CAS LX 502

1. CAS LX 502 5a. Modality 5.3-

2. Propositional attitudes • There are various ways that we can embed a proposition into our utterances and express a mental attitude toward that proposition. • I know that Pat ate the sandwich. • I suspect that Pat ate the sandwich. • I think that Pat at the sandwich. • I doubt that Pat at the sandwich. • These examples show varying degrees of commitment in the truth of the proposition.

3. Modal auxiliaries • There is a class of words, modal auxiliaries, that have the same kind of effect. • Pat might have eaten the sandwich. • Pat must have eaten the sandwich. • Pat could have eaten the sandwich. • How can we paraphrase Pat might have eaten the sandwich?

4. Pat might have eaten the sandwich • We know how to characterize Pat has eaten the sandwich in terms of possible worlds. • By asserting that, we assert that the actual world is one of the ones on the left here. • How does Pat might have eaten the sandwichdiffer? Pat has eatenthe sandwich Pat has not eatenthe sandwich

5. Epistemic modals • When is Pat might have eaten the sandwich true? • When is Pat must have eaten the sandwichtrue? Pat haseaten t.s. Pat hasn’teaten t.s. What I believeis true. What I believeis true. What I believeis false. What I believeis false. Pat haseaten t.s. Pat hasn’teaten t.s.

6. Epistemic modals • When is Pat might have eaten the sandwich true? • When is Pat must have eaten the sandwichtrue? Pat haseaten t.s. What I believeis true. What I believeis false. Pat hasn’teaten t.s. What I believeis false. Pat haseaten t.s.

7. The modal base • Epistemic modals restrict the assertion to just the possible worlds in which what I know/believe is true. • This set of worlds is called the modal base. • Pat might have eaten the sandwich.There’s a world in the modal base in which Pat has eaten the sandwich. • Put must have eaten the sandwich.Every world in the modal base is one in which Pat has eaten the sandwich.

8. Other modal bases • You must stay attentive. • You should clean your office. • You may leave. • How can we paraphrase these? Same sort of thing, but a different modal base (in the likely interpretation).

9. Other modal bases • Pat can leave. • Pat can write software. • Pat can juggle. • Yet a different modal base. • Notice that these are somewhat ambiguous, although different modals have different preferences for the modal base they use.

10. Modal bases • EpistemicWorlds in which what I know/believe is true. • DeonticWorlds in which a certain standard of propriety is met. • RootWorlds that are consistent with the facts.

11. Subjective/objectivedeontic modals • The deontic modal base can be interpreted in a number of different ways. • I should work faster. • Objective: according to the rules • Subjective: according to my own standards • You may leave. • Objective: according to the rules/law • Subjective: according to me (permission)

12. May vs. might, Can vs. could • Different modals can communicate different forms of likelihood, and have tendencies toward different modal bases. • Pat may come. • Pat might come. • Pat can bend a spoon. • Pat could bend a spoon. • Pat must fix the spoon. • Pat should fix the spoon.

13. Can vs. could • Certain pairs of modal look as if they’re tense variants: can/could, may/might, will/would, shall/should. • Pat can’t move his arm. • Pat couldn’t move his arm. • Tracy can’t stay out past midnight. • Tracy couldn’t stay out past midnight. • John’s wife can’t be very rich. • John’s wife couldn’t be very rich. • The “future tense marker” willcan also be considered to be a modal (rather than tense proper).

14. Connection with conditionals • If there is a blizzard, classes are canceled. • Restricting attention to worlds in which there is a blizzard, all of those worlds are also worlds in which classes are canceled. • Classes can/may be canceled. • Restricting attention to the modal base, there is at least one world in which classes are canceled.

15. Marking modality • In general, marking modality means raising a hypothetical situation and commenting on it. • We can do this with adverbs as well: • Probably, John ate the sandwich. • John might have eaten the sandwich. • Certainly, John ate the sandwich. • John definitely ate the sandwich.

16. Wanting and hoping • The verbs want, hope, etc. are also interpreted in a way similar to modals. • I want to buy a pony. • Restricting attention to worlds that are those in which my desires are satisfied, I buy a pony is true in those worlds.

17. Accessible worlds • I want to teach Tuesdays and Thursdays next semester. • In those worlds in which my desires are satisfied, I teach on Tuesdays and Thursdays? • There seems to be a secondary relativization on worlds that are “accessible” from the actual world.

18. Mood • Verb forms that mark the realis/irrealis distinction are generally said to show distinctions in mood. • Saeed’s examples from Ngiyambaa: • yuruN-gu Nidja-Ra.Rain-erg rain-pres‘It is raining.’ (realis) • yuruN-gu Nidja-I-aga.Rain-erg rain-CM-irrealis‘It might/will rain.’ (irrealis) • The subjunctive/indicative distinction in Romance languages often reflects realis/irrealis.

19. Evidentiality • Another class of mood markers are the evidentials, expressing the source of the information. • Basic categories of evidentials (Willett 1988, 132 languages): • Personal experience • Direct (sensory) evidence • Indirect evidence • Reported evidence (hearsay)

20. (Non-evidentials) • We could imagine a lot of possible sources of information, but only a small set ever seem to appear as grammatical morphemes. So, none of these: • Experience reported by a loved one • Divine revelation • Legal edict • Parental advice • Heartfealt intuition (gut feeling) • Learned through trial and error • Teachings of prominent elder/authority

21. Evidential examples • Wiki-caxa-w “It’s bad weather (directly exp.)’ • Wiki-caxa-k’u “It was bad weather” • Wiki-caxa-k-pid “It looks like bad weather (inference from physical evidence)” • Wiki-caxa-k-qad’i “It sounds like bad weather” • Wiki-caxa-k-wa.d “I’m told there’s bad weather” • Wiki-caxa-k-it-wad “I’m told it was bad weather” • Makah

22. Evidentiality hierarchy • It seems that in languages that encode evidentiality, they come in a hierarchy: • Personal experience >>direct (sensory) evidence >>indirect evidence >>hearsay • Speaker use (highest applicable) • Typologically unmarked (e..g., personal experience vs. others) • Languages may combine adjacent categories (Makah: direct or personal, Jaqi: direct or indirect evidence)

23. De re vs. de dicto • When we talk about propositional attitude verbs (think, believe, doubt, say, …), there’s a detectible ambiguity: • Pat thinks that the brightest student is a spy. • De dicto belief: belief about description. • De re belief: belief about individual(s).

24. De re vs. de dicto • Mary believes that a movie star was caught shoplifting last week. • Mary claimed that an astronaut stole her homework. • John thinks that Mary claimed that an astronaut stole her homework. • De dicto for claim, de dicto for think. • De re for claim, de dicto for think. • De re for claim, de re for think.

25.          

26. References (evidentiality) • Speas, Peggy (to appear). Evidentiallity, logophoricity and the syntacctic representation of pragmatic features. To appear in Lingua. • Willett, Thomas (1988). A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentialty. Studies in Language 12:51-97.