Transcript MODALS IN FINNIC

MODALS IN FINNIC
Petar Kehayov & Reeli Torn
University of Tartu
The aims of the study



To examine the distribution of modal verbs in
Finnic according to the type of modality
To find out whether modal polyfunctionality is
characteristic of all Finnic languages
To present some evidence for particular
patterns of grammaticalization
Modality types (van der Auwera and Plungian 1998: 82)
Possibility
Non-epistemic possibility
Participantinternal
possibility
(Dynamic
possibility,
Ability, Capacity)
Participantinternal necessity
(Need)
Participant-external possibility
(Non-deontic
possibility)
Deontic possibility
(Permission)
(Non-deontic
necessity)
Deontic necessity
(Obligation)
Participant-external necessity
Non-epistemic necessity
Necessity
Epistemic
possibility
(Uncertainty)
Epistemic
necessity
(Probability)

Finnish

Karelian
Veps
Ingrian
Votic
Estonian
Livonian





Data sources





grammars and other language descriptions
linguistic studies focusing on a particular
aspect of the modal system of a particular
language
dictionaries
texts published in these languages
informants
Final selection criteria



the verb must have modal reflexes at least in
six languages
the modal meaning must be distinguishable
from the premodal meaning
the verb must express at least two types of
modality
The selected verbs and their premodal meanings
 Fin. voida, Kar. voija, Veps voida,
Ing. voijja, Vot. võd’d’a, Est. võima,
Liv. veidə
— ‘to be able/capable’ < *‘to be
strong’
 Fin. saada, Kar. soaha, Veps sada,
Ing. sāvva, Vot. sāvva, Est. saama,
Liv. sōdə
— ‘to get’ <*‘to come’
 Fin. pitää, Kar. piteä, Veps pidada,
Ing. pittää, Vot. pitää, Est. pidama,
Liv. pi’ddə
— ‘to seize; to hold’
 Fin. tulla, Kar. tulla, Veps tuлda,
Vot. tulla, Est. tulema, Liv. tūlda
— ‘to come’
 Fin. lie-, Kar. lie-, Veps linda, Ing. lē-,
Vot. leevvä, Est. leema, Liv. līdə
— modal variety of auxiliary ‘be’
The distribution of the modal verb according to the modal meaning
– participant-internal possibility;  – participant external non-deontic
possibility; – deontic possibility; – epistemic possibility
■ – participant-internal necessity; ■ – participant external non-deontic
necessity; ■ – deontic necessity; ■ – epistemic necessity
Finnish
Karelian
‘be able’


‘get’
Veps
Ingrian
Votic
Estonian
Livonian
 ?


■■■ ■

■

■ ■■
‘hold’
■■■■
■■■■
■■■■
■■■■
■■■■
■■■■
■■■■
‘come’
■■
■■
■
■■
■■■
■■
‘be’

■
?■
■■

■■


The semantic map of the modal ‘get’
The interaction between modal verbs and negation



▼ is used in ’ ◊ v’
▼ is used in ’ □ v’
▼ is used in ’ □ v’ and ’ ◊ v’ (= ’□  v’)
Finnish
Karelian Veps
Ingrian Votic
Estonian Livonian
‘be able’
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
‘get’
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
‘hold’
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
?
‘come’
▼
?
?
?
?
▼?
?
‘be’
▼
?
?
▼
?
▼
▼
Evidence for grammaticalization






Modal polyfunctionality
Human/animacy constraints on the agentive
phrase
Disambiguating constraints on TAM
Polarity
Verbs that do not determine argument structure
are taken to be more grammaticalized
Morphological irregularity
Concluding remarks



All Finnic languages exhibit modal
polyfunctionality, in the domain of possibility
as well as necessity.
The modal ‘get’ is the most polyfunctional
modal verb.
The degree of grammaticalization is reflected
in semantic and morpho-syntactic respects.