Modal Verbs in Bulgarian Their Lexical Specification and Interaction With

Modal verbs in Bulgarian

Their lexical specification and interaction with tense, aspect and evidentiality

Sizen Ertan Lyutfi

LING4190 Master Thesis in Linguistics Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies

UNIVERSITY OF OSLO

Spring 2021

Abstract This thesis aims to investigate the lexical specification of the modal verbs moga and trjabva in Bulgarian, a Southeast Slavic language. Two of the main components used to describe the meaning of modals are modal force and modal flavour (von Fintel and Matthewson, 2008). Modal force describes a proposition either being possible or necessary. Modal flavour refers to the way in which something is necessary or possible, such as deontic (what can or must be the case based on rules and obligations) and epistemic (what can or must be the case based in light of what the speaker knows). In Bulgarian, the necessity and possibility modals interact with tense, aspect and evidentiality and agree with their subject in person and number. Unlike tense, aspect and evidentiality, the modal verbs in Bulgarian have not been independently investigated before. Two different studies on Bulgarian modals were conducted. In the first one, I adapt the modal questionnaire for fieldwork developed by Vander Klok (2014) to Bulgarian and describe the lexical specification of two modal verbs based on their modal force and modal flavour. Data from 19 different contexts suggests that moga is specified for possibility modal force while trjabva is specified for necessity modal force, but both are compatible with all modal flavours, similar to the English modals can and must. In the second study, I develop an online questionnaire that aimed to differentiate between judgements on speaker commitment towards utterances without a modal, with a modal in its bare form, with a modal with evidential morphology and with the modal verb in its conditional form. The goal of the study was to towards understanding if the different morphology affects the modal force component of the modal verbs. Based on the analysis of 124 responses, there was no difference in the judgements between the modal forms, however there was a significant difference between a modal and non-modal form. Based on these results, I propose a formal semantic analysis based on the standard Kratzerian framework (1981) for the Bulgarian modals moga and trjabva. In addition, I consider Condoravdi’s (2001) approach on temporality in modals with respect to Bulgarian modals’ interaction with tense and aspect. Finally, I take into consideration three different approaches to evidentiality in Bulgarian (Izvorski(1997); Smirnova(2011b) and Arregui et al.(2017)) in light of the data gathered on the modal verbs and offer new empirical data towards the theoretical frameworks on evidentiality in Bulgarian.

III

Acknowledgements In the work on this thesis, I had been blessed to count on so many people to provide me with academic, moral and nonetheless emotional support. First of all, I would like to thank my main thesis advisor, Jozina Vander Klok. Without her insightful comments, active engagement on my progress, constructive feedback, positive attitude and show of understanding and compassion, I do not think that this thesis would have been in the shape it is now had I had any other advisor. Secondly, I would like to thank my second thesis advisor, Sarah Magdalena Zobel, who joined the “Bulgarian project” later on, but has been a fountain of ideas and feedback. The invigorating discussions on statistics have had a huge impact on the presentation and shape of the results in the thesis and without her advanced knowledge on linguistics and statistics; I doubt that I would have been able to show what I wanted to show in the way it is shown.

I want to thank all the five language consultants in the first survey for their patience, willingness and energy when helping me out for absolutely free. Furthermore, I want to thank all 124 participants in the online survey for their willingness to put 15 minutes of their times for the mere reason to help raise awareness on topics around their native language and by doing that also helping an aspiring linguist understand his own native language a bit better. I want to thank my friends Petar, Ivaylo, Aleksandra and Venci for sharing the survey further throughout their social channels and helping me reach the target answers numbers faster.

I am humbled to have so many friends that motivated me to progress and provided their feedback and judgments when I needed it most. Thanks is due to Bozhidar, who was willing to discuss Bulgarian grammar with me whenever I asked him, even at 2 am. in the morning. I am also indebted to Jesper, who eagerly helped with his proof writing and formatting wizardry in Word.

Finally, I would like to thank my family for the emotional support throughout the writing, believing in me and pushing me to pursue a degree in something that I am truly passionate about.

Contents 1. Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Research Topic ...... 1

1.2 Modality ...... 2

1.2.1 Modal Force ...... 3

1.2.2 Modal Flavour ...... 4

1.3 The role of da ...... 4

2. Background of Bulgarian Tense and Aspect system ...... 7

3. Study 1: Investigation of the lexical specification of the Bulgarian modal verbs ...... 11

3.1 Methods ...... 11

3.1.1 Participants ...... 11

3.1.2 Procedure ...... 11

3.2 Results and discussion ...... 13

3.3 Conclusion ...... 20

4. Background of Bulgarian Evidentiality ...... 22

4.1 General overview of Bulgarian Evidentiality...... 22

4.2 Evidentiality analysed as epistemic modality (Izvorski, 1997) ...... 26

4.3 Temporal interpretation of evidentials (Smirnova, 2013) ...... 28

4.4 Evidentiality as rooted in aspect (Arregui et al., 2017) ...... 29

5. Study 2: Study on the strength of listener belief in connection with modal verbs ...... 31

5.1 Degen et al. (2018) and the core idea of Study 2 ...... 31

5.2 Methods ...... 37

5.2.1 Participants ...... 37

5.2.2 Procedure ...... 37

5.2.3 Stimuli ...... 39

5.2.4 Design ...... 40

5.3 Results ...... 42

5.4 Discussion ...... 47

6. Formal analysis of the Bulgarian modals trjabva and moga ...... 49

6.1 Formal semantic analysis of trjabva and moga ...... 49

6.2 Moga and trjabva in relation to tense and aspect ...... 51

6.2.1 Restrictions to the distribution of the modal verbs ...... 56

6.2.2 The perfect tenses ...... 56

6.2.3 Aspect opposition (perfective vs. imperfective) in the present tense ...... 58

6.2.4 Past Imperfect and Past Aorist...... 59

6.2.5 Future tense and conditional form ...... 62

6.2.6 Summary of section 5.2 ...... 64

6.3 Towards a formal analysis of temporal and evidential marking on trjabva and moga .. 65

7. Conclusion ...... 76

8. Future research ...... 77

9. References ...... 79

10. APPENDIX A: Contexts from the questionnaire on modals in Bulgarian adapted from Vander Klok (2014) ...... 84

11. APPENDIX B: Links towards the surveys from Study 2 ...... 89

12. APPENDIX C: LATIN SQUARE LISTS BY SARAH ZOBEL ...... 90

List of abbreviations

1 first person IPFV imperfective aspect

2 second person L-PTCP Bulgarian l-participle

3 third person M masculine

ACC accusative NEG negation

AOR aorist tense PST.PTCP past participle

COMP complementizer PE perfect of evidentiality

CON conjunction PERF present perfect tense

COND conditional mood PFV perfective aspect

DAT dative PL plural

DEF definite PRS present tense

EVID evidential PRS.PTCP present participle

F feminine gender REFL reflexive

FUT future tense RM Renarrated mood

FUT.PTCP future participle SG singular

IMPERF imperfect tense

А а – A a Е е – E e К к – K k П п – P p Ф ф – F f Ш ш – Š š Б б – B b Ж ж - Ž ž Л л – L l Р р – R r Х х – X x Ъ ъ – Ă ă В в – V v З з – Z z М м – M m С с – S s Ц ц – C c Ь ь – ‘ Г г – G g И и – I i Н н – N n Т т – T t Ч ч – Č č Юю –Ju ju Д д – D d Й й – J j О о – O o У у – U u Ш ш - Ŝt št Я я – Ja ja Transliteration of the Bulgarian Cyrillic Alphabet (Scientific ISO 9 (1968))

VII

List of Tables and Figures

Figure 1.1 Modal square of opposition ...... 3

Figure 5.1 Design of experiment 1 in Degen et al...... 32

Figure 5.2 Design of Experiment 3a from Degen et al...... 34

Figure 5.3 Design of experiment 3b from Degen et al...... 34

Figure 5.4 Results of experiments 3a and 3b from Degen et al...... 31

Figure 5.5 Hypothesis for Bulgarian modals ...... 36

Figure 5.6 Graphical means and standard deviation for fillers ...... 43

Figure 5.7 Graphical means and standard deviation of verb/modal forms ...... 45

Table 1.1 Bulgarian tenses ...... 8

Table 1.2 Interaction between lexical aspect and tense inflection in Bulgarian ...... 10

Table 3.1 Summary of context types in study 1 ...... 12

Table 3.2 Summary of results from study 1...... 13

Table 4.1 Paradigm of the verb piša ‘to write’ in the 3rd person singular ...... 24

Table 5.1 Example of verb form conditions across two items ...... 42

Table 5.2 Numerical means and standard deviation and standard error for fillers ...... 44

Table 5.3 Numerical means, standard deviation and z-scores for verb/modal forms ...... 45

Table 6.1 Lindsted’s classification of Bulgarian tenses ...... 53

Table 6.2 Kutzarov’s classification of Bulgarian tenses ...... 54

Table 6.3 Inflectional paradigm for moga, trjabva, viždam and vidja ...... 61

Table 6.4 Summary of distribution from section 6.2 ...... 64

Table 6.5 Classification of Bulgarian modals based on Condoravdi’s summarization ...... 67 Table 6.6 Indicative and Evidential Paradigm of moga ...... 73

III

1. Introduction

1.1 Research Topic

The focus of this thesis are the modal verbs trjabva and moga in the Southeast Slavic language Bulgarian. One of the main ways to express possibility or necessity in Bulgarian is through these two modal expressions, which additionally in Bulgarian have verbal properties. Unlike the modal auxiliaries in for example, English, the Bulgarian modals can be inflected for person and number, take tense, aspect and evidentiality markings. In certain contexts, the modal verbs can be used on their own, however most often they are followed by the conjunction da and an additional verb. The two verbs in Bulgarian have not been a topic of independent discussion before and therefore an overall survey of their lexical specification was motivated. In this thesis, I perform two studies around the Bulgarian modals and propose a formal semantic analysis on that basis. The meaning of a modal expression has two dimensions: modal force and modal flavour. In section 1.2 to come, I will explain the difference between the two.

The main questions that I seek to answer are:

 What modal force and modal flavour do the Bulgarian modal verbs display?  Do tense, aspect and evidentiality affect how listeners interpret a modal verb?

The thesis has the following structure. In the subsequent section 1.2, I give a more detailed description of modal force (1.2.1) and modal flavour (1.2.2) in general. In section 1.3, I present the conjunction da and how it is relevant to the discussion of modal verbs in Bulgarian. In Chapter 2, I provide an overview of the Bulgarian tense and aspect system to illustrate the array of morphological markings the modal verbs can take. In Chapter 3, I present the first study, which was conducted, which consists of data gathered from five face-to-face interviews (3.1). The data serves as a basis for the discussion in section 3.2. In Chapter 4, I present the Bulgarian evidential system (4.1), and three different approaches taken from different scholar. The three different approaches are: Izvorski’s (1997) analysis of the Bulgarian evidential in a similar way as an epistemic modal in the Kratzerian semantic framework (4.2); Smirnova’s (2011) temporal analysis of the evidential, where she places the evidential on timeline and describes it using the acquisition time of the evidence in relation to reference time and speech time (4.3); and Arregui et al.’s (2017) approach on formally capturing the meaning of the evidential by placing it under

1 an aspectually motivated perfective or imperfective operator (4.4). In Chapter 5, I present the second study, which was designed based on earlier experimental work from Degen et al. (2018)(5.1), on the Bulgarian modal verbs (5.2). Based on the 124 responses that were received, I present the results in section 5.3 and provide a discussion in section 5.4. In Chapter 6, I present a proposal for a formal analysis of the two modal verbs (6.1). Afterwards in section 6.2 I look at how the modal verbs interact with the different tense and aspect combinations in Bulgarian. I summarize the findings in the thesis in Chapter 7, and offer some suggestions for future research in chapter 8.

1.2 Modality The best-known cases of modality are the modal auxiliaries. This is a product of the fact that Indo-European languages are better studied than other languages. However, modality is not limited to them, and the discussion on modality based solely on modal auxiliaries is more or less a coincidence modals can be of other syntactic categories, e.g. adjective or adverbs. Modality involves essentially quantification or other types of manipulation with non-actual possible worlds. In formal semantics, possible words are regarded as the abstractions that relate the meaning of the linguistic expressions, and not as metaphysical entities, whose existence is put into question

In her seminal work, Angelika Kratzer (1977) argues for two dimensions of modality – Modal Force and Modal Flavour. Furthermore, these two dimensions can be described via a modal relation, modal base and an ordering source. The modal relation is the quantificational force of the modal – whether it is existential or universal. Existential quantification is noted as ◊ or Ǝ and conveys ‘possibility’ or ‘it is possible that’, whereas universal quantification is noted with □ or ∀ and means ‘necessity’ or ‘it is necessary that’. The modal base consists of the set of propositions based on which we evaluate the modal expression (Kratzer, 1991) and serve to distinguish between the different readings we can get (deontic, epistemic, circumstantial, etc.), described below. The ordering source helps us capture the graded nature of modal expressions and helps us specify the degree of necessity or possibility in a more detailed way. The modal base together with the ordering source are also called the ‘conversational background’.

1.2.1 Modal Force

In the core of formal semantic theory, there are two primitive semantic types e and t; e denotes the type of entity and t corresponds to truth-values. All members of a semantic domain in model M are a collection of the sets of all entities D and are of type e. Type t includes only two variables 0 (false) and 1(true). It is taken that in natural languages, there are expressions that help just make judgements on quantity. Originally, semantic theory focused on determiner quantification, such as some and every and the relationship they have with entities.

Modal Logic studies necessity and possibility. In Modal logic, necessity and possibility can be paired, so that they form what is called the modal square of opposition (illustrated below in Figure 1.1). Reading the below, If P is necessarily the case (□P), then “P is possibly not the case” (◊~P) is false. The arrows in Figure 1.1 do not mean equivalence, but instead link elements that are negations of each other. The equivalences that hold are □P <=> ~◊~P and ◊P <=> ~□~P. This means that □ and ◊ are duals and equivalences that hold are ~□P <=> ◊~P and ~◊P <=> □~P.

Figure 1.1 Modal square of opposition (taken from Demey, 2018:4, figure 1b)

Possible world semantics is a formal framework, which embraces the maxim “you know the meaning of a sentence if you know the conditions under which it is true”. Possible worlds can be defined in terms of propositions or vice versa. The standard is to say that possible worlds are primitive and that propositions are sets of possible worlds. In order to formalize the meaning of a sentence, it would then be needed to identify the proposition p within the sets of possible worlds in which p is true (example 1). The Modal Force can express possibility or necessity

(1) a. Let W be the set of all possible worlds. Let p be a proposition, i.e.,, a subset of W.

b. A proposition p is true in a world w ∈ W if, and if, w ∈ p. Otherwise, p is false in w. (Kratzer 1981:42)

1.2.2 Modal Flavour

Modal expressions vary in the way they quantify over possible worlds. Also, Kratzer (1977) brings forward in her work that modals are contextually dependent. The differences are sorted in categories called flavours. The two main categories of modal flavours are epistemic and root modality (or non-epistemic). Root modality is further divided into deontic, bouletic, teleological and circumstantial.1 Epistemic modality in broad terms refers to a type of modality that is compatible with a body of knowledge, whereas deontic modality is connected to laws or norms (Portner, 2009:42). Bouletic modality refers to what is compatible to someone’s wishes or desires. Two other types of modal flavour that are often mention are circumstantial modality and teleological modality (Portner, 2009:42), the former relating to facts of the actual world and the latter relating to someone’s goals. To illustrate, see the below examples in (2):

(2) a. The ancestors of the Maori must have arrived from Tahiti. EPISTEMIC

b. The Maori children must learn the names of theri ancestors. DEONTIC

c. If you must sneeze, please use your handkerchief. CIRCUMSTANTIAL

d. To be a get good cheese, you must travel to North End! TELEOLOGICAL

e. You should try this chocolate! BOULETIC (2a-c from Kratzer 1977:338, (2)-(3)); 2d from von Fintel & Iatridou 2007:445, 2e from Portner, 2009:133)

1.3 The role of da

The morpheme da in Bulgarian has been an object of discussion in Bulgarian grammars (for example in Kutzarov (2007). It is widely regarded as a complementizer in the literature on Bulgarian (Krapova, 2001), but there are also analyses arguing for it being an auxiliary instead (Rudin, 1983). In connection to the modal verbs, da is used to connect the modal to a lexical verb. The possibility modal moga is a fully-fledged verb and can be inflected in person, number and tense, whereas trjabva can only be inflected in tense. Da is obligatory in a sentence with a

1 This is not the only to divide modal flavours. Portner(2009:140, Table 2) provides an overview over the terminology used to describe modal flavour in the literature on modality

4 modal2, is the only possible complementizer and introduces the subjunctive mood. The other main complementizer in Bulgarian is če, which is used to introduce the indicative mood (Lindstedt, 2010). The imperfective aspect is most often used in the subordinate clause in the indicative mood and the perfective aspect in the subjunctive, however this is a tendency and either combination is possible (Smirnova, 2012). The coexistence of the modal verbs in Bulgarian with da poses the question as to whether they do not form one single linguistic unit or if the combination modal + da is a complex unit consisting of two independent elements. The fact that moga and trjabva can never occur without da can lead us to infer that the modal+da construction does not have a compositional meaning. A counterargument against this view can be that there a number of utterances that can come in-between the modal and da, for example a subject NP as in 3(a-c) or an adverb as in 4(a-c).

(3) a. Petko trjabva da spi. Petko must CON sleep. PRS.3SG ‘Petko must be sleeping’

b. Trjabva Petko da spi. must Petko CON sleep. PRS.3SG ‘Petko must be sleeping.’

*c. Trjabva da Petko spi. must CON Petko sleep. PRS.3SG Intended: ‘Petko must be sleeping’

(4) a. Spokoino može da spi. peacefully can.PRS.3SG CON sleep. PRS.3SG ‘He/She/It can sleep peacefully’

b. Može spokoino da spi. can.PRS.3SG peacefully CON sleep. PRS.3SG ‘He/She/It can sleep peacefully.’

*c. Može da spokoino spi. can.PRS.3SG CON peacefully sleep. PRS.3SG Intended: ‘He/She/It can sleep peacefully’

The examples in 3(a-b) and 4(a-b) illustrate that modal+da can be separated by an utterance, if that utterance is before or after the modal verb, but not if it is immediately after da. However, to what degree can this division be accounted as a counterargument towards the internal

2 However, please see Chapter 8 for some intriguing exceptions

5 relationship between the modal and da? Da as mentioned in the beginning of the chapter as having different functions in Bulgarian and it can be that one of its internal features is to be ‘close’ to a verb, especially to a finite one that carries lexical meaning. Also, there are languages, where two components that go together are split, even though they are part of the same constituent, as for example in Future tense in German with werden (Heine, 1995). The adverbial in (4a) also has predicational scope and it modifies only spi ‘sleep’ and not whole proposition, indicating that word order alone does not constitute semantic scope. This in turn, points towards analysing da as relating to the modal. If linear order solely dictates constituency relationships, then spokoino ‘peacefully’ and spi ‘sleep’ would be assumed to not be related just because they are separated by da. It is also true, that da has many functions in Bulgarian. Here are some of the functions listed by the Institute for Bulgarian language3:

(5) a. complementizer b. conjunction – for adverbial adjuncts and conditionals c. as a part of complex indefinite pronouns

d. in imperative mood e. in questions – indicates doubt and uncertainty f. in forming future tense

g. with phasal verbs h. clause initially to indicative optative mood Taking into account all these functions described in the literature it would be inadequate to give da a simple function relating solely to the modal verbs. Given all this, it would also be insufficient to ascribe it as solely a complementizer as well. In relation to the modal verbs in Bulgarian however, it is clear that 1) they cannot occur without da and 2) nothing else than da can connect a modal and a lexical verb.

3 https://ibl.bas.bg/rbe/lang/en/да - Last accessed 01/04/2021

2. Background of Bulgarian Tense and Aspect system

In this chapter, I present an overview of the Bulgarian tense, aspect and evidential system and outline the approach I will take in the analysis of the possibility and necessity modal in Bulgarian in relation to tense, aspect and evidentiality. By introducing the tense and aspect system, I aim to show the relationship they have with modality. In Chapter 6, where I introduce the semantic framework that will be used to analyse the forms of the modals, I will show some of the restrictions certain tense and aspect combinations pose on the form and interpretation of the modal verb.

A central insight that I would like to make the reader aware of is that a sentence in Bulgarian that has a modal verb consists of a main clause and a complement clause connected by the complementizer da. Da was discussed in section 1.3 in Chapter 1.

As both the modal verb and the verb in the complement clause can be marked for tense, aspect and evidentiality, it is of vital importance that when describing how modals operate in Bulgarian one takes into consideration the presence of the different forms of both the modal and the complement verb and how they interact.

In Table 1.1, I provide an overview of the main nine tenses in Bulgarian (as per the Bulgarian grammar of Nitsolova, 2008:261-317) and in order to avoid confusion I introduce their English and Latin translations.

Bulgarian name English name Latin name Segašno vreme Present Tense Praesens

Minalo svăršeno vreme Past Aorist Aorist

Minalo nesvăršeno vreme Past Imperfect Imperfectum

Minalo neopredeleno vreme Present Perfect Perfektum

Minalo predvaritelno vreme Past Perfect/Pluperfect Plusquamperfectum

Bădešte vreme Future Tense Futurum

Bădešte predvaritelno vreme Future Perfect Futurum Exactum

Bădešte vreme v minaloto Past Future Futurum Praeteriti

Bădešte predvaritelno vreme Past Future Perfect Futurum Exactum v minaloto Paeteriti Table 1.1 Bulgarian Tenses

Bulgarian, a South Slavic language, demonstrates a rather complex tense-aspect system, as it is common for Slavic languages (Lindstedt, 1985; Wiemer & Seržant, 2007). However, because it is also a member of the Balkan Sprachbund, it bears grammatical properties with typologically distinct languages in the neighbouring area (Tomic, 2006). One of the most prominent Bulgarian linguists and one of the first to write a comprehensive Bulgarian grammar, Aleksandăr Teodorov-Balan, calls the verb as the “elephant in the kingdom of Bulgarian grammar” (Murdarov, 2016) as it is one of the most complex grammatical categories. Bulgarian nouns, adjectives and numerals have lost their case declinations completely, but the verbal conjugation contains more forms than any other Slavic language (Lindstedt, 1985:89). The tense and aspect system consist of the present, the future (marked with the particle šte), two aspectually distinguished past tenses (aorist and imperfect), a future in the past (future marker šte in the past aorist combined with the main verb in present tense). There are also a present perfect, which is indicated by a BE-auxiliary and an l-suffix on the main verb in the past aorist (see 6a-c), and a pluperfect, which is composed of the imperfect form of the BE-auxiliary and an l-suffix on the main verb (see 7a-c) (Nitsolova, 2008:317). All tenses are inflected for gender (in the first and third singular person only) and number (Nitsolova, 2008:225).

(6) a. Az săm kaza-l-Ø. PRESENT PERFECT I be.PRS.1SG say:AOR.L-PTCP. 1SG.M b. Tja e kaza-l-a. She be.PRS.3SG say:AOR.L-PTCP. 3SG.F c. Nie sme kaza-l-i. We be.PRS.3PL say:AOR.L-PTCP:PL ‘I/She/We have said’

(7) a. Az bjah doš-l-a. PLUPERFECT I be. PST:IPFV.1SG come: AOR.L-PTCP. 1SG.F b. Toj beše doš- ă-l. He be. PST:IPFV.3SG come: AOR. 3SG.M.L-PTCP c. Nie bjahme doš-l-i We be. PST:IPFV.1PL come: AOR.L-PTCP. 1PL ‘I/He/We had come’

In Bulgarian, the aspectual system is based on stem derivation. In traditional Bulgarian grammars, this is regarded as the “type” of the verb (vid na glagola). The aspectual distinction in the verbal stems is referred to as the perfective:imperfective opposition and it is widely spread across the modern Slavic languages (Wiemer & Seržant, 2007).

The majority of verbs have a nonderivative imperfective form and a prefixed perfective one. As a common trait in Slavic languages, the perfective forms can be turned to imperfective ones again (this is referred to as secondary imperfective) and we can observe three morphologically distinct aspectual forms (Nitsolova, 2008:247) (see 8 below).

Derivation of verb type ‘vid’ in Bulgarian

(8) sledja(imperfective) → prosledja(perfective) → prosledjavam (imperfective) follow → follow from beginning → be in the process of following

kupja(imperfective) → nakupja (perfective) → nakupuvam (imperfective)

buy → buy completely → be in the process of buying

hranja(imperfective) → nahranja (perfective) → nahranvam (imperfective)

feed → feed completely → be in the process of feeding

Unlike most other Slavic languages, Bulgarian has retained an opposition between Imperfects and Aorists as well and has perfect tenses in the indicative present, past (called pluperfect) and future (Rivero & Slavkov, 2014). Under the term Aorist tense, I am referring to a single event that occurred in the past; by Imperfect tense, the event had either a short duration in the past or it occurred regularly in the past and with the Perfect tense I am referring to an event that was completed in the past but has a result in the present. The interaction between the tenses and aspect is presented below in Table 1.2.

Tense Aorist Past Imperfect Past Present Perfect (aux be

past participle)

Aspect (vid) Imperfective Perfective Imperfective Perfective Imperfective Perfective

‘follow (3SG) sledja prosledi sledeše prosledeše e sledil e proseldil

‘write (3SG) pisa napisa pišeše napišeše e pišel e pisal

‘beg’ (3SG) moli pomoli moleše pomoleše e molil e pomolil

Table 1.2 Interaction between lexical aspect and tense inflection in Bulgarian adapted from Rivero and Slavkov (2014)

3. Study 1: Investigation of the lexical specification of the Bulgarian modal verbs

In this section, I will first outline the layout of the questionnaire for Bulgarian modals in 3.1. In section 3.2, I will present the results of the questionnaire, discuss the results, and present the alternative solutions for the target modal expressions provided by the language consultants. 3.1 Methods

3.1.1 Participants

There were five participants in total recruited through social media. The two main requirements were that the participants are native Bulgarian speakers and not have a detailed theoretical background in Bulgarian language or linguistics. There were no assumptions that gender, location or age would influence the results, therefore these were not asked at the time of conducting the questionnaire. Participation was voluntary and there was no compensation.

3.1.2 Procedure

At the time of writing of this thesis, there are no previous research that was conducted specifically on modal verbs in Bulgarian. In the literature on Bulgarian evidentiality (Izvorski 1997, Smirnova,2011) where the modal verbs are mentioned it is assumed that trjabva is the pure necessity modal and moga in turn the pure possibility modal. Modal flavour is not discussed. Working from the modal questionnaire for cross-linguistic use developed by Vander Klok (2014), I conducted elicitation using felicity judgment tasks with five native speakers of Bulgarian. Most of the contexts were directly translated into Bulgarian and adapted in a way that conformed to cultural norms and tradition. The questionnaire was also presented in a reduced form from the original. The first reason for choosing a simpler design was that I wanted to only gather base intuitions about the modal system in Bulgarian. The second reason being that based on my intuitions as a native speaker that the Bulgarian modal system would not be as rich as for example the modal system as in Austronesian languages (see Lichtenberk,

2016). However, in order to be as comprehensive as possible, I included a variety of contexts combining different types of modal strengths and forces. Below in Table 3.1 is a summary of the types of context that were included in the survey. The full questionnaire can be found in the appendix section of this thesis4. Teleological possibility and circumstantial weak necessity were not included in the study due to them not being present in the original modal questionnaire and also because these two context types presuppose a fine-grained distinction between modal expressions, which at time of investigation was not relevant for establishing the baseline of the lexical specifications of the modal verbs in Bulgarian.

DEONTIC EPISTEMIC TELEOLOGICAL CIRCUMSTANTIAL

POSSIBILITY 3 3 2

NECESSITY 2 2 2 1

WEAK NECESSITY 1 1 2

Table 3.1 Summary of context types in study 1

All the elicitations with the language consultants lasted approximately one hour and were conducted individually on a face-to-face basis. The contexts were first read out to the participants and afterwards they could read them for themselves in Bulgarian if they wanted to. Since the participants were tasked to give their judgements on 19 example contexts and where some of contexts were composed of several sentences in order to capture the nuances between the different modal strengths, it was natural to provide the participants with the options to review the contexts after them being read out, so that it would help clarify the contexts and reinforce them5. The goal of the elicitation was to also gain useful insights and additional comments for the answers the participants gave. Being able to point back to certain parts of the written contexts lead to a more fruitful discussion because it gave the language consultants time to read the context a second time. During the elicitation, the participants were first presented with two options, a sentence containing trjabva and a sentence containing moga. After they had made their choice, they were asked if they could think of a different sentence

4 When viewing the questionnaire in the Appendix, please bear in mind the following. During the interviews, the participants did not view the transliterated and English translation of the context. They also could not view the target elicitation utterance in the brackets.

5 In the appendix and in some of the contexts that are going to be repeated below, the context target is in between squared brackets and within the context itself the target word is written in capital letters. These were not presented to the participants during the interviews. The only available version of the questionnaire that they could see were the contexts in the Cyrillic script where all target words were removed.

12 that would be more suitable for the given context or if the one from the semi-forced choice option was sufficient as in line with Vander Klok (2014).

3.2 Results and discussion

The main hypothesis is that trjabva is lexically specified for necessity force and moga for possibility force. Moga is conjugated as možeš in 2nd person singular present tense, može in the 3rd person singular present tense and mogat in 3rd person plural present tense. Both modals are expected to not specify for deontic, epistemic, teleological or circumstantial modal flavour. In that sense, I expect the Bulgarian modals to behave in a similar pattern as the German muss ‘must’ and kann ‘can’ as reported in Kratzer (1991:650), with both trjabva and moga being specified only for modal force and presenting no restrictions to their modal flavour.

The results are presented below in Table 3.2:

DEONTIC EPISTEMIC TELEOLOGICAL CIRCUMSTANTIAL

POSSIBILITY moga moga moga

NECESSITY trjabva trjabva trjabva trjabva

WEAK NECESSITY trjabva trjabva trjabva

Table 3.2 Summary of results from study 1

The results above support the initial hypothesis. To illustrate below in 9 (a) and (b) where a context differing in modal force (possibility in 9a vs. necessity in 9b) but have the same modal flavour (deontic) elicit a different modal verb. In 10 (a) and (b) however, where the modal force is the same (possibility), but the flavour is different (epistemic in 10a, but circumstantial in 10b), the modal verb remains the same.

(9) a. Context[Target: Possibility deontic]: The playground in the South Park is only for children from 3 to 12 years old. Peičo is 8 years old. It is not obligatory for Peičo to go on the ride if he doesn't want to. Peičo { može } da si igrae na ploštadkata. Peičo can.PRS.3SG CON REFL play.PRS.3SG at playground.DEF. ‘Peičo can play at the playground’

b. Context[Target: Necessity Deontic]: A loaf of bread usually is usually eaten in a day, and there are two loaves left now. I don't have time to go to the market because it's far away. So I,... { trjabva } da izkaram s hljaba koito imam must CON make.last.PRS.1SG with bread.DEF which have.PRS.1SG ošte dva dena. more two days. ‘I have to make the remaining bread last for two more days’

(10) a. Context[Target: Possibility Epistemic]: Sonja is looking for her necklace. She's not sure if she lost it or if it is still somewhere in the house because she doesn't remember the last time that she wore the necklace. She looks in her wardrobe and on top of the wardrobe. It’s not there. She looks on top of the TV. It’s not there. She looks in her backpack; it’s not there. Wait! She didn’t check her sister’s wardrobe yet... Ogărlitsata na Sonja { može } da e izgubena. Neclace.DEF of Sonja can.PRS.3SG CON is lost.PRS.2sg. ‘Sonja’s necklace might be lost.’

b. Context[Target: Possibility Circumstantial]: Borislav was in a motorbike accident 3 weeks ago, and he sprained his ankle. Borislav is able to walk now. However, the doctor told Borislav that he is not allowed to walk until 5 weeks after the accident. Borislav { može } da vărvi sega. Borislav can.PRS.3SG CON walk.PRS.3sg now. ‘Borislav can walk now.’

The highlight of the interviews came from the additional comments the participants made. In possibility deontic contexts, all participants agreed that moga is the most fitting choice. The same pattern was observed in the necessity deontic contexts where participant unanimously agreed that trjabva is the most suitable modal. This aligns with the expectations that were set out initially. When asked to propose alternative formulations for the same sentence, the participants said that modal verbs are the best options for these contexts; however, they could also use different expressions. For example, for trjabva, the participants mentioned e zadălzitelno ‘is obligatory’ and se iziskva ‘is demanded’ and for moga they said that they could also use e pozvoleno ‘is allowed’, however the latter would need additionally a clitic referring to the subject. In 11(a) and 12(a) below, the original contexts from the questionnaire are shown, whereas in 11(b) an alternative with e zadălzitelno ‘is obligatory’ and in 12(b) an alternative with e pozvoleno ‘is allowed’ are presented:

(11) Context [Target: Necesssity Deontic]: In Bulgaria, the law states that when you ride a motor bike...

a. {trjabva} da nosiš kaska. must CON wear.PRS.2SG helmet. ‘...you must wear a helmet.’

b. e {zadălžitelno} da nosiš kaska. is obligatory CON wear.PRS.2SG helmet. ‘...it is obligatory to wear a helmet’

(12) Context [Target: Possibility Deontic]: Kristina's parents are very strict, but they realize that Kristina is getting older and needs more space. They know that Kristina has not ever dated someone yet, but they know that she likes this one guy from school. They decided that now...

a. Kristina {može} da izliza s momčeta. Kristina can CON go.out.PRS.3SG with boys. ‘Kristina may go out with boys.’

b. na Kristina i e {pozvoleno} da izliza s momčeta. to Kristina DAT-3SG.F is {allowed} CON go.out.PRS.3SG with boys. Kristina is allowed to go out with boys.’

In both possibility and necessity epistemic contexts, however four of the five language consultants said that they would rather use an adverbial instead of the modal. Contexts6 2 (example 14a) and Context 5 (example 15) tested epistemic necessity and context 3, 4 and 14 tested epistemic possibility (example 13 below). An exception example (15) for epistemic necessity, where the example is adapted from von Fintel & Gillies (2007). In that example, all participants preferred the modal verb and an alternative with an adverbial was not given as a possible suggestion. They would not disallow the use of the modal verb in the other contexts for epistemic necessity or possibility and said that the sentences were still meaningful and informative. Participants also indicated that adverbials could be used as alternatives to the modals. For necessity epistemic contexts the adverbial that the participants used was sigurno ‘surely’ (as in example 14b), whereas for possibility contexts (as in 13) they would rather choose verojatno ‘possibly, most likely’. One participant said that by using the adverbial sigurno in (14b), she felt that it would tie better with the uncertainty of the situation in the context. The speaker’s intuition ties together with what von Fintel and Gillies (2007) remark on the importance of the body of evidence to which an epistemic modal is sensitive to. If both contexts for epistemic necessity are compared (14a and 15), it is interesting to observe that

6 The context numbers refer to the contexts from the questionnaire, which can be found in Appendix A

15 although they target the same type of modal flavour and force, the way the information in the contexts is unfolded is presented differently. In example (15) there are a limited number of places the ball might be, and after all the options are exhausted, the only place it can be in is in C. There are no possible logical scenarios that the ball might be elsewhere. In example (14), however the option for the Veselina to be at the market is ‘open’, she might be elsewhere as well, because she is not required to go to the market every morning, but it is only a mere tendency. The context in (14) then uses the necessity force to present the speaker’s intuition of what is the most likely place for Veselina to be, based on the speaker’s current epistemic state. It can be that (15) presents a reading based on logical reasoning prompted by the exclusion of alternative places for the location of the ball. (14) then offers an objective reading (what the available evidence would indicate) based on what the most likely place for Veselina to be is, while retaining the possibility of being wrong and she being somewhere else than the market.

(13) Context [Target: Possibility Epistemic]: Professor Daskalov is not consistent. The students never know if he’s going to come or not to give a lecture. Today, it’s time to start class and the students are waiting again.

Toj {može} da doide dnes. He can.PRS.3SG CON come.PRS.3SG today. ‘He might come today.’

(14) Context [Target: Necessity Epistemic]: You know that Veselina goes to the market every morning after the morning news (7:00 – 9:30), even though she is not required to. Right now, you wonder where Veselina is. You check the clock: it's 10:30 am.

a. Veselina {trjabva} da e na pazara. Veselina must CON is at market.DEF. ‘Veselina must be at the market.’

b. Veselina {sigurno} e na pazara. Veselina surely is at market.DEF. ‘Veselina is surely at the market.’

(15) Context [Target: Necessity Epistemic]: The math teacher says: The ball is in A or in B or in C. It is not in A. It is not in B. So, ...

{trjabva} da e v C. must CON is in C. ‘it must be in C.’ (von Fintel & Gillies 2007:38, example (9))

For context 7 which targeted necessity circumstantial all of the participants accepted trjabva as a solution (example 16a, two of five participants said that they could also use ne moža da ne se izsmee ‘could not not laugh’ (example 16b), i.e., a complex double negation construction composed of the negation of the possibility modal and the negation of the embedded verb. Given example (16), the sentence would signal that given the circumstances Petko was not left with any other possibility but just to laugh at his friend. Following classical modal logic this is an expected construction, i.e., it is necessary that Petko will laugh if and only if it is not possible that he will not laugh (□P ↔ ¬◊¬P). This alternative therefore provides support for the necessity reading of trjabva.

(16) Context [Target: Necessity Circumstantial]: Normally at church, it is time to be serious. But then we saw Ivan fell asleep with his mouth wide open during mass our friend Petko... a. prosto {trjabvaše} da se izsmee. just must.PSTAOR CON REFL laugh.PRS.3SG. ‘...just had to laugh’

b. prosto {ne {moža} da ne} se izsmee. just NEG can CON NEG REFL laugh.PRS.3SG. ‘...couldn’t just not laugh.’

Context 12(example 17) targets necessity teleological and there participants chose trjabva. One participant commented that if we know that there is only one highway between Sofia and Bourgas and you just wanted to travel from Bourgas to Sofia (note the subtle change in the contexts 17a and 17b), and they had to fill in the same gap, they would use the conditional mood of the verb moga, which is bi mogăl. Example 17(b) would then translate to something in the lines of “If you want to travel to Sofia, you could use this way”. This hints that the difference in the choice of a modal (in this case between bare form of trjabva and conditional form of moga) are a subject of fine-grained context alterations and not so much to do with modal flavour. The conditional form in 17(b) implies to the listener that there are other means of transportation that she could use to reach her destination, whereas by using the necessity modal in 17(a) the highway is the sole way to reach Sofia when travelling from Burgas.

(17) Context [Target: Necessity Teleological]: There is only one highway from Burgas to Sofia, the Trakija highway, from which you can arrive fast to Sofia. If you go from Burgas from Sofia by the highway, you...

a. {trjabva} da izpolzvaš tazi. must CON use.PRS.2SG this. ‘...you must use this one.’

b. Context: There is only one highway from Burgas to Sofia, the Trakija highway, from which you can arrive fast to Sofia. If you go from Burgas from Sofia, you...

{bi mogăl} da izpolzvaš tazi. be.PSTAOR can.M.AOR.EVID CON use.PRS.2SG this. ‘...you could take this road.’

In context 15 (example 18a) targeting possibility circumstantial, 2 of 5 participants said that trjabva da može ‘has to be able to’ can also be used (example 18b). This is a double modal construction composed of the necessity modal, which in turn is embedding the possibility modal through a da-clause.

(18) Context [Target: Possibility Circumstantial]: Asen is quite old now, but he is still strong. His children are scared that he will hurt his back if he does any intense labour, so they told him that he is forbidden to lift heavy things. But one day Asen’s friend Samuil asked to help him in the field, because Samuil knows Asen is still strong. So when Samuil saw a large rock that had to be moved, he asked Asen straightaway for help (but he didn't tell Asen’s children!). Samuil new that...

a. Asen {može} da vdigne kamăka. Asen can.PRS.3SG CON lift.PRS.3SG stone.DEF. ‘Asen can lift the rock.’

b. Asen {trjabva da može} da vdigne kamăka. Asen must CON can.3SG CON lift.PRS.3SG stone.DEF. ‘Asen must be able to lift the rock.’

c. Asen {bi mogăl} da vdigne kamăka. Asen be.PSTAOR can.M.AOR.EVID CON lift.PRS.3SG stone.DEF. ‘Asen could (have the ability to) lift the rock.”

d. Asen {sigurno šte} vdigne kamăka. Asen surely FUT lift.PRS.3SG stone.DEF. ‘Asen surely will lift the rock.’

The alternatives here are whether this expression should be then analysed as a single lexical unit or if they are both main verbs on their own. I dismiss the first option as this expression allows other items to appear in it, as for example it would be grammatical to say trjabva sigurno

18 da ne može ‘he must surely not be able to’. Trjabva is the main verb in the clause and denotes that there necessarily is a possibility of Asen lifting the rock. The interpretation hints that there is a strong and solid possibility that Asen can lift the rock. The bare modal option would indicate that the speaker is sure in Asen’s ability and skill to lift the rock, whereas the double modal construction refers to how likely it is that the rock will be lifted. The different modal expressions that can be used to suit this particular context suggest that the context itself does not have a pure possibility modal force. For the other possibility circumstantial context from 10(b), the same alternative of [trjabva+DA+ može] was offered.

The use of the conditional bi mogăl ‘could’ in 18(c) in this instance was motivated by the participants on the uncertainty of whether Samuil knew about Asen’s back problems. Two of the other participants proposed the conditional form of moga – bi mogăl ‘could’ and one participant proposed a combination of an adverbial together with future tense – sigurno šte ‘surely will’. The participants advised this might affect Samuil’s judgement on whether or not the rock can be lifted. One participant chose the future tense to indicate the possibility of an action in the present, which is part of the uses of the future tense in some languages as for example Italian (Giannakidou & Mari, 2018).

In context 16 (example 10b) where possibility circumstantial was targeted again, three of five participants added that an alternative would be biha mogli ‘would be able to’. This form of the verb moga is in the conditional mood. Unlike the other possibility circumstantial context, here the capacity of a minibus is referred to, which given certain conditions can load more than 13 people. In this context, the alternative form can be due to this subjective aspect of the limit of people a minibus can load and therefore the language consultants used the conditional mood.

In contexts 10, 11, 18 and 19 where the target for all contexts was weak necessity, the bare modal trjabva was still the most chosen one, in all of them. Context 18 is below in (19) to illustrate.

(19) Context [Target: Weak Necessity Deontic]: It is Easter Wednesday. Atanas wants to start colouring the eggs, but according to tradition... Toj {trjabva} da gi bojadisa v Četvărtăk. He must CON them.DAT colour.PRS.3SG on Thursday. ‘He ought to colour them on Thursday.’

All of the participants added however that the conditional form or in this case bi trjabvalo could be used as well. When asked whether they find a difference between the two, they commented that the bare modal was po-logičen, prost i intuitiven izbor ‘a more logical, simple and intuitive

19 choice’. If they were to assume that the events unfold based on habit (context 19), tradition (context 18) or if opinions were absolute commitments to the truth (context 10 & 11) then the bare modal is to be preferred. Given the comments of the participants, trjabva should be accounted, as the verb for weak necessity in all its flavours in Bulgarian, however the conditional of the necessity modal bi trjabvalo can also be used.

If on the other hand, they would want to allow room for different scenarios, where the situation in the contexts were flexible or do not impose such a strong commitment then the conditional suited more. It can also be that the contexts themselves were not optimal for differentiating between pure necessity and weak necessity and therefore allowed for the use of both the bare modal and the conditional form. In (20) below there is an alternative with bi trjabvalo. Based on Douven and Verbrugge (2010) on the relationship of a conditional and its antecedent, I adapt their distinction between certain and uncertain inferences to account for the difference in the meaning between the variant using trjabva and bi trjabvalo. Certain inferences guarantee the truth of the conclusion given the truth of the premise, while uncertain inferences only make the conclusion a possible outcome. In the reading where the participants chose bi trjabvalo, it can be (according to my intuition as a native speaker) that the speaker infers based on uncertain intrinsic evidence that given all they know for Kalojan, he should be at work at this hour, however the speaker allows for this not being the case as well. When using the bare modal trjabva on the other hand, the speaker implies a greater commitment to the truth, either because his reasoning is based on direct evidence (for example, knocking several times on Kalojan’s door and him not opening) or on certain evidence (you spoke with Kalojan at 7am and he told you he was heading to work soon).

(20) Context [Target: Weak Necessity Epistemic]: You know that Kalojan works from 8am – 12pm every morning. He usually doesn't miss a day of work. It is now 9am. You think:

a. Kalojan {trjabva} da e na rabota sega. Kalojan must CON is at work now. ‘Kalojan must be at work now.’

b. Kalojan {bi trjabvalo} da e na rabota sega. Kalojan be.PSTAOR must-EVID CON is at work now. ‘Kalojan should be at work now.’

3.3 Conclusion

The first study supported the initial hypothesis that trjabva is lexically specified for necessity force and moga for possibility force. It also provided useful insights into the variation in alternative expressions. The major positive outcome is the confirmation that the modals do not overlap, i.e., we have not had an example where both trjabva and moga were deemed as acceptable alternatives. This indicates that their roles in Bulgarian are in complementary distribution, and we do not have a necessity context where we would use moga or a possibility context with trjabva. There seems to be a difference on the morphology depending on certain contexts or situations, for example a split between the conditional form and the bare form.

4. Background of Bulgarian Evidentiality

The findings from the first study, and more so the series of additional comments made by the consultants about alternative forms that can be used to fill the gap raised further questions about the modal scene in Bulgarian. Firstly, does tense play a role in deciding the strength of a modal verb, for example would a possibility modal in the past tense be deemed as showing a lower degree of possibility than one in the present tense. Secondly, to what degree does evidentiality affect the interpretation of the modal verb. If so, would a modal verb combined with an evidential –l alter its modal force and if yes, would it make it weaker or amplify it. Lastly, how would the conditional form compare then to the aforementioned past tense and evidential form with it being a hybrid form made from the past participle of the ‘to be’ verb and the –l participle.

In the following section, I will first present three of the major discussions on evidentiality in Bulgarian. This will lay the grounds for the subsequent analysis of the results of the second study and tie into the unifying analysis of the Bulgarian modal in Chapter 6.

4.1 General overview of Bulgarian Evidentiality

Evidentiality is regarded as a grammatical category that signals how information has been acquired, be it through a report, inference or direct perception (Aikhenvald, 2004).

In Bulgarian, there is a distinct morphological marking on the verb that distinguishes the evidential from other forms. To illustrate, see below example from Smirnova (2013a), where the evidential marker –l followed by the third person feminine marker –a. Both forms are also used to communicate the present perfect in Bulgarian.

(21) Context: Your former classmate told you that Maria spent last year writing a book and the book has just been published:

a. Maria na-pisa-l-a kniga. EVIDENTIAL Maria PERF-write.PST.PTCP-EVID-F book. ‘Maria wrote a book [I heard].’

* b. Maria na-pisa kniga. INDICATIVE Maria PERF-write.3SG.PAST book. ‘Maria wrote a book’ (Smirnova 2013:499)

The evidential system in Bulgarian is sometimes referred to as the Renarrated mood (RM) and appears sometimes in the literature on Bulgarian evidentiality (Arregui et al., 2017 refer to it that way for example). The above example from 21(a) is called the renarrative mood in (Scatton, 1984) and as well in several Bulgarian grammars (as for example in Nitslova (2008); Gerdzhikov (2003) Kutzarov (2007)). Other scholars (Izvorski, 1997, Smirnova, 2013) refer to it as the reportative form. In this thesis, I will also adopt the reportative form term for this type of evidentials as in 21(a). There are two additional forms within the evidential paradigm – the inferential evidential and the dubitative presented below in (22)

(22) a. Inferential context: I know Maria bought a new typewriter recently. One day I come back home and I see a manuscript on the table without an author. I think:

Maria e napisala kniga. Maria be.PRS.3SG write.down:PFV.L-PTCP. SG.F book. ‘Maria must have written a book [I infer].” (Smirnova 2013a:480, (3))

b. Dubitative context: I meet my friend Ivan, who has a tendency to lie a lot about different things, and he tells me that Maria wrote a book. Later that day I come back home and tell my wife: : Maria bil-a napisala kniga. Maria be:PFV.L-PTCP. SG.F write.down:PFV.L-PTCP. SG.F book ‘I’ve been told that Maria wrote a book, but I doubt it.’

The only morphological difference between the inferential and the reportative is the presence of the present tense be form in the inferential. According to Friedman (1988) the omission of be auxiliary in the present perfect is a general phenomenon in Slavic and therefore there is no morphological difference between the inferential and the reportative. Friedman argues against analysing the omission of the 3rd person auxiliary as marked evidentiality. Instead, he regards l-forms with or without the 3rd person auxiliary as implying non-confimativity. Levin-Steinmann (2004: 345f) say that the auxiliary drop is not tied to the semantic component of reportative. Instead, Levin- Steinmann argue that the auxiliary drop is just a variation of the way the present perfect can be expressed7. A pragmatic difference between the two is that the [-BE] perfect has developed a marked

7 Levin-Steinmann focus on the use of the reportative in journalistic texts and they could not find a context in which one of the forms is preferred over the other. However, as I showed in (5) the presence of a modal verb in the main clause poses restrictions on the form of the present perfect in the embedded clause.

non-confirmative meaning8. Others like Tzonev (1910) argue that there is a pragmatic difference and when speakers are using the [-BE] form they are more confident. Fitneva (2011) tested whether there is indeed a difference between the [+BE] and [-BE] forms and found out in interviews with children that in certain contexts the [-BE] perfect is perceived by the children as more reliable and in other the [+BE] showed as more preferable. The study showed that regardless of way the [+BE] or [-BE] forms are perceived by the children, there is a difference in the epistemic value of two forms as one, because the judgements she gathered were never equally distributed between [+BE] and [-BE]. The contexts the author presented were based on characters from fairy tales and the children had to continue the story. In one story the [+BE] form was more favourable, whereas in another the [-BE] was preferred, there were no contexts however where they measure equally. Fitneva (2011) however does not provide a further analysis of the types of contexts and what exactly in them evokes the different perceptions. In the below table 4.1, the evidential paradigm is contrasted against the indicative in different tenses. Indicative mood Evidential Paradigm Present piše piše-l Imperfect pišeše pisa-l9 Aorist pisa Present Perfect e pisal / pišel bi-l pisal/pišel Past Perfect beše pisal / pišel

Table 4.1 Paradigm of the verb piša ‘to write’ in the 3rd person singular (from Rivero et. al, 2016, p. 7)

As for the dubitative, it is formed by adding the aorist participle of the verb to be to the reportative form. Sauerland and Schenner (2007) decompose the dubitative to two parts: the first being the reportative form and carrying the indirect evidence and the second one asserting that the speaker is doubting it. They also note that in Bulgarian, unlike Tibetan or

8 The confirmative/non-confirmative distinction is often mention in Balkan Slavic linguistics. Friedman (1988) defines the confirmative as when the speaker takes responsibility for the asserted propositions, and the non- confirmative when the speaker is not fully committed to the proposition.

9 The form pisal is the for both the Imperfect and the Aorist, whereas bil pisal/pišel for the present and past perfect.

Amharic, embedded evidentials do not shift10 between the speaker and attitude holder.11

Evidentially in Bulgarian has been the object of study in several works of different scholars. There are three main hypotheses that aim to account for evidentiality in Bulgarian – evidentiality as epistemic modality (Izvorski. 1997), evidentiality as rooted in aspect (Arregui et al., 2017) and evidentiality as dependent on a temporal relation (Smirnova, 2013a:124; Koev, 2011). With the term ‘temporal relation’, it is meant that in order to analyse evidential forms, an additional temporal relation needs to be contested. This relation is called evidential tense and within it, the time that a situation is unfolded is described in relation to the time the evidence for it was acquired. Smirnova (2011b) describes also a future oriented evidential form formed by adding the -l evidential suffix to the stem of past form of the future particle šte ‘will’. She notes also that the future evidential cannot be used in inferential contexts, something she regards as an argument against Izvorski’s (1997) singular analysis of Bulgarian evidentials. Future oriented evidentials are infelicitous in inferential context according to Smirnova due to the past oriented nature of evidentiality. The future has to be interpreted based on the speaker’s current belief state, but the evidential constricts the interpretation to the speaker’s past belief states. The future evidential works in reportative contexts, because in these the speaker’s belief states are irrelevant. Compare the below examples in (23) and (24) from Smirnova(2011b:277-278, examples (6) and (7)) (23) Reportative context: In the morning Ivan told you that Maria will spend the evening writing a portion of her book. When in the afternoon your friend asks you what Maria will do in the evening, you say: Maria štjala da piše kniga. Maria FUT.PTCP CON write.IMPERF.PRS.3SG book. ’Maria will be writing a book, [I heard].’

(24) Inferential context: By looking at your roommate Maria’s schedule this morning you inferred that she plans to spend the evening writing a portion of her book. In the afternoon, when your friend asks you what Maria will do in the evening, you say: # Maria štjala da piše kniga. Maria FUT.PTCP CON write.IMPERF.PRS.3SG.PR book. Intended: ‘Maria will be writing a book, [I inferred].’

It is possible however to successfully use a modal trjabva in an inferential context as in example (25):

10 A sentence is said to ‘shift’ when the subject of the matrix clause is not the same as the subject of the embedded clause.

11 The exception being in context where the speaker has reportative information and doubts it – the so-called REP above DUB scenario.

(25) Inferential evidential context: When you looked at the sky this morning, it was cloudy. You inferred that it would rain tonight. Your friend is planning a picnic in the evening, and when she asks you your opinion about the weather, you say: Trjabva da vali dovečera. must CON rain.IMPERF.PRS.3SG tonight. ‘It is highly probable that it will rain tonight.’ (lit. ‘It must rain tonight.’)’ Smirnova(2011:148, example ii.b)

The reason for the felicity of (25), Smirnova argues that the modal in the present tense allows for the evaluation of the event in accordance with the speaker’s current state of knowledge at speech time and is not past oriented as in (24). The reportative contexts allow for a future oriented evidential because they disregard the speaker’s belief state. For the evaluation of inferential contexts, the speaker’s belief state has to be evaluated at speech time, but this does not work with future oriented inferential for two reasons according to Smirnova; 1) evidentials are past oriented in nature and 2) a future event has to be interpreted based on the speaker’s current belief state.

4.2 Evidentiality analysed as epistemic modality (Izvorski, 1997)

Izvorski (1997) investigates present perfect forms in Bulgarian and notes for them that they can expresses evidentiality. Izvorski calls this phenomenon perfect of evidentiality (PE). For Izvorski a sentence as the one above from 21(a) repeated below in (26) can be interpreted as either present perfect or indirect evidentiality. (26) Context: Your former classmate told you that Maria spent last year writing a book and the book has just been published:

Maria na-pisa-l-a kniga. EVIDENTIAL Maria PERF-write.PST.PTCP-EVID-F book. ‘Maria wrote a book [I heard].’

In (27)b the sentence is true according to the speaker’s knowledge state and that the speaker has indirect evidence for the presupposition ‘Ivan drinks wine when it is available’. The presupposition in turn limits the number of modal bases the PE can relate to, for example, the proposition Ivan likes wine a lot licenses must as in 27(b). , but it does not allow for PE as in 27(a). (Izvorski, 1997:6). Izvorski’s formal analysis is schematized below in (28).

(27) Knowing how much Ivan likes wine… # a. toj izpil vsičkoto vino včera. he drunk-PE all-the wine yesterday. ‘He apparently drank all the wine yesterday’

b. toj trjabva da e izpil vsičkoto vino včera. he must CON is drunk all.the wine yesterday. ‘he must have drunk all the wine yesterday’(Izvorski, 1997:7)

(28) a. Assertion: □p in view of the speaker’s knowledge state. b. Presupposition: Speaker has indirect evidence for p. (Izvorski, 1997:5)

The highlight of the analysis is that it manages simply to differentiate PE from other epistemic modals. With epistemic modals, the modal base applies only for the worlds where the available evidence holds. Izvorski(1997) adopts Kratzer’s(1991) enriched system of possible world semantics. Her analysis applies formal semantics, which was developed for modals by Kratzer, to evidentials and treats them in a similar way as modals with existential quantificational force. She imposes differences in the ordering source and the modal base to account for the difference between the interferential and reportative reading of the evidentials in Bulgarian. In Izvorski’s analysis, the ordering source arranges the available worlds in the modal base in regard to their validity with the indirect evidence given a particular context. Indirect evidence can either be inferred or reported (Willet, 1988) and Izvorski’s formulation of 28(b) accounts for both instead of just the inferential. Which interpretation is selected depends on the modal base and the ordering source. Taking into account Izvorski’s analysis the following in (30) for examples (26) and 22(a) repeated below can be proposed. Example 22(a) is repeated below in (29). (29) Inferential context: I know Maria bought a new typewriter recently. One day I come back home and I see a manuscript on the table without an author. I think:

Maria e napisala kniga. Maria be.PRS.3SG write.down:PFV.L-PTCP. SG.F book. ‘Maria must have written a book [I infer].” (Smirnova 2013:480, (3))

(30) a. Reportative interpretation Modal base: {Your classmate said Maria wrote a book} Ordering source: {Your classmate is a trustworthy and reliable source of information}

b. Inferential interpretation Modal base: {Maria recently bought a new typewriter and there is manuscript on the table} Ordering source: {If someone recently bought a typewriter and there is a manuscript on the table, then that person wrote it}

In both 30(a) and 30(b) the accessible worlds need to have actual evidence for the assertions that are made. In 30(a) the evidence is a direct report and therefore only the worlds where your classmate said Maria wrote a book can be selected. In the versions of that world where your classmate is also trustworthy and reliable, the Maria wrote a book. In (30)b the worlds where Maria recently bought a new typewriter and there is a manuscript on the table, are selected. Then in that world, it is asserted that ‘if someone recently bought a typewriter and there is manuscript on the table, then that person wrote is true, then Maria wrote the book.’

4.3 Temporal interpretation of evidentials (Smirnova, 2013)

Smirnova (2013) proposes that evidentials in Bulgarian can be described by the introduction of an evidential operator called an evidential tense (Smirnova, 2013:496). Evidential tense is a relative tense and as such, it is not evaluated in terms of the speech time, but instead evaluated in regard to a different time, which is relevant for the context. Evidential tense is thus a temporal relation in which the point in time when the evidence for the evidential is acquired is the evaluation time and it places events in relation to when that information was acquired. According to her view, in Bulgarian, tense interacts with evidentials and changes their interpretation. She illustrates this by providing two reportative contexts where if the source of information were the only important element for the interpretation of the evidential, identical forms would be expected. However, what is viewed is that the verbs vary temporally. The verb pisala in (31) is in the past tense, whereas pišela is in the present. (31) a. Reportative context: Last week you accidentally ran into your former classmate Ivan, who told you that Maria, an old friend of yours, is now writing a book. A couple of days later, at the class reunion, when someone asks you what Maria does, you say: Maria pišela /* pisala kniga. Maria write.IMPERF.PRS.PTCP /*write.IMPERF.PST.PTCP book. ‘Maria is writing a book, [I heard]’

b. Reportative context: Last week you accidentally ran into a former classmate, Ivan, who told you that Maria, an old friend of yours, spent last year writing a book, and that the book has just

been published. At the class reunion, when someone asks you what Maria did last year, you say: Maria pisala /* pišela kniga. Maria write.IMPERF.PST.PTCP /* write.IMPERF.PRS.PTCP book ‘Maria is writing a book, [I heard]’ (Smirnova, 2011:74)

Smirnova argues that unlike the Indicative mood, the tenses in the evidential paradigm (Table 4.1, Section 4.1) differ in the way they interpret event. Whereas Indicative tenses relate speech time to the event time, the tenses in the renarrated mood makes use of the relative evidential tense and relate in turn the evidence acquisition time to relevant reference time. In 31(b) the reference time for the book writing event precedes the time the evidence for it was acquired as and therefore the past form pisala is used, whereas in 31(a) the book writing event occurs simultaneously with the time the evidence for it is acquired and therefore the present form pišela is used.

4.4 Evidentiality as rooted in aspect (Arregui et al., 2017)

Arregui, Rivero and Salanova (2017) look into Bulgarian, Mẽbengokre, a Jê language in Central Brazil, and Matses, a Panoan language in the Amazon region in Brazil and Peru. The goal of their investigation is to argue against a system for temporal reference in evidentials as for example it is done in the works of Smirnova (2011, 2013) and Koev (2011), where it is argued that tense influences the interpretation of the evidential. The authors believe that tense retains its usual function and does not shift the meaning of the evidential. However, for Bulgarian, they argue that the aspectual morphology is imperative for signalling evidentiality. In their analysis, they adopt the EV operator, which is an epistemic/evidential modal within situation framework based on the work of Kratzer (1989) and account the difference between the forms of the evidentials presented earlier in Table 4.1 as rooted in Viewpoint Aspect as described in Smith (1991), where the main opposition is between the Imperfective vs. Perfective. The Imperfective in the evidential paradigm contains a modal imperfective operator (IMPF), which quantifies universally over situations identified by a modal base (MB) as shown in (32). c (32) [[IMPF]] = λP< l, < s , t >>. λs. ∀s’: MBα(s)(s’) = 1, ∃e: P(e)(s’) = 1 defined only if there is a contextually or linguistically determined salient modal base (MB) of type α.

The Imperfective allows for the temporal reference to be past, present or future as illustrated below in (33).

(33) (Spored dobre osvedomeni iztočnitsi) (According.to well informed sources,) a. …Ivan pišel kniga včera. …Ivan write.RM.imp book yesterday ‘…Ivan was writing a book yesterday’

b. …Ivan pišel kniga dnes. …Ivan write.RM.imp book today ‘…Ivan {a. was/is in the process of writing a book today / b. was supposed to be writing a book (later) today}.’

c. …Ivan pišel kniga utre. …Ivan write.RM.imp book tomorrow ‘…Ivan was (supposed to be) writing a book tomorrow.’ Arregui, Rivero and Salanova (2017, p. 10)

For the aorist/perfective, the authors maintain the standard view that it locates situations in the past. The formal semantic rule they propose is in (34), where the perfective combines with functions that are only past in respect to speech time. We can see in (35) that the perfective does not have the same temporal flexibility as the imperfective. (34) [[PERF]]c = λp. λss: s precedes s* & p(s) = 1

(35) a. Ivan pisa včera / * utre. Ivan write.PSTAOR yesterday / *tomorrow. ‘Ivan wrote yesterday/ *tomorrow’ Arregui, Rivero and Salanova (2017:11)

5. Study 2: Study on the strength of listener belief in connection with modal verbs

5.1 Degen et al. (2018) and the core idea of Study 2

An investigation on morphologically distinct forms of the Bulgarian modal verbs, such as the study presented in this chapter has not been attempted before. A source of inspiration for the current study was a 2018 paper from Judith Degen, Andreas Trotzke, Gregory Scontras, Eva Wittenberg and Noah D. Goodman called “Definitely, maybe: A new experimental paradigm for investigating the pragmatics of evidential devices across languages”. The authors perform three experiments in total testing the speaker commitment and listener belief in different evidential contexts. They use a context-oriented approach to measure the choice of a modal expression under different evidential circumstances. Under the term “modal expression” they collate modal adverbials, modal verbs and discourse particles. Their experiments span across two languages – English and German. They measured a bare sentence without a modal expression, a sentence with must ‘must’, a sentence with probably and a sentence with might for English; and a bare sentence without a modal expression, a sentence with the modal verb muss, a sentence with the discourse particle wohl ‘perhaps’ and the modal adverbial vermutlich ‘presumably’ for German.

The first experiment targeted whether there is a difference in the probability of the proposition p given evidence e, whether there is a difference between the type of evidence in the context (direct, reported or inferential) and the modal expression used. If for example, you touch a cup of coffee and it is hot, you have direct evidence; if you ask your friend to touch your cup of coffee and she tells you it is hot, then you have reported evidence for the temperature of the coffee; and if you asked your friend to make you a cup of coffee, and you see her walking towards you with a cup, you have inferential evidence that she is bringing you your coffee. In that way Degen et al. wanted to test if participants would use the same modal expression regardless of the type of evidence e in the context or if they would differ somehow. The English and German speakers did not differ in their estimates of evidence strength. Inferential evidence

31 for p was rated lower that direct evidence, however reported evidence was not rated weaker than direct evidence.

The second experiment targeted production. The participants were presented with a piece of information and they had to choose between four different options. The information they were presented with varies in type, i.e., it can be direct, reported or inferential. In Figure 5.1 taken from the questionnaire, the participants were presented with inferential evidence.

Figure 5.1 Design of experiment 1 in Degen et al. (2018)12

In Experiment 2 from their paper, the authors found that the bare form is more likely to be chosen with stronger evidence (perceptual or olfactory) and with direct evidence. In both English and German, must/muss are less likely to be chosen with direct evidence. Probably/wohl are less likely to be used with direct evidence, whereas might/vermutlich are less likely to be used with stronger evidence. There were also cases where must/muss were chosen even though the evidence was direct. Bare utterance result from very strong evidence.

The third experiment was divided into two parts – one testing listener belief and one targeting speaker commitment. In experiment 3a on listener belief, the participants were presented with an utterance u containing the same modal expressions as in experiments 1 and 2; they were then asked to indicate the probability of the read scenario on a slider scale ranging from impossible to certain. Lastly, the participants had to choose between several options as to where the person in the context got his information from. Throughout the whole study, the authors

12 Example taken directly from the questionnaire for Experiment 2 in Degen et al. (2018:39, footnote 3) http://stanford.edu/~jdegen/71_modals_forced_production/modals.html (last accessed 11/05/2021)

32 use the same four propositions (“Dinner is ready”, “The coffee is cold”, “The dog is barking”, “It is raining”) and for each proposition they have five contexts using all or only some of the four evidence types (perceptual, reported, inferential or wishful). To illustrate, Figure 5.2 below is taken from Degen et al’s questionnaire on listener belief. There for the proposition “Dinner is ready”, the context uses might as a target item, and the participant can choose between a wishful (“He is hungry”), two inferential (“He smells the food coming from the dining room” and “He knows that dinner is usually ready at 6pm. A look at the clock shows that it is 6pm.”), reported (“His spouse said that dinner is ready.”) and perceptual (“He just prepared dinner and set it out on the table.”) evidence types.

Figure 5.2 Design of Experiment 3a from Degen et al. (2018)13

The second part of the third experiment targeted speaker commitment. The speaker’s belief in the truth of p is the “speaker commitment”, while the listener’s belief in the truth of p is the “listener’s belief”. Here the authors also cite von Fintel and Gillies (2010) in saying that “speaker commitment is the maximal for both p and must p, however must p is interpreted as weaker when it comes to listener belief” (Degen et al., 2018:43). To test the role of speaker commitment for the target items in English and German they adopt the design below in Figure 5.3 for their experiment. The follow up question below the slider only comes up after the slider had been set here as well. In Figure 5.3, for the proposition “Dinner is ready”, the participant sees a context with the target item might similar to the example in Figure 5.2 from experiment

13 Example taken directly from the questionnaire for Experiment 2 in Degen et al. (2018:42, footnote 6) http://stanford.edu/~jdegen/71_modals_forced_production/modals.html (last accessed 11/05/2021)

3a. The difference between the two is the question that should be ranked on the slider after the proposition is presented. In Figure 5.3, the participants are asked about the likelihood of might p, whereas in Figure 5.4 they are asked about likelihood of might p for a person X.

Figure 5.3 Design of experiment 3b from Degen et al.(2018)

The results of Experiments 3a and 3b are given in Figure 5.4. In experiment 3a, the authors found that listeners had the greatest belief in bare utterances, where the evidence was either direct or very strong. Listener belief decreased with modal verbs. The modal adverbials scored slightly lower than the modals in both languages, but not as much as to be statistically significant. The discourse particle wohl measured the same as muss in the German version.

Figure 5.4 Results of experiments 3a and 3b from Degen et al. (2018:43)

The results from experiment 3b show that speaker commitment is higher for epistemic must in comparison to the modal adverbial probably and for the discourse particle wohl compared to the modal adverbial vermutlich. If the results between the two experiments are compared, it can be noted that participants also scored the belief the speakers had as higher than their own judgments regarding listener’s belief. For 3b in particular, they say that the participants (as listeners) give an indirect judgment of the speaker’s commitment because they can only guess at the reported speaker’s actual commitment.

Based on the series of experiments conducted by Degen et al.(2018), I adopted a similar design to experiment 3a from their study to measure the differences in listener belief between the different forms of the modal verbs trjabva and moga in Bulgarian. The current experiment had a 2x4 design, where two factors were used – MODAL TYPE (necessity vs. possibility, i.e., trjabva vs. moga) and VERB FORM (non-modal or bare, pure modal, modal with evidential and conditional modal). The MODAL TYPE factor was measured between-items, whereas the VERB FORM was measured within-items. As an illustrative example in (20), I show a necessity context with a bare modal. The shape of the survey is discussed in more detail in section 5.2.

(36) Context: You're in the cellar of an old office building without any windows or a clock. Your friend Tihomir walks in and says:

Avtobusa v pet {trjabva} da zakăsnee. Bus in five must CON be.late.PRS.3SG ‘The five o'clock bus must be late.’

Based on what Tihomir said, how likely do you think the bus is late?

The highest degree of certainty is expected to come from a bare utterance without a modal. Intuitively a sentence with the necessity modal trjabva are expected to be judged as more probable than those with the possibility modal moga. The hypothesis is presented in Figure 5.5.

0 bare modal evid cond

moga trjabva

Figure 5.5 Hypothesis for Bulgarian modals

When it comes to evidentiality, it adds a layer of uncertainty the truth of p. Depending on the type of the context, the evidential can be interpreted as reportative or inferential. If it is a reportative evidential, then that would add a reliability factor towards the source of information in the listener and if it is an inferential evidential towards one’s own deduction. As Fitneva (2001) argues, the interpretation of a judgement containing epistemic marking is dependent on two factors: the source of information and the speaker’s attitude. Recall from chapter 4, section 4.1, that during her experiment on the reliability of epistemic markings in Bulgarian, she gathered contradicting results in the two trials across two groups of children in relation to epistemic value of the [+BE] and [-BE] present perfect in Bulgarian. The reliability of the source of the information in Bulgarian is contextually differentiated and depending on the ordering of it, can yield different judgements (Fitneva, 2001:413). In terms of the possibility modal together with the evidential suffix, I expect that moželo/moglo would be judged as more probable than the necessity modal with the evidential suffix and scored higher than the possibility modal itself. The necessity modal combined with the evidential suffix is expected to score lower than the possibility modal, the possibility modal with the evidential, and the bare necessity modal. Across all the verb forms, I expect that speakers would rate a context with the evidential necessity modals as the ones with the lowest degree of certainty for p. The

36 conditional forms in Bulgarian can have an inferential interpretation as in (37) and it is expected to ‘neutralize’ the modal force distinction between the modal verbs.

(37) Context: Maria is quite punctual with her schedule. She told you that she will be shopping at 12:00 today and then she has to rush home to catch her favorite show at 14:00. You look at your watch and it’s 14:15. You think to yourself: Maria {bi trjabvalo} da se e Maria be.PSTAOR can.AOR.EVID.M CON REFL be.3SG pribrala veče. return.AOR.3SG.F already ‘Maria must have returned home already’

5.2 Methods 5.2.1 Participants

The participants were 127 Bulgarian speakers recruited through social media. One participant identified as a non-native speaker and was therefore excluded from the final analysis. 29 participants identified as monolingual, 16 as bilingual and 82 as speaking two or more languages in addition to Bulgarian. There were no assumptions that gender, location or age would influence the results, therefore these were not asked at the time of conducting the survey. Participation was voluntary and there was no compensation for it.

5.2.2 Procedure

The survey was created on Microsoft Word and thereafter distributed via Google Docs links. In some cases, the participants got the link directly by direct messaging and in others; they accessed it via the main survey link on the social media account. The survey was in Bulgarian. The questionnaire had 24 contexts to judge and took approximately 15 minutes to complete. All questions in the questionnaire were compulsory. There was no time limit on the completion of the questionnaire. There were four versions of the survey. Each version contained 12 target contexts, which aimed to gather the main results to be used in the analysis, and 12 attention check contexts (fillers) that aimed to verify the participant’s concentration in the task. The fillers remained the same throughout all four versions, whereas the target items varied in each14.

14 A translated English version of the questionnaire is available via the following link: https://forms.gle/cx3u1XshBtkjU5nm7 (last accessed 04/05/2021). The English version was solely created for illustration purposes and was not circulated or used in any way when gathering of the results.

The participants were asked to read the contexts presented and then to rate the likelihood for the described event to actually be true. I used a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 10, where 1 is impossible and 10 is absolutely certain. The participants were not exposed to the terms evidentiality or modality, nor was familiarity with the terms vital for the completion of the survey that these terms be defined. Before releasing the survey for mass participation, I consulted with two other native speakers on the general design, grammaticality of the expressions and possible confusion that could arise when completing the questionnaire. There were two main concerns: firstly, it was pointed out that the contexts were too short and lacking detail to make a correct judgement on whether or not the event is true or not; secondly, there was a notion that the people in the contexts might be lying or trying to deceive the other party. When it comes to the first issue that was raised, it presented a difficulty in the layout as the context were intentionally vague as the goal of the study was to target the strength of the different forms of the modal verbs. By having detailed contexts, it would be expected that the participants will be able to make their decision based on the background information and by doing so judging the events in far left or far right of the scale. This would have been undesirable. Therefore, the contexts were constrained, and participants were advised in the beginning that there wasn’t any additional information that they would need in order to make their judgement. When it comes to the second problem, in order to avoid the association that the speaker might be trying to deceive the addressee, it was made explicit in the instructions that the information source is trustworthy, reliable and honest.

I wanted to test if there was a difference between the modal strengths of the bare modal, the modal with the evidential and the conditional form. The experiment also asked for judgments on the context without the modal, so that it could be contrasted between a modal and non- modal utterance and to act as attention checker. In total, 12 unique contexts were created – six for the necessity modal trjabva and six for the possibility modal moga. Each context in turn had four variants – one without a modal (bare form), one with only a modal verb, one with a modal with an evidential suffix and finally one with the conditional form, yielding 48 sentences that judgements should be gathered for. Additionally, there were 12 filler contexts developed, that could act as attention checkers. There were six ‘good’ fillers, where the expected score was high (between an eight and ten on the certainty scale) and six ‘bad’ fillers, where the expected score would be low (between two and four on the certainty scale). The four variants of the 12 items were divided into four lists in a Latin Square design, which means that each participant saw only one variant of each experimental item. The 12 filler items were added to

38 each of the four lists. The target was to receive 20 answers per version, so that the size of the sample would be large enough to capture general tendencies and at the same time have enough responses for each of the target context types. In total, 127 answers were gathered across all 4 versions – version A got 46 responses, version B got 20 responses, version C got 41 and version D got 20.

5.2.3 Stimuli

For each survey, first the introduction and the guidelines were presented. There were no practice examples in the design. Thereafter, each question was shown individually. The first part of the context placed the addressee in a location absent of external stimuli, i.e., the basement of an old windowless office building. This was an important step for the participants to consider. The participants can thus just focus on the sentence uttered by the speaker to make assumptions about the external conditions and exclude other senses that could have played a role like smell, sight or hearing. The contexts this way gain an evidential reading instead of a direct one. The second part of the context contains the target sentence uttered by a friend of the addressee. The target sentence includes either a modal, an evidential modal, a conditional modal or none of them. The last part asks the participants for their judgement of the target sentence. On scale from 1 (impossible) to 10 (absolutely certain) they had to make a decision on the probability of the described event. After one question was completed, they could proceed to the next one. The participants also had the opportunity to go back and review their answers. In (38) below is a context targeting the bare modal moga and in (39) is an example of a bad filler, where we would expect an answer between two and four on the scale.

(38) Preview from the questionnaire:

Transliteralization: Ti si v mazeto na stara ofis sgrada bez prozortsi. Tvojata prijatelka Petja vliza i kazva: ”Birata za ofis partito dovečera može da e studena». Imaiki vpredvid tova koeto Petja e kazala, kakva e verojatnostta birata da e studena?

Translation: You're in the cellar of an old office building without any windows. Your friend Petja walks in and says: “The beer for tonight's office party can be cold”. Based on what Petja said, how likely do you think that the beer is cold?

(39) Preview from the questionnaire:

Transliteralization: Dnes si rešil da izpereš i zareždaš peralnjata. Praneto otnema okolo čas, no nikoga ne si zasičal točno kolko vreme otnema. Tvojat prijatel Bojan vliza v stajata sled 35 minuti i kazva «Praneto e gotovo». Imaiki predvid tova koeto Bojan e kazal, kakva e verojatnostta praneto da e gotovo?

Translation: It's laundry day and you fill up the laundry machine. It takes around 1 hour for the washing to be completed, but you have never timed it exactly. Your friend Bojan comes in the room after 45 minutes and says "The laundry is done". Based on what Bojan has said how likely it is that the laundry is done?

A full list of all four versions of the questionnaire in Bulgarian and the four translated versions in English are available in Appendix B.

5.2.4 Design

As mentioned earlier, the experiment had two factors: MODAL TYPE (necessity vs. possibility, i.e., moga vs. trjabva) and VERB FORM (bare or non-modal, modal, modal with evidential and conditional modal). It was a 2x4 design with MODAL TYPE as a between factor and VERB FORM as a within factor. For each MODAL TYPE there were six items, and for each item there were 4 conditions (VERB FORM). In total 48 target sentences needed to be tested for the eight conditions. In order for participants to not judge two or more variants at the same time, they were split across four versions. In each version, each participant saw 24

40 contexts: 12 experimental contexts and 12 fillers acting as attention checks. Each experimental context was one of seven types15 – necessity modal only, necessity modal and evidential, necessity modal in the conditional form, possibility modal only, possibility modal and evidential, possibility modal in the conditional form or no modal at all. Each of the four versions of the questionnaire were randomized so that the target sentences never appeared in the same order. Since the design of the study had a within factor with four levels (VERB FORM), it was necessary that each participant saw exactly one version of each item once. This demanded a split into four different versions of the questionnaire, where all the conditions would appear to a different set of participants. The Latin square design helped distribute the conditions equally to ensure further that each participant judges each of the four levels equally often.16 The target sentence with moga and with trjabva were different, so that the questionnaires had variety and participants read the entirety of the contexts. The fillers appeared after every other question and were longer than the target contexts. A summarized table showing the target sentences is presented below in Table 5.1. In 40(a) below one of the moga context cluster is presented and in 40(b) one of the trjabva one. The four contexts from 1-4 in Table 5.1 form a single context cluster utilizing context 40(a), whereas 5-8 form a different one utilizing context 40(b).

(40) a. Context: Ti si v mazeto na stara ofis sgrada bez prozortsi. Tvojata prijatelka Ivana vliza i kazva: [insert a target sentence between 1-4 from Table 5.1]. Imaiki vpredvid kakvo e kazala Ivana, kakva smjatate e verojatnostta tortata da e vkusna?

Translation: ‘You're in the cellar of an old office building without any windows. Your friend Ivana walks in and says: ”[insert a target sentence between 1-4 from Table 5.1]”. Based on what Ivana said how likely do you think the cake is delicious?’

b. Context: Ti si v tvoja ofis bez prozortsi vkăšti. Tvojat prijatel Dimitar vliza i kazva: [insert a target sentence between 5-8 from Table 5.1]. Imaiki vpredvid kakvo Dimitar e kazal, kakva smjatate e verojatnostta večerjata da e gotova?

15 This is a summary of the possible combinations of MODAL TYPE and VERB FORM. Each of the 6 items for the MODAL TYPE factor had only 4 possible VERB FORM conditions.

16 Sarah Zobel helped randomize of the conditions and her full procedure for the randomization can be found in the Appendix C

Translation: You are in your windowless office at home. Your friend Dimitar walks in and says:”[insert a target sentence between 5-8 from Table 5.1]”. Based on what Dimitar said, how likely do you think that dinner is ready?

MODAL VERB Target sentence in Bulgarian Translation TYPE FORM

1 moga bare Tortata za godišninata na ofisa e The cake for the office vkusna. anniversary is delicious.

2 moga modal Tortata za godišninata na ofisa The cake for the office može da e vkusna. anniversary can be delicious.

3 moga evidential Tortata za godišninata na ofisa The cake for the office moželo da e vkusna. anniversary could be delicious. (I hear/ infer)

4 moga conditional Tortata za godišninata na ofisa bi The cake for the office mogla da e vkusna. anniversary might be delicious.

5 trjabva bare Večerjata e gotova. Dinner is ready.

6 trjabva modal Večerjata trjabva da e gotova. Dinner must be ready.

7 trjabva evidential Večerjata trjabvalo da e gotova.» Dinner must be ready” (I hear/infer).

8 trjabva conditional Večerjata bi trjabvalo da e Dinner should be ready. gotova.» Table 5.1 Example of verb form conditions across two items

5.3 Results

From the 127 participants in the survey, 29 in total were excluded from the analysis. One participant was excluded due to not being a native speaker. The other 28 were excluded due to eligibility criteria we set for the study: the mean judgement for the good fillers to be strictly

42 higher than the mean judgement for the bad fillers. There were 36 participants for version A, 9 participants for version B, 35 for C, and 18 for D left after excluding these participants.

The means and standard deviations for the fillers are presented graphically in Figure 5.6 and numerically in Table 5.2. In Table 5.2, f01.g1 to f06.g6 represent the good fillers and f07.b1 to f12.b2 are the bad ones. The good fillers (f01.g1-f06.g6) all had a mean (x̄ ) higher than eight which was the original goal and evidently from the results they performed consistently and as expected. Four of the bad fillers - fb08.b2 (x̄ =4.28, sd =2.70), fb09.b3 (x̄ =4.70, s=3.10), fb011.b5 (x̄ =3.58, s=2.74), fb012.b6 (x̄ =4.32, s=2.46), gathered varying results with the expected score range (2-4), whereas two of them – f07.b1 (x̄ =6.52, sd =2.90) and f10.b4 (x̄ =5.22, sd =2.39) scored outside of the range. The standard deviation amongst the bad fillers was also greater than the one between the good fillers. The mean of the standard deviations for the bad fillers was 2.72, whereas for the good was 2.07. In general, in the whole study the standard deviation is high (sd =2.64) showing that the speakers vary greatly in their judgements.

Figure 5.6 Graphical means and standard deviation for fillers

Filler filler.mean filler.sd

f01.g1 8.83 1.82

f02.g2 8.31 2.20

f03.g3 8.81 1.77

f04.g4 8.63 2.07

f05.g5 8.78 1.78

f06.g6 8.25 2.79

f07.b1 6.52 2.90

f08.b2 4.28 2.70

f09.b3 4.70 3.10

f10.b4 5.22 2.39

f11.b5 3.58 2.74

f12.b6 4.32 2.46

Table 5.2 Numerical means and standard deviation and standard error for fillers

The means and standard deviations for the modal forms are presented graphically below in Figure 5.7 and numerically in Table 5.3.

Figure 5.7 Graphical means and standard deviation of verb/modal forms

modal.type verb.form means sds

moga bare 7.94 2.26

moga modal 5.52 1.78

moga evid 5.32 1.97

moga conditional 5.08 2.10

trjabva bare 8.22 2.18

trjabva modal 5.85 2.68

trjabva evid 5.52 2.36

trjabva conditional 5.47 2.28

Table 5.3 Numerical means, standard deviation and z-scores for verb/modal forms

In general, it was expected that the bare/non-modal forms would measure higher than the modal ones regardless of force. This was the case for the bare verb form for the moga modal type (x̄ =7.94, sd=2.26) compared to the bare modal (x̄ =5.52, sd =1.78), the modal with the evidential

(x̄ =5.32, sd =1.96) and the conditional modal (x̄ =5.08, sd =2.10). The same was measured for trjabva, where the bare form (x̄ =8.22, sd =2.18) scored higher than the modal (x̄ =5.85, sd =2.68), the evidential modal (x̄ =5.52, sd =2.36) and the conditional (x̄ =5.47, sd =2.28) as well. It was expected in line with the hypothesis that there would be a difference between the evidential forms across both modal and the bare modal form and the conditional form. However, in the findings from the current experiment the mean for possibility evidential (x̄ =5.31) was almost the same as for the bare modal (x̄ =5.51) and for the conditional form (x̄ =5.08). The same was observed for between the trjabva verb forms, where the evidential necessity modal (x̄ =5.52) did not differ greatly in mean with the bare form (x̄ =5.85) or the conditional form (x̄ =5.47). It should also be mentioned, that in the hypothesis it was expected that speaker would make a clear distinction between the necessity modal and the possibility modal. It was expected that context with a necessity modal expression would have a higher certainty rating than possibility modal ones. Speakers did not differentiate greatly between the two, and trjabva (x̄ =5.85) had only a slightly higher mean than moga (x̄ =5.51). Finally, the hypothesis assumed that in the conditional form both modal verbs would be rated in a similar manner, forming an interpretation where conditional possibility and conditional necessity would have the same certainty of resolution. The results here are in line with the hypothesis and in the conditional form moga (x̄ =5.08) was rated to a similar degree as trjabva (x̄ =5.47). An important note here is that the experiment was not designed to measure two verbs form of equal value across two modal types (for example compare evidential trjabva to evidential moga), but only verb forms against the bare form in the same modal type.

The analysis of the judgements was conducted in the R programing language using RStudio software17. The bare form was used as a baseline to compare the other three. Recall that the study included seven trial types, six resulting from the modal target forms and one for the non- modal utterances. On average, the non-modal contexts scored higher than the modal ones. There was no apparent pattern in the rating of the other contexts. In the task that was chosen to test the strength of belief in p, there was no stable difference between the measurements of the necessity and possibility target items.

17 Sarah Zobel is due credit for crunching the raw data and providing the results in a readable format

5.4 Discussion

Firstly, the main finding of the study produced a result, albeit a trivial one, pointing towards the correctness of the design of the questionnaire. Based on the results, the expressions without any modal were scored higher than the modal ones. This result mimics the findings in Degen et al. (2018) about English and German, where no difference in listener belief was found between a modal verb and modal adverbial for English and a modal verb, modal adverbial and discourse particle for German. A stable result for the opposition modal/non-modal that intuitively makes sense, provides credibility for the integrity and design of the survey.

Secondly, there are a number of factors that might have played a role in the results. As a novel study on Bulgarian modals, it might be that the task was difficult and not clear enough for the participants. The judgements were too nuanced to give a crisp difference between the means measuring the difference between the verbal forms. The scope of the survey might have been too ambitious as well and could have produced better results with a reduced design of target items, for example keeping the two MODAL TYPE factors (trjabva vs. moga), but instead only having two VERB FORM factors (for example evidential vs. conditional). The target items themselves are fine grained and might demand a clearly defined design so that the participants can distinguish between elements that intuitively are different. There is also the general question if a survey is the correct way to approach tasks about the intuitions of native speaker on the likelihood of something having happened based on linguistic information. In Degen & Schuster (2020), after a series of online experiments, the authors find that surveys are not an optimal tool for measuring listener belief. Their three key arguments for this claim are18:

“1) listeners vary in their expectations about a generic speaker’s use of uncertainty expressions; 2) listeners rapidly update their expectations about the use of uncertainty expressions after brief exposure to a speaker with a specific usage of uncertainty expressions; and 3) listeners’ interpretations of uncertainty expressions change after being exposed to a specific speaker.” (Degen & Schuster, 2020:1)

This also raises the question as to whether probability based on linguistic information in general can be adequately measured. It would however be interesting to redo the study from this chapter either across one modal type with two verb forms, for example just the bare possibility modal

18 The paper from Degen & Schuster was published after Study 2 was designed and I was only aware of the paper after Study was conducted.

47 and the evidential possibility modal and compare them with each other, or across two modal types with two verb forms. In this alternative design, it would also benefit to remove sentences without the modal as having them might have influenced the judgements for the target sentences with a modal form.

6. Formal analysis of the Bulgarian modals trjabva and moga

In Chapter 4, I presented three different approaches to evidentiality in Bulgarian. In the current analysis of modal verbs in particular, none of the above three theories describe how they interact with evidentiality or use modal verbs in their examples for describing the role of evidentiality in Bulgarian. Taking into account the modest findings from studies 1 and 2, I will draft a first proposal for a formal analysis of the modal verbs trjabva and moga in Bulgarian. To summarize Study 1, I showed that moga is lexically specified as a possibility modal and trjabva as a necessity modal. They both do not discriminate for modal flavour. The results of study 2 did not provide any evidence that there is a tendency that tense, aspect and evidentiality affect listener belief when it comes to the modal forms. The only consistent result was a difference between modal and non-modal expression. As far it comes to the interpretation of the modal verbs in Bulgarian, we cannot draw any conclusions regarding the interpretation of these forms from the results of Study 2.

The proposal in 6.1 aims to capture the core findings of the two studies in a formal semantic analysis. In 6.2, I account for some of the behavioural intricacies mentioned in relation to the temporal and aspectual preferences outlined in Chapter 2 and to the complementizer da from the introduction. Finally, in 6.3 I apply the Bulgarian modals to Condoravdi’s temporal approach to modals to show a difference in the readings of the past tense modal and the conditional form. Additionally, in the same section, I provide new empirical data to the evidential theories from section 4 and offer a discussion for an analysis that includes the modal forms.

6.1 Formal semantic analysis of trjabva and moga

In order to describe the modals in Bulgarian, I will make use of the standard Kratzerian framework for formal semantic analysis of modals, where the existential quantifier ∃ and the universal quantifier ∀ are used to capture the difference between possibility modals and necessity modals. A formula with a variable bound by the existential quantifies must output a single proposition which is true in a possible world in W, so that the formula be true. On the

49 other hand, with the universal quantifier, a proposition p must be true in all the possible worlds in W, in order for the formula to be true. Since context plays a role in the interpretation of the modal flavour, the domain of quantification needs to be restricted for both the existential quantifier and the universal quantifier. This will be done with the help of a conversational background f. Additionally, in order to capture the graded nature of modality, there will also be an ordering source g. Some possible worlds that are available in W are too unrealistic, while others more accurately represent the normal course of events. It is therefore important that given a particular context, it can be determined which worlds are relevant for the truth/falsity of a given modal statement. The ordering source is a function from worlds to a set of propositions. A world w1 is ranked higher than a world w2, if the set of propositions that are true in w2 are a subset of the set of propositions that are true in w1. A set is said to be consistent if some interpretation satisfies all of its members and furthermore if that set is consistent and it does not have a proper superset that is consistent it is defined as maximally consistent. In the case of existential quantification, the conversational background will assign sets of propositions to members in W. The function f(w) will then output the set of propositions that contains all propositions p, which are established knowledge in w (only for modals with an epistemic modal base). A universal modal universally quantifies over the set of best worlds in the set of possible worlds described by the set of propositions determined by f. As a shorthand 19 for the interplay of the modal base and the ordering source, a function maxA is introduced (Vander Klok, 2013), which selects only the maximally consistent set of best worlds from any set of worlds. Following Vander Klok’s (2013) analysis for Paciran Javanese modals, we can assume the following steps below in (41) for formalizing the Bulgarian modals trjabva and moga.

(41) Step 1: Given a set of worlds X and a set of propositions A, define the partial order ≤A as follows: ∀w1, w2 ∈ X : w1 ≤ A w2 iff {p: p ∈ A and w2 ∈ p} ⊆ {p: p ∈ A and w1 ∈ p} (in Vander Klok, 2013:361 (adapted from Kratzer 1981:47))

Step 2: For a given partial order ≤A on worlds, define the selection function maxA that selects the set of ≤A-best worlds from any set X of worlds ∀X ⊆ W: maxA (X) = {w ∈ X: ∀w’ [w’ ≤ w → w’ = w ] (Vander Klok, 2013:361)

19 In her analysis on pure possibility and pure necessity modals in Paciran Javanese, Vander Klok introduces the MAX function to deal with inconsistent sets. The worlds are then ordered in regards to the number of true propositions they contain. The MAX function assumes the Limit Assumption (Lewis 1973), where there always will be a possible world to select.

Step 3: Where a is a proposition, f a conversational background (modal base), g a conversational background (ordering source), c a variable assignment function, w a possible world: w,c w’ a. ⟦ trjabva (f) (g) (a)⟧ = T iff ∀w’∈ maxc(g)(w) (∩c(f)(w)): ⟦a⟧ = T w,c w’ b. ⟦ moga (f) (g) (a)⟧ = T iff ∃w’∈ maxc(g)(w) (∩c(f)(w)): ⟦a⟧ = T

In Study 1, I tested for deontic, epistemic, circumstantial and teleological modal flavour. The results from Study 1 showed that the Bulgarian modals are specified only for modal force and do not differ between modal flavours. Trjabva is specified for necessity force, whereas moga is specified for possibility. The ordering source g for deontic modality would rank the worlds w in regards to the number worlds they contain where all propositions p are true in accordance with a certain set of rules; for epistemic modality the worlds would be ranked in accordance with the normal course of events; for circumstantial modality, the ordering source is empty; and for teleological modality the worlds would be ordered in accordance to the speaker’s goals. In sum, providing a basic formal analysis of the Bulgarian modals, I analysed moga as the possibility modal and trjabva as the necessity modal.

6.2 Moga and trjabva in relation to tense and aspect

As Wiemer (2017) notes for Macedonian, the difference between the perfective and imperfective verbs offers an array of features which are in complementary distribution. The features being “[± undivisible event], [± iterative], [± episodic], [± action/event presupposed], but also [± deontic]”. For example, the perfective is +episodic, while the imperfect is – episodic. The exact definition of the features is irrelevant for the present discussion, however it provides a basis to differentiate between perfective and imperfective verbs in terms of features and to seek out examples where one feature is present in a certain form, while absent in the other. Taking the feature approach into consideration and applying it for Bulgarian modals it can be observed that, if the possibility modal moga (može in 3SG) has an imperfective complement there is a deontic reading to the sentence, whereas with a perfective complement on the other hand, the reading of the sentence can be interpreted as dispositional or circumstantial (see 42 below)

(42) a. Ivan može da otvori vratata. Ivan can.PRS.3SG CON open.PR:IPFV.3SG door.DEF ‘Ivan can open the window’ , i.e Ivan is allowed to open the window’

b. Ivan može da otvarja vratata. Ivan can.PRS.3SG CON open.PR:PFV.3SG door.DEF ‘Ivan can open the window’, i.e., Ivan is able to open the window.’

In Bulgarian, the perfective vs. imperfective forms can also be distinguished in present and future tenses. The future is formed with the future particle šte. In addition, we can observe the same complementary distribution with evidential forms. The evidential in Bulgarian is formed with the help of the verbal suffix –l. In addition to all mentioned above, there is a conditional form which is formed by the clitic bi and the l-participle. More on these forms is to come in Chapter 4.

Given these layers of complexity in the Bulgarian Aspect and Tense system and taking also into consideration the existence of marked evidentials in the language20 (l-participle forms mentioned earlier), a proper starting point into the discussion of the properties of the modals moga (possibility modal with existential quantificational force) and trjabva (necessity modal with universal quantificational force) would be to separate the tense-aspects pairs into two groups, so that there is a clearer presentation and to also highlight the pragmatic opposition between the different Tense-Aspect combinations. Based on Friedman (2000), we can divide the Aspect and Tense system into two Aspect-Tense paradigms (AT-paradigm) and distinguish between confirmative vs. non-confirmative form, i.e., eyewitness vs. non-eyewitness forms. Bear in mind that although a certain verb form has evidential morphology, it still encodes information about tense and aspect, therefore a confirmative vs. non-confirmative distinction is not purely motivated by the presence or absence of evidential morphology. Another distinction in Slavic linguistics is between ‘definite’ and ‘indefinite’ tenses (Topolinska, 1994). The definite tenses locate the event described by the verb in a specific point in time and they are always interpreted in such a way that the speaker believes the proposition to be true, i.e.,, they correspond to the confirmative type as per Friedman’s layout. The indefinite tenses on the other hand are considered as having a split interpretation between confirmative and non- confirmative. Kutzarov (2007) in his Bulgarian Grammar highlights further classifications between the tenses based on features as [±temporal displacement], [±resultative] and

20 Section 4.1 discusses the Bulgarian evidential system in more detail. Table 7. shows the full evidential paradigm.

[±relative]. Temporal displacement refers to whether or not the event described by the tense is occurring at speech time. The resultative feature deals with whether the event described by the tense had a natural conclusion or not. The relative feature relates to whether or not the events have a past temporal orientation or not.

A reasonable remark to question here is if there is a substantial difference in the above classifications of Bulgarian AT system. Kutzarov’s tripartite distinction challenges the classical separation of the nine tenses in Bulgarian in order to provide a concise overview of the semantic similarities of their interpretation. Lindstedt (1985) provides a similar classification of the Bulgarian tenses, where he utilizes the features as [±past], [±future] and [±perfect] building blocks of the different tenses. He groups the aorist and the imperfect into one tense – the preterite. The reason for grouping them together is that according to Lindstedt (1985) the opposition between the aorist and the imperfect is mainly aspectual. However, he also notes that aspectuality cannot be distinctly separated from temporal reference in Bulgarian. Therefore, in the Table 6.1, where the goal is to illustrate the differences in the temporal reference, the aorist and imperfect are presented under the collective preterite tense. The reader can compare Lindstedst classification with Kutzarov’s in Table 6.2.

PAST FUTURE PERFECT Present - - - Preterit + - - Perfect - - + Pluperfect + - + Future - + - Future Perfect - + + Past Future + + - Past Future Perfect + + +

Table 6.1 Lindsted’s classification of Bulgarian tenses (Lindstedt, 1985:70)

Temporal Resultative Relative Displacement21 Present - - - Past Aorist + - - Past Imperfect - - + Perfect - + - Pluperfect - + + Future + - - Future Perfect + - + Past Future + + - Past Future Perfect + + +

Table 6.2. Kutzarov’s classification of Bulgarian tenses (Kutzarov, 2007)

As the reader might note, there are differences in the classifications of both authors both in regard to the features they have chosen and in regard to the final AT classification. For the purpose of the current discussion of the modal verbs trjabva and moga, we would need a simpler distinction, which however captures the temporal, aspectual and evidential differences of the modal verbs, so that we can classify their behaviour. The reason for abandoning the above distinctions is that they account the AT distribution of ‘normal’ verbs. The modal verbs differ semantically and a complicated analysis in terms of the temporal location of the event would not be as beneficial as an analysis that focuses on purely the modal nature of the modal verbs and shows how they interact within the Bulgarian AT-paradigm instead and consequently elaborate on the restrictions they impose in the meaning and form of the modals. This leads us back to the two aforementioned oppositions of confirmative vs. non-confirmative tenses or definite vs. indefinite ones.

On first glance the two oppositional pairs of the AT classification might seem to collate in their meaning, but there are two important theoretical differences to consider. Firstly, the l-forms are used in forming the present perfect, pluperfect, future perfect and the past future perfect, which are by Topolinska’s terms indefinite tenses. However, from those mentioned only the present perfect is used to signal grammatical evidentiality (i.e., the present perfect is non-

21 For the feature temporal displacement Kutzarov further divides the tenses have that have the feature to anterior and posterior, i.e., whether they displace the event towards the future or to the past, with the past aorist being posterior and the four futures anterior.

54 confirmative/non-eyewitness), whereas the past perfect has a confirmative meaning (i.e., the speaker has witnessed the event) and the futures in turn a future-oriented reportative interpretation (for example, the speaker acquired information in the past and utters at speech time that an event will unfold in a point in the future). Therefore, the distinction between a definite and indefinite tense does not serve much use to our discussion here as it only separates the tenses it regards to whether they note a marked past or an unmarked past event. The second argument for choosing the confirmative vs. non-confirmative opposition instead of the definite vs. indefinite one is that confirmativity addresses a key distinction when it comes to evidentiality; whether or not the speaker believes the proposition to be true or not; if it’s a veridical or not. Confirmative tenses would then be those tenses where the speaker makes an assertion or a statement about the world, whereas the non-confirmative ones are open to be interpreted as either evidential or not. To illustrate, see the examples below in (43a-d). The first one is a simple sentence in the past aorist, where the speaker believes the proposition. By the term veridical, I am referring to whether or not the speaker commits to the truth that the event described in the utterance happened or not. In (43b) the matrix verb is embedded under kaza ‘say’ to simulate a reported event. The speaker does not commit himself to the truth of the utterance and the shifts the responsibility to whether the proposition is true or not to a source outside the utterance, i.e., the speaker has indirect evidence for p. The same verb form from (43b) is in (43c) as a predicate of a non-subordinate clause. Here, the speaker has indirect evidence and cannot take responsibility for the truth of the utterance, however it is not regarded as either true or false, instead the utterance is in a suspended state of interpretation. In 43(a) and (b) it cannot be determined if the event actually happened or not and can be interpreted either way. In 43(d) however, a non-veridical interpretation is not possible. In (43d) with e ‘be’ has a veridical interpretation. I will, in the section for evidentiality, go more in depth of the difference of the +BE perfect and differences in the literature around that. For the current discussion, the main point that I want to convey is that the confirmative/non-confirmative distinction is a viable parameter in the discussion of Bulgarian modals.

(43) a. Došla. come.PFV.L-PTCP:SG.F ‘She came’

b. Kazaha mi če došla. say.PFV:AOR.3PL me.DAT COMP come.PFV.L-PTCP:SG.F. ‘They told me that she came.’

c. Došla, čuvam i glasăt. come.PFV:L-PTCP:SG.F hear.IPFV:PRS.1SG her.DAT voice.DEF.SG ‘She came, I can hear her voice’

d. Došla e, čuvam i glasăt. come.PFV:L-PTCP:SG.F be.PRS.3SG hear.IPFV:PRS.1SG her.DAT voice.DEF.SG ‘She came, I can hear her voice’ (adapted from Wiemer, 2014:138, (9))

In the subsequent sections, I will in turn discuss the perfect tenses, the distributional differences between the perfective and imperfective aspects, the confirmative past tenses and the future and conditional forms in relation to the modal verbs moga and trjabva.

6.2.1 Restrictions to the distribution of the modal verbs

In highlight of the above discussion, I laid out confimativity as a suitable parameter for the investigation of the deontic/epistemic uses of the Bulgarian modal verbs moga and trjabva. By dividing the AT paradigm in terms speaker’s commitment to the proposition, we would expect that in places where we have moga or trjabva in their epistemic use, we would have a non- confirmative tense. This will provide a systematic semantic distributional pattern of the modal verbs and illustrate the presence of semantic concord (i.e., that there is a relation between the modal flavour and the type of the tense) of the Bulgarian modal verbs.

6.2.2 The perfect tenses

In Bulgarian, the present perfect tense can be expressed either with the help the present tense form of the verb ‘to be’, which has to agree in person and number with the subject, or without it. For the difference between the [+BE] present perfect and the [-BE] perfect, see section 4.1 on evidentiality in Bulgarian. The modal verbs trjabva and moga can take scope over the [+BE] present perfect as in 44a and 44b (e zaspala ‘has fallen asleep’), but not over the [-BE] perfect as in 44c and 44d (zaspala ‘fallen asleep’). The perfect tense is a non-confirmative tense in either form.

(44) a. Može da e zaspala can.3SG CON be.PRS.3SG asleep:PFV.L-PTCP:SG.F čuvam ja da hărka. hear.IPFV.PRS.1SG her.ACC CON snore.PRS.3SG ‘She could have fallen asleep, I can hear her snore’

b. Trjabva da e zaspala must CON be.PRS.3SG asleep:PFV.L-PTCP:SG.F čuvam ja da hărka. hear.IPFV.PRS.1SG her.ACC CON snore.PRS.3SG ‘She must have fallen asleep, I can hear her snore’

* c. Može da zaspala can.3SG CON asleep:PFV.L-PTCP:SG.F čuvam ja da hărka. hear.IPFV.PRS.1SG her.ACC CON snore.PRS.3SG Intended: ‘She could have fallen asleep, I can hear her snore’

* d. Trjabva da zaspala must CON asleep:PFV.L-PTCP:SG.F čuvam ja da hărka. hear.IPFV.PRS.1SG her.ACC CON snore.PRS.3SG Intended: ‘She must have fallen asleep, I can hear her snore’

However, even though the information in the embedded sentence is accessible for the modal, in neither 44a nor 44b can we say comfortably that the speaker is committed to the truth of the proposition. In the examples, the speaker’s statement is a based on indirect evidence of whether or not someone has fallen asleep. The choice of the modal in these cases should be then based on how strongly the speaker believes the proposition in the subordinate clause and is grounded in the context. If the speaker hears a faint snoring sound, then the possibility modal would be a preferred choice, if however, the speaker can clearly hear, but does not see the person, then the necessity modal is more suitable. In the present perfect tense, it is also relevant to note that only a verb in the perfective aspect is a possible choice for the lexical verb in the subordinate clause. Compare the examples in 45a and 45b with the verb ‘make’ in first its perfective form pravil PFV and then in its imperfective form pravel IPFV.

(45) a. Može da e pravil remont, no can.PRS.3SG CON be.PRS.3SG make:PFV.l-PTCP:SG.M refurbishment, but njama kak da znaem NEG how to know.PRS.1PL. ‘He could have made refurbishments, but there is no way for us to know’

* b. Može da e pravel remont, can.PRS.3SG CON be.PRS.3SG make:IPFV.l-PTCP:SG.M refurbishment, no njama kak da znaem. but NEG how to know.PRS.1PL. Intended ‘He could have made refurbishments, but there is no way for us to know’

As the examples 44 and 45 show, the modal verbs in Bulgarian can only occur with one form of the present perfect – the [+BE] perfect and furthermore the lexical verb in the subordinate clause has to be in the perfective aspect. The readings for the present perfect express epistemic modal force and the source of information is inferential when under the scope of moga or trjabva.

6.2.3 Aspect opposition (perfective vs. imperfective) in the present tense

In Bulgarian, verbs possess a lexical aspect called ‘vid’ in Bulgarian grammars (Kutzarov, 2007). The present tense forms of perfective verbs occurs predominantly in subordinate clauses, which is a general phenomenon in South Slavic languages (Topolinska, 1994). When it comes to the interpretation of sentences with either a verb in either the perfective or the imperfective aspect in the complement clause in present tense, there is a tendency for the sentences containing a perfective verb in the complement clause to be interpreted with a deontic reading, whereas those containing an imperfective verb in the complement clause with an epistemic reading. In 46(a) and (b), we can see this for the verb viždam ‘see’.

(46) a. Mogat / može da vid-jat detsata can.PRS.3PL/ can.PRS.3SG CON see:PFV:PRS.3PL children.DEF.PL ‘They/He/She can see (=are allowed) the children’’

b. Mogat / može da vižd-at detsata. can.PRS.3PL/ can.PRS.3SG CON see:IPFV:PRS.3PL children.DEF.PL ‘They may see the children’

Although from the examples above, we can make a hypothesis that modal flavour in Bulgarian is in complementary distribution according to an aspectual influence of the complement, this

58 would not hold, as there are examples, which contradict the above. An inflected moga combined with an imperfective complement can result in a deontic reading:

(47) Možeš da vižd-aš detsata dva păti can.PRS.2SG CON see:IPFV:PRS.2SG children.DEF.PL two time.PL v sedmitsata. in week.DEF. ‘“You can see the children two times a week”22

The epistemic reading is not immediately apparent and it needs a context that brings it out. Therefore, if there is a deontic context present a sentence like the one in 46(b) can be interpreted deontically. Both 46(a) and 46(b) can then have deontic interpretations with the difference lying solely how iterative the described action is. 46(a) would imply that the action could happen only once, whereas 46(b) will have an iterative reading. Epistemic readings then in Bulgarian can distinguish between aspects, with an embedded perfective verb in the present perfect we judge if an action is completed fully or not as from (44), whereas with an embedded imperfective in the present tense whether it is progressive or not.

6.2.4 Past Imperfect and Past Aorist

Both past tenses are confirmative given the earlier split of the Bulgarian AT paradigm. Unlike Macedonian, the neighbouring South Slavic language, Bulgarian does not allow aorist or imperfect complements under the modal verbs moga and trjabva regardless of aspect. Compare the below examples in 48(a) and (b) from Wiemer (2014), where the Macedonian necessity modal mora is contrasted with its Bulgarian counterpart trjabva in 49(a) and (b).

22 Intuitively, the imperfective here is needed to derive the iterative/habitual reading. If we have the sentence with the PERF form of the verb, we get a past concluded event reading. This is based on informal conversations with other native speakers, however further testing is needed to confirm this.

(1)Možeš da viD-Iš detsata dva păti v sedmitsata can.PRS.2SG CON see:PFV:PRS.2SG children.DEF.PL two time.PL in week.DEF “You could see the children two times a week”

(48) a. Mora da dojdoa. MACEDONIAN must CON come:PFV:AOR.3PL ‘They must have come’ (Wiemer 2014:140, (15a))

b. Mora da doagaa. must CON come:IPFV:AOR.3PL ‘It must be that they were coming/ They probably were coming’ (Wiemer 2014:140, (15b))

(49) *a. Trjabva da doidoha BULGARIAN must CON come:PFV:AOR.3PL Intended: ‘They must have come.’

*b. Trjabva da doideha must CON come:IPFV:AOR.3PL Intended ‘It must be that they were coming/ They probably were coming.’

In Bulgarian, the only possible way to derive the intended meanings of 50(a) and (b) is to inflect the modal verb in past tense. The complement should then be in the present perfect with the l- suffix. Both the perfective and imperfective aspect are allowed with the present perfect.

(50) a. Trjabva da sa viždal-i filma. must CON they.REFL see:IPFV.L-PTCP. 3PL movie.DEF ‘They must have seen the movie.’

b. Trjabva da sa videl-i filma. must CON they.REFL see:PFV.L-PTCP. 3PL movie.DEF ‘It must be that they have seen the movie/ They surely saw the movie’

The distinctions between the verbs are not so clear however, because unlike main verbs in Bulgarian, the modal ones do not have such a rich inflection paradigm. Table 6. presents the conjugation of moga and trjava in the present tense, past aorist and past imperfect compared with the perfective and imperfective form of the verb viždam ‘see’. The modal verbs do not have different forms as the verb ‘see’. The only difference in trjabva is in the Aorist and Imperfect is in the 2nd SG. Moga has two different forms characterized by a vowel alternation from [a] to [e] and a stress change. In the Present and Past Imperfect, the stress is on the last syllable, whereas in the Past Aorist, the stress is on first syllable for 1-3SG and on the second syllable for 1-3PL.

Present Tense Past Aorist Past Imperfect must can seeIPFV seePFV must can seeIPFV seePFV must can seeIPFV seePFV

1st trjab- mo- viž- vid-ja trjab- mo- viž- vi- trjab- mo- viž- vi- SG vam ga dam vah žah dah djah vah žeh dah deh 2nd trjab- mo- viž- vi-diš trjab- mo- viž-da vi-dja trjab- mo- viž- vi-de- SG vaš žeš daš va ža va-še že- da-še še še 3rd trjab- mo- viž-da vi-di trjab- mo- viž-da vi-dja trjab- mo- viž- vi-de- SG va že va ža va- že- da-še še še še 1st trjab- mo- viž- vi- trjab- mo- viž- vi- trjab- mo- viž- vi- PL va- žem da-me dim vah- žah- dah- djah- vah- žeh- dah- deh- me me me me me me me me me 2nd trjab- mo- viž- vi-di- trjab- mo- viž- vi- trjab- mo- viž- vi- PL va-te že- da-te te vah- žah- dah-te djah- vah- žeh- dah-te deh-te te te te te te te 3rd trjab- mo- viž- vi- trjab- mo- viž- vi- trjab- mo- viž- vi-de- PL vat gat dat djat vah- ža- da-ha dja-ha va-ha že- da-ha ha ha ha ha Table 6.3 Inflectional paradigm for moga, trjabva, viždam and vidja

Furthermore, the inflected forms of trjabva are only used in the meaning of ‘need’. For the modal ‘must’ meaning, only the 3rd person forms are used (51a is not grammatical because trjabva agrees with subject in person and number, whereas 51b is grammatical although it does not agree). The lexical verb in the embedded clause is inflected for person instead to reflect the person features of actor. The necessity modal in Bulgarian is thus not as productive as the possibility one for person and number.

(51) *a. Az trjab-vam /vah da otida na doctor. I must-PRS.1SG/AOR.1SG CON go.PRS.1SG to doctor Intended ‘I have/had to go to the doctor’

b. Az/Ti/Toj/Te trjab-va/vaše da. I/You/He/They must-PRS.3SG/IPFV.3SG CON otid-a/eš/e/at na doctor. go.PRS.1SG/ PRS.2SG/ PRS.3SG/ PRS.3PL/ to doctor. ‘I/You/He/They have/had to go to the doctor

6.2.5 Future tense and conditional form

The future tense in Bulgarian is marked by the future marker šte ‘will’ and the so-called conditional mood with the participle bi and the l-participle form of the verb. The criteria that were laid out for the confirmative vs. non-confirmative is not applicable here. Future tense per definition implies an unrealized action and as such points towards an epistemic reading. We can however also speak of future obligations that are guided by social norms and in those contexts; we would get a deontic reading. In the future tense. trjabva can deliver both deontic and epistemic necessity, whereas moga in turn can realize deontic and epistemic possibility.

(52) a. Na izpita učenitsite šte trjabva da nosjat uniforma. At exam.DEF student.DEF.PL FUT must CON wear.PRS.3PL uniform ‘The students will have to wear a uniform at the exam.’ NECCESITY DEONTIC

b. Maika mi šte trjabva da doide meždu 1 i 2. Mother mine FUT must CON come.PRS.3SG between 1 and 2 ‘My mother will need to come between 1 and 2’ NECCESITY EPISTEMIC

c. Ot drugata sedmitsa učenitsite šte mogat da predadat From next week student.DEF.PL FUT can.3PL CON submit.PRS.3PL domašnite si. POSSIBILITY DEONTIC homework.DEF.PL their “Starting next week, the students will be able to submit their homework.”

d. Detsata sami šte mogat da izberat koga children.DEF.PL alone FUT can.3PL CON choose.PRS.3PL when da napusnat časa. CON leave.PRS.3PL lesson POSSIBILITY EPISTEMIC ‘The children will be able to choose themselves when to leave the lesson.’

Both the perfective and the imperfective aspect on the embedded verb are possible on the complements of with either moga or trjabva in the future tense. With the imperfective aspect however, we observe the same iteration effect as with the present perfect example in (50).

Compare the examples in (53) below where 53(a) refers to the necessity of a single future action and 53(b). to a repetitive future event.

(53) a. Utre šte trjabva da vidja klasa si. Tomorrow FUT must CON see:PFV:PRS.1SG class REFL ‘‘I will have to see my class tomorrow’ (one time)

b. Utre šte trjabva da viždam klasa si. Tomorrow FUT must CON see:IPFV:PRS.1SG class.DEF REFL ‘I will have to see my class tomorrow’ (on several occasions during the day)

The future marker šte in addition cannot be interpreted if it is under the scope of moga in 54(a). The same applies for the conditional form in 54(b) with bi. If we replace moga with trjabva in either sentence in 54, the same will be true.

(54) * a. Moga da šte vidja / viždam . can.PRS.1SG CON FUT see:PFV:PRS.1SG / see:IPFV:PRS.1SG Intended ‘It can be the case that I will be able to see’

* b. Može da bi vidjal / viždal. can.PRS.3SG CON COND see:PFV.L-PTCP. 3SG / see:IPFV.L-PTCP. 3SG Intended ‘It can be the case that he would be seeing’

It is however possible to carry the both the future and conditional marking directly onto the modals, so that the sentences in (54) would be grammatical. It seems that such constructions are grammatical only when the non-confimativity marker (the l-participle) and the future marker (šte) take scope over the entire expression. In (55) below, the modal is grammatical with the future marking while having a complement in the perfective as in 55(a) and with the imperfective as in 55(b).

(55) a. Ŝte moga da vidja / viždam FUT can.PRS.1SG CON see:PFV:PRS.1SG / see:IPFV:PRS.1SG Intended ‘It can be the case that I will be able to see’

b. Bi može-lo da vidja / viždam. COND can:IPFV.L-PTCP. 3SG CON see:PFV:PRS.1SG / see:IPFV:PRS.1SG Intended ‘It can be the case that he would be seeing’

The sections until now summarizes the behaviour of the modal verbs moga and trjabva in the different tenses and aspects in Bulgarian. In the next section, I will present the motivation for conducting the first of two studies on Bulgarian modals and analyse the findings.

6.2.6 Summary of section 5.2

The information up until this point was meant to introduce the intricacies in the different tense- aspect combination and how they apply to the modals in Bulgarian. They main distinction that was made is that for the separation of the tenses into two categories – confirmative ones versus non-confirmative ones. This separation proved fruitful especially in seeing the difference between the readings of the sentences in the perfective and imperfective aspects in present perfect tense and comparing them to the confirmative past tenses. In this way by separating the tenses by the confirmativity feature, I can account for the differences in the distribution of certain forms of the modal and account for the restrictions imposed by the temporal and aspectual categories. For the future and conditional form, I illustrated that in order to achieve a grammatical utterance the future marker and the conditional particle have to take scope over the entire expression. I summarize the findings in Table 6.4 below.

Tense Possible aspects Confirmative vs. non- Modal flavour confirmative

Present perfective confirmative deontic modal flavour distinctions are imperfective epistemic not so clear, as iterativeness stands out

Aorist perfective confirmative epistemic

Past Imperfect imperfective confirmative epistemic

Present Perfect perfective non-confirmative epistemic

imperfective

Future perfective not relevant only possible if the future marker imperfective and the Conditional perfective not relevant conditional imperfective particle take

scope over moga or trjabva

Table 6.4 Summary of distribution from 6.2

From the above overview we can note that the only place in Bulgarian where a deontic reading is favoured in the present tense when the lexical verb under the modal verb is in the perfective aspect. As I also showed, there was also a distinction in the interpretation of the sentence depending on the aspect that was used with the lexical verb; it could be interpreted as either a singular event or an iterative one. Since the itterativeness stands out in all the cases, it can be deduced that in Bulgarian when assigning an aspect to the lexical verb under the scope of a modal verb, the modal flavour that arises is not prioritized. The connection between a certain aspect then, whether perfective or imperfective and the modal flavour, is not as robust as we see in the case of the present perfect, where in all cases we can an epistemic reading. 6.3 Towards a formal analysis of temporal and evidential marking on trjabva and moga

I discussed the Bulgarian tense and aspect system presented how the modals interact with some temporal and aspectual combination when it comes to embedded clauses. Let us now turn to the past tense form of the possibility modal moga – možeše, the past tense of the necessity modal trjabva – trjabvaše, the conditional possibility modal bi mogăl and the conditional necessity modal bi trjabvalo.

Condoravdi (2001) argues against a segmentational analysis of modals based on temporal form, but instead for a unitary semantic analysis on which the temporal form of the modal determines the modal flavour. She distinguishes between epistemic modality, which is based on the information we currently hold about the world, on the one hand, and metaphysical modality, which in turn describes how an event might have turn out to be. The interpretation of a sentence involving metaphysical modality is called the counterfactual reading. The interpretation of a sentence with epistemic modality is called the epistemic reading. In 56(a) below there is a modal from a present perspective describing a future situation and can encode either epistemic or metaphysical modality. In 56(b), there are two distinct readings, an epistemic one as 57(a) and a metaphysical one as in 57(b). When adapting the examples below to Bulgarian, I checked

65 beforehand that the verb forms of the Bulgarian modals are compatible with the two readings distinguished by Condoravdi.

(56) a. Toj { može/ možeše/ bi mogăl } da spečeli He { can.PRS.3SG/can.AOR.3SG/can-COND.M } CON win.AOR.3SG igrata. game.DEF ‘He {can/could/can-COND} win the game.’ (Condoravdi 2011:4, (6))

b. Toj { *može/ možeše/ *bi mogăl } da e He { *can.PRS.3SG/can.AOR.3SG/*can-COND.M } CON is spečelil igrata. win.PST.PTCP. 3SG game.DEF. ‘He *can/could/*can-COND have won the game.’ (Condoravdi 2011:4, (6))

(57) a. Toj {može /možeše / bi mogăl} (veče) da e He { can.PRS.3SG/can.AOR.3SG/can-COND.M } (already) CON is spečelil igrata ( no ne uspja). win.PST.PTCP. 3SG game.DEF ( but NEG succeed.AOR.3SG) ‘He can/could have (already) won the game (# but he didn’t)’ (Condoravdi 2011:4, (7))

b. V onzi moment toj {možeše / *bi mogăl} (vse ošte) da In that moment he {can.AOR.3SG/can-COND.M } (still) CON spečeli igrata no ne uspja nakraja. win.AOR.3SG game.DEF but NEG succeed.AOR.3SG finally. ‘At that point, he could/*can-COND (still) have won the game but he didn’t at the end.’ (Condoravdi 2011:4, (7))

Temporal orientation is the relation between the time of event and the temporal perspective. Condoravdi's claim is that if a modal gets an epistemic interpretation, it necessarily has present temporal perspective and past temporal orientation. And that if a modal gets a counterfactual interpretation, it necessarily has past temporal perspective and future temporal orientation. Adopting Condoravdi's analysis of English modal auxiliaries for the current account of Bulgarian modals in this thesis in a similar opposition results in Table 6.5. However, it is important to note here that the Bulgarian conditional, which is composed of the past tense of the be verb and the l-participle (evidential) is only grammatical in the epistemic reading as in 27(a) and not with the counterfactual one as in 27(b). Temporal perspective is the time at which the modal base is evaluated.

Future Orientation Past Orientation

Present Perspective moga ‘can’ /trjabva ‘must’ bi mogăl ‘could’, bi trjabvalo ‘should’ , možeše ‘could have’, trjabvaše

‘should have’, (epistemic reading)

Past Perspective možeše ‘could have’, trjabvaše ‘should have’

(counterfactual reading)

Table. 6.5 Classification of Bulgarian modals based on Condoravdi’s (2001) summarization

The Bulgarian sentences with the conditional forms bi mogăl and bi trjabvalo are counterfactual. Another way to express counterfactual readings is the Balkan type conditional, which is a conditional form composed of the future and the imperfect as in 58(b)(Lindstedt, 2010). In that form however, the temporal and aspectual information is coded in stjah and carried over to the modal. The difference between the two types of counterfactuals argued by Stojanov’s (1983) his Bulgarian grammar. According to Stojanov, The Balkan type conditional relies solely on an external condition (58b) and the bi conditional in turn relies on both an external condition and the decision of the agent (58a). This way the bi conditional has an embedded epistemic nature that promotes an epistemic reading, i.e., the conditional from regardless of the verbal stem of the l-participle contributes epistemic modality.

(58) a. Ako ima hljab {bih mogăl} da ti dam . If have.PRS.3SG bread {can-COND} CON you.DAT give.PRS.1SG. ‘If there is bread, I could (I would like to) give some to you.’

b. Ako ima hljab stjah da moga da ti If have.PRS.3SG bread FUT.IMPERF CON can.PRS.1SG CON you.DAT dam. give.PRS.1SG. ‘If there is bread, I would be able to give you some.’

In sum, Taking Condoravdi’s approach into consideration for the Bulgarian modals, I showed in examples 56-57 and in Table 6.1 that there are similarities with her analysis of the English might have and Bulgarian conditional modal and the modal in the past tense. The modal in the past tense also encodes an epistemic and a circumstantial reading. The conditional form has can only be evaluated with a present perspective and the time of the event in an utterance with the conditional form has to have a past orientation. The present tense forms can in turn only be

67 evaluated with a present perspective, but unlike the conditional need to have a future temporal orientation.

In Sections 4.1-4.4, I presented three different approaches in the literature to account for evidentiality in Bulgarian. In what follows, I discuss the evidential theories in connection with the possibility and necessity modals. Firstly, Izvorski’s (1997:226) analysis, repeated below in (59), assigns to the Bulgarian evidential both asserted and presuppositional content. Based on this analysis, the meaning of the evidential is captured correctly for reportative (60a) and the inferential (61b) contexts, since in both cases the speaker does not possess direct evidence for p, but either knows it from hearsay or infers it.

(59) The interpretation of EV of p a. Assertion: □ p in view of speaker’s knowledge state. b. Presupposition: Speaker has indirect evidence for p.

(60) a. Reportative context: You meet your friend Danko, who you have not seen in a while, on the street. He tells you he lives in Spain now, but returned to Bulgaria to fix a dental problem. Later in the evening, you mention to your girlfriend that you met Danko. Your girlfriend asks you what he was doing back in Bulgaria. You tell her: Trjabvalo da si opravi zăbite. must-EVID CON REFL fix.PRS.3SG teeth.DEF. ‘He had to fix his teeth, [I heard].’

b. Inferential context: You and Danko haven’t seen each other in a while, because he lives abroad. He is currently back in Bulgaria. You go out to a restaurant, where Danko tells you he is back for a medical reason, but does not disclose what exactly. After Danko takes a sip of his ice-cold beer, he screeches in pain. You infer that Danko has a dental problem and that is why he is back. Later, you tell your girlfriend: Danko trjabvalo da si opravi zăbite. Danko must-EVID CON REFL fix.PRS.3SG teeth. Danko had to fix his teeth, [I infered].’

One of the central points in Smirnova’s (2013) analysis against Izvorski’s formal analysis of the Bulgarian evidential was its failure to capture the felicitous use of the evidential in direct contexts as in (61) taken from Smirnova (2013:1, example (4)), because direct contexts by virtue of them being contexts of direct perception are in conflict with 59(b), where the possession of indirect evidence for p is necessary for the interpretation of the evidential.

(61) Direct context: Your niece Maria stays with you over the summer. She usually spends most of the time reading in her room. While passing by Maria’s room today, you see her playing the piano. You say to yourself: Maria svirela na piano. Maria play-EVID on piano. ‘Maria plays the piano, [I see].’ (Smirnova 2013:1 (4))

In the case of the modal verbs however a direct context is incompatible with the necessity modal trjabvalo. It is compatible with the possibility modal možela with strictly a circumstantial reading describing the ability to play the piano.

(62) Direct context: Your niece Maria stays with you over the summer. She usually spends most of the time reading in her room. While passing by Maria’s room today, you see her playing the piano. You say to yourself: a. Maria možela da sviri na piano. Maria can-EVID.FEM CON play.PRS.3SG on piano. ‘Maria can play the piano, [I see].’

* b. Maria trjabvala da sviri na piano. Maria must-EVID.F CON play.PRS.3SG on piano. Intended “Maria should play the piano”

Smirnova argues that an example where an evidential can be used in a direct context as for example (62)a and thus serves as a counterargument to Izvorski saying that the speaker need not have indirect evidence for p in order to use the evidential. She also dismisses a mirative reading23 of (62) since such an analysis ignores the evidential morphology and treats it as a different form. Two questions that arise are:

1) Why is only the possibility modal felicitous in a direct evidential context?

2) Is the circumstantial reading of 62(a) an example of mirativity?

I argue that the Bulgarian possibility modal in its evidential form allows for both an epistemic (53a) and circumstantial reading (53b) as in Condoravdi’s analysis of the English might have, whereas the necessity modal in its evidential form allows only for a counterfactual reading (also called metaphysical or circumstantial as in 63d) and not for an epistemic reading (63c).

(63) a. Context: Your neighbour Maria usually starts playing the piano at 8 in morning. She also likes to sleep late and does not play then. Today, while at school, you look at your watch. It’s 10 o’clock. You think: Maria možela (veče) da sviri na piano EPISTEMIC Maria can-EVID (already) CON play.PRS.3SG on piano ‘Maria could have (already) played the piano’ adapted from Condoravdi (2001:4, example (7)) b. Context: Maria learned how to play the piano when she was a child. Now, she is an adult and recently moved to a new neighbourhood and wants to impress her neighbours with her skills. She

23 Mirativity is a category that is “conveying information which is new or unexpected to the speaker” (DeLancey, 1997)

invites everyone one evening to listen her. As she sits on the piano chair, it breaks and she falls down. V onzi moment Maria možela da sviri na CIRCUMSTANTIAL In that moment Maria can-EVID CON play.PRS.3SG on piano no nakraja ne go napravila. piano but finally NEG it do.PST.PTCP. F ‘At that point, Maria could play the piano, but at the end she didn’t do it.’ adapted from Condoravdi (2001:4, example (7)) * c. Context: Your neighbour Maria routinely plays the piano at 8 o’clock every day. Even if she is sick, she does it every day. You can hear her all the way to your house next door. Today, while at school, you look at your watch. It’s 8 o’clock. You think: Maria trjabvala da sviri na piano (#no EPISTEMIC Maria must-EVID CON play.PRS.3SG on piano (#but ne go napravila) NEG it do.PASTPLE.F). Intended: Maria should play the piano (# but she didn’t). adapted from Condoravdi (2001:4, example (7))

d. Context: Maria has an important piano exam coming up. She practices everyday at 8 o’clock. You look at your watch, it’s 08:30 and don’t hear any music coming from her room. You discover that she overslept and wake her up immediately so she starts playing. You tell your friend with who you are speaking on the phone what happened this morning. V onzi moment Maria trjabvala da sviri na CIRCUMSTANTIAL In that moment Maria can-EVID CON play.PRS.3SG on piano no nakraja ne go napravila. piano but finally NEG it do.PST.PTCP. F ‘At that point, Maria should have play the piano, but at the end she didn’t do it.’ adapted from Condoravdi (2001:4, example (7))

Given that, one modal allows both readings with the evidential and the other does not; it seems that the described phenomenon has more to do with interactions between evidentiality and modal force than with evidentiality itself. In addition, with evidentiality being a grammatical category concerning the source of information, it follows that there is a certain degree of commitment from the speaker based on hearsay or inference towards the expression. Necessity requires a very high degree of commitment toward the truth of p and therefore an evidential with the necessity modal can only function in specific contexts that report on that a proposition p is necessary, but you have indirect evidence for it. A necessity modal with an evidential would have to imply something in the line of “Based on what I hear from highly credible sources on strong evidence, this is what is most likely to have happened”. Therefore, an

70 additional component in the use of the evidential with the necessity modal is not only the source of information, but the reliability of the source as well24.

Another point in Smirnova’s analysis is that evidentials in reportative contexts can be used even though the speakers believe the proposition is false as in (64)a, whereas they cannot be used in inferential/direct contexts as in (64)b. if the speakers believe that the proposition is false.

(64) a. Reportative context: you just came from a psychiatric clinic, where you visited your friend Eli. Eli was hospitalized because of severe hallucinations and other psychological problems. When your friend inquires about the things Eli told you, you say: Izvănzemnite i predložili rabota v komičeskata laboratorija. Aliens her offer.PERF.PST.PTCP job in space laboratory. ‘Aliens offered her a job in a space lab, [I heard]’ Smirnova (2013:4, (7))

b. Inferential context: Maria just announced that she is quitting her current job. You know that a month ago Maria applied for a highly competitive position in NASA. When you heard the news, you inferred that Maria got a job offer from NASA. Later you learned that Maria did not get a job offer from NASA. When someone asks you why Maria is quitting her job, you say: # NASA i predložili rabota. NASA her offer.PERF.PST.PTCP job. NASA offered her a job, [I inferred]’ Smirnova (2013:4, (8))

As far as Smirnova’s counterargument goes for the inferential context in (64)b. it might be the case that here as well the modal verbs are a special kind of verbs when it comes to evidentiality. The same context from (64)b. applied below in (65) with the possibility modal in the evidential form is felicitous even though when the speaker believes the proposition to be false.

(65) Context: Maria just announced that she is quitting her current job. You know that a month ago Maria applied for a highly competitive position in NASA. When you heard the news, you inferred that Maria got a job offer from NASA. Later you learned that Maria did not get a job offer from NASA. When someone asks you why Maria is quitting her job, you say: NASA moželi da i predložat rabota. NASA can-EVID CON her offer.PRS.3PL job. ‘Nasa could have offered her a job.’

The reading above in (65) answers the question why the speaker initially thought Maria quit her job and not if it is the actual reason for Maria quitting. It is unclear why to both the speaker

24 Givon (1982) notes that when it comes to source of information, there are different degrees that shape attitudes such as stereotypes, prejudices and expectations. There should be a difference between source of information and its connection to the reliability of the information. Evidentiality is used as an invitation from the speaker towards the hearer to discuss the validity of the statement.

71 and the hearer why Maria actually quit her job, and the speaker is merely presenting an option in order to start of a discussion on the topic. The evidential reports on the speaker’s knowledge state at a time after Maria quitting her job and before him finding out that the NASA did not offer Maria the job opportunity. Consider the example below in (66) to illustrate:

(66) Context: You are expecting workers to come to your property for maintenance. You receive a text message saying that they will arrive between 8 and 12, so you decide to stay at home and wait for them. It is 11 o’clock and they still haven’t arrived. You infer that they will come in the next hour. You received a call that there is an issue on the way and they will come in the afternoon. Your friend asks you later in the evening why you stayed at home during the day and you say:

Zaštoto rabotnicite moželi da doidat togava. because workers can-EVID-PL CON come.PRS.3PL then. ‘Because the workers could have come then.’

The two examples in (65) and (66) with the modal verbs do not dismiss Smirnova’s analysis of the Bulgarian evidential but highlight the fact that the evidential interacts differently with modal verbs, when it comes to the evidence acquisition time criteria that Smirnova argues for. Smirnova’s arguments towards evidential tense in chapter 4.3 (example 24(a) and (b)) is valid for the modals as well, because they also prove that information source is not the sole component of the meaning of the Bulgarian evidential, but that it also has a temporal aspect.

The Bulgarian possibility modal has an imperfective present tense form možel and an imperfective past tense form mogăl. Adapted from 24(a) and (b), the examples in (67) show that in 67(a) the imperfective past is only felicitous if the event of learning to play the piano is before the time for the evidence for playing the piano was acquired. In (67)b. both events have to occur simultaneously, i.e., the event of Maria learning to play the piano is still on going.

(67) a. Reportative context: Last month Ivan told you that Maria your former classmate, spent last year learning to play the piano and that she now plays well. You believe Ivan. Today, your friend asks you what Maria was doing last year. You say: Maria mogla # možela da sviri Maria can.IMPERF.PST.PTCP / # can.IMPERF.PRS.PTCP CON play.PRS.3SG na piano. on piano. ‘Maria can play the piano.[I heard].’

b. Reportative context: Last month at the class reunion Ivan told you that Maria is learning how to play the piano. You believe Ivan. Today your old friend asks you what Maria has been up to lately. You say: Maria # mogla možela da sviri Maria # can.IMPERF.PST.PTCP / can.IMPERF.PRS.PTCP CON play.PRS.3SG na piano. on piano. ‘Maria can play the piano [I heard].’

Finally, I will discuss the analysis for the Bulgarian evidential proposed by Arregui, Rivero and Salanova (2017). The authors introduce several operators in their analysis – the Evidential quantifier, the imperfective operator and the perfective operator, all presented below in (68a- c). As their analysis describes the different distribution of the evidential in the light of Viewpoint aspect, I will use the verb moga as an example, as it is morphologically more complex than trjabva. The different forms are presented below in Table 6.6. The form of moga’ in the Renarrated Mood is the same for the Present Tense and the Imperfect tense (možel)

Indicative Mood (IM) Renarrated mood (RM)

Present može može-l

Imperfect možeše

Aorist moža mogă-l

Present Perfect e možel/ e mogăl bi-l možel/ mogăl

Past Perfect beše možel / beše mogăl

Table 6.6 Indicative and Evidential Paradigm of moga (adapted from Arregui et al., 2017:7, table 11.1)

(68) a. Epistemic modal quantifier c [[ΕV]] = λp∀s’:s’ is compatible with knowledge/evidence available in s*, ∃s:s

b. Imperfective operator c [[IMPF]] = λP< l, >. λs. ∀s’: MBα(s)(s’) = 1, ∃e: P(e)(s’) = 1, defined only if there is a contextually or linguistically determined salient modal base

(MB) of type α. c. Perfective operator c [[PERF]] = λp.λss:s precedes s* &p(s) = 1

In 68(a), the EV is a universal quantifier (∀) that quantifies over situations in a particular body of evidence. An expression of the form EV(p) will be true iff there is a situation s in which p is true in the utterance context. The EV operator dismisses a temporal analysis based on evidence acquisition time of the evidential and instead sets the interpretation of the evidential in the utterance situation. The imperfective operator in 68(b) quantifies over situations identified by a modal base MB. The predicate of events P25 states that all (∀) situations s’ that are compatible with the MB include a P event. The perfective operator in 68(c) in turn does not include a modal quantifier of any kind. Perfectives describe events that are in the past in relation to speech time and the PERF operator restrict the domain of function only to such situations (s precedes s*).

Firstly, Arregui et al. propose an ongoing MB for the iterative reading of imperfective as in examples 46(a-b) in section 6.2.2. In (69) below, I have adjusted their example to include a modal in the evidential form.

(69) (Spored dobre osvedomeni iztočnici,) Maria možela da (according.to well informed sources,) Maria can-IPFV.EVID CON sviri na piano. play.PRS.3SG on piano. ‘According to well informed sources), Maria could play the piano yesterday’ (adapted from Arregui et al. 2017:12(9a-c))

In (69) above, if we only take into consideration the evidential on the modal we can get the two readings for the imperfective; one interpretation of Maria having the possibility to play the piano once a day and one where she plays the piano several times during the day on different occasions.

When it comes to the perfective form the PERF operator embedded under EV restricts the situation to the past in respect to the speech time (s*).

(70) (Spored dobre osvedomeni iztočnici,) Maria mogla da (according.to well informed sources,) Maria can-PFV.EVID CON sviri na piano. play.PRS.3SG on piano. ‘According to well informed sources), Maria could play the piano yesterday’ (adapted from (Arregui et al. 2017:17, (17)))

25 In recent semantic theory, events are classed as semantic objects, which are described by the help of event predicates. (Davidson 1970, Dowty 1982)

Currently, the analysis proposed by Arregui et al. for evidentials cannot be extended onto the modal verbs, as it is not clear what the scope of the analysis is with regards to EV and grammatical aspect. I leave this question to future research.

I applied the modal verbs to different theoretical approaches to modality and evidentiality in Bulgarian and showed that although in certain cases the modal verbs behave as regular verbs, in other they do not fit entirely in proposed analyses. The interpretational and contextual flexibility of the Bulgarian modals and the interaction they have with tense, aspect and especially evidentiality can be used to shape new theoretical approaches for a unified semantic analysis that capture their versatility.

7. Conclusion In this thesis, I have demonstrated what the lexical specification for the Bulgarian modal verbs trjabva and moga are. Specifically, in the course of two separate studies I have performed two different investigations on the Bulgarian modal verbs. First, I have shown through face-to-face interviews that trjabva is specified for necessity force and moga for possibility force. Furthermore, both modal verbs are compatible with deontic, epistemic, circumstantial and teleological modal flavours. Secondly, I have measured judgements on listener belief of the bare modal verb, the evidential and the conditional modal forms for both trjabva and moga. From Study 2, I found that when measuring listener belief, a difference only between a modal and non-modal form was evident. Not all other data yielded results that could provide a pattern for distribution or tendencies for the different forms of the modal verbs. In Section 6, I proposed a formal analysis for the modal verbs based on the Kratzerian framework of modal semantics. Afterwards, I adapted and extended Condoravdi’s temporal approach of English modals to the Bulgarian ones, and show that similarly the conditional form and past tense form of the modal verbs provide two readings – an epistemic and a counterfactual one. I also look into three earlier approach to Bulgarian evidentials and add new empirical data to them in regards to the modal verbs. Lastly, I look into the Bulgarian tense and aspect system and propose confirmativity as a criterion for sorting the tense and aspect pairs.

8. Future research

Throughout this thesis, I have started a novel discussion into Bulgarian modals, which hopefully will be fruitful to future discussions in the topic. There are several topics that I have come across in the shaping of the thesis, which I reckon will be interesting future projects to pursue in the field. Firstly, having grazed through the included different combinations of the modal verbs with evidentiality, tempus and aspect, it would be beneficial to find out if the modal if the meaning of the modal changes if it is in a sentence without da. There are some instances where da can be omitted from moga and trjaba presented below in (71).

(71) a. Bez ljubov ne može. Without love NEG can.PRS.3SG ‘It is not possible without love’

b. Dela trjabvat, a ne dumi. Action.PL must.3PL, but NEG word.PL ‘Actions are needs, not words.’

Since the modals in Bulgarian display verbal properties, then it can be that without da they have different for their complements. In (71) for example, it seems to be that the complement of the modal is a PP/DP and not a clause.

Another phenomenon, I have encountered is the effect person marking has on the meaning of the modal. In (72)a below inflected moga in the 3rd person plural matching the subject has a abilty reading, whereas it’s uninflected counterpart has an permission one.

(72) a. Učenitsite mogat da izljazat. ABILITY Student.PL can.PRS.3PL CON leave.PR.3SG ‘The students can (have the ability to) leave.’

b. Učenitsite može da izljazat. PERMISSION Student.PL can.PRS.3SG CON leave.PR.3SG ‘The student can (are allowed to) leave.’

Uninflected moga in the 3rd person singular does not pose person restrictions to its complement in the embedded clause whereas inflected moga does.

(73) a. Može da izljaza /izlezeš /izljazat. can.PRS.3SG CON leave.1SG/leave.2SG /leave.3PL ‘I/you/he/she/it/they can leave.’

b. Moga da izljaza / * izlezeš / * izljazat. can.PRS.1SG CON leave.1SG/leave.2SG /leave.3PL ‘I/*you/*he/*she/*it/*they can leave.’

Further restrictions for the person markings are posed to the complement clause, when the complement is an evidential. In (74) below only the sentence with uninflected moga (74b) is grammatical, whereas inflected moga (74a) is not.

(74) * a. Učenitsite mogat da sa izlezli. Student.PL can.PRS.3PL CON REFL leave.EVID.3PL ‘The students can (have the ability to) leave.’

b. Učenitsite može da sa izlezli. Student.PL can.PRS.3SG CON REFL leave.PR.3PL ‘The student can (are allowed to) leave.’

9. References Aikhenvald, Aleksandra., 2004. Evidentiality, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Arregui, Anna, Rivero, Maria & Salanova, Andres, 2017. Modality across syntactic categories, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Condoravdi, Cleo, 2001. Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past. In D. Beaver, S. Kaufmann, B. Clark & L. Casillas (Eds.), the construction of meaning (p. 59-88). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Davidson, Donald, 1970. Events and Particulars. Noûs 4, no. 1 (1970): p. 25-32. Accessed April 17, 2021. https://doi.org/10.2307/2214289

Degen, Judith et al., 2019. Definitely, maybe: A new experimental paradigm for investigating the pragmatics of evidential devices across languages. Journal of pragmatics, 140, p. 33–48.

Degen, Judith & Schuster, Sebastian, 2020. I know what you're probably going to say: Listener adaptation to variable use of uncertainty expressions. Cognition, 203, p. 104-285.

Demey, Lorentz, 2009. Computing the Maximal Boolean Complexity of Families of Aristotelian Diagrams. Journal of Logic and Computation, Volume 28, Issue 6, September 2018, p. 1323–1339

Douven, Igor & Verbrugge, Sara, 2010. The Adams family. Cognition, 117(3), p. 302–318.

Dowty, David R, & Parsons, Terence, 1982. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. The Philosophical Review, 91(2), p. 290–295. von Fintel, Kai, and Sabine Iatridou. 2007. Anatomy of a modal construction. Linguistic Inquiry 38:445–483 von Fintel, Kai & Matthewson, Lisa, 2008. Universals in semantics. Linguistic review, 25(1- 2), p. 139–201. von Fintel, Kai & Gillies, Anthony S., 2007. An opinionated guide to epistemic modality, In Oxford Studies in Epistemiology, eds. T.S. Gendler and J. Hawthorne, Oxford: Oxford University Press. von Fintel, Kai & Gillies, Anthony S., 2010. Must... stay... strong. Natural language semantics, 18(4), p. 351–383.

Fitneva, Stanka A., 2001. Epistemic marking and reliability judgments: evidence from Bulgarian. Journal of pragmatics, 33(3), p. 401–420.

Friedman, Victor, 1988. The category of evidentiality in the Balkan and the Causcasus. In: A.Schenker, ed., American contributions to the Tenth International Congress of Slavists, p. 121-139. Sofia: Slavica

Friedman, Victor, 2000.Conﬁrmative/Nonconﬁrmative in Balkan Slavic, Balkan Romance, and Albanian, with additional observations on Turkish, Romani, Georgian, and Lak . In Evidentials in Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 24], Lars Johanson & Bo Utas (eds), p. 329–366. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Gerdzhikov, Georgi, 2003. Preizkazvaneto na glagolnoto dejstvie v bălgarskija ezik (in Bulgarian), Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridksi University.

Giannakidou, Anastasia & Mari, Alda, 2018. A unified analysis of the future as epistemic modality. Natural language and linguistic theory, 36(1), p. 85–129.

Heine, Bernds, 1995. On German werden future. Discourse, Grammar and Typology: Papers in honor of John W.M. Verhaar. [Studies in Language Companion Series 27] 1995, p. 191

Izvorski, Roumyana, 1997. The Present Perfect as an Epistemic Modal. Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 7, p. 222.

Koev, Todor, 2011. Evidentiality and temporal distance learning. Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 21, p. 115.

Krapova, Iliyana, 2001. Subjunctives in Bulgarian and Modern Greek. in María Luisa Rivero and Angela Ralli (eds.), Comparative Syntax of Balkan Languages, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 105–126.

Kratzer, Angelika. 1977. What must and can must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(5). 337–355.

Kratzer, Angelika, 1981. The notional category of modality. In: Words, worlds, and contexts: New approaches in word semantics, ed. by HJ Eikmeyer and H. Rieser. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, p. 38-74.

Kratzer, Angelika, 1989. An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12, p. 607-653.

Kratzer, Angelika, 1991. Modality in Artim von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds.) An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, p. 639-650. Berlin de Gruyter.

Kutzarov, Ivan. 2007. Theoretical Bulgarian Grammar. Morphology, Plovdiv: Plovdiv University: Paisij Hilendarski.

Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 2016. Modality and mood in Oceanic. In Jan Nuyts & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Mood and Modality, chap. 14, p. 330–361. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Lindstedt, Jouko, 1985. On the semantics of tense and aspect in Bulgarian. Helsinki.

Lindstedt, Jouko, 2010. Mood in Bulgarian and Macedonian. In Bjorn Rothstein & Rolf Theiroff (eds.), Mood in the Languages of Europe (Studies in Language Companion Series, 120). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Levin-Steinmann, Anke, 2004. Dieœ Legende vom bulgarischen Renarrativ, 437.

Lewis, David. 1973. Causation. The Journal of Philosophy 70(17). p. 556–567.

Murdarov, Vladko et al., 2016. Ofitsialen pravopisen rečnik na bălgarskija ezik. Glagoli [Official spelling dictionary of the Bulgarian language. Verbs]. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Sofia: Prosveta

Nitsolova, Ruselina 2008. Balgarska gramatika. Morfologia. Sofia: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Ohridski”. Penchev, Y. 1998. Syntax. Plovdiv

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

Rudin, Catherine, 1983. Da and the Category AUX in Bulgarian. In: Heny F., Richards B. (eds) Linguistic Categories: Auxiliaries and Related Puzzles. Synthese Language Library (Texts and Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy), vol 19. Springer, Dordrecht.

Rivero, María Luisa & Slavkov, Nikolay, 2014. Imperfect(ive) variation: The case of Bulgarian. Lingua, 150, p. 232–277.

Sauerland Uli & Schenner, Mathias, 2007. Embedded evidentials in Bulgarian. In E Puig- Waldmüller (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra, p. 525-539

Scatton, E.A., 1984. A reference grammar of modern Bulgarian, Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers.

Smirnova, Anastasia, 2011a. The meaning of the Bulgarian evidential and why it cannot express inferences about the future. Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 21, p. 275.

Smirnova, Anastasia, 2011b. Evidentiality and mood: Grammatical expressions of epistemic modality in Bulgarian. Doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University

Smirnova, Anastasia, 2012. The semantics of mood in Bulgarian. Proceedings from the Annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 48(1): 547–61

Smirnova, Anastasia, 2013a. Evidentiality in Bulgarian: Temporality, Epistemic Modality, and Information Source. Journal of semantics (Nijmegen), 30(4), p. 479–532.

Smirnova, Anastasia, 2013b. The meaning of Bulgarian and Turskish Evidentials. Contrastive Linguistics 2013, 2/3: p. 205-223

Smith, Carlota, 1991. The Parameter of Aspect [Studies in Linguistics, Volume 43]. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, Boston, London.

Stojanov, Stojan (ed.) 1983. Gramatika na săvremennija bălgarski knižoven ezik, II: Morfologija. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata akademija na naukite

Tomić, Olga Mišeska. , 2006. Introduction. In: Balkan Sprachbund Morpho-Syntactic Features. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 67. Springer, Dordrecht

Topolińska, Zuzanna, 1994. Factivity as a grammatical category in Balkan Slavic and Balkan Romance in Slavia Meridionalis : studia linguistica slavica et balcanica, p. 105-121

Tzonev, Boris, 1910. Opredeleni i neopredeleni formi v balgarskiya ezik. Godishnik na Sofijkija universitet – Istoriko-filologicheski fakultet 7: p. 1-18

Vander Klok, Jozina, 2013. Pure Possibility and Pure Necessity Modals in Paciran Javanese. Oceanic linguistics, 52(2), p. 341–374.

Vander Klok, Jozina, 2014. Modal Questionnaire for Cross-Linguistic Use. Online version: https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/tools-at-lingboard/pdf/Modal Questionnaire - CrossLing JVK.pdf.

Wiemer, Bjorn, 2014. Mora da as a marker of modal meanings in Macedonian. Modes of Modality, p. 127-166.

Wiemer, Bjorn & Seržant, Ilja A., 2017. Diachrony and typology of Slavic aspect: What does morphology tell us? In W. Bisang & A. Malchukov (Eds.), Unity and diversity in grammaticalization scenarios (Studiesin Diversity Linguistics, 16, p. 239–307). Berlin.

Willet, Thomas, 1988. A Cross-Linguistic Survey of the Grammaticization of Evidentiality. Studies in Language Vol. 12:1 (1988), p. 51–97

10. APPENDIX A: Contexts from the questionnaire on modals in Bulgarian adapted from Vander Klok (2014)

(1) [Target: necessity deontic] In Bulgaria, the law states that when you ride a motor bike... (You

MUST wear a helmet)

Translated: V Bălgarija, spored zakona ako karaš mototsiklet ... (TRJABVA da nosiš kaska)

Cyrillic script: В България, според закона ако караш мотоциклет ... (ТРЯБВА да носиш каска)

(2) [Target: necessity epistemic] You know that Veselina goes to the market every morning after the morning news (7:00 – 9:30), even though she is not required to. Right now, you wonder where Veselina is. You check the clock: it's 10:30 am. (Veselina MUST be at the market).

Translated: Znaeš če Veselina otiva na pazara vsjaka sutrin sled sutrešnija blok (7:00 – 9:30), văpreki če ne trjabva. Sega se čudiš kăde e Veselina. Proverjavaš si časovnika: 10:30 e. (Veselina TRJABVA da e na pazara.)

Cyrillic script: Знаеш че, Веселина отива на пазара всяка сутрин след сутрешния блок (7:00 – 9:30), въпреки че не трябва. Сега се чудиш къде е Веселина. Проверяваш си часовника: 10:30 е. (Веселина ТРЯБВА да е на пазара.)

(3) [Target: possibility epistemic] Professor Daskalov is not consistent. The students never know if he's going to come or not to give a lecture. Today, it's time to start class and the students are waiting again. (He MIGHT be coming today)

Translated: Profesor Daskalov ne e postojanen. Studentite nikoga ne znajat dali šte doide da si provede lektsijata ili ne. Dnes, veče e vreme za lektsijata da započne i studentite otnovo čakat. (Toj MOŽE da doide dnes)

Cyrillic script: Професор Даскалов не е постояннен. Студентите никога не знаят дали ще дойда да си проведе лекцията или не. Днес, вече е време за лекцията да започне и студентите отново чакат. (Той МОЖЕ да дойде днес).

(4) [Target: possibility epistemic] Sonja is looking for her necklace. She's not sure if she lost it or if it is still somewhere in the house because she doesn't remember the last time that she wore the necklace. She looks in her wardrobe and on top of the wardrobe. It’s not there. She looks on top of the TV. It’s not there. She looks in her backpack; it’s not there. Wait! She didn’t check her sister’s wardrobe yet…(Sonja’s necklace MIGHT / #must be lost.)

Translated: Sonja si tărsi ogărlitsata. Tja ne e sigurna dali ja e izgubila ili vse ošte e njakăde v kăshtata, zaštoto ne si spomnja poslednija păt kogato ja e nosila. Tja pogležda v garderoba si i otgore nego. Ne e tam. Tja pogležda otgore telvizora. Ne e i tam. Pogležda v ranitsata si; ne e i tam. Čakai malko! Tja ne e proverila v garderoba na sestra si vse ošte...(Ogărlitsata na Sonja MOŽE da e izgubena / #trjabva da e izgubena.)

Cyrillic script: Соня си търси огърлицата. Тя не е сигурна дали я е изгубила или все още е някъде в къщата, защото не си спомня последния път когато я е носила. Тя поглежда в гардероба си и отгоре него. Не е там. Тя поглежда отгоре телевизора. Не е и там. Поглежда в раницата си; не е и там. Чакай малко! Тя не е проверила в гардероба на сестра си все още... (Огърлицата на Доня МОЖЕ да е изгубена / #трябва да е изгубена).

(5) [Target: necessity epistemic] (adapted from von Fintel & Gillies 2007; see also Peterson 2010:129 on evidential component and logical inference) The math teacher says: The ball is in A or in B or in C. It is not in A. It is not in B. So, (it must be in C)

Translated: Učitelja po matematika kazva: Topkata e v ili v A, ili v B ili v C. Topkata ne e v A. Ne e i v B. Taka če, ... (TRJABVA da e v C)

Cyrillic script: Учителят по математика казва: Топката е в А или в В или в С. Топката не е в А. Не е в В. Така че, ... (ТРЯБВА да е в С)

(6) [Target: possibility deontic] According to the rules of the hospital, only family members are allowed to enter the patient’s room during visiting hours. You came to visit your sister, but it was after visiting hours. But the really nice nurse says...(You MAY/#MUST enter.)

Translated: Spored pravilata na bolnitsata, samo členove na semejstvoto mogat da poseštavat patsientite prez časovete za vizitatsija. Ti iskaš da vidiš sestra si, no pristigaš sled časa za vizitatsija. Medinskata sestra obače e mnogo mila i ti kazva...(MOŽE/#TRJABA da vlezeš)

Cyrilic script: Според правилата на болницата, само членове на семейство могат да посещават пациентите през часовете за визитация. Ти искаш да видиш сестра си, но пристигаш след часа за визитация. Медицинската сестра обаче е много мила и ти казва...(МОЖЕ/#ТРЯБВА да влезеш)

(7) [Target: necessity circumstantial] Normally at church, it is time to be serious. But then we saw Ivan fell asleep with his mouth wide open during mass our friend Petko just (HAD to laugh.)

Translated: Obiknovenno, kogato sme na tsărkva se iziskva da si seriozen. No kogato vidjahme, če Ivan e zaspal s otvorena usta po vreme na liturgijata našija prijatel Petko prosto … (TRJABVASHE da se izsmee)

Cyrillic script: Обикновенно, когато сме на църква се изисква да сме сериозни. Но когато видяхме, че Иван е заспал с отворена уста по време на литургията, нашия приятел Петко просто ... (ТРЯБВАШЕ да се изсмее)

(8) [Target: necessity deontic] (adapted from Horne 1961:269) A loaf of bread usually is usually eaten in a day, and there are two loaves left now. I don't have time to go to the market because it's far away... (So I HAVE to make the remaining bread last for two more days.)

Translated: Edin hljab obiknovenno se izjažda za edin den, a sega ima dva hljaba. Njamam vreme da otida do magazina sega, zaštoto e nadaleče...(Taka če TRJABVA da izkaram s hljaba koito imam ošte dva dena.)

Cyrilic script: Един хляб обикновенно се изяжда за един ден, а сега има два хляба. Нямам време да отида до магазина сега, защото е надалече...(Така че ТРЯБВА да изкарам с хляба който имам още два ден.)

(9) [Target: possibility deontic] The playground in the South Park is only for children from 3 to 12 years old. Peičo is 8 years old. It is not obligatory for Peičo to go on the ride if he doesn't want to. (Peičo MAY/#must ride the ferris wheel)

Translated: Detskata ploštadka v Južen Park e samo za detsa ot 3 do 12 godišna văzrast. Peičo e na 8 godini. Ne e zadălžitelno toj da igrae na ploštadkata ako ne iska. (Peičo MOŽE/#TRJABVA da si igrae na ploštadkata)

Cyrilic script: Детската площадка в Южен Парк е само за деца от 3 до 12 годишна възраст. Пейчо е на 8 години. Не е задължно то да играе на площадката ако не иска. (Пейчо МОЖЕ/#ТРЯБВА да си играе на площадката)

(10) [Target: weak necessity teleological] (adapted from von Fintel & Iatridou 2008) There are different ways to get to the women’s market in Sofia. You can go by car, bicycle, motorcycle, bus or metro. Boyan and Tihomir think that the best way is to go is by motorcycle, because you avoid traffic and get there faster. So, according to Boyan and Tihomir,...(To get to the women’s market in Sofia, you SHOULD go by motorcycle.)

Translated: Ima različni načini da stigneš do ženskija pazar v Sofia. Može da otideš tam s kola, mototsiklet, avtobus ili metro. Bojan i Tihomir misljat če naj dobrija način za stigane dotam e s mototsiklet, zaštoto po tozi način otbjagvaš trafika i stigaš po bărzo. Taka če, spored Bojan i Tihomir…(Za da stigneš do ženskija Pazar v Sofia, TRJABA/BI TRJABVALO da izpolzvaš mototsiklet)

Cyrilic script: Има различни начини да стигнеш до Женския Пазар в София. Може да отидеш там с кола, мотоциклет, автобус или метро. Боян и Тихомир мислят, че най-добрия начин за стигане до там е с мотоциклет, защото по този начин отбягваш трафика и стигаш по бързо. Така че, според Боян и Тихомир...(За да стигнеш до Женския Пазар в София, ТРЯБВА/БИ ТРЯБВАЛО да използваш да мотоциклет)

(11) [Target: weak necessity teleological] (adapted from von Fintel & Iatridou 2008) There are three ways to get to Sofia from Varna: by bus, by plane, and by train. Boyan says going by plane is the best. So according to him, (If you go to Sofia, you SHOULD take the plane.)

Translated: Ima tri načina da stigneš do Sofia ot Varna: s avtobus, săs samolet i s vlak. Bojan kazva če e naj dobre săs samolet. Taka če spored Boja, (ako pătuvaš do Sofia, TRJABVA/BI TRJABVALO da otideš săs samolet)

Cyrilic script: Има три начина да стигнеш до София от Варна: с автобус, със самолет и с влак. Боян казва, че е най-добре със самолет. Така че, според Боян (ако пътуваш до София, ТРЯБВА/БИ ТРЯБВАЛО да отидеш със самолет)

(12) [Target: necessity teleological] (adapted from von Fintel & Iatridou 2008) There is only one highway from Burgas to Sofia, the Trakija highway, from which you can arrive fast to Sofia. (If you go from Burgas from Sofia by the highway, you HAVE TO/ #SHOULD take this road)

Translated: Ima samo edna magistrala ot Burgas do Sofia, magistrala Trakija, ot kojato može da stigneš bărzo do Sofia. (Ako iskaš da otideš do Sofia po magistralata TRJABVA/ #БИ ТРЯБВАЛО da izpozvaš tazi)

Cyrilic script: Има само една магистрала от Бургас до София, магистрала Тракия, от която може да стигнеш бързо до София. (Ако искаш да отидеш до София по магистралата ТРЯБВА/#БИ ТРЯБВАЛО да използваш тази)

(13) [Target: possibility deontic] Kristina's parents are very strict, but they realize that Kristina is getting older and needs more space. They know that Kristina has not ever dated someone yet, but they know that she likes this one guy from school. They decided that: (Kristina MAY go out with boys.)

Translated: Roditelite na Kristina sa mnogo strogi, no te osăznavat če Kristina stava po goljama i če se nujdae ot poveče prostranstvo. Te znajat če Kristina vse ošte ne e izlizala s momče, no znajat če tja haresva edno momče ot učilišteto si. Te rešavat če sega (Kristina MOŽE da izliza s momčeta.)

Cyrilic script: Родителите на Кристина са много строги, но те осъзнават, че Кристина става по- голяма и че се нуждае от пространство. Те знаят, че Криситна все още не е излизала с момче, но знаят, че тя харесва едно момче от училището си. Те решават, че сега (Кристина МОЖЕ да излиза с момчета.)

(14) [Target: possibility epistemic] Haralampi’s parents told him that he is not allowed to go to see his friend in Varna because it is too far away. You heard that Haralampi is leaving Sofia next week, but you don't know where he will go. Haralampi is a daring type of guy that usually does things that he is not permitted to do. You think: (Haralampi MAY go to Varna. (might, #allow)

Translated: Roditelite na Haralampi ne mu pozvoljavat da otide da vidi prijatelite si văv Varna, zaštoto e tvărde daleče. Dočuvaš, če Haralampi šte hodi izvăn Sofia sledvaštata sedmitsa, no ne znaeš kăde šte otide. Haralampi često usporva pravilata i pravi nešta, koito ne sa mu pozvoleni. Ti si misliš: (Haralampi MOŽE da otide do Varna.)

Cyrilic script: Родителите на Харалампи не му позволяват да отиде да види приятелите си във Варна, защото е твърде далече. Дочуваш, че Харалампи ще ходи извън София следващата седмица, но не знаеш къде ще отиде. Харалампи често успорва правилате и прави неща, които не са му позволени. Ти си мислиш: (Харалампи МОЖЕ да отиде до Варна.)

(15) [Target: possibility circumstantial] (adapted from Kratzer 1991:640) Asen is quite old now, but he is still strong. His children are scared that he will hurt his back if he does any intense labour, so they told him that he is forbidden to lift heavy things. But one day Asen’s friend Samuil asked to help him in the field, because Samuil knows Asen is still strong. So when Samuil saw a large rock that had to be moved, he asked Asen straightaway for help (but he didn't tell Asen’s children!). Samuil knew that... (Asen CAN lift that rock.)

Translated: Asen e na văzrast v momenta, no toj e vse ošte silen. Negovite detsa se bojat, če šte si natovari gărba ako izvăršva usilen fizičeski trud, taka če te sa mu zabranili da vdiga težko. No edin den prijatelja na Asen, Samuil, go pomolva za pomošt na poleto, zaštoto Samuil znae če Asen e vse ošte silen. Taka če, sled kato Samuil vižda goljam kamăk, koito trjabva da băde premesten, toj pomolva vednaga Asen za pomošt (no ne kazva na detsata mu!). Samuil znae če... (Asen MOŽE da vdigne kamăka.)

Cyrilic script: Асен е на възраст в момента, но той е все още силен. Неговите деца се боят, че ще си натовари гърба, ако извършва усилен физически труд, така че те са му забранили да вдига тежно. Но един ден приятеля на Асен, Самуил, го помолва за помощ на полето, защото Самуил знае че Асен е все още силен. Така че, след като Самуил вижда голям камък, който трябва да бъде премахнат, той помолва веднага Асен за помощ (но не казва на децата му!). Самуил знае че,... (Асен МОЖЕ да вдигне камъка.)

(16) [Target: possibility circumstantial] The ‘travel’ vans have a limit of 13 people by law. But the drivers don’t care, and stop for more than 13 people. Also, the vans are bigger than you think. (Travel vans CAN fit 20 people.)

Translated: Mikrobusite imat kapatsitet do 13 čoveka po zakon. No na šofjorite ne im puka i kačvat poveče ot 13 čoveka. Săsto taka, mikrobusite sa po golemi otkolko si misliš. (Mikrobusite MOGAT da kačat do 20 čoveka.)

Cyrilic script: Микробусите имат капацитет от 13 човека по закон. Но на шофьорите не им пука и качват повече от 13 човека. Също така, микробусите са по-големи отколкото си мислиш. (Микробусите МОГАТ да качат до 20 човека.)

(17) [Target: necessity teleological] (adapted from von Fintel & Iatridou 2008) There is only one highway from Burgas to Sofia, the Trakija highway, from which you can arrive fast to Sofia. (If you go from Burgas from Sofia by the highway, you HAVE TO/ #SHOULD take this road)

(18) [Target: weak necessity deontic] It is Easter Wednesday. Atanas wants to start colouring the eggs, but according to tradition... (he OUGHT TO colour them on Thursday.)

Translated: Velikdenskata sedmitsa e. Atanas iska da započne s bojadisvaneto na jaitsata, no spored traditsijata...(Toj BI TRJABVALO/TRJABVA da gi bojadisa v Četvărtăk.)

Cyrilic script: Великденската седмица е. Атанас иска да започне с боядисването на яйцата, но според традицията...(Той БИ ТРЯБВАЛО/ТРЯБВА да ги боядиса в Четвъртък.)

(19) [Target: weak necessity epistemic] You know that Kalojan works from 8am – 12pm every morning. He usually doesn't miss a day of work. It is now 9am. You think: (Kalojan SHOULD be at the work now.)

Translated: Znaeš če Kalojan raboti ot 8 do 12 vsjaka sutrin. Toj po printsip ne propuska rabota. Sega e 9 časa. Ti si misliš: “Kalojan BI TRJABVALO/TRJABVA da e na rabota sega”

Cyrilic script: Знаеш че, Калоян работи от 8 до 12 всяка сутрин. Той по принцип не пропуска работа. Сега е 9 часа. Ти си мислиш „Калоян БИ ТРЯБВАЛО/ТРЯБВА да е на работа сега.“

11. APPENDIX B: Links towards the surveys from Study 2 Version A of survey in Bulgarian (last accessed 18/05/2021) https://forms.gle/o26BUGoP78DDBGkYA

Version A of survey in English (last accessed 18/05/2021) https://forms.gle/ui9ajKCeb4qVwrEb7

Version B of survey in Bulgarian (last accessed 18/05/2021) https://forms.gle/o3RmTX57MbJs3cES8

Version B of survey in English (last accessed 18/05/2021) https://forms.gle/9uoEfdPqKY8YKRpP9

Version C of survey in Bulgarian (last accessed 18/05/2021) https://forms.gle/oiRMUu87uMVhV6oeA

Version C of survey in English (last accessed 18/05/2021) https://forms.gle/mXgHX1K5UrLLoC1c8

Version D of survey in Bulgarian (last accessed 18/05/2021) https://forms.gle/9TJe2hisjndtR45n6

Version D of survey in English (last accessed 18/05/2021) https://forms.gle/tXZs3cDHLzqvRmKt6

12. APPENDIX C: LATIN SQUARE LISTS BY SARAH ZOBEL

Randomized Latin square lists – Bulgarian modals

Sarah Zobel

5/7/2020

library(readxl) library(here) library(readr)

Load items list and filler list

Table with items: path.items <- here('stimuli-adaptedSZ.xls') items.tab <- read_xls(path.items) str(items.tab)

## Classes 'tbl_df', 'tbl' and 'data.frame': 48 obs. of 4 variables: ## $ item.nr : num 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 ... ## $ sent.type: chr "bare" "modal" "evid" "strength" ... ## $ modal : chr "trjabva" "trjabva" "trjabva" "trjabva" ...

## $ text : chr "Ти си в твоя офис без прозорци вкъщи. Твоят приятел Димитър влиза и казва: “Вечерята е готова”. Имайки впредвид"| __truncated__ "Ти си в твоя офис без прозорци вкъщи. Твоят приятел Димитър влиза и казва: ѕВечерята трябва да е готоваї. Имайк"| __truncated__ "Ти си в твоя офис без прозорци вкъщи. Твоят приятел Димитър влиза и казва: ѕВечерята трябвало е готоваї. Имайки"| __truncated__ "Ти си в твоя офис без прозорци вкъщи. Твоят приятел Димитър влиза и казва: ѕВечерята би трябвало е готоваї. Има"| __truncated__ ...

Table with fillers: path.filler <- here('filler-adaptedSZ.xls') filler.tab <- read_xls(path.filler) str(filler.tab)

## Classes 'tbl_df', 'tbl' and 'data.frame': 12 obs. of 4 variables: ## $ filler.nr : num 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ... ## $ condition : chr "filler" "filler" "filler" "filler" ... ## $ filler.type: chr "good" "good" "good" "good" ...

## $ text : chr "Ти си в мазето на стара офис сграда без прозорци. Твоят приятел Мариян влиза и казва \"Служебната кола е развал"| __truncated__ "Ти си в мазето на стара офис сграда без прозорци. Твоят приятел Борис влиза и казва \"Работната среща беше дълг"| __truncated__ "Ти си в мазето на твоята къща и си търсиш оборудването за катерене. Твоят съквартирант Калин влиза и казва \"Об"| __truncated__ "Ти си в мазето на твоята къщта и си вършиш някаква работа. Твоят съквартирант Мехмед влиза и казва \"Звъни се н"| __truncated__ ... Create latin square lists from items table written by Edith Scheifele & Sarah Zobel bed <- 4 # number of conditions to distinguish itm <- dim(items.tab)[1] # number of items * conditions = length of items tab i <- 1:(itm/bed) # initialize running sequence; length will be number of lists for (j in seq_len(bed)) { liste <- (i - 1)*bed + (i + j + (bed - 2)) %% bed + 1 print(liste)

all <- items.tab[liste,] # get rows from table

lname <- paste("list.", j, sep = "") # save list in R assign(lname, all)

91 write_csv(all, here(paste0('lsq-list-', j, '.csv')), na = "") # list to file }

## [1] 1 6 11 16 17 22 27 32 33 38 43 48 ## [1] 2 7 12 13 18 23 28 29 34 39 44 45 ## [1] 3 8 9 14 19 24 25 30 35 40 41 46 ## [1] 4 5 10 15 20 21 26 31 36 37 42 47 Randomize and pseudo-randomly add fillers

# collect lsq item lists in a list object lists <- list(list.1, list.2, list.3, list.4) for (j in seq_len(bed)) { # set seed for replicability set.seed(100/j)

# number of entries in lists[[j]] dim.j <- dim(lists[[j]])[1]

# produce random item order rand.items <- lists[[j]][sample(c(1:dim.j), dim.j, replace = FALSE), ]

# produce random filler order rand.filler <- filler.tab[sample(c(1:dim(filler.tab)[1]), dim(filler.tab)[1], replace = FALSE), ]

# build list *item, filler, item, filler...* because of 1:1 ratio final.list <- rbind(as.matrix(rand.items[1,]), as.matrix(rand.filler[1,])) for (i in c(2:dim.j)){

final.list <- rbind(final.list, as.matrix(rand.items[i,]), as.matrix(rand.filler[i,])) } final.list <- as.data.frame(final.list)

# write final pseudo-random list to file write_csv(final.list, here(paste0('random-list-', j, '.csv')), na = "") }