, A. (2009a). Disambiguating the Italian future. In Proceedings of generative lexicon (pp. 209–216).
Mari, A. (2009b). Future, judges and normalcy conditions. Selected talk at Chronos 10, Austin, Texas. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/ijn_00354462/.
Mari, A. (2014). Each other, asymmetry and reasonable futures. Journal of Semantics, 31(2), 209–261.
Mari, A. (2015a). Modalités et Temps. Bern: Peter Lang AG.
Mari, A. (2015b). French future: Exploring the future ratification hypothesis. Journal of French Language Studies. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269515000289.
Mari, A. (2015c). Overt and covert modality in generic sentences. Cahiers Chronos, 27, 265–288.
Mari, A. (2016). Assertability conditions of epistemic (and fictional) attitudes and mood variation. Proceedings of SALT, 26, 61–81.
Mari, A. (2017). Actuality entailments: When the modality is in the presupposition. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 191–210). Dordrecht: Springer.
Mari, A. (2018). Believing and asserting. Evidence from mood shift. Workshop InqBnB2, Amsterdam, December 18–20, 2018. http://jakubdotlacil.com/inqbnb2/alda.pdf.
Mari, A., Beyssade, C., & Del Prete, F. (2012). Introduction. In A. Mari, C. Beyssade, & F. Del Prete (Eds.), Genericity (pp. 1–92). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Matthewson, L., Rullmann, H., & Davis, H. (2007). Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St’at’imcets. The Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 7, 201–254.
Mayol, L., & Castroviejo, E. (2013). (Non)integrated evaluative adverbs in questions: A cross-Romance study. Language, 89(2), 195–230.
Moss, S. (2015). On the semantics and pragmatics of epistemic vocabulary. Semantics and Pragmatics, 8, 1–81.
Narrog, H. (2012). Modality, subjectivity, and semantic change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nilsen, Ø. (2004). Domains for adverbs. Lingua, 114(6), 809–847.
Portner, P. (1998). The progressive in modal semantics. Language, 74(4), 760–87.
Portner, P. (2009). Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Portner, P., & Rubinstein, A. (2016). Extreme and non-extreme deontic modals. In N. Charlow & M. Chrisman (Eds.), Deontic modality. Oxford: OUP.
Potts, C. (2007). The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics, 33(2), 165–197.
Progovac, L. (1994). Positive and negative polarity: A binding approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar: A handbook of generative syntax (pp. 281–337). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rubinstein, A. (2014). On necessity and comparison. Pacific Philosophical Quaterly, 95, 512–554.
Smirnova, A. (2013). Evidentiality in Bulgarian. Journal of Semantics, 30, 479–532.
Staraki, E. (2013). Greek modality. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation.
Stephenson, T. (2007). Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(4), 487–525.
Szabolcsi, A. (2004). Positive polarity—Negative polarity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22, 409–452.
van der Wouden, T. (1994). Negative contexts. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen.
von Fintel, K., & Gillies, A. (2010). Must...stay... strong !. Natural Language Semantics, 18, 351–383.
von Fintel, K., & Iatridou, S. (2008a). Time and modality. In J. Guéron & J. Lacarme (Eds.), How to say ought in foreign: The composition of weak necessity modals (pp. 115–141). Berlin: Springer.
von Fintel, K., & Iatridou, S. (2008b). How to say ought in foreign: The composition of weak necessity modals. In J. Guéron & J. Lacarme (Eds.), Time and modality (pp. 115–141). Dordrecht: Springer.
Willer, M. (2013). Dynamics of epistemic modality. Philosophical Review, 122, 45–92.
Willett, T. (1988). A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language, 12, 51–97.
Wolf, L. (2013). Degrees of assertion. Ph.D. dissertation, Ben Gurion University.
Yalcin, S. (2007). Epistemic modals. Mind, 116, 983–1026.
Zanuttini, R. (1992). Negation and clausal structure: A comparative study of romance languages. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
Zeijlstra, E. (2017). Universal quantifiers PPIs. Glossa, 2, 91.
Acknowledgements
No work is done in isolation, and we want to thank the many colleagues that became familiar with our work and offered us comments when we presented material related to this paper, as early as the ‘Futur dans les langues Romanes’ workshop held in Neuchâtel in 2012, the Amsterdam Colloquium in 2013, and the Linguistics and Philosophy seminar in Chicago in 2014. The specific shape of the material discussed in this paper owes a lot to the insights and advice we received from our editor Paul Portner, who went beyond the call of duty to encourage us to develop our arguments to their fullest. We are thankful for his help. Many thanks also to Jason Merchant and Hedde Zeijlstra for their suggestions on the more syntactic aspects of the paper, to Mingya Liu, Claire Beyssade and Lavi Wolf for their comments on epistemic commitment and to the anonymous reviewers of Linguistics and Philosophy for their careful reading of the paper, and for offering generously their suggestions and insights. Alda Mari gratefully thanks the ANR-10-LABX-0087 IEC and ANR- 10-IDEX-0001-02 PSL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Giannakidou, A., Mari, A. The semantic roots of positive polarity: epistemic modal verbs and adverbs in English, Greek and Italian. Linguist and Philos 41, 623–664 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-018-9235-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-018-9235-1