Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details

Linguistics

An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: van der Auwera, Johan

6 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR increased in 2015: 0.763
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.872
Rank 78 out of 179 in category Linguistics in the 2015 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Social Sciences Edition

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.496
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 1.099
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2015: 0.689

Online
ISSN
1613-396X
See all formats and pricing
Volume 53, Issue 6 (Nov 2015)

Issues

Modals, tense, and mood

Morgan Macleod
  • Corresponding author
  • 4, 1–3 Manor Avenue, Urmston, Manchester, M41 9GH, UK
  • Email:
Published Online: 2015-10-27 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0034

Abstract

A lack of consensus has existed regarding the interaction of English modals with categories such as tense, and individual modal forms can vary in the extent to which they make assertions regarding temporal reference. The present work attempts to provide a compositional semantic account of English modals by proposing that these forms may be inflected both for tense and for mood. The crosslinguistic status of inflectional moods such as the subjunctive is examined; it is argued that an inflectional subjunctive exists in Modern English with semantic properties similar to those of comparable forms in older Indo-European languages, and the extent to which linguistic cues would permit learners of English to acquire such a category is discussed. Data on English modals are reviewed in light of the analysis proposed here to determine its compatibility with observed usage. It is suggested that the analysis proposed here has certain advantages over models in which the observed semantic range of English modals is presented in terms of an unprincipled heterogeneity.

Keywords: English; modals; mood; subjunctive; tense

References

  • Aarts, Bas. 2012. The subjunctive conundrum in English. Folia Linguistica 46. 1–20.

  • Allen, Joseph Henry, James Bradstreet Greenough, George Lyman Kittredge, Albert Andrew Howard & Benjamin Leonard D’Ooge (eds.). 1903. Allen and Greenough’s new Latin grammar for schools and colleges, rev. edn. Boston: Ginn.

  • Baermann, Matthew & Greville G. Corbett. 2010. Defectiveness: Typology and diachrony. Proceedings of the British Academy 163. 1–18.

  • Boyé, Gilles & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr. 2010. Defectiveness as stem suppletion in French and Spanish verbs. Proceedings of the British Academy 163. 35–52.

  • Bybee, Joan L. 1995. The semantic development of past tense modals in English. In Joan Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse, 503–518. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

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

  • Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Cormack, Annabel & Neil Smith. 2002. Modals and negation in English. In Sjef Barbiers, Frits Beukema & Wim van der Wurff (eds.), Modality and its interaction with the verbal system, 133–164. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Fortson, Benjamin W.IV. 2004. Indo-European language and culture: An introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

  • Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2009. The dependency of the subjunctive revisited: Temporal semantics and polarity. Lingua 119. 1883–1908. [Web of Science]

  • Goodwin, William Watson. 1889. Syntax of the moods and tenses of the Greek verb, rev. edn. London: Macmillan.

  • Gotti, Maurizio. 2003. Shall and will in contemporary English: A comparison with past uses. In Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred G. Krug & Frank R. Palmer (eds.), Modality in Contemporary English, 267–300. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Homer, Vincent. 2011. Polarity and modality. Los Angeles, CA: University of California at Los Angeles dissertation.

  • Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. The verb. In Rodney Huddleston & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language, 71–212. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Iatridou, Sabine. 2000. The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 231–270.

  • Iatridou, Sabine & Hedde Zeijlstra. 2010. On the scopal interaction of negation and deontic modals. In Maria Aloni, Harold Bastiaanse, Tikitu de Jager & Katrin Schulz (eds.), Logic, language and meaning, 315–324. Berlin: Springer.

  • Iatridou, Sabine & Hedde Zeijlstra. 2013. Negation, polarity and deontic modals. Linguistic Inquiry 44. 529–568. [Web of Science]

  • Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Kratzer, Anjelika. 1977. What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1. 337–355.

  • Leech, Geoffrey. 2003. Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992. In Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred G. Krug & Frank R. Palmer (eds.), Modality in Contemporary English, 223–240. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Löfstedt, Leena. 2008. Le subjonctif imparfait de l’auxiliaire modal et l’infinitif du passé. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 109. 131–137.

  • Maiden, Martin & Paul O’Neill. 2010. On morphomic defectiveness: Evidence from the Romance languages of the Iberian Peninsula. Proceedings of the British Academy 163. 103–124.

  • Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax, 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A middle English syntax. Helsinki: Societé Néophilologique.

  • Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2010. The development of future time expressions in Late Modern English: Redistribution of forms or change in discourse? English Language and Linguistics 14. 163–186. [Web of Science]

  • Nordström, Jackie. 2010. Modality and subordinators. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Palmer, Frank R. 1986. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Palmer, Frank R. 1990. Modality and the English modals, 2nd edn. London: Longman.

  • Palmer, Frank R. 2001. Mood and modality, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Papafragou, Anna. 2000. Modality: Issues in the semantics–pragmatics interface. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  • Portner, Paul. 1997. The semantics of mood, complementation, and conversational force. Natural Language Semantics 5. 167–212.

  • Portner, Paul. 2009. Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan.

  • Warner, Anthony. 1993. English auxiliaries: Structure and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Wurmbrand, Susanne. 1999. Modal verbs must be raising verbs. In Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D. Haugen & Peter Norquest (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 18), 599–612. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

About the article

Published Online: 2015-10-27

Published in Print: 2015-11-01


Citation Information: Linguistics, ISSN (Online) 1613-396X, ISSN (Print) 0024-3949, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0034. Export Citation

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in