Saramaccan, Modality, Modal System, Hierarchy of Functional Categories, Layered Structure of Clause 1. Introduction 1

. For about four decades, the syntactic. status of different types of modalities has been a frequently discussed question. Thus, in generative grammar, it was long held that root modals are control structures while epistemic modals constitute instances of subject raising structures. More recently, the position has gained support that root and epistemic modals are generated at different base positions (cf. Barbiers 2002: 7-9). One of the most influential contributions to the recent discussion of modality has come from Cinque (1999). On the basis of cross-linguistic data, Cinque claims the validity of a universal hierarchy of functional projec- tions in which, for example, the following scope1)relationship between

言語研究(GengoKenkyu)128(2005),33～72 33

Mood and the Modal System in Saramaccan*

Heiko NARROG (Tohoku University)

Key words: Saramaccan, modality,modal system,hierarchy of functional categories,layered structure of clause

1. Introduction 1.1. Goals of this paper

* All the data presented in this paper were provided by Rohit Paulus, native of Suriname, and resident of Suisun City, CA, during my stay at UC Berkeley in a period from 8/2001to 1/2002and in later private meetings in Berkeley. I wish to express my deep-felt gratitude to Rohit for his great generosity and patience, and to John McWhorter (currently Manhattan Institute) for generously and selflesslysharing resources with me, including the work in his graduate class on Saramaccan. I am further grateful for the generous comments on previous drafts of the manuscript that I received from John McWhorter and two anonymous reviewers of this journal, and for the help that I received from Marvin Kramer during the data elicitations. Magnus Wilson (Westminster University) kindly proofread and corrected my English. 1) In this paper, scope is understood as the area over which a functionalcategory 34 Heiko NARROG modal categories holds: evidential > epistemic > irrealis > necessity > possibility > volitional (cf. Cinque 1999: 106; intervening non-modal categories are omitted here). As with formal grammar, in recent theories of functional grammar different types of modality have been assigned to different universal "layers" of the clause. While in Role and Reference Grammar (RRG), a hierarchy is posited in which evidentiality outranks epistemic modality, which in turn outranks root modality (cf. Van Valin and LaPolla 1997: 49), in the standard model of Functional Grammar (FG) a slightly more complex picture is offered. Evidential and "subjective" epistemic modalities are assigned to the same layer, dominating "objective" epistemic and deontic modality, which are located at a lower layer. So-called "inherent" modality (ability etc.) is ranked lowest (cf. Dik 1997:241-2421296).2) Although the three models of grammar mentioned so far have completely different theoretical backgrounds, they share the explicit or implicit assumption that different types of modality have different scope in the clause, or in other words, occupy different positions in a scope hierarchy of functional categories. On the other hand, despite the burgeoning interest in these scope differences, systematic investigations in this area are still rare, and mostly confined to English, Dutch and German. Cinque (1999) has presented a study with rich cross-linguisticdata, which are, however, not based on rigorous testing in each individual language. Therefore, the validity of his results for specific languages, such as English and Middle Dutch has already been challenged (see Cormack and Smith 2002). Relating his research mainly to the FG and RRG frameworks, Nuyts (2004) has presented a very systematic study for Dutch, based on a corpus of spoken data. Yet, some parts of the study suffer from the limited amount of co- occurrences, which is typical for spoken language data.

operates. In the context of the discussion of the present paper, "wider" scope means scope over more functional categories. 2) Henceforth, when referring to RRG and FG, unless stated otherwise, I am referring to the standard models layed out in Van Valin and LaPolla (1997) and Dik (1997). Mood and the Modal System in Saramaccan 35

At this point the present study comes in, aiming to add another piece to the puzzle of cross-linguistic scope behavior of modal categories. The major goal here is to test the hypothesis that different types of modality must be assigned to different layers in a hierarchy of functional categories in the clause, referring to a language which has not figured in this discussion yet, namely the Suriname creole Saramaccan. With respect to the theoretical framework, the results will be related to the two functional "sister" frameworks mentioned above , namely FG and RRG.3)Gen- erative theories are excluded here because the diversity of research conducted in such frameworks would make a separate theoretical discussion indispensable. In investigating the abovementioned hypothesis, in principle data from any language are equally valuable. However, creoles arguably deserve special attention. It has been repeatedly suggested by creolists that they "... represent a fundamental layer of natural language, unob- scured by the results of millenia of phonological, syntactic, and semantic drift that make Universal Grammar a challenge to glean in older languages" (McWhorter 2005: 62). Therefore, they may reflect default settings of Universal Grammar. The creole under investigation here, Saramaccan, is lexically based mainly on English and Portuguese, and thus relatively easily accessible to the general linguist. Saramaccan can be characterized roughly as a language with a grammar resembling West African languages and a European-derived vocabulary. A second, concomitant goal of this study is to provide a descriptive overview of the expression of modality in Saramaccan. Although Sara- maccan is one of the most frequently cited Creole languages, the actual descriptive documentation is sparse, dispersed, and in some cases out- dated. This is also true for the field of modality. Thus, the overview in this

3) These two frameworks are closely related in their development. The idea of layering, which is crucial for distinguishingdifferent types of modality, was introduced into FG from RRG (Foley and Van Valin 1984) through Hengeveld in in the late 1980s(Hengeveld 1987,1989). 36 Heiko NARROG paper, although limited, adds to the description of the language

1.2. Modality and modal categories The category of modality can be defined as follows: `Modality is a linguistic category referring to the factual status of a state of affairs. The expression of a state of affairs is modalized if it is marked for being unde- termined with respect to its factual status, i.e. is neither positively nor negatively factual' (Narrog 2005: 184). The traditional sub-categories of deontic and epistemic modality are well-known, at least since Lyons (1977). Dynamic modality, subsuming notions such as volitionality, futurity, external necessity, "neutral" possibility and ability, has been recognized as a third, more marginal modal category (see Palmer 1979). Quite often, particularly in studies of modality in the generative tradition, one finds deontic and dynamic modality subsumed under the label of "root" modality (e.g. Steele 1974, Coates 1983), resulting in a two-way system of modality again. More recently, in some lines of research, evidentiality has been added to the scope of the study of modality. Evidentials qualify the proposition by the kind of evidence that speakers have for their statement (van der Auwera 2003: 71). Some good examples can be found in Japanese where grammatical markers such as -soo (hearsay), and -rasii (appearance, hearsay) express evidential notions. However, there is no agreement yet as to whether evidentiality should not rather be treated as a completely separate category (cf. Aikhenvald 2004: 7),4)or only as a very closely related category (e.g. Nuyts 2001: 27), and, if evidentiality is indeed con- sidered as part of modality, whether epistemic and evidential modality should be regarded as distinct or as forming one category together (e.g. Palmer 2001: 8). Furthermore, one can distinguish "mood" as the most grammaticalized form of modality which is often expressed as verb inflection, from

4) This point was brought to my attention by an anonymous reviewer. Mood and the Modal System in Saramaccan 37 the rest of modality. Typical moods include imperative, interrogative, subjunctive vs. indicative, optative, and irrealis vs. realis. Palmer, in the newest edition of his textbook on modality (Palmer 2001), has coined a term "modal systems" in contrast to "mood", thus dividing the pie of morphosyntactic expression of the notional category "modality" evenly. Thus, while "mood", as stated above, usually refers to the systematic inflectional formal realization of modality, "modal systems" are realized morphosyntactically more independently as auxiliaries, and partially retain more concrete, lexical meanings. Sometimes scholars make a distinction between subjective and objective modality. According to Lyons, the sentence in example (1) can be interpreted either objectively ("Relative to what is known, it is possible that he will not come"), or subjectively, that is as an expression of the speaker's belief ("I think it possible that he will not come") (Lyons 1995: 329f):

(1) He may not come. (Lyons 1995:329) In the present paper, the main distinction is made between root, epistemic, and evidential modality. In Saramaccan, we also find some mood marking. The different realizations of modal notions as a whole will be referred to as "modal markers" irrespective of their morphosyntactic properties.

1.3. The language and the data According to the Ethnologue, Saramaccan is a creole language mainly in Suriname spoken by a population of about 23,000 (Grimes 2000). Its most important lexifier languages are English and Portuguese, contributing to about a half and a third of the vocabulary, respectively. The rest of the vocabulary is mainly shared between words of Dutch and African origin (cf. Arends 2002: 117f, Bruyn 2002: 160-168). In fact, it has been found that Saramaccan is probably the language with the high- est proportion of substrate African vocabulary among all creoles in the 38 Heiko NARROG Americas (Bakker, Smith and Veenstra 1995: 169). Saramaccan has a phonology split between pitch accent and tone (cf. Good 2004). One can distinguish a level high tone, which marks the accent in the case of pitch accent words, and a level low tone. However, minimal word pairs only distinguished by tone are relatively rare. High tone is distinguished with an accent in the transcription and low tone is left unmarked. As in most creole languages word order is strictly SVO, and morphologically Sara- maccan is mostly isolating, with a few agglutinativeand fusional features. As was mentioned before, in proportion to its high name recognition Saramaccan is not particularly well documented. Among the seven Cre- oles currently spoken in Suriname, two, namely Sranan and Ndyuka, are also fairly well-known. With more than 120,000speakers Sranan is by far the most populous of the Surinamese creoles. It is frequently mentioned in the literature, but its description is just as fragmentary and dispersed as that of Saramaccan. In contrast, Ndyuka can boast what is perhaps the most thorough descriptive grammar of any New World creole, namely Huttar and Huttar (1994). Literature on these two languages sometimes provides useful hints on Saramaccan structures. The data used in this paper were all obtained through conventional elicitation, with the cooperation of a single native speaker of Saramac- can. Therefore, essentially the language system of an individual speaker is described in this paper. It is well known that there are dialectal differences within Saramaccan, and, in addition, the language system of individual speakers may vary according to factors such as age and social background. It is therefore not only possible but even likely that different results would be obtained with different speakers. Whenever the results here diverge from previous descriptions, this will be commented upon. The transcription basically follows the conventions in the Saramaccan- English word list (Rountree et al. 2000). However, open /s/ is transcribed as instead of , and open /o/ as instead of . Mood and the Modal System in Saramaccan 39

1.4. Structure of the paper

Sections 2 through 4 provide an overview of mood and modality in Saramaccan, starting with mood in section 2 and continuing with the modal system, namely root modality and epistemic/evidential modality in sections 3 and 4, respectively. The fifth section then presents the criteria that were used to determine the scope properties of different modal markers, and the results of the tests that employed these properties. In the last section, a discussion of the findings from the preceding sections, particularly section 5, will be offered.

2. Mood One can identify the following four categories of mood in Saramac- can: Irrealis, Imperative, Hortative, and Prohibitive. They are introduced here only briefly, because the focus on this paper is on the modal system of Saramaccan. There we find the deontic, epistemic, and evidential notions that we want to work with for the purposes of this research. The Irrealis in Saramaccan is realized through the particle bi, derived from the English participle been:5)

(2) mi wense taa John bi dc' akl' 1SG wish CPL John PST be here `I wish John would be here .'

It needs to be mentioned that the same marker, although this might as well be regarded as a separate lexical entry, is also used to mark the past in Saramaccan:

5) The following abbreviations are used in the morpheme glosses: 1/2/3, first second, third person; CJN, conjunction; COP, copula; CPL, complementizer DET, determiner; EPI, epistemic; FUT, future; IRR, irrealis; LOC, locative NEG, negation; OBL, obligation; PL, plural; POT, potential; PRG, progressive PST, past; QUE, question; SG, singular; VOL, volition. 40 Heiko NARROG

(3) di a bi ta duumi, hen mi go kumutu dE. ON 3SG PST PRG sleep then 1SG go go.out there `While he was sleeping I left.'

This past/irrealis marking is frequently combined with the future marker o to express an irrealis state-of-affairs that is future or posterior relative to another state-of-affairs.')

(4) mi bi abi moni, mi bi o heepi-en. 1SG PST have money 1SG PST FUT help-3SG `If I had had money , I would have helped her.' The Imperative is expressed by the naked verb and the ellipsis of the subject, as in the following example:

(5) womi, du paapaa. man, do quickly `Hurry up , man!' Hortative sentences are not different from imperatives in that the subject is omitted, but they are additionally marked by boo `let's'.

(6) boo go a wosu. let's go LOC home `Let's go home!'

Prohibitives also might be regarded as special cases of Imperatives. In their case, the additional marked is through the negative na. 6) In the tradition of creole description, o has often been labeled as the "irrealis" and bi as the "anterior", under Bickerton's assumption of a basic creole TMA systemwith "anterior", "irrealis" and "nonpunctual" (cf. Bickerton 1981: 58, 280). The view of Saramaccan TMA adopted here, based on the language of my consultant, is as following:bi has matured to a past marker and acquired irrealis functions. In contrast to this, o has assumed mainly future and predic- tive functions (although it can combine with bi for irrealis marking). Ta is the imperfective ("nonpunctual"). While the semantic functions of these markers are interpreted differently from Bickerton, the fact that there are only three such markers conforms to his claim. Mood and the Modal System in Saramaccan 41

(7) na bai dl wagi. NEG buy DET car `Don't buy this car!'

3. Root modality The two following sections deal with the Saramaccan modal system. They are divided into subsections by semantic domains. The meaning of each modal marker will be briefly introduced, as well as its etymology, if it is known or easily inferable, and its co-occurrence with two other salient functional categories with which modal markers interact, namely negation and tense. Negation in Saramaccan is usually marked with the negative 6(n), which regularly fuses with subject pronouns, e.g. mi `I' + a (n) NEG > me".With "tense" we are referring here particularly to past tense rep- resenting marked tense. Other properties of individual markers are only referred to if they are thought to be particularly remarkable. The syntactic status of most of the markers introduced in the following two sections is controversial. With respect to their semantic properties, and in reference to the fact that most of them etymologicallygo back to modals in Indo-European languages, it is tempting to simply designate them as the "modals", but obviously they cannot share the exact properties of modals in English. In fact, unless the author(s) wants to defend a particular theoretical position, it is quite common in the literature to refer to these grammatical items rather vaguely as "markers" or "par- ticles" or simply as "verbs" (cf. Bruyn 2002: 179f; Huttar and Huttar 1994:512-518). The question remains, of course, how far they are actually grammaticalized, and what exactly their grammatical status is. Kahrel (1987:63f), within the framework of FG, argues with respect to one of the markers (sa (bi)) that it has two realizations, one as a serial verb and one as a predicate operator, that is, auxiliary. Byrne (1987), working with a GB-model, proposes that two of them, sa and musu, in fact are still "main verbal and most probably subcategorize for finite Ss introduced by an S' node" (Byrne 1987: 113). In this paper, only the most obvious facts about 42 Heiko NARROG

part-of-speech membership and morphosyntactic behavior of the modal markers will be stated. This study focuses solely on modality in the lan-

guage, and it is assumed that in order to make an informed decision on how to exactly classify a particular grammatical item a broad overview over Saramaccan syntactic structures as a whole would be indispensable.

3.1. Potential sabi) (fu) Sa(bi), which has the two alternants sabi and sa, is a verb probably derived from the Portuguese saber `know (how to)', and optionally accompanies the complementizer fu.7)

(8) a sa d fan saamaka tongs seei d? 3SG POT CPL speak Saramaccan language self QUE aai, a sabi u fan saamaka tongo. yes 3SG POT CPL .speak Saramaccan language `Can he speak Saramaccan at all?-Yes , he can.' The long form sabi is only used with mental abilities, such as `speak a language' in the preceding example, and is therefore infelicitous in the following example, where no such mental ability is being referred to:

(9) i sa/*sabi bai di wagi aki d? 2SG POT buy DET car here QUE n5nw, dl' moni a mi an tjika. no DET money LOC 1SG 3SG-NEG enough `Can you buy this car? -No , I don't have enough money.' Sa(bi) (fu) can both be negated (see ex. (10) below with the fused negated

7) Bruyn (2002: 180) reports English shall and savvy or Dutch zal as possible sources for Sranan sa. McWhorter (p.c.) rejects these hypotheses on the ground that shall wasn't colloquial English even at the time when Suriname creoles were formed. Savvy is itself derived from saber and not common colloquial English, and zal would have resulted in za, not in sa. According to McWhorter, sa(bi) is therefore most likely derived from saber via the general West African pidgin sabi. Mood and the Modal System in Saramaccan 43 subject pronoun me `I not') and located in the past (see ex. (11) below with the past marker bi):

(10) me" sa feni. 1SG-NEG POT find `I can't find [it].' (11) dl' ndeti bi hanso. mi bi sa si dee teeja a liba. DET night PST attractive 1SG PST POT see DET star LOC top/sky `It was a beautiful night. I could see all the stars in the sky.'

Sa can also denote deontic possibility, which is permission ('can', `may'). The examples below show that like in the ability meaning, the complementizer fu can be omitted.

(12) u sa ko-li ku unu tide d? 1PL POT come-look 2PL today QUE `May we come and visit you today?' nono, una sa. l aai, unu sas no 2PL-NEG POT / yes you POT `No , you may not.'/ `Yes, you may.' As might be expected, there is no long form sabi in the permission use:

(13) *mi sabi ko-luku unu tide a? 1SG POT come-look you.PLU today QUE `May I come and visit you today?'

Similar to possibility markers in many other languages, sa (bi) (fu) also has a pragmatic politeness function in requests. The example below, for instance, is felicitous under the condition that the speaker wishes the addressee to shut the door, and cannot expect this to happen unless (s)he makes this utterance :8)

8) In this paper, only some of the most salient examples of speech act use of the modal markers are provided. The research was not conducted in a commu- 44 Heiko NARROG

(14) unu sa tapa dl' d5d o? 2PL POT close DET door QUE `Could you shut the door?'

3.2. Obligation/Appropriateness 3.2.1. musu (fu) Musu is a verb probably derived from English must. It denotes a strong necessity or obligation and is optionally accompanied by the complementizer fu. Below is an example:

(15) i musu haika andi dl mati fii taki da-i. 2SG OBL listen what DET friend PREP-2SG say give-2SG `You must listen to what your friends tell you!'

With bi, the obligation can be situated in the past (see ex. (16) below). The scope of negation (ex. (17)) is ambiguous between including the modal marker or not:

(16) mi bi musu wasi dl' wagi. 1SG PST OIBLwash DET car `I had to wash the car.' (17) ja musu bai dl wagi! 2SG-NEG OBL buy DET car `You mustn't buy the car! / You don't have to buy the car!'

It deserves notice that musu (fu) in a ditransitive construction with indirect object has a lexical meaning of forcing:

(18) na wan kodo sembE musu mi u wasi dl wagi no one single person force 1SG CPL wash DET car `Nobody forces me to wash the car.'

nal setting, or with a corpus, but in the "artificial" situation of traditional one- to-one elicitation. Therefore it is practically impossible to give a reliable description of the pragmatic range of usage of each marker. Mood and the Modal System in Saramaccan 45 This musu can be regarded as a separate lexical entry. Although its exis- tence is not particularly remarkable with respect to the description of Saramaccan, it merits attention as an example of degrammaticalization accompanying borrowing. An ordinary lexical verb has obviously been derived from a grammatical modal marker. This deserves notice since in grammaticalization theory it is assumed that the same regularities that hold in language-internal developments also hold when lexical grammatical items are borrowed (cf. Heine and Kuteva 2005). Musu can be pronounced with high tone and stress on the first sylla- ble, and without these attributes. In the language of the speaker this study is based on, there is no meaning difference between these phonetic vari- ants, but the high tone musu denotes a particular emphasis on the modal, comparable to English "I must[=stressed]do this" (ex. (19) vs. (20)):9)

(19) di TV hanso. mi musu abi-en. DET TV attractive 1SG OBL have-3SG `This TV is nice. I must have it.' (20) di TV hanso. mi musu abi-en. DET TV attractive 1SG OBL have-3SG `This TV is nice. I must[=stressed] have it.'

3.2.2. abi (fu) This construction consists of the verb abi `have' from English have and the optional complementizer fu. It expresses a weak obligation.

(21) i abi fu go a wooko. 2SG OBL CPL go LOC work `You have to go to work.' abi (fu) can be negated or be located in the past:

9) Note that Rountree et al. (2000:78) attribute strong obligation ('must') to ac- cented musu and weak obligation to unaccented musu ('should'). This distinction was rejected by the informant of the present study. 46 Heiko NARROG

(22) Ja abi u ko a wooko. 2SG-NEG OBL CPL come LOC work `You don't have to come to work.' (23) mi bi abi u wasi di wagi. 1SG PST have CPL wash DET car `I had to wash the car.'

3.2.3. a de fu The copula de, derived from English there, in conjunction with the expletive subject a `it' and the preposition fu `it is to' expresses an necessity, like in the example below:

(24) a dE flu wasi dl' wagi. 3SG COP PREP-2SG wash DET car `You got to wash the car.' [literally:`it is to you to wash the car']

Fu cannot be deleted:

(25) *an de i wasi di wagi. Note that the interpretation of the construction presented here implies a different analysis of a defu than for the preceding markers. Musu (fu) and abi (fu) can be analyzed as complement-taking verbs with subject-to-subject raising, similar to modals and semi-modals in English. The following formula shows the presumptive structure of (21) in a simplifiedmanner:

(26) ii abi [fu [ i go a wooko]] In contrast, I suggest that the structure of (24) is different. Corresponding to the semantic interpretation `it is to someone to do something', the following control structure can be posited:

(27) a dEfu ii [ i wasi di wagi] That is, fu is interpreted as a preposition, and not as a complementizer. The evidence supporting this analysis is the fact that, as in (28'), fu in this Mood and the Modal System in Saramaccan 47 construction cannot be deleted (preposition), while it can be deleted in the case of the other verbs where it functions as a complementizer (27').

(27') ii abi go a wooko (28') *a de ii wasi di wagi A de fu can be negated and located in the past (ex. (28) and (29) below). Note that although the past marker in (29) is placed in the dependent clause, it is the obligation which is located in the past:

(28) an de fii ko a wooko amanjan. 3SG-NEG COP PREP-2SG come LOC work tomorrow `You don't have to come to work today.' (It's a holiday) (29) a dE ft i bi wasi dl' wagi. 3SG be PREP-2SG PST wash DET car `You had to wash the car.'

The construction a de fu is in fact fairly often used in negated form, as in example (28), and then pragmatically denotes an admonition or sugges- tion not to do something. That is, the utterance in (28) is felicitous if the speaker supposes that the addressee unnecessarily performs the event described in the sentence and wishes to prevent this.

3.2.4. Other expressions of obligation There is a group of constructions meaning an evaluation or a comparative evaluation, consisting of the expletive a ìt', the optional adverb moon `more', and the adjectives bunu `good' or bets `better', and the optional conditional clause marker ee ìf', resulting in ìt [is] good /better if' etc.. Every combination of adverb and adjective is possible, as for instance, a moon bunu, a bets, and a moon bets, and there is no salient difference in meaning. Pragmatically they are used as an advice or an admonishment. That is, as in the example below, the utterance is felicitous if the speaker recommends to the hearer an action that (s)he thinks the hearer would not consider if (s)he didn't make this utterance: 48 Heiko NARROG

(30) bife i bai-en,a meen bets ee i pakisei bunu. before you buy-it it more better if you think well (buy TV set) `Before you buy it, you'd better think about it well.'

3.3. Volitional kE Volition is expressed by the verb kE (from Portuguese querer `want') and a clausal complement:

(31) mi kE pee bali. 1SG VOL play football `I want to be playing football .'

My informant did not accept the insertion of the complementizer fu, but Wijnen and Alleyne (1987:48) claim that fu is optionally possible with kE (ex. (32)):

(32) mi seei kC a bai hen. 1SG self VOL CPL buy 3SG `I myself want to buy it.' (Wijnen and Alleyne 1987: 48)

This verb can be negated (ex. (33)) and located in the past (ex. (34)). However, the meaning of the past form is irrealis and it thus serves as a more indirect expression of intention:

(33) i sa bai di wagi aki d? 2SG POT buy DET car here QUE non', dl' mujEc u mi an kE mi bai-en. no DET wife PREP 1SG 3SG-NEG VOL 1SG buy-3SG `Can you buy this car here?'-'No my wife doesn't want me to buy it.' (34) dz TV hanso. mi bi kE abi-en. DET TV attractive 1SG PST VOL have-3SG `This is a nice TV set. I would like to have it.' Mood and the Modal System in Saramaccan 49 4. Epistemic modality 4.1. Dubitative 4.1.1. a kandg A kandE, consisting of the expletive pronoun a `it' and the verb kande `be possible / can be' denotes an epistemic possibility , that is, the evaluation of the speaker about the possibility of the realization of an event. It accompanies an unmarked complement clause.

(35) a kandg a o ko amanjan, ma me 3SG be.possible 3SG FUT come tomorrow but 1SG-NEG sabi tuu. know all `He might come tomorrow , but I don't know.' The expletive a can be omitted (example below). Since a subject pronoun is obligatory in Saramaccan, it is possible to analyze kandCas an adverb in this case.

(36) kandC de go a wosu, biga dl' wagi u de go. be.possible 3PL go to house because DET car of 3PL go `They must have gone home, because their car is gone.'

A kandCalso denotes an inference based on evidence, and can then be regarded as an equivalent to verbs like `seem' or `look like' in English (ex. (37)):

(37) a kandC John go kaa. 3SG be.possible John go already `It looks like John has left already .'

A kandCcan neither be located in the past, nor negated:

(38) *a bi kandC de wini. 3SG PST be.possible they win (39) *non5, an kandC de o wini. no 3SG-NEG be.possible they FUT win 50 Heiko NARROG We do, however, find an etymologically related negative expression an- kan `it is impossible.'

(40) an-kan! na tuu! 3SG-NEG-be.possible not true (Somebody tells you your car has been stolen) `Impossible! [It's] not true!'

4.1.2. musu (fu) Musu (fu) was introduced as an expression of obligation in section 3. Now, like in English and a number of other languages as well, musu (fu) has an additional epistemic function, expressing epistemic necessity. However, musu (fu) lends itself to epistemic interpretation only if the proposition depicts a stative event (cf. Frawley 1992: 146-149), as in the following example:

(41) a musu d£ ala to pee bali. 3SG EPI be there PRG play ball (Where is John now?) `He must be in the park, playing football.' In contrast, a non-stative event with musu (fu) will be interpreted deontically:

(42) a musu pee bali. 3SG OBL play ball `He must play football .' Negated (ex.(43)), or in the past (ex. (44)), musu (fu) is not interpreted epistemicallybut only deontically:

(43) de an musu dc' ala to pee bali. 3PL NEG OBL be there PRG play ball `They don't have to be there and be playing football .' (44) a bi musu du ala to pee bali. 3SG PST OBL be there PRG play ball `He was supposed to be playing there (but wasn't there).' Mood and the Modal System in Saramaccan 51 4.1.3. sa(bi) (fu) Unlike musu (fu), and unlike its counterpart sa in Ndyuka (cf. Hut- tar and Huttar 1994: 516f),sa (bi) (fu) has not developed a clear epistemic use. It comes closest to epistemicity in its use expressing alethic ("neutral") possibility as in example (45) below:

(45) mt sabi tuu, ma di pasi sa wogi. 1SG-NEG know all but DET road POT be.bad `I don't know, but the road can be bad.' Furthermore, unlike musu (fu), sa(bi) (fu) is infelicitous with the progressive in the proposition:

(46) *a sa fu to pcc bali. 3SG POT CPL PRG play ball `He may be playing football.'

4.1.4. si kuma Si kuma, is a combination of si `see' (E. see) and kuma `like, just as' (Portuguese como). It is transcribed here conservatively as two words, since in contrast to kandt (stemming from kan (E. can) and dE(E. there)), both si and kuma are still productive lexical items in Saramaccan. Fur- thermore, kuma may be analyzed as a complementizer in this construction. The construction takes a complement clause and expresses the belief of the speaker about a state of affairs or his/her impression of it:

(47) mi si kuma a o go di liba dl* to 1SG see like 3SG FUT go DET month DET PRG ko de. come there `It seems to me that he will leave next month.' While a kanda expresses the speaker's assessment of objectively existing possibility or probability, si kuma expresses a personal belief, as the following example demonstrates. 52 Heiko NARROG

(48) kandE de o wini ma mE si kuma. can.be 3PL FUT win but 1SG-NEG see like `They could win the game, but I don't believe so (it does not seem to me).'

As the example above shows,si kuma can be negated. However, it cannot be located in the past:

(49) *mi bi si kuma de go a wosu. 1SG PST see like 3PL go to home `It seemed to me that they went home.'

4.1.5 Verbs of thinking Besides constructions that are specialized in the expression of modality, verbs of thinking are also used to express an epistemic evaluation of a state of affairs in many languages, including English, Portuguese, and Dutch. In Saramaccan, two verbs can be particularly identified in this function, namely mCnitaa `think that' expressing the speaker's thought, and sabi taa `know that' expressing a high certainty on part of the speaker.

(50) mi sabi taa dl' frensi o wini. 1SG know CPL DET French FUT win `I'm sure ('I know') that the French will win .' (51) mi bi meni taa a o ko. 1SG PST think CPL 3SG FUT come `I thought that she would come (, but she didn't).'

4.2. Evidential modality There is no specific marker for evidential modality. As was indicated in examples about the means of expression of epistemic modality, specific epistemics are employed for the expression of speakers' inferences based on evidence. In particular, these are a kandCand si kuma, both shown in the examples below: Mood and the Modal System in Saramaccan 53

(52) a kandE John go kaa. 3SG be.possible John go already `It looks like John has left already .' (53) mi si kuma a o go dl' liba di to 1SG see like 3SG FUT go DET month DET PRG ko de come there `It looks like she will leave next month.'

The construction hen da `it (emphatic) gives' also indicates a conclusion based on evidence:

(54) hen da John go kaa. 3SG[emph] give John go already `It looks like John has left already .'

Hearsay is expressed with the verb jei (taa) `hear (that)' (ex. (55)):

(55) mi jei taa John go kaa. 1S hear CPL John go already `I've heard John already has left town .'

5. Saramaccan modal expressions and their scope In this section, the goal is to determine the scope of the Saramaccan modal markers in relation to other functional categories, and relate the findings to hypotheses about the hierarchical ordering of modal meanings in general linguistics. There are several possible ways to explore scope properties of functional categories. One is, as Cinque (1999) and Nuyts (2004) did, to investigate their mutual ordering. In non-agglutinative SVO languages like some of the well-known Indo-European languages, adverbs are a favorite object of investigation because adverbs in general can be combined fairly freely while there are usually tight restrictions on the use of modal auxiliaries (e.g., only one modal per clause in standard English). On the other hand, the relative flexibilityof adverbs with respect to word 54 Heiko NARROG order also affects the validity of findings based on their behavior. Another possibility is to investigate a wider range of distributional properties, as for example the co-occurrence of modal markers with markers of different functional categories. Abraham, in his comparative study of English, Dutch and German modals, developed a whole catalogue of criteria. These are the following: (presence or absence of) inflection for person and number, past tense and perfect marking, embedding in infini- tive, non-finite embedding, "full verb" use, negative support, initial place- ment tags, sentence-finalplacement, use in non-declarative clauses, ques- tions and imperatives (Abraham 2002: 24f). All of these features as well as others were successively checked on Saramaccan for their usefulness, and eventually the following criteria were filtered out to reveal potential scope differences between modal markers: negation (1), past marking (2), future marking (3), irrealis marking (4), embedding of one marker in the scope of another (5), interrogation (6), and use in a specificconstruction that is tentatively described here as an "object to subject raising" construction (7). As in Abraham (2002), it will also be noted here whether the grammatical item can be used outside the modal construction as a full lexical item (8) (this ability marks one of the differences between English modals on the one hand and German and Dutch modal auxiliaries on the other hand (Abraham 2002: 25f)). The main verb use says nothing directly about scope, but it tells us something about the degree of grammaticalization of the item in question. Each of the following modal markers and constructions of the Sara- maccan "modal system" was tested with the above mentioned criteria: sa(bi) (fu), musu (fu), abi (fu), a de fu, ke, a kande, si kuma, musu (fu) (epistemic). Among the markers and constructions introduced above, those which did not seem to be particularly grammaticalized or specialized in the' expression of modality (i. e., a (medn) bunu/bEtcee and the verbs of thinking) were not included. In the following eight subsections, examples are provided for each of the criteria. Mood and the Modal System in Saramaccan 55 5.1. Negation An example for the negation of the modality was given above for each modal marker. The reverse case, namely where the clausal complement is negated, is quite rare. In fact, it only occurs with a kandc, as in the following example:

(56) a kandE an de ala. 3SG be.possible 3SG.NEG COP there `It is possible that (s)he is not there.'

While the fact that a modal marker falls under the scope of negation potentially indicates a relatively lower position in a hierarchy of functional categories, the fact that it can embed a negated preposition potentially indicates the opposite. The same.can be said about the interaction of modal markers with the other categories discussed in the following subsections.

5.2. Past marking Plenty of examples for past marking on the modal marker were provided above. The reverse, past marking in the embedded proposition, is shown in the example below:

(57) a kandg John bi go. 3SG be.possible John PST go `It is possible that John went.'

Interestingly, with some modal markers, past marking both on the modal marker and in the proposition may occur in the surface structure, but the double marking is apparently redundant, because it is in fact the matrix sentence with the modal marker which is located in the past. In other words, there is no semantic difference with simple past marking on the modal marker. See example (58) below with sa(bi) (fu): 56 Heiko NARROG

(58) a bi sa fu bi pee di +bali. 3SG PST POT CPL PST play DET ball `He could play the game of football.'

This redundant past tense marking occurs with sa(bi) fu, abi (fu), deontic musu (fu), and a de fu.

5.3. Future marking The future is marked by o, derived from English go, and in general behaves like the past bi. An example for o taking abi (fu) in its scope is given below:

(59) amanjan i o abi fika +a wosu. tomorrow 2SG FUT OBL stay +LOC home `Tomorrowyou'll have to stay at home.'

Unlike with the past bi, there is no redundant double tense marking with o.

5.4. Irrealis marking As explained before, past and irrealis marking are formally identical. The following example showssa (bi) ()"u)with irrealis marking:

(60) ee i bi sa heepi mi, mi bi o sa feni if 2SGIRR POT help 1SG 1SGIRR FUT POT find wan moon bEtE wooko. one more better work `If you could help me , I would be able to find a better job.'

Irrealis marking in the proposition was not systematicallytested because preliminary data showed that it does not occur in the scope of modal markers. Similar to the imperative, as it soon became clear that no modal marker can appear in imperative form, it was not included systematically in the investigation. Mood and the Modal System in Saramaccan 57 5.5. Embedding "Embedding" here refers to the case when a particular modal marker is part of the proposition that becomes embedded as a complement to another modal marker (particularly, verb). Below is an example with a kandEembedding a dEfu.

(61) a kandE a dE fu mi wasi dl' wagi. 3SG be.possible 3SG COP PREP 1SG wash DET car `Perhaps I need to wash the car.'

In fact it turns out that it is always an epistemic marker that embeds a root marker and never the reverse.10)Therefore,a sentence like the one below is always infelicitous.

(62) *i sa musu to pee di bali 2SG POSS EPI PRG play DET ball

Interestingly, the same behavior has been observed in those dialects of English which allow double modals. The first modal expresses a speaker- oriented epistemic meaning, while the second modal expresses a root (dynamic or deontic) meaning (cf. Butters 1973,Nagle 2003), as in the following examples (both from Nagle 2003:351)

(63) We might not can come. (64) We might shouldn't have done it last night.

5.6. Interrogation Interrogation in Saramaccan is indicated by the interrogative particle o. The following sentence is an example for the sa(bi) (fu) in a question.

10) We did not test rigorouslyfor the combinationof each modal markerwith everyother modal marker,but we were satisfiedif a marker couldtake any other modalmarker in its scope(and this turned out to be only the root markers),or if a markerwas being taken in the scopeof any othermodal marker. 58 Heiko NARROG

(65) i sa ko amanjan d? 2SG POSS come tomorrow QUE `Can you come tomorrow?'

Here also, the opposite case (namely inclusion of a question with o as the complement of a modal marker) was not included systematically in the investigation, since preliminary data suggested that it was not possible with any marker, and hence of no use for distinguishingthe properties of the markers.

5.7. Object-to-subject raising This construction can be demonstrated with the following example.

(66) dl' wagi aki abi u wasi hibiwan wiki. DET car here OBL CPL wash every week `This car has to be washed every week.'

This type of sentence is used when the subject, that is, the bearer of the obligation or permission, is unspecified. An alternative way to express such an unspecified subject is with the pronoun de `they' (example below):

(66') de abi u wasi dl' wagi aki hibiwan wiki. 3PL OBL CPL wash DET car here every week `This car has to be washed every week.' (lit. `They have to wash this car every week.')

Now, it appears that the original object of the embedded clause has moved to subject position of the matrix clause, and not to an extra-clausal position. The reason is that in Saramaccan subject marking is obligatory, but the matrix verb abi does not bear a subject pronoun. I therefore suggest the following structure for (66).

(66") [di wagi aki]1abi [u [ Oiwasi Oi hibiwan wiki]]. Mood and the Modal System in Saramaccan 59 There are different ways to interpret this construction, depending on the theoretical perspective. From a functional perspective, this is the equivalent of a passive, because the original subject is backgrounded. More conservatively speaking, we are dealing with a topicalization here. It is beyond the scope of this paper to find the best solution to this issue. For the purposes here, it suffices to state that the possibility of this kind of raising is associated with relatively narrower scope.

5.8. Use as a full verb As stated above, whether a grammatical item has a related "full verb" use is in the first place a sign of the degree of its grammaticalization, and only provides an indirect indication of the place of the item in the hierarchy of categories. In the paragraph on musu (fu) (3.2.1.),an example was given for the lexical verb use of musu (fu). Below is a full verb use of ke.

(67) mi ke dl' soni de. 1SG VOL DET thing there `I want that thing.'

The point is whether a lexical meaning exists that can be related directly to the modal meaning. Thus, for instance, the lexical meaning `to force' of musu (fu) can be related to the modal meaning of obligation, but hardly to that of high certainty/epistemic necessity. If we did not know of the con- nection between the coercion meaning and the modal obligation meaning, it would be difficultto establish a link between the epistemic meaning and the meaning `to force'.

5.9. Results The results for the criteria that were introduced above are distributed over two tables below. The first table shows behavioral, properties that indicate a relatively low scope of the marker in question, that is, it shows how modal markers fall in the scope of other functional categories. 60 Heiko NARROG

The second to left column lists the markers divided into root and epistemic. The uppermost row lists the functional category or process that does (or does not) take the modal marker in its scope (indicated by ">") . A "+" in the grid signals that the respective modal markers of the left column occurs within the scope of the marker or in the construction indicated in the top row, and a "-" indicates that it doesn't. If the scope is ambiguous it is still marked as "+", because the other functional category does include the modal category in its scope at least optionally. "MOD" is an abbreviation for falling under the scope of another modal marker, and "RAIS" for use in the "raising construction." All other abbreviations correspond to those in the morpheme glosses. The possibility of main verb use, abbreviated as "V", is added to this table rather than to the next table, since it is generally assumed that low degree of grammaticalization correlates to narrow scope rather than the opposite (cf. Tabor and Traugott 1998; Abraham 2002: 22).

Table 1. Modal markers fallingunder the scope of other functional categories, and other behavior of modal markers associated with narrow scope.

There is a strikingly clear dividing line between the behavior of the root modal markers and the epistemic modal markers. However, each of these groups includes a few exceptions. First, with respect to the root markers, musu (fu) is not used with future tense (FUT). On the other hand, since musu (fu) can be located in the past (PST) it is basically subject to tense marking, and we must Mood and the Modal System in Saramaccan 61

assume here an individual semantic incompatibility of this specific item with future. Second, bi in combination with ke always indicates irrealis, and never the past. See the example below:

(68) mi bi ice abi-En. I IRR VOL have-3SG `I wish to have it.'; *'I wanted to have it.'

On the other hand, kC is marked for future tense, and it is therefore basically subject to tense marking as well, like all the other root modal markers. We may assume that bi in bi ke has come to be associated exclusively with irrealis because the combination of volition with irrealis is habitually used to express a more indirect wish. Despite these exceptions, the root modals behave almost completely consistently as a group when falling under the scope of another functional category. They are all subject to tense, negation, mood, and epistemic modal marking and interrogation. They take part in the raising construction. Furthermore, they have all retained usage as full verbs. In contrast, the behavior of the epistemics is slightly more diverse. Si kuma is subject to negation (NEG) and interrogation (QUE), a kande is subject to interrogation, and epistemic musu (fu) is subject to neither. With respect to all other behavioral properties, they do not differ. None of the epistemics can be qualified for tense or mood. They don't take part in the raising construction and aren't embedded in other modals. Further- more, the verbs don't function as full verbs in a clearly related meaning. Overall, it appears that si kuma comes closest in its properties to the root markers, while epistemic musu (fu) differs most. On the other hand, the peculiarity of epistemic musu (fu)'s behavior can be attributed to the fact that epistemic musu (fu) has to compete with the deontic interpretation, and therefore only appears in very specific environments that are condu- cive to epistemic interpretation. The next table shows the results when the modal markers take markers of other functional categories, or other modal markers into their 62 Heiko NARROG scope, and thus potentially exhibit relatively wider scope.

Table 2. Modalmarkers taking other functionalcategories into their scope,and other propertiesof modalmarkers associated with broad scope. The root modal markers again behave almost entirely consistently as a group. Notably, they cannot have tense and negation in their scope. There is one property, however, with respect to which they differ. A de fu and sa(bi) (fu) cannot take other modal markers in their scope. The other root modal markers, on the other hand, can at least embed sa (bi) (fu). With respect to sa (bi) (fu), this is an obvious reflection of the semantics: `can must', for example, does not make sense unless `can' is interpreted epis- temically, which is not possible in Saramaccan. On the other hand, `must be able to', is acceptable. With respect to a di fu, it is worth-while recall- ing here that a de fu is apparently a different construction from the other complement-taking root markers, namely a control construction with fu as a preposition, and thus suggestiveof narrower scope (cf. 3.2.3.). The minus symbols in the cells between past tense and a dEfu and musu (fu) bear an asterisk because in the surface structure past tense can enter the embedded proposition, but semantically the past tense still includes the modal in its scope. This is similar to the case of co-occurrence of negation in both matrix and embedded clause discussed before. An example is given below:

(69) mi musu bi wasi di wagi. 1SG OBL PST wash DET car `I was supposed to wash the car [but didn't do it].' Mood and the Modal System in Saramaccan 63 Larger variation in behavior is found among the epistemics. A kande can take every other category into its scope. Si kuma does not take negation, and musu (fu) takes nothing except another modal marker. The results with respect to a kande and st kuma are nicely consistent with those of the previous table. A kande can take more categories in its scope and falls under the scope of fewer categories. This means that, in a hierarchical model of functional categories, a kande must be located higher, or, at least not lower, than si kuma. The results with respect to epistemic musu (fu) are inconclusive overall. Although it does not fall under the scope of any other functional category, and thus seems to behave typically for an epistemic marker, it does not take much into its scope either. The following observation should explain this behavior: The epistemic use of musu (fu) has not yet fully matured and emancipated itself from the root use. This can be seen from the fact that it is available only in very limited contexts. This is a typical feature of the beginning stages of the grammaticalization of a new usage. If a new usage establishes itself, it should become appli- cable to a wider range of contexts (cf. Heine et al. 1991:70-72; Traugott and Konig 1991:194-199).

6. Discussion In the following section, the above findings are discussed with regard to two closelyrelated functional sister frameworks, namely FG and RRG. The hierarchies proposed in these models have already been mentioned, but they are repeated here in a little more detail. In RRG, the following, seeminglysimple hierarchy is offered (cf. Van Valin and LaPolla 1997:49):11)

(70) evidentials > epistemic > root Evidentials and epistemic modality are both located at the "clause" layer in the theory, and root modality is located at a lower layer, namely the 11) Note that epistemicmodality is labeledas "status"in RRG,and root modality as "modality." 64 Heiko NARROG "core" layer. The FG standard model presents a hierarchy which offers a higher degree of differentiation (cf. Dik 1997:241-242, 296):

(71) evidential, "subjective" epistemic > "objective" epistemic and deontic > "inherent"

In FG, inherent modality operates on the core predication layer, objective modalities on the extended predication layer, and the other modalities on the proposition layer, corresponding to the hierarchical structure of the clause. The labeling in FG is not easy to understand. Particularly, the distinctions made between "subjective" and "objective" epistemic modality, which is inspired by Lyons (see section 1.2.), and objective deontic and inherent modality appear to be vague. "Subjective" and "objective" epistemic modality have to be understood intuitively in typical pairs such as the modal might (subjective) vs. the impersonal construction it is possible that (objective). However, essentially the only verifiable crite- rion to make a distinction between these two types of modality is actual morphosyntactic behavior revealing differences in scope. The same holds for the differentiation between objective deontic modality and inherent modality. Inherent modality is said to express notions like ability, willing- ness, permission and obligation (cf. Dik 1997: 241), but permission and obligation are at the same time also included in objective deontic modality. Therefore, rather than looking for exact notional distinctions behind these labels, it is more profitable to assume that these two pairs of similar modalities open additional slots for epistemic and root modal markers that empirically differ in scope. This contrasts with RRG which offers only one place in the hierarchy for epistemic and root markers each. The next step here is to see how the Saramaccan data fit in. Saramac- can has no clear evidential marker in the verbal complex. The epistemic markers si kuma and a kandc"simultaneously assume inferential functions. Musu (fu), abi (fu), and de fu correspond to root necessity, sa(bi) (fu) to root possibility, and ke to volition. Now, the Saramaccan markers, based Mood and the Modal System in Saramaccan 65 on the criteria used in the present study, can be ranked as follows:")

(72) a kande > si kuma > musu (fu) (root), abi (fu), ke > a defu, sabi (fu) The data for epistemic musu (fu) are inconclusive and it is therefore left out here. However, the results for musu (fu) falling under the scope of another functional category suggest that epistemic musu (fu) basically belongs to the same level as the other epistemics (a kande and si kuma). The hierarchy in (72) is in a way misleading since it does not reveal that there is a very clear-cut dividing line, a rift, between the epistemic markers on the one hand, and the root markers on the other hand. In contrast, the behavioral differences between a kande and si kuma, and between the two groups of root markers, is small - almost minute. The overall picture is very clearly "epistemic > root," and we can mark that by inserting two pointed angles instead of one between the two kinds of markers:

(73) a kande > si kuma >> musu (fu) (root), abi (fu), ke > a defu, sabi (fu) In this way, the Saramaccan data seem to fit in handsomely with the proposed universal hierarchies. In detail, however, the problem might arise how to deal with the differences within epistemic and root modality. We therefore proceed to look at the correspondences to the proposed hierarchies one by one. First, the correspondence between RRG and the Saramaccan markers is shown in the table below.

12) An anonymous reviewer correctly pointed out that a "proposed ordering [as in] (72) will be fully justified only by showing an example sentence that involves ALL of the modal expressions ... at the same time." Certainly, this critique does not only apply to the ordering proposed here but also to similar orderings such as presented in Cinque (1999) and Van Valin and LaPolla (1997). Un- fortunately, it is simply impossible to put this demand into practice in natural language. 66 Heiko NARROG

Table 3: Fitting the Saramaccan data to the RRG model

The fit with the RRG model is generally unproblematic. This is partly due to the fact that RRG avoids committing itself to any fine-grained distinctions within modal categories. This stance could be attributed to a lack of development of the theory in this area, but it turns out that the relative lack of detail leads to the avoidance of complications which might arise from more detailed predictions. On the other hand, the relative position of evidentiality to epistemic and root modality claimed in RRG could not be tested in Saramaccan due to the lack of suitable markers. In FG, again, overall ranking of epistemic over root modality fits the model. At first sight, FG even seems to accommodate the differentiation between epistemic markers in Saramaccan. However, "objective" epistemic modality in FG is ranked on the same level as deontic modality, while all the Saramaccan epistemic markers are clearly behaving distinctly from the deontic markers. Therefore, in FG one must make a fine differentiation within "subjective" epistemic modality in order to accommodate epistemic markers with slightly different behavior. But this is quite possible since the layers in FG are fairly broad, accommodating markers of different scope. Furthermore, sa(bi) (fu) clearly goes into the "inherent" modality slot. It is also unproblematic to accommodate a de"fu there, since, as we have seen, "inherent" modality in FG also includes notions such as obligation and necessity. We thus get the following correspondence between the FG model and the Saramaccan modal markers.

Table 4: Fitting the Saramaccan data to the FG model

Overall, the Saramaccan modal markers also fit with the FG model. How- Mood and the Modal System in Saramaccan 67 ever, one might critically remark that, as with RRG, this is due to the relative vagueness of the categories in FG. FG does not require exact pinning down of the position of every modal marker in a hierarchy. Like RRG, it sets up levels that have room for markers with diverging properties which may cover several positions in a scope hierarchy, without having to be explicit about them. On the other hand, it might be suggested that it is exactly this lack of explicitness which is required when it comes to dealing with cross-linguistic data. That is to say, there are generalizations on a coarse level of differentiation which are supposed to be true for data in a large number of languages. One of these generalizations apparently is that epistemic markers outrank root modal markers in scope hierarchies. However, the finer the distinctions, the more likely it becomes that individual markers in individual languages deviate from the proposed hierarchy, albeit on a small scale.

The hierarchical layering model that would suit best the findings from Saramaccan would look like the following table. The layers are given ad hoc labels only. This is because a definite labeling would presuppose a thorough analysis of the interrelation of functional categories as a whole, beyond modality.

Table 5: A model for layering of modal markers based on the findings in Saramac- can

Only two layers are posited for modality, because the only place where a salient difference in the behavior of modal markers can be observed is between the epistemics and the deontics. No clear evidence could be found for a second division in layering, only minor differences between individual markers. Within each layer, markers exhibit minute difference in scope expressed by the symbol ">_", which also accommodates the case that two markers show exactly the same behavior. 68 Heiko NARROG

Overall, the results do not contradict the universal layerings proposed in the RRG and FG models, but only require small adjustments. The results do not contradict previous studies on individual languages (Eng- lish, Dutch and German) either, which have claimed a division between deontic and epistemic modality, but rather lend further support to them. As mentioned before, many creolists believe that creole languages reflect universal grammar closer than the "mature" languages with a long history. If so, the present study strongly corroborates the hypothesis that there are universal distinctions between different types of modality which are reflected in syntax. The distinctions in modality itself are motivated semantically, since the groups of modal markers with different syntactic behavior can be defined semantically, in the case of Saramaccan in terms of the opposition between "epistemic" and "root". Therefore, if, a universality exists it is a universality of the relative position of semantic categories to each other. In any given language, we can expect that deontic and dynamic, i.e. root, meanings typically predicate conditions on a willful agent. They are thus more closely related to the "core" of a sentence in FG and RRG terms, that is, the predicate and its arguments. Epistemics, on the other hand, express the judgment of the speaker, i.e. meaning outside the core, taking the core with predicate and arguments into its scope (cf. e.g. Bybee and Pagliuca 1985: 63f). The quest for a cross-linguistically valid scope hierarchy of functional categories is an important enterprise in grammar studies. Given that the number and kind of categories manifested in individual languages vary widely, one language, or even several languages, are not enough to make reliable inferences about universal structure. Studies from a large variety of languages are needed in order to complete the picture. Thus, while the findings in Saramaccan provide support for hypotheses based on findings from Germanic languages, the cross-linguistic investigation of layering in modality needs to be continued. Mood and the Modal System in Saramaccan 69

References Abraham, Werner (2002) Modal verbs. Epistemics in German and English. In: Sjef Barbiers, Frits Beukema, and Wim van der Wurff (eds.), 19-49. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2004) Evidentiality.Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alleyne, Mervyn C. (ed.) (1987) Studies in Saramaccan language structure. Amster- dam: Universiteit van Amsterdam. Arends, Jacques (2002) The history of Surinamese creoles I. In: Carlin, Eithne B. and Jacques Arends (eds.), 115-130. Bakker, Peter, Norval Smith and Tonje Veenstra (1995) Saramaccan. In: Arends, Jacques, Pieter Muysken, and Norval Smith (eds) Pidgins and creoles-An introduction,165-178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Barbiers, Sjef (2002) Current issues in modality. An introduction to modality and its interaction with the verbal system. In: Barbiers, Sjef, Frits Beukema, and Wim van der Wurff (eds.), 1-17. Frits Beukema, and Wim van der Wurff (2002). Modality and its interactionwith the verbal system.Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bickerton, Derek (1981) Roots of language. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers. Bruyn, Adrienne (2002) The structure of the Surinamese creoles. In: Carlin, Eithne B. and Jacques Arends (eds.), 153-182. Butters, Rondal R. (1973) Acceptability judgments for double modals in Southern dialects. In: Bailey, Charles-James N. and Roger W. Shuy (eds.) New ways of analyzing variation in English, 276-286.Washington: Georgetown University Press. Bybee, Joan L. and William Pagliuca (1985) Cross-linguisticcomparison and the development of grammatical meaning. In: Fisiak, Jacek (ed.) Historical semantics, historicalword formation, 59-84. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Byrne, Francis (1987) Grammatical relations in a radical creole. Verb complementa- tion in Saramaccan.Amsterdam: Benjamins. Carlin, Eithne B. and Jacques Arends (eds.) (2002) Atlas of the languages of Suriname.Leiden: KITLV Press. Cinque (1999) Adverbs and functional heads. A cross-linguisticperspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 70 Heiko NARROG

Coates, Jennifer (1983) The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm. Cormack, Annabel and Neil Smith (2002) Modals and negation in English. In: Sjef Barbiers, Frits Beukema, and Wim van der Wurff (eds.), 133-163. Dik, Simon C. (1997) The theory of Functional Grammar - Part 1: The structure of the clause, ed. by Kees Hengeveld.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Foley, William and Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. (1984) Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frawley, William (1992) LinguisticSemantics. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Good, Jeff (2004) Tone and accent in Saramaccan: Charting a deep split in the phonology of a language. Lingua 114:575-619. Grimes, Barbara (2000) Ethnologue. Languages of the world. Fourteenth edition (CD-Rom). SIL International. Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hunnemeyer (1991) Grammaticaliza- tion. A conceptual framework. Chicago: Chicago University Press. and Tania Kuteva (2005) Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hengeveld, Kees (1987) Clause structure and modality in Functional Grammar. In: Johan van der Auwera and Louis Goossens (eds.) Ins and outs of the predication, 53-66. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. (1989) Layers and operators in Functional Grammar. Journal of Linguistics25: 127-157. Huttar, George L. and Mary L. Huttar (1994)Ndyuka. London: Routledge. Kahrel, Peter (1987) Stative verb formation in Saramaccan. In: Alleyne, Mervyn C. (ed.), 53-70. Lyons, John (1977) Semantics,vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1995) Linguistic semantics.An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McWhorter, John (2005)Defining Creole. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nagle, Stephen J. (2003) Double modals in the Southern United States: Syntactic structure or syntactic structures? In: Facchinetti, Roberta, Manfred Krug and Frank Palmer (eds.) Modality in contemporary English, 349-371.Berlin: Mou- Mood and the Modal System in Saramaccan 71

ton de Gruyter. Narrog, Heiko (2005) On definingmodality again. Language Sciences27: 165-192. Nuyts, Jan (2001) Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization. Amster- dam: John Benjamins. (2004) Over de (beperkte) combineerbaarheid van deontische, episte- mische en evidentiele uitdrukkingen in het Nederlands (Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 108). Antwerpen: Universiteit Antwerpen. Palmer, F. R. (1979)Modality and the English modals. London: Longman. (2001) Mood and modality. Second edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rountree, C., J. Asodanoe and N. Glock (2000)Saramaccan-English word list (with idioms). Paramaribo: Instituut voor Taalwetenschap (SIL). Steele, Susan (1974) The positional tendencieso f modal elements and their theoretical implications.PhD dissertation. University of California, San Diego. Tabor, Whitney and Elizabeth Closs Traugott (1998) Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization.In: Ramat, Anna Giacalone and Paul J. Hopper (eds.) The limits of grammaticalization,229-272. Amsterdam: John Benj amins. Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Ekkehard Konig (1991) The semantics-pragmaticsof grammaticalization revisited. In: Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Bernd Heine (eds.) Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. 1, 189-218.Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Van der Auwera, Johan (2003) Modality. In: Frawley, William J. (ed.) International encyclopediaof linguistics,vol. 3. Second edition, 71-73. Oxford: Oxford Uni- versity Press. Van Valin, Robert D. and Randy J. LaPolla (1997) Syntax:structure, meaning,and function. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Wijnen, Beppy and Alleyne, Mervyn (1987) A note on fu. In: Alleyne (ed.), 41-51. 72 Heiko NARROG

サラマッカ語のムードとモダリティ

ハイコ・ナロック

(東北大学)

モダリティの文法範疇の中に統語的振る舞いの異なる下位カテゴリーが含まれて

いる可能性があることは,以前より注目されている.また,形式文法論においても

機能主義的・類型論的文法論においても,その下位カテゴリーの,機能的カテゴ

リーの階層構造における位置が普遍的であるという主張がなされている.本研究で

は,スリナムのクレオール語であるサラマッカ語の動詞句におけるモダリティの文

法的標示の統語的振る舞いを調査し,その結果を「役割と指示の文法」(RRG)と

機能主義文法」(FG)で提案されたモダリティの階層と比較した.そ「の結果,サ

ラマッカ語のモダリティ表現において根源的モダリティ(rootmodality)と認識的

モダリティ(epistemicmodality)との問に階層上の明確な断絶が認定でき,サラ

マッカ語のデータは普遍的と思われてきた傾向に概ね合致することが判明したが,

各文法理論で必ずしも予測されていない個別の文法標示の間の相違が存在するこ

とも分かった.なお,本論文は小規模ながらサラマッカ語の記述に貢献することも

目的とする.

(受理日 2005年2月18日最終原稿受理日 2005年8月23日)