The Typology of Modality in Modern West Iranian Languages
Faculty of Arts Faculty of Humanities Dissertation Presented for the Degree of Ph.D. in Linguistics Department of Linguistics
The Typology of Modality in Modern West Iranian
Languages
Thesis submitted for the degree of doctor in Linguistics at the University of Antwerp and Tarbiyat Modarres University to be defended by
Sepideh Koohkan
Supervisors: Jan Nuyts, Arsalan Golfam
Antwerp, 2019
i
ii
Abstract Modality concerns with the modifications and semantic changes, which the speaker makes in the proposition to indicate his/her commitment and assessment to the state of affairs. On the other hand, typology deals with the varieties in languages to achieve generalizations cross-linguistically. This thesis studies modality, as a semantic notion and typology, as mostly a formal category, in eleven modern West Iranian languages, including Balochi (Bamposht), Gerashi, Gilaki (Shafti dialect), Hawrami (Hawraman Takht), Kahangi, Kurdish (Central Kurdish, Sorani), Lori (Balagariveh dialect), Persian, Semnani, Tati (Takestani dialect) and Vafsi based on Nuyts (2005 and furthermore). The main goal of this dissertation is to examine the possibility of categorizing languages based on a semantic feature, which is modality here, and to discover the differences between this type of classification of languages and the other available categorizations which mostly have a morphological or syntactic basis. The results reveal that all these languages, enjoy different types of expressions to express modality, including modal auxiliaries, nouns, adjectives, adverbs and main verbs (mostly complex verbs). However, this enjoyment is systematic, i.e. first, in all above languages, these are the modal auxiliaries which not only have a high frequency in the languages, but they are also the more native elements. Secondly, some languages, including Balochi (Bamposht dialect) and Hawrami (Hawraman Takht dialect) apply adverbs to express those dimensions of modality which prototypically is on modal auxiliaries in other languages to express and that is why they contain less modal auxiliaries comparing to other languages. Finally, modal nouns and adjectives (and consequently modal main verbs, which are mostly complex verbs, constructed with modal nouns/adjectives and a light verb), directly or indirectly are loan words from Arabic language. Furthermore, modal auxiliaries, and also some of the other modal elements, are polysemous, that is, they are used to state several meanings in the domain of modality. In search for classifying languages based on a semantic feature, besides the semantic map of modality in these languages, two other methods were also suggested. One, classifying languages, according to the number of the elements they apply to express modality. In this method, instead of presenting branching which a language is or is not a member of, a continuum was proposed where all languages laid on it based on the number of modal auxiliaries and modal adverbs. The other, classifies languages, on the basis of their origin, where the modal auxiliaries with the same source, are grouped together as one category. Keywords: modality, typology, Modern West Iranian languages, semantic map, polysemy, grammaticalization, (inter)subjectification.
i
ii
Table of Content
Chapter one: Introduction 1
Chapter Two: Typology and Iranian Languages
2.0 Overview 6
2.1 Typology and semantic typology 6
2.2 State of the problem 9
2.3 Iranian languages 13
2.3.1 Parts of speech in modern west Iranian languages 16
2.3.1.1 Verb 17
2.3.1.2 Noun 23
2.3.1.3 Pronoun 25
2.3.1.4 Adjective 27
2.3.1.5 Adverb 28
2.3.1.6 Particles 28
2.3.2 Word order and more in modern west Iranian Languages 30
2.3.2.1. Persian 32
2.3.2.1.1 Word order 33
2.3.2.1.2 Case System 38
2.3.2.1.3 Agreement system 39
2.3.2.1.4 Tense 40
2.3.2.1.5 Mood 43
2.3.2.1.6 Ezafe/Genitive 43
2.3.2.2 Balochi 44
2.3.2.2.1 Word Order 45
i
2.3.2.3 Gilaki/Guilaki 50
2.3.2.3.1 Word Order 51
2.3.2.3.2 Other Features 54
2.3.2.4 Hawrami 55
2.3.2.4.1 Word order 56
2.3.2.4.2 Agreement 59
2.3.2.4.3 Case system 61
2.3.2.5 Kahangi 63
2.3.2.5.1 Word order 63
2.3.2.5.2 Syntax 65
2.3.2.6 Kurdish 69
2.3.2.6.1 Word order 70
2.3.2.6.2 Agreement 74
2.3.2.6.3 Case system 75
2.3.2.7 Lori 76
2.3.2.8 Semnani 81
2.3.2.8.1 Word order 81
2.3.2.9 Tati 86
2.3.2.9.1 Word order 87
2.3.2.9.2 Agreement 90
2.3.2.10 Vafsi 91
2.3.2.10.1 Word order 92
2.3.2.10.2 Agreement 94
2.3.2.10.3 Case System 95
2.3.2.11 Gerashi 97
ii
2.4 The behavior of West Iranian languages toward Dryer’s component in a quick glance 99
Chapter 3: On Modality and More
3.0 Overview 104
3.1 The origin of the study 104
3.2 Review of literature 107
3.2.1 Modality: A Mean for Typological Studies 107
3.2.1.1. Bybee et al. (1994) 107
3.2.1.1.1 agent-oriented modality 107
3.2.1.1.2 Speaker-oriented modality 109
3.2.1.2 Van der Auwera and Plungian (1998) 111
3.2.1.3 Palmer (2001) 114
3.2.1.4 Narrog (2012) 118
3.2.1.5 Nuyts (2005, 2006, 2016 and forthcoming) 123
3.2.1.5.1 Types of Modality: Nuyts (2005,
2006, 2016 and forthcoming) 124
3.2.1.5.1.1 Dynamic modality 124
3.2.1.5.1.2 Deontic modality 127
3.2.1.5.1.3 Epistemic modality 128
3.2.1.5.1.4 Evidentiality 129
3.2.1.5.2. Beyond qualificational hierarchy: directive, volition, and intention 130
3.2.1.5.3. performative vs descriptive 133
3.2.1.5.4. (inter)subjectivity 134
3.3 Modality in Iranian studies 138
3.3.1 Taleghani (2008) 139
iii
3.3.2 Akhlaghi (2007) 141
3.3.3 Rezaei (2009) 143
3.3.4 Moradi (2012) 146
3.3.5 Ilkhanipour (2013) 148
3.3.6 Naghzgouye Kohan and Naghshbandi (2016) 151
3.4 Auxiliary verbs 152
3.5 Grammaticalization 156
3.5.1 Desemanticization 157
3.5.2 Extension 158
3.5.3 Decategorization 159
3.5.4 Erosion 160
3.6 Polysemy 161
3.7 Summary 166
Chapter Four: Empirical Study
4.0 Overview 167
4.1 Methodology 167
4.1.1 Procedure of data collecting 167
4.1.2 Access and shortage 172
4.1.3 Research strategy 173
4.1.4. Research process 174
4.2 Modality: from form to meaning 175
4.2.1 Modal auxiliaries 176
4. 2.1.1 Kahangi 176
4.2.1.1.1 176
4.2.1.1.2 180 iv
4.2.1.1.3 183
4.2.1.1.4 ((person marker) 186
4.2.1.1.5 189
4.2.1.2 Vafsi 191
4.2.1.2.1 191
4.2.1.2.2 194
4.2.1.2.3 197
4.2.1.3 Tati (Takestan dialect) 198
4.2.1.3.1 199
4.2.1.3.2 202
4.2.1.3.3 204
4.2.1.4 Semnani 206
4.2.1.4.1 206
4.2.1.4.2 209
4.2.1.4.3 210
4.2.1.5 Gilaki: Shafti Dialect 212
4.2.1.5.1 212
4.2.1.5.2 214
4.2.1.5.3 217
4.2.1.5.4 219
4.2.1.5.5 221
4.2.1.5.6 224
4.2.1.6 Balochi: West Balochi (Makorrani, Makrani: BamPosh Dialect) 225
4.2.1.6.1 226
v
4.2.6.2 228
4.2.1.7 Lori (Balagariveh Dialect): South-West Branch 229
4.2.1.7.1 229
4.2.1.7.2. 232
4.2.1.7.3 234
4.2.1.8 Hawrami (Uraman Takht/Hawraman Takht): Zaza-Gurani languages 235
4.2.1.8.1. 236
4.2.1.8.2 238
4.2.1.8.3 240
4.2.1.9 Kurdish (Sorani in Sanandaj) 240
4.2.1.9.1 241
4.2.1.9.2 244
4.2.1.9.3 247
4.2.1.9.4 248
4.2.1.10 Gerashi 250
4.2.1.10.1 250
4.2.1.10.2 252
4.2.1.11 Persian 253
4.2.1.11.1 253
4.2.1.11.2. 258
4.2.1.11.3 261
4.2.1.12 Grammaticalization and the origin of modal verbs 264
4.2.1.12.1 Overview 264
vi
4.2.1.12.2 Modals derived from *gahu ‘want’ 265
4.2.1.12.3 Modals deriving from xšāya 272
4.2.1.12.4 Modals evolving from tav- 274
4.2.1.12.5 Modals developing from *upā-aya-ti 275
4.2.1.12.6 Modals derived from bava- 277
4.2.1.12.7 Modals evolved from šava- 278
4.2.1.12.8 Modals evolving from zan/dan 280
4.2.1.12.9 Modals developing from ārīka 281
4.2.1.12.10 Modals derived from 282
4.2.2 Modals adverbs 283
4.2.2.1 Group A: 286
4.2.2.2 Group B: (Probably) (Maybe, Possibly) (Maybe, Possibly) 288 4.2.2.3 Specific modal adverbs in Iranian languages 291
4.2.2.3.1 in Kahangi 291
4.2.2.3.2 (MUST) and (maybe, possibly) in Balochi 293 4.2.2.3.3. (definitely) and (probably) in Lori 294
4.2.2.3.4 (MUST) in Hawrami 296
4.2.3 Modal adjectives 298
4.2.3.1 Group A: (possible), (necessary), (permitted), (probable), (necessary), (necessary) 303
vii
4.2.3.2 Group B: (possible), (definite), (definite), (obliged), (necessary) 307
4.2.4 Modal Nouns 309
4.2.5 Modal complex verbs 312 4.2.5.1 Modal main verbs with a nominal element: (to be possible), (to have permission), (to have need), (to be sure), (to think), (to guess) and (to guess, to suppose) 313
4.2.5.2 Modal main verbs with an adjectival element: (to be obliged), (to be possible), (to be/to know unlikely) 315
4.2.5.3 Volition verbs with hypothetical WANT meaning 316
4.2.5.3.1 in Gilaki 319
4.2.5.3.2 in Balochi 319
4.2.5.3.3 in Lori 320
4.2.5.3.4 in Hawrami 321
4.2.6 Summary 322
4.3 Modality: from meaning to form 324
4.3.1 Semantic map of modality in Iranian languages 324
4.3.2 Polysemy in modals 331
4.3.2.1 Intuition in identifying polysemy 331
4.3.2.2 Numbers and clusters of candidate semantic values 332
4.3.2.3 Relations among candidate semantic values 333
viii
4.3.2.4 Logical form 335
4.3.3 Polysemy in modal adverbs, nouns, adjectives, and main verbs 338
4.3.4 Categorizing W-Iranian Languages from Modality Perspective 340
4.3.5 Summary 353
Chapter Five: Conclusion
5.0 Overview 354
5.1 Examining the hypothesis 356
Bibliography 358
Index: Questionnaire of modality for West Iranian Languages 377
ix
Figures
Figure 1: The Distribution of Farsi 33
Figure 2: The distribution of Balochi in Iran 44
Figure 3: Caspian Sea Dialects 50
Figure 4: Hawrami Distribution in Iran 56
Figure 5: location of Kahang 63
Figure 6: Kurdish Language Distribution in Iran 70
Figure 7: Lori Distribution in Iran 77
Figure 8: Semnani Language in Iran 81
Figure 9: The Distribution of Tati 87
Figure10: Location of Vafs 92
Figure 11: Gerash in Iran 97
Figure 12: Types of Modality (Bybee et al. 1994) 111
Figure 13: semantic map of modality
(Van der Auwera and Plungian 1998: 111) 113
Figure 14: Types of Modality (Palmer, 2001) 118
Figure 15: The dimension of volitivity (Narrog 2012: 49) 121
Figure 16: the two dimensions of modality (Narrog 2012: 56) 122
Figure 17: fitting can in the dimensions of modality 122
Figure 18: Qualitative hierarchy and conceptual domain 136
Figure 19: Subjectification and intersubjectification
(adapted from Nuyts and Byloo 2015: 42) 137
Figure 20: and in Persian
(Akhlaghi 2007: 130) 143
Figure 21: Modality and modal elements in Kurdish (Moradi 2009: 117) 148
x
Figure 22: from participant internal to epistemic 325
Figure 23: Semantic space 327
Figure 24: modal auxiliaries in modern west Iranian languages 328
Figure 25: modal adverbs in modern west Iranian languages 329
Figure 26: modal adjectives in modern west Iranian languages 329
Figure 27: modal nouns in modern west Iranian languages 330
Figure 28: modal main verbs in modern west Iranian languages 330
xi
Tables
Table 1: Reflexives in some Iranian languages 27
Table 2: Simple Adjective vs Comparative and Superlative 28
Table 3: Simple Past: 40
Table 4: Present Perfect: 41
Table 5: Past Perfect: 41
Table 6: Present Simple: 42
Table 7: Endings in Balochi Makrani (Arbaban, Balochian, Sarawan) 47
Table 8: clitics in Makrani Balochi (Arbaban, Balochan, Sarawan) 48
Table 9: First and second, singular and plural personal pronouns
in Balochi (Jahani and Korn 2009) 49
Table 10: Pronouns in Gilaki 51
Table 11: Endings in Hawrami 60
Table 12: Clitics in Hawrami 60
Table 13: The verb "to be" in Hawrami 61
Table 14: Present tense endings 67
Table 15: Intransitive Past Tense Endings 67
Table 16: Transitive Past Tense Enclitics 68
Table 17: Enclitics in Sorani 74
Table 18: Enclitics in reflexives 74
Table 19: Subject Endings in Sorani 75
Table 20: Independent Pronouns in Sorani 75
Table 21: Present Tense Endings in Lori (Balagariveh variety) 78
Table 22: Past tense Endings in Lori (Balagariveh variety) 79
xii
Table 23: The applications of "to want" in Balagariveh
Lori dialect 80
Table 24: Past Participle of the verb "to eat" 83
Table 25: Pronouns in Nominative case 86
Table 26: Pronouns in Accusative Case 86
Table 27: Pronouns in Genitive Case 86
Table 28: Pronouns in Oblique Case 86
Table 29: Clitics 91
Table 30: Endings 91
Table 31: Pronouns in Nominative case 91
Table 32: Pronouns in Oblique case 91
Table 33: Subject agreement Clitics in Vafsi 94
Table 34: Subject Agreement Endings in Kahangi 95
Table 35: Case in Pronouns 96
Table 36: Word order in 10 West Iranian Languages 101-103
Table 37: ‘go’ and ‘can’ in Vafsi 195
Table 38: ‘can’ in Gerashi 250
Table 39: Tetrachoric relation between noun-determiner and noun-relative clause 341
Table 40: Order of want+verb 345
xiii
Diagrams
Diagram 1: Gradual scale of modality 128
Diagram 2: Gradable epistemic modality 129
Diagram 3: the relation between epistemic and evidentiality 130
Diagram 4: the grammaticalization of modal auxiliaries in Persian (Akhlaghi 2007:128) 156
Diagram 5: polysemy, context-sensitive, polysemy and context-sensitive
expressions 164
Diagram 6: Modal verb hoeven in Dutch 270
Diagram 7: The possible diachrony of the W-Iranian modal 272
Diagram 8: From the ability to epistemic 274
Diagram 9: From ‘become’ to epistemic modality 278
Diagram 10: grammaticalization from the sources meaning ‘move toward’ 278
Diagram 11: From ‘know’ to ‘ability’ 281
Diagram 12: Scope of modals (Haquard 2010: 96) 336
Diagram 13: Epistemic reading of 337
Diagram 14: deontic reading of 337
Diagram 15: Case-marking of direct objects 342
Diagram 16 348
Diagram 17 350
xiv
List of Abbreviation 1 first person 2 second person 3 third person ACC accusative COMP complementizer DEF definite F feminine GEN genitive/ezafe IMP imperative INDF indefinite IPFV imperfective M masculine NEG negation, negative NMLZ nominalizer/nominalization NOM nominative OBL oblique PASS passive PFV perfective PL plural POSS possessive PRF perfect PRFX derivational prefix PST past PTCP participle REFL reflexive SBJV subjunctive SG singular SINF short infinitive = border for clitic
xv
Phonetic Symbols Consonants Bilabial Labiodental Dental Alveolar Postalveolar Retroflex Palatal Velar Uvular Pharyngeal Glottal
Plosive Nasal Trill Tap or Flap Fricative h Lateral fricative approximant Lateral approximant
Vowels
xvi
Chapter one: Introduction
The overall goal of this dissertation is to study modal words in modern West Iranian (W-Iranian) languages from both semantics and typology perspective to present a new categorization of these languages based on a semantic feature: modality.
Modality is a domain allows us to talk about the states of affairs (SoA) which are not present in the current situation and may never occur in the real world (Papafragou 2000:3). Palmer (2001) describes modality as a means which the speaker uses to express his/her attitude towards a proposition or an SoA; while Leech (2006: 64) introduces modal verbs as a small category of verbs which express possibility, permission, obligation, necessity, probability, and so on. As the definition suggests, various categorizations of modality, from different perspectives are available. The one I apply here is Nuyts (2005, 2006, 2008, 2016, forthcoming) and also Byloo and Nuyts (2014) and Nuyts and Byloo (2015) as one of the most recent categorizations which has not been practiced in Iranian languages until now. To Nuyts, modality in a broad sense refers to ‘any kind of speaker modification of a SoA, even including dimensions such as tense and aspect; which in a narrow sense ‘it refers to one semantic subfield of the wider domain of qualificational categories, which stands next to domains such as time and aspect’ (2016: 32).
Although modality is a stable notion, yet with different aspects of concern, it can be the topic of many linguistic studies, including philosophy, formal semantics, descriptive semantics, cognitive semantics, typology, and pragmatics. In this project, modality is concerned in two domains: typology and descriptive semantics.
1
The idea of considering semantics in typology studies is not new. Van der Auwera and Plungian (1998), Haspelmath (2003), Nauze (2008) and many others (see e.g. Anderson 1982, Haspelmath 1997, Van der Auwera 2008, and Evans 2011) have supported or proved this idea in practice.
The investigating of modality in Iranian studies is a young phenomenon. For a long time, it was ‘mood’ which had been examined and it was ‘Persian’ which had the fortune to be observed in these studies, not any other Iranian languages (see. ch2). These two facts (being brand new notion and not paying enough attention to other Iranian languages) encourage me to explore modality in Iranian languages, to i) find modal elements in these languages, ii) provide a continuum which shows how these languages differ in the type of modal words to express modality, iii) to detect the polysemic modal auxiliaries and finally iv) to state the synchronic semantic maps of these elements. There are yet other reasons which encourage me to investigate these languages besides not being practiced before: willing to introduce their unique behavior in the linguistic area and the controversial behavior of these languages in case of modality. As an instance, one might expect in all languages the notions related to necessity, obligation and whatever which could be titled under deontic modality, to be expressed by modal verbs. Hawrami (Hawraman Takht dialect) and Balochi
(Bamposht dialect) claim an opposite: to them, it is the adverb ( in Hawrami and in Balochi) which cover the exact domain of modality which we usually expect from modal auxiliaries equal to ‘must, should or have to’ to express. Examples in (1) illustrate these adverbs:
(1) a. Hawrami: = You Modal.ADV to=3SG say-2SG ‘You have to tell him/her.’
2
b. Balochi Modal ADV after from lunch SUBJ-sleep-1SG ‘I have to sleep after lunch.’
To investigate modality in modern W-Iranian languages thus, I will have to first choose the languages I aim to study. To do so, the first step will be to select an available categorization of Iranian languages. The ideal typological study consists of languages with less or no syntactic and lexical connection; however, a study concerning an individual class, such as Iranian languages, do not fulfill this optimization. Therefore, an alternation will be to single out those languages with the far most geographical distance in this realm.
The second step will be identifying the modal information the languages of our sample express, via syntactic or lexical items, including modal auxiliaries, adverbial modals, modal adjectives, modal nouns, and modal main verbs. That makes the form to the meaning perspective of this thesis. I also will need to have a reverse angle, i.e. meaning to form, to be able to study polysemy in these words and provide the semantic maps.
The aim of this thesis is to examine the prospect of categorizing languages based on modality and to realize how a semantic-based categorization of languages would be different from morpho-syntactic ones. The typological regularities in this dissertation are gained through cognitive-descriptive semantics.
The results will be a new categorization of Iranian languages, however, based on modality, it has its hand on a formal boat of the language and will start its departure from form to detect the ways of expressing the required meaning. One must say that we come to the classical conclusion that form and meaning are the ‘two sides of a coin’. Then the only difference between other linguistic typology and semantic typology would be ‘the target.’
3
The method of gathering data will be through interviews, questionnaires, observing every conversation of the speakers of each language, and documents and recordings.
The method of investigation will be to clarify the definition of modality we are adopting here, detect the modal words which might express these types, classify them based on the meaning they express, define a semantic realm for them and finally find the polysemous modal elements. That would lead this dissertation to be organized as follows:
Chapter two starts with typology and semantic perspective on typology. It also introduces the state of the problem which is mainly the way Iranian languages are classified and provide questions with the related hypothesis which will guide us through the dark points of this category. The remaining part of this chapter is devoted to introducing eleven W-Iranian languages: Persian, Kahangi, Vafsi, Semnani, Tati, Gilaki, Kurdish, Hawrami, Balochi, Lori, and Gerashi.
In Chapter three I present a review of literature in modality and place the perspective I adopt in this thesis. This will argue against the traditional perspective towards modality in Iranian studies. This chapter will be continued by providing a framework for our understanding of auxiliaries (from Heine 1993), grammaticalization (using Heine 1993, Heine and Kuteva 2003, Traugott and Dasher 2002, and Velupillai 2012) and polysemy (based on the criteria Viebahn and Vetter 2016 prepare).
The fourth chapter includes the empirical study, based on the data gathered for this dissertation. It is subdivided into three main sections. In the first section, I define the methodology I have used for data gathering and documentation. The second section offers a form to meaning perspective to detect modal words in the languages of our concern. To detect the formal relationships among these items, I will have to notice their origins, too. This is
4
what I will do about modal auxiliaries in each language. However, about other modal items, I will not have to do so; mainly because modal adverbs, adjectives, nouns, and main verbs are common among these languages. Exceptions would be for the languages which have specific elements for each category. In this case, I will classify each item under the languages they belong to. In the third section, I adopt a meaning to form perspective to clarify what modality concepts expressed with different types of modal words. You will see how semantic maps can show the languages express the same scope of notions with different elements. Although, each category is specified to cover specific space, together with other categories they cover all the notions in the realm of modality. On the same section, I will investigate the modal auxiliaries for polysemy. Being polysemous for modal expressions might seem as bright as daylight. However, following Viebahn and Vetter (2016) criteria it will be proved that this claim cannot be true about all modal elements. Finally, I will conclude what has been achieved in this dissertation by answering the questions and testing their related hypotheses.
5
Chapter 2:
2.0 Overview This chapter starts with the basic concepts of typology and semantic typology, as we adopt here. It will continue arguing the traditional perspective of Iranian studies to modality. Then, it offers the state of the problem which leads to this study and assigns the problems and hypotheses we need to investigate here to achieve a comprehensive understanding of modality in modern W-Iranian languages. It also introduces a general part of speech in these languages and will end with a quite huge part and that would be an introduction to the languages of our concern: Persian, Kahangi, Vafsi, Tati (Takestani variety), Gilaki (Shafti variety), Semnani, Kurdish (Sorani in Sanandaj), Hawrami (Hawraman/Oraman- Takht variety), Balochi (Bamposht), Lori (Balagariveh variety) and Gerashi. The note is that wherever I refer to these languages in this thesis hereafter, that would be only about the mentioned varieties and I cannot generalize it to the other dialects of these languages.
2.1 Typology and semantic typology A classic definition on linguistic typology usually suggests ‘compar[ing] languages to learn how different languages are, to see how far these differences may go, and to find out what generalizations can be made regarding cross- linguistic variations’ (Daniel, 2011: 44). It aims to assign languages to different types, based on the differences, rather than similarities (Comrie, 1981: 33) to achieve universals. To discover the variations in the languages, a typologist should not limit himself to only one language and prescribe his findings as generalizations to the other languages. Instead, he should consider the linguistic
6
diversities and achieve the generalizations on languages, based on the variations. Another goal of a typology study is to discover atypical features. That could be the reason which typology respects the language diversities.
In the tradition of typological studies, formal variation is based to assign the types of the languages. Croft (2003: 14) formulate a standard strategy for typological research as below: a) Determine the particular semantic (-pragmatic) structure or situation type that one is interested in studying. b) Examine the morphosyntactic construction(s) or strategies used to encode that situation type. c) Search for dependencies between the construction(s) used for that situation and other linguistic factors: other structural features, other external functions expressed by the construction in question or both.
Although it seems it is the form of the language a typologist needs to study, as (a) above suggests; one may not start typological research without considering its meaning. Determining the structure or the type which we aim to investigate, and surveying the dependencies of the construction with the context it may appear in, all reveals how semantics affects typological researches. So, it seems quite reasonable to study modality, as a semantic and conceptual category, within the typological approach. That would lead us to the less noticed topic ‘semantic typology.’
Semantic typology is ‘that part of linguistic typology concerned with the expression of meaning in language and languages.’ (Evans 2011: 504). They are usually the formal typologists (such as Nauze 2008) who do the semantic typology studies as well. Moreover, the World Atlas of language structure assigns a small section on the semantic notion, such as types of modality, in descriptive semantic perspective. The main problem of any study on modality is
7 that whether they are typological or semantical, not both. However, Language typology is so tied up to the form which it seems impossible to study the semantic typology of languages without considering their forms. Therefore, to overcome this awkward situation, we need to consider both form and meaning in a typological study and determine a relation between the data of the languages, their typology, and universals through a semantic map.
‘A semantic map is a geometric representation of meanings or…of the relations between them’ (Van der Auwera and Plungian 1998: 86). Semantic maps are whether diachronic or synchronic. In a diachronic semantic map of modality, the main goal is to detect the sources of modals and analyze the paths they have passed to the make the present form. While a synchronic semantic map illustrates the present semantic domains of the modals.
Regardless of the type of a semantic map, they represent the universals about the languages and also language specific features. The distribution of the particular construction in a language is a language specific feature. We may illustrate this distribution on a semantic map for that specific language. What is universal across languages, is the diagram and the including values. Croft (2001: 92 and 2003: 134) calls this underlying diagram as a conceptual space. Chapter 4, illustrates semantic spaces for Iranian modals, adopting the idea of the relation between modality concepts from Vander Auwera and Plangian’s (1998) conceptual space, or in their own terminology, diachronic semantic map. The aim would be to detect the space which modal expressions in Iranian languages cover, on a universal semantic map, with all possible modality types available on it which are connected in historical sequence. However, the terms have been changed to Nuyts (2005 and further) terminology to correspond with the framework of this thesis.
8
The critical point in typological research is how to choose the languages. Nauze (2008:10) states that a fruitful investigation within the typological approach is the cross-linguistic study. He introduces two main strategies to construct a sample of choosing languages we aim to study. One is to construct a probability sample, which is best suited to testing the statistical relevance of some pattern or making statistical generalizations. The second strategy is to construct a variety sample. This type is designed to maximize the amount of variation in the data. Since the purpose of this research is to study modality in typological perspective, the second method seems appropriate for selecting the languages here.
In an ideal form, applying the second strategy, the languages of concern must have a maximum distance from each other, and it would be preferred to choose them from different branches and language groups. However, it is not impossible to select languages from one branch and one language group. The only difference then would be that by investigating the languages from various families, it is possible to obtain the universals and suggest generalizations on the languages of the world. By analyzing languages from the same branch, though, we might be able to achieve generalizations only within the same group, and no further.
2.2 State of the problem A systematic study on modality is a very recent phenomenon among Iranian linguists. At the first steps, the scholars tried to distinguish mood and modality. On a more recent progress, applying Lyons (1977) and Palmer (2001), they display the modal verbs, mostly in Persian and rarely in other Iranian languages. However, this is not only the modal verbs which can be used as a mean to express modal meanings. Across languages, other categories, as well, express modal meanings: modal main verbs, modal adverbs, modal adjectives, modal nouns,
9 conditional clauses and even tense. I categorize these elements, formally, to four general classes:
a. Morphological elements such as affixes: these are the elements which are roughly known as ‘mood’ in the literature. (1.a) and (1.b) illustrate indicative vs subjunctive mood in Persian; where indicative has no overt morphological marker, the subjunctive mood is coded overtly by the prefix ‘be-’ (and its allomorphs bi-, - and so on):
(1) Persian a. Have-3SG rain IPFV-come-3SG ‘It is raining.’ b. If rain SBJV-come-3SG, 1SG out NEG-IPFV-go-1SG ‘If it rains, I won’t go out.’
b. Lexical elements such as adjectives, adverbs, nouns, and main verbs. Sentence (2.a) shows a modal adverb in Kahangi, sentence (2.b) illustrates a modal adjective in Kurdish and sentence (2.c) represents a modal main verb (compound verb) in Vafsi:
(2) a. Kahangi
Maybe home in be.SBJV-3PL ‘Maybe they are at home.’ b. Kurdish = Regarding do.PST-NMLZ rules driving necessary=3SG ‘Regarding/obeying the driving rules is necessary.’ c. Vafsi Think do-1SG from this way IPFV-must SBJV-go-1PL ‘I think we have to go this way.’
10
c. Modal auxiliaries. This class is the most frequent and they have the most fortunate among other modal expressions, in that sense that most studies on modality are led based on modal auxiliaries, or with their popular name ‘modal verbs’. In Iranian languages, the same as other studies, in the studies on modality, modal auxiliaries have absorbed the attention. Sentences (3.a) and (3.b) illustrate two modal auxiliaries in Hawrami and Gerashi:
(3) a. Hawrami Sara NEG-Modal. PRS for this party-DEF SBJV-go-3SG ‘Sara shouldn’t go to this party.’ b. Gerashi = 1SG 1SG= Modal. PRS SBJV-sing-1SG. ‘I can sing.’
d. Idiomatic elements such as modal clauses. These are the clauses including no modal element, but expressing modal meaning as a whole. Sentence (4) offers a modal clause in Kahangi:
(4) Kahangi = Razor=2SG IPFV-cut-3SG help do-2SG ‘You can help (your razor cuts to help).’
e. Tense (5.a) and aspect (5.b) (as Rezaei 2009 claims so):
(5) Persian a. = Find=3SG do-2SG news IMPR-give-2SG ‘If you find it/him/her, let me know.’
= Late SBJV-move-2SG from hand=2SG go.PST-3SG ‘If you don’t hurry, you are going to lose it (if you don’t hurry, it will go from your hand).’ Typological studies on Iranian languages are not rare, however, there are two points about them: most of these typological studies have been led by non- Iranian researches (such as D. Stilo, G. Windfuhr and many others), and then, all
11 have considered morpho-syntactic typology. Consequently, the classification of languages is all based on morpho-syntactic features. Even though there is the same about the other languages in other classes as well, what I aim to achieve here is to examine how classifying languages based on a semantic feature would differ with their classical categorization? Or even further, is it possible to present such a classification? To manage the aim of the thesis, then I will pursue three questions with three hypotheses as follows:
1. What are the modal elements in Iranian languages?
I assume they might apply modal auxiliaries, modal main verbs, adverbial modals, modal adjectives, and modal nouns.
2. Which modal verbs are polysemous?
As for the second question, I hypothesize that the modal auxiliaries with hypothetical meaning MUST, are polysemous, conveying deontic, dynamic and epistemic meaning.
3. How classifying Iranian languages according to the semantic features, differ from other available categorizations which are mainly based on syntactic or morphological features?
The third problem, though is typologically valued. My hypothesis on this area is that since the available categorizations of (Iranian) languages are mainly morphological or syntactical, there might be a great difference between a classification based on a semantic feature; so that it might change the branch of a language to another (in the range of modern W-Iranian languages).
Note that, among the four groups of the morphological element, lexical elements, modal auxiliaries, and idiomatic modal clauses, I will exclude the first
12
group, i.e. morphological elements, since it expresses mood in Iranian languages rather than modality.
A further note is that this thesis will start with some limitations. The first restriction we meet is the choice of Iranian languages from the Indo-Iranian family. The second constraint is to pick modern west languages, among Iranian languages. And finally, within many languages in this class, only 11 languages are about to study as representatives of the group. So, any generalization and outcome would be restricted to modern W-Iranian languages and will not be overgeneralized to a branch or a group beyond it.
2.3 Iranian languages
With over 150 million native speakers living in Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, the Soviet Union (Caucasus, Central Asia, Pamir), Chinese Turkistan, on the Indian Subcontinent and on the Arabian side of the Persian Gulf, the Iranian language family is one of the largest in the world (Windfuhr 1989 and 2009).1 There is disagreement over the question of how this language family should be sub-classified, however, hence in the more typologically inspired classification by Rezaei Baghbidi (2009) there are 8 categories of W-Iranian languages: 1) central dialects; 2) Caspian area; 3) North-west dialects; 4) South- west dialects; 5) Southeast dialects; 6) Kurdish dialects; 7) Zaza and Guarani and 8) Balochi. The languages each group covers are as follows:
1. Central Dialects: 1-1. North West: Khansari, Old Qazvini, Mahallati, Vaneshani, Old Hamedani 1-2. North East: Arani, Abyaneyi, Tari, Joshaghani, Suee, Farizandi, Ghohrudi, Kesheyi, Meymeyi, Natanzi, Bazandi, Kashani Jewish.
1 The name ‘Iranian languages’ is thus misleading, since they are spoken far beyond Iran. 13
1-3. South West: Old Isfahani, Sedehi, Kofrani, Gazi, Varzaneyi, Isfahani Jewish. 1-4. South East: Ardestani, Anaraki, Zefreyi, Nayini, Yazd and Kerman Zoroastrian, Yazd and Kerman Jewish. 1-5. Tafresh Area: Ashtiyani, Amereyi, Alviri, Kahaki, Vafsi, Vidari 1-6. Desert Area: Khori, Farvi, Mehrjani 2.Caspian (Khazar) Area: 2-1. Gilaki: Rashti, Lahijani, Langrudi, Machiani 2-2. Mazani: Baboli, Saravi, Shahmirzadi, Tabari, Gorgani 2-3. Semnan Era: Aftari, Biyabanaki, Sorkheyi, Semnani, Sangsari, Lasgerdi 3.North West 3-1. North Tati 3-2. South Tati 3-3. Talishi: Masali, Masuleyi, Zideyi 3-4. Azari (called Tati as well): Eshtehardi, Alamuti, Takestani, Chali, Khowini, RUdbari, Shali &… 4.South West 4-1. Sivandi 4-2. Fars Province: Ardakani, Buranjani, Dashtestani, Davani & etc 4-3. Lori: Bakhtiari, Fili, Kohkiluyei, Giani, Mamasani 5.South East 5-1. Larestani: Aradi, Bikhobi, Fishvari 5-2. Bashagardi: Bandari, Davani, RUdbari, Minabi & etc 5-3. Kumzari 6.Kurdish 6-1. North West Kurdish (Kurmanji) 6-2. North East Kurdish 6-3. Central Kurdish: Sowrani, Seneri, Mokri 6-4. South Kurdish: Sanjabi, Kermanshahi, Kalhori, Laki
14
7.Zaza & Guarani 7-1. Zaza 7-2. Hawrami, Bajelati, Konduleyi & Guzani 8.Balochi 8-1. West Balochi 8-1-1. Makrani: Saheli, Kochi, Lashari 8-1-2. Rakhshani: Panjguri, Saravani, Sarhaddi, Kalati 8-2. East Balochi (Rezaei Rezaei Baghbidi 2009: 179-181)
Dabirmoghaddam (2013), Oranski (1977), and Windfuhr (1989), as well, have presented more or less similar classifications on Iranian languages. Although Windfuhr (1989: 294-295) admit their classification is more based on genetic relation, geographic proximity, and ethnic identity and less on typology. Hence, I adopt the classification Rezaei Baghbidi (2009) provides.
Since it is not possible to investigate all Iranian languages in one study, I have chosen one language in every branch, considering Rezaei Baghbidi’s categorization (2009). The main motivation for choosing each language was their geographical distance. Therefore, where a class of language lays on a vast geographic era, I have chosen two languages to have a profounded insight into the semantic features of that class (Kahangi and Vafsi in Central area and Gilaki and Semnani in Caspian area). Even though, there were still two classes which encourage me to exclude the geographical distances and try a comparison on the very close languages: Zaza Gurani (Hawrami) and Kurdish. For a long period of time, Hawrami was assumed to be a type of Kurdish. By analyzing modality in these languages I aim to find how Hawrami differs from Kurdish in this perspective. The languages I chose to study here, lay in the categorization of Rezaei Baghbidi (2009) as follows.
15
1 & 2) Among Central dialects: Kahangi, a language spoken in a village in Isfahan Province; and Vafsi, spoken in Vafs, Markazi province.
3 & 4) In Caspian area: Gilaki, specifically the dialect of Shafti, spoken in Shaft, Gilan province; and also Semnani, spoken in Semnan province, which most scholars believe it should be considered as a central language.
5) Tati (the Takestani dialects precisely) is a North West language in W- Iranian languages, under the title of Azeri dialects.
6) Lori, which is a language in Southwest in Rezaei Baghbidi’s. The dialect of our concern is Balagariveh, spoken in Khorram Abad and some other cities in Lorestan province.
7) Kurdish owns a distinct group in Rezaei Baghbidi classification, with Sorani (spoken in Sanandaj, Kurdistan) as a subtype
8) As a dialect in Zaza and Gorani, I choose Hawrami (Oramani/Howrami), the Horaman Takht (lohan) dialect.
9) Balochi is a group with subgroups under this title which Makorani/Makrani/Makorrani is one of them in Rezaei Baghbidi’s. The dialect I study here is the one spoken in Bam-posh in Saravan.
10) Gerashi is a language in the southeast of W-Iranian languages in Rezaei Baghbidi’s classification, spoken in Gerash, a town in Fars province.
11) Farsi is mostly categorized as south-west in Rezaei Baghbidi’s and south in Windfuhr’s (1989). The dialect I study here is the standard one which is mostly known as Persian.
16
2.3.1 Parts of speech in modern W-Iranian languages
In this section, we will get a general idea of parts of speech in Iranian languages and their general behavior. Verb, noun, pronoun, adverb, and particle are the topics of this section.
2.3.1.1 Verb
Verbs can represent four features at the same time: person, number, tense and polarity (Anvari and Givi, 2016: 20). Although Vafaei (2009: 27) adds up these features to six: tense, person, transitivity, voice, mood, and aspect (2009: 27). The possible grammatical forms for most verbs in most Iranian languages are simple present, present progressive, present subjunctive, present perfect, simple past, past perfect, and past subjunctive along with the passive and imperative.
Generally, verbs are classified based on various perspectives. Morphologically, there are three main forms of a verb: simple, complex and compound. The simplest form of a verb is the stem (past or present) plus an ending which marks the subject. When the basic verb form follows a prefix, the result is a complex predicate usually with a new meaning. Compound predicates are mostly made of two or more distinct words; one is a verb and the other is whether a noun, an adjective or a stem of another verb. Since the non-verbal element (a noun, an adjective or a stem) carries the meaning of the compound predicate, the verbal element is a verb with a syntactic role rather than a semantic function. Examples in (6) to (8) illustrate simple verbs (predicates), complex and compound verbs, in sequence:
(6) Simple predicates a. Persian: IPFV-know-1SG ‘I know.’ b. Hawrami: see.PST-1SG ‘I saw.’
17
Lori: Sara Modal.PRS-3SG SBJV-read-3SG ‘Sara can read.’ d. Balochi: go.PST-PTCP-3PL ‘They have gone.’ e. Kahangi: here PFV-NEG-come-3SG ‘she/he has not come here.’ f. Semnani: IPFV-NEG-break-3SG ‘It won’t break.’ g. Gilaki: PFV-eat.PST-1SG ‘I ate.’ h. Kordi: Ø. give.IMPR-2SG Give! i. Tati: sit.PST-PTCP-3PL ‘They have sit.’
(7) Complex predicate a. Persian: = pref-have.SPT-1SG=3SG ‘I took it.’ b. Gilaki: pref-put-NML ‘to scape.’
(8) Compound predicate a. Persian: grater IPF-do-1SG ‘I (will) shred.’ b. Kordi: = job=1SG find do.PST ‘I found a job.’ c. Balochi: way NEG-fall.PST-3SG ‘He has not still set out.’
18
In another perspective, to indicate the tense of the utterance, the stem of verbs would be whether in the past or present. In the literature it is believed by removing the infinitive marker from the infinitive, what will remain, will be the past stem (in Persian this remaining form is equal to the third person singular in past tense). To have the present stem, first you need to change the verb to imperative and then remove the imperative marker (which is mostly - in Iranian languages); what remains, is the present stem. See the examples below:
(9) a. Persian: past stem and third person singular) Go.PST-NML (infinitive marker) b. Kahangi: (past stem and short infinitive) Eat.PST-NML (infinitive marker) Note that in Iranian languages, infinitives are a type of noun. Therefore, the infinitive marker is glossed as NML (nominalizer) that is a morpheme which changes a verb to a noun form.
Future tense though has faced lots of evolutions. In Old Persian, there was no specific construction called “future” and it was the subjunctive which played the role of the future as well. In Middle W-Iranian languages, besides the present subjunctive, the present verb could be a marker of future, too. Today, in written or formal Persian the verb (to want) where used as auxiliary accompanies the main verb to show the future (Rezayati and Ebrahimi 2016). In other Iranian languages, as well, present indicative, mostly in imperfective aspect, and also subjunctive can refer to future as their second function:
(10) Tati ? Where IPFV-go-3PL ‘Where do they go/where are they going/where will they go?’
19
Another category which acts over the verb is mood. Three main moods in Iranian languages, which most linguists more or less agree on, are indicative, imperative and subjunctive. Indicative is always unmarked, while subjunctive is marked with prefixes like be- (and its allomorphs) and e- (and its allomorphs), or with other linguistic features (as in Lori which a change of vowel of the stem changes the indicative to subjunctive:
(11) Lori ? Want where go.SBJV-3PL ‘Where do they want to go? Where will they go?’
? IPFV where go-3SG ‘Where do they go/where are they going?’
The main aspects in Iranian languages are perfective, whether unmarked
(or marked with Ø-), or marked with the prefix or other allomorphs; and imperfective. As for Comrie (1979: 24-25), languages usually have a single category called imperfective, while there are some other languages “where imperfectivity is subdivided into a number of distinct categories”. The most typical divisions of imperfectivity, as he reports, are habitual and continuous; where the latter is subdivided in non-progressive and progressive (ibid). Although Bybee et al. (1994: 174) posit they have not found enough evidence to support Comrie’s hypothesis in the types of imperfective; “in particular … for a continuous gram-type, nor for a non-progressive”. So, that will limit the aspect category to perfective and imperfective with habitual and progressive under the latter title. Most Iranian languages hold a marker which at the same time marks the habitual and progressive imperfective. Recently languages have raised this marking system some sort of malformed in expressing the notion of progressive; so they start to use some other mechanisms, like applying periphrastic elements, as an instance, to mark progressive (in Persian different inflection of the verb
“to have”, “to be busy” in Kurdish and Hawrami, “in hand”
20
in Vafsi, an imperfective prefix in Tati and Gilaki and etc.). See the examples below:
(12) Simple present a. Persian Every day IPFV-go-1SG shopping ‘I go shopping every day.’
b. Kordi Where IPFV-go-3PL ‘Where do they go/where are they going?’
(13) Simple past o Nominative-accusative languages a. Persian clothes-PL ACC wash.PST-3SG ‘She/he washed the clothes.’ b. Lori
do.PST-3SG to out ‘she/he went out (left).’ o Split Ergative languages1 a. Kahangi = dish-PL=3SG IPFV-wash.PST ‘She/he washed the dishes.’ b. Vafsi = water-OBL water=3SG NEG-eat.PST-PTCP ‘The flower has not been watered.’
1 These are the languages which are sensitive to tense in Iranian languages and use different systems of agreement and/or case marking. Agent (A) in past transitive verbs are marked with clitics, while the subject of intransitive verbs (S) and (A) in present tense is marked with endings. 21
(14) Future Persian a. Formal: want/will-1PL see.PST-3SG ‘We will see.’ b. Colloquial: tomorrow IPFV-go-1SG shopping ‘I will go shopping tomorrow.’ (15) Perfective a. Persian Bicycle ACC sell.PST-2PL ‘you sold the bicycle.’ b. Kordi - go.PST-3PL what PFV-do-3PL ‘What did they go to do?’ c. Gilaki PFV-eat.PST-1SG ‘I ate.’ d. Semnani PFV-eat.PST-3PL ‘They ate.’ (16) Imperfective o Habitual and Progressive a. Persian b. Hawrami IPFV-go-1SG shopping IPFV-break-3PL I go shopping/I am going shopping. They break/They will break. o progressive a. Persian have-3SG lesson IPFV-study-3SG ‘She/he is studying right now.’ b. Kurdish - busy-3SG think IPF-do-3SG
22
‘She is thinking about her fiancé.’ c. Balochi Day busy-3SG out-come-3SG ‘The sun is rising.’ d. Vafsi hand-in newspaper IPFV-read-3SG ‘She/he is reading the newspaper.’
Practically, Vafaei (2012: 47) divides Persian verbs into four groups: i) complete verbs: the verbs in past and present with all kinds of conjugation; i.e. they are inflected for all persons and numbers in all types of past and present forms. ii) Defective or partial verbs: the verbs which are not conjugated in all forms and tenses. iii) Modal verbs: those which have lost their main application as a verb and are used mostly in subjunctive constructions, and finally iv) Auxiliary verbs which are mostly used to construct or mark present perfect, past subjunctive, past perfect, past continuous, present continuous, future, and passive. This division as said above is mostly applicable in Persian. In Iranian languages, there are some slight differences in the application of these elements.
2.3.1.2 Noun
Traditionally nouns are whether simple or derived. The simple nouns are those without a stem of a verb in their construction (Anvari and Givi, 2016: 80). In another perspective, nouns are proper/non-proper, definite/indefinite, plural/singular. All Iranian languages share the fact that they don’t have the dual form of the noun and the plural noun is made by adding suffixes to the singular form (Mace, 2003: 40).
In case of definite or non-definite, some languages are marked for both. In Persian when a noun is unmarked, it is regarded as a definite, or it may represent the genus of the beings or objects bearing its name (Levy, 1951: 27).
23
In other words, some of the languages have no definite article corresponding to English “the”. Although all languages have the indefinite maker (mostly the suffix –i).
The head noun in the noun phrase can be preceded or followed by some dependents. Base on the language, these dependents can be demonstratives, numbers, question words, adjectives or genitives (Haghshenas et al. 2008: 99). Although all languages share these dependents, their diversity is on the place of these words, whether before or after the head noun. In Persian for example, the adjective is a post dependent, however, in Gilaki, the adjective is considered as a type of pre-dependent to the head.
There is no gender distinction in most Iranian languages, although, in some, including Tati some nouns are marked according to their gender. In Persian, and of course in other Iranian languages which are under the influence of Persian “Arabic participles and adjectives are … [marked] in their feminine form with Arabic feminine nouns and …with Persian nouns which Arabic would treat as feminine” (Levy, 1951: 27). Although the case endings have been disappeared in Persian (ibid: 27) in some languages of West Iranian, nouns are marked for case. The examples for Case would be presented in section (2.3.2) for each language. Below the examples of different types of nouns are available:
(17) Derived noun a. Persian See-NMLZ ‘Insight’
(18) Definite noun a. Persian = book=ACC from Mohammad take.PST-1SG ‘I took the book from Mohammad (Anvari and Givi, 2015: 82)’
- book-DEF ACC buy.PST-1SG ‘I bought the book.’
24
b. Kurdish =o lesson-DEF-PL=OBL SBJV-study-2SG ‘(When/if) you study your lessons.’
(19) Singular/Plural nouns a. Persian b. Gilaki father father-PL child child-PL father fathers child children
(20) Masculine/feminine nouns a. Semnani b. Tati train.M bus-F wolf.M cat-F train bus wolf cat
2.3.1.3 Pronoun
Pronouns can be independent, known as personal pronouns, or dependents, which are called endings in this project. The dependent pronouns usually link to the main verb to show the person and number of the subject. They are two groups of endings for past, and present tense. Mainly the difference is just in the third person singular where the marker is –Ø in past; though it is not the case that it can be generalized to all languages.
However, one can claim in all Iranian languages, there is a six paradigm consisting of two numbers, singular, and plural, and three persons: first, second and third. The only diversity can be found is on the third person singular, again, which in some languages, as in Semnani and Tati, the gender in third person singular adds up the number of pronouns system to seven members. So, Iranian languages show different behaviors toward gender: some, or let’s say most of them do not mark the gender and they are neutral in this case; while the others, are partially sensitive to this feature, and they mark the third person singular in gender, as well as person and number. Although most of the languages use the
25 same pronouns for both subject and object, some other languages, as in Vafsi, have a different system for the object pronouns. It is also very normal to use clitics instead of object pronouns, even in Persian:
= See.PST-1SG=3SG ‘I saw him/her/’ Except for the endings and the personal pronouns, there are some other elements, which traditionally are considered as dependent pronouns as well, though linguistically they act as clitics, and they show person and number for different purposes. In Persian, as an instance, some of them connect to the nouns to show the possession, or to verbs to mark object; and others are the clitic form of the auxiliary verb “” (to be). While in split ergative languages (as in Kahangi, Vafsi, Tati, etc.) they mark the subject in past transitive verbs.
(21) object/possessive clitics a. Persian = IMPV-take=3SG ‘Take him/her/it.’
b. Book=1PL ‘Our book.’
(22) a. Balochi = Weather today hot=3SG (is) ‘The weather is hot.’
b. Gerashi = Human trustworthy-DEF=1SG. ‘(s)he is a trustworthy person.’ Interrogative, exclamatory, indefinite, reflexive (or emphatic), demonstrative (Anvari and Givi, 2016: 186-191) and reciprocal pronouns (Mace, 2003: 72) are the other types of pronouns in these languages (see section 2.3.2
26
for more detailed examples on this topic). Below you see reflexive pronouns in Persian, Hawrami, and Kurdish.
Table 1: Reflexives in some Iranian languages Persian
Singular Plural 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd = = = = = = Hawrami Singular Plural 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd we= we= we= we= we= we= Kordi
Singular Plural 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd = = = = = =
2.3.1.4 Adjective
The main adjective forms are simple, comparative and superlatives. The comparative is mostly marked with – and the superlative is marked with –
. Depending on the language, the adjective can precede or follow the noun. If preceding, to link the noun it usually takes a vowel as the genitive marker, mostly –.
Demonstrative adjective, agent noun, past participle (objective adjective), attributive adjective, numeral adjective, exclamatory adjective and indefinite adjective (what Mace, 2003: 62 calls distributive adjective) are the other forms of adjectives available in Iranian languages (Anvari & Givi, 2016: 138).
27
Table 2: Simple Adjective vs Comparative and Superlative Persian Simple Comparative Superlative strong Stronger the strongest Kahangi Simple Comparative Superlative good better best
2.3.1.5 Adverb
Adverbs are generally divided into two main groups: Specific and nonspecific. The specific adverbs are inherently adverbs and they take no other role in a sentence. Nonspecific adverbs were noun, pronoun, verb, or adpositions basically but they can play the role of an adverb in the sentence (Anvari and Givi, 2016: 225). This is what Haghshenas et al. (2005: 171) call inherent vs non-inherent adverbs. Structurally adverbs are whether simple, derived, idiomatic or compound. Semantically they can be adverbs of time, place, degree, manner, frequency, exclamatory, gradable, interrogative, quality, negation, distinguishing, case (and etc.) adverbs (Anvari and Givi, 2016: 200-240).
(23) Specific Adverbs a. Persian b. Kahangi (never);(always); (still),(never), (still); (of course); (for example); (unfortunately) etc. (24) Non-specific a. Persian b. Kahangi
(night); (day, morning); (night),(day),(evening) (morning); (evening); (this year); (last year) etc.
28
2.3.1.6 Particles The particle is a general name in the literature to refer to adpositions and conjunctions (Khanlari 1979, Anvari and Givi, 2016: 249-257). Most Iranian languages use the prepositions while some others use both pre and post positions. Some scholars (as Dabirmoghaddam 2013) claim in some languages circumfixes goes along with the prepositions. In the literature, adpositions are known as words with no independent meaning by themselves (Khanlari, 1972: 73). But pre or post positions, circumfix or not, they are whether basic or compounds. As the name suggests a basic adposition is one word, mostly in a closed list; while the compound adpositions are the combination of an adposition and other words, in an open list. Traditional studies consider – as the only postposition in Persian.
But the fact is that - is the object (accusative marker) in this language, however, in some other Iranian languages (as in most of the Central languages) it is a perfect adposition which means ‘for’. Even though, it has some clitic forms (=, =) which they are not adposition anymore in any of the Iranian languages but mostly a case marker which marks the object.
(25) Prepositions a. Persian b. Kordi (with);(from);(to);(to); (to, with), (in, from), (on- (without);(for);(exce on), (to-to), etc. pt); (in);(unless); (for) c. Balochi d. Lori (on), (with), (with), (in), (for) etc. e. Gilaki f. Semnani (for), etc. g. Hawrami h. Vafsi (to),(from),(to), (to), (from), etc. (on),(in),(inside), etc. i. Kahangi (with),(for-for),(on- on), etc 29
(26) Post Positions a. Gilaki b. Kordi (in),(with, to),(with), (on-on), (to-to), etc. (for, to), etc. c. Hawrami d. Semnani (from),(in), etc. e. Kahangi f. Tati (for-for), (on-on),etc. (from),(with), (in), (to),(with),etc. g. Vafsi (for),(to), etc. Conjunctions are whether simple or compound. The compound conjunctions consist of two or more words which at least one of them is a simple conjunction or an adposition (Anvari and Givi, 2016: 249). Examples in (27) illustrate some conjunctions in Iranian languages.
(27) Conjunctions a. Persian & most Iranian Languages b. Kordi (that), (or), (and), (because), etc. (because), etc. c. Hawrami c. Lori (that), etc. etc. e. Kahangi d. Semnani (that), etc. (that), etc. 2.3.2 Word order and more in modern W-Iranian Languages This section focuses on the general description of 11 Iranian languages of our concern in this dissertation. It mainly sketches the word order of these languages (according to Dryer 1992), besides the agreement and case system (if necessary) of some of these languages.
Dabirmoghaddam (2013) has studied Iranian Languages using “Greenbergian word order correlation” by Dryer 1992. Dryer has introduced
30
some correlations among which a few are not applicable in Persian1. Using Dryer’s other correlations, Dabirmoghaddam makes up a system of 24 correlation pairs, which I apply to introduce the word order of Persian, Balochi, Hawrami, Kurdish, Tati, and Vafsi. Other studies (Rezapour 2013, Koohkan 2016 and CharsoughiAmin 2015) use the same system to introduce Semnani, Kahangi, and Gilaki as well, which I consider them here as a source of word order in these languages. These correlations are as follows:
1. The adposition type: is the language prepositional or post positional? 2. The order of noun and relative clause. 3. The order of noun and genitive. 4. The order of adjective and standard in comparative constructions. 5. The order of the verb and adpositional phrase. 6. The order of verb and manner adverb. 7. The order of copula and predicate. 8. The order of ‘want’+verb. 9. Order of noun and adjective. 10. Order of demonstrative and noun. 11. Order of intensifier and adjective. 12. The order of verb and tense/aspect auxiliary. 13. Order of question particle and sentence. 14. Order of adverbial subordinator and clause. 15. Order of article and noun. 16. Order of verb and subject. 17. The order of numeral and noun. 18. Order of tense/aspect affix and verb stem. 19. Order of noun and possessive morpheme.
1 The five correlations not applicable in Persian are as follow: a) negative particle or negative auxiliary verb. b) Plural words instead of plural affix. c) Possessive affix and Noun word order. d) tense/aspect particle. 31
20. Order of main verb and auxiliaries meaning ‘can’. 21. Order of complementizer and complement sentence. 22. WH-movement. 23. Order of object and verb. 24. Order of negative affix and verb stem.
Since some of the W-Iranian languages show the same behavior towards some of the components, I will introduce the full 24 components for Persian, but in the case of other languages, to avoid any redundancy, I will only name those components which are specific to that special language.
Most of the data which are performed here as an example and evidence of each title is from my corpus. Where ever I use other sources to offer examples, I coded the exact number of those data in brackets and name the source in parenthesis after the translation of these examples. With the aim of offering a succinct and productive model, after describing these languages, I will classify them according to their general grammatical behavior toward a specific topic.
2.3.2.1. Persian Modern Persian is an Iranian language, classified under a greater node called Indo-Iranian languages which itself goes below the Eastern branch of Indo- European language family. Karimi (2005:3) reports the language which is called Modern Persian “is spoken in Iran, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan where it is called Farsi, Dari and Tajiki, respectively”. The dialect I choose to study here is Farsi, the Persian spoken in Iran as a Standard language among Iranian people.
32
Figure 1: The Distribution of Farsi
2.3.2.1.1 Word order
Greenberg (1963) “classifies Persian as a type III language” which are “verb- final and postpositional” languages (Karimi 2005). Here you see more detailed information on this topic from Dabirmoghaddam (2013).
Component 1: Persian is mostly a pre-positional language, with only one post position “” (also clitics form =o).
(28) a. Child-PL in yard sit.PST-PTCP-3PL ‘The children are sitting at the yard (have been sitting at the yard).’
b. = Lesson=2SG ACC study.PST-PTCP.2SG ‘Have you studied your lessons?’
Component 2: Relative clause is placed right after the noun; it is an NRel language.
(29) Ø girl-INDEF that today come.PST-3SG ACC see.PST-1SG ‘I saw the girl who came today.’
Component 3: In the order of noun and genitive, the noun precedes the genitive.
33
(30) Mother-GEN Sepideh ‘Sepideh’s mom.’ Component 4: It is possible for adjectives to be placed both before and after ‘standard’; i.e the noun which is used to compare with others (shown with brackets).
(31) a. = Narges from Mahla old-COMP=be.3SG ‘Narges is older than Mahla.’
b. - Narges old-COMP from Mahla-be.3SG ‘Narges is older than Mahla.’
Component 5: In the order of verb and the adpositional phrase, adposition precedes the verb:
(32) Ø. 3SG on ground sleep.PST-3SG ‘He/she slept on the ground (Dabirmoghaddam, 2013: 125).’
Component 6: Manner adverb is placed before the verb:
(33) Trustfully work IPFV-do-3SG. ‘Her works sincerely.’ Component 7: In the order of copula and predicate, copula stands the last.
(34) = Parisa married=be.3SG ‘Parisa is married.’ Component 8: The verb “want” precedes the main verb of the subordinate clause.
(35) = IPV-want-1SG tonight near=2SG SBJV-stay-1SG ‘I want to stay with you tonight.’ Component 9: Among the possibilities of noun + adjective or adjective + noun order, Persian chooses noun + adjective order.
34
(36) girl-GEN cute ‘Cute girl.’ Component 10: The order demonstrative+ noun order, in the correlation between these two elements, is the dominant order.
(37) that boy ‘That boy.’
Component 11: The intensifier always lays before the adjective
(38) very small ‘Very small.’ Component 12: in the correlation between the order of content verb and tense/aspect auxiliary verbs, both options are grammaticalized in Persian.
(39) a. Ø. Want-1PL see.PST-3SG ‘We will see!’
b. Have-1SG IPFV-come-1SG ‘I am coming.’
Before there go.PST-PTCP be.PST-1PL ‘We had gone there before.’
Component 13: Question particle precede the sentence:
(40) = QP sure=be.2SG ‘Are you sure?’ Although this particle is always absent in present-day spoken Persian. Component 14: It is the clause which always stands after the adverbial subordinator in the correlations between these two components.
(41) Ø Ø. When that 3SG come.PST-3SG Samyar go.PST-PTCP be.PST-3SG ‘When she/he came, Samyar had been gone.’ Component 15: In Noun and Article correlation, Persian prefers Articles ahead.
35
(42) a. girl-INDEF ‘a girl.’ b. girl-DEF that yesterday see.PST-1PL ‘The girl we saw yesterday.’ Component 16: As Persian is called SOV language (Karimi, 2005: 7) it simply sets the subject anywhere before the verb.
(43) Rojin IPFV-read-3SG ‘Rojin will read.’
Component 17: The alternation between Number + Noun or Noun+ Number Persian always goes for the former.
(44) Two number house have-3SG ‘She/he has two houses.’
Component 18: In the order between Tense/Aspect affix and Verb root; tense and aspect are both prefixed and suffixed in Persian verb roots.
(45) IPFV-read-PST-1SG ‘I was reading.’ Component 19: The correlation between a noun and possessive free morpheme is so that the related morpheme rests after the noun.
(46) = Room=1SG ‘My room’ Component 20: Persian inclines auxiliary verbs which carry meaning “can” sits before the main verb.
(47) = We all=1PL IPFV- Modal. PRS -1PL SBJV-read-1PL ‘We all can read.’ Component 21: Complementizer is placed before the sentential complement (shown in brackets).
36
(48) Ø Kiyan say.PST-3SG that still task have-3SG ‘Kiyan said that he still has things to do.’ Component 22: Persian is a “WH in-situ” language:
(49) = = Name-GEN boy=2SG what=be.3SG ‘What is the boy’s name?’ Component 23: The order of the object and the verb: it is the verb that falls ahead if the object is a noun phrase. Though if the object is a clause, then it is to the verb to precede it1.
(50) a. = 2PL that=ACC buy.PST-2PL ‘You bought that.’
b. Ø. 1SG IPFV-know-1SG that 3SG letter ACC write.PST-3SG ‘I know that he wrote the letter. (Dabirmoghaddam, 2013: 128)’ Component 24: In negation affix and the verb root order, negations acts as a prefix.
(51) 1SG NEG-see.PST-1SG ‘I didn’t see.’ Dabirmoghaddam (2013) concludes that Persian holds 12 components of Strong Verb-Final components where the verb lies after the object and possesses 17 components of Strong Verb-Initial components. So comparing with the proportion in the languages of the world and Eurasia, Persian inclines towards strong verb-initial. He suggests two hypotheses: whether Persian is in a transition or it is a language with free word order.
1 Although this correlation is neither in Dryer 1992 nor in his database, Dabirmoghaddam (2013: 128) includes this item as the one Dryer suggested to him to consider.
37
2.3.2.1.2 Case System
Rasekhmahand (2006) introduces three methods that languages around the world use to mark the relation between the predicate and its arguments; one is the word order, as English does when saying:
(52) a. Jack saw Mary b. Mary saw Jack
Here the word order simply marks the subject and object. The other is to use the agreement system to show how the arguments are connected to the verbs. If they mark the verb, as the head of the sentence, they are using the agreement. Though there are some languages which prefer to mark the dependents (arguments) of the verb rather than the verb itself. These languages are using the third method of markedness, and that is the Case system (Rasekhmahand, 2006: 8). Considering these methods, languages are either ‘nominative-accusative’ or ‘ergative-absolutive’.
In the case of Persian, Rasekhmahand assures that it is the agreement, the second strategy, which Persian applies to mark the subject and object (2006: 88). Since Persian is an OV, pro-drop language, it consists of endings which mark the subject.
(53) IPFV- Modal. PRS -1SG SBJV-read-1SG ‘I can read.’ Even though Persian is not confined to mark the object as well but as Rasekhmahand (2006) posits, it consists of several enclitics to mark the object restrictedly and we can consider it as an object agreement; as marked before, and its clitic forms (=o, = and =) are as such:
(54) == = Friend=1SG=ACC see.PST-1SG=3SG ‘I saw my friend.’
38
A note is worth mentioning is that the accusative marker, the morpheme - is not used to mark all objects. It is just the specific, definite or indefinite (Karimi, 2003: 91) object which is always followed by the particle - ===
2.3.2.1.3 Agreement system
The Persian language had been known to contain an obligatory rule of subject- verb agreement. Although there are some constructions that violate such a rule. Sedighi (2010:1) names two constraints which affect subject-verb normal agreement: a) when the subject is inanimate plural, the verb is third person singular (as in 55.a); b) the nominative experiencer which again causes the verb to appear in the third person singular form (55.b), which Sedighi calls them “psychological constructions”.
(55) a. Ø. glass-PL break.PST-3SG ‘The glasses were broken.’
b. = Ø. 1SG very from Mozhgan like=1SG IPFV-come-3SG ‘I really like Mozhgan very much.’ Number and person system works together in languages to make agreement system. Gender goes along with these two features in some languages to extend the agreement system. Though in many languages adjectives can carry the agreement endings to agree on the noun they are modifying (called Concord in that case), in Persian it is just the verb agreement. Verbs carry the two main features of person and number to agree on the subject of the sentence. As said above, Persian is a pro-drop language and that makes it possible for the verb in carrying the suitable endings to shows the number and person of the Subject.
39
Though once Persian had the three number system, in Modern Persian today, there are just singular and plural (Taheri, 2008: 10).
2.3.2.1.4 Tense
A fact that linguists agree on, is that Persian definitely marks both present and past tense. Persian verbs have two stems to mark the present and past tense. If the verb is regular, using the infinitive of the verb, the speaker can make the suitable stem to make past tense. He also can use the imperative form of the verb to come up with the present stem. Consider the infinitive “to go”, by removing the nominalizer -, what is left, i.e. would be the suitable past tense stem, which can be used to make the past tense paradigm as follow:
Table 3: Simple Past:
Person Singular plural
1 I went we went 2 you went you went 3 Ø he/she went they went Note: in is one of the suffixes which show past tense in Persian Persian adopts the affix –e to change a verb to its past participle form (non-finite form of a verb) and apply for present perfect and past perfect (in which different inflections of the auxiliary verb needs to be applied for past perfect and the clitic form of the very same verb in present tense for the present participle):
(56) a. -m. 1SG before Shiraz go.PST-PTCP-1SG ‘I have gone to Shiraz before.’
b. before go.PST-PTCP be.PST-1SG ‘I had gone there before.’
40
Table 4: Present Perfect:
Person Singular plural
1 I have gone we have gone 2 you have gone you have gone 3 Ø he/she have gone they have gone *The adjacency of the vowel –e to the other vowels would cause it to be omitted but leave a trace by lengthening the next vowel:
Table 5: Past Perfect:
Person Singular plural
1 I had gone we had gone 2 you had gone you had gone t 3 Ø he/she had gone they had gone
Persian differentiates habitual and progressive with a recent structure. The fact that the prefix is a marker for both habitual in present tense and progressive in both past and present evokes the language to applying the verb (to have) to mark the progressive (38):
(57) a. = = self=1SG IPFV-read.PST-1SG for=3SG ‘I would read for him/her myself.’
b. Ø have.PST-1SG lesson IPFV-study.PST-1SG that come.PST-3SG ‘I was studying when he/she came.’ Another tense which should be introduced under the title PAST is Past Subjunctive. Persian applies the past participle and imperative form of to construct the past subjunctive. The present subjunctive is mostly marked with the prefix in Persian, and the same as many other languages it is used to talk about a situation which is not real.
41
(58) = Maybe go.PST-PTCP be.IMPR-1SG there but remember=1SG Ø. NEG-come.PST-3SG ‘I may have gone there, but I don’t remember.’ For the present tense, as marked before, one can remove the imperative marker of the verb and have the present stem in hand. As for the verb ,
is the imperative form, where the prefix is the imperative marker and the present stem is:
Table 6: Present Simple:
Person Singular plural
1 I go we go 2 you go you go 3 he/she goes they go Note: mi- is the imperfective marker. Habitual and progressive in the present tense follow the same system as above for the past tense. Since the marker for present habitual is the same as present progressive, the language recovers the progressive marker in applying a periphrastic element, the verb , with the present stem , to support the idea of imperfectivity stronger:
(59) have-1SG lesson IMPR-study-1SG ‘I am studying.’ Subjunctive in the present tense in Persian is marked with the prefix V- , sitting instead of the imperfective marker and any other inflectional prefixes:
(60) Modal. PRS SBJV-go-1SG home ‘I must go home.’ The future tense in Modern Persian is controversial. As this tense in mostly expressed using present simple tense (61.a) in colloquial version, still, the verb is used in written or formal version to talk about the future.
42
Though this verb has already lost the future meaning mostly in spoken Persian and simply carries the main meaning of the verb To Want.
(61) a. . IPFV-want-1SG lesson SBJV-study-1SG ‘I want to study (colloquial).’ b. Ø. Lesson want-1SG study.PST-3SG ‘I will study.’ c. Tomorrow IPFV-go-1SG trip ‘I will go for a trip tomorrow (Vafaei, 2012:33).’
2.3.2.1.5 Mood
Persian distinguishes three moods: a) indicative, b) subjunctive, c) imperative. Mostly the progressive, past and present perfect and simple present show the indicative mood (Vafaei, 2013: 39). The subjunctive is whether present or past (which it had already been introduced above). To make the imperative mood, Persian adds the prefix to the present stem of the verb, though in some verbs, as in (62.a) and in compound verbs (62.b) or prefixed verbs is absent (62.c).
(62) a. Ø. Soon IPFV-go-2SG ‘Go now (Go soon).’ b. Ø. more-COMP try do-2SG ‘Try more!’ c. Ø. book-PL ACC Pref-have-2SG ‘Take the books!’
43
2.3.2.1.6 Ezafe/Genitive One of the main construction in Persian noun is Ezafe; “A construction that is indicated by an unstressed enclitic vowel –e and serves to link syntactically related nouns and adjectives together” (Thackston, 2009: 14). Ezafe is comparable to both of and ’s constructions in English when they are used to link two nouns, noun and adjective or to mark possession. In the entire part of my dissertation, I gloss this element as GEN.
(63) a. What picture-GEN beautiful-DEF ‘What a beautiful picture.’ b. = Door-GEN house open=be.3SG ‘The door of the house is open.’ c. Ø. Mother-GEN Kiyan come.PST-3SG ‘Kiyan’s mother came.’
2.3.2.2 Balochi Balochi is mainly spoken in southwestern Pakistan, southern Afghanistan, and southeastern Iran. This language is considered a Northwestern Iranian language and is most closely related to ‘Kurdish, Tati, Talishi and other Northwestern Iranian languages’ (Jahani 2003: 114 in Okati, 2013).
44
Figure 2: The distribution of Balochi in Iran
Jahani and Korn (2009: 636) divide Balochi into the three major dialects of Western, Southern, and Eastern Balochi, among which there are diverse varieties. The Balochi varieties spoken in Iran belong to Western and Southern Balochi. Balochi stands in contact with other Iranian languages, Persian (Farsi and Dari) in the west and north-west, Pashto in the north and north-east, as well as with Indic languages: Urdu, Panjabi, Lahnda and Sindhi in the north-east and east (ibid). It is an SOV language and, some of its dialects showing partial ergativity. (Bashir 1991). Elfenbein (1966, 1990) identifies six dialects in Balochi language: (1) Rakhshani, (2) Kechi, (3) Coastal dialects (in some sources called Makorrani/Mekrani/Mokrani/Makrani); (4) Sarawani; (5) Lashari; (6) Eastern Hill dialects. Among them, Rakhshani, Kechi, the Coastal dialects, and the Eastern Hill Dialects are spoken in Pakistan; while Sarawani and Lashari are spoken mostly in Iran. There are also substantial numbers of Rakhshani speakers in Afghanistan, and (former Soviet) Turkmenistan (Bashir 1991). Dabirmoghaddam (2013) reports that the variety of Balochi spoken in Turkmenistan is a nominative-accusative language while the others are mostly split ergative languages.
45
2.3.2.2.1 Word Order My informants are speakers of Makrani Balochi in Bamposht area. In his study, Dabirmoghaddam (2013) considered two dialects of Balochi: Balochan and Arbaban. Since both of them are spoken in Irnashahr, and it lays under the same branch of Balochi so-called ‘Southern Balochi’ I expect my data shares a lot with Dabirmoghaddam’s description of this language. I will use his study to introduce the word order of Balochi. Wherever necessary I will add descriptions and mention the differences among my data and Dabirmoghaddam’s.
Component 1: Dabirmoghaddam (ibid) observes since the adpositions only occupy the pre-noun position in Balochi, we must consider it as a pre-positional language. Although Jahani and Korn (2009: 657) assert as well as prepositions, postpositions and circumpositions are found in Balochi.
(64) - Want-1SG in city-GEN Zahedan life do-1SG ‘I want to live in Zahedan.’
Component 3: The genitive mostly precedes the noun although it also can follow the noun: (65) a. [32] Ali son ‘Ali’s son (Dabirmoghaddam, 2013: 229- Arbaban Balochi)’
b. [33] Son-GEN Ali ‘Ali’s son (ibid-Arbaban Balochi)’
Component 4: The adjective could rest both before and after the “standard”:
(66) a. [51] Old-COMP from Maryam ‘Older than Maryam (Dabirmoghaddam 2013: 231-Balochan Balochi).’
46
b. [44] From Maryam old-COMP ‘Older than Maryam (ibid-Arbaban Balochi).’
Component 9: The adjective sets before the noun:
(67) Good-*suffix human ‘A good man (* referential suffix).’
Component 12: In Arbaban Balochi the auxiliary verb “to be busy” acts like the past and present imperfective marker, with present and past stem of the main verb. In the corpus of this thesis, my informants use the same structure for the same purpose. Although this is not the only way to show the imperfective. As in many Iranian languages, there is an affix which marks both habitual and progressive (here it is –e), while the recent verb precedes this structure to indicate progressive construction precisely:
(68) a. IPFV-3SG potato-PL-ACC skin-IPFV peel.3SG ‘She/he is peeling potatoes.’ b. Ø Ø. IPFV.PST-3SG potato skin-IPFV peel.PS-3SG ‘She/he was peeling potatoes.’
Component 18: To produce sentences in present perfect and past perfect,
Balochi employs the suffix and respectively:
(69) a. Where go.PST-PP-3PL ‘Where have they gone?’ b. Where to go.PST-PSTP-3PL ‘Where had they gone?’
In several Balochi dialects, the 'verbal element' (or -e), marks the imperfective aspect, While morphologically, the element belongs to the verb, it
47
is enclitic to the word preceding the verb phonologically (Jahani and Korn 2009: 661) (see 7-8 above). As mentioned above, the Iranian variety of Balochi owns a split ergative system. In sentences with past transitive verbs, it is the clitic which shows the agreement between the verb and the subject. Comparing Arbaban Balochi and Balochan Balochi with the dialect of my informant, I can summarize Dabirmoghaddam (2013) endings and clitics in Balochi as follows:
Table 7: Endings in Balochi Makrani (Arbaban, Balochan, Sarawan)
Singular Plural 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd Ø ĩ
Table 8: clitics in Makrani Balochi (Arbaban, Balochan, Sarawan)
Singular Plural 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd = = =Ø =ĩ = =
Among the Iranian languages, Balochi owns some features which are specific to its variety. Retroflex consonants are of them. Consonants - - are approximant retroflex consonants “which mainly occur in loanwords from Indic” (Jahani & Korn, 2009: 643). Not specific to this language, yet it is worth mentioning, there is no grammatical gender in any dialect of Balochi (Jahani & Korn, 2009: 651).
Asserting the fact that there is no agreement on the number and types of case markers and case system in Balochi, Jahani and Korn (ibid) name the following cases as “essential cases” in Balochi:
The direct (DIR) case (also called nominative by some authors) denotes the subject in sentences constructed nominatively and the patient in sentences constructed ergatively.
48
The oblique (OBL) case is used for the agent in ergative sentences, with prepositions and in locative and adverbial functions. The object (OBJ) case is employed for direct and indirect objects in sentences with nominative-accusative alignment. The oblique case is also used in this function. The genitive (GEN) case is used for possessors and with postpositions. The vocative (VOC) case is used in direct address.
They also provide a comprehensive table for the personal pronouns (first and second person, singular and plural) as in Table 9:
Table 9: First and second, singular and plural personal pronouns in Balochi (Jahani and Korn 2009)
Direct, OBL OBJ GEN LOC 1s East Balochi South Balochi West Balochi Pakistan Afgh+Turk Iran. Balochi Sarawani 2S East Balochi South Balochi West Balochi Pakistan Afgh+Turkm Iran. Balochi Sarawani 1P East Balochi South Balochi West Balochi Pakistan Afgh+Turkm Iran.Balochi Sarawani 2P East Balochi South Balochi West Pakistan Balochi Afgh+Turk Iran.Baloch i Sarawani
49
2.3.2.3 Gilaki/Guilaki
Gilaki dialects are laid on the western Caspian littoral, a North branch in W- Iranian languages. Mazanderani, Semnani, Sangesari, Aftari, Sorkhei, Lazgerdi, Gurani and Daylami all are members of this group (Windfuhr 1989: 294).
Figure 3: Caspian Sea Dialects
The Gilaki dialects are spoken between the Elburz and the south-western shores of the Caspian (Lecoq 1989: 295). Gilaki got its name mostly from the province it is spoken in Gilan. Although the main city of Gilan is Rasht, there are different varieties of Gilaki spoken in this region, all less and more share the same grammatical issues, with morphological and phonological differences. My informants are the speaker of Shafti, spoken in Shaft, located approximately 20 kilometers (12 mi) southwest of Rasht.
Lecoq (1989: 304-305) introduces some morphological and syntactical features of this language as follows:
The plural suffix of Gilaki is the morpheme . The accusative marker is the vowel And the genitive marker is .
50
The adjective precedes the noun and it is marked with a final .
He also introduces personal pronouns in direct, accusative and genitive cases as in Table 10 (ibid: 304-305):
Table 10: Pronouns in Gilaki
Sing.1 2 3 Plur.1 2 3 Direct Accusative Genitive
The accusative performs the following duties: i) the complement of the direct object (70.a), ii) destination (70.b). The genitive marker accompanies i) a noun (70.c), ii) a noun follows a postposition (70.d). He also provides the following examples respectively (1989: 305)
(70) a. Ø. Samavar-ACC fire IMPR-do-2SG ‘Light up the Samavar.’
b. Ø. Tehran-ACC IMPR-go-2SG ‘Go to Tehran.’
c. 1SG.GEN sister-born-GEN birthday ‘My sister’s child’s (niece or nephew’s) birthday.’
d. Rasht-GEN in ‘In Rasht.’
2.3.2.3.1 Word Order Studying Gilaki according to the intended components of Dryer (1992), CharsoughiAmin (2015) introduces west Gilaki as follows:
51
Component 1: Although CharsoughiAmin claims most of the adpositions are prepositions, except the accusative marker which is the only postposition in this language (see 70.a & 70.b above); Lockwood (2012: 169) increases this number to twenty-five. He also mentions the prepositions in this language is not “unique” since “they are all represented in the Persian”. Sure we definitely can consider Gilaki as both pre and postpositional language.
Component 3: Gilaki is a GN language where the genitive precedes the noun. The genitive is marked with –u ( or different phonetic representations according to the phonological environment) which shows the language is a dependent-head language:
(71) Sister-GEN room ‘Sister’s room.’
Component 4: The adjective follows the “Standard” :
(72) [6] Parvin-OBL-from old-COMP ‘Older than Parvin (CharsoughiAmin, 2015: 23).’ Component 9: Considering the order of genitive noun, one could expect the AN (adjective-noun) order in this language:
(73) [13] good-GEN girl ‘Good girl.’ (Charsoughi Amin, 2015: 25) Component 12: The past participle is mainly marked with the auxiliary verb “to be” as a past perfective auxiliary:
(74) [19] Sit.PST-PTCP be.PST-1SG ‘I had sat.’
52
Although the present imperfective is marked with the prefix besides this prefix, west Gilaki employs the auxiliary bun “to be” along the same prefix to mark the past imperfective (progressive, precisely):
(75) IPFV newspaper read.PST-NMLZ-IPFV be.PST.3SG ‘She was reading the newspaper.’ Component 18: As most of the Iranian languages, Gilaki uses past and present stems. Past markers are the suffixes (Sabzalipour, 2012: 258).
Sabzalipour (2012: 270) follows the pervasive perspective that Gilaki keeps four indicative, volitional, subjunctive and imperative mood. The volition is marked with –Ø while the others are all marked with . The origin of this marker is controversial and is not the subject of discussion here, but it seems they are different affixes which by accident they have the same pronunciation (see Mofidi, 2017).
The imperfective markers in past and present are and respectively (ibid) which are mostly suffixes to the stem; the progressive imperfective marker is the prefix (77.a and b) among west Gilaki dialects which Shafti is one of them. An interesting feature of Gilaki is that, it is the only Iranian language that can change a progressive imperfective to negative, preserving the same structure; i.e. in other Iranian languages, progressive imperfective marker (the one which is the same as the habitual marker) in negative form of itself, replaces the progressive structure (which is usually marked periphrastically) to change the latter to negative form. In (76.a) you can see an example from Persian in progressive. Changing this sentence to negative using the structure in Persian (keeping the periphrastic element and adding the negation marker to the main verb) turns it to an ungrammatical structure as in (76.b); however, the typical behavior of Iranian languages, results in a well-
53 formed sentence (76.c). In Gilaki however, this structure and sentence is fully grammatical (77):
(76) Persian a. Have-1SG lesson IPFV-study-1SG ‘I am studying.’
b. * Have-1SG lesson NEG-IPFV-study-1SG ‘I am not studying.’
c. Lesson NEG-IPFV-study-1SG ‘I don’t study/I am not studying.’
(77) Gilaki a. IPFV child food give-3SG ‘She/he is feeding the child.’
b. IPFV NEG-eat-1PL ‘We are not eating.’
The perfective is marked with the prefix (or let’s say bV- where V stands for any kind of vowel) as most of the Iranian languages do (78).
(78) Lunch IPFV-eat.PST-1SG ‘I had (ate) lunch.’ Component 19: The possessive free morpheme precedes the noun:
(79) 2SG father ‘Your father.’
2.3.2.3.2 Other Features
What is called Infinitive in traditional studies of Iranian languages is mostly a noun, so the traditional infinitive marker is actually a nominalizer.
54
Sabzalipour (2015) studies the behavior of what is traditionally called infinitive in the Caspian region (Tati, Talishi, and Gilaki). As his survey he shows the so- called infinitive has different roles in Gilaki: i) in non-personal constructions
(80.a), ii) in past continuous beside the suffix and the auxiliary ‘to be’ (80.b) and in present continuous along with the aspect marker and the endings; iv) act as a adposition (80c.); v) the head in a noun phrase (80.d); vi) in negative imperative (80.e).
(80) a. Modal. PRS sit.PST-NMLZ ‘One must sit. (ibid: Rashti Gilaki).’
b. Eat.PST-NMLZ IPFV-1SG ‘I am eating (ibid: Rashti Gilaki).’
c. Crazy-GEN approximate-NMLZ behavior do.PST-2SG ‘You behaved like a crazy person (ibid: Rashti Gilaki).’
d. Very sleep.PST-NMLZ good NEG-be.3SG ‘It is not good to sleep a lot (ibid: Rudsari Gilaki).’
e. NEG-must eat.PST-NML ‘One must no eat/Don’t eat!’
Lockwood (2012: 185) presents two types of agreement system for Gilaki: ‘full (in person and number) and incomplete (defective) agreement (only in person)’; the structure which only occurs in ‘the third person’; where there are two types: a) The subject is in the singular and the predicate in the plural and b) the subject is in the plural and the predicate in the singular.
55
2.3.2.4 Hawrami
Howrami, Hawrami or Uramani is a language in Gurani Branch in North W- Iranian Languages. There are two varieties of this language: Lohun and Hawraman Takht (Rasekhmahand and Naghshbandi 2014 a: 90). Although the type of Hawrami I study in my thesis is the dialect spoken in “Hawraman Takht”, I believe they are all common in main features, namely grammatical ones and the only differences might be in the matter of lexical and phonological aspects.
Figure 4: Hawrami Distribution in Iran
2.3.2.4.1 Word order
Dabirmoghaddam defines Pavehyi dialect (a Lohun variety) which shares syntactic features with Hawraman Takht. To check this claim, I compared the data Dabirmoghaddam presents in any section with the data in my corpus. Where the differences are grammatical, I mention and open a new category to introduce those characteristics.
Component 1: Hawrami profits plenty of pre and postpositions. Among which oblique case markers could be considered as postpositions. Even though it seems is both pre and postposition, since in my corpus it acts so:
56
(81) a. = Definitely say.IMPR=3SG to ‘Definitely tell him/her.’
b. = = If to=3SG say.SUBJ=1SG ‘If I tell him.’ Component 5: Adpositional phrase appears both before and after the verb:
(82) = = Need=1SG be.PST to=3SG ‘I needed him/her.’ Component 7: It is the predicate which precedes the copula, as all of the other Iranian languages do; though the copula must agree with the gender of the agent as well as the number and person; this is not a feature you can simply find in other Iranian languages:
(83) a. =Ø. Human-GEN good=be.3SG-M ‘He is a good guy.’ b. [31] That woman-F teacher-be.3SG-F ‘That woman is a teacher. (Dabirmoghaddam, 2013: 802)’
Component 8: Hawrami applies auxiliary to mark the imperfective. Although the combination of past participle cognates the main verb with the very same verb is the other method to show imperfective.
(84) a. Busy-be.3SG-F potato-OBL skin take-3SG ‘She is peeling the potatoes.’
b. [52] eat.PST-PTCP IPFV-eat-1SG ‘I am eating.’
Component 12: The imperfective in the past tense is marked with the same system; verb changes to past participle using PTCP marker, and will be added to the past progressive of the same verb (85). Or the same auxiliary (to be busy) in past tense gets to work to mark the past imperfective:
(85) Go.PST-PTCP go-be.PST-1SG to our place ‘I was going to our place.’
57
(86) Ø Busy be.PST-3SG newspaper read.PST-PTCP read ‘He was reading the newspaper.’ Although what Dabirmoghaddam claims in (85) is some sort of controversial comparing to what Karimi and Naghshbandi (2011: 87) mention on the affix . While Dabirmoghaddam considers it the past participle marker, Karimi and Naghshbandi (ibid) believe this affix is the nominalizer which changes the stem of a verb to its infinitive form. They also observe the progressive role of this structure is not the main role one can expect, rather they are there for the matter of emphasis. They provide examples, again in Pavehyi variety of Hawrami as below: (87) Go-NMLZ IPFV-go-3SG ‘He is going/he is intending to go (ibid).’
In this case, in my data, to avoid any confusion I use Dabirmoghaddam analysis on this morpheme since I believe it is not going to affect my data analysis on modality which is my main concern.
Component 15: The definite marker for masculine and feminine is respectively, and the indefinite marker is which all are placed after the noun (Dabirmoghaddam, 2013: 818). The past marker is placed after the verb. To make the present perfect; a suffix which Dabirmoghaddam (2013: 825) claims is the affix form of the auxiliary verb meaning ‘to be’ connects to the past root of the verb:
(88) = say.PST-be.3SG=3PL this year home cheap become-3SG ‘They have said houses will be cheaper this year.’
58
Component 18: To mark the past progressive, as a means of talking about habits in past, Hawrami uses an affix which is a suffix form the same auxiliary above ‘to be’. (89) = = if to=3SG say.PST-be.PST=1SG ‘If I have told him/her.’
Component 19: As Dabirmoghaddam posits, this language does not have any complementizers and it has borrowed from Persian. In my corpus also, I had many contexts which the language users resist applying a complementizer, and they use it just in the context that they were much domesticized, or they were simply under affection of Persian.
(90) = = When salary=2SG IPFV-give-1SG to work-DEF=2SG . Complete do Give.PST-PTCP be.SUBJ ‘I will pay your salary when you make your job complete (when you have completely done your job.)’
Although in the example above Persian would use the complementizer to connect the subordinator to the main clause (91).
(91) == == When salary=2SG=ACC IPFV-give-1SG that work=2SG=ACC Complete Do give.PST-PTCP be.SBJV-2SG ‘I will pay your salary when you have completely done your job.’
2.3.2.4.2 Agreement The same as some of the Iranian languages, this language practices ‘split ergative’ as its main grammatical system; where different factors, like aspect, tense and the feature of noun phrases play role in case (Rasekhmahand and Naghshbandi, 2014a: 88) or agreement systems. Transitive verbs in past tense are marked in the third person singular, while their agent is mostly connected to
59 object or other elements in the enclitic form. If the object is occupied with other elements, possessives, for example, other elements would be the host of the clitic subject. While the subject is in the form of endings in present and intransitive past, it is the clitics in transitive verbs which mark agents. Here you can see what Dabirmoghaddam categorizes as the endings (Table 11) and clitics (Table 12) in this language:
Table 11: Endings in Hawrami
Singular Plural 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd ~~~ ~~~ Ø~~ ~ ~ ~~~~
Table 12: Clitics in Hawrami
Singular Plural 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd =( =~=t =( = =( =
What distinguishes Hawrami from some Iranian languages is the survival of gender in some in form of suffixes (- for male and -for female). They also play roles in agreement as well. In past tense third person singular the ending is -Ø for masculine and - for feminine. Even though in my corpus I had the same agreement on the verb ‘to want’ in present tense as well:
(92) busy-be.3SG-F eat-PTCP eat-3SG ‘She is eating.’
According to Dabirmoghaddam (2013:807), Hawrami uses one of the two methods to make the progressive construction: whether the verb ‘to want’ or a noun which is made of the same verb using a participle. But you see in (92) my informant has used both of the methods in one sentence. An
60
important notion is worth mentioning is the way the verb ‘to be’ can conjugate:
Table 13: The verb "to be" in Hawrami
Singular Plural 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd Ø
This is the affix at the end of the which is used in different tenses as well.
2.3.2.4.3 Case system
Rasekhmahand and Naghshbandi (2014a:88) assert Hawrami owns what they call “split case system based on tense” in which the prominent pattern on case system is designated on the basis of tense. The case marker for oblique is , ; the markers which run with direct objects (93.a) in present transitive verbs, adpositional phrase (93.b), and noun-genitives (93.c).
(93) a. [184] 1PL Ali and Reza-OBL introduce IPFV-do-1PL = to=3SG ‘We introduce Ali and Reza to them (Dabirmoghaddam 2013: 845).’ b. [141] = Ali=3PL on-GEN street-OBL-post POS see.PST-be.3SG ‘They saw Ali on the street (Dabirmoghaddam, 2013: 834).’ d. [21] Son-GEN brother-OBL-1SG ‘My brother’s son (Dabirmoghaddam 2013: 800).’ Rasekhmahand and Naghshbandi (2014a: 91) believe the oblique case marker only has overt realization when the direct object is a definite one.
61
Karimidoostan and Naghshbandi (2011: 73) introduce two predominant mechanisms in this language to show the ergativity in simple past. One is the clitic doubling, as in most Iranian language. The other which is distinct in Hawrami is when the direct object is in the initial position of the transitive clause and the subject carrying oblique case marker comes afterward. As they say, in Pavehyi, where the second mechanism is used, the verb agrees on the object; however, I couldn’t find any evidence in the dialect I study, the Hawraman Takht which could confirm this claim. You can see an example of this situation in Pavehyi, given by Rasekhmahand and Naghshbandi (2014a: 92) in (94):
(94) [7] Ø. Tree-DEF coldness-OBL take.PST-3SG ‘It was the coldness (and not anything else) which destroyed the tree.’ Studying the differential case marking in Hawrami (Pavehyi) Rasekhmahand and Naghshbandi (2014b) got when the object is indefinite and less prominent, the difference between subject and object is so high that there is no way to mix them. Following Aissen continuum (2003) they conclude when the object is near to the endpoints of both sides on the continuum, the object is marked clearly to make it different from the subject. They believe in Hawrami, the stronger the object is, the higher position it will achieve in the grammatical hierarchy and get closer to the subject and it must be marked in order to prevent any confusion. Though it doesn’t seem so that Hawrami has kept the case system on its pronouns, as Dabirmoghaddam reports (2013: 852). Pronouns are the same both in the nominative and oblique case.
62
2.3.2.5 Kahangi
Figure 5: location of Kahang Not many studies have been done on Kahangi, a language variety spoken in Kahang, village 65 kilometers far from Ardestan, a city placed in the north of
Isfahan. People in this village speak a language which is called by others, however, it is called locally. Since it is geographically near Ardestan and Naein, and shares lots of lexical and grammatical issues with them, must be considered as a Northern W-Iranian Languages. Kahangi is a central or a desert area language variety. These areas have lots of dialects, grammatically close and similar to each other, though, nobody can say which one is a language and which one is the dialect related to that language. That is why here, I consider Kahangi a language since it has a different lexical and grammatical system with most of the languages studying here.
2.3.2.5.1 Word order
Here again, I will limit the description of the word order of Kahangi to the features which are normally not expected in Iranian languages or at least not in all Iranian languages. The information and the data on this part all are adopted from Koohkan (2016):
63
Component 1: Considering Kahangi in Dryer’s components (1992), it is a language with both preposition and different adpositions which are placed on both sides of the noun. I will not call them ‘circumfix’ since both elements are complete prepositions in other contexts.
(95) a. Ø With-GEN clothes short PFV-come.PST-3SG ‘She/he came with short clothes.’
b. = Fish on water in =be.3SG ‘The fish is on the water.’ One of the main opposition which one can find in Kahangi is that the famous accusative marker – doesn’t mark the direct object; though it is used in Kahangi as a preposition meaning for to mark oblique.
(96) = Matin for too=1SG IPFV-take.PST ‘I bought/took for Matin, too.’ Component 3: The order of noun and the genitive marker is NGEN. To link these two elements. Kahangi employs the linker (with changes according to the phonological environment it is placed) and it is only pronounced when the final phoneme of the first element is a consonant. This is what in Iranian languages called Ezafe, which I use GEN to mark it:
(97) a. = Girl sister-in-law=1SG ‘My sister-in-law’s daughter.’
b. Friend-GEN sister 1SG ‘My sister’s friend.’ Component 12: Correlation of the content verb and tense/aspect auxiliary verbs is worth mentioning. Kahangi uses the same structures for both past perfect and past subjunctive, which they have two different structures and usage in Persian.
64
(98) a. = PFV=1SG cook.PST-PTCP be.PST ‘I had cooked/I would have cooked. (Transitive)’
b. PFV-arrive.PST-PTCP be.PST-1PL ‘We have arrived/we would have arrived. (Intransitive)’ Component 13: Instead of using question particles, Kahangi uses the rising intonation to change an affirmative to an interrogative.
(99) = Say/sound-GEN child-PL=2SG do.PST ‘Did you call the kids?’ Component 16: For as much as Kahangi is an SVO language, the subject is placed before the verb, though, it has the split ergative system (we will consider it in the forthcoming pages), which challenges the type of endings and clitics this language applies as a pro-drop language.
(100) =? husband=2SG do.PST-PTCP ‘Are you married?’ Component 18: Although Dryer (2007:90) shows that in OV languages tense- aspect affixes are usually placed after verbs (as past markers , and in Kahangi do), the perfective () and imperfective () in this language are prefixed.
(101) a. = PFV=1PL eat-PST ‘We ate.’
b. Have-1SG IPFV-eat-1SG ‘I am eating.’
Component 20: The auxiliaries with the meaning ‘can’ precede the main verbs. But in Kahangi it is not only an auxiliary which is taken to show the ability or any related meaning to the auxiliary ‘can’. There is also a clause to show these
65 notions: =, “my razor cuts”= , ‘my razor doesn’t cut’ mean I can and I can’t respectively.
(102) a. = Razor=2PL IPFV-cut-3SG say-2PL ‘Can you say?’
b. = = Razor=1PL NEG-cut.PST with=3SG PFV-go-1PL ‘We couldn’t go with her/him.’ Component 24: Normally in Iranian languages to use the negative marker you should remove the subjunctive, imperative or any other inflectional prefix, in Kahangi you could use the negative markers when the perfective and sometimes the imperative marker are still there.
(103) a. = PFV=1SG NEG-see.PST ‘I didn’t see.’
b. Ø. IMPR-NEG-go-2SG ‘Don’t go.’ Koohkan (2016) concludes Kahangi word order reveals this language inclines toward strong verb-initial languages.
2.3.2.5.2 Syntax
One of the prominent characteristics of Kahangi is that this language is a split- ergative one. The typical definition of ergativity makes us expect a language uses “the same marker for the subject of an intransitive verb and for the direct object of a transitive verb, while a separate marker distinguishes the subject of a transitive verb” (Spencer, 1991: 23). Kahangi is sensitive to tense and it marks the agent (subject of the transitive verb) in past tense with clitics; while the subject/agent of transitive in present and intransitive present and past is marked with ending. A clitic which is the reduplicated form of the agent is connected
66
anywhere before the main verb, and the main verb is always in third person singular form (Karimi, 2012:1). Split ergativity works in past tense, so we cannot expect the marked structure works in the present tense.
(104) = 1SG book=1SG pref-take.PST ‘I bought/took a book.’ This feature puts Kahangi in a situation where it will have three systems of agreement: the present tense endings, both for transitive and intransitive (Table13), the intransitive past endings (Table 14) and transitive past clitics (Table 15).
Table 14: Present tense endings
Singular Plural 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd -u
(105) a. = Clothes-PL=1PL pref-IPRV-wear-1PL ‘We wear our clothes (Transitive verb/Present).’
That much with-GEN sound loud laugh-3SG ‘She/he laughs with such a loud sound (intransitive/Present)’
Table 15: Intransitive Past Tense Endings
Singular Plural
1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd Ø
(106) a. Ø. Here pref-fall-3SG ‘She/he felt down here (Intransitive/past)’
67
= pref=1PL wear.PST ‘We wore. (Transitive/Past).’
Table 16: Transitive Past Tense Enclitics
Singular Plural 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd = = = = = =
To talk about the future, Kahangi uses the verb “to want”. With present stem , and past one this verb behaves strangely not only phonetically but also in the course of the agreement. It seems to be a fully ergative verb, since it accepts all enclitics in all forms. When the object is available, past or present tense doesn’t matter, the enclitics stick to the object (107.a), otherwise, it is the verb itself which acts as the carrier of the enclitics (107b-107c).
(107) a. = This clothes=2SG IMPR-want ‘Do you want this cloth?’
b. = want=1SG SBJV-go-1SG to home maternal aunt ‘I want to go to aunt’s home.’
c. = want.PST=3SG SBJV-go-3SG ‘She/he wanted to go.’
The same verb, with an inflectional prefix, , the verb act as a modal verb to mean “must”. The modal verb is inflected, and the main verb stays non- finite.
(108) a. = SUBJ=1PL must go ‘We must go.’
68
b. SBJV-must go ‘One must go.’
2.3.2.6 Kurdish
Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century, the Kurds have been divided among four separate states: Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria (Merchant, 2013:7). The two principle branches of modern literary Kurdish are (1) Kurmanji, the language of the Kurd people in Turkey, Syria, Armenia and Azerbaijan which are categorized as “North Kurdistan”; (2) Sorani, the variety spoken in Iraq and Iran which is designated as “South Kurdistan” (Thackston, 2006: vii); the same group which Haig refers to as “Southern Group” and describes it as “poorly and variously defined as a genetic unit, spoken in Iran around Sanandaj” (2004: 9).
Esmaili and Salavati (2013: 300) observe these two dialects are phonologically, lexically and morphologically different. As Merchant reports (2013: 8) Sorani dialect is spoken in Hewler (Erbil), Dohuk and Sulaymaniye in Iraq. While in Iran, the most Sorani speakers live in Sanandaj, the capital city of Iranian Kurdistan. Even though the speaker of Kurmanji and Sorani hardly have a mutual understanding since they differ in grammatical issues. Sorani is divided into several dialects. Ardalani which is mostly spoken in Sanandaj, and Mokrani spoken in Mahabad. The dialect of our concern is Ardalani.
69
Figure 6: Kurdish Language Distribution in Iran
2.3.2.6.1 Word order Dabirmoghaddam (2013) studies different types of Kurdish, including Sorani, spoken in Sanandaj. My informants are speakers of Sorani, Sanandaji dialect, as well. In considering the word order of this language, Dabirmoghaddam names the features and presents plenty of valuable examples which I will use in my description wherever necessary, showing in brackets.
Component 1: According to Dabirmoghaddam (ibid) Sorani Kurdish, Sanadaji variety, includes prepositions and also circumfixes.
(109) a. Child-PL in yard sit.PST-PTCP-3PL ‘The children are in the yard (have been sitting in the yard).’ b. [13] they on upon floor-PostPOS sleep.PST-3PL ‘They slept on the floor. (Dabirmoghaddam, 2013: 605)’
Samvelian (2007:237) distinguishes primary and non-primary prepositions. She describes the non-primary prepositions as those “resulting from the combination of a primary preposition and another lexical unit”. The
70
member of the primary class, constitute the original set of Kurdish prepositions (ibid) with two other subclasses: simple and absolute prepositions; the former combines with syntactic items (110.a), and the latter takes a clitic complement (110.b):
(110) a. 1SG to Narmin IPFV-say-1SG ‘I am telling to Narmin (Samvelian, 2007: 238).’
b. = to=2SG IPFV-say-1SG ‘I am telling you (ibid).’ The non-primary prepositions or compound preposition are a combination of the simple preposition and with nominal and adverbial elements such as "head","back", etc (110.b).
Component 9: Although the noun precedes the adjective, there is no marker which marks the noun as the head of this correlation:
(111) Human good ‘Good human.’ Component 12: The verb follows the tense-aspect auxiliary. The imperfective auxiliary verb is “to be busy” in this dialect of Kurdish.
(112) - Sepideh busy/IPFV-3SG newspaper IPFV-read-3SG ‘Sepideh is reading newspaper.’
Component 15: In the order of the noun and the article, it is the noun which precedes the article. The definite marker is and the indefinite marker is - . Among the Kurdish dialects, it seems this is Sorani and the dialects which are called “central Kurdish” that employ the definite marker . McKenzie (1961: 85) believes this marker has been borrowed directly from Gorani; a
71 controversial branch with sub-branches, such as Hawrami, which some scholars believe they must be considered as dialects of Kurdish.
(113) a. = Money-DEF=2SG ‘Your money’ b. [102]
Book-INDF good ‘a good book.’ Component 18: The tense/aspect affixes are placed both before and after the verb stem. The imperfective aspect marker, , precedes the stem to mark both present and past imperfective:
(114) a. = IPFV-can-3SG help=1SG do-3SG ‘She/He can help me.’
b. [97] = Kajal IPFV=3SG-can.PST study SBJV-study-3SG ‘Kajal could study lesson (Moradi, 2013: 124).’
Another aspectual affix in Sorani dialect of Kurdish iswhich marks the present perfect. This marker follows the clitic copula =which we may translate it as “be.3SG”, although it has the same form for all person and number (115). I have to mention here my informants did not produce this copula anywhere in my corpus. They simply marked the present participle just with the related affix. You can see below an example (115) from Dabirmoghaddam (2013) which shows the application of copula in non-contextual and in (116) you see how my informants use this structure in context:
(115) [124] == Say.PST-PTCP=3PL=be.3SG ‘They have said (Dabirmoghaddam, 2013: 640).’ In some Iranian languages, the past participle is marked with an auxiliary which follows the main verb. In Sorani though, the past participle is marked with
72
the suffix -The suffix follows the main verb and makes a gap between the root and the pronominal endings:
(116) a. - Go.PST-PPTCP-3PL what SBJV-do-3PL ‘What have they gone to do?’ In compound verbs, this affix follows the light verb:
b. = Advice=1SG do.PST-PPTCP ‘I had advice.’
Sorani also marks the perfective using the prefix as most Iranian languages do. Gharib (2015) performs plenty of examples in the same dialect to prove this claim, even though my informants did not perform such a prefix to mark the perfective. Since my corpus heavily targets modality, I cannot claim I have checked all of the possible situations and contexts where this structure could be used. Another difference which I could find in my corpus and Gharib’s is that, in his data, the imperfective is marked with the prefix (117.a) though my informants who are Sanandaji speakers of Kurdish, mark the same grammatical notion with the prefix (117.b and 117.c).
(117) a. IPFV-3SG see-1SG ‘I see him/her (Gharib, 2015: 64)’
b. = Salary-DEF=2SG IPFV-give-1SG ‘I give you/will give you your salary.’
c. They IPFV-go.PST-3PL to where ‘Where were they going?’
73
2.3.2.6.2 Agreement Although Gharib (2015:58) believes Sorani is an accusative language and the verb agrees with the subject, he continues “the Sorani agreement system maintains an ergative pattern to the extent that agreement markers follow intransitive verbs in both the imperfective and perfective aspects, whereas they only follow transitive verbs in the imperfective aspect. The agreement markers precede transitive verbs in the perfective aspect”; this is what I prefer to call split ergativity rather than accusative. Esmaili and Salavati (2013: 301) also go for the non-full ergative in Sorani as having lost the oblique pronouns and resorts to pronominal enclitics. So we expect two agreement systems: one the endings which mark the transitive and intransitive verbs in present tense, and intransitive in past tense, other the enclitics which have different hosts, even the verb itself (118), and mark the transitive verbs in past tense.
(118) = eat.PST=3PL ‘They ate.’ In Table 17 you can see the enclitics in Sorani, Sanandaji dialect (Dabirmoghaddam, 2013: 719):
Table 17: Enclitics in Sorani
Singular Plural 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd = =~= =~ = = =
These enclitics mark possession in reflexives as well:
Table 18: Enclitics in reflexives
Singular Plural 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd = = = = = = Myself Yourself his/herself ourselves yourselves themselves
74
As mentioned above, except for the past transitive verbs, the subject endings are used to mark the tense in person and number. Here you can see the subject endings in Sorani, Sanadaji dialect (Dabirmoghaddam, 2013: 721):
Table 19: Subject Endings in Sorani
Singular Plural 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd ~ Ø~~~
The independent pronouns or the personal pronouns in this dialect of Kurdish can be summarized as in Table 20 (Gharib, 2015: 60):
Table 20: Independent Pronouns in Sorani
Singular Plural 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd
2.3.2.6.3 Case system
Comparing case system in Baneji and Sanandaji Kurdish, Badakhshan et al (2014) assert in Sanandaji variety, the subject and the object are marked on the verb using two oblique clitics:
(119) [5.b] = Hiwa take.PST=3PL.OBL-3SG.OBL ‘Hiwa took them (ibid).’ In a non-past tense, the subject of the transitive clause (Agent precisely) is nominative (ibid) though, in past tense, the subject in the intransitive clause is nominative while the object is marked with oblique clitics. If there is no host except the verb, two clitics connect to the verb to show the subject and the object respectively:
(120) [8. c] == wash.PST=2PL=3PL ‘They washed you (ibid).’
75
2.3.2.7 Lori
Among the eight branches which Windfuhr (1989: 294-295) introduce on W- Iranian Languages, Lori sits in southwest dialects along with Sivandi and dialects in Fars Province. These “Perside dialects” which “summarily called Lori”, are subcategorized in “Boirahmadi-kohgeluye, Mamasani, Bakhtiari, (northern) Lori” (ibid: 294-295). The dialect I study here is called , spoken in some villages in the south of Khorramabad, the main city in Lorestan province. Lor tribe consists of two subtribes, as Lecoq (1989: 341) calls them “Grand and Petit Lor”. The Grand or Greater Lors (Southern Lori) are Bakhtiari, Mamasani, and Boirahmadi-kohgeluye (MacKinnon 2011). The Petite or Lesser (Northern Lori) Lor is the people who live in Lorestan province. The same branch is subdivided into two other groups, Lor and Lak. The predominant core of the Lesser Lor tribe is composed of the tribes which are named Balagariveh …this is the name of the tribes and people who live in the south and southeast of Lorestan, north of Khuzestan, east and south of Ilam province (Kambuziya et al, 2013).
MacKinnon (2011) reports all Lori dialects “closely resemble standard Persian”. He also introduces the vowel and consonants in Lori among which he claims Lori maintains the distinction between and. Although I cannot confirm that with the data I have in my corpus. The phonemes I have observed in my data different from many other Iranian languages are the existence of the vowel - and the consonant and also the palatal approximant ʎ in Balagariveh dialect of Lori.
76
Figure 7: Lori Distribution in Iran
Balagariveh dialect of Lori, the same as other Iranian languages, consist of two tense which Solemiani and Haghbin (2016) call them as past and non- past. They observe this language does not carry any marker for present indicatives and past progressives. So the verbs in this language, both in simple past and in past progressive are the same in shape and form. Although in Khorramabadi variety of Lori, which is the closest variety to Balagariveh, the imperfective is marked with the prefix . They perform these examples as evidence:
Simple present, indicative:
(121) a. [4] ʎ 1SG sit-1SG on stair ‘I sit on the stairs (Soleimani and Haghbin, 2016: 252).’ Past progressive:
b. [5] Toward to way that go.PST-1SG ‘Toward the way we were going (ibid).’
77
Simple Past:
c. [6] Last night go.PST-1SG home-3PL ‘Last night we went to their home (ibid).’ They explain the only reason the hearer understands (121.b) as past progressive is the presence of the complementizer in the sentence, otherwise it would be percept as simple past.
Soleimani and Haghbin (ibid) also present the present tense endings in this language as in Table 21 below:
Table 21: Present Tense Endings in Lori (Balagariveh variety)
Singular Plural 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd
The same as other Iranian languages, this is the present tense which plays the role in the future tense as well:
(122) [8] Tomorrow go-1SG register-GEN name do-1SG ‘I will go to register tomorrow (Soleimani and Haghbin, 2016: 253).’
The past markers are and(Soleimani and Ghatreh 2017).In producing present perfect and past perfect, this language employs suffixes. While introducing past endings as in Table (22) Soleimani and Haghbin show the linear structure of the simple past, present perfect and past perfect as follows:
A. Simple Past: the verb stem+ past marker+ ending B. Present Perfect: the verb stem+ past marker+endig+ C. Past Perfect: the verb stem+ past marker+endig+
Examples in (123) illustrate these forms:
78
Table 22: Past tense Endings in Lori (Bala Gueriveh variety)
Singular Plural 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd Ø
(123) a. Eat-PST-1SG ‘I ate.’
b. Eat-PST-1SG-PTCP ‘I have eaten.’
c. Eat-PST-1SG-PPTCP ‘I had eaten.’ In Iranian languages, the predominant inclination is to mark the perfective aspect with the prefix . Even though in Lori (and clearly in Persian) it is not the case. This language, specifically the Balagariveh variety, has no phonetic realization for the perfective aspect (as you can see above in examples 123)1. To mark the progressive aspect, in the sense of the recent aspect in Iranian languages which I explained in Part I above, and referring to a very exact time of the action, this variety uses the auxiliary form of the main verb “to want”. and are the auxiliary form of the verb which are used to mark this aspect in present and past tense, respectively.
(124) a. IPFV tea eat-1PL ‘We are drinking tea (Soleimani, 2016: 256).’
b. Ø. IPFV foot-OBL close.PST-3SG ‘She/he was bandaging her/his foot.’
1 There are some verbs which apply to mark perfective. This situation is very controversial. I have discussed it in section 4.2.1.7.1, but for more hypothesis on this topic see Mofidi (2017). 79
The other aspect which Soleimani and Haghbin introduce, is what is known as prospective, the same aspect which Comrie (1976) calls “immediate future”. They cite from Naghzgouye Kohan (2010) that this aspect is applicable both in past and present. The specific feature of Balagariveh, in this case, is that this language variety uses in present and in past tense to show the same aspect. Even though holds fixed form for all persons and numbers, agrees with the subject in person and number:
(125) a. [23] PRO from conscious go-1SG ‘I am blacking out (Soleimani and Haghbin, 2016: 257).’
b. PROX.PST-1SG from conscious go.SBJV-1SG ‘I was blacking out (I was almost losing my conscious).’
In this example, not only the proximate marker receives an ending as the subject, but the main verb also faces a change in mood from indicative to subjunctive (The vowel changes from –o to -). Soleimani and Haghbin (2016) summarize the roles which the verb “to want” play in this language as in Table 23:
Table 23: The applications of "to want" in Bala Gueriveh Lori dialect
Role example main verb (to want) = book-INDF from=2SG want-1SG I want a book from you. auxiliary verb (Subjunctive marker) Tomorrow want go.SBJV-1SG Tehran I want to go to Tehran tomorrow. auxiliary verb (Progressive marker) IPFV go-1SG I am going. auxiliary verb (Proximate marker) PROX die-1SG I am dying (I am almost dying).
80
2.3.2.8 Semnani
Semnani, as a W-Iranian language, is classified under the Central Plateau Languages. Davari (2010) believes this language is related to old and middle Iranian languages and it has retained some features from old languages as ergativity, case, and gender.
Figure 8: Semnani Language in Iran
2.3.2.8.1 Word order
Rezapour (2015) studies the word order of this language based on Dryer’s components. I will introduce some of the features of this language in its word order using Rezapour (2014).
Component 1: This language uses prepositions as well as postpositions:
(126) a. IPFV- Modal. PRS this way from SBJV-go-1PL ‘We must go this way.’
b. Sara definitely to this party IPFV-go-3SG ‘Sara will definitely go to this party.’
81
Component 3: Genitive is always before the noun:
(127) a. Hasan-GEN.M hat ‘Hasan’s hat (Rezapour, 2014).’
b. Maryam-GEN.F tissue ‘Maryam’s tissue (Rezapour, 2014).’ As you see above, the genitive marker is sensitive to the gender and it is linked to the dependent, not the head. Therefore, typologically this language is a dependent-head language.
Component 4: In the order of adjective and standard, this is the standard which precedes the adjective in comparison form:
(128) a. Javad Mina-OBL.F-from older-be.3SG.M ‘Javad is older than Mina. (Rezapour, 2014)’
b. Mina Javad-OBL.M-from older-be. 3SG.F ‘Mina is older than Javad. (Rezapour, 2014)’ Component 7: Although as other Iranian languages the predicate precedes the copula, in Semnani the copula agrees the subject, not only in number and person but also in gender:
(129) a. Weather cold-be.3SG.M ‘It is cold (the weather is cold) (Rezapour, 2014).’
b. Sara beautiful-be.3SG.F ‘Sara is beautiful (Rezapour, 2014).’
Component 9: The noun follows the adjective:
(130) Older brother ‘The older brother.’
82
As Rezapour puts, the simple adjectives in this language are always male in gender, though the relative adjectives hold the gender differentiation according to the noun they are describing.
Component 12: In this language, as in other Iranian languages there is no specific marker for the future. The imperfective is marked with the prefix and the continuous is expressed with the verb before the main verb. Rezapour (2014) believes one of the predominant features of this language is that it marks the past participle, using specific endings. He gives these examples as evidence:
Table 24: Past Participle of the verb "to eat"
Singular Plural 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd
He considers as the endings related to the past participles. Though, I cannot support this claim since I believe this is the verb ”to be” which is inflected, not with the normal endings but with the enclitics. This is the pattern which most Iranian languages follow; however I will not go further at this point.
Component 18: Studying the order of tense-aspect affix and the verb, Rezapour says “verbs are classified in three forms: one which only carries the first singular and plural endings (). The other is the verbs which hold the first singular person , the first plural person and as for others, the endings are all the same: . The third, is the verbs which are marked with the first singular person ending , the second singular , the third singular male and female and for other endings ”. However, he doesn’t support his claim with any evidence.
83
Component 19: In the correlation between the noun and the possessive free morpheme, the noun goes ahead:
(131) 1SG.POS hand ‘My hand.’ In supporting the idea of an ergative system in Semnani, Kalbasi (2005) provides some features of ergative languages and give examples in Semnani as follows:
1. In an ergative language the subject of the intransitive verb and the agent of the transitive have two different forms: (132) a. 2SG IPV-go-2SG ‘You go.’
b. 2SG PFV-see.PST-2SG ‘You have seen (ibid).’
2. The subject (and agent) has two forms in present and in past: (133) a. IPFV-eat-1SG ‘I eat (ibid).’
b. PFV-eat.PST- 1SG ‘I ate (ibid).’
3. The verb agrees with the underlying object, not the surface subject: (134) Ø. Tree-PL blossom PFV-bring.PST-3SG ‘The trees have blossomed.’
4. The agent is unmarked while the object is marked: (135) 2SG this book PFV-read.PST.PTCP-2SG ‘You have read this book.’
84
On the gender, Kalbasi (2004) introduces two kinds of general genders in languages, one which she calls inherent, and the other grammatical gender. She claims Semnani owns. These types of genders:
(136) a. One.M wall ‘a wall.’
b. One.F block ‘A block.’
c. One.M man ‘A man.’
d. One.F woman ‘A woman.’ In introducing the case system in Semnani, she mentions Old Iranian languages all included nominative, accusative, instrumental, dative, ablative, locative, genitive and vocative cases. Among these eight though, Semnani inherits direct and oblique cases, which with accompanying the gender and number, it reveals some changes:
(137) a. Ø b. horse-NOM.S.M horse-NOM.PL.M ‘Horse’ ‘Horses’ c. d. horse-OBL.S.M horse-OBL.PL.M ‘Horse’ ‘Horses’ e. f. mare-NOM.S.F mare- NOM.PL.F ‘Mare’ ‘Mares’ g. h. mare-OBL.S.F mare-OBL.PL.F ‘Mare’ ‘Mares’
85
She also introduces the pronouns in the nominative, accusative, genitive, instrumental and oblique cases as follows:
Table 25: Pronouns in Nominative case
Singular Plural 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd
Table 26: Pronouns in Accusative Case
Singular Plural 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd
Table 27: Pronouns in Genitive Case
Singular Plural 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd
Table 28: Pronouns in Oblique Case
Singular Plural 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd
2.3.2.9 Tati
Donald Stilo (1981) defines Tati, as a name of “a group of languages of NorthW- Iranian origin, generally classified as a subgroup of the Central Plateau Languages. They are spoken in an area which extends from the Irano-Soviet border in Azerbaijan… south to the Saveh area”. In different cities as in Khalkhal, Tarom, and Qazvin (mostly in Takestan) different dialects of Tati are spoken. Although some scholars consider Talishi as a dialect of Tati, Iranian linguistics (Dabirmoghaddam 2013) believe they may be in the same branch but they are two different languages. Yarshater (1969) divides Tati into five groups:
86
A) Dialects spoken in south Qazvin and Eshtehard B) Dialects spoken in Xoein, south west of Zanjan C) The dialect which is spoken in Tarom and Khalkhal D) Those which are spoken in Harzand and Dizmar E) The ones which are spoken in east and northern east of Qazvin (Roodbar, Alamut, Kuhpayeh)
Figure 9: The Distribution of Tati
He considers the dialects which are spoken in south and southwest of Qazvin as Southern Tati. To him, the northern Tati are those which are spoken mostly in the southeast of Azerbaijan. He studies Tati in cities and villages as follows: Shal (Chal), Takestan, Eshtehard, Khiaraj, Ibrahim Abad, Saggez Abad, Danesfahan, Esfarvarin, and Khoznin. The dialect I study here is spoken in Takestan (called Siadan by the locals), a city in Qazvin province.
2.3.2.9.1 Word order
Dabirmoghaddam (2013) studies the Shali dialect of Tati which as one could expect it shares lots of similarities in grammatical perspectives with the other dialects of Tati, including Takestani, which is the dialect I cover. I use his
87 description of Shali to introduce the Takestani Tati. Where ever there are differences, I will use my data to explain how they work in Takestani.
Component 1: Although Dabirmoghaddam regards this language (the Shali dialect) as mostly a postpositional language, I could find some evidence in my corpus of applying both post (138.a) and prepositions (139.b):
(138) a. = Help do-NMLZ poor-to Islam-in necessary=be.3SG ‘Helping poor people is necessary in Islam.’
b. = IPFV- Modal. PRS until now skin=3SG IPFV-do.PST ‘She/he had to peel them until now.’
Component 3: The genitive rests before the noun
(139) = grandmother-OBL=1SG home ‘My grandmother’s home.’
Component 4: The adjective is before the standard
(140) [22] Maryam-F big-COMP ‘Older than Maryam.’ (Dabirmoghaddam, 2013: 1098)
Component 9: Tati is an Adjective+Noun (AN) language:
(141) = Big-GEN room=be.3SG ‘It is a big room.’
Component 12: Dabirmoghaddam reports in Shali dialect of Tati they use the verb ‘to have’, to make the imperfective; though in Takestan dialect of Tati, They use the prefix which is used both for present and past progressive as a form of imperfective (142.a and b), although they don’t deny it is grammatically correct to use the same verb as in Shali for the same purpose
88
(142.c)1. As my interviewees believed the latter is just more colloquial and more common among people.
(142) a. Where IPFV IPFV-go-3PL ‘Where are they going?’ b. Ø. IPFV newspaper IPFV-read.PST-3SG ‘She/he was reading the newspaper.’ c. Have-3PL IPFV-eat-3PL ‘They are eating. (Rahmani, 2011: 29).’
Component 15: the indefinite marker is the vowel which is placed before the noun: (143) one day ‘One day.’
Component 18: Past tense marker, is a suffix; even though the perfective and imperfective (144) markers are both prefixed to the stem.
(144) Lesson-OBL PFV-read/study-PST-2SG ‘You have studies/you studied lessons.’
Component 24: Although the negative marker is always prefixed to the stem, the interesting behavior of this morpheme is that, in changing a verb, which already has an inflectional prefix, to negative form, we expect the negative marker replaces the previous inflectional marker (like an imperfective marker). But in Tati, and in some other Iranian languages (as in Kahangi) the negative
1 I couldn’t find any evidence in my corpus that the speakers prefer to use the verb ”to have” in past form, instead of . I will not deny the possibility of the existence of such a usage of this verb in Takestani, since it make sense when the present form of the verb is used for the same purpose the past must be allowed as well. But yet, I will not judge on the data I don’t have in my corpus. 89 marker does not substitute the other marker, rather sits next to it just before the stem: (145) - 1SG IPFV-NEG-can-1SG SBJV-read-1SG ‘I cannot read.’
2.3.2.9.2 Agreement Same as some other Iranian languages, Tati distinguishes present agreement system versus past transitive ones. Rasekhmahand (2009) claims the enclitics in Southern Tati, mark the agent of transitive verbs in the past tense (A), the direct object and the genitive function. The enclitics in (A) role, appear in the second position, while in the role of object, they are not in the second position anymore, though they stay somewhere before the verb. Dabirmoghaddam (2013: 1137) believes, too, that the clitics, as agreement elements in past transitive verbs, can have different hosts except for the subject. In other words, they do not follow the Wackernagel law, where it is expected for the clitics to be always in the second position. The verb (146.a) and the particles of compound verbs (nouns and auxiliaries) (146.b), the direct and indirect object and also the adverbs (146.c) can be the adequate host for the clitics:
(146) a. = Say.PST=3PL ‘They said.’
b. = Maybe skin=3SG NEG-do.PST-PTCP be.SUBJ.3SG ‘Maybe she/he has not to peel it.’ c. = Yesterday=1SG pottage PFV-cook.PST ‘I cooked pottage (soup) yesterday.’
Dabirmoghaddam introduces the clitics, subject agreements for the transitive past verbs as in Table 29. He also presents the endings, which are suffixed to the verbs in present tense and intransitive verbs in the past tense:
90
Table 29: Clitics
Singular Plural 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd =Ø =~~ = =( = =
Table 30: Endings
Singular Plural 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd ~ ~~Ø~~ ~ ~~
The pronouns in Tati (Takestani) reveal the case system in this language. Besides the variety in case system which the pronouns hold, the third person singular demonstrates the track of gender category. Table 31 and Table 32 show these pronouns in the nominative and oblique case:
Table 31: Pronouns in Nominative case Singular Plural 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd MF
Table 32: Pronouns in Oblique case Singular Plural 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd MF
2.3.2.10 Vafsi
Vafsi is a northern language in W-Iranian languages. It is spoken is Vafs, a city in Arak province and some villages nearby. Dabirmoghaddam (2013) introduces the features of this language in word order, agreement, and case system. Here I mostly use his description as the main source; I will refer to his examples using brackets and referring by the exact number of the examples as they are in his book. Other examples without these brackets are from my corpus.
91
Figure10: Location of Vafs
2.3.2.10.1 Word order
Component 1: Vafsi uses prepositions (147.a), postpositions (147.b) and also what Dabirmoghaddam calls circumfixes, but I prefer to call them as “pre- postpositions”; since each morpheme is a separate pre and postposition (147.c). Besides, it uses case markers (147.d).
(147) a. Child-PL on chair-OBL on sit.PST-PTCP-3PL ‘The children are sitting on the chair (The children have been sitting on the chair).’
b. [2] 3SG shop-in 1PL.OBL-for work IPFV-do-3SG ‘She/ he works for us at the shop.’ c. [7] 3PL on ground-OBL-in PFV-sleep.PST-3PL ‘They have slept on the ground.’
d. [1] = 1SG.OBL book=1SG give.PST Maryam-F.OBL ‘I gave the book to Maryam.’
The oblique and instrument phrase is marked with Since this marker is mostly used for a direct or oblique object in Iranian languages,
92
Dabirmoghaddam designate the application of in instrument phrase “a considerable feature of this language”.
(148) [3] = 1SG.OBL door key-with open=1SG did.PST ‘I opened the door with the key.’
Component 3: Vafsi is a GN language. The salient characteristic of this coordination is that there is no linker between the genitive and the noun; though, in genitive position, the nouns must be in the oblique case. The related case marker is /-y for male and for the female oblique case. Even though the marker is absent when the last phoneme of the noun is a vowel:
(149) a. Behrad-NNOM.M brother ‘Behrad’s brother.’
b. Mojgan-OBL.F son ‘Mojgan’s son.’
c. Sara son ‘Sara’s son.’ Component 15 Definiteness is unmarked in Vafsi, though indefinite nouns are marked with the word “one”.
(150) One man ‘A man.’
Component 18: The language marks the perfective using V where V stands for any kind of vowels according to the phonological environment:
(151) == Think do=1SG lunch=3SG PFV-eat.PST-PTCP ‘I think she/he have had lunch.’
The imperfective is marked with :
(152) Where IPFV-go-3PL ‘Where are they going?’
93
Component 20: The modal ‘can’, and its past form ‘could’, and the subjunctive form of , precede the main verb.
(153) a. Definitely IPFV- Modal. PRS help do-3SG ‘She/he can definitely help.’
b. 1SG IPFV-can.PST ‘I could.’
= Remote=be.3SG that SBJV-can SBJV-come-1SG ‘It is not possible for me to come.’
2.3.2.10.2 Agreement
Vafsi is a split ergative language. As one could expect, transitive and intransitive verbs in this system agree the A and S using endings in the present tense. Though A is marked with the clitics, mostly enclitics, to agree with the verb (154.a); however the proclitics are also possible in imperfective (154.b):
(154) a. = = self=1SG ear-OBL with PFV=1SG hear.PST ‘I heard it with my ear!’ b. = = ISG=IPFV-want PFV-go.PST-1SG home=1PL ‘I want to go our home.’
Dabirmoghaddam (2013: 571-578) introduces clitics and endings in Vafsi as follows:
Table 33: Subject agreement Clitics in Vafsi
Singular Plural 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd = = = = = =
94
Table 34: Subject Agreement Endings in Kahangi
Singular Plural 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd
2.3.2.10.3 Case System
Dabirmoghaddam (2013: 587) points out Vafsi uses three ways of case marking: a) the case, b) the pronouns, c) interrogative element. He remarks that the vowel –e is used to show oblique female case; thought the –i~-y show male, oblique case.
While the nominative pronoun for the first person (or the direct cased pronoun) is , the oblique correspondence is ; where the former is the subject of the verbs in present tense or the subject of intransitive in past tense, the latter is the agent of the transitive past verbs.
Besides, second and third singular pronouns ( and respectively) have oblique forms as well: and
Though the first and second plural pronouns are always in direct case position (and ), third person plural pronoun is in two positions: one which reveals the direct case marking system () and the one which shows oblique case ().
To sum up, Dabirmoghaddam (2013: 589) introduces the table below (Table35) as the pronoun system available in Vafsi:
95
Table 35: Case in Pronouns
Case Oblique Direct Person and Number 1st person singular ~ 2nd person singular 3rd person singular 1st person plural 2nd person plural ~~~ ~ 3rd person plural
Beside the pronouns, interrogative words are marked for case in Vafsi, too. While ‘who’ is in direct case, ‘to/with whom’ is the oblique version:
(155) a. Where IPFV-go.PST-3PL ‘Where are they going?’
b. Who.OBL with/for work have-3PL ‘To whom do they want to talk? (To whom do they have work?)’ Dabirmoghaddam does not give further details on case system in Vafsi; However, Mirdehghan and Yusefi (2012) introduce 14 different cases identifiable in Vafsi that all are marked in 5 possible ways: 1. suffixation, 2. prepositions, 3. cliticization, 4. word order, and 5. prosodic features. They claim the ergative, accusative, prepositional complement (benefactor), indirect object, and object of a possessive are marked with suffixes. Though the prepositions can marks nouns in their group for case and the enclitic =o marks the preceding noun for indirect object case.
96
2.3.2.11 Gerashi
Figure 11: Gerash in Iran This language is spoken in Gerash, a town in the city of Lar in Fars Province. As Kalbasi (2009) reports this dialect is very similar to Lari, spoken in Lar. Since studies on Gerashi are very rare (in fact except for the very limited study of Kalbasi there is no direct study on this dialect), and because this dialect is one of the dialects of Lari, spoken in Lar, I will use the resources related to Lari language, as well as Kalbasi (2009) and any other available sources to introduce this dialect.
Larestani or Lari has many dialects, including Bastaki, Evazi, Gerashi, Khonji, Bixaji (Eghtedari 2005: 35), Achomi and Faramarzi. Considering data collected for this thesis, and Kalbasi’s (2009) findings, we might examine some of Dryer’s components (1992).
About the adposition type, Kalbasi (2009: 733) asserts this dialect is a prepositional language. The data in this dissertation supports this claim:
(156) After class IMPF-go-1SG to dormitory ‘I will go to dormitory after class.
97
The noun precedes the relative clause:
(157) = Girl that age=3AG from twenty further SBJV-go-3SG… ‘A girl who passes age twenty..’ The genitive marker is –e. The genitive is added to the noun using this linking element:
(158) = Wedding sister=3SG ‘Her/his sister’s wedding.’ The adjective might assert both before and after the standard:
(159) a. Big-SUPR from Maryam ‘Older than Maryam.’
From Maryam Big-SUPR-be.3SG ‘(s)he is older than Maryam.’
The verb follows the adpositional phrase (See 156 and 157). The predicate precedes copula (159.b). The verbs meaning ‘want’ stay before the main verb: (160) = = Tonight 1SG=want IPV-go-1SG cinema ‘Tonight we want to go to cinema.’
The adjective is placed after the noun:
(161) Phone-PL-GEN necessary ‘The necessary phone numbers.’
The demonstrative is before the noun and the intensifier is before the adjective. These are both shown in the example below: (162) This food very delicious-be.3SG ‘This food is very delicious.’
98
All modal auxiliaries are placed before the main verb, while the tense auxiliaries, including past continuous, is after the main verb:
(163) a. = 1SG=NEG-Moda.PST that SBJV-say-1SG ‘I couldn’t say.’
2.4 The behavior of W-Iranian languages toward Dryer’s component in a quick glance
On this part after naming the twenty-four components Dabirmoghaddam introduced as Dryer’s components to study the word order in Iranian languages, I show how these languages behave toward these components in three tables below. Note that Lori and Gerashi are not available in these tables since they need to be studied in more details for Dryer’s components. Each table shows 8 components and makes the overall number of 24:
1. Adposition type (PrP~PoP) 2. Order of noun and a relative clause (NR~RN) 3. Order of noun and genitive (NG~GN) 4. Order of adjective and standard in comparative construction (StAdj~AdjSt) 5. Order of verb and adpositional phrase (VA~AV) 6. Order of verb and manner adverb (AdvV~VAdv) 7. Order of copula and predicate (PredCop~CopPred) 8. Order of ‘want’ + verb (VWant~WantV) 9. Order of noun and adjective (AdjN~NAdj) 10. Order of demonstrative and noun (DemN~NDem) 11. Order of intensifier and adjective (IntensAdj~AdjIntens) 12. Order of content verb and tense/aspect auxiliary verb (V-T/AAux~T/AAux-V) 13. Order of question particle and sentence (SQ~QS) 14. Order of adverbial subordinators and clause (AdvS~SAdv) 15. Order of article and noun (NArt~ArtN) 16. Order of verb and subject (SV~VS)
99
17. Order of numeral and noun (NumN~NNum) 18. Order of verb and tense/aspect affix (V-T/A~T/A-V) 19. Order of noun and possessive affix (N-PA~PA-N) 20. Order of content verb and auxiliary verb ‘can’ (V-Can~Can-V) 21. Order of complementizer and subordinate clause (CS~SC) 22. WH-movement (Non-insitu~insitu) 23. Order of object and verb (OV~VO) 24. Order of negative affix and verb stem (NEGV~VNEG)
100
Table 36: Word order in 10 W-Iranian Languages
Components
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Lang PrP PoP NR RN NG GN StAdj AdjSt V-A A-V AdvV VAdv PredCop CopPred VWant WantV
Option
Balochi Gilaki Hawrami Kahangi Kurdish Persian Semnani Tati Vafsi
101
Components 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Lang AdjN NAdj DemN NDem IntesAdj Adjn T/AAux-V V-T/AAux AdjN NAdj DemN NDem IntesAdj AdjIntes T/AAux-V Want tes V Option Bal Gilaki Hawrami Kahangi Kurdish Persian Semnani Tati Vafsi
102
Components 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Lang. NUMN NNUM V-T/A T/A- N-PA PA-N V- Can-V C-S S-C Non-insit Insitu OV VO NegV VNeg V Can Option Bal. Gil. Hawr. Kahan. Kurd. Pers. Semn Tati Vafsi
103
Chapter 3
On Modality and More
3.0 Overview
This chapter starts with a history of the term modality. It continues to review the literature, on modality, among which I will use Nuyts (2005, 2006, 2016, and forthcoming) to specify our understanding of modality as ‘semantic modification’, to analyze the data on this thesis.
There are yet some other notions of which we need to have a clear understanding. One of the notion is auxiliary, which we need to recognize in the languages we are studying. Modality expressions must be considered as modal verbs, or in our terminology, as modal auxiliary verbs.
We will also need to trace back some of the modal auxiliaries, to get pictures of the types of the verbs which are the sources of modal auxiliaries. To do that, the notion of grammaticalization is applied, mostly based on Traugott and Dasher (2002). Furthermore, it seems that being polysemous for modal auxiliary verbs is obvious as bright as the daylight; yet we need a procedure on polysemy for two reasons: first, although this claim might be true on modal auxiliaries, we need to check it for other modal elements as well. Second, even on modal auxiliaries, one cannot claim that all of them are polysemous in all languages.
3.1 The origin of the study
From the historical point of view, in the tradition of literary and linguistic studies, the term modality is more recent, compared to mood. The term mood is developed from the Latin word modus which means to measure and manner and has entered English either directly from Latin or through French in the Middle Ages. The younger term, modality, derives from of the postclassical Latin word
104
modalitas, which in the 1545 edition of Oxford's dictionary has the general meaning those aspects of a thing which relate to its mode (Van der Auwera and Aguilar 2016:10).
According to Van der Auwera and Aguilar (2016: 24), in philosophy and logic, the term modality has been used at least since the seventeenth century. We may trace the terminology back to the Aristotelian counterpart square in philosophy and logic. The square is comprised of four sides: necessary, possible, unnecessary, and impossible. Although Aristotle never called this square a modality square, logicians and followers of formal semantics use this square to determine the logical relations between the modality of propositions. It seems the term modality in the modern sense has been used for the first time by Kant. However, in linguistics, the term dates back to the early twentieth century where the use of modality can be found in Sapir (1921), Zandvoort (1950), and Lyons (1968).
Later in the twentieth century, Lyons (1977), Leech (1969), Halliday (1960), Palmer (1979) and Coates (1983) determined the distinction between mood and modality. Nowadays, most linguists agree that modality is the conceptual and semantic realm, while the mood is its morphological and grammatical expression.
Nuyts (2016: 32) distinguishes between a broad and a narrow definition of modality. In the broad sense, modality refers to any modification which speakers make in the SoA, even in tense and aspect. This use is common in philosophy, logic and formal semantics. It includes the traditional TAM term and other ‘qualifications of states of affairs’ as Nuyts argues. In a narrow sense, modality “refers to one semantic subfield of the wider domain of qualificational categories, which stands next to the domains such as time and aspect” (ibid: 32).
105
In Iranian studies, this was mood which has been always the subject of analysis among traditional grammarians (including Qarib et al. 1994 [1884]; Anvari and Ahmadi Givi 1997; Vahidiyan-Kahmyar and Omrani 2003; Ahmadi Givi 2005). The result of these researches were identifying different types of mood in Persian, including indicative, subjunctive and imperative. Further, in more recent decades grammarians took modal verbs into consideration, again in Persian, as: “a limited category of non-basic verbs which are associated with syntactic, morphological and semantic features including (must),
(become) and (to be able to)” (Meshkat-al-Dini 2007: 93) or “ those auxiliary verbs used to express the necessity or the possibility of performing an action. Different inflections of the verbs “ (must), (to be able to) and (to become) are modals wherever they are used as auxiliaries” (Haghshenas and et al. (2008: 91). However, the systematic study of modality is a recent phenomenon among Iranian linguists. At their first attempt, the linguists tried to distinguish between mood and modality, which for classical grammarians had been confused. In subsequent endeavors, they have applied the western approaches, mainly Lyons (1977), Bybee et al. (1994) and Palmer (2001), to picture the status of modality (predominantly in modal verbs or modal auxiliary verbs) in Persian, and rarely in some Iranian languages.
Various classifications of modality in descriptive semantic perspective are available. Most well known among them, are Bybee et al. (1994) and Palmer (2001). However, Lyons (1977), Van der Auwera and Plungian (1998, following Bybee et al. 1994), Narrog (2012) and Nuyts (2005, 2006, forthcoming) and also Byloo and Nuyts (2014), and Nuyts and Byloo (2015) provided their own categories, too; Bybee et al. (1994) and Palmer (2001) have had more fortune in Iranian studies on modality. However, Among these approaches, in this thesis, I apply Nuyts (2005, 2006, 2016 and forthcoming), and also Byloo and Nuyts
106
(2014) and Nuyt’s and Byloo (2015). To shorten this list, from now on we will use Nuyts to refer the procedure we have chosen to take.
3.2 Review of literature
Among the various issues related to this thesis, namely modality, typology, Iranian languages, (inter)subjectivity, grammaticalization, and polysemy, in this section, I will introduce some of the studies which have been conducted on modality. This section consists of two sub-sections; the first provides the opinions and studies on modality from the typological perspective; the second, the studies which used these ideas on the status of modality in a particular language, which for staying relevant to our topic, would be limited to Iranian languages.
3.2.1 Modality: A Means for Typological Studies
3.2.1.1. Bybee et al. (1994)
Referring to Lyons (1977), Bybee et al. define modality as the grammaticalization of speakers’ attitudes and opinions. However, they believe recent crosslinguistic works on mood and modality show that the modality notion goes far beyond this restricted definition. Mood, on the other hand, is ‘best viewed as a set of diachronically related functions and…the understanding of modality would emerge from a study of these diachronic relations. They suggest four types of modality: agent-oriented, speaker-oriented, epistemic and subordinating. A brief definition of these categories is expressed as follows:
3.2.1.1.1 agent-oriented modality
“This type of modality reports the existence of internal and external conditions on an agent with respect to the completion of the action expressed in the main
107 predicate” (ibid: 177). This is in relation to the propositional content of the clause and that is why in many frameworks, it is not considered as a type of modality. However as Bybee et al. presume in the diachronic sources, one must consider it as a type of modality. It is possible to express agent-oriented modality with different morphological and grammatical elements; however, semantically, there are four types of agent-oriented modality:
obligation: the existence of external, social conditions compelling an agent to complete the predicate acts. Obligation might be whether weak (1.a) or strong (1.b):
(1) a. [1]1 All students must obtain the consent of the Dean of the faculty concerned before entering for examination. (Coates 1988: 35, in Bybee & et al. 1994) b. [2] I just insisted very firmly on calling her Miss Tillman, but one should really call her president. (Coates 1983: 59, in Bybee & et al. 1994)
Necessity which is the existence of physical conditions compelling an agent to complete the predicate action:
(2) [3] I need to hear a good loud alarm in the mornings to wake up.
Ability refers to the internal conditions which enable the agent to do the predicate action:
(3) [4] I can only type very slowly as I am a beginner. (Coates 1983: 92, in Bybee & et al. 1994)
Desire is the internal volition in the agent to perform the predicate action:
(4) [5] Juan Ortiz called to them loudly in the Indian tongue, bidding them come forth if they would (= wanted to) save their lives. (Coates 1983: 212, in Bybee & et al. 1994)
1 The numbers in the brackets refer to the exact numbers of the examples in each source.
108
There is a diachronic relation between some of these notions. As an instance, necessity may always develop into desire. The English verb want has a root in an Old North verb meaning ‘to lack or to miss’. Entering English, this verb meant ‘need’ and in the 18th century, it has started to express ‘desire’. The common point between all of the above verbs (to lack, to miss and to desire) is the external condition governing the agent. In future tense, both desire and obligation are used to show the intention of the agent. That is why in the middle English, both will (with desire as a source) and shall (from obligation) were used to express the intention of the first person. Although, will gives rise to express willingness, as well.
(5) [9] I'll help you.
Directives are used to express speaker-oriented modality, by default. However, they may also show the agent-oriented modality as well. Directives are the utterances which aim not to present a report of the action, but to make the actions to be done. Since the speaker plays a role in making this obligation or permission, directives must be considered as subjective. (6.a) and (6.b) are examples of directives:
(6) a. [11] "You must play this ten times over," Miss Jarrova would say, pointing with relentless fingers to a jumble of crotchets and quavers. (Coates 1983: 34, in Bybee & et al. 1994)
b. [12] You can start the revels now. (Coates 1983: 88, in Bybee & et al. 1994)
3.2.1.1.2 Speaker-oriented modality
Lyons (1977) describes directives as utterances which oblige or propose “some actions or pattern of behavior and indicate that it should be carried out” (ibid: 179). Imperatives (to command directly to a second person), prohibitive (to command to a second person in order to prevent him/her to perform the action), optative (where the speaker wishes or hopes the action would be done), hortative
109
(to encourage someone to do the action), admonitive (where the speaker warns) and permissive (where the speaker permits the action) are different types of directives. Speaker-oriented modality includes all these types of directives.
Epistemic indicates to what extent the speaker is committed to the truth of the proposition. Normally the speaker is totally committed to what (s)he says; however, (s)he by applying the epistemic elements, might modify this commitment. The most common form of this modality is expressing possibility, probability and inferred certainty.
Possibility: indicates the proposition might be true:
(7) [13] I may have put them down on the table; they're not in the door. (Coates 1983: 133)
Probability: shows a higher likelihood of the truth of the proposition:
(8) [14] The storm should clear by tomorrow.
Inferred certainty: is a strong probability which implies the speaker has a good reason for the truth of the proposition:
(9) [15] There must be some way to get from New York to San Francisco for less than $600.
Another notion which Bybee et al. mention in their classification of different types of modality is evidential. Evidentiality is the knowledge which the speaker has acquired directly or indirectly in the context of a proposition and, by citing it, (s)he reduces his/her commitment to the truth of a proposition. So they consider evidentiality as a type of epistemic.
Different types of modal elements can be applied to indicate modality not only in the main clause but also in the subordinate clause. Complement clauses (10.a), concessive (10.b) and purpose clauses (10.c) are those types of subordinate clauses which include modality.
110
(10) a. [17] I suggested that he should call you immediately. b. [18] Although he may be a wise man, he has made some mistakes in the past. c. [19] We are working now so that we can take the summer off.
Bybee et al.’s classification of modality can be summarized as follows:
weak obligation strong agent-oriented necessity
ability
imperative
prohibitive
optative speaker-oriented
horative modality admonitive
permissive
possibility
epistemic probability
subordinate inferred certainty clause
Figure 12: Types of Modality (Bybee et al. 1994)
3.2.1.2 Van der Auwera and Plungian (1998)
Van der Auwera and Plungian use the same terminology and perspective as Bybee et al. (1994) introduced. To them, modality is divided into two main categories: necessity and possibility. Together, they construct a quadruple paradigm as follows:
i) A situation where necessity and possibility of the SoA are internal to the participant: participant-internal modality; where the internal possibility is the internal ability or the capacity of the participant, and internal necessity is the
111 internal need of the participant. Examples in (11) illustrate participant-internal possibility and necessity in sequence:
(11) [1] a. Boris can get by with sleeping five hours a night. b. Boris needs to sleep ten hours every night for him to function properly.
ii) The other domain which points the contrast between necessity and possibility is participant-external modality. In this type of modality, this is the external conditioning to the participant which makes the SoA possible or necessary. Examples in (12) offer participant-external possibility (where one of the available options is to take the bus 66) and participant-external necessity (the only way is to take the bus 66):
(12) a. To get to the Station, you can take bus 66. b. To get to the Station, you have to take bus 66. iii) The third type of modality is deontic. This is a special type of participant-external modality. In fact, the relationship between these two types of modality is hyponym and superordinate (hypernym). Deontic modality expresses those external conditions which are imposed or advised morally or socially and enable or oblige him/her to the participant in the SoA. Sentences in (13) express deontic possibility vs deontic necessity:
(13) [3] a. John may leave now. b. John must leave now.
iv) And finally, it is epistemic; a type of modality in relation to the speaker’s judgment on the possibility or necessity of the SoA. (14.a) illustrates how the speaker is uncertain about the SoA while (14.b) shows the speaker is certain about the SoA:
(14) [4] a. John may have arrived. b. John must have arrived. To Van der Auwera and Plungian volition and evidentiality is modality. Evidentiality indicates the sources or the evidence to estimate the SoA. This
112
evidence could be direct or indirect, visual or auditory, reasoning or hearsay and first-hand or second-hand. Instead of all these subtypes of evidentiality, they introduce the term ‘inferential’, the subtype that “identifies the evidence as based upon reasoning” (Van der Auwera and Plungian 1998: 85).
Applying this categorization, Van der Auwera and Plungian present their semantic map of modality. To them “a semantic map is a geometric representation of meanings or … of the relations between them” (ibid: 86). The meaning or the uses and the relation between them make a semantic map which synchronically and diachronically constraints the languages, based on their syntax or lexicon, to space. They distinguish pre-modal, modal and post-modal meanings. Post-modals consist of concession, complementation, conditional and future. These are the result of different synchronic procedures on expressions in modality realm. It is also possible to develop epistemic possibility from deontic necessity. This is the type of deontic modality with non-definite status between obligation and permission. The development of must in English is an example of such cases. Besides, the deontic possibility might develop from deontic necessity (such as durfen in German). Figure 13 illustrates Van der Auwera and Plungian’s semantic map.
Figure 13: semantic map of modality (Van der Auwera and Plungian 1998: 111)
113
This map consists of three main parts: pre-modal, modal and post-modal. In the modality domain, there are four possibility and four necessity available. There are also some modality concepts which are ambiguous between possibility and necessity. Pre- and post-modal domains are subcategorized in three main topics, based on the fact that either they are targeting possibility, necessity or both.
3.2.1.3 Palmer (2001) The first definition Palmer presents for modality is both promising and disappointing at the same time. On one hand, he describes modality as a cross- linguistic grammatical category which can be the subject of typological studies. On the other hand, he regards it as a category associated with tense and aspect, since they are all categories related to the clause and usually, not always, they leave a trace on the verb. This definition might be true for tense or aspect, or even mood, though this does not work well for the modality. As indicated before, linguists consider the distinction between mood and modality as the role which mood plays in grammar and modality in semantics. So we might expect that the verb which has a mark for the mood and modality is presented with other elements in different languages. Palmer modifies his perspective by integrating the role of semantics in tense, aspect, and modality: “all three, in some way, concerned with the event or situation that is reported by the utterance” (Palmer 2001: 1). In this perspective, tense is related to the time of the event, mood with the nature of the event, and modality is concerned with the situation of the proposition.
Palmer implies languages deal with modality in two ways: whether they use modality or they apply mood. Although a single language might have both systems, it uses one of them as the predominant method. As an instance, in
114
European languages, the subjunctive is losing its function and in English modal verbs are used instead of this type of mood.
To clarify the difference between mood and modality, Palmer used realis vs. irrealis. He quotes from Mithun (1999:173) that ‘the realis portrays situations as actualized, as having occurred or actually occurring… the irrealis portrays the situation as purely within the realm of thought.’ Referring to this distinction, almost all clauses are either realis or irrealis: the mood is a binary system in this perspective. The distinction between indicative and subjunctive is a result of such a binary system. Indicative represents realis clauses while subjunctive marks irrealis. However, the distinction between realis and realis is binary, it is not the same for mood cross-linguistically. Some languages have three types of mood: imperative and jussive are marked with neither realis nor irrealis marker; instead, it has its particular marker.
Even though the distinction between realis and irrealis is inherited in mood, it might be applied for modality as well. In this perspective, all the elements in modality are used to express irrealis, while realis is unmarked. In addition to this distinction, there are other distinctions in the notion of modality. Palmer basically divides different types of modality in two main groups: propositional modality and event modality.
In general, the propositional modality is the speaker’s judgment about the proposition. Every modal element which implies the truth value of the proposition is a propositional modality. This type of modality includes epistemic and evidentiality. Epistemic modality reports the speaker’s judgment on a SoA utters in the proposition. There are three types of judgments in the languages: the one which shows the speaker is uncertain about the proposition (speculative epistemic); when the speaker infers the judgment through evidence (deductive epistemic); and the last one includes a judgment based on general knowledge
115
(assumptive). However, all language does not necessarily encode all these three types of epistemic, English does, as in the case of May, must and will, in sentences (15):
(15) a. John may be in his office. b. John must be in his office. c. John will be in his office. Sentence (15.a) illustrates the speaker is not certain if John is in his office or not. While sentence (15.b) indicates the speaker makes a judgment based on the evidence (s)he has access to (for instance the lights are on in John’s office). Sentence (15.c), then, offers a judgment based on the speaker’s general knowledge about John (he always starts works at 8:00 a.m.).
Evidentiality is one of the most challenging topics in modality. There is no agreement between linguists that whether evidentiality should be considered a type of modality or not. And if yes, should it be considered as a type of epistemic or as a dependent type of modality? To Palmer, evidentiality is a type of propositional modality along with epistemic. While epistemic indicates the speaker’s judgment on a state of affair, in evidentiality (s)he reports evidence in support of the reality of the proposition. Evidential modality has some subtypes as well: if the evidence is based on what the speaker has heard, that would be reported (16.a); if the evidence is performed based on the five senses, as in seeing, touching, and so on, it is called sensory evidential (16.b). Examples are presented from Persian:
(16) a. As that to 1SG say.PST.NML other way-INF NEG-stay.PST-PTCP ‘As I was told, there is no other way.’ b. = With eye-PL-GEN self=1SG see.PST-1SG from window go.PST.3SG out ‘I saw it with my eyes that (s)he went out from the window.’
116
If the clause with a modal element indicates the speaker’s attitude towards a probable event in the future, it is called event modality. This type of modality includes deontic and dynamic modality. The main difference between deontic and dynamic is that in deontic, the conditioning factors are external to the participant; while in dynamic they are internal. Therefore, notions such as permission and obligation, which have external sources, are deontic (as in 17) while ability and willingness, are dynamic (18):
(17) a. John may/can come in now (permission) b. John must come in now (obligation)
(18) a. John can speak French (ability) b. John will do it for you (willingness) However, as Palmer puts, this classification is somehow oversimplification; since deontic stems in external authority, such as rules or laws, but this is the speaker who has the actual authority, gives permission, or obliges the addressee to do the action. Besides, ability, as a type of dynamic modality, is not a constraint to the physical and mental ability, but the immediate conditions which affect the speaker must be considered as a type of dynamic modality, as well. This formal overlapping and at the same time the semantic distinction is clear in the English can which shows both deontic and dynamic modality:
(19) a. He can go now (Deontic: I give permission) b. He can run a mile in five minutes (Dynamic: he has the ability) c. He can escape (Dynamic: the door's not locked)
(19.a) can show the permission, so it is deontic; while in (19.b) it expresses the participant’s potential ability, therefore it is a dynamic modality. Can in (19.c) shows a possibility for the participant, not due to his ability to perform the action, but because the condition to do the action (here escaping) is ready for him. So, here again, can illustrates dynamic.
117
Finally, there is commisive: an utterance with which we commit ourselves to do an action. English shall is a modal auxiliary that shows this type of modality:
(20) You shall have it tomorrow Since it is the speaker, not the subject, who assigns the needed conditions for performing the action, some consider it as a deontic. We might sketch Palmer’s classification for modality as in Figure 14:
speculative
epistemic deductive
assumptive propositional reported visual evidential sensory non-visual
permission auditory modality deontic obligation
commissive event ability dynamic volition Figure 14: Types of Modality (Palmer, 2001)
3.2.1.4 Narrog (2012) In today’s linguistics, there are two main approaches to the meaning of modality: the one which describes modality based on the attitude of the speaker(s) or subjectivity; and the one which describes it in terms of ‘factuality’. Narrog believes the first approach “is not very meaningful because speaker attitudes …are expressed throughout the sentence through a great variety of grammatical and lexical categories” (Narrog 2012: 5).
On the other hand, studying modality based on factuality describes it as a reference to the unreal situation. This is the feature of factuality in modality
118
which causes for modality to be described in terms of necessity, possibility, obligation, and probability in traditional studies. In this perspective, the speaker’s judgment is either true or false. However, in encountering modality, we are dealing with the speaker’s judgment in experiencing their worldview, not a ‘reality’ outside the language. Consider sentences in (21). (21.a) is a non-modal proposition. It is a reality in the world around us. (21.b) on the other hand, includes a status within the realm of thought; a situation which is not determined in factuality and we cannot judge its actual existence.
(21) a. [2] cats are happy now. b. [3] cats must be happy now.
To Narrog, modality includes epistemic, deontic, teleological, preferential, boulomaic, participant-internal, circumstantial, quantificational (existential) and evidentiality. Teleological modality marks a proposition “as a necessity or possibility with respect to someone’s goals” (Narrog 2012:8) (see 22.a). Preferential modality indicates someone’s preferences (22.b); while boulomaic modality target’s someone’s volition or intentions (22). This is the category which Narrog believes since it is “poorly grammaticalized in Modern English” it has been neglected. Participant-internal modality indicates someone’s disposition (22.d) and circumstantial modality marks “necessity or possibility with respect to certain circumstances” (ibid: 10) (22.e). Existential (or quantificational) modality marks a situation in the sense that it is “possibly or necessarily hold” (22.f).
(22) a. [7] (Given your musical taste) You must have this CD. b. [8] (In order to stay in shape) You should exercise at least 20 minutes a day. c. [9] We shall fight on the beaches…(Winston Churchill). d. [10] Ralph can run faster than a horse. e. [11] If you take the shortcut through the alley, you can be there at least ten minutes earlier. f. [12] Internet postings can lead to lawsuits.
119
Narrog believes the main reason for divergence about evidentiality is that in some languages, including English and German, evidentiality is not grammaticalized.
The other notion Narrog considers is subjectivity. It is both related to specific types of modality and lexical categories. In fact, being subjective or not, for an element is relevant with the morpho-syntactic attitudes of that expression and the features of contexts it is occurring in.
To Narrog, mood and modality work in two dimensions: one the volitive and other speech act-oriented. Besides these two, the traditional dimensions of necessity and possibility construct a different but related dimensions in the categories of mood and modality. Modality is either volitive or non-volitive. These concepts were used classically (in studies such as Jespersen 1992 [1924]) to distinguish between epistemic and deontic modality. This principle is called volitivity, which is used to differentiate dynamic and teleological modality, as well as epistemic and deontic. Volitivity is not a binary system, rather it constructs a continuum which different levels of modality lays on it. Attitudes of different types of modality vary towards the volitivity. Deontic, along with teleological, preferential and boulomaic are inherently volitive, while participant-internal, circumstantial, existential, evidentiality and epistemic are non-volitive. Figure 15 illustrates the relationship between modality and volitivity:
120
epistemic
deontic evidential
boulomaic existential
preferential participant-internal
teleological circumstantial
volitive Non- volitive
Figure 15: The dimension of volitivity (Narrog 2012: 49)
The other criterion is speech act-oriented (vs event-oriented modality). “A modal marker is speech act-oriented if it is directly linked to the speech act situation, i.e. the speaker’s own modal judgment at the time of speech in the given speech situation, her or his attention to the hearer, or to the speech situation, i.e. discourse or text, itself” (Narrog 2012: 49). In this sense, speech act orientation is made of three elements: either speaker-oriented (subjunctive), hearer-oriented (intersubjective) or discourse oriented.
On the other hand, a modal expression is event-oriented if the modal judgment expresses conditions on a participant of the described event or on the event as a whole, in relative independence of the speaker and the present speech situation. Event-oriented modality is thus concerned narrowly with the described situation itself and the participants of the event (ibid: 51). Narrog justifies the relation between the above criteria, i.e. volitive and speech act orientation as in Figure 16:
121
Speech act-orientated
Speaker-oriented
Event-oriented
volitive Non-volitive Figure 16: the two dimensions of modality (Narrog 2012: 56)
It was mentioned that necessity and possibility are already taken as one of the dimensions of modality. Although it is difficult to portrait the third dimension on a paper, in describing the features of a modal element, we must fit it in all three dimensions. In this sense, different meanings of can, as an instance, might fit as follows in the above figure:
Speech act-orientated Epist.Poss.
Permission Speaker-oriented Circ.Poss
Ability Event-oriented
volitive Non-volitive Figure 17: fitting can in the dimensions of modality
This figure shows the semantic map of can, based on three dimensions of modality: volitive vs non-volitive, speech act oriented vs even-oriented and necessity vs possibility. It also offers can is a polysemous modal in the realm of modality.
122
3.2.1.5 Nuyts (2005, 2006, 2016 and forthcoming) Nuyts studies modality in a cognitive-functional perspective. Language is a functional system, as a means of communication and it is a cognitive system, as a purposeful behavior which must be implemented in the brain. In a classic word, these two are not only related but also they must be considered as the two sides of one coin. From his perspective, the traditional category TAM (tense, aspect, and mood) or recently called TAME (tense, aspect, mood, and evidentiality) is inefficient. Therefore he uses a more semantic term as ‘qualification of states of affairs’. To cover all semantic organization of an utterance which aims to modify or evaluate the SoA in the world. State of affair then is an even in the world that is affected by the category of modality. The term ‘qualification of states of affairs’ is a complex concept covering a wide range of semantic dimensions or qualitative categories; the categories that are not accidental, but on the contrary, with a subtle and complicated internal organization, rooted in basic cognitive principles. Some of the notions under the title ‘qualification of states of affairs’ besides dynamic, deontic, epistemic, directionality and evidentiality are as follows:
Phasal aspect is the stage of development of the SoA. This includes (im)perfective, prospective (23), ingressive, progressive, continuative, or egressive.
(23) [2] John is about to leave.
Quantitative aspect refers to the frequency in which the SoA occurs. This includes iterative, habitual, semelfactive (24), durative, and generic.
(24) [3] John has been to Paris only once in his life.
Space is the situation or position of the SoA in physical space:
(25) [5] Will they ever stop fighting in the Middle East?
123
Time refers to the position or situation of the SoA in the time axis:
(26) [6] John bought a new car last week.
Boulomaic attitude is the degree of likability of the SoA:
(27) [7] How nice that you’re coming to my party tonight.
While it is easy to describe tense as a temporary situation for an even or the SoA in the clause; and aspect is the grammatical expression of the internal organization of the SoA; it is not simple to have such a clear-cut definition for modality. To Nuyts, the reason is that in order to have a comprehensive definition of modality one might consider various types of semantic categories which all of them requires clear, specific definitions. That is why in most cases the definition of modality includes a series of categories and their common features. So to define the category, Nuyts disassembled this ‘super-category’ to specific semantic concepts. Some of these concepts make their own categories, while others may be grouped as an attitudinal category, ‘differing from those commonly assumed to underlie the notion of modality’.in this perspective, the semantic features of this category would include a few other dimensions that have not been discussed in the modality so far. That is why the member of qualificational category, mentioned above, is not only the modal notions but also the notions referring to mood. After modifying the traditional definitions available for modality, Nuyts revisits them as follows:
3.2.1.5.1 Types of Modality: Nuyts (2005, 2006, 2016 and forthcoming)
3.2.1.5.1.1 Dynamic modality The most controversial notion in Nuyts is dynamic modality. Examples below show the traditional understanding of this type of modality as referring to the internal ability of the participant:
124
(28) [1] a. John can cook fabulously. b. John is able to solve that problem if he wants to. This definition is revisited the most, is Nuyts in many ways: First, it must be defined in terms of the first-argument participant of the predicate, rather than in terms of the grammatical subject. This is necessary for sentence (29) as a passive notion, where the argument of the predicate is not related to the grammatical subject: (29) [2] The table was disassembled so that it can be transported more easily. Second, dynamic modality is not restricted to the ability or the capacity, it also includes needs and necessity related to the first-argument participant as in (30): (30) [3] a. I must eat something now, or I’ll starve. b. I have to clean up this room, I can’t stand the chaos. Third, dynamic is not only concerned with the ability, capacity or necessity of the first-argument participant, but it is related to the external authority which is not in his/her control. Fourthly, Nuyts adds the notion situational to dynamic modality which Van der Auwera and Plungian (1998) call participant-external modality. The best examples are when there is no participant in the utterance (31.a) or the participant is not animate (31.b); even though it is also possible to find examples where the participant is animate (or even human) as in (31.c):
(31) [6] a. In this desert, it can snow in winter. b. The book you’re looking for need not be in the library, it can also be on my desk. c. Little Stevie cannot have broken the vase since he was not around.
According to these modifications, the dynamic modality then would be: Potentials or necessities for the first-argument participant in an SoA, or inherent in the SoA as a whole. There are three subtypes of dynamic modality, based on the above modifications which are defined as follows:
125
(a) Participant-inherent dynamic: this involves an ability or need to realize the SoA which is fully inherent in the first-argument participant. (32.a) and (33.a) illustrate ability, (32.b) and (33.b) illustrate need.
(32) a. John can cook fabulously. b. I must eat something now, or I’ll starve.
(33) Kahangi: a. = = Brother=1SG [razor=3SG IPFV-cut-3SG] this stone up-take-3SG ‘My brother can lift this stone.’
b. b= SUBJ=1SG Modal. PRS in darkness PRFX-sleep-1SG if-not = head=1SG pain IPFV-get-3SG ‘I have to sleep in the darkness, or I will have headache.’
(b) Participant-imposed dynamic modality: a possibility (as in (34.a) and (35.a)) or necessity (as in (34.b) and (35.b)) for the first-argument participant to realize the SoA which is conditioned by the circumstances hence may in part be beyond the participant’s power and control.
(34) a. John is able to come to the party tomorrow after all. b. To open that door you must turn the key and lift the latch simultaneously.
(35) Semnani: a. = 1. POSS house big=be.3SG, IPF-Modal tonight1.POSS near be.SBJV-2SG ‘My home is big, you can stay with me tonight.’
b. year-GEN other-INDEF IPFV. Modal. PRS Isfahan be.SBJV-1SG ‘I have to be in Isfahan next year.’
(c) Situational dynamic modality: this involves potentials (as in (36.a) and (37.a)) or necessities/inevitabilities (as in (36.b) and (37.b)) inherent in the SoA as a whole (i.e. not related to the first-argument participant in particular).
126
(36) a. In this desert, it can snow in winter. b. We all have to die someday.
(37) Tati: a. = =i IPFV-become-3SG 1SG=too one day car=1SG have.PST-PTCP be.SBJV ‘It is possible that I have a car once/I might have a car once.’ b. = All=1PL one day-INDF IPFV-must SBJV-die-1PL ‘All of us have to die one day’.
3.2.1.5.1.2 Deontic modality Traditional studies, define this category in terms of ‘permission’ and ‘obligation’. (38) illustrates the traditional default deontic modality as for (38.a) permission and (38.b) obligation:
(38) [7] a. You may go now. b. You must go immediately.
For Nuyts, though, permission and obligation are directives and considered non-modal (see section 3-2-1-5-2 below). In this new version, deontic modality is
An indication of the degree of the moral acceptability of an SoA. This involves a scale going from absolute moral necessity to absolute moral unacceptability, with desirability, acceptability, and undesirability as intermediary values.
Examples (39.a) and (40.a) illustrate moral (in)acceptability, which (39.b) and (40.b) indicate moral necessity.
(39) [8] a. We must be thankful for what he has done for us, so we have to find a way to show our gratitude to him. b. He’d better stop saying such things in public.
(40) Vafsi: = NEG-Modal. PRS.3SG without-GEN reason-INDF out=3SG do-1PL ‘We cannot fire him without any reason.’
127
b. = IPFV- Modal. PRS to one’s self=3SG SBJV-say-2SG ‘You have to tell him/her.’
None of the above sentences imply permission or obligation; rather they consider how the SoA is moral. By ‘degree’ Nuyts implies the notion morality is defined on a gradual scale starts with a positive pole as an absolute moral necessity, and through intermediate stages such as desirability, acceptability and undesirability goes to the negative pole and finishes at absolute moral unacceptability. Diagram 1 shows the deontic continuum:
Absolute desirability acceptability undesirability Absolute moral unacceptability moral necessity
Diagram 1: Gradual scale of modality
Morality is a relative notion. It might be related to how the ‘generality accepted social norms about what is good and bad, but it can also concern strictly personal ethical criteria of the person responsible for the deontic assessment.’
3.2.1.5.1.3 Epistemic modality In most studies, the essence of the epistemic modality has almost remained untouched, while the deontic and dynamic notion has been reconsidered several times. Nuyts’ definition of epistemic contrasts the least, compared to other types of modality. In his framework, epistemic modality is defined in line with tradition as:
An indication of the degree of likelihood that the SoA in the clause applies in the world or not. This involves a scale going from certainty via probability, possibility, and improbability, to certainty-that-not on the negative pole.
(41) a. He might be home, I am not sure. b. John will have gotten home by now.
128
(42) Kahangi: a. = maybe have-3SG food child=3SG IPFV-give-3SG ‘Maybe (s)he is feeding her/his child.’ ar-be.3SG that SBJV-go-3SG ‘It is unlikely that (s)he goes.’
The only difference between this definition of epistemic and others is that epistemic in this view is a gradable notion, starts from the absolute certainty that the SoA is true, and goes to probability, possibility and ends at improbability, and absolute certainty that the SoA is not true:
Absolute certainty probability possibility improbability Absolute certainty that the SoA is true that the SoA is not true
Diagram 2: Gradable epistemic modality
3.2.1.5.1.4 Evidentiality In a wide perspective, evidentiality is the marking of the information source on the SoA. For Nuyts, among different sub-types of evidentiality, i.e. inferential, hearsay and experiences, inferential is wider than epistemic modality and it is a member of the attitudinal categories (along with time, aspect, and modality), while the others are not members of this class (Nuyts 2017: 68-69). That is why to Nuyts, this is only inferential which is truly evidential; since the members of evidentiality are different in two ways. First, inferential, the same as epistemic and deontic, is scalar. “It involves degrees of confidences with which the speaker infers the hypothetical SoA from the evidence” (ibid: 69). On the other hand, inferentiality differs the other two in that it “requires mental effort and a real input on the speaker’s part…and it is actually centrally about this deliberation process” (ibid: 70). However, inferential and epistemic share the fact that they both target the ‘reality status of a hypothetical SoA’ (ibid: 72); while they differ deontic in that they do not concern moral status of SoA. Moreover, inferential is
129 different from epistemic modality in the sense that epistemic refers to the result of the reasoning process, while inferential denotes the reliability of reasoning process (see Diagram 3).
Facts Reasoning Hypothetical SoA
Reliability likelihood of
Inferential epistemic
Diagram 3: the relation between epistemic and evidentiality
Nuyts defines inferential evidentiality as:
An indication of the assessment, typically but not necessarily by the speaker, of the degree of reliability with which the information about the SoA expressed in the utterance has been deduced from other information, which can be directly perceived or be part of the assessor’s background knowledge.
Again this definition is defined in a gradable scale: there are different levels of reliability, from high reliability to mid-level and finally weak forms of reliability.
3-2-1-5-2. Beyond qualificational hierarchy: directive, volition, and intention In this section, I introduce concepts embedded in Nuyts’ approach, not in the qualificational hierarchy along with tense and aspect, but beyond it and within the context of discourse. This includes directivity, volition, and intention.
Directivity is: The expression of an attempt, on behalf of the speaker, to influence the behavior of the first-argument participant in the SoA with regards to the realization of the SoA.
130
Hence, in permission, the speaker intends to invite the hearer or not hinder her/him to perform an action. In (43.a) the speaker permits the participant to enter. (to be able to/can) which in other processes is considered a type of dynamic or deontic in this position, is a polite way of giving permission. (43.b), on the other hand, shows how the speaker indirectly permits the addressee to perform the action:
(43) Persian a. Now IPTV- Modal. PRS -2SG SBJV-come-2SG in ‘You can come in now.’
b. Ø = Ø Easy be.IMPR-2SG, one-INDF other=too take.IMPR-2SG ‘Feel free, take another one.’
In obligation, this influence is forcing the first-argument participant to do the action. (44.a) and (44.b) illustrate how obligation works:
(44) Kahangi a. = - Right now from room out=2SG SBJV-must go.SINF ‘You must leave the room, right now.’
b. Ø Ø IMPR-stand up-2SG IMPR-come-2SG in home. ‘Hurry up and come home.’
In this definition, interdiction then is an attempt to stop the participant to do the action (45), and in advice the speaker influences the first-argument participant by providing him/her with some suggestions to make him/her understand the SoA better:
(45) Persian a. = to=2SG permission NEG-IMPR-give-1SG from this task-PL-GEN Stupid SBJV-do-2SG ‘I don’t let you do such stupid things.’
131
Directivity and deontic are the same in the sense that both are speaker- oriented, and they differ in that directives are not gradable since the permission and obligation cannot be gradable in nature. Volition and intention, along with directive, make a communicational domain out of the subjectivity realm. Volition is:
An indication of a desire or wish of the speaker that the SoA in the clause will get realized.
In the languages of concern here, these notions are expressed with the verbs meaning ‘want’, ‘wish’, and ‘like’:
(46) Hawrami Enjoy do-1SG big become-1SG become-1SG doctor ‘I like to be a doctor when I grow up.’
Volition and intention differ in that in the former the speaker has a desire or wish, while in the latter (s)he plans to achieve it:
Intention: An indication of the plan. Typically but not necessarily of the speaker, to realize the SoA expressed in the utterance.
This might include sentences like (47) (47) [7] a. Alright, I will leave you alone. b. I promise I’ll leave you alone.
The status of these twos concepts has always been a matter of dispute. Some theorists (including Palmer, 1986; Van Linden and Verstraete 2009; Portner 2009) tend to consider volition as a type of deontic. Others (Goossens 1983 and Palmer 2001), however, consider it a dynamic modality; while some others (Recher 1968 and Nuyts 2005 and 2006) believe they are boulomaic. But what volition, directive and intention share, is that they are all connected to the occurrence of the SoA in the real world. In other words, they
132
all depend on the action. That is why Nuyts places them in one set under the title of action planning.
3.2.1.5.3. performative vs descriptive
One of the most important differences Nuyts defines in terms of modality is the difference between descriptive and performative utterances. Thanks to Austin and Searl’s Speech act theory, performative is a well- known notion in linguistic studies. However, what Nuyts perceive of this notion, is beyond what Austin and Searl have in mind. While to them, performativity refers to the use of performative verbs, such as promise, order, etc. To Nuyts’ performativity is a phenomenon vs descriptive in the sense that: Is there speaker commitment involved in the use of a specific linguistic form or not. A form is ‘performative’ if at speech time the speaker is committed to the value it expresses; a form is ‘descriptive’ if at speech time (s)he is not committed to its value. In fact, performativity vs descriptivity tries to answer this question whether the attitudinal expression signals the speaker’s own position or not. The absence of commitment in the above definition means if the utterance is a form to report another speaker’s speech or thought, or a report of the speaker’s thoughts and speech in the past, or a report of a hypothetical context (such as conditional or interrogative sentences), then the utterance is descriptive. (48) is an interrogative which the speaker does not commit him/herself to the truth of the utterance:
(48) Persian: ? Must with car SBJV-go-2SG ‘Do you have to go with the car?’ Since in an unmarked context, one expects the speaker to use modality to talk about his/her thoughts, not others idea or his/her idea in the past, in
133 languages, performativity is unmarked and default form, while descriptivity is marked. Consider (49) below:
(49) Persian: Jiyar probably time-GEN ten IPFV-arrive-3SG home ‘Jiyar will probably arrive home at 10 o’clock.’
By applying the adverbial (probably) the speaker is committed to what (s)he is saying, even if the degree of this commitment is modified by the adverb. It could be ‘definitely’ to mark the high commitment of the speaker. In either case, the commitment is present. While, by changing the same sentence to the indirect speech (as in 50), will eliminate this presence of commitment. Using indirect speech to report on another participant’s thought, denotes the speaker is not committed to the truth of the predicate.
(50) Persian: Ø Jiyar say.PST-3SG probably time-GEN ten IPFV-arrive-3SG home. ‘Jiyar said (that) he will probably arrive home at 10 o’clock.’
3.2.1.5.4 (inter)subjectivity Since Benveniste (1985) subjectivity, as the role of the speaker in language and language use, has been in great concern. Intersubjectivity then is important as a concept against objectivity and subjectivity, not only in the tradition of modality studies but in all areas of semantic and cognitive linguistics. Different understanding of subjectivity is available in the literature. In functional linguistics, subjectivity emerges in diachronic semantics and explains a certain pattern of meaning change. In this perspective, first introduced by Traugott (1989, 1995, 2006, and 2010) and Traugott and Dasher (2002), subjectivity, intersubjectivity, and objectivity are interrelated.
134
Cognitive semantics, on the other hand, tries to explain how the world is perceived by the human mind. Here, subjectivity sits versus objectivity to perceive conceptualization; the notion which Langacker (1987, 1990, 1999, and 2008) applies in Cognitive Grammar. By adopting Traugott (1989, 1995, and 2010) Traugott and Dasher (2002) Nuyts operationalize a version, presented in Byloo and Nuyts (2014) and Nuyts and Byloo (2015) to trace the semantic change in modal elements. In this definition, subjectivity in a process in which the meaning of a linguistic form develops from an objective description of the notion in the real world and becomes a means of expressing the personal status of the speaker in the objective world. In other words, an objective form occurs to encode the speaker’s tendency and thought. Thus, this does not mean that subjectivity and objectivity are black and white concepts, rather they are both graded: an element can be more objective while the other is less. As was marked above, in Traugott’s, there are three interrelated levels: subjectivity, intersubjectivity, and objectivity. In this perspective, subjectivity and objectivity are contradictory related; however, there is no such relation between subjectivity and intersubjectivity. There is also a gradable contradiction between objectivity and intersubjectivity. This distinction involves the gradual expansion of the vision in the SoA which has a growing role in our knowledge of the realm outside the states of affair, and hence, they play a prominent role for the speaker. Traugott (1989) defines subjectification as the process whereby a linguistic element gradually develops from a meaning pertaining to the description of the ‘object world’ (an ‘objective’ meaning) to a meaning concerning the speaker’s evaluation of attitude towards that objective world (a ‘subjective’ meaning). These concepts are constructed in a complex and ambiguous form and they are highly dependent on one’s linguistic intuition, which is why they are exposed to the deep vehemence of interpretations. But
135
Byloo and Nuyts (2014) and Nuyts and Byloo (2015) reduce this diversity by applying the hierarchy of qualitative categories and providing a regular pattern of this interpretation. This qualitative hierarchy and conceptual domain consist of the following:
conceptual dimensions
> evidentiality > epistemic modality > deontic modality > time >quantitative aspect/dynamic modality > phasal aspect > STATE OF AFFAIRS
vertical arrow = subjectification Figure 18: Qualitative hierarchy and conceptual domain
As we move upward, in this hierarchy, the role of the speaker would increase and the utterance would be more subjective. So the first levels of this hierarchy (SoA and phasal aspect) is more objective and less subjective; while in the higher level (specifically in epistemic and evidentiality) the speaker includes her/his ideas and thoughts, therefore they are less objective and more subjective. Intersubjectification is the process whereby an already subjectivized linguistic element evolves further towards a meaning or use pertaining to the speaker’s position vis-à-vis the addressee. Diachronically, intersubjectivity is a process in which a linguistic element semantically leave the above hierarchy and enters the communicational planning realm. The elements in this era have no role in the conceptual system, but they are applied for communicational goals. So, intersubjectivity emerges subjectivity; in fact, when an element in the subjectivity process, leaves the hierarchy and enters the communicational planning realm, it starts a unidirectional process, in which there is no way back
136
for it. On the other hand, there is no one to one relation between the notions in subjectivity and intersubjectivity; the latter can starts wherever in the hierarchy. A simplified version of the hierarchy is rendered on the left-hand side in Figure 19 below. The higher up in it, the wider the scope, hence the higher the subjectivity of a category. Subjectification can then be defined as the process whereby the meaning of a form ‘climbs up’ in this hierarchy.
conceptual dimensions communication planning
> evidentiality illocutionary/action related dimensions: > epistemic modality volition > deontic modality directivity > time politeness marking (hedging) >quantitative aspect/dynamic modality > phasal aspect textual/discursive dimensions: > STATE OF AFFAIRS condition concessive
[vertical arrow = subjectification; horizontal arrow = intersubjectification] Figure 19: Subjectification and intersubjectification (adapted from Nuyts and Byloo 2015: 42)
As Figure 19 shows, intersubjectification can then be seen as a process in which a linguistic element leaves the qualificational hierarchy – which is presumably part of human conceptualization – to assume a function in the domain of communication planning. This may include a range of meanings and functions, including a role as an illocutionary marker, a politeness marker, or a sentence connector. As can be seen in the figure, among the categories of relevance for our analysis, dynamic, deontic and epistemic modality are at different levels in the conceptual hierarchy, hence they are subjectified to different degrees (dynamic modality least, epistemic modality most). But volition and directivity are dimensions of communication planning, hence they are intersubjectivized categories.
137
3.3 Modality in Iranian studies Mood and modality are both important notions in linguistic studies. However deeply related, mood and modality still stay different in many ways. Nuyts (2016:1) consider mood as the older term used in the earlier stages of grammatical description and analysis. Modality, on the other hand, is the younger term in linguistic studies; yet it is the dominant concept in this era with the least disagreement on the nature of the category. Mood, on the other hand, as Nuyts (ibid: 1) summarizes refers to ‘the grammatical coding of the domain of modal meaning on the verb, coding indicative versus subjunctive, and also the domain of basic sentence types and the illocutionary categories expressed by them.’ However, in the literature (see Whaley 1997, Bybee 1985, Bybee et al. 1994, Palmer 2001 and Hengeveld 2004) mood is mostly related to the first domain above: coding a modality meaning on the verb with a morphological element and causing a grammatical and semantic change. Bybee et al. (1994: 181) clarify the difference between modality and mood as follows: Modality is the conceptual domain, while mood is its inflectional expression. In the Iranian studies, mood has been always in great concern among traditional grammarians. These studies result in distinguishing between indicative, subjunctive and imperative mood. However, in the more recent studies, the notion ‘modal verb’ is also in concern: “a bound class of verbs with syntactic, morphological and semantic features, which includes and
(MUST, be/become and can/be able to)” (Meshkat-al-Dini 2007:93); or “the series of auxiliary verbs, used to talk about the necessity or the possibility of a predicate. The verbs and (MUST, can/be able and be/become), when they are auxiliaries, they are called modal verbs” (Haghshenas and et al. 2008: 91). Bellow, we will review some of the main Iranian studies on modality. Most of these researches are on Persian.
138
3.3.1 Taleghani (2008) In her book, Taleghani examines the verbs in Persian base on the minimalist approach. She considers the relation between modality and aspect facing negative system in Persian. Since modality is a semantic category, Taleghani practices Palmer (2001) approach to investigate the consistency between the morpho-syntactic status of modal verbs. She classifies modal expressions in Persian into two categories: modal adverbials and modal verbs. Modal verbs are divided into two sub-categories as modal main verbs and modal auxiliary verbs.
In her classification modal auxiliaries are (Must), (Maybe) and
(be able to/can) and modal main verbs are (to be forced), (to be possible), (to be obliged/needed), (to need) and (to have permission) as compound modal main verbs, with a nominal or adjectival non-verbal element. The crucial point in this classification and a point of critique is the status of (maybe) as a modal auxiliary verb. First, only in literature and old or middle Persian could be considered as an auxiliary. In the example
Taleghani presents (56), is the third person singular form of the verb
meaning ‘to be appropriate, to be grateful’. In that sense, it does not carry any modality concept.
(56) Ø =Ø NEG-appropriate-3SG that name=2SG put-3SG human ‘Thou are not worthy of the name of man.’ (Saadi: 1258)
In present Persian, has no past or negative form and its attitude are closer to an adverb rather than an auxiliary. From the modality perspective, mostly means ‘maybe’ which is the prototypical form of coding epistemic. Since
Taleghani is studying today’s standard Persian, it seems considering as an auxiliary is an obvious mistake. Although she claims for considering as an
139 auxiliary is supported by the fact that auxiliaries are usually followed by verbs in the subjunctive mood while adverbials precede indicative. There is much contradictory evidence which reveals it is possible for adverbs, even modal adverbs to precede the verbs in subjunctive mood. At least, ‘possibly, probably’ among the modal adverbs which she studies, shows main verbs in both subjunctive and indicative mood are plausible following some adverbs:
(51) a. Raeika probably IPFV-go-3SG university ‘Raeika will probably go to university’.
b. Erika probably to this party SBJV-go-3SG ‘Erika will probably go to this party.’
The same is true about . While (58.a) is not grammatical, since
‘must’ is an auxiliary, (58.b) and (58.c) both are grammatical:
(58) a. * Nejla Modal. PRS IPFV-go-3SG shopping ‘Nejla must go shopping.’
b. Avash maybe SBJV-go-3SG home mother ‘Maybe Avash goes to the mother’s home.’
c. Maybe on-GEN way IPFV-go-3SG somewhere ‘Maybe on the way home, she/he goes somewhere.’
Based on Palmer (2001) modal elements are either epistemic or root. Root modality has two types, deontic and dynamic. In her research, she shows in Persian root modality is used is the clauses including subjunctive mood; while epistemic modality is applicable in both present and past subjunctive.
Among the modal expressions she studies, , and
(must, definitely and certainly) illustrate epistemic necessity; while and (maybe, be probable, be possible and probably) code epistemic possibility. Deontic modality has two
140
sub-types: permission and obligation. According to her, (to have permission) and (be able to, can) offer permission and
(to be obliged, to be forced) show obligation.
3.3.2 Akhlaghi (2007) By applying Palmer (1979, 1986, 1994 and 2001) Akhlaghi investigates three modal auxiliaries (must/should/have to), (to become/it is possible) and (to be able to, can) in Persian.
, has six inflectional forms: (present form), (past form), (past form), (imperfective present form), and
(imperfective past form). Regardless of the forms, it is possible to use all of them in the present, past and future tense. Following Palmer, in her studies, evidentiality is a type of epistemic modality. One of the meanings she claims we might consider for is inferential evidentiality which is ‘the result of the speaker’s inference from evident facts’ (Akhlaghi 2007: 98). In this sense, may precede the subjunctive mood (both in present and past tense) and past imperfective.
Beside epistemic, can express deontic modality. In this use, it precedes subjunctive verbs in present tense. also signifies dynamic modality. Sentence (52) shows this role:
(52) [61] = Except supposed be.PST.3SG fountain=3SG ACC blow do-3PL well Modal. PRS with electricity work do-3SG ‘Was is supposed to blow its fountain? Well, it has to work with electricity.’
The reason she considers the above sentence as a dynamic, is that ‘to work with the electricity for the fountain, which is the dropped subject, is a necessary feature or even a need; that is why the necessity in this sentence is
141 subject-oriented.’ As a dynamic, is clause-mate with present subjunctive, past imperfective and short infinitive.
Among the different forms of the verb (become) only three forms
(it is possible), (if it is possible), and (it was possible) carry modality concepts. - is the one with epistemic and deontic meaning.
Comparing to the other modal auxiliaries is less grammaticalized, and that is why it has somehow a complete paradigm.
However, two forms, and (imperfective and subjunctive forms) are full auxiliaries, for all types of subjects. Akhlaghi research shows only in indicative form this verb can express epistemic modality. In dynamic use, it might signify permission. She concludes that among two types of epistemic, judgment and evidential, Persian can expressing judgment with modal auxiliaries. Among commissive and directive, as types of deontic modality, modal auxiliaries in Persian illustrate directives. She also argues that among these three auxiliaries,
is the most grammaticalized one and is grammaticalized less than the others. , with only three forms for coding modality is in the middle of the grammaticalization cline. She offers the following figure for modal auxiliaries and their modality function in Persian:
142
necessity epistemic possibility necessity deontic modality possibility nutral necessity subject dynamic subject possibility nutral
Figure 20: and in Persian (Akhlaghi 2007: 130)
3.3.3 Rezaei (2009) Rezaei uses a compounding method, Lyons (1977), Palmer (1986), Nuyts (2001), Perkins (1983) and Matthews (1991), to study modality, tense and how they are related in Persian.
In case of the past tense, the main role of this tense, is to refer to a position before the time of speaking. It is also possible to be used in the conditional, subjunctive and deictic projection (past politeness-oriented and past future- oriented). Below I will present some of Rezaei’s analysis in his research:
One of the methods of distinguishing factivity vs counter-factivity in conditional sentences is the replacement test. In conditional sentences, the verb in past tense is possible to be replaced with present subjunctive and semantically it targets future by expressing a hypothetical status about future. Therefore, he considers past tense, in conditional sentences holding modality concept.
(53) [34] Wish 2SG military service go.PST-PTCP be.PST-2SG then = mother-1SG 1SG=ACC IPFV-give-3SG to 2SG
143
‘I wish you have done your military service, then my mother would agree we marry (would give me to you).’
The above example is an instance of counter factive in optative, using subjunctive mood. Applying past perfect (the underlined phrase) shows the speaker is committed that the predicate has not accomplished. As a type of politeness-oriented past, Rezaei provides this example:
(54) [40] ? Yesterday ACC IPFV-say-2SG? Want.PST-1SG SBJV-ask-1SG possible-be.3SG 2SG For-GEN 1SG gift send.PST-PTCP be.SBJV-2SG ‘Are you talking about yesterday? I wanted to ask if it is possible that you have sent me a gift.’
The verb ‘I wanted’ in the above example is a modal marker which by providing a mental space in the past, makes it possible for ‘I ask’ to be in the subjunctive mood.
For analyzing non-past tense and modality, he considers present indicative (in conditional, subjunctive and historical present), present subjunctive (with possibility, probability, necessity, obligation, doubt, condition, intention, optative, and ability notion). Sentence (55) is an example of ability in the present subjunctive:
(55) [85] Forgive-2PL that NEG-IPFV- Modal. PRS -1PL with each other hand SBJV-give-1PL ‘I am sorry that we cannot shake hands.’
Since in Persian they are usually verbs such as (become, it is possible), (to be able to) and (to be able to) which are responsible to mark ability as a type of dynamic modality, in the above example, the co-occurrence of (we cannot) and the following subjunctive verb together signify (dis)ability. Although I agree that applying some verbs, such as
144
(to be able to) will restrict the tense and mood of the following verb, I believe the dynamic modality notion of the above sentence is not on the second clause, rather it is on the first clause, where occur and any modality concept on this sentence is on , not the subjunctive mood. As you may have noticed, in none of the above sentences Rezaei provides an example without a modal element ( in 54 and in 55). The example in (53) also is just a wish. Although modality might be found in any types of wishes and dreams, not all wish sentences carry modality concepts.
Rezaei also studies question and types of sentences which he calls meta- tense. Meta-tense sentences are those in which ‘the tense of the sentence is something more than the mere spatial status, and there are three types: every- tense (56.a)…, generic (56.b) …and conciseness (56.c) …which is an insight of a general fact for a specific situation in the external world.” (Rezaei 2009: 102).
(56) a. Electron-PL around-GEN sun IPFV-turn-3PL ‘Electrons whirl around the sun.’
b. Human-PL creatures-GEN selfish be-3PL ‘Humans are selfish creatures.’
c. = = Every that roof=3SG more, snow=3SG more-COMP ‘The one who has a bigger roof will have more snow (a great ship must have deep water).’
Among the elements, Rezaei studies, is closer to the topic of this thesis. He considers several readings for : epistemic, deontic, optative, situational and necessity. In distinguishing these readings, the background knowledge and evidence would be useful. (57) is a type of situational , in which necessity is obliged to the proposal. The difference between this type of
and the deontic is that in situational the necessity is forced due to the situation the participant is in it:
145
(57) [128] What task do.PST-2SG that 1SG Modal.PRS = ? payoff=ACC back SBJV-give-1SG ‘What have you done that I have to pay for it?’
3.3.4 Moradi (2012) Moradi’s dissertation if not the only, is one of the first studies on modality in an Iranian language other than Persian, and that is Kurdish (Sorani dialect), the dialect spoken in Sanandaj, Iranian Kurdistan province. She uses Palmer (2001) and Kratzer (1977) approaches. Three main modal verbs in Sorani Kurdish are
(must), (it is possible) and (to be able to).
has the negative form . She argues that this auxiliary can express two types of epistemic modality: speculative possibility and deductive necessity. It also might encode obligation as a type of deontic, volition and bloumaic (for the first person) in dynamic modality.
Among different forms of , four forms of (it is possible) the third person singular inductive, (if it is possible) third-person singular subjunctive, (it was possible) the imperfective indicative form of third- person singular, and (it is was possible) the past imperfective subjunctive form of third-person singular can play in modal roles. They can express epistemic speculative possibility, deontic permission, and dynamic bloumaic.
in Kurdish, is used to express epistemic modality, speculative possibility type, deontic permission, and dynamic bloumaic and ability. Along with the above modal auxiliaries, she also studies some modal adverbs including
(maybe), (probably), (definitely), (certainly) and
(it is appropriate that). Among them, needs the following verb to be subjunctive. It has no negative form and it is a default form to signify speculative possibility. is responsible to show speculative probability.
146
It may precede verbs in the indicative or subjunctive mood. expresses epistemic and deontic modality. Moradi offers two different examples for this adverbial:
(58) a. [63] Certainly this task IPFV-do-3SG ‘(S)he will definitely do this task.’ b. [64] Necessarily this task IMPR-do-2SG ‘Definitely do this task.’
In the first example, is an assumptive necessity, while in the second it is a deontic obligation. However, I assume, unlike Moradi’s analysis, in the second sentence the adverb doesnot reveal any modality sense, rather it is there only to strengthen the sentence. On the other hand, she claims this adverb might be used with both indicative and subjunctive sentences (which is true), however, the example she presents (58.b) is imperative rather than subjunctive.
Following Taleghani (2008), Moradi studies the same series of modal main verbs in Kurdish. She also adds some verbs which they can illustrate evidentiality and they are: (to see), (to hear) and (to say). However they are not modality in nature, they can be ‘evidence for the truth of the proposition; the speaker will adduce to what (s)he has seen or said, to support the truth of the proposition’ (Moradi 2009: 112). Even though, if we might consider every element which is used to present evidences as evidential modality, then we have to consider lots of other structures and constructions as elements of evidentiality (including apparently, it seems and etc.). Evidentiality might be in the lexical item itself and it shouldn’t be the effect of the context, nor be mixed with subjectivity. Moradi summarizes modal element in Kurdish (Sorani dialect of Sanandaj) as follows:
147
Modality
propositional root
epistemic evidentiality deontic dynamic
past probability permission obligation bluamic ability necessity possibility indicative
present indicative
Figure 21: Modality and modal elements in Kurdish (Moradi 2009: 117)
3.3.5 Ilkhanipour (2013) From a different perspective, although again in Persian, Ilkhanipour studies modal adjective, following Portner (2009) and Kratzer (1977, 1981, 1991 and 2012). To Portner (2009) modality is represents in three levels: sentential, sub- sentential and discourse. Sentential modality includes modal auxiliaries, modal adverbs and tense. While modal sub-sentential are consists of modal adjectives, mood, and modal main verbs. Evidentiality, on the other hand, is a type of discourse modality. Portner (2009) classifies modality in three main types: epistemic, priority and dynamic. Priority consists of three sub-categories: deontic, bouletic and teleological; while dynamic modality has two types, either volitional or qualificational.
148
On the other hand, instead of a dichotomy among necessity and possibility, Kartzer (1991) considers multiple distinctions between necessity, weak necessity, possibility, weak possibility, a strong possibility, and a more strong possibility. Here are the examples Ilkhanipour presents for each level of possibility and necessity in Kratzer’s (1991) perspective:
Necessity: (must)
Weak necessity (with strong possibility)
Possibility: (maybe)
Weak possibility: …( it doesn’t seem that…)
Strong possibility: (possibly)
More strong possibility: (…is more probable than …)
She also shows that in Persian modality is not encoded merely through modal adverbials, modal verbs and tense. It is also possible to signify modality using modal nouns and modal adjectives. She argues that in modal compound verbs such as (to be probable) and (to be forced), it is the non-verbal element which is responsible to carry the modality notion, not the verbal element. Presenting examples such as (59). Ilkhanipour shows these non-verbal elements do not need to accompany a verbal element to mark modality, rather they can stand alone in a sentence and in nonverbal constructions and still express modality:
(59) [16-2] a. Probability-GEN outbreak this illness NEG-seen take.PST-PTCP become.PST.3SG ‘The probability of the outbreak of this illness is ignored.’ b. Condition-GEN necessity that be.3SG that patient be.SBJV-2SG ‘The necessiry condition is to be patient.’
149
Ilkhanipour (2009) considers (possible), (probable),
(probable, likely), (necessary), (essential),
(obligatory), (definite), (certain), (permitted),
(compulsory), - (exceptional),
(trustworthy),… (eatable) and etc. as modal adjectives in Persian. She classifies these adjectives into five categories: i. those which are borrowed from Arabic: (possible), (necessary), (permitted), (probable) and (essential) ii. Those which are constructed by adding the suffix –i to an Arabic noun: (Likely), (obligatory), (necessary), (certain), (sure) iii. Compound adjectives constructed with a predicate or an infinitive after (able, capable): (reliable), (admirable), (forgivable), (appreciable) and so on iv. The compound adjectives which are constructed with predicate noun + derivational suffix – (-able): (vincible), (exceptionable), etc. v. those which are the result of adding –i to an infinitive: (eatable), (breakable, fragile), (believable), etc.
I will examine and discuss against this categorization in chapter four (4.2.3). Ad interim I would restrict myself to Ilkhanipour’s findings on modal adjectives. Based on her studies, adjectives , , and (necessary, essential, obliged, definite) express necessity. She claims weak
150
necessity is not lexicalized in Persian and instead Persian speakers modify modal adjectives with some adverbs, such as (more or less) for this purpose.
Modal adjectives such as those which are compounded with the derivational suffix – (able, capable), and those which are made with - (able, capable) and also those which accept –i to change to an adjective (such as
meaning breakable, fragile) express possibility. While adjectives such as and (probable, possible) express a strong level of possibility.
Ilkhanipour also studies modal base in Persian modal adjectives as a notion which ‘determines accessible worlds for a specific world’. Two modal bases are possible: epistemic and circumstantial. Besides she also investigates ordering source in Persian modal adjectives. These sources are ‘the conversational background which based on them accessible worlds are ordered.’ And they are stereotypical, reported, doxastic, deontic, bouletic and goal- oriented sources. Modal adjectives such as (permitted),
(trustworthy) and (speakable) are examples of deontic, bouletic and goal- oriented sources, in order in her study.
3.3.6 Naghzgouye Kohan and Naghshbandi (2016) Naghzgouye Kohan and Naghshbandi also use Palmer’s (1999 and 2001) perspective to study modality in Hawrami, the dialect spoken in Paveh. Besides, they apply Lehmann’s (2002) criteria to investigate grammaticalization in the modal verbs of Hawrami. These types of auxiliaries are (must), (to be possible, to be), and (to be able to).
is the present form and is the past form of the auxiliary meaning ‘must, should and have to’. Although formally they are marked for third person singular (with Ø), since it is used for all types of subjects, we might
151 consider it as an impersonal auxiliary. One of the modality function of this auxiliary is to display deductive epistemic. Naghzgouye Kohan and Naghshbandi argue that in this dialect of Hawrami, to express speculative epistemic modality adverbial modal is used. It is also plausible demonstrates deontic modality.
, basically means ‘to be’; however in the realm of modality, the inflected form means ‘it is possible’ mostly used to illustrate speculative epistemic, deontic necessity and possibility and dynamic. In its epistemic role,
is used in negative and interrogative sentences. While in its deontic practice, it offers weaker necessity comparing to .
(to be able to, can) is predominantly used to express ability. However, it also might be applied for epistemic possibility. Naghzgouye Kohan and Naghshbandi believe In this sense, it is only the third person singular of the verb, i.e. (imperfective present) which expresses epistemic possibility. Along with dynamic ability and epistemic possibility, they show this modal verb can signify deontic necessity and deductive epistemic modality. They also argue that based on Lehmann (2002) criteria, pass the grammaticalization process slower than the other two. Since Hawrami is one of the languages of our concern, I would present examples of this dialect and the dialect which we will study in this thesis (Howraman Takht) in chapter 4.
3.6 Auxiliary verbs The auxiliary verb seems a simple and defined category; however, characteristics of the auxiliaries and varies ideas on the nature of this category in one hand, and the lack of solidarity of the Iranian linguists’ understanding of auxiliaries on the other hand, at least in this thesis we must clarify what we mean by the notion of
152
auxiliary.1 I use Heine (1993) to define what I adopt here as auxiliaries. The concept of auxiliary has always faced changes, based on different approaches. Sometimes ‘a morpheme or word class’, and sometimes ‘a syntactic category, a functionally or semantically defined entity, or with any combination of these’ might act as an auxiliary. Even in some studies, it was preferred to simply ignore this title while some imply that auxiliaries must have ‘verb-like features’; others maintain this is no necessary criteria. But what is certain is that for Heine (ibid: 5) auxiliary has to do with tense, aspect, and mood. He lists some properties of auxiliaries by which we can judge if an element is an auxiliary or not. Even though he mentions these properties are derived from Indo-European languages, he does not claim there is ‘any meaningful cross-linguistic validity beyond the few languages it rests’(ibid: 22). However, he implies a larger language sample, these attributes are in connection with the description of auxiliaries. Therefore, not all of these properties are applicable in Iranian languages; but by relying on them, we might decide why an element is considered as an auxiliary in this thesis. These properties are as follows:
a. Auxiliaries express the domain of tense, aspect, and modality; in some languages, negation and voice are included as well. b. They form a closed set of linguistic units. c. They are neither lexical not grammatical. d. They may occur as the main verb. e. They express grammatical functions but exhibit verbal morphosyntax. f. They show reduced verbal behavior. g. Semantically, they might not be the main predicate of the clause. h. They can have two free variants (will and ’ll in English). i. They hardly carry contrastive stress.
1 To read more about the auxiliaries in Persian see Davari, Shadi and Merhdad Naghzguy-e Kohan (2017). Auxiliaries in Persian: A Grammaticalization Perspective. 153
j. They tend to occur as a clitic or cliticized. k. They carry all morphological information relating to a predicate, such as marking person, number, tense/aspect/modality, negation, etc. l. They tend to carry the subject agreement. m. They are obligatory parts of finite clauses in certain languages, but this is not necessary for nonfinite or imperative clauses. n. They may not be governed by other auxiliaries, or there is a very limited number of auxiliaries which can govern the others. o. They do not have a meaning of their own. p. They tends to occur separately from the main verb. q. They may be bound to some adjacent element. r. They may not be nominalized or occur in compounds. s. They occur in a fixed order in the clause t. In languages with dominant order VSO, the auxiliary always precedes the main verb, while in languages with the dominant order SOV, an inflected auxiliary always follows the main verb. u. When the auxiliary presents in the clause, the main verb is likely to be used in a nonfinite form. v. In the presence of auxiliaries, the main verb may be associated with some locative morphology.
Some of these properties are contradictory: according to property (f), for example, auxiliaries exhibit a reduced verbal behavior; but based on the property (k), auxiliaries carry all morphological information relating to the predicate. Or clearly, property (t), taken from Greenberg (1963:67), is not applicable in Iranian languages with SOV word order. In these languages, even if the auxiliary is inflected, it precedes the main verb, it will never follow. Property (h), also, seems very language specific; mainly useful in English. But in Iranian languages, we hardly can imagine two free variants for an auxiliary; maybe two short infinitive
154
forms (can, be able) of the verb in Persian might be considered as free forms beside the inflected form of this verb. Note that these properties are to distinguish auxiliaries, not only the modal auxiliaries. Therefore, to define the auxiliaries, we might apply these features; however to find and define the modal auxiliaries in Iranian languages, we might leave those properties which are i) not compatible with Iranian languages; and ii) they are specific to auxiliaries, not modal auxiliaries. Accordingly, some of these properties which are compatible only for auxiliaries are left aside and those properties which remain, are applicable for modal auxiliaries. I use these features to define and distinguish modal auxiliaries in Iranian languages: a. Modal auxiliaries are a closed set; b. They are not completely lexical nor grammatical, however c. They show the notions related to tense, aspect, or modality. d. They have a defected inflectional system and e. Although they might act as the main verb f. Semantically they are not the main predicate of the clause. g. They do have grammatical functions, but they also carry morpho- syntactic features. h. They are encoded to person, number, tense and etc. i. They carry the subject agreement and j. Normally, no other auxiliary verb can govern them, except for a certain type of auxiliaries. k. They tend to come apart from the main verb; and l. The main verb might be in finite or nonfinite after them. I might admit that even by relying on these features, Iranian auxiliaries are far complicated to be able to easily call them ‘auxiliaries’. It seems we might see the auxiliaries in Iranian languages as a continuum with main verb (here modal main verb) in one pole and (modal)auxiliary on the other pole with some intermediate elements which can occur both as a main verb or as an auxiliary. 155
The verbs we can firmly call them ‘modal auxiliaries’ in Iranian languages are very rare; instead, you might find main semi-verb elements, with full inflectional system acting as modal auxiliaries. These types of verbs sit in the middle of this continuum ( meaning ‘can, be able’ is as such). Akhlaghi (2007:128) indicating the scalar system of modal elements in Persian, illustrates the relation between three modal auxiliaries in Persian:
(must, should, have to)
(may, being possible) the process of grammaticalization
(can, be able to)
Diagram 4: the grammaticalization of modal auxiliaries in Persian (Akhlaghi 2007:128)
The above continuum suggests that has been more grammaticalized comparing to the other auxiliaries in Persian, while the two others are in a transition phase and are used both as the main verb and auxiliary verb at the same time. Thus, in this thesis, first I determine whether an element in the marked Iranian languages are auxiliaries or not, and then I will semantically analyze them.
3.7 Grammaticalization Grammaticalization is a process in which lexical elements evolve to grammatical units and grammatical components change to more grammatical constructions (Givon 1979, Traugott and Dasher 2002, Hopper and Traugott 2003 and Velupillai 2012). Languages apply definite and limited patterns in grammaticalization. These patterns have two important features which cause the process of grammaticalization to be predictable: they are universal and unidirectional; i.e. these limited numbers of patterns in all the languages of the
156
world work the same and the process of grammaticalization is unidirectional and irreversible (Bybee 2002). Id est in this path, only the less grammatical constructions develop to more grammatical ones, and not vice versa. Heine (1993), Heine and Kuteva (2002), Traugott and Dasher (2002), Velupillai (2012) and almost all scholar who had theories on grammaticalization, consider it as a process which includes not only the changes in form but also considers the alteration in semantics and phonetics of the units. Based on this paradigm, the linguistic items with concrete meanings, change to less concrete contents (Heine and Kuteva 2007: 33) and at the end of the process, they are expected either to vanish from the language or change to units which their relation with their origin is not easily identifiable. The main goal of grammaticalization then is “to describe how grammatical forms and constructions arise and develop through space and time, and to explain why they are structured the way they are.” (ibid: 33). Heine and Kuteva (2002 and 2007) and Velupillai (2012) consider four parameters associated with the grammaticalization process: desemanticization, extension, decategorization, and erosion. Although in the first three parameters the linguistic term loses some features, it gains some other properties on its uses in new contexts (Heine and Kuteva 2007: 34-35). Each of these parameters is characterized by stages in which the languages of the world have significant differences in choosing and navigating them. Heine (1993), Heine and Kuteva (2002 and 2007) and Velupillai (2012) explain these parameters as follows:
3.7.1 Desemanticization The world around us provides us with the easiest forms to express abstract concepts. The source concepts, are concrete concepts which after entering the process of grammaticalization, they evolve to less concrete or even abstract concepts. Desemanticization consists of the following stages:
157
1. At the beginning of this stage, the subject is usually human, the verb, expresses a lexical concept and the complement is a place or an object. 2. The complement comes to express a dynamic situation. 3. The subject is no longer associated with willful/human referents, and the verb acquires a grammatical function. (Heine 1993: 54) Velupillai (2012: 388) illustrates these stages with the example in (60):
(60) [358) a. we are going to London. [movement] S = [+volitional; +mobile] b. We are going to have a party. [intention] S = [+volitional] c. The trees are going to crack in this storm. [future] S = [−volitional; −mobile] The verb in (60.a) signifies motion from one place to another. It implies that first, the subject is mobile and then this motion is volitional. In fact, the construction of the sentence requires an active verb with an animate subject. In (60.b) although the verb has lost [+movement] property, the construction of the sentence is so that the subject needs to be mobile. So, at this level, this construction is somehow desemanticized. In (60.c) there is no need for mobility in space nor the intention and the subject is not mobile anymore. Hopper and Traugott (2003) believe this does not mean the linguistic item is losing the meaning, rather it is redistributing.
3.7.2 Extension When the transformed construction or the new meaning, is used frequently in the new context, we are facing extension. Heine and Kuteva (2007: 39) consider desemanticization as “an immediate consequence of extension”, while other, including Velupillai (2012), consider the extension as the result of, or at least ‘hand in hand with’ desemanticization. Semantic changes get the item used in
158
new contexts and “allows for the context generalization” (Velupillai 2012: 390). Considering the example in (60), when in English be going to loses the semantic concept of spatial movement, it can be used in more contexts which results in the second and third use in (60 b and c).
3.7.3 Decategorization The term decategorization was first used by Hopper and Thompson (1989). Hopper (1991: 22) describes it as:
“Forms undergoing grammaticalization tend to lose or neutralize the morphological markers and syntactic privileges characteristic of the full categories Noun and Verb, and to assume attributes characteristic of secondary categories such as Adjective, Participle, Preposition, etc.”
By evolving from a lexical content to a grammatical form, the verb quickly loses its properties as a verb and the complement loses its nominal features, such as an indefinite article. These changes are the result of the following stages:
“I. The verb exhibits a fully verbal morphosyntax and the complement has a noun phrase or an adverbial phrase as its nucleus. The phrase "as its nucleus" refers to the fact that in cases where the complement is an adverbial phrase rather than a noun phrase, some adverbial morphology is involved in addition.
II. Instead of a noun, the complement nucleus consists of a nominalized/ nonfinite verb.
III. The verb loses verbal properties such as the ability to form imperatives, to be nominalized, to passivize, and it may no longer have a noun as its complement nucleus.
159
IV. The verb loses further verbal properties such as its ability to be negated separately and to occur in other positions in the clause, and the complement loses in nominal (and adverbial) properties, such as its nominalizing and/or adverbial morphology.
V. The verb loses virtually all remaining verbal properties, and the complement acquires the morphosyntax of the main verb, although it may retain some relics of a nominalizing and/or adverbial morphology” (Heine 1993: 55)
As a result of decategorization SVC (subject, verb, complement) construction changes to the target construction as S grammatical marker V (subject, grammatical marker, and verb). When the frequency of a construction increases in the adequate contexts, it loses those morpho-syntactic properties which identified it as a specific category (Velupillai 2012: 390). The ne…pas construction in French was a noun which was used for negative structures. Once the frequency of using them was extended, it has lost its nominal features. Or in English, the conjunction while develops from hwil in Old English meaning length of time. However, it is possible to see this meaning in sentences such as I stayed home for a while, as a noun, even in this application it has lost some of its normal features as a noun. As an instance, it does not have the plural form, or it does not accompany with indefinite article or quantifiers, it is not modified by adjectives and it can only serve as the object of the verb and not the subject or any other argument (Hopper and Traugott 2003: 107). In fact, although in decategorization, a word or a construction loses its phrasal properties, it gains the features of a new category.
3.7.4 Erosion When a linguistic item is generalized in various context, it faces phonetic erosion. Grammaticalization usually involves phonetic reduction or erosion.
160
Let’s get back to the example which Velupillai (2012) presented in (60). This structure is used to mark future tense and this use it has eroded to gonna. It is even plausible that this recent construction erodes more to something like gon (Velupillai 2012: 391). In the path of erosion, it is possible a phonetic section or even a complete syllable fully eliminates. Or an item might lose its suprasegmental features (like intonation or tone, as in case of full in English when it grammaticalized to –ful as a derivational suffix). To Heine (1993), erosion happens in three main levels. First, the verb (or any other construction) has a full phonetic form. Then, the phonological substance tends to erode. Finally, the verb loses its ability to carry stress or tone. Two notes worth mentioning here. First, to Heine (1993) grammaticalization is consists of four stages as desemanticization, decategorization, cliticization, and erosion. Later on his other studies (with Kuteva 2002 and 2007) he includes extension and removes cliticization. Cliticization is a process in which a verb loses its lexical status and leaves an operator on its complement which makes it possible for the complement to act as the main verb. The consequent would be for the verb to change to a morphophonological appendix on the complement, which is now the main verb. Second, grammaticalization does not necessarily include all of these parameters one after the other. The linguistic item entering this process might skip one or two parameters or pass them irregularly.
3.8 Polysemy Linguistic entries in natural languages are usually capable of transmitting more than one sense, based on the linguistic environment and the speech context they occur in. If these meanings are related, we are facing a phenomenon called polysemy. A morpheme, a lexeme, a phrase or even a sentence could be polysemous. The fact is that polysemy is the consequence of ambiguity. We might expect for the linguistic items to be polysemous when they are ambiguous
161 in a specific context, and it is usually the contexts which aid the hearer to comprehend the speaker’s intended meaning. What causes a linguistic item to be polysemous, is its ‘rich internal structure’ in the sense that “it furnishes more than one candidate sense, between which pragmatic interpretation has to choose” (Papafagou 2000: 2). Such an item usually “consists of clusters of related concepts which correspond with different contextual readings” (ibid: 2). These clusters are internally and externally related; i.e. all members of each cluster are related in one sense, and the cluster themselves are related based on a general feature. An important note is that these various meanings of a polysemous item are related to one another. But how are these meanings related? To study the types and numbers of the possible relation among different meanings of a polysemous item, here modal items, I will use Viebahn and Vetter (2016). In their perspective, different senses of each polysemous item are related as follows: Constitutive relation: holds a relation between the object and the components it is constructed of. Consider wood in English. It is used to refer to something that a tree is constituted, and also a referent for a forest or jungle where they are a collection of trees. Casual relation: holds a relation between the producer and the product. On one hand, milk refers to the liquid taken from mammals and on the other hand, it refers to the activity of taking milk from a mammal, as an action. In this type of relation, the producer is usually a verb and the product is a noun. Instantiating relation: holds a relation between the abstract types and the concrete tokens. book is an abstract and general type, and the book which is made of paper, is a concrete token. Metaphorical extension: when a linguistic item is used by physical or concrete similarity with other items, to refer to something other than what was originally used, it has used the metaphorical extension. The well-known example which Lyons (1977) provides on mouth, targets a metaphorical extension. Mouth
162
was basically used to ‘aperture in the face’. This meaning has risen to refer to other kinds of openings. Pragmatic strengthening: an expression with a given initial meaning may acquire a further meaning which is pragmatically implicated by its initial meanings. In English, since initially was related to temporal succession (61.a) while today it is also used as an element to express causality (61.b). (61) a. I have not heard from him since we last met. b. I couldn’t see him since it was so dark. Any polysemous element needs to have at least one of the above relation. Among the meanings of expression, one of the meanings is a ‘core’ or ‘initial’ meaning which other meanings are derived. This ‘core’ meaning is historically and explanatory prior. It is important to notice that expressions vary in case of context-sensitive and polysemy. An expression is sensitive to the context when it’s meaning changes due to different space, time and the participants. The pronoun ‘I’ and the adverb ‘today’ in Persian (or the same pronoun and adverb in any other languages) is context-sensitive. ‘I’ would refer to any individual and there are many days would be called ‘today’. If an expression is neither context-sensitive nor ambiguous, it would have only one meaning which is identical to its semantic value. However, if an expression is ambiguous, but not context-sensitive, it would have many meanings which each of them are identical to one semantic value. In this sense, the expression is only polysemy. On the other hand, if the expression is both ambiguous and its meaning changes based on the context, that would be both polysemy and context-sensitive. Long, as an instance, is such a case. It has both spatial and temporal meanings which their value is determined in the context. Vieban and Vetter (2016) sketch the relation between polysemy, context- sensitive and polysemy and context-sensitive as follows:
163
context-sensitive polysemy Expression Expression
Meaning Meaning 1 Meaning 2
Semantic value 1 Semantic value 2 Semantic value 3 Semantic value 2 Semantic value 1
Polysemy and context-sensitive Expression
expression 1 expression 2
Semantic value 1 semantic value 1 ….. Semantic value 1 Semantic value 2 …..
Diagram 5: polysemy, context-sensitive, polysemy and context-sensitive expressions
Viebahn and Vetter (ibid: 9) identify five criteria with which we could determine if an expression is polysemy, context-sensitive or polysemy and context-sensitive. These criteria are as follows: Linguistic intuition: the first step to determine the status of a suspicious word as a polysemy is to rely on our linguistic intuition and ask ourselves if the expression has several meanings or not? Of course, this criterion is limited; since our linguistic knowledge of all words is not the same. For instance, the adjective
‘high’ in Persian, is used not only for a high mountain, but also it does with trousers, coat, or any other piece of clothing which is big for you.
Definitely, this ‘being high’ in every following noun is not the same: what you mean by (high mountain) is different with what you have in mind with (tall/high hair); it is not even restricted to objects.
Consider ‘high sound’ or ‘high position’, where the sound is less object than a mountain or position is an abstract notion. Another restriction for this criteria is we cannot use it to distinguish between polysemy and context-sensitive expression.
164
Number of candidate semantic value: the context-sensitive expressions have more semantic expressions rather than the expressions which are only polysemy. Let’s get back to the example ‘I’ and ‘today’. Both these terms have millions of referent, and consequently semantic values, in the external world. However, by ‘book’ you only have two semantic values: an abstract notion and a concrete one which refers to an object made of paper. Therefore, if the expression owns unlimited semantic values, it is certainly context-sensitive; however, if it owns a limited number of semantic values, it is a polysemous term. This criterion meets a limitation, too. Although It is easy to detect polysemous expressions with this criterion, it is not efficient for distinguishing an expression which is both polysemous and context-sensitive, unless we use criterion (1) as a complementary. Clusters of candidate semantic values: to distinguish between the context- sensitive expressions and both context-sensitive and polysemy expressions, we must observe how these semantic values are distributed. Consider ‘long’ in English. When we classify its meanings to two temporal and spatial categories, which do not overlap, we have considered two separate clusters for it; where the internal elements are related to each other and might overlap in some cases, but not with the members of the other clusters. However, it is not possible to classify all semantic values of ‘I’ to different, clear-cut branches. The relation between semantic values: we have noticed to the relation between multiple meanings of a polysemous expression. This relation privileges the core meaning, which is explanatory and historically prior to the other meanings. We can search for such a meaning is history. A merely context- sensitive expression does not have a core meaning. Neither of the semantic values of ‘I’ is prior to the other nor is emerged from the other. Logical form: the main idea of this criteria is that some semantic values only occur in specific logical forms; while some others occur in various logical forms
165 which reveals the related item is a polysemy. Milk in English is polysemy in the sense that it has two syntactic roles (noun and verb) with a different syntactic position on the syntactic tree. In next unit, using the relations and criteria of Viebahn and Vetter (2016) I try to answer this questions: are the modal verbs in Iranian languages polysemous?
3.9 Summary In this chapter, besides the literature of review on modality in some main approaches and in Iranian studies, I introduced the theories that are supposed to be a guide for our path in analyzing the data. The main approach of this study then will be Nuyts which I have adopted the explanations, examples, and definitions, followed by his works in (2005, 2006, 2016, forthcoming), as well as Byloo and Nuyts (2014) and Nuyts and Byloo (2015). This is the main approach by which I test the hypothesis of this thesis and solve the problems. In addition to the modality and other related concepts, such as (inter)subjectivity, to discover the modal auxiliaries I have adopted Heine (1993) to have a framework by which I can identify modal auxiliaries from other elements. Grammaticalization and polysemy are the other two notions which we needed to clarify our understanding of them. To grammaticalization, Traugott and Dasher (2003), Heine (1993), Heine and Kuteva (2002, 2007) and Velupillai (2012) were adopted; while in searching polysemous modal notions, a rather more logical procedure, by Viebahn and Vetter (2016) was introduced.
166
Chapter Four Modality in Iranian Languages
4.0 Overview This chapter consists of three main sections: i) Methods of investigation, ii) modality from form to meaning, and iii) modality from meaning to form. In section (4.1) I will explain the method of data gathering; while in Section (4.2), modal expressions in the selected eleven languages will be detected. That would be organized in two sub-classes: modal auxiliaries and other modal elements, including modal adverbs, adjectives, nouns, and main verbs. While every language is investigated for their modal auxiliaries, under the name of the language, other modal expressions are not titled for each language; mainly for this reason that they are largely common between the languages of concern. Yet in some languages, they are specific modal adverbs which they will be covered in the same section, titled by the languages. Due to various elements need to be inspected and examined, this section comprises the significant amount of chapter four. Section (4.3) aims to exemplify how the modals expression will fit types of modality and if it is possible to demonstrate a semantic space which each group of modal expressions function in.
4.1 Methodology As indicated above, this section is dedicated to the research methodology of the dissertation. This will include the procedure of data collecting (4.1.1), the problems of access and shortage (4.1.2), the research strategy (4.1.3) and the research process (4.1.4).
4.1.1 Procedure of data collecting Methodologically, this research is descriptive semantic typological study. As noticed in chapter 2, to start the study, first, among the east and W-Iranian
167 languages I had to select the one with most concentrated speakers in Iran. W- Iranian languages had this feature. In the next level, among the diverse categorizations exist in Iranian languages, I selected only Rezaei Baghbidi’s (2009). His categorization suits fine for this purpose: it is a local and more recent classification, compared to other available categorizations. From each class, I have chosen one language, except some branches which were whether very wide (Central dialects cover a vast area in Iran, so Kahangi and Vafsi with a large geographical distance were chosen) or they had are geographically very close (Semnani and Gilaki in Caspian area are as such; since Semnani is mostly expected to be a Central language rather than a Caspian one. Hawrami and Kurdish are also the same: they are spoken in one province, while Hawrami is a dependent language, among some people it is considered as a type of Kurdish) which would make it worthy to search how they are different in spite of being very close neighbors.
Data has been collected through books and field works. Three forms of questionnaires, many interviews and time to time checking for more information, from two to four speakers for each language, were the means for data gathering. For each language, there were two types of informants: educated (mostly graduated, with the master or the Ph.D.) and undergraduates (high school or BA students), male or female. However, the main informants for this thesis were those with the university degrees, the others were interviewed to check for the pure and specific modal elements (especially modal adverbs, adjectives, and nouns) in their languages. The reasons for choosing the educated informants were that, first, this dissertation studies the present W-Iranian languages and its primary goal is a synchronic study rather than diachronic. Even though it is not possible to totally disregard diachronic indications when you aim to classify languages. The second reason is that although the educated informants apply more loan words in their utterances, they are perfectly aware of this
168
phenomenon, and they prompt when they face the loan words. Besides they are more aware of the grammatical expressions of their languages comparing to illiterate or uneducated speakers; that means they could be a help in the process of glossing as well.
Since if not all, most of these languages have no written sources, using only library documents was not helpful. Some of these languages are being studied here for the first time (such as Kahangi). So, a need for another method of data collecting emerged and that was questionnaires. A questionnaire with 200 situations, using many international sources was prepared. They were constructed so that the speakers had to use the target elements in their languages to respond or complete the situations orally, in an interview session. Various types of questionnaires, were used to design this questionnaire, including subject oriented cross-linguistic ones (including modal questionnaire for cross-linguistic use by Van der Klok, questionnaire on concessive conditional clause by Kong and Haspelmath, the internal structure of adverbials claused by Hengeveld, Word-order questionnaire by Siewierska, clitic questionnaire by Vos and Veselovska, tense and aspect in the language of Europe by Dahl, Leipzig questionnaire on nominalization and mixed categories), to general guides to questionnaire designing (such as A guide to data collecting to Iranian dialects, Fundamental of educational research by Anderson; projects in linguistics and language studies by Wray and Bloomer and etc). Although the main idea is the same in each context, they are culturally specific to the language being studied. Since all the informants knew Persian as their second languages, the interview was run in Persian, from the interviewer’s side, and the target languages, from the informant’s/interviewee’s. The interview was recorded and transcribed in IPA. To check the validity of the data and transcriptions, the second session was assigned within a week. In the second session the answers the informant has produced were read to him/her, and (s)he would check the accuracy of, first
169 pronunciation and then, if aware or possible, the unclear grammatical roles. Now the data were ready to be glossed. For this purpose, I applied The Leipzig Glossing Rules: Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses. Where I have faced a morpheme or expression which there was no symbol for in the above source, I used a new label (see appendix at the end of the dissertation).
To access modal expressions as much as possible, a second questionnaire, including 60 sentences to translate, containing modal expression in their languages as a supplementary questionnaire, was prepared. The sentences were mainly selected from the doctoral dissertation of Moradi (2011), Taleghani (2008), Rezaei (2009), and Ilkhanipour (2013). Here again, the utterances were transcribed and glossed with the same system as above and in the different present or online sessions.
There were yet some types of modality that I couldn’t find evidence for them through the previous data, therefore I had to make sure if there was no such type of modality in the languages I concentrate on, or there was a need for a third questionnaire, this time targeting those specific types of modality types. So, I have come up to 22 other sentences, predominantly from Nuyts (forthcoming) and Byloo and Nuyts (2014) and Nuyts and Byloo (2015). The utterances were translated to Persian and the interviewees were asked to translate into their languages if possible. They were asked to request skipping the sentences which do not sound normal to them. The result was transcribed and glossed as above.
The important note to mention here is that I have asked the speakers to use their everyday language to answer or translate the questionnaires and to avoid any artificial structure base on their intuition. Therefore, the differences between the data of this research and other resources, in the case of the same language, are due to the diversity of data types.
170
Below you see a sample for each questionnaire which was held in the first session:
Questionnaire A: Number #117
Aim: deontic modal auxiliary for possible epistemic purpose #When the light is on at Raeika’s house, it is usually a sign that she is home. You want to take a piece of the cake you have cooked with the new recipe for her. While you are walking by her house, you see that the light is on right now You can hear the television is also on. You think to yourself: … Persian: Modal home be.SBJV-3SG. ‘(s)he should/must be at home.’
Kahangi: Modal home-in be.SUBJ.3SG ‘(s)he should be at home.’
Lori: Definitely home-be.3SG ‘(s)he is definitely at home.’
Questionnaire B: Aim: Modal auxiliary for ability (dynamic modality) Number #29-30
#Sara can read. Sara cannot read. Gerashi: = Sara 3SG=can SBJV-read-3SG. ‘Sara can read.’
Sara 3SG=NEG-can SUB-read-3SG = ‘Sara cannot read.’ Questionnaire C: Aim: situational dynamic # in this desert it can snow in winter.
171
Hawrami: = In desert-DEF winter-DEF snow=too can.3SG SBJV-come.3SG ‘In this desert it can show in the winter.’
4.1.2 Access and shortage The main problem was initially the physical access of the informants. Mostly each language is spoken in one main city with suburban areas around it, including villages. Traveling to at least 10 areas to find the target informant, if not impossible, was laborious. Since Tehran is a multicultural and multilingual city, due to being a house of millions of immigrants, I have decided to choose the educated informants from universities, by announcing a request for interviews in the target languages at the universities of Tehran and Qazvin (a province near Tehran). The result was accessing to informants of Lori, Kurdish, Balochi, Hawrami, and Gerashi. Announcing the same request in the social media, ended up with finding the other informants for Semnani, Vafsi, Tati, and Gilaki. Since I am the speaker of Persian, and native-like Kahangi, the informants for them were easily accessible. Each informant was a key to accessing to other informants of the same language, mainly the undergraduate ones. Therefore, there was no need to do the trips anymore.
However, the problem of physical access was accomplished on the first step, the indirect informants, those who were introduced by the first informants, were not accessible in Tehran. Therefore I had to make some trips to Semnan, Rasht (for Gilaki) and Vafs, Takistan and Kahang.
There was yet another problem and that was the need for different interview sessions which could be very exhausting for one speaker. That results in continuing, or in some cases as Balochi, to run the interview again from the very beginning. That was the reason for raising the number of informants from one, to two, three or in some cases, the same as Balochi, and Kahangi, to four.
172
Yet, it was important to make sure the questions are appropriate according to the culture I was facing. Here again, the educated/graduated informants were a great help to modify contexts of the questionnaire for the uneducated informants.
However transcribing and glossing the data was time-consuming, I preferred to do all myself, to first unify the data and then get the first impression and general knowledge of the languages. That would accelerate the time of data gathering, from anticipated 3 months to almost a year.
4.1.3 Research strategy the strategy held with respect to this dissertation is new in Iranian languages in a twofold reason. First, the whole idea of studying an expression in Iranian languages was new, not just because it was rare in universal studies, but because in Iranian studies, the main concentration is first on Persian and if there is any study on the other language, whether they are just one language type, or they are different dialects of one language or one branch, not further. Second, introducing a new categorization on modality which has not been tested before on Iranian languages, was one of the targets of starting such a project. Among the available strategies of investigating modality in languages (see chapter 3), I have found Nuyts (2005, 2006, 2008, 2016, and forthcoming) and also Byloo and Nuyts (2014) and Nuyts and Byloo (2015) more interesting to run this thesis, due to two reason: i) the categorizations were clear with more details that would help in identifying the existence of the specific type of modality in the target language; ii) the very few studies on modality in Iranian languages (which is mostly restricted to Persian) is very familiar with Palmer (2001) or at best, Bybee et al. (1994). So, introducing a recent and a different perspective to the well- known Palmer and Bybee et al. would challenge the previous studies and would encourage the forthcoming studies to test new ideas. The notion of modality in Nuyts’ perspective has been introduced in chapter 3, Hence I confine myself just
173 to mention that from now on, in this thesis, instead of the long list above, I will use Nuyts, which refers to the same sources as indicated.
4.1.4. Research process The second section of this dissertation includes data analysis. It is started with the auxiliaries. In each language, the modal auxiliaries have been detected. So, under the name of the language, the modal auxiliaries are introduced. The fact that they are definitely auxiliaries, is supported by Heine (1993), and then for each auxiliary, both general and specific function and the attribute is presented. After knowing the auxiliary, it is time to make sure it has a role in modality realm. That would be supported by the data and analysis based on Nuyts. To discover a logic among the possible modal available in Iranian languages, their sources have been studied on a separate section. That would help to understand how these modals in the Iranian languages are connected and what are the possible sources which the modals are derived from. Then it is time to study the other modal expressions.
After categorizing the data based on the type of modal elements they include, it was revealed that unlike modal auxiliaries, other modal elements are more or less the same in all other languages, due to one linguistic and cultural feature: almost all of them are loan words from Arabic. Therefore, this time, studying them under the name of each language would end up in lots of redundancy. To avoid this, they all will be studied under one general title (the type of modal expression) and only if there are exceptions, they would be introduced under the name of the language. For each type of modal expression, examples and evidence from the languages will be provided. Finally, to sum up, our findings on the second section of this chapter, we need to have a different perspective, this time starting from meaning, to understand how these
174
expressions are functioning in a semantic realm and how we can use this information to test the hypotheses of this dissertation.
4.2 Modality: from form to meaning The aim of this section is to discover the modal expressions in Iranian languages. To achieve this goal, we start from the modal auxiliaries in each language of our concern. Before moving forward to the other modal elements, at the same part, we distinguish the sources these modal auxiliaries are developed from. This might be necessary to acquire a more understanding of the origin and the genesis of these elements. Continuing in the same chapter, we investigate other modal elements, including modal adverbs, adjectives, nouns and main verbs.
4.2.1 Modal auxiliaries Among the modal expression, available in the languages we are studying here, those envisaging below, are considered as modal auxiliaries; since they all share these features based on Heine (1993):
They are not totally lexical nor completely grammatical; Among the TAM roles, they show modality; Some of them have defected inflections; however, in case of the verbs meaning ‘to be able to’, this third feature is not so supportive, because they have almost a complete paradigm; Semantically they are not the main predicates; Some of them, carry the subject agreement; Some, and not all of them, are encoded to person, number, tense and etc; No other auxiliaries govern them; and the main verb is in the form of finite or nonfinite. There is only one exception, and that is for a clause in Kahangi, which I
will argue under the title of ti vontemon, where I discuss it is not an auxiliary but it is included here since there is no specific title for idiomatic clauses in this
175 thesis. We will continue this chapter by introducing modal auxiliaries in each language.
4. 2.1.1 Kahangi: Central languages As was mentioned in details, in chapter two, Kahangi is a language among Central languages. It is spoken in Kahang, a village near Ardestan city, Isfahan province. Split ergativity is one of the main characteristics of these languages. The auxiliaries were discovered on our corpus are as follows:
Also an idiomatic clause: ti vontemon ‘the razor cuts’.
4.2.1.1.1
This modal auxiliary has two forms: present () and past (). The main verb following it is in the form of short infinitive. Consider examples in (1)
(1) a. From this way SBJV-Modal.PRS go.SINF ‘One has to go from this way.’
b. Girl in alley aloud SBJV-NEG-Modal.PRS laugh.SINF ‘Girls should not laugh aloud at the streets.’
c. = PFV=3SG-Modal.PST go.SINF to school ‘(S)he has to go to school.’
d. = = all=1PL finally one day=1PL SBJV-Modal.PRS die.SINF ‘we all have to die at the end.’
176
= One thing=1SG SUJV- Modal.PRS eat.SINF ‘I have to eat something.’
This element carries the morpheme -. It must be noted that since the be- next to the present stem marks the subjunctive marker and - next to the past stem marks perfective; they must be considered as two different morphemes. Since Kahangi is an enclitic language, the main reason that I
as an independent morpheme, not a part of a unified word, is that this expression may host the subject clitic (1.c) or placed before the negative marker (1.b). The nature of these morphemes are also the topic of dispute: we cannot consider them as prefixes, since no prefix may host a clitic. It seems they maintain the adverbial behavior they had once in their history. In fact, this is a transition course where the expression is neither a perfect prefix nor an adverb any more (Mofidi 2016 has discussed the process of analogy in some inflectional forms in Middle to Modern Persian). That could be the reason that some elements, such as clitics and negative marker, might sit between - and the stem of the verb. To understand this claim, consider the two verbs in Persian:
and , meaning ‘to stop someone or something’ and ‘to learn, to keep, to maintain’ respectively. In formal Persian, it is possible to separate the two constituents of each verb: , : ‘can be stopped, must be learned’. This shows at least in formal Persian, the morphemes and has not fully changed to a prefix and they still have some features as adverbs. In any case, two notes are worth mentioning. First, in this thesis and in these languages, the morpheme be (and also the im/perfective markers) are not affixes. Second, marks subjunctive next to the present stem, while it marks perfective preceding the past stem. The Agent, i.e. the subject of the past transitive verb, is encoded with clitics. Clitics prefer to have a preverbal host. If there is no other preverbal expression except the morpheme be, the clitic
177 chooses this element as its host, but the stem of this auxiliary may not host the clitic (the form *= is ungrammatical).
Now let’s have a look at the examples in (1) from modality perspective. In this respect, (1.a) shows the directive use of this auxiliary; however, this is not the only reading we might expect. It also might be interpreted as participant- imposed dynamic modality, necessity type: an external necessity imposed on the participant that makes this way to the destination as the only way.
There are two possible interpretations for (1.b) as well, which the speaker’s intention plays an important role: deontic and directive. If the speaker aims to inform a moral issue, the sentence would be deontic, while if (s)he means to remind a legal obligation or a rule, that would be directive. Since in directives the speaker expects the action to be done by the addressee, in case of (1.c) which is a past form, directivity would seem inefficient. But we should not mistake ‘directives’ with ‘imperatives’. In directives the speaker reminds permission or obligation. In the case of (1.c) the participant legally had to go to the school, although (s)he did not. Sentences which are used to talk about other’s opinion or the speaker’s past thoughts and ideas cannot be performative; since they cannot cause the action to be done anymore, but they are descriptive.
Situational dynamic modality includes potentials or necessities inherent in the SoA as a whole, i.e. not related to the first-argument participant in particular. Sentence (1.d) refers to a necessity in the SoA with no specific participant. Besides, it is possible for the participant/speaker to use this auxiliary to express an inherent need (i.e).
In summary, the data above suggest besides the non-modal role of directivity, illustrate deontic (absolute moral necessity), participant- imposed dynamic (necessity type), situational dynamic (necessity) and participant-inherent (needs) dynamic modality.
178
Before leaving this part, I need to mention to the formal resemblance between this modal and a volitional main verb , mainly meaning ‘want’ in this language. Data in (2) illustrates in present, present progressive (imperfective), past progressive (also imperfective), subjunctive and present tense again, respectively:
(2) a. = Want=2PL (that) SBJV-go-2PL to walking ‘We want to go walking.’
b. = Tomorrow=2SG IPFV-want to where in go-2SG ‘Where do you want to go?’
c. = = If want.PST=2SG razor=2SG IPFV-cut.PST-3SG this money sort do-2SG ‘If you wanted, you could give me the money.’
d. = = If want=2SG be.SUBJ.NF razor=2SG IPFV-cut-3SG this money sort do-2SG ‘If you want you can give me the money.’
e. g= = must/want=1SG in darkness PRFX-sleep-1SG ,if-not head=1SG pain IPFV-get-3SG ‘I want/have to sleep in the darkness or I will have a headache.’
This verb does not have the infinitive form (which is quite normal in some Iranian languages, including Naeini). Besides, in both past and present forms, the subject is marked with clitics. The host of the clitic might be the stem of the verb (2.a, 2.c, 2.d, and 2.e) or any other preverbal element (as in 2.b). The morpheme (and its other allomorphs) represents the imperfective and precedes the stem. In some Iranian languages, verbs usually are marked for the
179 subjunctive and perfective with the morphemes be-. However, in the case of this verb, neither the past nor the present stem behaves so. Instead, the past stem itself expresses perfectivity and to mark the subjunctive, the present or past stem precedes , the short infinitive form of the main verb ‘to be’ (2.d).
At first glance, based on the standard definition of grammaticalization, it seems the main verb is grammaticalized to the modal auxiliary
, i.e. the modal auxiliary is derived from the main verb. In the same process normally one of the forms of the main verb is a candidate for this shift. The other forms are whether eliminated or will survive as the main verb. In this case, we might conclude that the modal auxiliary is probably one of the inflected (likely the subjunctive form) of the main verb. As time passed, two paths are plausible: either this form, among others, faced semantic and category changes; if so, to fill up the gap, a new form of subjunctive has been created by the language; or it was the entrance of the new form of the subjunctive which economically makes the old subjunctive form (constructed with ) as a suitable candidate for the auxiliary form. In any case, following the classical view of grammaticalization, the result is the same: the auxiliary is developed form the main verb. Even though when we consider the semantic analysis, we see the story is not so simple. Since the same situation is true in some of the other languages of our concern, I would consider this subject in section 4.2.12.
4.2.1.1.2 The best translation of this auxiliary would be ‘should’ in English. There are two forms of this modal auxiliary: and . Phonologically it seems it is the former which through two phonological processes, elision and vowel lengthening, has emerged to the latter. This expression has a negative form
() (3.d). However, since it doesn’t distinguished past and present tense, and it is not coded for person and number, neither with clitics, nor with endings,
180
we might conclude that whether it is losing its features as an auxiliary more and more and it is getting close to an adverb, or it could be a loanword from Arabic
() which is behaving the same as an auxiliary in a process of analogy. When it occurs in the clause, the main predicate is normally in a subjunctive mood, marked with the prefix in present tense and the nonfinite verb (or a short infinitive) ‘be’ which follows the past stem of the main predicate. Moreover, when the main predicate in the clause is a complex (as in 3.a) or a prefixed predicate (as in 3.c) the verb does not carry the subjunctive marker () in the present tense. Consider the examples in (3) below:
(3) a. Everybody Modal way take-3SG ‘Everybody should know.’ b. Modal home be.SBJV-3SG ‘(s)he must be at home’ c = Modal until tomorrow=3SG skin open-do-3SG ‘(s)he should peel them until tomorrow.’ d. NEG-Modal SBJV-come-3SG to here ‘(s)he should not/may not come here.’ Semantically this auxiliary illustrates a wide range of modality concepts. (3.a) exemplifies an external pressure imposed on the first-argument participant. This will classify this sentence as a participant-imposed dynamic, the necessity type. However, we should not confuse the necessity in this type of modality with the necessity in deontic which is based on morality. In this sense, necessity sits against possibility; while in deontic, moral necessity opposes moral unacceptability. This perception of necessity plays an important role in distinguishing from . Although this sentence has no deontic reading.
181
Following Palmer (2001), Bybee et al. (1994) and Vanderclock (2012), in Iranian languages, a sentence like (3.b) would be epistemic. The reason is simple: the speaker is presenting a degree of certainty or uncertainty. Here the Iranian linguists (Moradi 2012, Naghzgouye Kohan and Naghshbandi 2016, Akhlaghi 2007 and Rezaei 2009) hold another reading for this sentence: through the evidence (the lights are one) the speaker concludes (s)he must be at home. That would raise the inferential evidentiality reading. Although in some studies (Bybee et al. 1994, Palmer 2001 and Frawley 1992) epistemic and evidentiality are considered two subtypes of a type of modality, others (Dehaan 2004, AIkhenvald 2006, Nuyts 2005 and further) exclude evidentiality from the super group of modality. Whereas evidentiality is ‘the marking of the type of source for the information about the world provided in the utterance’ (Nuyts 2017: 58), the source and evidence in the context is no reason in considering this sentence as an evidential. Based on the definition of evidentiality, we expect the relation between evidence and the utterance to be straightforward, needless to the context. This is what expressions such as ‘it seems, apparently’ in English and
(as it seems) and (evidently) in Persian and some Iranian languages do. So, I do not perceive any evidentiality reading possible for this modal auxiliary (or any other auxiliaries with the same meaning in other Iranian languages).
(3.c) is either directive or deontic, based on the intention of the speaker. The participant might be morally committed to the predicate; in this case, that would be deontic; or (s)he simply had to do the predicate due to the rules or some external forces (directive). But the important point is that the degree of morality which can convey is different from . It seems refers to the intermediate level of the deontic continuum, which would be desirability or acceptability. It also affects the degree of directivity; comparing to this auxiliary expresses a weaker degree of directivity as well. In fact, in Kahangi the
182
moral necessity is expressed with the auxiliary while expresses moral desirability.
(3.d) also has the same readings as above: deontic and directive. The best translation for this sentence would be ‘it is better for her/him not to come here;’ but it seems this is a moral offer. In Kahangi in a sentence like (3.d) when (s)he aims an absolute necessity, (s)he uses an imperative sentence, not or even
.
The domain of this modal auxiliary then covers deontic (desirability and acceptability), dynamic participant-imposed, epistemic and also directivity.
4.2.1.1.3 One of the most prominent features of Kahangi is that the dynamic modal element is expressed not only with an auxiliary but with a complete clause. With all morphological or syntactic features, this clause still shows a small percentage of grammaticalization, i.e. today it has no other meaning than ‘can’. Lexically this clause means ‘somebody’s razor cuts’. If ‘someone’s razor cuts’ (s)he ‘can’ or ‘(s)he is able to’; and if not, (s)he cannot (4.b). Although all the inflectional forms of the verb ‘to cut’ is possible in this language, among all these available forms, two forms of progressive (imperfective) (6.a and 6.d) and subjunctive (4.a) are stabilized to express the modal meaning. It is also possible to use the verb of this clause without any specific marker as an alternation for both imperfective and subjunctive forms (4.a). Concerning these restricted forms for a specific semantic purpose and also considering the recent form of the verb in this clause, one can conclude this clause is still on the process of grammaticalization from a total clause to a modal auxiliary verb and/or further to an adverb and an affix; the fate which all lexical elements in the grammaticalization process are likely to meet. This clause may also encode the past tense by adding the past marker –t to the stem of the verb: von-t.
183
(4) a. = If razor=3SG cut-3SG/SBJV-cut-3SG help IPFV-do-3SG ‘If he/she can he/she will help you.’
b. = Mahla razor=3SG NEG-cut-3SG skin open-do-3SG ‘Mahla cannot peel (them).’
The question might come to mind is whether we should consider this clause simply as an idiomatized clause or a modal verb? I might provide some reasoning as a support for the latter. The first reason is the very defective paradigm of the predicate of the clause: only the present and past form and also the imperfective and subjunctive forms are plausible. Second, the main clause, which embeds this clause, semantically obliges a verb as the main predicate; in fact as in case of other auxiliary verbs, this clause, too, cannot act as the main predicate of the main clause and it needs a complement clause. This is what the other verbs meaning ‘can’ in other Iranian languages do. On the other hand, if this clause is going to be substituted with any other element, as indicated above, that would be whether a verb, an adverb or an auxiliary. Consider sentences in Persian:
(5) Persian: a. 1SG IPFV-Modal.PRS-1SG from this mountain up SBJV-go-1SG ‘I can climb this mountain.’
b. 1SG Modal.PRS from this mountain up SBJV-go-1SG ‘I have to/must climb this mountain.’ c. 1SG IPFV-want-1SG from this mountain up SBJV-go-1SG ‘I want to climb this mountain.’
184
d. 1SG maybe from this mountain up SBJV-go-1SG ‘Maybe I climb this mountain.’
e. 1SG probably from this mountain up SBJV-go-1SG ‘Maybe I climb this mountain.’
In Iranian languages, some verb, including those meaning ‘to want’, as in in Persian, can have two forms of complements: nominal and clausal. That is why they are suitable candidates to substitute our clause. The lexical verbs following this auxiliary, as the main predicates, are allowed to have different range of forms, from indicative and subjunctive to imperfective. To study the semantic features of this clause, consider sentences in (6): (6) a. = = brother=1SG razer=3SG IPFV-cut-3SG this stone up-take-3SG ‘My brother can lift this stone.’ b. = Razer=3SG IPFV-cut-3SG ride become.3SG ‘(S)he can get on (the roller coaster).’ (6.a) is a participant-inherent dynamic, as the notion of ‘being able’ is related to the internal and potential ability of the first argument participant. Besides, (6.b) can be used to give permission. There is still another type of modality possible for this sentence and that is participant-imposed dynamic: When the external conditions are so that makes action possible for the participant.
The above clause in Kahangi then is used to express dynamic participant- inherent modality (ability), participant-imposed (possibility) and directive.
185
4.2.1.1.4 ((person marker) There are two possibilities on the nature of this auxiliary: one, this is a form of the verb ‘to go, to become’; or this is a form of ‘to be appropriate, be able to’. In comparison with languages like Naeini and Vafsi (which are both in the same class along with Kahangi: the Central dialects), where there is a relation between the verbs meaning ‘to be able to’ and ‘to go’, one might prefer the first hypothesis. In Naeini the verbs meaning ‘to go’ and ‘to be able’ have the same inflectional paradigm:- in (7.a) means can and in
(7.b) means go, they have the same imperfective marker () and the same subject endings (-id). The only way to distinguish them is the form of the main verb following them; i.e. if the following verb is a short infinitive, that would be an auxiliary, meaning ‘can, to be able’ (7.a); otherwise, that would be the verb ‘to go’ (7.b).
(7) a. If IPFV-Modal-2PL IPFV-do.SIN, SBJV-buy-2PL ‘If you can, buy (it).’
If IPFV-go-2PL, SBJV-buy-2PL ‘If you go, buy (it).’
Although there is no evidence in Kahangi to support the second hypothesis, we shouldn’t neglect the fact that in many Iranian languages (including Gerashi in Fars province and Zoroastrianism in Yazd), a form of the verb develops to an auxiliary meaning ‘to be able to, can’. (8.a) is an example of Parthian and (8.b) shows this verb in middle Persian:
(8) a. ǰud až man kē buz hēm, yaštan nē šahēd keč. ‘Except I, who am a goat, no one is able to/can to glorify. (Mansouri, 2005: 396)
b. ud ēdōn tang [Ī] rāy har(w) kas ēstišn būdan nē šayēd. ‘Hell is so tight that due to the tightness, no one is able to/can stay.’ (Mansouri 2005: 399)
186
In fact, conveying ‘ability’ from this root is verified not only diachronically (8.a and 8.b) but also synchronically. Notice that ‘to go’ is intransitive but ‘to be able to’ is a transitive verb. In split ergative languages, the agent of the past transitive verb is marked with clitics. This auxiliary also has the same feature: the agent can be marked with endings in the present tense, and with clitics in past tense. Since this auxiliary is revealing a transitive attribute, it seems this hypothesis is also plausible.
Nevertheless, approving any of these hypothesis needs a comprehensive study and it does not affect the nature of this auxiliary, at least semantically.
Thus, there are two elements to express ability in Kahangi; one the modal clause ti-vontemon and the other (be)--(person marker). Consider the examples below:
(9) a. = 2PL SBJV-Modal.PRS-2PL buy-2PL ‘You can/are able to buy.’ b. = ? Here prefix-Modal.PRS-1SG sit.SINF ‘Can I sit here?’ c. = ? This SBJV-Modal.PRS-1SG eat.SINF ‘Can I eat it?’ d. = =- If want.PST=3SG, PFT=3SG-Modal.PST eat.SINF ‘If (s)he wanted, (s)he could eat.’ Sentences in (9) illustrate this expression as a modal auxiliary. A note needs to be marked is that this is auxiliary occurs in the second position between subjunctive morpheme (9.a and c), imperfective marker (9.d) and derivational morpheme (9.b) on one hand and the stem of the verb on the other hand. Here it seems this verb is acting as a clitic itself (?). As marked above, in the present tense the subject/agent is marked with the subject endings. The main verb after
187 this auxiliary is either a normal verb with the subject marker (9.a) or a short infinitive (9.b) and c). In past tense, the subject clitic sits anywhere before the stem of the verb (9.d) and the main verb has only one form and that is the short infinitive. As a modal auxiliary, its subject/agent can be marked with person markers, in the present tense, and with clitics with past tense. Economically, languages forbid two elements with the same semantic roles; therefore we might expect some differences between the modal meanings of these items. It seems this auxiliary express those dimensions of modality which the modal clause ti- vontemon is not able to express. As was indicated before, the modal clause is not used to express permission. Instead, it is this modal auxiliary which fills this gap. (9.b and c) show permission with this auxiliary. There is only one difference between this auxiliary in (9.b) and (9.c); and that is in (9.b) a derivational morpheme hosts this verb while in (9.c) this a the subjunctive morpheme which hosts it.
There are two possible readings for (9.a). In one, the speaker permits the participant to ‘purchase’. Here it is a directive. Another reading is yet possible, which I aimed in the questionnaire, and that is an external condition which makes the situation suitable for the participant to perform the action. That is the dynamic participant-imposed modality (possible).
(9.d) too, has different readings; one is a directive: the participant was permitted to perform the action. The other is the ability in participant-inherent; where the speaker had the internal ability to perform the predicate. If we change the main verb of the clause to something more concrete, like the verb ‘to read’
=, = we might understand this role easier ( ). 푖푓 푤푎푛푡=3푆퐺,푆푈퐵퐽푉=3푆퐺−푀표푑푎푙.푃푆푇 푟푒푎푑
In our data, this modal auxiliary can express directivity, participant- inherent dynamic modality (ability) and participant-imposed dynamic modality (possibility). You might have noticed that neither of these two expressions with
188
the meaning ‘can and be able to’ are able to express situational dynamic modality, which in some Iranian languages is expressed with elements with the same element.
4.2.1.1.5 Comparing with Persian, we might expect the verbs initially meaning ‘to become’, i.e. in Persian, also carry the modality function to mean ‘it is possible’. However, in most Iranian languages, it is the verbs meaning ‘to be’ which carry this role. Kahangi is one of them: meaning ‘to become’ has no modality role. Although, in some cases, there is an alternation between
‘to be’ and ‘to become’ (10.c). Consider the sentences below.
(10) a. Kind become.PST-2SG ‘You have become kind.’
b. Ø. food ready become.PST-3SG ‘The food is ready.’
c. Tired PFV-be-1SG/become.PST-1SG ‘I have become tired.’
What is related to the topic of this thesis, is the application of the verb
, meaning ‘to be’, and not which is semantically close to ‘to become’. has three forms as modal auxiliaries: (subjunctive),
(present) and (past form). Sentences in (11) offer this auxiliary in contexts:
(11) a. Modal.PRS3SG ride SBJV-become-3SG ‘It is possible for him/her to get on (the roller coaster).’ b. = Modal.PRS.3SG that 1SG=too one day car have ?/ be.SBJV-1SG ‘Would it be possible/it would be possible that I have a car one day?/.’
189
c. = This=too SBJV-Modal.PRS.3SG tree plant.SINF ‘It is possible to plant trees here.’ d. = NEG- Modal.PRS.3SG without-GEN reason out=3SG do-3PL ‘It is not possible to fire him/her without a reason.’
, as a modal auxiliary, has different readings, from dynamic modality to directivity. Sentence (11.a) is either directive or participant-imposed modality. As a directive, this sentence is used to permit the participant to not to do the predicate. (11.b) offers an epistemic reading in Palmer (2001) and Bybee et al. (1994). Moradi (2012) considers these types of sentences as epistemic because “the impossible wishes are uncertain affairs; when the speaker considers an event as an impossible wish, which (s)he knows it is not going to happen, this knowledge reflects epistemic modality” (ibid: 96). Epistemic modality is ‘the assessment of the degree of likelihood of the SoA’ (Nuyts and Byloo 2015: 48). The analysis of (11.b) as an interrogative is difficult and takes a lot of care. Therefore, to find the type of modality in this sentence, we can change it to the affirmative form, just by shifting the intonation from interrogative to indicative. In this case ‘expressing a wish or desire’ will change to ‘expressing a degree of possibility’: It is possible for me to have a car once. But ‘possibility’ is not specific to epistemic modality; if this is the external conditions which provide such a possibility, then we have to maintain a dynamic participant-imposed modality. By changing this sentence to an interrogative form, which would change to an expression of desire, then dynamic situational would seem to be the most likely one; where the speaker wishes such a condition would be in the SoA.
In (11.c) is an instance of situational dynamic modality (potentiality); since it is a potential inherent in the SoA expressed in the utterance. In this type of dynamic modality there is normally no first argument participant or if it is, it is inanimate. In other processes, this sentence is a type of dynamic as well.
190
Not like the affirmative form of this auxiliary which is restricted to different types of dynamic modality, in negative form, this expression can express deontic modality, undesirable and unacceptable form. (11.d) is an example of this type, where doing the predicate of the utterance seems morally unacceptable. However, besides this reading, it is also possible to consider it as a directive. Presuming the moral acceptance of this sentence, in a positive pole, seems queer: it is morally acceptable to make an excuse and fire him! This will cause a reference to external conditions which is far from deontic modality.
In summary, this auxiliary in Kahangi would convey participant-imposed (possibility type), situational dynamic (potentiality), deontic (unacceptability and undesirability) and also the non-modal function of the directive.
4.2.1.2 Vafsi: Central languages As a language in the category of Central languages, Vafsi also is split ergative, with different case marking and agent markers (clitics) for the transitive past verbs. The modal auxiliaries we cover here are:
Must (present and past) Can To be possible
4.2.1.2.1
re what we might translate ‘must/have to/should’. is the present and is the past form. is the imperfective marker in this language; - the present stem and the past stem. Since is still productive in this language, hence I consider this modal constructed of two morphemes: imperfective marker+stem. The negative marker is prefixed to this modal, before the imperfective marker (12.a). To study the modal
consider the sentences below:
191
(12) a. Girl NEG-IPFV-Modal.PRS street-in aloud SBJV-laugh-3SG ‘Girls should not/must not laugh at the streets.’ b. = Now IPFV-Modal.PRS work=3SG finish become.PST- PTCP be.SBJV-3SG ‘(s)he must have finished his/her task until now.’ c. Tomorrow if weather cold become.SBJV-3SG IPFV-Modal.PRS = cloth-GEN warm-COMP-INDF body=1SG IPFV-do-1SG ‘If the weather will be cold tomorrow, I have to wear something warmer.’ d. IPFV-Modal.PRS this now in one thing SBJV-eat-1SG, if-no IPFV-die-1SG ‘I have to eat something now or I will die.’ e. All of us finally IPFV-Modal.PRS one day SBJV-die-1PL ‘We all finally have to die one day.’
normally expresses deontic and directive, as in (12.a). If in a country, it is forbidden legally for a girl to laugh aloud at the streets, this sentence is a directive; however, if it is morally unaccepted, we might consider it as a deontic. Whatever this sentence reads. Even though, these are not the only functions which has. In (12.b) speaker estimates the SoA using this modal. This is the definition of epistemic. Another role for this modal is the necessity in participant-imposed dynamic. As (12.c) suggests when the external situation forces the first-argument participant to do an action, we must consider it as a dynamic modality.
192
(12.d) illustrates an internal need for the first-argument participate. In fact, dynamic modality is not restricted to ability, but it also includes the first argument the participant’s need. Besides, it is possible to use this modal to express necessity in situational dynamic modality, in a sentence like “we all have to die one day”, as a default form of this type of modality in the present thesis (12.e).
To conclude is Vafsi expresses deontic (moral necessity or acceptability), dynamic participant-imposed (necessity), situational dynamic (necessity) and epistemic (probability). In addition to modality, it also can express directive.
As in Kahangi, in Vafsi also, the stem of this modal verb is the same as the present and past stem of the verb ‘to want’. The imperfective aspect of this volitional verb is and for present and past in sequence. The main difference between the volitional verb and the modal verb is that the former is marked for the subject and it happens by adding the subject enclitic (13.a and 13.b), while the latter has only one form: it is impersonal. The subjunctive marker, , states before the stem of the volitional verb, however, the agent clitic sits between the subjunctive marker and the stem (13.c). Again, according to the classical perspective of grammaticalization, there is a relation between the imperfective form of this volitional verb and the modal auxiliary verb, as in Kahangi. In the of intersubjectification perspective, volition is a notion which can be the product of the modal meanings and it is not possible to develop a modal meaning from a volition. Since both grammaticalization and intersubjectification are unidirectional processes, it is clear that we are facing a paradox here. This problem is not specific to Kahangi and Vafsi, but it has been observed in some other Iranian languages. Therefore I will postpone the solution to this paradox to 4.2.12. Sentences in (13) feature the volitional verb in present, past and present subjunctive:
193
(13) a. 1SG to kindness-GEN 2PL.OBL to what that = 1SG=IPFV-want IPFV-arrive-1SG ‘I will achieve what I want with your help.’ b.= = = Heart=3SG 3SG=IPFV-want.PST help=3SG IPFV-do.PST ‘If (s)he wanted, (s)he would help.’ c. = = Boy-OBL.M every work-INDF heart=3SG SBJV=3SG-want IPFV-can SBJV-see.3SG ‘Boys can do whatever they want.’
4.2.1.2.2
The modal ‘can’ in Vafsi, has different inflection. For present tense this modal has only one form for singular and plural subject: So, we might call it impersonal for in this tense. In past tense though, the situation is more complicated. The past stem is –- which is prefixed by the perfective marker
and suffixed by the person and number subject markers (: I could). In past continuous or, let’s call it an imperfective form of the past, the form
acts as an impersonal form of the modal, where is an allomorph of the imperfective marker - in this language. There is still another form of this modal and that is the subjunctive form. This is constructed by adding the subjunctive marker to the stem, where this time, against the perfective form, the constructed form , is impersonal (see table 37).
An interesting point in the case of this modal, is the formal resemblance between this modal and the main verb ‘to go’. The present stem of this verb is –- and the past stem is –-. In Iranian language (as in Naeini in Central dialects), it is possible to find a relation between the verb ‘to go’ and ‘can’ (see 4.2.1.1.4). But what is specific to Vafsi, is that there are two separate infinitives for ‘can’ and ‘go’, however, they are whether developed from the
194
same source, or they have the linear relation with each other in the sense of grammaticalization. One way to justify this difference between the form
‘can’ and ‘go’ is that whether one of them is evolved from the present stem and the other from the past form of a hypothetical verb which was the source of both. Or, following the grammaticalization perspective, is developed from
, but it selects –- as a stem for inflectional form. In any case, these two verbs are so formally related that we cannot simply ignore it. Compare different inflections for these verbs in table (37):
Table 37: ‘go’ and ‘can’ in Vafsi
I am going I can You are going You can present continuous She/he is going She/he can I went I could You went You could Simple past She/he went She/he could I was going I was able You were going You were able Past continuous She/he was going She/he was able I would/will go I would be able You would/will go You would be able Present Subjunctive She/he would/will She/he would be go able
Table 37 indicates except in the case of the past form, the verb ‘can’ is impersonal. In modality perspective, this modal expresses dynamic and deontic modality, besides directivity.
(14) a. This exam-in NEG-IPFV-Modal.PRS book look do-2SG ‘In this exam, you cannot open a book.’
b. IPFV-Modal.PRS this money for 1SG.OBL for collect do-2SG ‘Can you/You can give me this money?/.’
195
c. = This answer=too IPFV-Modal.PRS right SBJV-be.3SG ‘This answer can be true too.’
d. = NEG-Modal.PRS without-GEN reason out=3SG do-1PL ‘We cannot fire him/her without any reason.’
(14.a) shows this modal in directive function. Here the speaker prohibits the addressee to use a book for the exam. It is also possible to read it as a deontic modality, where morally it is unaccepted to use a book in the exam.
In (14.b) this modal acts as what we expect as a default function of words meaning ‘can’, and that is a dynamic modality. Two types of dynamic reading are possible for this sentence, one participant-inherent (ability) and the other participant-imposed (possibility). On one hand, the speaker believes the addressee has the inherent ability to perform the action; while on the other hand, the addressee is able to do the action because the external situation is suitable for it.
Referring to the example given by Nuyts for potential situational dynamic modality (in this desert it can snow in the winter), (14.c) can be considered as a type of dynamic situation. Since in his definition, the ability is not restricted to the participants, but it can be inherited in the SoA.
Finally, (14.d) alludes to a moral situation where the negative structure of the sentence places it at the negative pole of the deontic continuum. When the speaker refers to a legal situation, Palmer (2001) considers such an utterance as deontic; while if the speaker means the hearer is not allowed to perform the action, in Bybee et al. (1994) it is a speaker-oriented sentence. It seems in these approaches, there is no place for the situation where the participant is not able to do the action, not because (s)he doesn’t have the ability but because (s)he is not morally permitted.
196
The above data illustrates in Vafsi can express deontic, participant- inherent dynamic modality (ability), participant-imposed (possibility) and dynamic situation (potentiality). Beside these modal meaning, it is also possible to apply this sentence for permission.
4.2.1.2.3
is the infinitive form meaning ‘to be, to become’. The same as most Iranian languages, not all forms of this verb has modal meanings, but only three forms can express modality:
‘may/it is possible’ ‘might/it was possible’ ‘may/it will be possible’
and are the present and past form of the verb in sequence; while is the subjunctive form. To construct the negative form, the negative morpheme states before , the imperfective marker:
(15) a. IPFV-Modal.PRS NEG-go-3SG ‘Is it/it is possible that she doesn’t go?.’ b. = NEG-IPFV-Modal.PRS Sara alone SBJV-go-3SG aunt=3SG home ‘It is not possible that Sara goes alone to her aunt’s house.’ c. = NEG-IPFV-Modal.PRS.3SG alone this task=3SG PFV-do.PST.PTCP be.SBJV-3SG ‘It is not possible that (s)he has done this.’
According to the lexical meaning of this auxiliary, in the studies related to Iranian languages (Moradi 2012, Naghzgouye Kohan and Naghshbandi 2016), the first role is epistemic. Moradi (2012) assigns two modality function in Kurdish for this modal: deontic and dynamic. Akhlaghi (2007) also has the same
197 idea in studying this modal in Persian; however, in Hawrami, Naghzgouye Kohan and Naghshbandi (2016) restrict the function of this modal to epistemic and deontic.
Based on the data I have gathered for this language, there is no evidence that indicates the role of epistemic modality for this item. In (15.a) the speaker uses this modal to give permission, in that case, we must consider it as a directive. Actually, the speaker in this sentence does not estimate a situation in the word, based on what the epistemic modality suggests, but it merely states that according to the states of affairs, the addressee is allowed to go. If the reader feels a sense of possibility and probability in the sentence, it is due to the participant-imposed dynamic modality, a possibility type in this case: the external conditions are in such a way that it is possible for the participant to (no to) do the predicate.
(15.b) also in one hand, is an example of the directive: Sarah is not allowed to go. On the other hand, it is possible to consider moral conditions in which Sara morally cannot do the predicate, a situation which makes a deontic reading (unacceptable degree) possible for this sentence. In (15.c) the modal element refers to a possibility which is not available in the SoA as a whole. This makes it potentiality in a dynamic situation.
In this language, this modal can express deontic modality, participant- imposed dynamic (possibility) and dynamic situation (potentiality).
4.2.1.3 Tati (Takestan dialect): North-west languages Tati, a language in the North-west branch of Iranian languages, is split ergative with different case and agreement marking system for the agent. It also distinguishes gender, a feature which is not quite normal among modern Iranian languages. These modal auxiliaries were discovered in our corpus:
198
4.2.1.3.1 Tati uses two forms with two pronunciations meaning ‘must, have to, should’ as one of the main modals in this language. This modal includes two morphemes:
-, the imperfective marker and –- the present () the past stem. The negative marker is ne- which sits between these two morphemes. The suffix is the past marker which changes the present stem to the past. Sentences in (16) show how this modal auxiliary can express different types of modality:
(16) a. = These emergency-GEN number=3PL everybody Modal.PRS learn become-3SG ‘These are necessary numbers that everybody must know.’ b. 2SG 1SG.OBL father be.2SG Modal.PRS this matter in idea give.SBJV-2SG ‘You are my father, you must give your idea on this.’ c. Cat-F IPFV-NEG-Modal.PRS home in be-3SG.F ‘(The) Cat should not/must not be at home.’ d. After from lunch Modal.PRS sleep-1SG to headache NEG-take-1SG ‘I have to sleep after lunch of I will have a headache.’
We might suppose a situation for (16.a) in which ‘knowing the necessary/emergency numbers’, such as for the police and fire station, is a piece of advice from the speaker. Any type of advice does not have the value of modality but it is a directive. On the other hand, based on the external force
199 which obliges the participant, it also may have the participant-imposed dynamic meaning (necessary).
(16.b) also has the same analysis as (16.a). However, the first part of the sentence, ‘you are my father’, offers a moral reason for the participant to ‘give his opinion’. The necessity which is absolutely moral and by referring to this reason, the speaker reminds the moral duty of the participant; a reading which states this sentence as a deontic.
For (16.c) three situation are imaginable: one, it can be assumed that the cat should not be at home, in accordance with the rules imposed by any kind of authority, for example, the owners of the house or the parents. In that case, this sentence is certainly a directive. On the other hand, one can imagine a situation in which the speaker believes since a cat is an animal, based on the animal’s right, one should not keep it in a house. In this sense, it is a deontic (desirable) modality. However, the related context in the questionnaire for this sentence was that ‘Jiyar has lost his cat and he is looking for it; he has been searching every ins and outs of the house’, accordingly he concludes that ‘the cat might not/must not be at home then!’. In this context, since there is no real participant, and this is the lack of potentiality in the SoA, this can be a dynamic situation. Another context in the questionnaire ended up with the same sentence: epistemic reading is also plausible for the same context; where the speaker with a high degree of certainty (but not absolutely certain) guesses that the cat is not at home (16.d) due to the internal need of the participant, it is participant-inherent dynamic (need) modality.
So this modal expresses deontic, participant-imposed dynamic (necessity), participant-inherent dynamic (need), and dynamic situation (necessity) and epistemic possibility.
200
The same as Kahangi and Vafsi, in this language, too, there is a formal resemblance between this modal and the volitional verb , ‘to want’. This verb is inflected by - as the imperfective morpheme to make
.. The same paradox as above occurs as well here. Examples in (17) show how this verb works:
(17) a. = Tomorrow want SBJV-go-1SG grandmother=1SG home ‘Tomorrow I want to/have to go to my grandmother’s house.’ b. They IPFV-want SBJV-go-3PL ‘They want to go.’ c. = = Sister=1SG IPFV-want=3SG one number house pref-get-3SG.F ‘My sister wants to buy a house.’ d. You if SBJV-want-2SG IPFV-can-2SG this money-OBL assort-OBL do-2SG ‘If you want, you can give me this money.’
Another point is worth mentioning here. First, in the present tense, and in the indicative mood, when the verb of the first clause is the volitional verb, the subject is marked on the predicate of the clausal complement (17.b). Second, it is possible to mark the agent with clitics on the verb (17.c); however, in the subjunctive (17.c), the subject is marked not with the clitics but with the subject markers. These sentences show there is an overlap between the modal meaning of the auxiliary and the volitional meaning of the imperfective form of the main verb. Semantic and morphological alternations in these two forms show the language change. In two previous languages, as well, it was possible that the speaker uses the volitional verb where the modal was expected, but in this
201 language, it is more frequent since the volitional verb here has a defective inflectional system.
4.2.1.3.2
Completely against which is an impersonal modal, for any type of gender, ‘be able to, can’ the same as other Iranian languages, has an almost complete paradigm. The subjunctive is marked with - and imperfective with on this modal. The negative prefix sits between the mentioned morphemes and the stem. As in other languages, here the main role of this modal is dynamic. Consider the sentences below:
(18) a. = brother=1SG IPFV-Modal.PRS-3SG this.M up do-3SG ‘My brother can lift this.’ b. IPFV-Modal.PRS-1SG Pref-NEG-sit-2SG ‘You cannot ride.’ (It is possible for you not to ride.’ c. IPFV-NEG-Modal.PRS-2SG SBJV-go-2SG, 2SG Modal.PRS 1SG.OBL Help do-2SG ‘You cannot go, you must help me.’ d. IPFV-NEG-Modal.PRS-1SG without permission SBJV-go-1SG her room ‘We cannot enter her room without permission.’
The first reading that comes to mind for (18.a) is that my brother is facing a heavy object, as marked in the questionnaire ‘a stone’, but he has the physical ability to move it. Thus in this sense, it is participant-inherent dynamic, the ability type. On the other hand, it is possible that the external conditions are in such a way that makes my brother able to do it; here we are maintaining a possibility in participant-imposed dynamic modality. There is yet another
202
possible reading and that is where my brother is permitted to move the stone; a reading which makes this sentence as a directive.
The context in which (18.b) was produced is that ‘Jiyar is in the amusement park with some friends. Everybody is going to the roller coaster ride, but Jiyar fears the roller coaster. His friends offer him ‘you can choose not to come (the exact expression in Iranian languages is ‘you can not come, as a meaning for you are allowed not to come.’). Though in a neutral context this sentence might be a directive (since he is allowed to not to ride the roller coaster), in the mentioned context, it is a participant-imposed dynamic modality, possibility type; since that is the fear of the roller coaster which imposed Jiyar to resist riding it. In the other procedures of this thesis, this sentence is for giving permission.
(18.c), relying on the second part of the sentence, ‘you cannot’ is directive: the participant is now allowed to go, because (s)he has to help the speaker. But if we ignore the second part of the sentence, and just analyze ‘’, it can have participant-inherent (ability) and participant- imposed (possibility) reading as well. is the first argument participant is not physically able to go, for example (s)he is disabled, it is a participant-inherent dynamic modality; however if the external conditions are in such a way that makes the predicate impossible for the participant (the streets are closed for constructions, the related person is not at home and so on), this sentence would be a participant-imposed dynamic modality.
Even though Palmer (2001) and Bybee et al. (1994), consider (18.d) as a type of ability, to Nuyts this sentence refers to a moral condition. That makes it desirability which is a type of deontic modality.
It is also possible to express a dynamic situation (potentiality) with this modal ( ‘in this desert, it
203 can snow in winter’). That would raise the realm of to different types of dynamic modality (ability in participant-inherent, possibility in participant- imposed and potentiality in the dynamic situation), deontic (the middle of the continuum), and also directive.
4.2.1.3.3
This verb equates ‘’ in Persian (to become). The same as
‘’ (to become) in Persian, which some specific forms of the verb act as a modal auxiliary, three forms of this verb might be considered as modals:
it is possible (it is becoming) it would be possible (it would/will become) it was possible (it became)
The verb which exactly equates ‘become’ in Persian is , as both an inchoative verb and an auxiliary (in structures like past perfect). Such a relation between ‘’ and ‘’ is not unexpected; since there are various semantic similarities between these two. First, both of them are inchoative. Then, they both show a change of state. Moreover, in written Persian, it is possible to use ‘’ the Persian form for ‘’ instead of , in verbs as:
‘ ’ instead of ‘’ (it has been tried). On the other hand, it is normal in Iranian languages to leave those modality roles which are normally are expressed with to other verbs. In many of the Iranian languages it is the verb meaning ‘to be’ which expresses the mentioned roles. Considering examples in (19), let’s see what type of modality expresses:
(19) a. IPFV-Modal.PST.3SG 3SG.M.OBL save give.SBJV-2SG ‘It was possible to save him.’ b. IPV-Modal.PST.3SG here in sit-1SG ‘Is it possible that I sit here?’
204
c. = IPFV-NEG-Modal.PRS-3SG this work=3SG PFV-do.PST-PTCP be.SBJV.3SG ‘It is not possible that she has done it.’ d. IPFV-NEG-Modal.PRS-3SG without permission SBJV-go-1PL = room=3SG in ‘It is not possible for us to go to her/his room without permission.’
The prevailing role of this verb as a modal expression is epistemic and deontic. The data gathered here confirms the first, but not the last; not because they were not able to distinguish the modality expressed by these modals, but due to that fact that they use different approaches to analyze these types of sentences. Moradi (2012) uses Palmer (2001), and that is why for her, in Kurdish though, (19.b) is deontic, while for us, it is not a modality but a directive.
At the first glance the reader might incline to consider (19.a) as an epistemic, since it is referring to an undone possibility in the past; however, since this is referring to the external condition which makes it possible to perform the predicate, it must be read as a participant-imposed dynamic. In the other approaches (such as Palmer 2001) the past form of this modal has only the epistemic meaning. There is yet another possible reading and that is situation dynamic, a potential in the SoA which provides the suitable situation for performing the predicate. In fact, in most cases it is difficult to distinguish between situation dynamic or participant imposed and ‘it depends on the extent to which the participant still has control over the situation’ (Van Linden 2012: 53). However, the fact that the subject is not clearly marked, as in the case of ‘it’ in English or in the case of this sentence PRO, might affect the type of reading we have for the sentence. If we translate it as ‘for him, it was possible to be saved’, the dynamic situation reading would be more plausible; however if we translate it as ‘it was possible for you to save him/her’, since there is a subject
205 and the feeling that the situation has been under the control of subject, the participant-imposed dynamic reading would raise.
There is yet another evidence that supports the idea that this modal is able to express the dynamic situation. Sentence (19.c) illustrates a potentiality in the SoA, when it is not such a potential available, performing the predicate would not be possible.
Finally, the deontic, in the middle of the continuum is another role of this modal, as (19.d) shows; where doing the predicate is not morally acceptable.
To conclude, this modal can express deontic, participant-imposed dynamic (possibility type), and dynamic situation (potentiality) and also directive reading.
4.2.1.4 Semnani: Caspian Sea area A language which really suits to sit under the title of Central languages, but is categorized with Caspian languages, is Semnani. It is a split ergative language, distinguishes gender and the adjective precedes the verb. These modal auxiliaries were found in the corpus of our data:
Must (present and past) can To be possible
4.2.1.4.1 Relying on the features Heine (1993) introduces, it is certainly possible to consider , ‘must, have to, should’ as a modal auxiliary. is the imperfective marker and the present stem and the past stem. The negative marker places between and the stem. One of the main roles of
in the semantic fields is the directive. (20.a) reveals such a role. In
206
the related context, the speaker was asked to give the address of the main hospital in the city. That is why besides the directive, since the external condition forces the participant to go to the hospital in this specific way. That necessity is a participant-imposed dynamic one since that is the only way which the participant can get to the hospital.
(20) a. IPFV-Modal.PRS Street-GEN Shirudi from SBJV-go-3SG ‘You must go from Shirudi Street.’
b. Girl-OBL.F IPFV-NEG-Modal.PRS in street-OBL loud SBJV-laugh-3SG ‘A girl should not laugh aloud at the streets.’
c. IPFV-Modal.PRS now home in be-3SG, certain NEG-be-1SG ‘They must be at home now, I am not sure.’
d. Tomorrow if rain SBJV-rain-3SG IPFV-Modal.PRS umbrella REFL With SBJV-take-1SG ‘If it rains tomorrow, I have to take my umbrella with me.’ (20.b) has two interpretation: directive and deontic; where laughing at the streets for girls is either morally or legally unacceptable. This modal also may express epistemic (20.c), where the speaker is estimating the probability of the SoA, which is ‘being at home.’
(20.d) is clearly a dynamic use of this modal, where the participant is imposed to have his/her umbrella with his/herself because of the weather. That would make it a participant-imposed.
As in the case of Tati and Vafsi, we can imagine a need in the participant which this modal can express. That is a participant-inherent dynamic (in a sentence like ‘I have to sleep after lunch or I will have a headache’:
207
). It is also possible to express a dynamic situation, a necessity in the SoA (as in
: we all have to die one day). So, this modal might express epistemic (possibility and probability), deontic (in all levels of the continuum), participant-imposed (necessity), participant-inherent (need), and dynamic situation (necessity). Besides, the non-modal role, directivity, is also possible to be expressed by this modal.
As in Kahangi, Vafsi and Tati, the stem of the volitional verb ‘to want’ is the same as this modal. This verb, as in the previous languages, shows an absolute ergative behavior: the agent is marked with clitics both in present and past tense. However, in Semnani, the alternation between the person and number marker and the clitics is more than the mentioned languages and it shows more tendency to use the subject markers rather than the clitics.
On the other hand, as in Kahangi, in Semnani the ‘’ is not marked with the morpheme be- for the subjunctive; rather the subjunctive is constructed as ‘past stem+ the short infinitive form of the verb () meaning ‘to be’, or the inflected form of with clitics (21.a and b).
(21) a. 2SG if want.PST be.SBJV.NF ‘If you want.’
b. If 3SG.OBL from want.PST be.SBJV-1PL1 PL.POSS hand take-3SG, never 1PL.POSS hand leave IPFV-NEG-do-3SG ‘If we ask him to take our hands, he would never let our hands go.’
‘to want’ is a volitional verb. The same as Kahangi, Vafsi and
Tati, in Semnani the stem of this volitional verb (, is - in present and
208
in past are the same as the stems of the marked modal. This is the topic we will discuss later with the other three languages.
4.2.1.4.2
The infinitive has two meanings in Semnani: ‘can, to be able’ and ‘to know’. Such a relation between verbs meaning ‘know’ and ‘can’ is normal in the languages of the world (see 4.2.1.12.8).
Christensen (1915 [Ebrahimian and Tavakoli 2010: 99]) also mentions this similarity; the only difference is that he records as the infinitive form of this verb which in a sentence with subjunctive mood, it can mean ‘can,
m ε−zon−un hɑ−kær−un to be able to’: ‘I can do’ and IPV−know/can−1SG prefix−do−1SG
m ε−zon−æn hɑ−kær−un ‘I could do’. IPV−know/can.PST−1SG prefix−do−1SG «
Based on the features, Heine (1993) introduces, , when meaning ‘can, be able to’, is a modal, which the same as other Iranian languages, it has somehow a complete paradigm. Even though when it is in a clause, with the main verb, it assigns some restrictions on the predicate: the main predicate almost always must be in the subjunctive mood.
Another point is that this modal would be in the subjunctive mood only if it is either in a conditional clause or is placed after an adverb or another modal auxiliary (22.a).
(22) a. Maybe SBJV-Modal.PRS-3SG 2SG.OBL help do-3SG ‘Maybe (s)he can help you.’ b. Weather IPFV-Modal.PRS-3SG under zero SBJV-arrive-3SG ‘The weather can get under zero.’ c. ? IPFV-Modal.PRS-1SG SBJV-go-1SG out ‘Can I go out?’
209
IPFV-NEG-Modal.PRS-1PL without reason 3SG.M out do-1PL ‘We cannot fire him without any reason.’
Although the modal adverb ‘maybe’ does not restrict the mood of the main verb to the subjunctive, as a modal only occurs in the mentioned context.
The overall sense of (22.a) might seem epistemic, due to the presence of the modal adverb , however, because of there is yet another modality concept possible for it. If means ‘to have permission’, which it normally means so, ‘Maybe he has the permission to help’, that would be a directive. On the other hand, if it refers to the true ability of the participant, that would be participant-inherent dynamic. The participant-imposed dynamic is yet plausible if the external condition is so that makes the participant able to help.
The same as other languages, it is possible to use this modal as a dynamic situation, which it seems this role is under the effect of Persian, otherwise, the modal (here for this sentence the negative form of it ) would be a better candidate for such a role in (22.b).
While (22.c) is an example of directivity, (22.d) illustrates a deontic role, where morally performing the predicate, here in this sentence, is not accepted.
So, , as a modal, might express participant-inherent ability, participant-imposed possibility, dynamic situation, deontic and also, directivity.
4.2.1.4.3
‘to become, to be’, is clearly an auxiliary, which three form of it, ,
, and , express modal meanings. The verb ‘become’ in Persian which semantically equates this verb, in Semnani means ‘to go’, and it is a main
210
verb. To be a little more specific equates ‘to be’ in Persian. is the imperfective marker and - the subjunctive marker.
This modal usually require main verbs in the subjunctive mood, however, in case of (the past form) and (the subjunctive form), the main verb might occur in short infinitive forms as well (23.a).
(23) a. Here IPFV-NEG-Modal.PRS.3SG photo IPFV-take.PST.NF ‘It is not possible to take a photo here.’ b. ? IPFV-Modal.PRS.3SG Sara wedding NEG-go-3SG ‘Is it not possible for Sara not to go to the wedding?’ c. = 1. POSS house big=be.3SG IPF-Modal.PRS.3SG tonight 1.POSS near be.SBJV-2SG ‘My house is big, you can stay with me tonight.’
Sentence (23.a) also expresses different types of meanings: on one hand, regarding the rules, taking a photo is not permitted; that is a directive. On the other hand, we might imagine a situation where taking a photo here is something that cannot happen potentially. That is the definition of situation dynamic. It is also possible to read it as a deontic, where morally it is not acceptable to take a photo here, maybe because it is a private place.
(23.b) shows permission; however if we use it in affirmative form, that would refer to morality acceptance of the predicate, as a deontic, or that would show the SoA has such potentiality, which is a feature in a dynamic situation. Finally, in (23.c) since the situation is in a way that makes it possible for the participant to stay at my home, it is a participant-imposed dynamic.
Deontic modality, dynamic situation, participant-imposed dynamic, and the non-modal role of directivity is the function of this modal in Semnani.
211
4.2.1.5 Gilaki (Shafti Dialect): Caspian Sea area
Investigating three dialects of Gilaki, including Rashti (central Gilaki), Roodsari (East Gilaki) and Foomani (west Gilaki), Sabzalipour (2012: 329) considers
‘can, be able’, ‘dare’, ‘to start’,
‘must/should/have to’, ‘to want’, ‘be possible’ as ‘semi-auxiliaries’. Since Shafti is a type of west Gilaki dialect, and they are so close to the central dialects of Gilaki, such as Rashti, and based on the data collected, I expect the same auxiliaries for Shafti, the dialect of our concern, as well. Among the above verbs, the only auxiliary we are not going to cover is ‘to start’. ‘To want’, will be divulged on section (4.2.5.3) under the title volitional verbs.
Pourhadi (2017: 202) also introduces modal auxiliaries in Gilaki as
‘must/should/have to’, , ‘to be able/can’, ‘to dare’, ‘to be possible’ and ‘must/should/have to’. Considering the above categorizations, the modals we are going to study here are as follows:
Can, be able to Dare, can, be able to Must, have to, should May, it is possible
4.2.1.5.1
‘must, should, have to’, functions the same as in Persian. However, Sabzalipour (2012: 323) asserts that this modal is specific to east Gilaki, and
Pourhadi (2017: 204) posits is specific to the west and to east Gilaki, all three informants of this project, which were west Gilaki speakers (Shafti) used all these three forms in their utterances. Although, as Rastorgueva et al. (2012: 132) confirm, using in this language is under the influence of Persian.
Describing this modal, Sabzalipour (ibid: 323) notes:
212
‘This modal precedes a predicate. The predicate could be an infinitive, making an impersonal structure which the modal indicates the necessity of predicate or verb with different inflectional forms.’
This is the exact function of in Persian, as well. The only difference is that to produce the impersonal structure, instead of the infinitive, Persian uses the short infinitive. To analyze the modality of this auxiliary, consider these sentences:
(24) a. Tonight Modal. PRS SBJV-go-1PL cinema ‘We have to go to the cinema tonight.’ b. Until now Modal. PRS 3SG=OBL work finish be.PST-PTCP be.SBJV-3SG ‘(s)he must have finished her/his work until now.’ c. Definitely Modal. PRS force 2SG.OBL head-GEN above SBJV-be-3SG ‘There must be a force on you.’ d. This now Modal. PRS one thing.INDF SBJV-eat-1SG, and-if-not IPFV-die-1SG ‘I have to eat something or I will die.’ e. All one day finally Modal. PRS SBJV-die-1PL ‘We all have to die finally.’
Although it is possible to consider directivity for all the above sentences, they have modality role as well. (24.a) has produced in a situation where the speaker has promised to his/her child to go to the cinema tonight. In that case,
213 this sentence is deontic. It is also possible to imagine a dynamic modality for the utterance: there is a great movie on the cinemas and the speaker is not going to miss it, so (s)he must go to the cinema. In this reading, that would be a necessity in participant-imposed dynamic modality, since it is the external situation which forces the speaker to perform the predicate.
Sentence (24.b) is only the speaker’s assessment in the SoA; therefore it is an epistemic. In (24.c) modal adverb ‘definitely’ has no modal role in this sentence, instead, it is there to strengthen the predicate. The utterance without this adverb still contains modality notions, due to using Since the utterance is not indicating a moral situation, that could not be deontic. Yet there must be an external force which makes the speaker do the predicate. Then participant-imposed dynamic reading is the only modality function which could be imagined for this sentence.
(24.d) is a type of dynamic, too; where the speaker or the participant needs the SoA internally. Besides the above functions, it is possible to produce the default sentence for the necessity in situational dynamic (we all have to die) in this language (24.e). That would raise the number of the modality functions of in Gilaki to:
Epistemic (possibility or probability), Deontic (moral necessity), participant-imposed dynamic (necessity), participant-inherent dynamic (need) and situational dynamic (necessity). It also can express directivity.
4.2.1.5.2
Although Shafti is a west Gilaki dialect, none of the three informants have produced on their first session of interview. However, in the further sessions, they asserted it is possible to use these forms instead of . Therefore based on the data Sabzalipour (2012), Pourhadi (2017) and
214
Rastorgueva et al. (2012) have presented, I will investigate the modality on these expressions.
It is possible to use this auxiliary in most of the tenses (Sabzalipour 2012: 333) and we might translate it to ‘must/should/have to’. Rastorgueva et al. (2012) believe is an allomorph of , derived from ; while / (the past form of the auxiliary) is derived from meaning ‘it was necessary, had to’.
Pourhadi (2017: 202) introduces as the infinitive form of this auxiliary and notes this auxiliary ‘lacks any inflectional forms for tense, person, and number…[and] it means ‘pleasant, like, must’.
Sabzalipour (2012: 333) shows it is possible to translate the same sentence in Gilaki in three forms:
(25) Modal.PRS SBJV-go.PST (PTCP) be.SBJV.3SG
a. ‘(s)he had to go.’ b. ‘(s)he must have been gone.’ c. ‘(s)he should have been gone by now.’ However, this is not specific to Gilaki. In other languages, including Kahangi and Semnani speakers use the past perfect to indicate past progressive and past subjunctive as well. This is what happens in the above sentence.
Other examples Sabzalipour (ibid: 333) provides are as follows:
(26) a. Now Modal.PRS Tehran be.SBJV-3SG ‘(s)he must be in Tehran now.’ b. Modal.PRS those speech-PL-ACC NEG-say.PST-NML ‘One shouldn’t say those words.’ c. Modal.PST PFV-come-PTCP be.SBJV.3SG ‘(s)he must have come back.’
215
For all sentences in (25) and (26), it is possible to consider a directive reading. However, they all express modality, too. (25) could convey morality, i.e. deontic modality, or, as the third translation suggests, it could be epistemic, where the speaker codes his/her believes about the world around him/her: based on the speaker’s general knowledge or her/his assumption (s)he should have been gone by now.
(25.a) and (25.c) are also directives, deontics or epistemics. While (26.b) expresses necessity in participant-imposed and situational dynamic. It is possible to imagine a situation where the speaker is forced to ‘not to say those things’. In that case, participant-imposed would raise. However, if the words or ‘things’ the speaker is asking not to avoid, is so that saying them for everybody, then that will be a situational dynamic.
It is possible to confirm the dynamic function of this modal using an example from Rastorgueva et al. (2012):
(27)[326] b. Car NEG-be.3SG on foot Modal.PST SBJV-go-1PL ‘There is no car, we have to go on foot/we have to walk.’ This sentence again indicates a situation which is forced to the participant and due to that external force, the participant must walk. That is the spirit of participant-imposed. Pourhadi (2017: 203) on the other hand, provides an example of this modal which he translates it as follows:
(28) 2SG.ACC Modal.PRS SBJV-go-2SG ‘You like/wish to go.’
If we analyze the above sentence as Pourhadi suggests, it could be volitional on the first step, which is not a type of modality in our perspective. Even if we equate it as ‘need’ in its auxiliary function, again it has no modality
216
notion, since it is expressing a real situation in the external world. However, if we translate it to ‘must’, then that would be both directive and deontic.
It is also possible to express participant-inherent modality (need) with this auxiliary. Therefore, we might conclude both and in Gilaki have the same semantic modality oriented function. It seems we might follow Sabzalipour (2012) in the case that these two auxiliaries are one, and the formal difference between them is just an alternation.
To sum up, , and its past form can express deontic modality, participant- inherent modality (need), participant-imposed (necessity), situational dynamic (necessity) and epistemic.
4.2.1.5.3 This auxiliary has a complete paradigm, for most tense and aspect, person and number. Sabzalipour (2012: 329) writes “the predicate following this auxiliary can be both infinitive and a normal verb. When it is an infinitive, it is possible to change the order of the auxiliary and the predicate.” Pourhadi (2017: 207) introduces this auxiliary with high frequency applying to express “ability or the possibility to do an action, a polite request, providing suggestions and indicating possibility or impossibility.” He also believes that different forms of the verbs might follow this auxiliary. He introduces two forms for the order of the auxiliary and the following verb. One is when both the auxiliary and the main verb are marked with endings, and the other is when it is only the auxiliary with inflectional form and the main verb is in infinitive form. Examples in (29) from Pourhadi (2017: 208-209) illustrates how this auxiliary functions:
(29) a. If SBJV-Modal.PRS-1SG SBJV-go-1SG, go-1SG ‘If I can go, I will.’
217 b. SBJV-Modal.PST-1SG 1SG.POSS speech SBJV-say-1SG ‘I couldn’t say what I wanted to say.’ c. Modal.PRS-1SG eat.PST-NML ‘I can eat.’
The fact that (29.a) is a conditional sentence does not change the modality function of the utterance. expresses a possibility in the external situation: if the situation is so that the participant can do the predicate, which would be participant-external dynamic. However it is possible to imagine a situation where it has a directive reading: if I am allowed to do the action, I will.
(29.b) indicates a directivity, since it is possible to translate it to ‘to be permitted’. It is also possible to consider it as a participant-imposed dynamic modality. Finally (29.c) besides directivity, expresses an ability.
Along with the above examples, comparing this auxiliary in other languages, we might expect two other modality function: one (un)acceptability as a deontic modality and the other a potentiality as a situational dynamic. (30.a and b) offer these two recent functions.
(30) a. = NEG-Modal.PRS-1PL without reason 3SG=ACC out SBJV-do-1PL ‘We cannot fire him/her without any reason.’ b. - NEG-Modal.PRS-3SG 3SG-GEN task SBJV-be-3Sg ‘It is not possible that (s)he had done it.’
The same as other Iranian languages, this auxiliary can express deontic, participant imposed (possibility), participant-inherent (ability) and situational dynamic (potentiality).
218
4.2.1.5.4
Rastorgueva et al. (2012: 131) introduce two forms of the present form and the past form in relation with ‘maybe’, and translate it to ‘maybe, it is possible, can’ which following the negative morpheme it is possible to translate them to ‘it cannot be, it is not possible’. We usually expect the verbs developing from express ability rather thank possibility (see 4.2.1.12.3); So we need to investigate this element closely. See the following examples from Rastorgueva et al. (2012): (31) [327] a. This town-ACC Modal.PRS say.PST-NML that town-GEN working ‘It would be possible to say about this town that it is a working town.’
[328] b. Water warm be.PST.3SG that Modal.PST endure take.PST-NML ‘The water was lukewarm. It could be endured.’
Sabzalipour (2012: 331-332) shows examples in Rashti (32.a), west Gilaki (32.b) and east Gilaki (32.c) with this auxiliary:
(32) a. NEG-Modal.PRS run.PST-NML way muddy-be.3SG (is) ‘It is not possible/one can’t run, the passage is muddy.’ b. NEG-Modal.PST-1SG PFV-go-1SG ‘I couldn’t go.’ c. NEG-Modal.PRS NEG-eat.PST-NML ‘It is not possible not to eat/one cannot stop eating it.’
Pourhadi (2017: 206-207) asserts it is only possible to use this auxiliary with an infinitive form of the main verb; however as (32.b) suggests it is possible
219 to apply an inflected form of the verb following this auxiliary. He (ibid: 206-
207) refers to the differences between this auxiliary and :
‘ indicates the ability and characteristics of the subject, while is related to the states of affairs or the environment. This difference is clear when they are used in the negative form: means ‘I can’t, I am not able’, while means ‘it is not possible.’
All the sentences in (31) express possibility, as an epistemic. It seems stress plays an important role here: if the main stress in on the modal auxiliary, that would be epistemic, otherwise, in (31.a) it indicates potentiality in the situation, i.e. the features of the city itself provide such a possibility. (31.b) expresses a possibility which is available due to the external conditions. That makes it a participant-imposed dynamic modality.
(32.a) on the other hand has two readings: first, it is not allowed to perform the predicate, in that sense the sentence would be directive. Then, a participant-inherent dynamic is possible, too: the external situation (the muddy passage) makes it impossible.
(32.b) is a directive, too. Besides, it is again a possibility, as a participant- imposed dynamic modality: the external situation was so that for the speaker it was not possible to go. (32.c) also has two readings. One is when the speaker is not allowed morally to not to eat (since it hurt the host), which makes it a deontic; and then again participant-imposed dynamic modality.
To sum up, this modal auxiliary indicate participant-imposed dynamic (possibility), situational dynamic (potentiality), epistemic (possibility) and deontic modality, beside directivity.
220
4.2.1.5.5 Sabzalipour (2012) and Pourhadi (2017) translate this auxiliary as ‘to dare’ and ‘to be able’ in sequence. Sabzalipour (2012: 332) describes it as a semi-auxiliary verb which is active in all three dialect regions of Gilaki (central, east and west), it indicates ability or inability in present (-) and past (-). Pourhadi (2017: 210) notes that this verb illustrates the possibility of performing an action in the past or present tense. One of the meanings of this verb is ‘dare’. In English dare is a peripheral, a semi-modal or a semi-auxiliary. Along with being able to, be supposed to, ought to, have to, be going to, and need (to), it expresses modality (Ziegler 2006: 261). To Van der Auwera and Plungian (1998: 91), dare states in the pre-modality stage, where it can be a source for modal expressions. To them in modality stage, dare expresses deontic modality. When leaving for the post- modal stage, they might produce structures to express the future. By referring to the auxiliary role of these expressions in Serbian/Croatian and Russian, they see in all these languages, this expression is restricted to prohibitive and negative constructions. Palmer (1990: 111) maintains two forms of dare, one as the main verb and the other as a semi-modal or semi-auxiliary verb. Duffley (1994) distinguishes these two types of daring in the sense that dare as the main verb always precedes an infinitive, while as an auxiliary a bare infinitive follows it. The auxiliary dare lacks the –s ending in the third person singular present indicative, it is used in tag questions, and it is possible to change it to negative form directly with not. It has no nonfinite form and no other modal auxiliary may precede it. He refers to the restrictions Jacobson (1974: 62) considers for need which are the same restrictions for dare as an auxiliary: it is used in non-assertive contexts (negative or interrogative), in semi-negation such as hardly and scarcely, in shifted negation, in comparative clauses, in superlatives, in if- clauses and in clauses introduced by whether (see Duffley 1994: 220-222).
221
Against Van der Auwera and Plungian (1998), to Palmer (1990: 111-112) dare has a dynamic role, not a deontic:
(33) John daren’t come! As the above observations in English and other languages reveal, dare includes modality notions. However, there are two problems: first, based on the features which Heine (1993) accounts for auxiliaries, is a modal verb or an auxiliary, the other is that what modality roles express?
Sabzalipour (2012) and Pourhadi (2017) consider as an auxiliary, however, they do not support this claim with any reason. Therefore, we need to examine Heine’s (1993) features to make sure is an auxiliary. First, it must code one of the notions related to tense, aspect and mood/modality. Among them, it makes modality. It also has a dual role, both as a main verb and an auxiliary. However it shows a grammatical function, it has syntactic-semantic roles as well, and i.e. it is coded for a person, number, negation, tense, aspect and mood. And last, but not the least, it has an infected paradigm and semantically, it cannot be the main predicate of the clause. Although the main predicate is not in infinitive form after that, this does not violate the fact that
is an auxiliary. Besides, in a substitutional test, it is possible to replace it with other auxiliaries, not the main verbs. As a conclusion, as an answer to the first problem, I must say, following Sabzalipour (2012) and Pourhadi (2017) and base on Heine (1993), is a modal auxiliary.
Since Vander Auwera and Plungian (1998) consider dare as an expression on deontic modality and Palmer (1990) respects it as a dynamic, and based on the fact that Bybee et al (1994) and Nuyts do not consider dare in their studies, to answer the second problem, i.e. studying the type of modality can express, we need to consider the examples from Pourhadi (2017) and Sabzalipour (2012):
222
(34) a. NEG-Modal.PST-1SG 3SG-ACC SBJV-say-1SG ‘I didn’t dare to tell him/her.’ (Sabzalipour 2012: 332) b. ? Modal.PRS-2SG late do-2SG ‘Dare you to be late?’ (Pourhadi 2017: 210)
An interesting point about the above sentences is that this item, the same as a dare in English is restricted to non-assertive contexts, i.e. negatives and interrogatives. That makes the analysis difficult since modality is a subjunctive notion and the speaker’s thoughts and believes affect the judgment, albeit negative and interrogative constructions make it even more challenging. Maybe that is the reason that dare is known as the black sheep of modal family (Duffley 1994) and they are mostly neglected in modality studies.
Still, it is possible to imagine a situation for (34.a) where the external situation (for example the participant has a problem with her/his heart and by hearing the news might have a heart attack) doesn’t let him/her dare doing the predicate. In this sense, this is a participant-imposed (possibility). Moreover, if the speaker is avoided to tell the news, or (s)he is not permitted to do it, that would be a directive. (34.b) also, have the same analysis.
In Middle Persian, was used in both assertive and non-assertive contexts. We might expect there was such a period in the history of Gilaki and by time passing, whether due to the existence of two mostly equal elements
( and ), it is limited to non-assertive; or after the entrance of
in a period of time, it is restricted. In any case, in Persian it is possible to replace ‘to dare’, and ‘to be able/can. To the speakers of Gilaki, the same replacement is also possible however they describe it as ‘somehow less strong.’ Therefore, I might say the only modality function for this modal is participant-imposed dynamic modality. however, since there is not
223 enough evidence for this modality in the data of this thesis, this conclusion is not finite and it definitely needs detailed studies.
4.2.1.5.6
Pourhadi (2017: 210) introduces as the infinitive form of , which in
Rashti (a central dialect of Gilaki) it has the form , in Foumani , in west
Gilan - and in east Gilan . He considers it equal to ‘possibility, probability, and wish.’ The main verb following this expression is weather subjunctive or infinitive. The negative form is constructed by adding a negative morpheme at the beginning of it. As a modal element, it has a very defective paradigm.
Sabzalipour (2012: 277) believe both and are the same, which are the specific forms of the infinitive in west Gilaki. In this dialect, the indicated form of this verb is , meaning ‘it is possible’. To describe the source of this expression he mentions that was a complex verb, where is the remaining phoneme of as a derivational prefix which today in east Gilaki, this prefix means ‘to move towards the speaker’. Today this prefix has lost its role and has no prefix function anymore (Sabzalipour 2012: 287).
(35) a. NEG-Modal.PRS-3SG Sara REFL sister-GEN wedding NEG-go-3SG ‘It is not possible for Sara not to go to her sister’s wedding party.’ b. = Modal.PRS-3SG 1SG=too one number day-INDF car SBJV-have-1SG ‘It is possible for me to have a car one day?’
224
Analyzing (35.a) is triple folded. First, the participant morally is obliged to go to her sister’s wedding, i.e. deontic modality. Second, she is not permitted to do so, which in this sense it is a directive. Finally, it is interpreted in a way that the external situation deprived her to have the possibility for Sara not to go to her sister’s wedding party, which means this utterance expresses participant- imposed possibility.
In case of (35.b), Moradi (2012: 96) considers somehow the same sentence (Is it possible that we reach the high levels one day? It is not) as an epistemic modality. If the speaker is simply expressing a wish, that would carry no modality function. However if is equal to ‘it is possible’, then that would be a potentiality in the SoA itself (situational dynamic). There are two notes about Moradi’s example (2012) and (35.b): first, since the interrogative sentences can always question the possibility of an event, even without including a modal expression, we shouldn’t judge this sentence as a modality. On the other hand in the example from Moradi (ibid), there is a tag after the questions which strengthens the epistemic reading.
Therefore, in our analysis , and other equivalence in other Iranian languages code a possibility in participant-imposed, potentiality in situational dynamic and deontic modality, plus directivity.
4.2.1.6 Balochi (Bamposht dialect): Balochi Branch Balochi in Iran is predominantly spoken in Sistan and Balochestan province. Different varieties of Balochi have split ergative system. In the dialect, we consider here (Bamposht), there is no modal auxiliary equal to ‘must, should or have to’. Rather, it is an adverb () which expresses all the modal meanings which are usually carried by the modal auxiliaries meaning ‘must’. The mentioned adverb (), is going to be researched under the title of modal adverbs. So, the auxiliaries remaining for this section would be:
225
can To be possible
4.2.1.6.1 There was no evidence in the data of this language to show it is possible to use
in the impersonal form. The subjunctive is marked with be-; the present stem is and the past stem . As Dabirmoghaddam (2013) and Jahani et al. (2010) report, - is the imperfective marker in Balochi; however there was no evidence in the data to show this verb might be marked for imperfective. The data Dabirmoghaddam (2013: 257) presents to study the order of modal verbs meaning can and the main verbs, do not carry any imperfective marker. To analyze different modality functions of this auxiliary, consider the sentences below:
(36) a. Hopeful-3SG that there-in 1PL SBJV-Modal.PRS-1PL swim SBJV-do-1SG ‘(s)he hopes we can swim there.’ b. NEG-Modal.PRS-3SG skin SBJV-hit-3SG ‘(s)he cannot peel.’ . c. Ø That day-PL every girl.INDF Modal.PST-3SG REFL husband-GEN choose SBJV-do ‘Those days each girls could choose their own husbands.’
Modal.PRS.3SG home-GEN be.SUB-3SG ‘(s)he could be at home.’ NEG-Modal.PRS-1PL without reason 3SG.ACC out do-1PL ‘We cannot fire him without any reason.’
226
f. In winters in weather temperature Modal.PRS.3SG get zero less ‘In winters the temperature can get less than zero.’
The same as other Iranian languages, the main role of this auxiliary is to express dynamic modality. (36.a) has two readings: whether the speaker hopes we would have the permission to swim (directive) or he hopes the external situation, such as the sunny weather, would provide the situation for us to be able to swim (participant-imposed dynamic modality).
(36.b) illustrates the default role we expect from auxiliaries meaning can, and that is the ability, which is a type of participant-inherent dynamic modality. Yet, it is possible for the participant not to have the permission to perform the predicate, which makes it directive; even further, the situation is so that takes this possibility from the participant; in this situation, we might regard it as a participant-imposed (possibility).
Once again, for (36.c) there would be a directive reading; however a descriptive one. In the sense that the girls had this permission to do so; since it is about an event in the past, that is not a performative, but a descriptive: the speaker is describing a situation in the past. On the other hand, the participants (girls) could have the possibility due to the situation which makes it possible for them to be able to choose their husbands; or, the potentiality was in the SoA itself and it was there forever. The last two readings raise the participant-imposed (possibility) and situational dynamic (potentiality).
Like other languages, this modal might express epistemic modality (36.d) and deontic modality (acceptability) as in (36.e). The situational dynamic reading would be confirmed by (36.f). We have seen that it can also illustrate ability, participant-imposed possibility and also directivity.
227
4.2.1.6.2 This auxiliary has many roles in this language (auxiliary in a passive construction, in predicative constructions and so on) besides modality function.
Among different forms of this verb, only the restricted form ‘it is possible’ and its negative form ‘it is not possible’ have the modal function. The same as other languages which express this notion using a form of the verb ‘to be’ (that would be all the languages of our concern, except Persian and Tati which use ‘to become’ and ‘to become’ in sequence), this auxiliary also can illustrate weak deontic modality (in the middle of the continuum) as in (37.a), possibility in participant-imposed dynamic (37.b) and potentiality in situational dynamic (37.c). Directivity is also possible to be expressed by this auxiliary:
(37) a. NEG- Modal.PRS.3SG without reason 3SG.ACC out do.SINF ‘One cannot/it is not possible to fire him/her without any reason.’ b. 1SG.POSS home big=be.3SG tonight Modal.PRS.3SG 1SG.ACC place stay.2SG ‘My house is big, you can/it is possible for you to stay with me tonight.’ c. Never NEG- Modal.PRS.3SG 3SG this task.ACC SBJV-do-3SG ‘It is not possible that (s)he has done that.’ (36.a) indicates the predicate is not morally accepted; while (36.b) marks an external situation which based on that, the participant finds it possible to perform the predicate. It is also possible to read it as a directive. Finally (37.c) illustrates a situation where the potentiality is in the SoA and not related or dependent to any type of participant.
228
4.2.1.7 Lori (Balagariveh Dialect): South-West Branch Lori languages have different varieties, including Bakhtiyari, Feyli, Mamasani, and others. The dialect we study is the one spoken among the Balagariveh tribe, mainly in Khorram Abad, the center of Lorestan province. These are the modal auxiliaries discovered on the corpus:
must (present and past) can
to be possible
4.2.1.7.1
Applying beside and would be the reason to show is either borrowed from Persian or it was emerged from the same source (see 4.2.12.6). The main verbs after these modals are in subjunctive form. The subjunctive is marked with in present tense and the suffix –u in past tense in Balagariveh dialect. It is also possible to use with the main verb in past progressive. It seems two forms of and could be translated to ‘must, should, have to’ in the present and past tense in sequence. What stays problematic, is the morpheme mi- in and . Normally - is an imperfective marker in Iranian languages; however in this dialect of Lori the imperfective marker is e-. Therefore, at least here in case of this language, we must consider mi- not as an independent morpheme, rather the part of the word itself. So, in this thesis, is a one morpheme word and is a two morpheme word, where is the modal and –st is the past marker. The negative marker, -, is prefixed to the modal.
Soleimani and Haghbin (2016: 225) do not consider any marker for the perfective aspect. They believe using simple past, present perfect and past perfect imply perfectivity. However, it seems in the analogy of the other Iranian
229 languages, still be- marks perfective in some cases. This morpheme is glossed with ana.PFV (stands for analogy perfective):
(38) a. = Modal.PST to=3SG ana.PFV-say.PST-1SG-PTCP ‘I had to tell him/her/’ b. Modal.PST ana.PFV-go.PST-1SG-PTCP to work ‘I had to go to work.’
The nature of this marker is the state of dispute yet. There are three hypotheses about be-: i) it is a prefix of emphasis; ii) it is a derivational prefix, not an inflectional; iii) it doesn’t carry any semantic role. Studying the development of this prefix in the past 1800 years of Persian Mofidi (2016: 35- 41) objects these hypotheses. The first hypothesis is not authentic due to the lack of evidence which supports it and applied it as an emphasis marker. The second one is rejected because ‘the verbs which show semantic changes while prefixing with or without be- are very rare”. The third hypothesis does not suit well since “It seems impossible to theoretically support the presence of a morpheme without any lexical or grammatical reason, especially when it is present in a preverbal position for a long period of time…in a natural language.” Hence he suggests the fourth hypothesis which is called the general hypothesis of analogy. He explains analogy is a productive mechanism in the natural languages: “accompanying be- as an imperfective marker with the past tense form of the verbs introduces a basis for a general paradigm of perfective in other structures”. Following Mofidi (2016) it seems what is happening in a language with no perfective marker and the presence of - next to some specific marker, could be the result of analogy. Therefore, this prefix, in this dialect, is marked with ana.PFV where it stands for the analogical perfective marker as opposed to PFV, for the perfective marker.
230
At first glance, it seems all above sentences are implying a situation which is not real: I had to tell him, but I had not; I had to go to work, but I had not. Yet, another context is plausible. Think of a situation where the speaker has been faced the question: why have not you shown up last night? And (s)he replies: I had to go to work (and I went and that is why I couldn’t make it come). However, the first reading will be strengthened when we alter the subjects; then the irrealis would be easier to distinguish: you had to tell him (but you have not); you had to go to work (but you have not). There is yet another situation possible. Consider you are asking for the reason of my absence at your place for lunch and I put ‘because you had to go to work’ (and I really didn’t want to be a burden). In any case, these sentences express deontic modality: the participant was morally fully committed to doing the predicate. This could be weather absolute morality or acceptability.
What Nuyts describe for directivity, includes a try from the speaker’s side to influence the participant’s attitude toward the SoA. In this sense, the above sentences do not express directivity. However, there is a feeling of legal, social or any other types of obligation in all the above sentences. The first sentence does not carry any directive meaning; while in the second sentence we might think of an obligation based on the participant’s job, who is the speaker as well. If there is any type of directivity which we could consider for these auxiliaries, they would be only an obligation and not permission.
Still, there are other modality functions which might reveal. Consider this sentence:
(39) Modal.PRS tree date here come-3SG to produced ‘Palm tree must not grow up here.’ This sentence illustrates epistemic: the speaker expresses his/her evaluation of the SoA. Now consider (40):
231
(40) If tomorrow weather cold be.SBJV.3SG Modal.PRS heater-ACC Light do-1PL ‘If the weather is cold tomorrow, we have to turn the heater on.’
Being deontic needs to be moral, so the above sentence could not be considered as a deontic. In the same perspective, dynamic modality not only includes ability, potentiality, need and necessity related to the first argument participant, but also it is consists of the potentiality and the need of the participant which is beyond the speaker/participant’s control. If there is a possibility or a necessity governing the participant from external power, so that makes it beyond his/her control, that would be participant-external dynamic.
Accordingly, (40) is a type of necessity as participant-external dynamic, where it is the climate which imposes the external force. This auxiliary also can express other types of dynamic modality, however since the examples are the same as other languages, I avoid presenting more data here.
To conclude, this modal auxiliary is used for deontic, epistemic and dynamic modality and directivity.
4.2.1.7.2.
The same as other languages, in this dialect of Lori, the verb , meaning ‘to be able to, can’ generally signifies dynamic modality; besides, comparing to the other auxiliaries, it owns an almost complete paradigm. It is also possible to apply to request for permission. It seems this use of is not original in Iranian languages, and it might be under the influence of English, through Persian. In Iranian languages, the forms of auxiliaries meaning ‘is it possible’ (which is indicated with the verbs either meaning ‘to become’ or ‘to be’) seems more original and indigenous to request for permission, rather than a form of the
232
verbs meaning ‘to be able to, can’. Below, I will introduce some modality roles of this auxiliary in modality space.
(41.a) suggests how this verb might express participant-external dynamic modality.
(41) a. Think NEG-do-1SG SBJV- Modal.PRS -1SG SBJV-come-1SG ‘I don’t think I can come.’ b. ( (NEG)- Modal.PRS -1SG SBJV-come-1SG ‘I cannot come.’
Based on this type of modality, the external situation is in a way that it is less plausible for the participant to perform the predicate. Although due to the presence of ‘I don’t think, I don’t assume’ the epistemic reading rises, it doesn’t mean cannot have any modality function here.
This clause demands a subjunctive verb, and that is why the form of we see in this sentence is in the subjunctive mood. If we remove
from (41.a) and change to an indicative (41.b), we see the sentence is offering dynamic modality. If the speaker aims to (s)he doesn’t have the permission to do the predicate, then it would be directive.
Based on the intonation of the Sentence in (42), affirmative or interrogative, the sentence might have two readings: if asking for permission, it is a directive, if (s)he is saying that (s)he has the ability to do the predicate, that would be participant-internal dynamic, to express ability.
(42) ?/. Modal.PRS -1SG SBJV-read-1SG ‘Can I/I can read.’
Besides, the same as the other verbs meaning ‘to be able to, can’, this verb might signify deontic (43.a), and dynamic situational (43.b):
233
(43) = NEG- Modal.PRS -1PL without reason leave SBJV-do-1PL=3SG To out ‘We cannot fire him/her without any reason.’
= Book that IPFV search=3SG do-2SG, Modal.PRS -3SG on desk 1SG be.SBJV ‘The book you are looking for can be on my desk.’
4.2.1.7.3
Three forms of , i.e. (present indicative), (subjunctive) and (past indicative), are those forms of the verb ‘to be’ which express modality. We might translate them as ‘is it possible, if it is possible, and if it was possible’ in order. Consider the examples in (44):
(44) a. = Modal.PST-3SG save=3SG SBJV-give-PASS ‘It was possible for him/her to be saved.’ b. ? Modal.3SG little-INDF go-2SG further ‘Is it possible/would you step aside.’
It seems (44.a) is a potentiality in the SoA. That is the feature of dynamic situational. Saving the participant is the potentiality which was available in the past, however, it has not been taken for granted. In other approaches, the same as Bybee et al. (1994), this sentence is not a type of dynamic modality, since to them dynamic modality expresses ability, which is a type of agent-oriented modality; i.e. the type of modality which considers internal and external conditions on the agent. However, in the above sentence, there is no clear participant, and that is why it is a situational dynamic modality.
234
(44.b) is a type of directivity: the speaker aims to make the addressee do an action, i.e. to step aside. However, these are not the only possible readings for this sentence. If we shift the intonation of this sentence to an affirmative, then we see it is whether the external conditions which force the participant to perform the action (participant-imposed possibility) or it is morally necessary for the participant to do it.
To sum up, might indicate dynamic modality, participant-imposed possibility, potentiality in situational dynamic modality, and directivity.
4.2.1.8 Hawrami (Hawraman Takht): Zaza-Gurani Languages In the categorization which Rezaei Baghbidi (2009) presents, Hawrami is not a type of Kurdish, rather it is a separate group sits in Zaza-Gurani dialects. The nature of this language has been always the subject of dispute and some, even Kurdish speakers, consider it as a dialect of Kurdish. Although in this thesis, following Rezaei Baghbidi (2009), this is a dependent language and not a dialect of Kurdish.
To Rasekhmahand and Naghshbandi (2011) this language is a Gurani dialect in north-west branch of the Iranian languages, which based on the linguistic and geographic criteria are two forms: the dialect spoken in Lohun and the one in Hawraman Takht. The dialect I study here is one of the dialects of Hawraman Takht. However, I would refer to the study Naghzgouye Kohan and Naghshbandi (2016) organized on a dialect of Lohun, Pavehyi dialect wherever necessary.
The same as Balochi, the item meaning ‘must/should/have to’ is an adverbial () and where there is a need for a negative form of the modality is used. In fact, in affirmative clauses, the adverb shows the modality while in negative clauses does the function. is used both in the sentences in the present and past tense. So, in this section, we will
235 investigate , and we will leave for section (4.2.2.3.4) for modal adverbs. In Pavehyi dialect of Hawrami, ‘must, should, have to’ is the present form and is the past form. So, that is an auxiliary which expresses modality in Pavehyi, not an adverb.
4.2.1.8.1. The modal auxiliary which equates ‘to be able to, can’ in Hawrami, has no subjunctive or imperfective marker; however, the context can imply such notions. The negative form of is , and it has no distinctive marker for past tense. The subject is marked with endings on this auxiliary.
In studying modal auxiliaries in the Pavehyi dialect of Hawrami, Naghzgouye Kohan and Naghshbandi (2016) explain how this auxiliary can express epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality, based on Palmer (2001). (45) demonstrates some of their examples:
(45) a. [19] Behnam IPFV- Modal.PRS -3SG now house-in be.SBJV.3SG ‘Behnam could be at home now/it is possible that Behnam is at home now.’ b. [20] 2SG IPFV- Modal.PRS -2SG car-DEF-OBL evening take-2SG ‘You can/may take the car in the evening.’ c. [22] 1SG IPFV- Modal.PRS -1SG SBJV-go-1SG to school-OBL ‘I can go to school.’
They assert since the speaker produces (45.a) based on his/her general knowledge that might be a type of assumptive, which in their idea, it is restricted to the third person singular indicative form of the verb (). In (45.b)
236
- is used for permission. However, it has another reading the situation is so that makes you able to take the car (for example, the owner of the car is at home today and is not going anywhere with the car). In this sense, (45.b) would a participant-imposed possibility. (45.c) also is expressing permission, however, it can be interpreted as participant-internal ability or participant-external possibility.
So far, a paramount difference is observable between in Pavehyi and Hawraman Takht dialect: in Pavehi, this verb is marked for imperfective with -, however, in Hawraman Takht dialect, there is no imperfective form for it. Consider the sentences below in Hawraman Takht dialect:
(46) a. Boy every task-INDF enjoy do-3SG Modal.PRS-3SG do-3SG ‘A boy could do whatever he likes!’ b. Asra Modal.PRS-3SG broth great SBJV- make.3SG. ‘Maryam can cook great broth.’ c. NEG- Modal.PRS-1SG child alone leave do-2SG ‘You cannot leave a child alone.’ d. Here winter temperature.GEN weather Modal.PRS-3SG reach-3SG under zero ‘Here the temperature can get under zero in winters.’
(46.a, b, and c) might be interpreted as directives, for permission. Yet, there are other readings for them. (46.a) refers to the external conditions available for the boys to do as they wish, while they restrict the girls. Then, the sentence asserts a participant-external possibility.
The prototypical use of the auxiliaries meaning ‘to be able to, can’ is ability. (46.b) expresses participant-inherent ability; while (46.c) invokes it to
237 illustrate deontic modality. It is also possible to express situational dynamic with this modal. Sentence (46.d) is one of the default sentences in the questionnaires of this thesis to test this role. That would rise up the roles of to dynamic (participant-imposed, participant-inherent and situational) and deontic modality, besides directivity.
4.2.1.8.2 One of the main differences between Pavehyi dialect and Hawraman Takht dialect of Hawrami is that the auxiliary meaning ‘it is possible’ in Pavehyi is a form of the verb meaning ‘to be’ (the same as most Iranian languages), while
Hawraman Takht uses and ; the forms meaning ‘it is possible’ and ‘it was possible’, with negative forms .
One of the main role of this auxiliary is giving or requesting for permission. (47.a) illustrates such a role.
(47) a. Teacher Modal.PRS SBJV-go -1SG to out ‘Teacher, May I go out/is it possible that I go out?’ b. NEG- Modal.PRS-3SG Sara NEG-go-3SG wedding-GEN = sister=3SG ‘It is not possible that Sara does not go to her sister’s wedding.’
Furthermore, this auxiliary can refer to the participant-imposed possibility, situational dynamic, and also deontic acceptability. (47.b) has different readings of this list: first, the participant is not allowed to perform the action (directive); then because of the situation he cannot do that (participant- imposed) or since it is not morally accepted she cannot do the predicate (deontic).
238
Naghzgouye Kohan and Naghshbandi (2016) report from Pavehyi that
, ‘to be’, in the third person singular, i.e. ‘it is possible’ expresses epistemic modality (as in 48.a) and deontic (permission and obligation as in (48.b and c) :
(48) [16] a. IMPRF- Modal. PRS me-too thesis-DEF-1.SG !? finish do-1.SG ‘It is possible/would it happen one day that I also finish my thesis?’
[17] b. ? IMPRF- Modal. PRS I now car-DEF-2.SG take-1.SG ‘Is it possible I take your car?’
[18] c. When IPFV-go-2.SG to university-OBL IPRV- Modal. PRS . well Behave do-1.SG ‘When you go to university, you must behave well.’
It was mention before that Moradi (2012), using Palmer (2001) considers a sentence like (48.a) as an irrealis wish and consequently an epistemic. However, epistemic is a judgment about SoA and ‘wishing’ is not a judgment. This sentence is expressing a potentiality in SoA, therefore it might be considered as dynamic situational.
(48.c) is very interesting in the sense that at least in the data collected for this thesis, in none of the Iranian languages I could find what Naghzgouye Kohan and Naghshbandi (2016) call deontic modality. Here is the only place where you cannot translate the auxiliary to ‘it is possible’; rather it is very much closer to ‘should’. They consider it as a necessity in deontic modality, which comparing to (must, should, have to) “is less forceful…[and] is used to account for ethical advice consistent with societal norms by the external authority, thus it contemplates less necessity on the agent.” (Naghzgouye Kohan and Naghshbandi 2016: 236).
239
4.2.1.8.3 In Hawraman Takht dialect, this auxiliary has only a negative form to mean ‘must not, should not and not have to’ or sometimes ‘it is not possible’. In fact, since (must, have to, should) is an adverb and has no negative form, the alternative which Hawrami adopts is to use the negative form of another auxiliary verb. Hence we might expect the same modal roles of this auxiliary as for what the forms of those meaning ‘it is possible’ would have: deontic (in negative pole of the continuum though) as in (49.b), participant-inherent need (49.a), epistemic (49.c), participant-imposed necessity (49.d) and situational dynamic.
(49) a. NEG- Modal. PRS.3SG now something.ACC eat-1SG. ‘I must not/should not eat something now.’ b. NEG- Modal. PRS.3SG kid.ACC street.in alone leave do-2SG ‘You must not/should not leave a little kid alone in the street.’ c. NEG- Modal. PRS.3SG now home in be.3SG ‘(s)he shouldn’t/must not be at home now.’ d. Year-GEN next this time-DEF NEG. Modal. PRS.3SG Isfahan-in Be.SBJV-1SG IPFV-go-1SG place REFL ‘Next year at this time I should not/must not be in Isfahan, I will go to my town.’ NEG- Modal. PRS.3SG photo take-2PL ‘You must not/should not take a photo here.’
4.2.1.9 Sorani (in Sanandaj): Kurdish Languages One of the main sources of studying modality in Sorani dialect of Kurdish in this thesis was the doctoral dissertation of Ronak Moradi (2012). Applying Palmer
240
(2001) and Kratzer (1977), she studies modal auxiliaries in this dialect from semantic-syntactic perspective. Therefore, here in this section, besides the data collected, I will use Moradi’s examples and explanations as well. In her study modal auxiliaries in this dialect are:
Must/may (to become) May/be possible To be able to/can
There is yet another expression, , which she translates it as ‘it is suitable’, and considered it as an adverb, due to not having a negative form. However, I will explain later that in my thesis, this expression is an auxiliary as well, meaning ‘had to, should’ in the past tense.
4.2.1.9.1
This auxiliary has the negative and past form ( and . Moradi translates it as ‘must and maybe’; however, it seems it is not necessary to consider two translations for this auxiliary. Instead we might maintain different functions: one directive and deontic which is mostly close to what Moradi intends in ‘must’ and the other the epistemic and even dynamic functions which is close to her ‘maybe’. I would prefer this latter procedure, since ‘maybe’ is an adverb, while
is and auxiliary; and translating an auxiliary in the sense of an adverb might cause misunderstanding.
Since the imperfective marker is and the third person singular is marked with –e, we might consider this auxiliary forming of three morphemes. However, below in the examples, following Moradi, I will consider this auxiliary as just one morpheme.
In Moradi’s investigation (2012: 95) in Sorani dialect of Kurdish might express different forms of epistemic (assumptive and deductive), deontic
241 and dynamic modality (only expressing intention and volition for the first person). I will examine these findings of Moradi’s with the examples below from our corpus:
(50) a. Modal. PRS in home-DEF be.SBJV-3PL ‘(s)he must be at home.’ b. Jiyar Modal. PRS go.SBJV-3SG to coffee-house-GEN on street ‘Jiyar must go to the tea-house at this street.’
Various readings are plausible for (50.a): if morally the participant is obliged to be at home to do a specific task that would be deontic. However, if this obligation is from the external forces, for example (s)he must prepare a task before a specific time, that would be a participant-imposed necessity. If (s)he is obliged to be at home, based on the roles (from parents for instance), that would be directive. Yet, it could be expressed just to indicate a degree of estimation of SoA; then that would be epistemic. Although we might expect auxiliaries meaning ‘must’ code strong modality, let’s say notions such as necessity, in this latter use, stays in the middle of the epistemic continuum to mark possibility or probability, not a certainty.
(50.b) was produced in the context which ‘Jiyar goes to the tea room for having tea every day at 5:00 p.m. Even if he is not feeling well. There is no force for him to do so, still, he goes there every day. It is 5:00 p.m. now, so Jiyar …’. The goal of this context for Vander Klak (2012) was to examine epistemic necessity. Now let’s see how this sentence works in our understanding of modality. There is no moral necessity to force Jiyar to do so, therefore, it cannot be deontic. On the other hand, there is no external force on him to consider it participant-imposed or even directive. And definitely no epistemic, since there
242
is no estimation about the SoA. However, if by not going to the tea room and not having tea Jiyar would have a headache or so, that would be an internal need: participant-inherent need. In another perspective, such as Palmer (2001), that would be inferred certainty in the epistemic realm: a strong certainty which shows the speaker has an acceptable reason for the proposition. If we remove the context and consider the sentence on its own, that could be directive, deontic necessity (the participant is morally forced to do so), participant-imposed necessity and also a situational dynamic necessity.
Now let’s consider some of the examples in Moradi’s study:
(51) a. [17] Must/perhaps Rojan gone-SBJV-3SG to university ‘Rojan must have gone to the university.’ b. [23] Rojan must thesis-DEF-her until end summer Finish do-3SG ‘Rojan must finish her thesis by the end of summer.’
(51.a) is one of the examples which Moradi has translated as ‘Maybe Rojan has been gone to the university’. Here is the place I believe there is no need to consider a new translation for since even by translating it as ‘must’, we might have the same semantic function we expect from this auxiliary. In her analysis, this sentence is an epistemic speculative, based on Palmer (2001). In our perspective, this sentence is epistemic, however, it sits in the middle of the continuum to show possibility or probability. We might think of another reading for this sentence, too. This also can express deontic moral necessity and also directivity.
(51.b) also is deontic for Moradi. Although it might be true if we follow Palmer (2001) and even Bybee et al. (1994). We need to check how it works in
243
Nuyt’s perspective, where deontic modality needs to be moral. Is Rojan obliged morally to perform the predicate? Or the university rules force her to do it? It seems we cannot think of a moral obligation for Rojan to finish her thesis; however, she might face a problem according to the university laws, if not finishing her thesis by the end of summer. Then directivity is plausible. What if this is an embedded clause in another sentence: she must finish her thesis by the end of summer to get her Ph.D. degree and to be able to apply for a job. Then, that would be participant-external necessity.
The same as other languages we have studied so far, might be used to refer to deontic necessity or acceptability, epistemic possibility or probability, participant-inherent need, participant-imposed necessity, and situational dynamic necessity, besides directivity.
4.2.1.9.2
To Moradi (2012), is an adverb, since it doesn’t have any negative form.
However, for the informants of this thesis, the negative form is used in their everyday speech. The best translation for this expression would be ‘should’, however in past tense. The only example Moradi (2012) provides for
is as (52):
(52)[66] Ø (NEG)Should lie NEG (SBJV)-give-3SG/NEG-give.3SG ‘(s)he should/*shouldn’t lie/*be lying.’ I have asked my informants to produce this sentence and there were two results:
(53) a. NEG- Modal. PRS -3SG lie SBJV-say-2SG ‘You shouldn’t lie/it is not possible for you to lie.’ b. Modal. PRS lie NEG-say-1SG ‘You must not lie. (You must resist lying).’
244
To them although is formally restricted to past form, they made these examples to support their claims:
(54) a. = Modal. PST lesson=1SG SBJV-study.PST ‘I had to study.’ b. = NEG-Modal.PST yesterday-DEF call=1SG to-SBJV-give ‘I shouldn’t have called him yesterday.’ c. = NEG-Modal.PST cellphone-DEF=2SG cut do.PST ‘You shouldn’t have hung up the phone.’ d. == Modal invite=3PL=2PL do.PST ‘You should have invited them.’
Some hypotheses are probable for this auxiliary. One is that to consider it as an adverb, what Moradi does, which is impossible with the negative forms we saw above. The other is to consider it as an independent form of an auxiliary specified for the past tense. However, it has two problems. First, it is not linguistically economical to have such a specific use of an auxiliary in a language with other options available both for present and past tense. On the other hand, in (53), the only example which Moradi presents for this sentence, the main verb is in subjunctive form, considering the future, not past tense. So it is not specific only to past sentences. Another hypothesis is yet plausible for the nature of this auxiliary: this auxiliary is another past form of the verb , borrowed from the neighbor languages such as Hawrami, where ‘must’ and ‘had to’ are available with the same use. Geographically these two languages are close together. Even borrowing a phonemic or a morpheme (imperfective marker ) is also possible from the same language. In Iranian languages one of the main suffixes for past tense is – and it makes it easier to believe first, is
245 definitely a past auxiliary, and there is a relation between this auxiliary and
(which with adding the past suffix would change to ). However, it is not clear where the prefix stands here. Since in Kurdish, at least in the dialect we are studying, the imperfective marker is -, whether the whole word is borrowed from other neighbor languages, or it is the morpheme borrowed from Hawrami or the other dialects of Kurdish. These questions need to be examined deeply, however here is not the place to do so. For us, it is important that we have enough proof to consider as an auxiliary.
Moradi’s example (52) is introduced as a type of deontic modality. Since it is targeting the degree of morality, even in our perspective, that is deontic as well; however, if the speaker wishes to give an order (s)he wouldn’t use this auxiliary and the form is more preferable.
At first glance, it seems this auxiliary is restricted to deontic acceptability. However, we asked the informants to produce these sentences in the past tense:
(55) a. = Modal.PST in darkness PFV-sleep.PST-1SG, headache=1SG get.SINF ‘I had to sleep in the dark place or I would have a headache.’ b. = Modal.PST same time too key-DEF=2SG = PFV-turn.SINF, also door-DEF=2SG push give.SINF ‘You had to turn your key and push the door at the same time.’
The above sentences show the same as can express participant-inherent need (55.a) and participant-imposed necessity (55.b) besides deontic modality and directivity.
246
4.2.1.9.3 In Kurdish, the same as most Iranian languages, there are two points about this auxiliary: it has a complete inflection and there is no impersonal form of the verbs available; and as Moradi reports (2012: 99) they use the first person plural instead of the impersonal forms of verbs meaning ‘to be able to, can’. In her analysis ‘can, be able to’ expresses epistemic modality (speculative possibility), deontic (permission) and dynamic (volition and ability). In this thesis though, might illustrate participant-inherent ability, participant- imposed possibility, situational potentiality, and deontic (un)acceptability and also directivity.
(56) a. IPF-Modal. PRS-2SG near-GEN 1SG-OBL SBJV-stay-2SG ‘You can stay over.’ b. = in-this desert in winter snow=too IPFV- Modal. PRS-3SG be.SBJV.3SG ‘In this desert it can snow in winters.’ c. 1SG IPFV- Modal. PRS -1SG song SBJV-sing-1SG ‘I can sing.’
d. = IPFV- Modal. PRS -2SG want-2SG SBJV.be from=3SG = salary-DEF=2SG On time give.SBJV.3SG. ‘You can ask her/him to pay your wages in time.’
(56.a) offers participant-imposed possibility; since it is because of the external situation which the speaker can suggest it, for example, her/his house is big enough to have room for a friend. It is also possible to a directive where the participant is allowed to suggest so due to her/his parents' permission. (56.b) is a type of situational potentiality. There is no subject in this clause or at least the 247 subject is not animate; while (56.c) is what we prototypically expect from verbs meaning ‘can’ and that is ability. The speaker is talking about the inherent ability (s)he has. (56.d) is a type of deontic, not because it also has the permission (then that would be directive), rather because morally performing the predicate is accepted.
The same as other languages, this modal auxiliary might express dynamic modality (ability, necessity, and potentiality), deontic modality and directive for permission.
4.2.1.9.4
Three forms of the verb meaning ‘to be’ might express modality and they are “it is possible’, ‘it was possible’ and ‘it will be possible if’.
However, is restricted to conditional clauses or after adverbials like
‘maybe’ or ‘must/have to/ should’. Note that this exception is not restricted to Kurdish, rather in all Iranian languages the subjunctive forms meaning ‘it will be possible if’ have the same situation. The forms which Moradi (2012:98) considers as modals are “third person singular indicate , third person singular subjunctive and third person singular past imperfective meaning ‘if it was possible’. Examples in (57.a-c) are taken from Moradi (2012). In her analysis these forms can express epistemic speculative possibility (57.a), deontic (57.b) and dynamic (57.c):
(57) a. [34] = IPF-Modal. PRS.3SG day-INDF 1PL=too to ? up-PL SBJV-reach-1PL ‘It is possible for us to reach the high levels once?’ b. [36] IPFV- Modal. PRS.3SG in exam from book ? use do-1PL ‘Is it possible for us/Shall we use the book for this exam?’
248
c. [38] = ? IPFV- Modal. PRS.3SG from pen-DEF=2SG use do-1SG ‘Is it possible for me/May I use your pen?’ d. NEG- Modal. PRS -3SG Sara NEG-go-3SG to = Wedding sister=3SG-DEF ‘It is not possible for Sara not to go to her sister’s wedding party.’
Analyzing modality in interrogative sentences is always problematic. On the other hand, we have marked before about the sentences like is it possible for me to have a car one?, a structure which is close to (58.a) that to Moradi (2012) it is epistemic. By changing the sentence into affirmative, we might be able to interpret it easier: there is the potentiality in the SoA to achieve what I wish. Therefore that is a dynamic situational potentiality.
(57.b) for Moradi (2012) is deontic permission. However, permission for us is not a modality. Yet if this sentence is not asking for permission, rather it is checking the degree of morality, then that would be deontic.
(57.c) for Moradi (2012) is deontic (permission) and dynamic (volition), for the speaker is expressing his/her internal desire. In our interpretation, this is a directive.
(57.d) indicates the participant-imposed possibility, due to the external situation which makes it (im)possible for the participant to not to go to her sister’s wedding party. It is also possible for this sentence to illustrate deontic (un)acceptability, where not going to her sister’s wedding party for Sara is not morally acceptable. Yet, this sentence might be produced just to not to permit to the participant; in that case, this is directive.
249
So, this auxiliary in Sanadaji dialect of Kurdish refers to deontic acceptability, participant-imposed possibility, situational potentiality, and directive.
4.2.1.10 Gerashi Gerashi is a south-east language in Iranian categorization, and sits among the Larestani languages. It is spoken in Gerash, Fars province and it also marks the agent in past transitive verbs with clitics. Since ‘must, should and have to’ in Gerashi semantically is similar to Persian, I will postpone this auxiliary to 4.2.1.11.1. The modal auxiliaries in this language then are:
can to be possible
4.2.10.1
is the infinitive form of the verb meaning ‘to be able to, can’. It seems there are impersonal forms of this verb in Gerashi as modal auxiliaries: ‘to be able, can’, - ‘cannot’ and the subjunctive form of the verb. By impersonal, I refer to what Tabibzadeh (2013: 78) has in mind when he says “impersonality is a situation where a verb is used in a form of a short infinitive for another verb”. - is the imperfective marker, - the negative morpheme and be the subjunctive marker. It is also possible to code the subject on the verb based on the mood of the verb, whether subjunctive or indicative:
Table 38: ‘can’ in Gerashi
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
250
In Middle Persian the clitics could be linked to - ‘and’. According to the data on middle Persian, we might conclude clitics == and = are the sequences of the old - ‘and’ and the clitics. In this sense, both groups of clitics might be the same. Let’s see the examples in (58) to find out about the role of this auxiliary as a modal element:
(58) a. = NEG-IPFV- Modal. PRS without reason 3SG=out SBJV-do-3PL ‘It is not possible for them to/they cannot fire him without any reason.’ b. = IPFV- Modal. PRS.PST 3SG=with talk hit that permission give-3SG ‘It was possible to/one could talk to him/her to give the permission.’ c. = Water=3SG NEG cold-is NEG warm-is, IPFV- Modal. PRS.PST bare bring.SBJV-2SG ‘The water was lukewarm. It could be endured.’ d. IPFV- Modal. PRS go in this cave, but first
= Must 2SG=SBJV- Modal. PRS from this mountain = go.SBJV=2SG up ‘It is possible/one can go to that cave but you should climb that mountain first.’ e. = 1PL 1SG=IPFV- Modal. PRS song IPFV-sing-1SG ‘I can sing.’ f. = 2SG= Modal. PRS SBJV-go.SINF ‘You can/may come.’
251
This verb has a very defective inflection, comparing to the auxiliaries which are semantically the same as other Iranian languages. Yet is can express deontic and dynamic modality. (58.a) is a form of a deontic, since it is morally acceptable. While (58.b) indicates the conditions in the SoA which makes it possible for the participants to do the predicate. (58.c) is a participant-imposed possibility and in (58.d) this auxiliary is used twice. In both cases they are participant-imposed possibilities: if the external situation would be possible, the predicate would happen. The second reading for is to ask for permission. This is the same role for (58.f). However, the only real ability might be seen in (58.e) where it expresses participant-inherent dynamic modality.
The same as other languages this different forms of this auxiliary can express deontic, and three forms of dynamic modality (participant-inherent ability, participant-imposed possibility, and situational potentiality).
4.2.1.10.2
, and also the subjunctive form be-be are the forms of ‘to be’ which might have modal roles. They are all impersonal; however, it might be better to say they are all marked for the third person singular and are used for different persons and numbers. The main verbs after them are present or past subjunctive:
(59) a. = IPFV- Modal. PRS.3SG one day-INDEF 1PL=too = car 1PL=be.SBJV.3SG ‘It is possible for me to have a car once?’ b. = NEG-IPFV- Modal. PRS.3SG without reason 3SG=out SBJV-do-1SG ‘It is not possible to fire him/her without any reason.’
252
IPFV- Modal. PRS -3SG that wedding NEG-go-3SG ‘Is it possible for her/him /May (s)he not to go to the wedding?’ IPFV- Modal. PRS -3SG go in this cave. ‘It is possible to go to the cave.’ We have considered (59.a) before in other languages and we have marked it is a situational potentiality. (59.b) is deontic, since morality plays a role here. (59.c) is a directive where the auxiliary is used to ask for permission and (59.d) targets the external conditions makes the predicate to happen. To conclude, might express deontic, situational dynamic, participant-imposed possibility and directivity.
4.2.1.11 Persian Thanks to classical and modern studies, which have been done in Persian in recent decades, in terms of literature and linguistics, we might say the status of auxiliary verbs is evident in this language. Of course, there are still items which are at the beginning of the grammaticalization path, and for this reason, they mostly behave the same main verbs rather than auxiliary verbs. In any case, we study a set of auxiliaries which transmit the concept of modality. The contributions involved in this study include the following elements:
Must, have to, should Can, be able to Possible, maybe
4.2.1.11.1 One of the expression undoubtedly can be considered as a good example of an auxiliary verb with the maximum characteristics associated with the ‘auxiliary’
253 concept, is ‘must, should, have to’. and its other allomorphs in other languages such as Gerashi, Lori and Gilaki) has been more grammaticalized than the rest of the auxiliaries in Persian. However, as with its rival ‘maybe’, it has not reached the adverbial stage yet. It is not marked with person and number markers. In fact, it is an impersonal verb which formally is marked for third person singular, but it is applied for all persons and numbers. It also has some other forms which have less frequency comparing to , though they are still used in spoken and written forms: the indicative with/without imperfective marker (, simple past (), and past progressive with imperfective marker (), with suffix –i () with both imperfective marker and –i () (Akhlaghi 1386: 96). However, they are not limited to the tense they are marked for. Today, by extending its application is used for different types of tense. On the other hand, in many sentences, the past form of is used to show a concept in the present tense. The following sentences are all grammatical based on the intuition of a Persian speaker, even if they appear to belong to a particular class; considering this possibility which they all can be replaced with :
(60) a. = Modal.PST this street=ACC straight SBJV-go-2SG ‘You have to go this street straight.’ b. = Modal.PST for=3SG big-SUPR-NML do-2SG ‘You have to act as a guardian for them.’ c. 2SG mistake do.PST-2SG, 1SG Modal.PST == atonement=3SG=ACC back SBJV-give-1SG. ‘You have made the mistake, should I pay for it/should I atone it?’
The following main predicates might be short infinitive, present subjunctive, past subjunctive, and past progressive.
254
is used by default for offering deontic modality; however, in practice, it can express more concepts. In analyzing must in English, Coates (1983) defined it only as a deontic concept, without considering the other meaning of must which is need. Palmer (1979) has extended the role of ‘must’ to dynamic modality.
In studying in Persian, Akhlaghi (2007) practices Palmer (1979 and further) and counts deontic, epistemic and dynamic function for it. I will study this modal based on the data from the questionnaire and also the ones in
Akhlaghi (2007) presents:
(61)a. = That time that to=3SG need have.PST-1SG Modal. PRS = to=1SG help IPFV-do.PST ‘When I needed him/her (s)he should have helped me.’
= NEG- Modal. PRS to=3SG lie IPFV-say.PST-2SG ‘You shouldn’t tell him/her lies.’ c. Modal. PRS home SBJV.be-3SG, sure NEG-be-1SG ‘(s)he must be at home, I am not sure.’
As indicated earlier, one of the main semantic functions of this auxiliary is deontic modality. A decision is a deontic only if it indicates the degree of morality. (61.a) is as such. Morally, the speaker considered the participant responsible to help him/her at the time of need. The moral continuum of Nuyts is made up of two poles of absolute moral necessity and absolute moral unacceptability. The concepts such as desirable and acceptable are among the very middle of the continuum. In Persian and other Iranian languages, in which this concept is expressed as an auxiliary, it is possible to approach the negative pole of the continuum by adding the negative marker to the auxiliary verb (or
255 main verbs for the languages with adverbial expression for this concept), where morally performing the predicate is not acceptable. The example in (61.b) expresses this reading.
Another role for this auxiliary is the epistemic modality. Epistemic is defined on a continuum as well; where on the positive end there is the absolute certainty that the SoA is real; and on the negative end, the participant or the speaker is absolutely certain that the SoA is not real. In the middle of the continuum, three degrees of possibility, probability, and improbability are available.
It seems in Persian and Iranian languages and the expressions with the same meaning, are not applied for the two endings of the epistemic continuum, rather they express the mid concepts on the continuum. As an instance, if the speaker is absolutely certain that the SoA is real, (s)he would not say ‘’ (it must be here), rather (s)he would say
‘.’ (I am sure that it is here). (61.c) is a piece of evidence about this claim. Although the speaker is using this auxiliary, by adding ‘I am not sure’ he proves that (s)he is not absolutely certain about his/her assessment and it is merely a degree of probability.
Another reading on this auxiliary is dynamic modality. This type of modality prototypically equates to innate ability. However, the internal need of the participant would be a type of dynamic modality as well. It also included the necessity and possibility not only inherent by the participant, but the ones imposed on the participant or even those which are potentially or necessarily available in the SoA itself. These are the definitions of three forms of dynamic modality: participant-inherent, participant-imposed and situational dynamic. The following examples illustrate the space of dynamic modality which is expressed by :
256
(62) a. 1SG.NOM after from lunch Modal. PRS SBJV-sleep-1SG, and-if-not Head-pain IPFV-get-1SG ‘I have to sleep after lunch or I will have a headache.’ b. For that door open become-3SG Modal. PRS simultaneously = = Too key=ACC SBJV-turn-2SG, too door=ACC push SBJV-give-2SG ‘To open the door, you have to turn the key and push the door simultaneously.’ c. = All=1PL finally Modal. PRS one day SBJV-die-1PL ‘Finally, we have to die one day.’
(62.a) refers to an internal need of the participant which is necessary for him/her. That would be a participant-inherent need. However, (62.b) indicates the external conditions which are imposed on the participant, so that to make him/her able to do the predicate, (s)he needs to consider them. That would be a participant-external necessity. (62.c) on the other hand, considers the characteristics available in the SoA, the ones which are the same for all different types of participant, and in fact, there is no clear participant in such sentences, since the main role and feature is for the SoA, with or without any participant. Since this is a necessity in the SoA, (62.c) is a situational necessity in the realm of dynamic modality.
Along with the above roles, has yet another function; what Nuyts call directive and others, such as Palmer (2001) and Bybee et al. (1994), consider it as a deontic. Directivity has to with concepts such as permission and obligation. The example in (63) is a directive function of
(63) This now Modal. PRS SBJV-go-2SG out, and-if-not to police call IPFV-hit-1SG ‘You must leave now or I will call the police.’
257
We may conclude that this auxiliary might express deontic moral necessity and (un)acceptability, epistemic possibility, different forms of dynamic modality, including participant-inherent need, participant-imposed necessity and situational necessity, and also the non-modal role of directivity.
4.2.1.11.2. Determining the status of this verb, as a modal expression in Persian, in written form is much easier than the ones in other Iranian languages. Two forms of
and are definitely modal auxiliaries. In some studies, including Rahimian (2002), only these two forms are considered as modal auxiliaries and the other forms are not respected for expressing modality.
However, for many others, including Tabibzadeh (2013), consider and its different forms as auxiliaries. The main reason of such divergence of opinion is that this verb has almost a complete (and not defective) inflection for different tense. Thus we need to make sure yet we are allowed to consider it as an auxiliary. Based on Heine (1993) this expression indicates modality; it is not completely grammatical nor lexical; semantically it is not the main predicate; it is coded for person, number and tense (except the two impersonal forms mentioned above); very restricted forms of other auxiliaries govern in (and it seems that is only which does so); the adjacent expressions are very restricted (mostly different forms of subjunctive; except the impersonal forms which might be followed by short infinitive as well). Considering these features, it seems we might assume as an auxiliary, which is in the beginning process of grammaticalization.
In Iranian languages, there are some verbs which they can take two forms of complements, either nominal or clausal. Verbs such as ‘to want’,
‘to think’, ‘to see’, ‘to hear’, are such verbs which are
258
not necessarily related to modality. However, can only have the clausal complement and it is not possible for it to be the main predicate of the sentence. Once in the history of this language, it was possible for to be used in the sentence like:
(64) 1SG this task Modal. PRS -1SG do.SINF ‘I can do this task.’ These forms are not used in present Persian anymore, and they cannot be considered as counter-evidence against this claim that today, is not the main predicate anymore. Tabibzadeh (2013: 77-78) considers ,
and as three modal verbs in Persian: “Modal verbs are the verbs which are used to express modality and against the other types of the auxiliaries are not semantically empty and they have their specific argument structures”. He counts three features for these types of verbs: first, they are used with a clause and this clause is not replaceable with any other complement. Whereas this clause is a subject for and , for it is a complement. Second, these are the only types of verbs in Persian which can change to impersonal forms: the forms preceding a short infinitive and they do not have a specific subject. And finally, they do not have an imperative or a continuous form (even which has a more complete inflection comparing to the other two). To study the modality in this auxiliary, consider these examples:
(65)a. = NEG-IPFV- Modal. PRS -1PL without reason out=3SG do-1PL ‘We cannot fire him without any reason.’ b. = like-GEN water eat.PST-NMLZ IPFV-Modal.PRS -3SG this=ACC = for=2SG Lift do-3SG ‘(S)he can lift it for you easily.’
259 c. = Now IPFV- Modal. PRS -1SG SBJV-go-1SG on-GEN lesson=1SG ‘Now I can go to my lessons.’ d. Here temperature-GEN weather even IPFV-Modal. PRS -3SG SBJV-reach-3SG to Under-GEN zero ‘Here the weather can even reach under the zero.’ e. At all NEG-IPFV- Modal. PRS -3SG task-GEN 3SG SBJV-be.-3SG ‘(s)he couldn’t do that.’ f. ?/. IPFV- Modal. PRS-1SG SBJV-go-1SG out?/. ‘Can I/I can go out?/.’
One of the main roles of this auxiliary, based on the affirmative or negative form of the sentence, is moral (un)acceptability. (65.a) illustrates this function in a negative sentence.
(65.b) though is the one we expect from as a verb meaning ‘be able to’. The main role of this auxiliary is surely dynamic modality and among different forms of dynamic modality, the one which marks ability is what we mostly expect from this auxiliary as a participant-inherent expression.
(65.c) refers to participant-imposed possibility and (65.d) is a situational potentiality. In this recent role, there is usually no agent, or even if it is an animate agent, (as in 65.e) it is the potentiality (or the necessity) of the SoA that matters. can express only the potentiality situational dynamic, not the necessity.
(65.f) is what we have called directivity. It seems this function of
in Persian is new, under the influence of English and among the people the other auxiliary is usually used for permission.
260
To sum up, can express deontic, epistemic and dynamic modality (participant-inherent ability, participant-imposed possibility, and situational potentiality).
4.2.1.11.3
In Old, Middle and Present-day Persian, has meant ‘to go, to pass, to come, and to die’ (Ahmadi Givi 2006: 1418-1420). Tabibzadeh (2013: 183) counts six roles for in Persian: as a copula (66.a); the light verb in compound verbs (66.b); passive auxiliary (66.c); modal verb; auxiliary in passive or intransitive ANTIcausative verbs (66.d) and a simple verb (meaning to go, to pass which is not used in present Persian anymore) (66.e). (66) illustrates these functions, adopted from Tabibzadeh (2013: 183-191):
(66) a. Ø Ali happy become.PST-3SG ‘Ali became happy.’ b. = Ø Cold=1PL become-3SG ‘We are getting cold.’ c. Ø Food eat.PST-PTCP become.PST-3SG ‘the food was eaten.’ d. Ø Food ready become.PST-3SG ‘The food has become ready.’ e. Ø To Xorasan become/go.PST-3SG ‘(s)he went to Xorasan.’ Among the above roles, what is related to this thesis, is the modality function of , which are restricted to three forms: (the imperfective, third person singular), (subjunctive third person singular) and (imperfective past, third person singular).
261
Akhlaghi (2007: 109-114) considers these functions for this auxiliary:
When it is used for permission it is deontic; it also can express dynamic possibility; in epistemic modality to express possibility in weak judgment, i.e. speculating about the proposition.
She (ibid: 109) adds the only form of this auxiliary which can express
epistemic modality is ‘-’ (=; while all three forms can express dynamic modality. sentences in (67) taken from Akhlaghi (2007) offer these functions:
(67) a. [76] = IPFV- Modal. PRS -3SG name-GEN 1PL=too SBJV-go-3SG in newspaper ‘Is it possible once my name would be on newspapers?’ (Beizaei 1992: 46)
b. [83] = IPFV- Modal. PRS -3SG stuff.PL=1SG.POSS here SBJV-be-3SG until 1SG PRFX-turn.PST-1SG ‘Is it possible I leave my stuff here till I get back?’
c. [92] If game start SBJV-become-3SG then NEG-IPFV- Modal. PRS -3SG Go.SINF down ‘If the game starts one cannot/it is not possible to go down anymore.’
In her analysis, (67.a) is an epistemic, (67.b) is a deontic and (67.c) is dynamic.
Now let’s check Akhlaghi’s (2007) findings with the data of this thesis. Consider these sentences:
(68) a. = -i. IPFV- Modal. PRS -3SG door=ACC SBJV-close-2SG ‘Would you close the door (is it possible for you to close the door?’
b. = NEG-IPFV- Modal. PRS-3SG without reason out=3SG do-1SG ‘It is not possible to fire him without any reason.’ 262
c. = Weather stormy=be.3SG NEG-IPFV-Modal.PRS-3SG swimming do.PST.SINF/do-1PL ‘It is stormy, it is not possible (for us) to swim.’ d. = At all NEG-IPFV- Modal. PRS -3SG 3.SG this task=ACC .PST-PTCP be.SBJV-3SG ‘It is not possible at all that he has done it.’ e. How IPFV- Modal. PRS -3SG human dream-GEN one other be.SBJV-3SG ‘How is it possible for a person to be somebody’s dream?’ (Akhlaghi 2008: 113)
The first function of this auxiliary is to ask for permission, and this is among the three forms which can convey such a concept. This is clear in (68.a) and also in Akhlaghi’s example (2006: 111) as follows:
(69) [83]. IMP- Modal. PRS this stuffs here be.SBJV-3SG ? until return-1SG ‘Is it possible that these stuffs stay here until I come back?’ Akhlaghi (ibid, 111) considers this sentence deontic, however, for us, both (68.a) and (69) are directives. (68.b) on the other hand, is what we call deontic since it is targeting the degree of morality of the SoA. Even we might read it as a potentiality in the SoA which makes it (im)possible for us to fire him/her. Now let’s change this sentence to the past form (70), then we would have:
(70) = NEG-IPFV- Modal. PST without reason out=3SG do-1PL. ‘It was not possible to fire his/her without any reason.’
263
Even in this situation, with the new forms of the auxiliary, the potentiality is still there in the situation. However, it does not express deontic modality anymore. Another role of as a modal auxiliary is a participant-imposed possibility. (68.c) is an example of such function.
Expressing an assessment about the SoA, as an epistemic modality is what Akhlaghi (2007: 113) counts for , based on Palmer (2001):
(71) [76] = IPFV-Modal. PRS name 1PL=too SBJV-go-3SG in newspaper ‘Is it/it is possible that our name goes on the newspapers too?/. One of the possible reading for this sentence is permission. The other one is what is called situational potentiality in dynamic modality. I assume this reading is the one which in different studies on modality in Iranian languages, (leading by with Palmer (2001)), is translated to epistemic. This sentence is expressing a desire, which could be available in the SoA itself. It is not indicating the speaker’s estimation of certainty or possibility, rather this possibility in or is not in the SoA and the speaker is just desiring it.
To sum up, dynamic modality (participant-imposed and situation) and deontic modality are the functions which this expression can indicate, besides directive.
4.2.1.12 Grammaticalization and the origin of modal verbs 4.2.1.12.1 Overview In section (3.7) grammaticalization introduced as a process in which lexical words and constructions develop new grammatical function or the grammatical components change to more grammatical constructions (Givon 1979, Traugott and Dasher 2002, Hopper and Traugott 2003, Velupillai 2012). In this process, the first step is desemanticization, “when the linguistic construction gets used in
264
new contexts, it has, by then lost some of its original semantic content” as small as a grammatical content (Velupillai 2012: 288). In the next step, there is an extension, where the new item is used more frequently in new contexts. The new term is ready to reduce syntactically and morphologically. As in the case of evolving auxiliaries from lexical verbs, they lose subject markers, tense, aspect and mood markers. The more the morpho-syntactic features are lost, the more grammaticalized the lexical verbs would be. This is decategorization, where the category of the source item has changed to a new one. Grammaticalization also involves phonetic erosion which it happens when this new category is used very frequently in different environments (Velupillai 2012, Heine and Kuteva 2002).
Following the same path, and to achieve the main goal of this thesis which is categorizing Iranian languages semantically, I provide the origin of the modal verbs in Iranian languages, based on the synchronic and diachronic data. The diversity of the origin of the modals is not a lot. Normally, a specific term has developed to a type of modal in each language. Therefore, below, the source and the targets of each original item is classified as a common feature between these modals.
4.2.1.12.2 Modals derived from *gahu
In analyzing in Kahangi, in Tati, in
Semnani, and in Vafsi I have indicated the formal similarities between these modals and the verbs meaning ‘want’ in these languages and I postponed the explication of this fact to this section. In these languages, there are volitional verbs meaning ‘want’ ( in Kahangi, in Semnani,
in Tati and in Vafsi):
(72) Kahangi: a. = 1SG this book=1SG want ‘I want this book.’
265
b. = Want=2PL (that) SBJV-go-2PL to walking ‘We want to go walking.’
(73) Semnani: a. One little-INDF money IPFV-want-1SG ‘I want some money.’
b. = Scientist-from want.PST=3SG that 3SG.F guest be.SBJV.3SG ‘She asked the scientist to be her guest.’
(74) Tati: a. = This cat-F=1SG IPV-want ‘I want this cat.’
b. = = Sister=1SG IPFV-want=3SG one number house PRFX-get-3SG.F ‘My sister wants to buy a house.’
(75) Vafsi: a. = 1. SG.NOM this clothes1SG=IPFV-want ‘I want this clothes.’
b. = 1SG=IPFV-want idea PRFX-give-2PL ‘I want to give my idea.’
As the examples show, these verbs are transitive, which may either take a noun phrase (the a-examples) or a finite complement clause (the b-examples) as their grammatical object. Semantically, the use with a noun phrase normally involves the wanting of an entity (as in the above examples), hence comes close to meaning ‘desire’. The use with a complement clause involves wishing for the realization of states of affairs in the world, hence concerns a more abstract type of wanting (one which corresponds with the definition of the notion of volition).
These languages also feature a form which looks similar to the volitional main verb, but which has the properties of an auxiliary, and which is used to
266
express strong dynamic, deontic and epistemic modal meanings (need, necessity/inevitability, high desirability, near certainty) and directivity
(obligation). This concerns in Kahangi, in
Semnani, in Tati, and in Vafsi (each time the alternatives concern the present and past form, respectively). These are illustrated in (76)-(79). (76) and (79) are dynamic modal: ‘the situation forces us to do so’. (77) is ambiguous between a dynamic and a directive reading: ‘the situation forces one’, or ‘there are rules dictating so’. And (78) is deontic modal: ‘it is morally not acceptable to do so’. But the forms in all these languages feature all these meanings.
(76) Kahangi: This way from SBJV-Modal.PRS go.SINF ‘One must go this way.’
(77) Semnani: IPFV-Modal.PRS hat-GEN safety head put-3SG ‘One must wear a helmet.’
(78) Tati: girl-F IPFV-NEG-Modal.PRS street in aloud SBJV-laugh-3SG.F ‘A girl should not laugh aloud in the street.’
(79) Vafsi: IPFV-Modal.PRS from street-GEN Shirudi cross SBJV-become-1PL ‘We must cross the Shirudi Street.’
These forms must be considered auxiliary because (even apart from their meanings, which may but need not to correlate with auxiliary status) they show all the typical features of this grammatical form type (unlike the main verbal forms in (72)-(75); cf. e.g. Heine 1993). They show reduced inflection: they have no marking for person and number anymore, neither in the present nor in the past
267 form.1 They require the presence of a main verb as the predicate of the clause (whereby the latter may be finite or non-finite). And they never occur in clause- final position (the default position for main verbs). Typical for these forms is that they carry fixed affixes before the root of the auxiliary. In Kahangi this is the subjunctive marker in the present form and the (homophonous) 2 perfective marker in the past form. In the three other languages, this is the imperfective marker, in Semnani and Tati, in Vafsi. It seems, then, that each language has chosen one specific inflected main verbal form as the basis for developing an auxiliary.
The question now arises how the diachronic evolution from one to the other form has evolved. We seem to have a paradoxical situation. In a grammaticalization perspective, the default assumption would be that the auxiliary uses have emerged out of the main verbal ones. Given the formal properties of both form types in our languages, there is no reason to doubt this scenario (there is not the slightest indication that we might be dealing with a case of degrammaticalization). But at face value, this would then seem to imply that, semantically, volition, as the only meaning of the main verbs, has been the source for the dynamic, deontic and epistemic modal meanings occurring in the auxiliary uses. Yet in the (inter)subjectification perspective sketched in section (3.2.1.5.4) that is the opposite from what one would expect: a volitional meaning would normally evolve out of a modal one, but not vice versa. (An evolution
1 In Kahangi (unlike in the other languages) the form can combine with person and number marking, but this then appears as a clitic on the prefix be- or any element before it. The stem as such cannot host it. 2 The Iranian languages feature three different prefixes: one marks the subjunctive mood, one marks perfective aspect, and the third one marks the imperative mood. Some linguists (cf. Dabirmoghaddam 2013) assume that the subjunctive and imperative markers are actually the same, and only the perfective marker is distinct. Whatever the analysis, however, we expect the subjunctive marker to occur in a subordinate clause rather than a main clause. So the occurrence of this form in the auxiliary also in main clauses is special, and may be taken to be a signal of fixation. This lends further support to seeing this as a grammaticalized form. But see also the next footnote.
268
from volition to directive would not be problematic: the scheme in Figure 19 makes no predictions in that regards, but from wanting something to requesting or ordering something is an imaginable step).
Yet there is a possible explanation for the present day situation in our Iranian verbs, which is compatible with both the traditional grammaticalization perspective and the (inter)subjectification perspective sketched in Figure 19. It presupposes, though, that one does not assume a simple linear evolution between the meanings at stake, but a more ‘convoluted’ history. And it presupposes that the processes of grammaticalization and of (inter)subjectification, though both present in the forms, are not strictly correlated. There are no historical text materials left for the languages of concern, so it is impossible to check any assumptions about historical evolutions by means of diachronic corpus analysis. But our reconstruction of what might have happened is inspired by a recent study of a modal verb in Dutch which in the present day language shows a striking similarity with the Iranian forms, and which has been investigated by means of a detailed diachronic corpus study using significant samples of instances of the verb from different stages in the language’s evolution (see Nuyts et al. 2018 for details).
So let us first briefly summarize the main lines of the findings (as presented elaborately in Nuyts et al. 2018) regarding the evolution of the Dutch modal verb. It concerns the negative polarity modal hoeven ‘need’, which has evolved out the main verb behoeven ‘need’ in Early New Dutch (roughly, in the period after 1550). Behoeven exists as a main verb until today, and (after having developed a few more (inter)subjective meanings in Early New Dutch, which have disappeared again) has predominantly maintained its original meaning (equivalent to ‘I need a book’), although it occasionally also features a participant-imposed and a situational dynamic modal meaning (and very marginally, a directive use). Hoeven, after splitting off, has also maintained a main
269 verbal use parallel to that of behoeven, albeit as a very minor one. But unlike the latter, in this use it has been subject to semantic change: the original ‘need’ meaning (which is an ‘objective’ meaning in Traugott’s terms, see section 3.2) is now only marginally present, but it predominantly expresses volition. The main use of this modal verb is as an auxiliary, however, and in that use it has emerged (in a relatively very short time, and probably mainly in parallel) a range of meanings including participant-imposed and situational dynamic modality, deontic modality, directivity, and also volition.1 Hence, schematically and in strongly simplified terms, we get the evolution as sketched in (Diagram 6).2
MD END PDD behoeven MV ‘need’ (mainly) ‘need’ (mainly) ‘need’ hoeven MV (mainly) ‘need’ (mainly)volition hoeven AUX range of (I)S (roughly) same range of (I)S
Diagram 6: Modal verb hoeven in Dutch
There are many differences between the Iranian verbs of concern in this paper and this Dutch verb, in terms of their present day situation. But the significant correlation is that both show the co-existence of a main verbal form of a verb with (predominantly or exclusively) a volitional meaning (cf. Dutch main verbal hoeven and the Iranian forms in (74)-(77) above), and an auxiliary
1 In Present Day Dutch this modal is actually developing a new main verbal use, which has evolved out of the auxiliary use and has grammatical and semantic properties which differ from the original main verbal use (e.g., it maintains the (inter)subjective meanings of the auxiliary use). But this is of no further relevance for the present story and is disregarded in the scheme in (23) below. 2 Legend: MV = main verb, AUX = auxiliary, MD = Middle Dutch, END = Early New Dutch, PDD = Present Day Dutch, (I)S = (inter)subjective meanings.
270
form of that verb with a range of subjective and intersubjective meanings (cf. Dutch auxiliary hoeven and the Iranian forms in (76)-(79) above).
On this basis, then, we may speculate that also in the Iranian languages, there is no direct developmental relation between the volitional main verbs and the modal and directional auxiliaries. We may assume that both forms share a common source, a main verb with an ‘objective’ meaning (in Traugott’s sense), comparable to the Dutch main verb behoeven, although unlike in Dutch this form has disappeared in the present day Iranian languages. What might have been the precise meaning of this original main verb is hard to determine though. One possibility would be ‘desire’, as a description of a mental state, a meaning which may possibly still shimmer through in the uses of the main verb with a nominal object, of the kind in the a-examples in (72)-(75) above. Whether this meaning is plausible as a source for the modal meanings present in the auxiliary forms is not so obvious, though (it is, for example, not listed as a possible source for them in van der Auwera and Plungian 1998: 96-97). Alternatively, one could imagine ‘need’, the meaning also present in the Dutch main verb behoeven, as the source, since this can give rise to both modal and volitional meanings. But yet other sources are imaginable as well: English want, for instance, which is very similar to the Iranian main verbs, both semantically and grammatically (the English verb can also take both a nominal and a clausal object, with a comparable slight difference in the volitional meaning as in the Iranian forms – see above), originally meant ‘to lack’. That would also be a plausible source for the meaning ‘need’, which in its turn is quite plausible as a source for the different modal and other meanings of the auxiliary form.
The present main verb in the Iranian languages may then be a grammatical continuation of that original main verb, but with a semantic development towards a volitional meaning. The present Iranian auxiliary verb, however, may have split off from the original main verb before that meaning
271 change, and have undergone a process of grammaticalization, as well as one of (inter)subjectification, fully independently from the further evolutions in the main verb.
These assumptions are summarized in the scheme in Diagram 7. All the evolutions would then be in line with standard assumptions regarding the process of grammaticalization, and the assumptions regarding the process of (inter)subjectification as rendered in Figure 19 above.
origins present
main verb to need, to want, desire volition *gahu auxiliary range of (inter)subjective meanings
Diagram 7: The possible diachrony of the W-Iranian modal
4.2.1.12.3 Modals deriving from *xšāya
In Gilaki, Gerashi, and Kurdish, modals , and probably in Kahangi, evolves the present stem *xšāya in Old Iranian. This is the same root which and in Persian is derived from. The early meaning of *xšāya is ‘to own, to be able, can’ (Hasandoost 1393: 1846). In Parthian, this stem was šh- [šah-] meaning “to able, can”.
In Gilaki and Gerashi, this term is not completely desemanticized and still, it means ‘can to be able’ as its origin. However, the extension process has not led to the category change in Gilaki and Gerashi, yet, it has lost the features of a lexical verb. Phonologically, it has eroded a lot, which shows the source item is not confined to pass all stages of grammaticalization one after the other and it is possible to skip a level. In the decategorization process, the lexical verb has lost the feature of being inflected in different TAM and it has been evolved into a defective verb as a modal. As a transitive verb, another feature which the lexical verb has lost is to have two types of nominal and clausal complement.
272
That makes the clausal complement as the only complement possible to this new outcome.
In Kurdish, this source has evolved to ‘must, have to, should’ (Kiya 1390: 88). Identifying this core is not easy for native, normal speaker of Kurdish since there are only three forms of this verb available in present Kurdish:
and . The first step in grammaticalization, i.e. desemanticization, is completely accomplished in these languages in such a way that it is not easy to find any relation between the base and the present form. The next stage, the extension, this item got used in the contexts so that it ended up in decategorization from the main verb and a present stem in a modal verb with the restricted application. From this point of view, the term appears to have been more grammaticalized in Kurdish comparing to Gilaki and Gerashi.
Bybee et al. (1994) show those modals derived from verbs meaning ‘to be able to’ and ‘to know’ develop to dynamic notions (as can in English which has evolved from cunnen in Old English, meaning ‘know’). Therefore, those dynamic concepts that represent the dynamic notions of modals meaning MUST in Kurdish, are historically possible to trace and justify. While there is not a direct connection between other modal meanings of this item (including epistemic and deontic) in Kurdish, yet Bybee et al. (1994: 194-199) demonstrate that the dynamic concept might develop to root modality (non-epistemic) and then to epistemic modality. As an intermediate level, ‘permission’ which is a type of root or deontic modality in their approach, evolves from the same source. They show this relation as follows:
273
Mental ability Ability Root Modality (deontic and dynamic) Epistemic
Physical ability
Diagram 8: From the ability to epistemic
In the semantic map of Van der Auwera and Plungian (1998), verbs with the basic meaning ‘to own’ might develop to participant-internal necessity and possibility (what Nuyts call participant-imposed dynamic modality), and then to deontic and epistemic modality.
What has happened semantically for this verb to change to a modal in Kurdish might include losing the ability and gaining possibility, probability and necessity notion:
(80) Verb ‘to possess, to be able’ to modal verb ‘must’: [+ability] [+ possession]→ [+ability] [-possession] [+necessity] [+possibility]
4.2.1.12.4 Modals evolving from tav-
in Persian, in Tati, in Gilaki, in Balochi,
in Lori, in Hawrami and in Kurdish, they all evolved from a stem which is possible to trace back to Sanskrit, where tavas- meaning ‘force, power and ability’ is derived from the Indo-European term teu() meaning ‘to inflate, to increase and to grow’. This term was tavah- and tav- in Avestan and Old Persian, meaning ‘to be able to’ (Hassandoost 2014: 91).
As was mentioned above, Bybee et al. (1994: 191) believe verbs with physical meanings close to ‘have physical ability’ are one of the sources of modal meanings. In the basic form, this notion ‘was only used for physical forces and abilities which the agent could perform, however today, preserving the same meaning…they are used to express the possibility of performing the action or
274
the probability of the occurrence of an event based on what the speaker estimates or believes (Davari and Naghzgouye Kohan 2017: 236). Following diagram 7, lexical terms with semantic meaning of ‘ability’, develop first for non-epistemic notions and then to epistemic, in grammaticalization process. Davari and Naghzgouye Kohan (2017: 239) believe this change is possible only if the physical possibility changes to a mental possibility on the speaker’s mind. Then, the physical ability which was once only used to talk about dynamic notions would change to the mental ability which would cover not only other forms of dynamic modality but also it includes deontic modality as well. Due to this evolution from physical to mental notion, epistemic modality would also develop from this source.
4.2.1.12.5 Modals developing from *upā-aya-ti In Iranian Historical studies, the asterisk (*) above entry shows a related word is an assumptive form of the Old Iranian languages which based on the evidence and rules of language change, we expect it could be the form in the hypothetic
Old Iranian. So, *upā-aya-ti means this form might or might not be the form in that language, but we expect so.
‘’ (must, have to and should) in Persian, Lori, Gerashi and Gilaki developed from the same source, however phonetically they have passed different ways, and some have eroded more than the others. In Persian, this modal has evolved from . But if we ignore middle Persian and this recent form and move back to Old Iranian, we might get to *upā-aya-ti or *upa-bāvya where is a prefix and means ‘to get closed to, to arrive’ and is the present stem meaning ‘to go’ and bav meaning ‘to be, to become’ (Hassandoost 2014:
403-404). In this sense, the hypothetic form *upā-aya-ti might mean ‘to go towards something/somebody, to be/get close to something/somebody’. An interesting
275 point is that it is only in Parthian that this verb, with the form aāš means ‘need and necessity’ (ibid).
In Van der Auwera and Plungian’s semantic map (1998) items meaning ‘to be, to become’ might change to modal notions with participant-internal necessity or possibility (participant-imposed). These verbs are among the few items which to change to epistemic, they don’t need to go through the participant-internal necessity and possibility as intermediate stages. Rather, it is possible for them to change to epistemic modality directly. However, to develop to dynamic, they have to pass the mentioned intermediate levels. That means they need to change to an item with participant-internal meaning and then semantically extend to deontic contents. So, a verb which had no essence of modality at first place, in the grammaticalization process changed to one of the main modals in these languages:
(81) Lexical verbs ‘to go’ and ‘to become’ to modal auxiliary ‘must’: To go: [+movement] → [-movement] [+necessity] [+possibility] To become: [+change of state] → [+necessity] [+possibility]
Davari and Naghzgouye Kohan (2017: 242-247) in their recent study on this modal suggest that on the primary stages of Modern Persian, this modal was used as the main verb and it could be inflected for singular or plural with subject endings. However today, it is not possible to use this modal without a main verb.
Comparing to the initial centuries of Hijri, i.e. 600 to 800 A.D, has been more grammaticalized. Therefore, this verb not only has met semantic change (from going/being to MUST), but along with the semantic change, it faces extension and decategorization from the main verb to a modal. As was specified before, the main difference between Iranian languages for this modal is the
276
phonetic erosion; otherwise, it seems from desemanticization to decategorization, in all languages, this modal had passed the same route.
However, all these languages have evolved the less common form of this verb as past form. In Persian , , and , in Gilaki and in Lori represent the past form of this modal; where suffixes –
are the past markers in these languages. Hassandoost (2014: 404) suggests these recent forms are developed from construction of present stem plus
as a past marker and produces apāyist-, as the past stem.
4.2.1.12.6 Modals derived from bava- In many Iranian languages, there are modals which we might translate to ‘it becomes, it is possible’ ( in Kahangi, in Vafsi, in Semnani,
/ in Gilaki, bi in Baluchi, in Lori, in Kurdish in Gerashi and , the negative form, in Hawrami). These modals develop from a verb with two meanings: to be and to become.
In Sanskrit, bhav-, in Old Iranian *bav- meaning ‘to be, to become’ are evolved from bheu in Indo-European which meant ‘to increase, to grow’. In Avestean, bav- again meant ‘to be, to become’ and in Old Persian it changes to bavištn. In Parthian, bw- was a stem, with bwdn as infinitive form, pronounced būa ‘to become, the entity’.
In the semantic map of Van der Auwera and Plungian (1998: 91), lexical sources meaning ‘to be, to become’ at the first stage of grammaticalization, which is desemanticization, directly change to epistemic modality. Bybee et al. (1994) also believe constructions which are emerged from this source are a good candidate for future marking. However, to achieve this goal, they might pass some ‘obligation’ at the intermediate level. It was indicated before that epistemic modality is derived from non-epistemic notions. Therefore, we expect the
277 grammaticalization of the above sources as follows. Note that language is not necessarily bound to pass all these steps one by one.
To be, to become non-epistemic modality epistemic modality future
Diagram 9: From ‘become’ to epistemic modality
4.2.1.12.7 Modals evolved from *šava-
in Persian, ‘to become’, is derived from *šava-/ šyava- in Old Iranian and šutan in Middle Persian, meaning ‘to go’ (Hassandoost 2014: 1860). Today, in Persian it has lost this meaning and as the main verb, it is an inchoative or change of state. As Bybee et al. (1994: 340) report we expect verbs meaning ‘move forward’, the meaning lies in ‘to go’, in grammaticalization, change to intention and then to the future marker. They (ibid: 240) suggest this change as below:
Purpose complement to move toward intention want, order Future imperative
probability
Diagram 10: grammaticalization from the sources meaning ‘move toward’
However, if we consider as a kinetic verb in its primary meaning, which can evolve to possibility and grace (as Davari and Naghzguye Kohan 2017: 253 do), we might understand how this verb might have changed to a verb with modal content.
Besides Persian, another plausible source of the modal in Kahangi is ‘to go’ in this language. The reason we cannot judge clearly what this
278
modal is developed from is that in nearby languages to Kahangi, as in Naeini,
means ‘to go’, which in Naeini it has evolved to ‘can be able to’. However, it is possible to see a strong relationship between this verb as the main verb and the modal, which might lead undoubtedly to the fact that the modal is derived from the main verb. For example, both have the same imperfective marker and subject markers. Sentence (7) above is repeated here as (82) for the ease of access:
(82) a. If IPFV-Modal.PRS-2PL IPFV-do.SIN, SBJV-buy-2PL ‘if you can buy, then buy.’
If IPFV-go-2PL, SBJV-buy-2PL ‘If you go, buy.’
The only and the main, difference between these two functions of this verb is that as a modal, the main verb is a short infinitive. If the main verb and the modal are in the same clause, that is the main verb which changes to the short infinitive (see 83), if not, the short infinitive verb of (to do) sits after the modal as a default form of a short infinitive which can follow this modal:
(83) IPFV-Modal.PRS-2PL IPFV-buy.SIN ‘You can buy.’
In any case, in Kahangi still has the old meaning ‘to go’.
However, in Persian, this meaning has receded from . As a categorization change, the main verb has changed to a modal with different functions.
In addition to Persian and Kahangi, the verb , ‘can’, in Vafsi seems to have roots in a verb which itself might have derived from . The inflection system of the verb ‘to go’ and ‘can, be able to’ in Vafsi are so that it strengthen the relation between verbs meaning ‘go’ and modals meaning ‘can’.
279
From the grammaticalization perspective, on one hand, we might expect
from . On the other hand, it is yet possible both verbs are derived from main source. One as a main verb with a complete morphological paradigm, and the other as a modal with defective inflection. It seems the old form of is the best candidate to evolve to these verbs since phonologically it is easy to prove
and are just a result of phonological changes on the old form of . In languages, lexical verbs with the scheme of [x goes to y] and [x wants y] in the grammaticalization process usually change to future markers (Heine and Kuteva 2011). On the other hand, Bybee et al. (1994: 188-191) show that lexical item which deontic and ability modals are derived from in the languages of the world are verbs like ‘finish, know, arrive, be there, know, know how to, reach, arrive at’ which among them, the most common source is ‘to know’. So, it seems changing a verb which means ‘to go’ to show ability is a new source documented from Vafsi. However, it needs a more comprehensive analysis. Evolving from a lexical verb to a modal, as other changes in grammaticalization, normally follow a semantic change. Since both verbs express physical notions, it seems we might justify the relation between and as ‘somebody goes for an action if he believes he is able to do it physically or mentally’.
4.2.1.12.8 Modals evolving from zan/dan The only verb in the Iranian languages of concern here, which has evolved from a verb meaning ‘to know’ to a modal meaning ‘to be able to’ is in Semnani. In Sanskrit the form jnā meant ‘to know, to recognize, to understand’; in Avestan, zan- was a stem means ‘to know, to understand’; and in Parthian zān- was ‘to know, to recognize’. I have marked above that according to Bybee et al. (1994: 190) verbs meaning ‘to know’ are the main sources for modals showing ‘ability’. To know something usually means the agent has the mental ability. Evolving from mental ability to general ability (physical or mental) is very
280
common in the languages of the world. Bybee et al. (1994: 192) suggest ‘most activities that require mental ability also require some physical ability’, so ‘knowing’ which is a mental activity is easy to change to ‘can, be able to’ which includes both mental and physical ability. Although when a lexical verb develops to a modal, we expect the lexical verb does not exist anymore or has a limited application, in Semnani still exists as the main verb meaning ‘to know’. This shows whether the source of ‘to know’ and ‘to be able to’ are the same and they have derived independently from that source or is at the first stages of grammaticalization from ‘know’ to ‘can be able to’. That is why both verbs with the same inflection are now available.
In the semantic map of Van der Auwera and Plungian (1998: 94), those concepts derived from lexical verbs meaning ‘know’, in the semantic evolution might express participant-internal possibility, participant-external possibility, deontic possibility, and epistemic possibility. They sketch evolving from ‘know’ to different types of modality as follows:
deontic participant- possibility participant-internal Know external possibility possibility epistemic possibility
Diagram 11: From ‘know’ to ‘possibility’
4.2.1.12.9 Modals developing from ārīka
ārīka in Old Iranian is ‘aid, help, support’ which ‘to be able to, to dare’ in Persian is derived from. In the languages of concern here, this verb was observed only in Gilaki as a modal, and in non-assertive contexts. Following Bybee et al. (1994) we might expect that this verb with ‘physical and mental
281 ability’ enters the grammaticalization path. Diagram (8) shows developing from the ability to epistemic in the languages of the world might work for as well. This ability with the physical or mental source first is used for general ability and then it starts showing deontic and dynamic modality. Finally, these concepts can extend to epistemic as a final goal. Change of context and category of this main verb has developed so that is used only in non-assertive (interrogative and negative) contexts.
4.2.1.12.10 Modals derived from
In Tati, ‘to turn, to revolve’ is derived from in Old Iranian
(Mansouri 2004: 164). The main verb is šthe present stem is - which with the past tense suffix –is changes to past stem, and then (in Persian) or (in Tati) is produced. This verb has changed semantically from ‘to turn and to revolve’ to ‘become’. Mansouri and Hassanzadeh (2009: 235) believe there is a relation between as the present stem and šas the past stem of the verb: one is vart- ‘to turn, to search’ (derived from vrt- in Sanskrit, and *uer-t in Indo-European) and the other is - ‘to weave, to twist’. However, this recent meaning in Tati, that is ‘to become’ as a modal and auxiliary implies a change of state which is a source or inchoative verbs. Since this evolution includes a physical change from a source to a goal, on one hand, we might equate it with
‘to become’ in Persian and on the other hand it could also be translated to
, , i.e. ‘to be able, to deserve’ as in other Iranian languages. In any case, the concept of possibility and ability in the external world is implied in this modal. The path which starts with ability would go to dynamic and deontic ability at intermediate levels and ends in epistemic.
282
4.2.2 Modals adverbs Modal adverbs, as the name suggest, are adverbs which indicate the speaker’s estimation of the SoA. Lots of studies have been done on different types of modal adverbs and how they must be classified (Nuyts 1993 and 2001; Celle 2011; Huddleston and Pullum 2002; Greenbaum 1964’; Bellert 1977; Quirk et al. 1985; Simon-Vandenbergen and Aijmer 2007; Hennemann 2012 and etc.). But so far, there has never been any precise study of the modal adverbs in Persian or any other of Iranian languages (except the limited part of Taleghani Ph.D. thesis in 2008).
As a result of these studies in languages such as English, it has been cleared that first, it is not possible to use modal adverbs in non-assertive (negative and interrogative) sentences (as in 84.a and b); then, they cannot be the focus in the focal sentence (84.c); it is not possible to use them in cleft sentences (84.d). But in Iranian languages, there is not even a precise classification of the possible constraints on the modal adverb, let alone providing the exact features such as above.
(84) [6] a. *Probably they ran out of fuel? b. *Did they probably run out of fuel? (Nuyts 1993: 935) c. [21] A: Probably they ran out of fuel. B: That's not true. (ibid: 943) d. *It is probably that they ran out of fuel. Semantically and syntactically adverbs are classified into various groups. Some adverbs have features which categorize them along with nouns, verbs, and adjectives. These adverbs are inherent adverbs (Haghshenas and et al. 2008: 171). Simple adverbs, compound adverbs, derivational adverbs, idiomatized adverbs and some Arabic based adverbs (including ‘mostly’ previously’ ‘definitely’ ‘please’ ‘certainly’) are the sub-types of inherent adverbs. On the other hand, different grammatical phrases
283 and group, such as nominal, adjective and prepositional groups, might have adverbial attitudes. These types of adverbs are called ‘non-inherent adverbs’ (ibid: 171). Furthermore, from the functional perspective, adverbs can describe verbs, sentences, adjectives and other adverbs (ibid: 173). Adverbs of degree, quality, time, location, and interrogative are different types of adverbs of the verb; while sentential adverbs are dependent on the whole sentence and “are both inherent and non-inherent to express the speaker’s idea about the sentence’ (Tabibzadeh 2013: 118). Sentential adverbs are as follows:
Attitude adverbs (such as ‘fortunately’
‘unfortunately’, and…) contingency adverbs ( ‘based on’
‘on the basis of’), desire adverb (‘wish’and…), approximation adverb ( ‘maybe’ ‘probably’), emphasis adverbs
( ‘definitely’’undoubtedly’ and…), resultative adverbs
( ‘therefore’ ‘so, then’, interrogative adverbs
( ‘yes/no question markers’and responding adverbs (’yes’
From the above discussion, we might conclude that modal adverbs are sentential adverbs, including attitudinal, approximation and emphasis adverbs. In this thesis then, modal adverbs are those which “express the speaker’s attitude to what he is saying, his evaluation of it, or shades of certainty or doubt about it” (Greenbaum 1969: 94).
The modal adverbs in this study are mainly categorized under the two titles, emphasis and approximation adverbs. Considering the fact that attitudinal adverbs can indicate modality as well, and also being aware of various types and numbers of emphasis adverbs and approximation adverbs, here I only investigate those modal adverbs which have been collected during the process of data gathering for this dissertation. The related adverbs are:
284
definitely surely, absolutely surely undoubtedly probably, possibly maybe Maybe, probably, possibly
Among the above adverbs, are emphasis adverbs and andare approximation adverbs.
Except in case of , all other adverbs in the list above are either borrowed from Arabic or they have used the Arabic structure to change an adjective to an adverb, as in case of ‘helplessly, forcefully’ (which is not included here). In case of , a Persian derivational prefix - (without) is added to an
Arabic word, (doubt) to produce this adverb.
Considering the above description and the studies I have done in this thesis, directly or indirectly through Persian, almost all Iranian languages (at least those in our list) have borrowed the above Arabic adverbs. However, sometimes it seems odd to use these adverbs in informal spoken forms of these languages; for example, instead of ‘definitely’ (where is an
Arabic element) they prefer to use ‘I am sure’ (where = is first person singular clitic form of the verb ‘to be’), or the declarative form of the sentence with heavy stress on the first syllable of the verb, as in:
= Ø This way=3SG NEG-be-3SG This is not the way (to do it)
As the result of the above introduction, instead of investigating each of these adverbs in each language, I introduce and analyze each adverb as the main topic and present examples from one or some Iranian languages, to prevent any redundancy.
In the languages of the world, modal adverbs are a means to express epistemic and evidentiality. As Nuyts points (2001: 55) epistemic modal adverbs ‘are the most precise and specific means available for marking the degree of
285 likelihood of an SoA’. Based on the degree of possibility the adverbs express, Nuyts sketch them on the epistemic scale, from extreme positive end to the negative side of the scale, with some intermediate levels. But this is not the only function of modal adverbs. In many cases, these adverbs have nothing to do except strengthening the sentence or the predicate. In this case, they have no modality sense. Consider the mentioned adverbs, in two groups of A and B as follows:
4.2.2.1 Group A: The common feature among these adverbs is that, in traditional categorization, they are all considered as emphasis adverbs. Besides, they all form the positive pole of the epistemic continuum. They can indicate the negative pole, i.e. absolute certainty that the SoA is not real, only if the predicate of the clause changes to the negative form, using a negative morpheme (85.a). On the other hand, completely against European languages in which modal adverbs occur only in assertive contexts, it is possible to use these modal adverbs in W-Iranian languages in interrogative (85.b) and negative sentences (85.a), as types of non- assertive contexts.
(85) a. Vafsi: Definitely NEG-Modal.PRS help do-3SG ‘(s)he definitely can’t help.’ b. Howrami: ? Sara surely for this party-DEF IPFV-go-3SG ‘Sara will/Will Sara definitely go to this party./?’ c. Kurdish Undoubtedly IPFV-Modal.PRS-3SG help do-3SG ‘Undoubtedly (s)he can help.’
286
d. Hawrami Surely 3SG one from the best professor-PL-GEN this = field=be.3SG ‘(s)he is one of the best professors in this field for sure.’
There are some points about these sentences I need to mention. First, the clauses including these adverbs, might not have a verb in the subjunctive mood. Consider these sentences in Persian:
(86) a. Definitely from this way go.PST-3SG/IMPR-go-3SG (S)he definitely has gone/is going from this way.
b. Definitely from this way SBJV-go-3SG ‘(s)he definitely goes from this way,’
I need to mention this note that in Persian, both subjunctive and imperative marker are marked with a portmanteau morpheme be-, i.e there are two be- in Persian, one for marking subjunctive and the other for imperative. If we consider (86.b) as an imperative, that would be order and has no role except strengthening the sentence; and as the consequence the sentence is grammatical. But if the mentioned morpheme is a subjunctive marker, the sentence would be ungrammatical.
Another point is that when there is such an adverb in the clause, not only the main verb of the clause cannot have the subjunctive mood, but also other modals cannot have subjunctive form after these adverbs either:
(87) Persian Definitely IPFV-Modal.PRS-3SG ‘It is definitely possible.’
Certainly IPFV-Modal.PRS-3SG ‘(S)he certainly can.’
287
Surely SBJV-Modal.PRS-3SG *‘(s)he surely will can.’
And finally, the subjunctive mood is only possible if there is a modal after the adverbials and then because of the modal, the main verb takes the subjunctive mood. In fact, there are two reasons then for the verbs to be in subjunctive mood: first, the modal adverb in such a situation does not have a modal function anymore, rather it is only strengthening the clause; second, when the adverb is in the same clause with a modal auxiliary, and the following clause includes the main predicate in subjunctive mood. In this case, the second clause with the main verb is the clausal subject of the modal auxiliary:
(88) Persian: a. Definitely IPFV-Modal.PRS-3SG [from this way SBJV-go-1PL]. ‘It is definitely possible [for us to go from this way].’ b. = Ø] Definitely IPFV-Modal.PRS-3SG [from=3SG help SBJV-want.PST-3SG ‘(S)he definitely can [ask him/her for help].’ It is even possible to use short infinitive in the same position:
(89) Persian: Definitely IPFV-Modal.PRS-3SG from this way go.SINF ‘It is definitely possible to go from this way.’ So this group of modal adverbs demosnestate strengthening the proposition or illustrate the two extreme poles of epistemic modality (based on the fact that if the verb of the sentence is in affirmative or negative form).
4.2.2.2 Group B: (Probably) (Maybe, Possibly) (Maybe, Possibly) These groups of adverbs are the members of approximation adverbs. They express possibility or probability, in the middle of the epistemic continuum.
288
Except in case of , which is derived from in Middle Persian, the other two are borrowed from Arabic. Among these two, is more frequent than (at least in Persian). However, in some languages, as in Tati
(Takestan), l is the main adverb to express possibility and probability and in fact, it is an equivalent for . The same as other adverbs, it is possible to use these adverbs in negative and interrogative sentences. Though, unlike the first group of adverbs, they cannot be used for strengthening the clause. Examples below show how these adverbs work in Iranian languages:
(90) a. Semnani Maybe tomorrow SBJV-come-3PL ‘Maybe they come tomorrow.’
b. Tati Maybe way on-GEN PFV-go.PST-PRTCP-3SG shopping ‘Maybe he has gone shopping on his way home.’
c. Gerashi = = Probably hand=3SG around garden=3SG have.SINF ‘Probably (s)he is busy with his garden.’
In an example similar to (91) Taleghani (2008: 33) suggests in such a situation is ungrammatical, because it is co-occurring with subjunctive mood.
91. [65] Probably Sara to this Party SBJV-come-3SG. ‘Probably Sara will come to this party.’
As she claims, using the subjunctive mood with this adverb, within a clause, ends up to ungrammaticality of the sentence; and to prevent it, one can apply two modal compound verbs (to have probability) and
(to have possibility); because these verbs need complement clauses
289 and when the modal expression is an adverb, the main verbs needs to be in indicative form.
There are two notes about what she has concluded about sentence (91) as an ungrammatical sentence. One is that using the subjunctive form in the main clause is definitely non-problematic; even in conditional sentences, in both protasis (condition) and apodosis (consequence) clauses, there would be no problem to use the subjunctive. Consider the sentences below in Persian:
(92) a. If IPFV-come-3SG together SBJV-go-1PL ‘If (s)he comes, let’s go/we will go together.’ (in apodosis clause) b. If SBJV-come-3SG,IPFV-sit-1PL together lesson IPFV-study-1PL ‘If (s)he comes, we will study together.’ (In protasis clause)
Moreover, for any native Persian speaker, sentence (91) is fully grammatical. It seems the constraint that Taleghani aims to mention is not about the adverbs of this group, but as argued above, it is for the adverbs of the first group which lay on the end poles of the epistemic continuum.
There is yet another hypothesis which we can follow and that is: the semantic constraints which do apply on adverbs of group A, do not suit for adverbs of group B, could be an analogy from the adverb . This adverb is derived from in Middle Persian, meant ‘it is fitting that/it is worth that’. In New Classic Persian, it was yet a verb and meant ‘to be possible, to be probable and to be worthy’ (Mahmoodi Bakhtiyari 2008: 159). In the grammaticalization from a full lexical verb, it first changes to a modal and then an adverb. But it seems the fact that we can use subjunctive mood with a clause including , is a remaining from a time that it was a modal or any sort of auxiliary, with or without modal meanings. On the other hand, and
290
which are borrowed from Arabic, following adverbs with the same meaning, finds it suitable to permit subjunctive mood in the same clause. Confirming or denial of this hypothesis needs more precise studies. However, the fact is that in Persian and other languages which use these adverbs, it is possible to use the subjunctive mood of the verb with them within the same clause.
4.2.2.3 Language-specific modal adverbs in Iranian languages While most Iranian languages use the above modal adverbs, in some others besides there are specific modal adverbs. However, their semantic realm is not so different from the mentioned ones. Besides, the concepts which in other languages are normally expressed through auxiliaries, in some languages (including Balochi and Hawrami) are expresses with modal adverbs. You will see them as follows:
4.2.2.3.1 in Kahangi
Since there is no written document in this language, it is difficult to trace meaning ‘maybe’ back; however, still speculating some hypothesis is possible.
One of them is that this adverb has raised from the expression meaning ‘sometimes it is possible’. Even it is possible to see it related to , roots meanings ‘want’ in past and present. Even though these are only possibilities which are not the concern on this study.
, prototypically reflects epistemic modality. The predicate of the clause after this adverb can be marked with a perfective or imperfective marker and also with subjunctive mood, both in the present and past tense, with the least possible restriction. However, if there is a restriction on these clauses, that would not be the restrictions which the existence of may cause, rather they are the characteristics of the language itself. As an example, if it is not possible to use a
291 predicate in past perfect in a clause which includes , it is because in this language both past subjunctive and past perfect have the same form. In fact, there is no specific form for the past perfect in this language and the sentence in (93.b), as an instance, can be translated to both past subjunctive and past perfect:
(93) a. Ø Maybe PFV-go.PST-PTCP-3SG ‘(S)he might have gone.’ b. Ø Maybe PFV-go.PST-PTCP-3SG be.SUBJ ‘Maybe (s)he has gone already.’ c. Maybe SBJV-go-3SG ‘Maybe (s)he goes.’ d. Maybe have-3SG money IPFV-give-3SG ‘Maybe (s)he is giving money.’ e. Maybe go.3SG ‘Maybe (s)he goes.’ f. = Maybe be.SBJV help=3SG do-3PL ‘Maybe it is possible to help him/her.’
When the informants were asked to say ‘maybe they can help’ in Kahangi, they produced Sentence (93.f). They have used two forms for this context. In their immediate articulation, where they have meant ‘physical ability of a person’ they have applied =; which could be exactly translated to ‘maybe they can/they are able’.Thinking ‘twice’, they have recognized the necessary conditions which could make the predicate possible. In this case, they preferred which it could be translated into ‘maybe it is possible’. The former then is targeting the inherent ability of ‘them’; that makes it participant-
292
inherent dynamic modality. In the latter though, since the speaker is using to talk about a degree of possibility, that would be an epistemic use. Notice that even it is possible (s)he is targeting the potentiality in the SoA. In that sense, this sentence would be situational dynamic as well. But this reading is possible even without the modal adverb , because it is the modal auxiliary which is expressing situational dynamic.
So as was expected, , the same as ‘maybe’ in English and in Persian is an adverb with epistemic meaning, in positive end.
4.2.2.3.2 (MUST) and (maybe, possibly) in Balochi
As was marked earlier, the main item to express the concepts equal to (must, have to, should) are modal auxiliaries. Although, in Balochi, it is a modal adverb which illustrates these range of meanings, and that is . has neither negative nor past form, which will exclude it from the auxiliary category. So, in negative sentences, it is the main verb of the clause which alters to negative (see 94.a). Consider examples in (94):
(94) a. Ø 2SG this time must bride NEG-be.IMPR-2SG ‘You must not marry now.’ b. 1PL and 2PL must one day-INDEF die-1PL ‘We all have to die.’ c. this time must/should SBJV-arrive.3SG ‘(s)he must come this time.’ d. must after from lunch SBJV-sleep-1SG to = head=1SG pain NEG-do.3SG ‘I have to sleep after lunch or I will have a headache.’
293
(94.a) is both a directive (showing obligation) and a participant-imposed dynamic; in which the external conditions force the participant to perform the predicate. Moreover, we also can imagine a situation where the participant is forbidden morally to marry. In this sense, we might consider it as an absolute moral necessity of deontic modality. (94.b) though is the same sentence that I have introduced as a default form of dynamic situation, a necessity in the SoA.
Another context in which is possible to occur is estimating the probability in the SoA, which sentence (94.c) illustrates. This adverb shows both certainty and probability on the epistemic continuum. Finally, as (87.d) sketches, this adverb might express the needs of the participant which makes the sentence as an illustration of participant-inherent dynamic modality.
To conclude, this adverb can express different types of deontic modality, epistemic modality, and dynamic modality; the roles that in many Iranian languages, a modal auxiliary can express.
Another modal adverb in Balochi is which is ‘maybe’.
Semantically, it has the same role as meaning ‘maybe’ in other Iranian languages. Prototypically this adverb expresses an epistemic modality. (95.a) shows it is possible to translate this adverb to ‘probably’ or as (95.b) illustrates ‘possibly, maybe’.
(95) a. Maybe rain SBJV-rain-3SG ‘Maybe it rains.’ b. == Necklace-GEN Zahra maybe in room-GEN sister=3SG=3SG ‘Zahra’s necklace might be in her sister’s room.’
4.2.2.3.3. (definitely) and (probably) in Lori meaning ‘definitely’ and ‘probably’ are specific to Lori. It is possible to decompose to its constituent morphemes: an inflection from the
294
volitional verb ‘want’ which is usually used to mark present and past continuous
(Haghbin and Soleimani 2016); which is an adposition meaning ‘inside’ and
= as a third person singular clitic. So, we might translate literally as: it is in it. However, today all three morphemes are used as a unit word meaning
‘probably’. Neither nor have the negative or past form which supports the fact that they are not auxiliaries. Consider the sentences in (96) and (97) below:
(96) a. = This problem definitely mind 2PL=too challenged do.PST-3SG ‘This problem surely has challenged your minds as well.’ b. = Ø. Definitely to=3SG SUBJ-say-2SG ‘Definitely tell him/her.’ c. - This-PL number-PL necessary-INDF is-3PL that every body-INDF definitely Modal.PRS know be.SBJV.3SG ‘These are necessary numbers which everyone needs to know.’
(97) a. Maybe go.PST-SBJV-PP to bazar ‘It is possible/maybe (s)he has gone for a shop.’ b. Ø, In idea 1SG to Nima SUBJ-say-2SG, maybe little = help=2SG SBJV-do-3SG ‘In my opinion, tell Nima, maybe/probably he will help you a little.’ c. IPFV.PST here be.PST-3SG maybe IPFV newspaper read.PST-3SG ‘(S)he was here, maybe (s)he is reading a newspaper.’ d. Maybe go-3SG party ‘Maybe she/he goes to the party.’
295
Among the examples in (96) only in (96.a) the adverb expresses modality. To support this claim you just need to remove the adverb or add another adverb instead in (96.a); then you will see the modality in the sentence will change as well; however in case of other sentences, removing the adverb will not change the semantics of the sentence. (96.b) is as imperative which even without this adverb has still the same meaning. In (96.c) is only expressing strengthening and the modality in the sentence is because of the modal auxiliary
‘must’. While in (96.a) the speaker marks the way (s)he thinks by using this adverb. That makes it a probability on the epistemic continuum.
Sentences in (97) all show how is applied in different contexts. This adverb has many meanings including ‘maybe, probably, possibly’ and even ‘must’ when it works to express epistemic meaning. All these sentences express different types of epistemic modality.
4.2.2.3.4 (MUST) in Hawrami
In Hawrami (Hawraman Takht dialect) this is the adverb which is translated to ‘must, should, have to’. In negative sentences, as in Balochi, one way is to apply the negative form of the main verb to express the negative pole of deontic or epistemic modality. The other, though, is to use the ‘must not’, a modal with only a negative form with modality concepts.1 This adverb expresses exactly the range of concepts which normally in other Iranian languages, except
Balochi, are expressed by modal meaning ‘must, have to, should’ (like ). Consider these examples:
(98) a. = Must help=2SG give.PST-1SG ‘I had to help you.’
1 In Iranian languages, usually is the negative form for meaning ‘it is possible’. While in Hawrami, the modal meaning ‘it is possible’ is with the past form and negative forms .
296
b. Must little drink.PST-NML-ADJ eat-1SG ‘You have to have a drink.’ c. Must finish come.PST.3SG but NEG-become.PST.3SG ‘It had to be finished, but it has not.’
From deontic, epistemic and dynamic modality to directivity, this adverb is able to express what the equivalence modals in other languages do.
(98.a) illustrates deontic modality; where the speaker, who is the first argument participant, knows her/himself morally responsible to help; however, the time for performing the predicate has passed. In the deontic continuum, this sentence expresses absolute moral necessity or acceptability.
(98.b) is a sort of advice; therefore it is a directive; while (98.c) has three different reading: directive, epistemic and deontic. If the participant was morally obliged to do the action, that would be a deontic; however if (s)he is only estimating the probability of the SoA, that is an epistemic; while if this is different types of obligations which force her/him to do so, that would be a directive. There are still sentences in the questionnaire which are the prototypical examples for necessity in a dynamic situation (99.a), need in participant-inherent dynamic (99.b) and necessity in participant-imposed dynamic (as in 99.c).
(99) a. = Finally=3SG all of us must day-INDEF die-1PL ‘We all have to die one day’. (Situational dynamic, necessity) b. Must right now something-ACC eat-1SG, and if not die-1SG ‘We have to eat something or I will die.’ (Participant-inherent need, dynamic modality) c. For this door-GEN room-GEN open become.3SG, must Simultaneously too key-DEF. ACC turn round too
297
Door-DEF.ACC Push SBJV-give-2SG Inside ‘To open the door of the room, you have to turn the key and push the door simultaneously.’ (Participant-inherent necessity)
So, this adverbial modal can express deontic, dynamic and epistemic modality, besides directivity.
4.2.3 Modal adjectives Comparing to modal auxiliaries and modal adverbs, not lots of studies have been done on modal adjectives. Van Linden (2012: 45) studies those modal adjectives which are restricted to non-epistemic meanings, i.e. dynamic and deontic modality. She uses Nuyts, Byloo, and Diepeveen (2005 and 2010) to describe modality and classifies them, in English, in two main categories: weak and strong.
Weak adjectives are: appropriate, convenient, desirable, expedient, fit, fitting, good, important, profitable, proper, and suitable;
While strong adjectives include: critical, crucial, essential, indispensable, necessary, needful, viral (Van Linden, 2012: 47)
Van Linden (ibid: 48-49) reports from Paradis (2001) that the difference between these two groups of adjectives is in ‘boundedness’; i.e. ‘strong adjectives are conceived as bounded: they are associated with a boundary on a schematic level…and they combine with totality modifiers such as absolutely’. While ‘weak adjectives…are conceived of as unbounded: they are not associated with a boundary, but represent a range on a scale…and unlike strong adjectives, they are fully gradable in that they occur in the comparative and superlative. In addition, they combine with scalar degree modifiers such as very or fairly’ (ibid: 49). Besides, these adjectives have some morpho-syntactic features which they also apply some restrictions on the construction of the sentence as well.
298
Among different types of dynamic modality, Van Linden (2012) reports these adjectives cannot express participant-inherent dynamic. However, if we can paraphrase an adjective to ‘necessity and possibility’, then we may conclude the adjective expresses dynamic modality (except participant-inherent); and it is only possible for the strong adjectives to paraphrase them as above.
Riviere (1983: 2) also divides modal adjectives into two large classes:
(i) a modality that takes into account the proposition as a whole: (93) a. It is probable that John will win the race.
(ii) a modality that takes into account one of the components of the proposition: b. John is unable to sing.
In Iranian studies, namely Persian, except in case of Ilkhanipour (2013), there have been no other studies on modal adjectives. She investigates them from a formal semantics perspective, which differs with the general procedure of this thesis which is descriptive semantics; however, her studies might lead us to start discovering and analyzing modal adjectives in Iranian languages.
Ilkhanipour (2013: 54-55) divides modal adjectives in Persian to five classes: i. those which are borrowed from Arabic: (possible), (necessary), (permitted), (probable) and (essential) ii. Those which are constructed by adding the suffix –i to an Arabic noun: (Likely), (obligatory), (necessary), (certain), (sure) iii. Compound adjectives constructed with a predicate or an infinitive and (able, capable): (reliable), (admirable), (forgivable), (appreciable) and so on iv. The compound adjectives which are constructed with predicate noun + derivational suffix – (-able):
299
(vincible), (exceptionable), etc. v. those which are the result of adding –i to an infinitive: (eatable), (breakable, fragile), (believable), etc. Ilkhanipour (ibid) provides the examples below for each group:
(101) a. Way-PL-GEN possible ‘Possible ways.’ b. victory-GEN absolute ‘Absolute victory.’ c. Friend-GEN able-GEN rely ‘Reliable friend.’ d. Rule-GEN except-able ‘Exceptionable rule.’ e. Vase-GEN breakable ‘Breakable/fragile vase’
Let us study these adjectives in the contexts, as in sentences below:
(102) a. Possible-3SG from this way go.PST-PTCP be.SBJV-3SG ‘It is possible that they have gone from this way.’ b. With this changes that in team make do.PST-3PL, = victory=3PL Definite-3SG ‘With these changes they have made in the team, their victory is definite.’ c. Very human-GEN able-GEN trust-be.3SG ‘(S)he is a very reliable person.’
300
d. Spirit-GEN strong-INDF have-3SG, really invincible- be.3SG ‘(S)he has a strong spirit, (s)he is really invincible.’ e. This vase breakable-be.3SG ‘This vase is breakable.’
Some notes worth mentioning on the above sentences: first, it seems these adjectives are context sensitive, i.e. in some contexts and only with a form of a verb ‘to be’ they might express modality. Otherwise, the order of a noun and these adjectives may not express how speaker estimate the SoA, since there is no proposal and no speaker to meant a modality.
Then, I believe, except for the first two groups of Ilkhanipour’s classification (2013) other adjectives have no modality concepts. ‘Being reliable, breakable and exceptionable’, they are all the inherent feature of the object or the person we are speaking about and the idea and the estimation of the speaker has nothing to do with the fact that when the vase is made of glass, it is breakable. Or, when a person is ‘reliable’ it is a feature inherited in that person, whether I, as a speaker, do observe it or not; however, even if I saw him/her as reliable, I would use the expressions to indicate my belief, such as ‘I think (s)he is reliable’. We must keep in mind that modality is ‘estimating the SoA’; however in the ‘this vase is breakable’, this is not my estimation that makes the vase ‘breakable’ but the material which it is made from does so. If we consider such sentences as modal concepts, then we have to take our everyday sentences as ‘what a nice weather’, or ‘that is too far’ as expressing modality as well; while we all know these sentences might carry the level of subjectivity, but nothing of estimation of the SoA.
Even in VanLinden’s list (2011), the adjectives do not express modality in every context, but in a specific context they might do so. Consider the adjective mofid ‘useful’ in Persian. In a sentence as (102), the adjective has 301 nothing to do with modality and it is only expressing a fact that ‘Soya is useful’ not because I think so, but because it consists of protein, fiber, calcium, magnesium, etc.; the feature which is the same all over the world:
(102) Soya because-GEN protein high, very for-GEN health useful-3SG ‘Soya is very useful for health, due to the high protein (it has).’
However, using the same adjective in a sentence like (103) might express modality:
(103) This that those ACC recycle do-1PL useful-COMP = from this-be.3SG that Fire=3PL SUJV-hit-1PL ‘It is more useful to recycle them rather than burning them.’
Such a practice of this adjective follows what Van Linden (2012) counts for it: it is gradable in this use; it has the comparative and superlative form and it is possible to modify them with very. As argued, in this thesis, to me, adjectives of Van linden’s list (2012) just in some context, and only the first two groups of adjectives from Ilkhanipour (2013) are modal adjectives. On the other hand, since I study the spoken form of Iranian languages, the modal adjectives are very few or they are bounded to some limited contexts. Here I only consider the first two groups of the list Ilkhanipour (2013) presents and I will resist studying the other types of adjective due to three reasons: first, they are too much to be considered as only a part of a thesis; then, modal adjectives are not elements of everyday use in Iranian languages; and finally, I do not consider other types of adjectives in Ilkhanipour’s to be able to express modality.
302
4.2.3.1 Group A: (possible)(necessary)(permitted)(probable) (necessary) (necessary) All the above adjectives are borrowed from Arabic. So, whether through Persian or not, they have entered these languages. Consider these sentences:
(104) a. Balochi = = Necessary=be.3SG that 1SG.ACC help=1SG SBJV-do.2SG ‘It is necessary that you help me.’
Gilaki = Prayer read.PST-NMLZ Islam in necessary=be.3SG ‘Saying prayers is necessary in Islam.’
Tati: = These emergency-GEN number=be.3PL ‘These are necessary numbers.’
In (104.a) the speaker, whether due to legal or moral reasons, believes the addressee is responsible to help. Thus this means this sentence might be whether a directive or a deontic. The interesting point is that changing this sentence to negative form, would not cause the adjective to move to the negative pole of deontic modality; instead, it only recognizes ‘not doing the predicate’ as an acceptable decision. See (105):
(105) Persian: Necessary NEG.be.3SG this much work do-2SG ‘It is not necessary that you work so much.’
‘Not working’, in (105) does not mean the SoA is absolutely unacceptable, but it means it is acceptable not to do the SoA.
303
(104.b) reminds a religious rule; so that makes it a directive. There are yet some contexts that this adjective can illustrate how the speaker estimates the SoA, as in (106):
(106) Persian: Obligatory-GEN mornings soon-COMP SUBV-go-1SG on-GEN work ‘It is necessary/obligatory that I go to work sooner in the mornings.’
In (106) ‘being obliged to go to work sooner in the morning’, might be due to a moral necessity or a legal one. So, this sentence can be both deontic and directive. So, it adjective expresses the positive pole of the deontic modality, and changing the sentence to negative, would cause it to express acceptability in the same continuum.
(104.c) includes a note which is common between all these adjectives. Among the above example, this sentence is the only one with a modal adjective after a noun, as an ‘attributive use’, not with a form of ‘to be’ which is the frequent use of them, i.e. ‘predicative use’ (when accompanied by a copula and taking an embedded subject clause). Before getting through it, let us first put the other adjectives in this group in the same context, i.e. a noun and an adjective in a sentence:
(107) Persian: a.= Things-GEN necessary PRF-have.PST-1SG ‘I took the necessary things.’ b. = one task-GEN necessary with=3SG have-1SG ‘I have a necessary thing to tell him/her.’ c. == Ø exam=2SG=ACC IMPR-give-2SG, then wait-GEN fate-GEN probable-INF IMPR-be.2SG that for
304
wait=2SG-be.3SG ‘Do your exam and then wait for you probable fate which is waiting for you.’ d. = All-GEN ways-GEN possible=ACC test do.PST-1SG ‘I have tried all possible ways.’ e. In measure permitted problem-INF NEG-have-3SG ‘It is okay with the right/permitted limit (if it is in the permitted limit, it does not have any problem.’
Nouns in (107), have the features which are modified by the mentioned adjectives. It is hard to imagine a situation where these sentences have anything to do with morality, which excludes deontic. On the other hand, there is no sense of likelihood in this example, which excludes epistemic. However, these nouns are modified with these adjectives to show the speaker’s estimation of the SoA; so, they might show a type of modality, since they are not targeting an inherited or factual feature in the object or a person (as breakable or reliable do). The only option we can think of for this sentence is dynamic; however, they do not express any ability or need of the participant nor mentioning external forces which enable a person to do something, from the three types of modality, participant- inherent and participant-imposed would be excluded. The only remaining type of modality then would be a dynamic situation where first, there is no need for a participant and then, it targets the potential or necessary features of the SoA.
It seems it is much easier to understand the modality functions of modal adjectives, without an accompany noun and with the verb ‘to be’; in this situation they mostly express deontic modality; however, discovering the modality of these adjectives following a noun is difficult, it seems the only modality type we can imagine for them is dynamic modality. But the adjectives
and expresses epistemic. Consider sentences in (108):
305
(108) a. = = Possible=be.3SG car find=3SG NEG-come.PST-PTCP SUBJ.be-3SG ‘It is possible (s)he has not taken a car yet (to be able to come or arrive on time)’ b. = this=too possible=be.3SG that yet way NEG-fall.PST-PTCP SUBJ.be-3SG ‘It is also possible that (s)he has not set out yet.’
The above sentences are expressing how the speaker estimate the probability of the SoA, a definition which makes them as epistemic. I have to emphasize that this role is only possible when these adjectives are preceding a form of the verb ‘to be’.
Van Linden (2012: 13) show different roles of the adjective possible in (109) as a type of dynamic situation:
(109) It is possible to crop cauliflowers over a number of months, by growing them under polythene or cloches using the varieties already mentioned.
Her justification seems reasonable: the possibility of growing cauliflowers in a few months, is an inherent feature of the cauliflower itself. But the problem is that when we want to change this sentence to Persian, it is not the usual translation of possible that we use (which is ), rather we might translate it as (it can be), (it is possible/there is this possibility that), (there is this possibility). Among them, (IPFV-can) is an impersonal modal auxiliary which shows dynamic situation.
So, not only the ‘non-epistemic’ role of situation dynamic, but also the epistemic function might be express with these two adjectives. However, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these adjectives show morality in the
306
predicate (the deontic modality). Other adjectives in this series express deontic and dynamic situation.
4.2.3.2 Group B: (possible), (definite), (definite), (obliged), (necessary)
This group of adjectives is constructed by adding the adjectival suffix –i (with attributive meaning) to an Arabic noun. Again using these adjectives with a form of the verb to be, i.e the predicative use is more common that applying them after a noun, i.e. the attributive use. To study them, consider the sentences below:
(110) a. Vafsi = Pass IPFV-be-2SG exam-in definite=be.3SG ‘Passing in the exam is definite for you (it is definite that you will pass the exam.’ b. Kahangi = Obeying rules necessary=be.3SG ‘Obeying rules is necessary (it is necessary to obey rules).’ c. Semnani = Older-GEN respect necessary=be.3SG ‘Respecting elders is obligatory/necessary.’ d. Kurdish They from danger probable informed do.IMPR ‘You have to alert him/her for the possible danger.’ e. Persian i) = One method-GEN definite to=2SG learn IPFV-give-1SG ‘I will teach you a definite method.’ ii) = = go.NMLZ=3SG that definite=be.3SG ‘It is definite that he will go.’
307 iii) Agree NEG-become.PST-1SG body to this marriage-GEN compulsory PFV-give-1SG ‘I couldn’t agree to do this compulsory marriage.’ f. Vafsi Hijab iran-in one thing obligatory ‘Hijab is compulsory in Iran.’
Among these adjectives, it seems is the only adjective which is more usual and normal accompanying a noun, not preceding a form of to be.
in (110.a) which makes a compound verb with the auxiliary following it, is the main predicate of the verb and expresses absolute certainty that the SoA is real: epistemic modality. Using the adjective in a negative context does not cause to express negative pole of epistemic continuum, rather it just shortens the absolute degree to probability and possibility in the middle of the continuum.
In (110.b) referring to rules makes this sentence more a directive. However it is not possible to define a legal rule for (110.c), applying the adjective does not end to ungrammatical sentence, rather it gives the sense of something more than a moral action and makes it closer to a non-written rule but a convention in the society. So, I believe even this sentence is more a directive that a deontic.
‘definite’ in a position after a noun, expresses dynamic situation: this feature is something inherited in the SoA itself, not the participant in the utterance. However, using it without a noun might express absolute certainty in epistemic continuum where using a negative form of the verb, would just move it to the middle of the continuum.
308
, in (110.f) also expresses dynamic situation after a noun. If it targets a rule in a country, then it is a directive.
To sum up, modal adjectives , and can express epistemic and dynamic situation. While and preceding a noun, can express whether dynamic situation or directivity.
4.2.4 Modal Nouns In the study of modality, modal nouns are rarely a place of concern. Modal nouns in Iranian languages might replace modal main verbs or modal adverbs
(following a preposition). Taleghani (2008) considers , , ,
and as modal nouns; however, is an adjective, not a noun.
Therefore, I remove this adjective from the list above and instead, I add (necessity) instead. All these nouns are borrowed from Arabic and they mainly act as the nonverbal expression in the modal compound verbs. However, it is not hard to imagine a context which these nouns would function in a normal, non- marked position, they are not as popular as modal auxiliaries and adverbs in daily talks. The clause which includes a modal noun takes another clause as a complement (placed between brackets below). See examples below:
(111) a. Balochi This probability is that go-1SG trip-PL-GEN pilgrimage-ADJ ‘There is this possibility that I go to pilgrimage.’ b. Gerashi = Possibility=3SG is that Dubai life SBJV-do-1SG ‘There is the possibility that I live in Dubai.’ c. Hawrami = == To help=3SG need=1SG=be.3SG ‘I need his/her help (there is this need for me that (s)he helps me.)
309 d. Persian = Necessity-GEN this matter [yet for=1SG clear NEG.be.3SG ‘The necessity of this matter is not clear for me yet.’ e. Persian = permission be.3SG [from pen=2PL use do-1SG ‘Is there the permission that I use your pen?’
About (111.c) it seems in Hawrami, the noun with the third person singular form of the verb ‘to be’ has made a compound verb and we might equate it with ‘to need/to have needs’ in other Iranian languages. That is why there is no complement clause after; instead, it has a prepositional complement as an indirect object.
In (111.a and b) the speaker is presenting his/her assessment on the SoA. So, both are expressing epistemic modality, specifically the middle level of the continuum which is probability and possibility. Changing these sentences to negative forms, does not change their modality role and they do not move to the negative pole of the continuum.
The fact that the speaker in (111.c) needs help, is not an estimation (s)he is making; rather it is simply expressing a fact in the real world. So, that is not a modal role here. Now let’s consider the same noun in a different context, in Persian, to see if this noun can have modal function or not.
(112) a. = 2SG at all need-GEN 1PL=ACC consider NEG-IPFV-take-2SG ‘You do not consider our needs/necessities at all.’ b. Necessity/need-INDF NEG.be.3SG this task-PL ACC do-2SG ‘There is no need/necessity to do these.’
310
c. = . Need/necessity be.3SG 1SG=too SBJV-come-1SG ‘Is there any need/necessity that I come?’ (112.a) again has no modality role. Instead, (112.b) illustrates how the speaker lexicalize his/her mental world to show if the predicate is moral or not, in the middle of the deontic continuum. Applying this noun for getting the permission, or asking somebody’s estimation about the world, as in (112.c) could not be a modality function in our perspective.
In studying the noun ‘necessity’ we face the same problem as above. In (111.d) this noun has no modality role, while in (113.a) and also next to the verb ‘to have’ (113.b) it seems it expresses absolute morality in the SoA or even a necessity in the SoA itself (which makes it a dynamic situation):
(113) Persian: a. = Necessity compel IPFV-do=3SG that condition-3PL=ACC accept do-1PL ‘The necessity compels to accept/that we accept their conditions.’ b. Attention to need-GEN daily too necessity have-3SG ‘Considering the daily needs is necessary/have necessity as well.’
To conclude, among the modal nouns in this thesis, and express epistemic, while expresses deontic or situation dynamic and illustrates deontic modality.1
1 The noun ‘permission’, as a noun or as a non-verbal element in a compound verb, has not indication of modality in our perspective.
311
4.2.5 Modal complex verbs Iranian languages, especially Persian which other languages are influenced by, notoriously lack simple verbs. Instead, complex/compound verbs/predicates are very productive in these languages. Compound verbs in these languages ‘refers to a verb whose morphological structure is not simple but consists of a non- verbal constituent, such as a noun, adjective, past participle, prepositional phrase, or adverb, and a verbal constituent’ (Dabirmoghaddam 1997: 25). Although there are yet simple verbs in written language, the existence of complex pairs of the same verbs increases the application of the complex verbs in spoken language (Karimi 2005:11).
In this thesis, complex verbs (compound verb, complex predicates) are the structures with a modal noun or adjective and a verb which is syntactically known as light verb ‘since their semantic or thematic content is partially or completely bleached. They can, however, carry tense, aspect or negation morphology like simple verbs.’ (Megerdoomian 2012: 181-182). Like modal nouns and adjectives, modal main verbs have a low profile in modality studies. However, in most languages, modal auxiliaries are more popular than other modal expressions, but they still use different modal expressions, including modal main verbs, to express the world around them. Taleghani (2008) is the only source which studies some of modal compound verbs. She categorizes these verbs in two classes: those with a nominal element, such as ‘ (to have permission), (to have possibility/be possible), (to need, to have need), (to be necessary) and those with an adjectival element, as in
(to be forced) and (to be possible). Since is an adjective, not a noun, it must be added to the second category. We also can add
(to guess), (to guess), (to see remoted) and
(to have certainty) to the category of modal main verbs. It seems
312
all modal main verbs, at least those I am studying here, are compound verbs, and their nonverbal elements are all borrowed from Arabic: it was marked in the previous sections that most, if not all, modal nouns and adjectives are borrowed from Arabic. This is this nonverbal element which carries the role of modality. Therefore, I might say most possible modal roles of modal verbs have been studied in the previous section. Therefore investigating these verbs under one title and providing examples from different languages, would suffice. So, this section is divided into two parts: modal main verbs with nominal expression and modal main verbs with adjectival elements.
4.2.5.1 Modal main verbs with a nominal element: (to be possible(to have permission), (to have need), (to be sure(to think), (to guess) and (to guess, to suppose)
Taleghani (2008) considers (to have permission) a deontic, because it denotes an external source for permission. However, in Nuyts’ perspective, anything related to permission and obligation is excluded from the realm of modality. So, sentences as in (114) are just directives and nothing more. A note is that this sentence is a directive descriptive which stands against performatives. Performatives have two main features: i) the sentence is in present tense or future; ii) speaker is directing the hearer to perform the predicate. But in (114) the speaker is just reporting the news that somebody else is permitted to do action:
(114) Semnani: = Finally Maryam-F.OBL permission give.PST=3PL that SBJV-come.2SG swimming pool ‘They finally permit Maryam to come to the swimming pool.’
313
In Iranian languages, as an alternation for (to have possibility/to be possible) and to have probability) it is possible to use == (to be possible for it, to be probable for it). This alternation might be related to the complex verb
(to be possible/probable) or it could be the sequence of noun plus the verb (to be). However, the important point is not what this structure is constructed from, instead, the main concern is what roles it can have; especially when in both reading, the non-verbal element which carries the modality function, are the same. (to have need) was introduced on section (4.2.4), so I am not going to repeat it here.
(115). a. Lori guess NEG-do-1SG go.SBJV-3SG ‘I don’t think (s)he goes.’ b. Kurdish = = Umbrella-DEF=1SG take.SINF because guess=1SG IPFV-give.PST Rain SBJV-rain-3SG ‘I took my umbrella with me because I guessed it was going to rain.’ c. Hawrami = = Possibility=3SG be.PST help=3SG give.SBJV-2SG ‘it was possible for you to save him/her.’ d. Gilaki think do-1SG these two number with each other relation have.PST-3PL ‘I think they have a relation with each other.’ e. Kahangi Possibility have-3SG rain come-3SG ‘it is possible to rain.’
314
f. Persian = Certainty have-1SG work-GEN self=3SG be.PST-PTCP ‘I am sure it was herself/himself that have done it.’
Following the verbs and , the verb in the complement clause is a subjunctive and any other form of the verb would end in ungrammaticality. However, there is not such a restriction for
and .
Sentences in (116) all express epistemic modality. (116.a) to (116.e) show middle levels in the continuum of epistemic; while (116.f) show the poles of this continuum (depending on the negative or affirmative form of the verb). In (116.a) even if the sentence changes to the negative form, the modal role of it would not be affected.
4.2.5.2 Modal main verbs with an adjectival element:
(to be obliged), (to be possible), (to be/to know unlikely)
Although does not have a distinct entry in dictionaries, yet the adjective ‘far distance’ is not so common in Iranian languages and it doesn’t have modality content. That is why I didn’t include it among modal adjectives and instead, I study it as a modal main verb with the light verb
‘to be’ or lexical verb (to know) together meaning ‘being less probable, being far from expectations’. Consider the sentences below:
(117) a. Balochi Far-is SBJV-go-3SG/ far know that SBJV-go-3SG ‘I see it far that (s)he goes.’ b.Hawrami 1SG force become.PST-1SG that lesson NEG-study-1SG ‘I was forced/obliged not to study.’
315 c. Semnani = Now=too that forced-1SG work-OBL prefix-do-1SG ‘Now I am obliged to study.’ d. Kahangi In this desert in winter possible-is = snow=too SBJV-come-3SG ‘In this dessert, it might snow in the winters.’
(to be forced) in the above sentences does not carry any modal meaning. Even in a sentence as
Obliged-2SG here SBJV-sit-2SG ‘You are obliged to sit here.’ which it seems to have a different role, and in other perspectives, it might be considered as deontic, in Nuyts’ it is only directive and nothing more.
, as was mentioned above, in (117.a) expresses epistemic modality. Changing this verb to negative form seems to make no change to the modality role it expresses.
Finally, ‘to be possible’ shows epistemic in both affirmative and negative form (117.d).
4.2.5.3 Volition verbs with hypothetical WANT meaning There is no agreement if volition must be regarded as a type of modality and if yes, what type of modality it fits best. Volition, as the indication of a desire or wish that the SoA in the clause will get realized, is sometimes considered as types of deontic (e.g. Palmer 1986) or dynamic modality (e.g. Goossens 1983, Palmer 2001), others consider it non-modal (e.g. van der Auwera and Plungian
316
1998). In line with the latter, it is best viewed as a pre-stage to taking action in order to change the world (see Nuyts 2008 for arguments). In Bybee et al. (1994), Van der Auwera and Plungian (1998), and also De Smet and Verstreate (2006) when a person wants to perform an action, it means the action will probably happen. Van der Auwera and Plungian (1998) using Bybee et al. (1994) approach, consider the verbs meaning want as a volitional modality. However, for De Haan (1997), Anderson (1986), and Nuyts (1994 and further), this verb has no concept of modality. To Nuyts, utterances with the verbs meaning want refer to a desire or wish, typically but not necessarily of the speaker, that the SoA in the clause will get realized. Since these types of verbs emerge the occurrence of SoA, Nuyts categorize them as a sub-type of illocutionary force in ‘communication planning’. Communication planning is the result of the intersubjectification process and has no place in the conceptual domain where modality is formed in. In his perspective, modality is located in the conceptual domain where the subjectification is applied, and volitional and intentional verbs are beyond this domain. Therefore, verbs meaning want have no sense of modality. Still, for two reasons, studying these verbs in this thesis is inevitable. First, as was mentioned, in some approaches, such as Palmer (2001), this verb is considered as a type of modality. Second, in analyzing the modal auxiliaries in Semnani, Vafsi, Tati, and Kahangi, it was indicated that there is a relation between the verbs meaning want and the auxiliaries meaning must in these languages. Accordingly, considering these verbs here would help us in understanding the mentioned relation better.
The argument structure of the want verbs in Iranian languages emerges in two types of objects: nominal or clausal. In an unmarked context, when the object is nominal, it precedes the verb (SOV); while the clausal object follows the main verb (SVclausal O). In a very brief and quick analyzing of more than 100 Persian verbs, I found that it is mostly the sensory verbs which might have
317 both nominal and clausal objects (of course not simultaneously in one clause). Since there has been no study on this topic yet, and digging it more here in this thesis is beyond our topic, I find it sufficient to mention the verbs meaning want, can have both types of objects. The clausal object is marked by the complementizer ke (that, in Persian and its equivalence in other languages) and the nominal object is usually in non-nominative case.
A question we need to consider is whether this verb is a main verb or an auxiliary verb? In future constructions in Persian, the status of this verb
(‘want’) is clear: it is an auxiliary (
Will/want-1SG go.SINF Even though, in sentences where this verb emerges a clausal or a nominal object, it cannot be considered as an auxiliary verb. According to the unidirectional path of grammaticalization, when a verb is grammaticalized to mark the future, it is not possible to move the path back again and be applied as a main verb. In this sense, at least in case of (want) in Persian, we might conclude that there are two verbs, one as an auxiliary which codes the future and the other as a main verb which arises the need for an object. Both of these verbs have been emerged from a main verb (or its equivalent in its history) and simultaneously started their development from the same source. This is the same solution which I have suggested for the relation between the verbs meaning want in Kahangi, Semnani, Tati, and Vafsi with the modal auxiliary, mainly meaning must.
Being aware of the fact that these verbs do not express the concept of modality in our perspective, for the mentioned reason, I will introduce the verbs meaning want in some of the languages we are studying.
318
4.2.5.3.1 in Gilaki
Sabzalipour (2012: 334) considers (to want) in Gilaki as a verb which expresses the inner intention of the speaker. The verbs in the following clause would be in subjunctive or (rarely) infinitive form.
(118) a. Tomorrow want-1SG SBJV-go-1SG University ‘I want to go to university tomorrow.’ b. Maryam if want-3SG well SBJV-come-3SG ‘If Maryam wants, well, let her come.’
4.2.5.3.2 in Balochi
‘to want’ in Balochi (Bamposht dialect) has the present stem as and past stem as . The same as other verbs meaning want in other Iranian languages, it raises the clausal or nominal complement. A note is worth mentioning is that, in comparison to other languages, this verb is used in context where we expect the speaker uses the verb need. In (117.c) based on the context he was supposed to produce the sentence, we expect he says ‘I have to go to the toilet’, while he produced a sentence equal to ‘I need/want to go to the toilet.’ In the same context, I have asked another informant to produce the same sentence.
Since the speaker was aware that it is not impossible to use (must) here in this context, he used (I want, I need) instead to indicate the necessity of the situation. In this application, it seems we must add the want verbs in this language, and also in other Iranian languages, to mean need. This meaning is not rare in Iranian languages. However, in other Iranian languages, in the collected data, the verbs meaning want could be used where we expected the auxiliaries meaning must. As in case of Kahangi and Vafsi, where we expect the speaker to produce a sentence like ‘I am late, I have to go to the mosque right now,’ they
319 have used the want verb ( in Kahangi and = in Vafsi) in their languages instead of the auxiliary meaning ‘must, have to’ ( in Kahangi and in Vafsi).
(119) a. - Want-1SG SBJV-go-1SG one’sREFL-GEN dorm ‘I want to go to the dormitory.’ b. = - brother=2SG one house want-3SG ‘Your brother wants a house.’ c. - Want/need-1SG SBJV-go-1SG toilet ‘I have to/I need/I want to go to the toilet.’
4.2.5.3.3 in Lori
Haghbin and Soleimani (2016: 258) account various functions for (want) in Balagariveh dialect of Lori:
1. Main verb: (120) a. = Book-INDF from=2SG want-1SG ‘I want a book from you.’
2. Modal auxiliary (to mark subjunctive): b. Tomorrow want go.SBJV-1SG Tehran ‘I want to go to Tehran.’
3. Modal auxiliary (to mark imperfective) c. IPFV go-1SG ‘I am going.’ d. [21] 1SG that come.PST-1SG kid-PL IPFV play do.PST-3PL ‘When I came, the kids were playing.’
320
4. Modal auxiliary (to mark approximate aspect) e. IPFV die-1SG ‘I am almost dying.’ f. [25] IPFV-1SG from conscious go-1SG ‘I am almost fainting.’
Among the above functions, the two roles which they call the main verb and subjunctive modal auxiliary could be the subject of interest in studying modality. Nuyts, categorizes intention (in a sentence such as (120.b) where besides volitional notion, the sentence could be understood as intention) and volition, along with directives in a separate group from modality.
4.2.5.3.4 in Hawrami
The verb ‘to want’ is used to mark volition and intention in Hawrami (Hawraman Takht dialect). The concept of intention mainly targets future, which is why the simple present form of the verb is used to signify intention.
(121) a. IPFV-go-1SG to gym ‘I want to go to the gym.’ b. = Tomorrow want=2PL SBJV-go-1PL park ‘Tomorrow I want to go to the park.’
(121.a) has two translations: an indicative (I want go to the gym) and future (I will go to the gym). (121.b) also has both intentional and volitional meaning.
321
4.2.6 Summary This section introduced the modal expressions in W-Iranian languages. By presenting the data, the possible modality functions of them were presented. The origin of some of the modal auxiliaries in the languages of concern were also traced back to show how they are related and how we can identify any relation between them.
Studies on modal adjectives are very rare in the languages of the word, and modal nouns are even more infrequent. Most of these items in Iranian languages, at least those of concentration in this thesis, were borrowed from Arabic, and through Persian or directly interned the other Iranian languages. Their application is few and far between other modal elements, including modal adverbs and auxiliaries and their application in some of the contexts in Iranian languages appears highly artificial, presumably under the influence of Persian. Yet, we cannot neglect the (non)modal functions they have today in these languages; however, to indicate modality, there are contextual and, probably, constructive limitation on them.
Among modal adjective, (probable), (definite),
(certain), (probable), and (possible) express epistemic and situational dynamic (potentiality). (necessary), (permitted),
(essential), and (necessary/essential) express deontic, while
(obliged) and (necessary/obligatory) have situational dynamic (necessity) function.
Modality constraints on nouns are even more. In most of the sentences, what is called modal noun does not necessarily assert modality, rather they are used to convey a very normal SoA. Notwithstanding, when a modal noun is applied in a normal and suitable context, it might express modality concepts.
Among the modal nouns of concern in this thesis, (probability) and
322
(possibility) show epistemic, while (need) expresses deontic modality. (necessity) implies deontic and situational dynamic (necessity).
Modal adverbs, though, are more common among Iranian language, and they are not restricted to borrow elements from Arabic. Even though modal adverbs such as (definitely), (surely), (certainly),
(undoubtedly) with epistemic role on the two extensions of the epistemic continuum, (probably), (maybe) and (maybe), in the middle of the epistemic continuum, are employed in all Iranian languages, some Iranian languages still have their own modal adverbs to assert modality concepts:
(maybe) in Kahangi in the middle of the epistemic continuum; (must, have to, and should) in Balochi (Bamposht dialect) for expressing deontic (necessity), epistemic (absolute certainty), participant-inherent (need), participant-imposed (necessity), and situational (necessity). In the same language, (meaning maybe, borrowed from Arabic) indicates epistemic in the middle of the continuum.
In Lori (Balagariveh dialect) two adverbs, (definitely) and (probably) display epistemic modality; the former on the ends of the continuum and the latter in the middle.
(meanings must, should, and have to) in Hawrami (Hawraman Takht dialect), the same as pejke in Balochi, expresses the range of meanings which are usually on a modal verb in other languages, i.e. deontic necessity, epistemic certainty, participant inherent need, participant-imposed necessity, and situational dynamic.
Among the verbs which I have introduced as modal (complex) verbs, those meaning ‘to have probability’ ( ), and ‘to have possibility
323
( ) with a nominal non-verbal element, and (to know it far) and (to be possible) show the middle of the epistemic continuum. (to have certainty) is on the poles of the continuum
(depends on being negative or affirmative); while (to give permission) (to have necessity), (to be forced/obliged, to become forced/obliged) in this thesis declare no modality concept. is a directive verb, while is used to indicate that SoA is real. also, refer to the obligation on the first- argument participant and carry no assessment of the SoA.
4.3 Modality: from meaning to form In previous sections, different types of modal items in the W-Iranian languages were detected. In this section, from a reverse perspective, i.e. meaning to form, two topics will be investigated: one, the semantic realm of modality in Iranian languages and the other, polysemy in the identified modal elements. Semantic space, here, sketches the modality realm of each modal item. Mapping semantic realms will result in a synchronic semantic map of modality items. On the first part of this section, applying Van der Auwera and Plungian’s semantic map (1998), I will present a synchronic semantic map of Iranian languages on modality. Section (4.3.2), applying Viebahn and Vetter (2016) perspective towards polysemy, provides an answer to the second question of this thesis: ‘what are the polysemous modal auxiliaries in Iranian languages?’
4.3.1 Semantic map of modality in Iranian languages
Semantic maps are ‘geometric representation of meanings or…uses, and the relation between them’ (Van der Auwera and Plungian 1998: 86). Such a map could be either synchronic or diachronic. Diachronic semantic maps show the evolution of items and their development. It also illustrates what stages the items
324
passed. What Bybee et al. (1994) have done, is such a map. Van der Auwera and Plungian (1998), besides providing a diachronic map, have introduced a synchronic map on modality which sketches the space of modality every modal expression covers today. Semantic maps, of any type, considering typological criteria, represent languages scope on a specific category in a limited space.
Bybee et al. (1994) supply some maps, which Van der Auwera and Plungian (1998) call ‘mini-maps’. An example of such maps is shown in Figure 22:
Figure 22: from participant internal to epistemic
According to the above map, participant-internal modality develops to participant-external. Here two paths are possible, the participant-external possibility might change to the epistemic possibility through participant-external possibility or deontic possibility. This map is designed to show possible historical changes. However, in a synchronic semantic map of modality, it is not possible, and even not necessary, to detect such evolutions; rather it aims to investigate how languages are behaving today in case of modality. Therefore, this section of the thesis presents schemes which by means of them we might reach the synchronic semantic map of modality in Iranian languages. To achieve this goal, first, we need to divide each type of modality into two axes: necessity and possibility. Although, Nuyts does not believe in such a division (and that is why he has either different forms of one type of modality, as in case of dynamic, or he prefers a continuum, as he does for deontic and epistemic), in many other perspectives, such as Bybee et al. (1994) and Van der Auwera (1998), this categorization is very common. Since following ‘necessity and possibility’
325 categorization would summarize different types of modality in Nuyts’, and it will not harm the possible results, I will use the same strategy. In this sense, Nuyts’ terminology would be translated to terms of ‘necessity and possibility’ as follows:
Necessity o Absolute moral necessity→ Deontic o Absolute certainty that the SoA is real→ Epistemic o Need in Participant-inherent → Dynamic A necessity in Participant-imposed→ Dynamic A necessity in Situation→ Dynamic Possibility o Moral acceptability→ Deontic o Possibility and probability→ Epistemic o Ability in participant-inherent→ Dynamic Possibility in participant-imposed→ Dynamic Potentiality in situation→ Dynamic As the above categorization asserts, all three main forms of modality are possible to be classified in terms of necessity and possibility. Now, we might draw a modal semantic space for each modality item. Below you see how we might sketch such a space for three modal auxiliaries ‘must’, ‘can, be able to’ and ‘it is possible’ in Persian, Vafsi, and Gerashi, in sequence:
(Persian)
Necessity Dynamic Deontic Epistemic
Possibility Dynamic Deontic Epistemic
(Vafsi)
Necessity Dynamic Deontic Epistemic
Possibility Dynamic Deontic Epistemic
(Gerashi)
Necessity Dynamic Deontic Epistemic
Possibility Dynamic Deontic Epistemic
326
Such a space would be sketches for all other modal expressions as well. On the next step, these spaces would be mapped on each other. The result will be a diagram with both modal types and the semantic space they cover. In the followings, I will translate Van der Auwera and Plungian’s semantic map (1998) to Nuys’ terminology. However, in their semantic map, dynamic modality develops to deontic and then epistemic, this is not the reading I adopt from the map. Instead, I apply it as a scheme where all possible forms of modality are available, in a systematic way, and it can be marked for different types of modal expressions in present-day Iranian languages. Figure (23) is a rendered map of Van der Auwera and Plungian (1998) in our terminology:
Situational (potentiality) Participant- Epistemic inherent (ability) possibility Participant-imposed (possibility)
Deontic possibility
Deontic necessity
Participant-imposed Participant- Epistemic (necessity) inherent (need) necessity Situational (necessity)
Figure 23: Semantic space
Now, we can map the modality function of each group of modal expressions. Figure (24) illustrates modal auxiliary verbs and space they cover موقعیتی )الزام( in Iranian languages:
327
Figure 24: modal auxiliaries in new W-Iranian languages
Situational (potentiality) Participant- epistemic inherent (ability) Participant-imposed possibility (possibility)
Deontic possibility
Deontic possibility Epistemic Participant- Participant-imposed necessity inherent (need) (necessity) Situational (necessity)
and other equivalences (must, have to, can) and other
(to be able) and other equivalences equivalences
auxiliaries can express most area of موقعیتی )الزام(As the above scheme offers modal modalities. The only real they are not able to cover is epistemic necessity. The question is which modal items in these languages are responsible to express this concept? Modal nouns, adjectives, adverbs or main verbs? And are the same spaces expressed by other elements as well, or they are all left to auxiliaries? To find the answer, we need to draw the same diagram for other categories of modal items. Figures in (25) to (28) suggest the modal realm of these categories in Iranian languages:
328
Figure 25: modal adverbs in new W-Iranian languages
Situational (potentiality)
Participant- Epistemic Participant-imposed inherent (ability) possibility (possibility) Deontic possibility
Deontic necessity
Participant- Participant-imposed Epistemic inherent (need) (necessity) necessity
Situational (necessity)
Figure 26: modal adjectives in new W -Iranian languages
موقعیتی )الزام( Situational potentiality Participant- inherent (ability) Epistemic Participant-imposed possibility possibility
Deontic possibility
Deontic necessity
Participant- Participant-imposed Epistemic
inherent (need) necessity necessity
Situational necessity
. . . .
329
Figure 27: modal nouns in new W-Iranian languages
Participant- Situational potentiality
inherent (ability) Epistemic Participant-imposed possibility possibility
Deontic possibility
Deontic necessity
Participant- Participant-imposed Epistemic inherent (need) necessity necessity
Situational necessity
. . .
Figure 28: modal main verbs in new W-Iranian languages
Situational potentiality Participant- Epistemic inherent Participant-imposed possibility (ability) possibility
Deontic possibility
Deontic necessity
Participant-imposed Epistemic موقعیتی )الزام( -Participant necessity inherent necessity
(need) Situational necessity
330
The above diagrams aim to indicate where the modal auxiliaries in Iranian languages are not able to express modality, other categories, mainly adverbials, fill the gaps. Mapping these diagrams on each other, we might conclude Iranian modal expressions noticed in this dissertation, are able to express all types of modality; they are whether lexicalized for such concepts or they borrow what they need from other languages, specifically Arabic.
4.3.2 Polysemy in modals
We defined polysemy in (3-8) as different meanings of the same words in different contexts. An expression is a polysemy if its meanings are related, otherwise, it is whether homonymy or homophony. In this section, I will investigate polysemy in modal auxiliaries in Iranian languages, to show, according to the polysemy criteria Viebahn and Vetter (2016) introduce, these expressions are polysemous or not.
4.3.2.1 Intuition in identifying polysemy
Viebahn and Vetter (2016) posit that most modal auxiliaries are polysemous in expressing two or all modality meanings: ‘epistemic meanings which concerns compatibility with what we know; deontic meanings which concern right and wrong, goal and preferences; and dynamic meanings which concern the abilities and dispositions of agents and objects’ (ibid:11). They quote from Lyons (1977: 791) that it “has long been recognized that most of the sentences containing such [modals] as ‘must and may’ are ambiguous’ and from Palmer (1990: 35) that “both may and must are used in two quite different ways, and this justifies the distinction between epistemic and deontic modality”.
Intuition in Iranian languages also confirms modal auxiliaries are polysemous. As an instance, consider Persian, and the equivalence of this auxiliary in other Iranian languages. This modal is ambiguous and this is the
331 context or the general knowledge of the speaker’s intention which leads to resolving the ambiguity. Consider sentence (122) below from Persian:
(122) Must home be.SBJV-3PL ‘They must be at home.’
Two modality readings are possible for this sentence: one epistemic, and the deontic. There is yet another reading possible and that is directive. However, adding the context will leave only one possible reading. (must, should and have to) in Vafsi in sentence (123) has only one meaning: an internal need of the speaker (participant-internal dynamic). This doesn’t mean that cannot be polysemous, rather it means this specific context resolves the ambiguity and there would remain only one understanding of the utterance:
(123) IPFV-Modal. PRS this now in one thing SBJV-eat-1SG, if-no IPFV-die-1SG
Not only all modal auxiliaries in Iranian languages, based on intuition, might be polysemous, but also other modal elements might be so as well; however, the semantic space of the modal items clearly suggests the same idea.
4.3.2.2 Numbers and clusters of candidate semantic values Many theorists believe modal auxiliaries have ‘an infinity of candidate semantic values’ (Viebahn and Vetter 2016: 11). According to the second criteria, which is the number of semantic values, the huge number of semantic values indicate we can group them into distinct branches. The branches are generally and basically related, however, the members of each branch have more in common, comparing to the other branches. Consider ‘may’ in English. It has two main branches: deontic and epistemic. Based on criteria 3, if you can divide the
332
meanings into different branches, it means the expression you are studying is polysemous. Therefore, criteria 2 illustrates the numerous semantic values of ‘may’ is because of its contextual sensitivity, and criteria 3 shows how it is possible to classify these semantic values into distinctive branches. This indicates ‘may’ is both sensitive to context and polysemy.
In Iranian languages, every modal auxiliary, and also the adverbials in Balochi and in Hawrami, have multiple meanings in the internal range and also external scope. That is a modal, such as in Kahangi, expresses acceptability and absolute moral necessity in deontic modality. That is polysemy in the range of one branch. The same modal also is used for participant-inherent, imposed and situational dynamic, which makes a distinct branch with more connected internal relations of the members of one hand, and having a general relationship with the other branches on the other hand. In this sense must be considered both context sensitive and polysemy. The same analysis is true about other expression meaning ‘must, can or may (be possible)’ in other
Iranian languages. The only exception would be ‘to dare’ in Gilaki. It seems this modal has no other role except participant-inherent dynamic modality. The reason might be due to the very restricted structures which this modal may occur in, i.e. non-assertive contexts. The more context an item might occur, the more plausible it would be for it to be polysemous.
4.3.2.3 Relations among candidate semantic values As was discussed on chapter three, among various meanings of a polysemous expression, there is always a meaning which historically and explanatorily is older and thus must be considered as the core meaning; a meaning which it seems other meanings are derived from (ibid: 12). Viebahn and Vetter (2016) suggest if we can trace and show such a meaning in an expression, we might believe that
333 expression is polysemous. However, this relation only proves if an expression is polysemous, and cannot show if it is sensitive to the context or not.
They report from Van der Auwera and Plungian (1998) and Bybee et al. (1994: 27-32) that non-epistemic meanings are the core meanings and epistemic meanings have emerged from non-epistemic modals (including deontic and dynamic). The development starts from a dynamic source, usually verbs with any meaning connected to ‘knowing’ (can in English and in Semnani), or with physical power (such as in Tati, in Gilaki, in
Balochi, in Kurdish, in Hawrami, in Lori and in Persian which are all derived from tav- meaning ‘be powerful, power’). These root meanings develop to other root meanings and finally to epistemic.
Among the above modal, those derived from have maintained the source meaning ‘ability and power’ and add epistemic meanings to their scope. Those derived from *xšay- also with the source meaning ‘ability’ are at the final path of grammaticalization, while they are applied to express epistemic notions.
Modals which have they root in bava- meaning ‘to be, to become’ will directly or indirectly develop to epistemic meanings.
and other morphological forms of this auxiliary (in Persian, Gerashi, Gilaki, and Lori) start their journey in grammaticalization from a physical meaning, i.e. ‘get closer to something or somebody’. In between, they pass necessity and possibility and they developed to epistemic.
This fact shows that first, not all modal elements express all modal meanings in the first place; second, this procedural path and the addition of new meanings to each stage represents a polysemous feature of this expression. When an expression is sensitive to context, it might have all these related meaning with itself, while each meaning would present when it occurs in a suitable context.
334
Finally, as Viebahn and Vetter (2016) state, having a core meaning is specific to polysemy, not context-sensitive. Therefore, it is possible to discriminate each semantic branch of modal auxiliaries, based on the fact that if they have expanded their source meanings and added new meanings or they simply are used to strengthen an utterance.
4.3.2.4 Logical form Quoting from Portner (2009: 143), Viebahn and Vetter (2016: 14) assert “a significant theme in the syntax literature is that different semantic categories of modals are located in different positions in the syntactic structure. The most basic claim of this kind is that epistemic modals reside higher in the tree that non-epistemic ones.” It states epistemic modals have wider scope comparing to non-epistemic, i.e. dynamic and deontic modals. Viebahn and Vetter (ibid: 14) provide these examples to explain the fifth criterion:
(124) a. [5] Joan may have to help you with that (epistemic may>deontic have to) b. [6] Mary can probably come tonight (epistemic probability>dynamic can)
Epistemic modals scope the whole sentence or clause (which include aspect, tense and every type of non-epistemic modality); however, non- epistemic modals scope over the verb phrase, and no further. Haquard (2010: 96) schematizes this relation as in Diagram 12:
335
MOD T
T Asp Asp MOD
VP VP Diagram 12: Scope of modals (Haguard 2010: 96)
However the above hierarchy is not universal, it is yet one of the most observations across the languages of the world. The hierarchy is not restricted to English and Germanic languages, rather, as Viebahn and Vetter (ibid: 15) report from Cinque (1999) a large set of languages, including Bosnian/serbo-Croatian, Hebrew and Chinese also follow the same hierarchy.
Now let’s examine the above hierarchy in Iranian languages. Consider sentence (125) in Persian:
(125) Gandom now Modal. PRS home be.SBJV-3SG ‘Gandom must be/should be at home now.’
The sentence has two interpretations: a. Epistemic → Based on the knowledge of the speaker, for Gandom being at home now is probable> b. Deontic → for Gandom it is necessary to be at home now.
Regarding Haquard’s hierarchy (2010) we might scheme the above readings as follows (note that Iranian languages are right-headed, so the tree would consider this difference and be reversed):
336
Diagram 13: Epistemic reading of
MODP
MOD Spec
TP MOD
T Spec
ASPP T
ASP Spec
VP ASP
V Spec
DP V
Diagram 14: deontic reading of TP
T Spec ASPP T
ASP Spec
MODP ASP
MOD Spec
VP MOD
V Spec
DP V
Gandom Gandom
337
So in Iranian languages, the same as many other languages across the world, it is possible to show epistemic and non-epistemic interpretations on a syntactic tree. The only limitation is that this criterion indicates polysemy among epistemic and non-epistemic modalities and it is not able to distinct deontic and dynamic modalities, which roughly cover the same scope in a sentence.
4.3.3 Polysemy in modal adverbs, nouns, adjectives, and main verbs
Considering the criteria Viebahn and Vetter (2016) present to detect polysemy in expressions, it is possible to examine polysemy in other modal items as well.
Adverbs such as (meaning definitely, certainly, surely and undoubtedly), as common adverbs, in all Iranian languages and also (definitely) in Lori, may use for strengthening propositions and also to code certainty that the SoA is real and the probability in the epistemic realm. In Persian dictionaries (as in Sokhan) there are two meanings for the above adverbs (excluding ). One is ‘definitely, certainly’ and the other is ‘probably, possibly’. In the terminology of this dissertation, the first meaning equates ‘the certainty that the SoA is real’ and the second equates ‘probably or possibly’. It is clear these words have three concepts: a non- modality (strengthening) and two sub-types of modality in one realm (certainty and probability in epistemic). Based on the multiple meaning, these words are all sensitive to context (criteria 2), however by being able to divide them into different branches, we might conclude these adverbs are polysemous (criteria 3). Intuition as well (criteria 1) supports the idea for these adverbs to be polysemous.
Common Adverbs , , (probably, maybe, maybe) and also
(maybe) in Kahangi, (maybe) in Balochi, and (maybe) in Lori can only express one type of modality and that is the mid-continuum notions of epistemic. Definitions in Persian dictionaries, support this claim for the common adverbs. However, among them , has a different situation. In literature, this
338
form is also possible to be used as a verb meaning ‘it is appropriate’. In this sense, we might consider them as homophones, not polysemy.
in Balochi and in Hawrami are polysemous in the sense that they express various modality notions which is possible to categorize them in three different branches: deontic (absolute moral necessity), epistemic (probability) and dynamic (participant-inherent/need, participant- imposed/necessity, situation/necessity).
Adjectives and (possible and probable) express potentiality in situational dynamic and possibility in epistemic modality. In Sokhan dictionary, these adjectives have two meanings; i) what its occurrence has been guessed, ii) what is possible to accept without logical reason. Having different meanings which are possible to be categorized into two branches, make them polysemous.
Other adjectives, including (necessary), (permitted),
(obliged) and (essential) express absolute moral necessity in deontic and necessity in situational dynamic. (definite) and (certain) expresses necessity in situational dynamic as well as the absolute certainty that the SoA is real (epistemic). That means all the above adjectives are polysemous.
The adjective (compulsory, obligatory) has 4 meanings in Sokhan: 1. What is done without desire: compulsory 2. (sport) compulsory movements 3. (adverb) mandatory 4. (old) military service
As the above meanings suggest, only the first meaning carries modality. Even though, the word is polysemous, in the modality realm, this adjective, along with (mandatory) only expresses situational dynamic.
339
Modal nouns (probability) and (possibility) can only express epistemic modality. (permission) also is ‘the agreement of a person for what you want to do’ and it has no other meaning. Therefore, we cannot talk about polysemy in these nouns. However, (need) and
(necessity) have multiple meanings ( means neediness in one sense, and also in the realm of modality it expresses absolute moral necessity in deontic and
for absolute moral necessity and necessity in situational dynamic). These meanings can be categorized into separate branches. That makes them both sensitive to context and polysemy as well. Since the main expression in modal main verbs is either adjectives or nouns, we can judge their situation as polysemous expression based on their constructions. If the modal noun or adjective which they have as the semantic element of the compound verb is polysemous, we might expect the main verb to be polysemous, as well.
4.3.4 Categorizing W-Iranian Languages from Modality Perspective In the tradition of typological studies in languages, the dominant tendency is to determine the type of a language so that it can clarify directly if a language is a member of the targeted type or not? As an instance, the traditional categorization of languages based on their morphological features, ended up in types such as isolating, agglutinating, inflectional and polysynthetic (Spencer 1991: 38). The development of Greenbergian typology, following Greenberg (1963), made it possible to group languages based on their attitudes towards a specific feature, construction or an element. Greenbergian typology is based on the recognition between two sorts of universal in the languages of the world: unrestricted implicational universals (or simply called unrestricted universals) and restricted implicational universals (implicational or typological universals). Unrestricted universals aim to suggest that all languages, in case of a specific feature, behave the same and that is why we have to consider all of them as members of one type
340
(Croft 2003: 52). As an instance, the fact that all languages have oral vowels is an unrestricted universal. On the other hand, implicational universals wish to discover a relation between two parameters (ibid: 54). Implicational universal has two sub-types: i) absolute implicational universal which schemes ‘in all languages if there is X there is also Y’ and ii) probabilistic implicational universal which suggests ‘in most languages, if there is X there is also Y’ (Moravcsik 2013: 70). As a result of such a relation, a tetrachoric table is drawn with two parameters which each has two values. This table illustrates the attitude of languages in the case of two parameters which are, as Croft (2003: 54) called, ‘logically independent.’ Consider the example which he represents: the order of noun and demonstrative (NDem/DemN) on one hand and the order of noun and a relative clause (NRel/RelN) on the other hand: the dependent but systematically related parameters. The tetrachoric table of these features then would be as follows:
DemN NDem RelN - NRel
Table 39: Tetrachoric relation between noun-determiner and noun-relative clause Table (39) on one hand sketches the possible order between these features, and on the other hand, illustrates the languages with RelN and DemN order are in one type as opposed to those in NRel and NDem order. In fact, Greenbergian typology made it possible to categorize languages based on specific features.
The above lines demonstrate following the same path, we might classify our languages of concern based on their behavior towards the semantic notion of modality. On the other hand, it suggests one language might be a member of a class in the way it reacts to a feature, and at the same time, it could be considered
341 as a member of another class due to the attitude it shows towards another feature; i.e. a language could be a member of different categories from different perspectives. Moravcsik (2013: 86) offer an example which clarifies this claim. Languages differ in the way they case-mark the direct objects. Some languages, such as Hungarian, case-mark all the direct objects; while some, Lisu as an instance, does not case-mark any direct objects. However, these are the two poles of the continuum. Among these two ends, there are languages such as Hebrew, Catalan, and Pitjantjatjara, where Hebrew only case-marks some of the direct objects, while in Catalan the direct objects which are strong personal pronouns are case-marked and in Pitjantjatjara those personal pronouns and proper names which are direct objects, are case-marked. In fact, languages indicate a spectral attitude towards case-marking. I suggest the following continuum for Moravcsik’s example:
Mark all Direct Objects Mark no Direct Objects Hungarian Hebrew Pitjantjatjara Catalan Lisu
Diagram 15: Case-marking of direct objects So, it is possible to classify languages according to their spectral behavior they show towards a linguistic feature. The advantage of such a classification is that on one hand, we might restrict languages a range with maximum and minimum attitudes, and on the other hand, we might access all possible choices between these two ends and we can insert a new possibility whenever new evidence is discovered.
Moreover, the hierarchies, as ‘one of the most powerful theoretical tools to the typologists (Corbert 2013: 190) could be shreds of evidence to spectral and even overlapping behavior of languages. Consider the Keenan and Comrie (1977) well-known syntactic accessibility hierarchy:
SU> DO> IO> OBL> GEN> OCOMP
342
From left to right, this hierarchy suggests that not only the elements are more accessible in languages, i.e. subject is more accessible that object and so on; but a language with the indirect object will necessarily have a subject and direct object. This perspective towards languages once again will question the either-or look to the languages as a dynamic phenomenon.
In this study, the feature I aim to use to classify languages is modality. Following the unrestricted universal, at least about the languages, we have studied here, we might regard the proposition that:
‘all languages mark modality’.
Or even more specifically:
‘Although with different tools, languages mark a specific range of modality.’
That is, although some languages, such as Balochi (Bam posht dialect) and Hawrami (Hawraman Takht dialect) use adverbs to mark those range of notions which are usually represented by a modal auxiliary (mostly meaning MUST), they mark the same type and a number of modality notions as the modal auxiliaries do. In this unrestricted perspective, all of the languages of our concern are members of one type.
But how about from the restricted view of implicational universals? Is it possible to determine an implicational universal for modality? In this level of study, the answer to this question is NO. since, on one hand, up today, there has been defined no such a table to modality and on the other hand, to define such a table, in addition to a larger number and diversity of languages, we need other features to access a tetrachoric table to show the behavior of these languages to modality and those other dependent but related features. Although tense, aspect
343 and negation seem suitable features to go with modality, it is not what this thesis wishes and can do, based on its final goal.
The question which now will arise is how we can classify these languages? I tried to suggest through the above pages that it is not possible to determine clear-cut borders between the languages, considering their attitude towards modality. The appropriate solution then could be to present a continuum which languages sit on it based on the elements they apply to express modality. One way is to use the type and number of elements. But could ‘number of elements’ be a criterion for categorizing languages? In fact, the idea of categorizing languages based on the number of elements they use to express a specific notion or syntactic feature is not new. In traditional studies of languages based on the feature ‘number’, i.e. singular, plural, and dual, this is the number which is used to classify languages: which language has a dual system (singular or plural) and which has a triple system? Even in Greenbergian implicational universals, this is the number of a parameter in languages which determines the dominant or recessive order. Consider the example in the table (39). The DemN order is dominant because it occurs either with RelN or NRel, while NDem is recessive or non-dominant because it only occurs with NRel.
Above all, applying ‘number’ to determine the position of languages plays an important role in Dryer (1992). In studying languages using Dryer’s components after determining the status of each language, and marking the table which is defined by different possibilities for languages, it is possible to determine the status of the language against the dominant order of the languages of the world and the languages of a specific region. In the end, by accounting the number of the orders (components) we might decide if a language is strong/weak verb-final or strong/weak verb-initial, or even as another evidence to spectral behavior of languages, the language which is actually intermediate between verb-initial and verb-final, is moving toward which type. To clarify the way
344
Dryer’s components work, let us consider the eights component, i.e. the order of ‘want’ and subordinate verb in Kahangi. In this language (the same as Persian) the verb ‘want’ is placed before the verb of the subordinate clause. Using Dryer’s table for the languages of the world and the Eurasia languages, and the number of the languages in which the verb ‘want’ is placed before or after the verb of the subordinate clause, in strong/weak verb-final (object-verb order) and strong/weak verb-initial (verb-object order), the status of Kahangi to this component would be as follows:
Eurasia Languages of the Kahangi word OV & Vwant 7 29 OV & wantV 2 10 VO & Vwant 0 4 VO & wantV 6 42 Table 40: Order of want+verb
The above table shows in case of the order of ‘want’ and verb, Kahangi coincides weak verb-final languages (2 against 72), and also strong verb-initial languages (6 to 0) in Eurasia languages, and also in the languages of the world (respectively 10 to 29 and 42 to 4). So, this argument will suggest that ‘number’ could be a suitable criterion to classify languages.
Analyzing modality expression, we reached to this point that modal nouns, adjectives, and modal complex verbs, in the data of this thesis, are more or less the same in our 11 languages. The possible varieties are in their pronunciation (in case of nouns and adjectives) or in the light verb in the complex verbs. About the latter, the difference in the light verb would not change the semantics of modality of the verbs. Therefore, the same as nouns and adjectives, we might consider them as common between these languages. Thus,
345 it is clear the prominent difference among languages at first place is in applying modal auxiliaries, and then in the modal adverbs they use. Although there are also common modal adverbs in these languages, after modal auxiliaries, this category is the only category in which languages have some native words to express.
The main problem which this dissertation aimed to pursue was examining a semantic feature in categorizing languages. The purpose was to check this idea at first place, and then if it was possible, how such a categorization would differ from present classifications which are chiefly morpho-syntactic oriented.
I hypothesized that such a categorization of languages would differ with morpho-syntactic classification in the sense that it would group languages which are not geographically and morpho-syntactically close.
It is possible to examine the idea in two ways: first, the number and the type of modal expressions; then the source they have risen from.
In a categorization based on modality, it is not possible to draw an abrupt and certain border between languages. The suitable solution is to present a continuum where the modal elements lay on it in a scalar system. One plausible method to achieve such a continuum, as the number and the type of items. The continuum I present here includes some numbers. In the case of modal auxiliaries, the real number of available modal auxiliaries would be counted. So the number below each language, in front of the modal auxiliaries, is the number of modal auxiliaries they have. In the case of modal adverbs, for the languages which have only the common adverbs, the number would be 1. All languages which have their specific adverbs, also apply the common adverbs as well, based on the number of language-specific adverbs, I assign numbers [2] or [2+] for them, where 1 is for the common adverbs and 1 for one or more language-
346
specific modal adverbs; the result then would be two or more than two. In this sense, we would have five groups of languages:
1. Languages with more modal auxiliaries fewer adverbials (4 vs 1) including Kurdish and Gilaki 2. Languages with more auxiliaries medium adverbials (4vs 2) including Kahangi
3. languages with medium modal auxiliaries fewer adverbials (3+ vs 1) including Semnani, Vafsi, Gerashi, Tati, Persian
4. Languages with medium modal auxiliaries more adverbials (3+ vs 2) including Lori
5. Languages with less modal auxiliaries more adverbials (2 vs 2+) including Balochi and Hawrami The above category indicates the relation between modal auxiliaries to modal adverbs provide us with a continuum with a maximum and a minimum pole and among them, there are various possibilities for the languages with more alternatives. That is, in the positive end of the continuum, those are languages with a maximum number of modal auxiliaries and a minimum number of adverbs; while on the negative pole the languages with a minimum number or modal auxiliaries and a maximum number of modal adverbs rest. In the intermediate level of this continuum, there are languages with different choices of modal auxiliaries or adverbs. We might show this relation as follows:
347
Diagram 16: Modal auxiliaries and adverbs in new W-Iranian languages
Gilaki Kahangi Semnani, Vafsi, Lori Balochi Tati, Gerashi, Kurdish Hawrami Persian
4+ 4 3 3 2+
1 2 1 2+ 2
The continuum illustrates the more the languages have modal auxiliaries, the fewer adverbs they use to express modality, and vis-a-vis, the less modal auxiliaries, the more modal expression they have. It was noticed before that typologically, it is not possible to draw a certain border between the languages. This continuum has the same situation: Kahangi has many modal auxiliaries, and we expect to have fewer adverbs, however, compared to other languages, it has a language-specific adverb as well to express epistemic. Lori has the same situation, in the sense that it has a medium number of modal auxiliaries (which is three) and two language-specific adverbs. While Balochi and Hawrami, with the minimum number of modal auxiliaries and the maximum number of modal adverbs, could be considered as members of the same type. Kurdish and Gilaki, also seem to be members of one type. In the exact intermediate of the continuum, there are more languages with the standard behavior of what we expect from the middle of any continuum, minimum or less number of modal auxiliaries and modal adverbs. These languages are Persian, Gerashi, Tati, Vafsi, and Semnani. In this sense, we might categorize them together as one type. Due to these observations, it seems the real way to face languages is to present them in a continuum rather than strict and abrupt branches.
Another method of classifying languages is to consider the origins of the modal expressions. In this thesis I have only considered the origin of modal auxiliaries for two reasons: first, they are the only expressions we expect to be
348
derived from a source we can trace back. Second, most other expressions have been borrowed from Arabic and it seems impractical and ineffective to search for their origin; however for language-specific elements, mainly the adverbs, due to not having any written document, it is not easy, or even possible to trace them back and if it was possible, it couldn’t be helpful or provide a clue of any relation between languages. Therefore the only group which might be classified in this perspective would be modal auxiliaries. Based on the origin of the modal auxiliaries, the following table is presented:
349
Diagram 17: Modal auxiliaries based on their origin
Modal auxiliaries meaning ‘MUST’ Modal auxiliaries meaning ‘can, be able to’ Modal auxiliaries meaning ‘it is possible’
GO *upā-aya-ti xšāya tav- xšāya zan/dān šava *yārīka bava- šava *wart-a-
Kahangi Gerashi Kurdish Persian Gerashi Semnani Vafsi Gilaki Kurdish Persian Tati Semnani Gilaki Lori Gilaki Kahangi Hawrami Tati Lori Gilaki Gilaki Vafsi Persian Kurdish Balochi Hawrami Lori Tati Gerashi Balochi Kahangi Vafsi Semnani
350
The above table suggests modal auxiliaries meaning ‘must, should, have to’ are derived from three main sources:*Gahu, *upā-aya-ti, *xšāya.
While *xšāya is a source for modal auxiliary meaning ‘can, to be able to’ in languages such as Gerashi and Gilaki, in Kurdish it is emerged for notions related to necessity.
Moreover, auxiliaries ‘to be able, can’ show more diversities in their sources, comparing to other modals. Though most auxiliaries are derived from tav-, they are also sources meaning ‘to know’ (zan/dan) and ‘to go’ (šav), besides
(to dare) in Gilaki and xšāya. To conclude, the possible sources of these .yārīka*، و modal auxiliaries are *xšāya ،zan/dan ،šava
Most Iranian languages auxiliaries meaning ‘it is possible’ develops from a verb meaning ‘to be’ and only in two languages, Persian and Tati, they are derived from other sources. šava in Persian is the source of ‘to become’, while in Vafsi (and highly presumable in Kahangi) it is the source of auxiliaries meaning ‘can, to be able’ (i.e. in Vafsi, (be-)(person marker) in Kahangi). *wart-a- in Tati evolved from a meaning mainly related to change of states, emerged to an element for expressing possibility.
This table also indicates that we might categorize languages based on the sources they use for auxiliaries meaning ‘must’, ‘to be able to’ and ‘to become, it is possible’. The result would be:
A. Based on the sources the auxiliaries meaning ‘must’ are derived from 1. Kahangi, Vafsi, Tati, and Semnani are in one class; 2. Persian, Lori, Gerashi, and Gilaki are in one class, and 3. Kurdish is in the third class of languages.
351
B. According to the sources they are developed from to express ‘can, be able to’ 1. Persian, Lori, Gilaki, Kurdish, Hawrami, Tati and Balochi are one type; 2. Gerashi and Gilaki are in the same class and 3. Vafsi and Kahangi are in another class; while 4. Semani is the only member of the fourth class 5. And Gilaki is another only member of the fifth type in this perspective.
C. Based on the sources languages choose to express ‘to be possible’ 1. Kurdish, Hawrami, Gilaki, Balochi, Gerashi, Lori, Kahangi, Vafsi, Semnani are members of the same type, while 2. Persian, alone 3. And Tati, separately makes the second and third class.
Among these languages, Kahangi and Vafsi share the most common sources to derive their modal auxiliaries. The same story is true about Gerashi and Gilaki. We must keep in mind that Kahangi and Gilaki own more than three auxiliaries, and their mutual points with Vafsi and Gerashi (respectively) is only among three modal, not more (as instance, in Kahangi there is also another auxiliary shortly meaning ‘must’, i.e. , which I resist judging its source).
In fact, this thesis aims to assert that categorizing languages based on semantic features is not definite and it differs with traditional classification of languages, based on morpho-syntactic features. Many languages which are not necessarily connected through morphology, syntax or geography, might show the same semantic functions. Therefore, the main difference between this type of classification of languages and other typological ones is that in a semantic categorization instead of drawing borders between languages, we must consider semantic features which behave in a continuum.
352
4.3.5 Summary In this section, semantic spaces and semantic maps of Iranian languages were presented. Semantic space includes all possible type of modality which any language can express. By applying such a semantic space we can mark the area which every modal expression can cover. Relying on the criteria Viebahn and Vetter (2016) introduced and still applying Haquard (2010) and Bybee et al. (1994) we could show all Iranian modal auxiliaries, are polysemous. I also examined the other modal expressions for polysemous. It seems the only modal items which are not polysemous are the auxiliary in Gilaki, adverbs
, , , and (maybe, probably), adjectives
(obligatory), and modal nouns (probability), (possibility) and also the noun (permission). I finally presented some suggestions to classify Iranian languages based on modality.
353
Chapter Five: Conclusion 5.0 Overview This dissertation is organized in 5 chapters, including introduction, typology and the W-Iranian languages, modality, and empirical study, and here conclusion.
In chapter one, I have presented the main idea and aim of this thesis. Chapter two introduced typology and a new perspective to typology known as semantic typology. The same chapter indicated how traditional Iranian studies behave towards modality in Iranian languages. Since categorizing languages based on modality, as a semantic feature has not been practiced before, I aimed to examine such a goal on this thesis, among 11 W-Iranian languages, targeting three problems and three related hypotheses. In the same chapter, I have presented a general introduction to parts of speech in W-Iranian languages and also brief information of each 11 languages, on their word order, agreement system and, where it was possible, their case system.
Chapter three included a review of the literature on modality, both in Iranian and non-Iranian studies, to get a general idea of modality, the available perspectives towards modality and the way Iranian scholars apply these perspectives to Iranian languages. Among the present theories, I have adopted Nuyts (2005 and further) to study the languages of concerned in this thesis. Along with modality, there were still some other notions I needed to define how I am taking in this dissertation; they were auxiliary, grammaticalization, and polysemy.
Since I am not a native speaker of most of these languages, it was necessary to follow a safe way in detecting modal auxiliaries and recognizing auxiliaries from main verbs and adverbs. To do so, I apply Heine (1993) who introduces some features for auxiliaries in general. I use these features to find those auxiliaries which mark modality in our languages.
354
As for grammaticalization, I used a combination of Traugott and Dasher (2003), Heine (1993), Heine and Kuteva (2002, 2007) and Velupillai (2012). This notion was also helpful to provide a classification of modal auxiliaries, based on the sources they have emerged from.
Polysemy was the main concept to examine the third hypothesis of this dissertation, however, the expression seems clear enough, it was necessary to follow a uniformed method to detect a modal word as a polysemy. Viebahn and Vetter (2016) introduced 5 criteria to detect polysemy in modal expressions, mainly modal auxiliaries. Except for the fifth criteria, others seem appropriate for finding out if the other modal expressions are polysemous or not. However, the main idea of the second problem of this dissertation was to prove one of the main auxiliaries in Iranian languages (those which are roughly equal to ‘must, should, have to’) is polysemous.
Chapter four starts with the methodology I have pursued to manage the thesis. It was continued with the analyses on new W-Iranian languages from two perspectives: one huge part, from form to meaning. It was the place where I had to detect modal auxiliaries, adverbs, nouns, adjectives, and main (complex) verbs. Along with introducing these expressions, I had traced the sources of modal auxiliaries back. Since all languages had their specific modal auxiliary system, I introduced them under the name of each language of our concern. As far as other modal expressions were most common among these languages, they were organized based on the form of the expression rather than on the languages. Only if a language had its specific form of each modal expression, they would be handled under the name of the related language. The chapter continued with the second perspective this thesis embrace to analyze the data, and that was a meaning to form process. Here I have schemed what semantic space each type of modal expressions may cover. That would be mainly helpful to present a classification
355 of languages, considering both form and meaning. Besides, the polysemy in the modal auxiliaries was examined. However, it was possible to inspect polysemy in other modal expressions. In the same chapter, beside the semantic maps of Iranian languages on modality, I introduced two possible ways of categorizing languages, based on the semantic feature of modality; one according to the number and types of items they use to express modality and the other based on the sources the modal auxiliaries of languages are derived from.
5.1 Examining the hypothesis The first problem of this dissertation aimed to detect the modal elements the new W-Iranian languages use to express modality. I hypothesized that all these eleven languages, use the same modal expressions which Persian uses, and they are modal auxiliaries, adverb, adjectives, nouns, and main verbs.
According to the finding of this thesis, all the marked languages use all the above items to express modality. Even though modal auxiliaries emerge from different sources, other expressions share the same origin, i.e. mainly borrowed from Arabic. This is mostly true about modal adjectives, nouns, and accordingly modal complex verbs, where they are constructed with modal nouns and adjectives as their non-verbal element. The attitude of modal adverbs is somehow in the middle; i.e. some language have their own specific adverbs and some others only use the mutual adverbs, borrowed from Arabic. Besides, it was shown those modal notions which are prototypical concepts of modality (mainly deontic) in Balochi and Hawrami are not expressed by auxiliaries, rather it is the role that modal adverbs take, unlike other respected languages.
As the result reveals, the general idea of the first hypothesis is proved, though it adds this fact that modal auxiliaries seem more original in expressing modality and all languages have their specific modal auxiliaries.
356
The second problem aimed to check polysemy in modal auxiliaries. It was hypothesized that only those modal auxiliaries meaning ‘must, have to, should’, in addition to deontic modality, express epistemic and dynamic as well.
This hypothesis was examined in the third part of chapter four. Based on Viebahn and Vetter’s criteria (2016) and considering the semantic area of modal auxiliaries, it was shown that not only and those auxiliaries meaning ‘must, should, have to’, but also those meaning ‘can, be able’ (as in Persian) and those meaning ‘it is possible’ (as in Persian) are polysemous as well. It was even true for in Hawrami and in Balochi, which are modal adverbs. Based on the same criterion, it was shown that other modal items are polysemous, too. In fact, one can say the modal expressions which are not polysemous are much less, if not rare.
The third problem was the main goal of this thesis, i.e. examining the possibility of categorizing languages using modality as a semantic feature. However, following semantic typologists, I presented semantic maps of modal items in 11 languages, I also suggest the possibility of presenting two continuums or tables which languages lay on them, based on the number of the items they use to express modality or according to the sources which their modal auxiliaries are developed from. The hypothesis was supported through the fact that instead of offering abrupt branches which a language is either placed in them or not, they sit near other languages with a focus on only one feature, i.e. modality, where they could be more like some languages and less like the others, but still, not completely separated and unrelated to them.
357
Bibliography Aikhenvald, Alexandra. Y. 2006. Evidential in Grammar. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, by Keith Brown (ed), V4, 2nd ed, pp 320-325. Oxford: Elsevier. Aissen, J (2003), Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Langauge and Linguistics Theory, V 21, pp 435-483. Akhlaghi, Faryar. 2007. Must, Become and Can: Three modals in Present Persian [] . Dastoor, Vol.3, NO. 3, PP 82-132.
Amouzadeh, Mohammad and Hadaegh Rezaei. 2010. The Semantic of in Persian ]. Language Studies, No 1. PP 57-78. Anvari, Hasan and Hasan Ahmadi Givi. 1996. Persian Grammar 2. [. Tehran: Fatemi. Anvari, Hasan. 2002. The Great Dictionary of Sokhan [ Tehran: Sokhan. Arregui, Ana, Marial Luisa Rivero and Andres Salanova. 2017. Modality across Syntactic Categories. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Badakhshan, E ; Yadegar Karimi & Rozita Ranjbar. (2014) “Case marking in Sorani Kursih (Sanandaji and Baneyi) [Linguisi tcs and dialects of Khorasan [. V11. Mashhad University. Baloch, H.A, Abdul Saboor Baloch and Bilal Ahmed. 2011. “An Old Phonological Study of New Persian and Balochi Balochestan Study Centre”, Vol. XXXIV No. 1, Quetta. Bashir, Elena. 1991. A Contrastive Analysis of Balochi and Urdu. Peshawar, Pakistan: Directorate of Primary Education; Washington, D.C.: Academy for Educational Development.
358
Beijering, Karin. 2012. Expressions of Epistemic Modality in Mainland Scandinavian: A Study into the Lexicalization-Grammaticalization- Pragmaticalization Interface. Groningen: University of Groningen dissertation. Bellert, Irena. 1977. On Semantic and Distributional Properties of Sentential Adverbs. Linguistic Inguiry 8, 33-351.
Benveniste, Émile. 1958. De la subjectivité dans le langage. Journal de Psychologie normale et pathologique 55: 257–265.
Beyzaei, Bahram. 1992. Travelers [. Tehran: Roshangaran. Butler, Jonny. 2003. A minimalist treatment of modality. Lingua, Vol. 113, pp 967-996. Bybee, Joan & Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca .1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago and London. Bybee, Joan and Paul Hopper. 2001. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Byloo, Pieter & Jan Nuyts. 2014. Meaning Change in the Dutch Core Modals: (Inter)Subjectification in a Grammatical Paradigm. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia. Vol. 46, No. 1, 85-116. Celle. Agnes. 2011. The intersubjective function of modal adverbs: a contrastive English-French study of adverbs in journalistic discourse. Language in Contrast. Special Issue “Contrastive Pragmatics”, 9 (1), pp 23-36. Charlow, Nate and Matthew Chrisman. 2016. Deontic Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
CharsoughiAmin, T. (2015) “A Typological Analysis on Gilaki According to Dryer’s Components ( ). The Local literature and Languages of Iran. NO5, T3, pp 29-59.
359
Christensen, Arthur. E. 1915. Le Dialecte de Samnan. Essai d’ne Grammaire Samnanie avec un Vocabulaire et Queleues Textes, Suivi d’une Notice sur les Patois de Sangsar et de Lasgird. Kobenhavn: Lunos. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm. Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Comrie. Bernard. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Corbett, Greville. G. 2013. Implicational Hierarchies. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology by Jae Jung Song (ed). 190-205. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cornillie, Bert. 2007. Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality in Spanish (Semi-) Auxiliaries. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Cornillie, Bert. 2009. Evidentiality and epistemic modality: On the close relationship between two different categories. Functions of Language, 16 (1), 44-62. Croft, William. 2003. Typology and Universals. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dabirmoghaddam, Mohammad. 1997. Compound Verbs in Persian. Studies in the Linguistics Sciences. V27, N2.pp 25-59. DabirMoghaddam, Mohammad. 2013. The Typology of Iranian Languages []. Tehran: Samt. Daniel, Michael. 2011. Linguistic Typology and the Study of Language. In J.J. Song (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davari, Shadi and Mehrdad Naghzhouye Kohan. 2017. Auxiliaries in Persian: A Grammatical Approach.
360
]. Tehran: Neviseh. Davari, Shadi. (2010). “Possessive Construction in Semnani” [ ]. The First International Conference on Iran’s Desert Area Dialects. Semnan.
De Haan, Ferdinand.2013. The Interaction of Modality and Negation: A Typological Study. New York and London: Routledge.
De Saussure, Louis. 2017. Why French Modal Verbs are not Polysemous, and other Consiretations on Conceptual and Procedural Meanings. In Formal Models in the Study of Languages: Applications in Interdisciplinary Contexts. Joanna Blochowiak, Cristina Grisot, Stephanie Durrleman and Christopher Laenxlinger (eds). Switzerland: Springer. pp 281-296. De Schutter, Georges.1983. Modaliteit en andere modificaties in de Nederlandse grammatical [Modality and Other Modifications in Dutch Grammar]. In Een spyeghelvoor G. Jo Steenbergen, F. Daems and Louis Goossens (eds.). 277- 291. Leuven: Acco. De Smet, Hendrik & Jan-Christophe Verstraete. 2006. Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics 17: 365-392. Declerck. Renaat .2011. The Definition of Modality. In Cognitive Approaches to Tense, Aspect, and Epistemic Modality, by Patard, A. & Frank Brisard (eds.). pp 21-44. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Dryer, Matthew. S. 2007. "Word order". In Timothy Shopen (ed). Clause Structure, Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 1, Second Edition. Cambridge University Press. Dryer, Matthew. S.1992 "The Greenbergian Word Order Correlations." Language 68: 81-138. Dryer, Matthew.S. 1992. The Greenbergian Word Order Correlations. Language, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp 81-138.
Duffley, Patrick. J. 1994. Need and Dare: The Black Sheep of the Modal Family. Lingua 94. Pp 213-243.
361
Édelman, Džoj. I. 1968. Osnovnye Voprosy Lingvističeskoj geografi. Na Material Indoiranskih Jazykov. Moskva. Elfenbein, J. 1966. “The Baluchi Language: A Dialectology with Texts”. Royal Asiatic Society Monographs, Vol. XXVII. London: The Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Esmaeili. K. S and Shahin Salavati. 2013. “Sorani Kurdish versus Kurmanji Kurdish: An Empirical Comparison”. Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics. Estilo, Donald.1981. “The Tati Language Group in the Sociolinguistic Context of Northwestern Iran and Transcaucasia”. Iranian Studies, Vol. 14, No. ¾, pp. 137-187. Taylor & Francis. Facchinetti, Roberta, Manfred Krug and Frank Palmer. 2003. Modality in Contemporary English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Foley, William. A, and Robert D. Van Valin. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frawley, William. 2006. The Expression of Modality. Berlin: Mouton. Gharib. H. 2015 A semantic analysis of cut and break verbs in Sorani Kurdish. University of Kansas. Givi, Hasan. A. 2005. The Grammar of Persian Verb []. Tehran: Qatreh. Givon, Talmy. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press. Goossens, Louis 1985. Modality and the modals. In Predicates and terms in functional grammar, by M. Bolkestein, C. De Groot and L. Mackenzie (eds.). 203-217. Dordrecht: Foris. Goossens, Louis. 1987. Modal Shifts and Predication Types. In Ins and Outs of the Predication, by Johan Van der Auwera and Lous Goossens (eds). 21–37. Dordrecht: Foris. Greenbaum, Sidney. 1969. Studies in English Adverbial Usage. London: Longman.
362
Greenberg, Joseph. H. 1963. Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements. In Universals of Language, by Joseph Greenberg (ed), 73-113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hacquard, Valentine. 2010. On the event relativity of modal auxiliaries. Natural Language Semantics, 18, 79–114. Haghshenas, Ali Mohammad & Hossein Sameji, Mahdi Samaei, Alaeddin Tabatabari. 2008. Persian Grammar []. Tehran: Madrese. Haig, Geoffrey. L. J. 2004. Alignment in Kurdish: A diachronic Perspective. Christian-Albrechts-Universit¨at. Halliday, M.A.K. 1970. Functional Diversity in Language, as Seen from a Consideration of Modality and Mood in English. Foundations of Language. 6: 322-361. Hasan doust, Mohammad. 2014. The Etymology Dictionary of Persian []. Tehran: Farhangestan.
Hatami kiya, Ebrahim. 1996. Minou Tower []. Tehran: Isargaran. Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva. 2004. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hengeveld, Kees. 1988. Illocution, Mood and Modality in a Functional Grammar of Spanish. Journal of Semantics. Vol 6: 227-269. Hengeveld, Kees. 2004. Illocution, Mood and Modality. In Morphology: An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation. Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan and Stavros Skopeteas. Vol. 2, 1190- 12-1, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Hennemann, Anja. 2012. The epistemic and evidential use of Spanish modal adverbs and verbs of cognitive attitude. Folia Linguistica 46/1, pp 133–170. Homayounfar, Mozhgan. 2013. The Study of Grammaticalization in Persian Modals
363
[ ]. Dastour, No 9, PP 50-73. Hopper, Paul. J & Sandra A. Thompson. 1993. Language universals, discourse pragmatics, and semantics. Language Sciences. 15(4): 357–376. Hopper, Paul. J and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hopper, Paul. J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Bernd Heine (eds.). Approaches to grammaticalization.Vol. 1. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp 17-35. Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Humbach, Helmut and Pallan Ichaporia. 1994. The Heritage of Zarathushtra: A New Translation of His Gathas. Germany: Universitatsverlag Winter. Ilkhanipour, Negin. 2015. Modal adjectives in Persian [ Tehran: Markaz. Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. The MIT Press. Jacobsson, Bengt. 1974. The Auxiliary Need. English Studies 55, pp 56-63.
Jahani, Carin and Agnes Korn. 2009. “Balochi.” In: Windfuhr, Gernot (ed.), The Iranian Languages. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 634–692. Jahani, Carin and Gunilla Gren-Eklund .2003. The Balochi and Their Neighbors: Ethnic and Linguistics Contact in Balochistan in Historical and Modern Times. Ludwig Riecher Verlag Wiesbaden. Germany. Jahani, Karina; Abbas Ali Ahangar and Maryam Noorzaei. 1389. A Comparison Among Aspect Markers in Balochi Dialects of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Sistani Sarhadi, Granchin Sarhadi, Sarawani, and Koroshi. The First International conference on Irianian Dialects. Semnan: Semnan University. Jespersen, Otto. 1992[1924]. Philosophy of grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kalbasi. Iran. 2005. “Distinctive Features of Semnani Dialect” Language and Linguistics V1, NO2. pp 137-141.
364
Kambuziya, Aliyeh. K.Z., Ardeshir Maleki Moghaddam and Arezoo Soleimani 2013. “Comparative Study of Consonant Phonological Processes in Bala Gueriveh Lori with Standard Persian” Jostari. V4, NO1, pp 151-179. Karimi doustan, Gholamhossein and Negin Ilkhanipour. 2012. Modality in Persian []. Language Studies. Vol 3, No 1, PP 77-98. Karimi, Simin .2003. Word Order and Scrambling. Blackwell Publishing. PP 91- 124.
Karimi, Simin. 2005. A Minimalist Approach to Scrambling. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Karimi, Simin. 2005. A Minimalist Approach to Scrambling: Evidence from Persian. Mouton de Gruyter. Berlin and New York. Karimi, Yadegar. 2013. “Agreement in Iranian Language Ergativity: Competition between clitics and Affixes [Motabeghe dar Nezam-e Konaei-e Zabanha-ye Irani: Reghabat-e Vazhe bast va Vand]”. Linguistic Surveys, NO2, PP 1-18.
Karimi. Yadegar & Zaniar Naghshbandi. 2011. “Progressive-emphatic Verb Constructions in Hawrami”. Linguistic researches. V2, N1. Tehran University. Tehran. Karimidoostan. GH & Zaniar Naghshbandi. 2010. “Ergative Structures in Hawrami”. Language Research and Comparative Literature. V2, N2 (Tome 6). Tarbiyat Modares University. Tehran. Keenan, Edward. L and Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 8, No. 1, 63-99.
Khanlari, Parviz. N. 1972. Persian Grammar. Bonyad Farhang-e Iran Publishing. Tehran. Kiefer, Ferenc. 1994. ‘Modality’. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 10 vols.: 2515-2520.
365
Kiya, Sadegh. 2011. A Dictionary of Sixty Seven Iranian Dialects []. Tehran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies Kling, Ales and Henrik HØeg Müller. 2005. Modality: Studies in Form and Function. London: Equinox Publishing. Koohkan, Sepideh. 2016. “Word Order in Kahangi: An Iranian Language Variety”. The 3rd International Conference of Iranian Languages and Dialects: Past and Present. Kratzer, Angelika. 1977. What ‘Must’ and ‘Can’ Must and Can Mean. Linguistics and philosophy. 1: 337-55. Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The Notional Category of Modality. In Hans-Jurgen Eikmeyer and Hannes Rieser (eds), Words, Worlds, and Contexts: New Approaches in Word Semantics. 38-74. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich (eds), SemanticsL An International Handbook of Contemporary Reseach, 639-650. Berlin: de Gruyter. Kratzer, Angelika. 2004. Telicity and the Meaning of Objective Case. In Jacqueline Gueron and Jacqueline Lecarme (eds), The Syntax of Time. 389- 423. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kratzer, Angelika. 2012. Modals and Conditionals: New and Revised Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Langacker, Ronald. W. 1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton. Langacker, Ronald. W. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In: M. Barlow and S.Kemmer (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 1-63. Stanford: CSLI. Langacker, Ronald. W. 2001. Dynamicity in grammar. Axiomathes 12: 7-33.
Langacker, Ronald. W. 2005. Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical and less so. In: F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez and S. Peña Cervel (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction, 101-159.
366
Langacker, Ronald. W. 2007. Cognitive grammar. In: D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics, 421-462. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Langacker, Ronald. W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Lecoq, Pierre. 1989. “ Les Dialects Caspiens et les Dialects du Nord-Ouest de l’Iran”. In Copendium Linguarum Iranicarum; by Rudiger Schmitt. Wiesbaden. pp 296-312. Leech, Geoffrey. N. 1969. Toward a Semantic Description of English. London: Longman.
Leech, Geoffrey. N. 2006. A Glossary of English Grammar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Lehman, Christian. 2002. Thoughts on Grammaticalization: A Programmatic Sketch, 2nd revised edition. Arbeitspapiere des Seminas fur Sprachwissenschaft der Universitat Erfurt 9. Levy, Reuben.D. 1951. Persian Language. New York: Philosophical Library. Lockwood. Ronald. M. (2012). The Gilaki Language. Uppsala Universitet. Lyons, John. 1968. An Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. 2vol. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mace, John. 2003. Persian Grammar: For Reference and Revision. Routledgecurzon, London. Mackenzie, David. N. 1971. A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary. London: Oxford University Press. MacKinnon, Colin. 2011. “Lori Language”. Encyclopedia Iranica. Magni, Elisabetta. 2010. Mood and Modality. In New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 2: Constituent Syntax: Adverbial Phrases, Adverbs, Mood, Tense , 193-275. By Philip Baldi & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
367
Mahmoodi Bakhtiyari, Behrooz. M. 2008. The Morphology of and in Persian [ Dastoor, Vol. 4, PP 152-169. Mansouri, Yad-Allah and Jamileh Hasan zadeh. 2008. The Etymology of Verbs in Persian []. Tehran: Farhangestan. Mansouri, Yad-Allah and Jamileh Hasan zadeh.2005. The Etymology of Verbs in Pahlavi (Middle Zoroastrianism Persian) []. Tehran: Farhangestan. Matthews, Richard. 1991. Words and Worlds: on the Linguistic Analysis of Modality. Berlin and New York: Frankfurt am Main. McKenzie, David. N. 1961. “The Origins of Kurdish Language”. Transactions of the Philological Society, V60, Issue 1, PP 68-86. Melia, Joseph. M. 2003. Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mengal, Mir Aqil Khan. 1990. A Persian-Pahlavi and Balochi Vocabulary, Vol. 1, Balochi Academy, Quetta.
Merchant. Livingston. T. 2013. Introduction to Sorani Kurdish. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Meshkat-Aldini, Mahdi. 2007. Persian Grammar: Lexical Categories and Merge []. Tehran: Samt. Mirdehghan. Mahin naz & Saeid Reza Yusefi. 2012. “Case and Case marking in Vafsi [Halat va Halat Namaei dar Vafsi]”. ZabanShenakht, Y3, NO1, PP 85- 105. Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The languages of Native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mofidi. Rohallah. 2017. The Development of Aspect and Mood Morphology in Modern Persian [Dastoor, No. 12. PP 3-68.
368
Moradi, Ronak. 2012. Modality and Mood in Sourani Kurdish: A Semantic- Syntactic Approach [ . PhD Dissertation. Tehran: Allameh Tabatabaei University. Moravcsik, Edith. A. 2013. Explaining Language Universals. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology by Jae Jung Song (ed). 69-89. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Naghizadeh, Mahmoud, Manouchehr Tavangar and Mohammad Amouzadeh. 2011. The Study of Subjectivity in Persian Modals [ ]. Linguistic Studies, Vol 3. PP 1-20. Naghzgouy Kohan Mehrdad and Zanyar Naghshbandi. 2016. The Study of Modals in Hawrami []. Jostar. Vol 7. No 3. PP 223-243. Naghzguye Kohan, Mehrdad. 2010. “Auxiliary verbs and Realization of Aspect in Persian” . Adabpazhuhi. NO. 14. pp 93-110. Narrog, Heiko. 2012. Modality, Subjectivity, and Semantic Change. A Cross- Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nauze, Fabrice. D. 2008. Modality in Typological Perspective. Ph.D. Thesis. Institute for Logic, Language and Computation. Nuyts, Jan & Pieter Byloo. 2015. Competing Modals: Beyond (inter)subjectification. Diachronica 32:1, 34-68. Nuyts, Jan, Pieter Byloo, and Janneke Diepeveen. 2005. On deontic modality, directivity, and mood: A case study of Dutch mogen and moeten. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 110. University of Antwerp. Nuyts, Jan, Pieter Byloo, and Janneke Diepeveen. 2010. On deontic modality, directivity, and mood: The case study of Dutch mogen and moeten. Journal of Pragmatics 42 (1): 16–34.
369
Nuyts, Jan. 1993. Epistemic Modal Adverbs and Adjectives and the Layered Representation of Conceptual and Structure. Linguistics 31, 933-969. Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization: a Cognitive-pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company. Nuyts, Jan. 2005. The Modal Confusion: On Terminology and the Concepts Behind it. In Alex Klinge & Henrik H. Müller (eds.), Modality: Studies in Form and Function, 5-38. London: Equinox. Nuyts, Jan. 2006. Modality. In The Expression of Modality, William Frawley (ed.), 1-26. Berlin: Mouton. Nuyts, Jan. 2016. Surveying Modality and Mood. In Jan Nuyts and Johan Van Der Auwera (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood, 1-8. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Nuyts, Jan. 2017. Evidentiality Reconsidered. In Juana Isabel Marin Arresse, Gerda Haßler and Marta Carretero (eds). Evidentiality Revisited, 57-85. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Nuyts. Jan (in prep). Modality in Mind. Book Manuscript.
Okati, Farideh, Petur Helgason and Carina Jahani .2013. “Diphthongization in Five Iranian Balochi Dialects”. Orientalia Suecana LXI. Uppsala, Sweden. Oranski, Iosif.M. 1977. Old Iranian philology and Iranian linguistics. Nauka: Moscow. Palmer, Frank. R. 1979. Modality and the English Modals. New York and London: Routledge. Palmer, Frank. R. 1986. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palmer, Frank. R. 1990. Modality and the English Modals. Second ed. New York and London: Routledge. Palmer, Frank. R. 2001. Modality and Modality. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
370
Papafragou, Anna. 2000. Modality: Issues in the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Amsterdam, Lausanne, New York, Oxfod, Shannon, Singapore and Tokyo: Elsevier. Paradis, Carita. 2001. Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics, Vol. 12 (1): 47–65. Perkins, Michael.R. 1983. Modal Expressions in English.London: Frances Pinter.
Portner, Paul. 2009. Modality. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Pourhadi, Masoud. 2017. The Typology of Word Order in Gilaki. [ Rasht: Iliya. Qarib, Abd-Alazim, Mohammad taghi Bahar, Jalal-Aldin Homayi, Badi-Alzaman Forouzanfar and Rashid Yademi. 1884 [1994]. Persian Grammar []. Tehran : Jahan Danesh. Quirk Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik.1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. Rahimiyan, Jalal and Mohammad Amouzadeh. 2013. Modals in Persian and Expressing Modality ]. Linguistic studies, Vol.1, PP21-40. Rahmani, Reza. 2011. A Dictionary of Tati Language of Takestan []. Sal Publishing. Takestan. Rasekhmahan, Mohammad. 2009. “The Typology of pronominal enclitics in Tati”. Linguistic Research. Vol1. pp 1-10. Rasekhmahan. Mohammad & Zaniar Naghshbandi. 2014a. “The Effect of Discourse Factors on Case System in Hawrami”. Language Related Reseach. V4, N4 (Tome 16). Tarbiyat Modares University, Tehran. Rasekhmahan. Mohammad & Zaniar Naghshbandi. 2014b. “The Effect of the Verbal Arguments Power in Differential Case Marking: Evidence from Hawrami”. Studies of Languages and Dialects of Western Iran, Kermanshah University. V1, N1.PP1-20. Kermanshah. Rasekhmahand, Mohammad and Zanyar Naghshbandi. 2013. The Impact of predicative arguments on Differential Case Marking.
371
[]. The Studies of West Iranian Languages and Dialects, Vol1. PP 1-20. Rasekhmahand, Mohammad. 2006. “How Persian Shows Subject and Object []”. Linguistics, N1- 2, PP 85-96.
Rastorgueva, V.S, A. A. Kerimova, A. K. Mamedzade, L.A. Pireiko, and D. I. Edel’man. 2012. The Gilaki Language. Sweden: Upsala University. Rezaei Baghbidi, Hasan & Arman Bakhtiyari, Askar Bahrami, Negin Salehi Niya. 2004. A Guide to Iranian Languages: New Iranian Languages. 2nd Vol. Translation. Tehran: Qoqnous.
Rezaei Baghbidi, Hasan. 2009. The History of Iranian Languages []. Tehran: Centre for the Great Islamic encyclopedia. Rezaei, Hadaegh. 2009. Modality and Tense in Persian: With Emphasis to Persian Scenarios [ ]. PhD Dissertation. Isfahan: University of Isfahan. Rezapour, Ebrahim. 2015. “Word Order in Semnani: A Typological Perspective” Jostarhaye Zabani. V6, NO 5. pp 169-190. Tarbiyat Modares University. Sabzalipour, Jahandoust. 2012. A Comparative Study on Verb Construction in Tati, Talishi and Gilaki [ ]. Gilan: The University of Gilan. Sabzalipour. Jahandoust. 2015. “The Features of Infinitive in Caspian Languages: Tati, Talishi and Gilaki” [ ]. Iranian languages and dialects [], NO5, pp 103-129.
372
Samvelian, Pollet. 2007. A Lexical Account of Sorani Kurdish Prepositions. In Stefan M¨uller (Ed.): Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Stanford Department of Linguistics and CSLI’s LinGO Lab (pp. 235–249). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and company.
Sedighi. Anousha. 2010. Agreement Restriction in Persian. Leiden University Press.
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie and Karin Aijmer. 2007. The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty: A Corpus-Based Study of English Adverbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Soleimani, Arezou and Fariba Ghatreh. 2017. “ The Realization of Morphosyntactic Features in Balaguiriveh Lori” The 4th National Conference on Morpgology.pp: 99-122. Soleimani, Arezou and Farideh Haghbin. 2016. Tense and Aspect in Lori, Balaguiriveh Dialect []. Jostar. Vol7, No 2, PP 245-262. Spencer, Andrew. 1991 [1997]. Morphological Theory: An Introduction to Word Structure in Generative Grammar. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Stilo, Donald. L. 1981. “The Tati Language Group in the Sociolinguistic Context of Northwest Iran and Transcaucasia”. Iranian Studies, XIV, pp137-187 Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tabibzadeh, Omid. 2012. Persian Grammar: A Theory of Autonomous Phrases Based on Dependency Grammar [ . Tehran: Markaz. Taleghani. Azita. H. 2009. Modality, Aspect and Negation. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
373
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition. Cognitive Science 12: 49-100. Tavangar, Manouchehr & Mohammad Amouzadeh. 2009. Subjective Modality and Tense in Persian. Language Sciences 345-361. Thackston. Wheeler. M. 2006. Sorani Kurdish: A Reference Grammar with Selected Reading. Harvard: Iranian Studies at Harvard University. Thackston. Wheeler. M. 2009. An Introduction to Persian. Ibex Publishers. Bethesdo, Maryland.
Timberlake, Alan. 2007. Aspect, tense, mood. In Language typology and syntactic description. By Timothy Shopen (ed.),Vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 280–333. Traugott, Elizabeth. C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65: 31-55. Traugott, Elizabeth. C. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In: D.Stein and S. Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation, 31-54.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Traugott, Elizabeth. C. 2006. Historical aspects of modality. In: W. Frawley (ed.), The expression of modality, 107-139. Berlin: Mouton. Traugott, Elizabeth. C. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification. In: Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte and Hubert Cuyckens (eds.),Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 29-71. Berlin: DeGruyter. Traugott, Elizabeth. C. and Richard Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vafaei, Abbas ali. 2012. Persian Grammar. Samt Publishing.
Vahidiyan Kamyar, T and Alireza Omrani. 2003. Persian Grammar 1 []. Tehran: Samt.
374
Van der Auwera, Johan & Vladimir Plungian. 1998. Modality’s Semantic Map. Linguistic Typology 2. 79-124. Van der Auwera, Johan and Alfonso Zamorano Aguilar. 2016. The history of Modality and Mood. In Jan Nuyts and Johan Van der Auwera (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood, 9-27 United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Van linden, An and Jean-Christophe Verstraete. 2011. Revisiting deontic modality and related categories: A conceptual map based on the study of English modal adjectives. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 150–163. Van Linden, An. 2012. Modal Adjectives: English Deontic and Evaluative Constructions in Synchrony and Diachrony. Germany: De Gruyter. Vander Klok, Jozina. 2012. Modal Questionnaire for Cross-Linguistic Use. Available at:https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/tools-at- lingboard/pdf/Modal_Questionnaire_CrossLing_JVK.pdf
Velupillai, Viveka. 2012. An Introduction to Linguistic Typology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Verstraete, Jean. C. 2001. Subjective and objective modality: Interpersonal and ideational functions Viebahn, Emanuel and Barbara Vetter. 2016. How many meanings for ‘may’? The case for modal polysemy. Philosophers’ imprint. vol. 16, no. 10. pp1-26. Whaley, Lindsay. J. 1997. An Introduction to Typology: The Unity and Diversity of Language. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications. Windfuhr, Gernot. 2009. The Iranian Languages. Routledge. London and New York. Windfuhr, Gernot. L. 1989. New West Iranian. In Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, Rudiger Schmitt (ed.), 251-262. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag. Zandvoort, Reinard. W. 1950. A Handbook of English Grammar. 4th Edn. Groningen: Wolters.
375
Ziegeler, Debra.P. 2006. Mood and Modality in Grammar. In Encylopedia of Language and Linguistics, V 1, Keith Brown, Anne Anderson, Laurie Bauer, Margie Berns, Jim Miller, Graeme Hilrst (eds) Elsevier. pp 259-267. Ziegler, Debra. 2000. Hypothetical Modality. John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
376
Index
Mood And Modality Questionnaire for Iranian languages
I. Mood: Morphological elements Identifying indicative, subjunctive, imperative, interrogative, volition, conditional modality. A. Indicatives: The interviewee needs to answer these questions. I expect the informants use some specific tense, aspect and mood to answer these questions. For each question I will write the TAM which I expect to receive: 1. Where are the children siting (where have the children been siting) By using this question I expect the informant uses the present perfect tense, in indicative mood, and perfective aspect.
2. What did you have for lunch? The informant uses indicative, simple past, perfective aspect to answer this question.
3. Where are you going tomorrow? The future tense, imperfective aspect, beside subjunctive mood is expected. Since Iranian languages are said to get the present simple tense to use for future tense, this sentence will check the accuracy of the claim in languages I study.
4. Where did you live five years ago? Indicative, past, imperfective is expected. Informant will use past continuous to answer this question.
5. How is the weather today? Indicative, predicative answer is required here. I expect the informant uses the 3person singular form of the verb “to be” in present form which is mostly a clitic in colloquial variety of Persian. Some believe we have to distinguish the verb from and consider the former as the past stem and the latter as the present stem for the same meaning “to be”. But the fact is, is only in present simple tense, and is mostly used in predicative clauses, the clitic form is used as an auxiliary
377
in present perfect tense, in Persian. The verb also means “to exist” which in that case it doesn’t have any clitic form since it is a main verb. The interviewee needs to make the suitable questions for these answers. Since the sentences could be in tense and aspect which is not really what they usually are used for (it happens a lot where the simple past is used for future) to make the informant to use the exact TAM which I expect and they usually prefer the simple forms instead, I made some questions which I expect them to use some complex sentence structure in their language, if available of course.
6. ------? They go to the university. Although the answer is in present simple tense, which can be used as present progressive as well, but I expect the informant to use either imperfective (continuous) question or to use the verbs which mean “to want” as indicating to future.
7. ------? They are going to the university. Imperfective question is needed here. This question tries to check if the language used the normal continuous form or it uses an extra element to show the progressive, beside the normal imperfective marker.
8. ------? No, I have never been/gone there. Present perfect tense in its real usage is aimed here. As you can see, in one, the question and answer both are aiming a state which shows present tense. Although as the name suggest present perfect is a kind of present, but in the previous question the period which has been started before the speak time was not so clear in question and answer. I needed to make a situation so that this time the time before the speaker talk time gets a little bit highlight by asking about an experience.
9. ------? They were going to the university. Past progressive with additional element to show this continuity is required.
10. ------? Yes, they had been/seen there before. A time before the past perfect is aimed here.
11. ------? They have gone there to study. Past perfect question is expected.
378
B. Subjunctive: The interviewee needs to answer these questions using mainly subjunctive mood. 12. Where are you going after this session/where do you intend to go after this session?
13. Where do you like to live? 14. If they tell your mother that you are getting married (again) what would she do/say? The interviewee needs to complete these sentences: 15. Jila and her family are in our home, I really don’t like here. I hope when I arrive ……………….. 16. When does Jila come over (when does Jila come to your home?) I don’t know may be….
C. Imperative 17. You are at the table for lunch, you don’t access to salt shaker. you ask your sister:----- 18. it is cold outside and the door is open, your mother steps in and you ask:- ---- 19. You are going shopping, while your kid who has exam tomorrow is home. What would you tell her before you leave?
II. Lexical elements Modal adverb, modal adjective, modal verb and modal nouns Interviewee needs to say these sentences and complete them. A. Adjectives 20. Saying prayers daily is…….. in Islam. 21. helping poor people is………in Islam 22. Eating pork is ……..in Islam. 23. Obeying driving laws is ………. 24. Emergency numbers are the numbers that everybody ………..know. 25. Since you have studies so much it is…….that you will pass in conquer (big test) 26. A) Kiyan is late B) ……..he has gone shopping on his way home. It is also ………that he couldn’t find /he has missed the
379
bus/train/taxi. Even this is ………that he has not leaved for home yet. So, no need to worry 27. I think you have to tell Narges, ………..she helps you, and she won’t reveal your secret. She is a ……….girl. 28. Be careful while you carry these dishes, they are ……..
B. Main verbs 29. My parents has made a little money so I ….leave school, and now I ……work. 30. If you have delivered him sooner to the hospital ………………..that he could be saved/………he would survive. 31. I ……..when I grow up I ……….a doctor. 32. When I was a kid I ………when I grew up I ………a doctor. 33. I don’t ……….your money. 34. I ………this dress myself tonight, so I cannot borrow it to you. 35. Do you have a little money to borrow me, I ………some money. 36. Finally they ……..Mahla to come to the swimming pool. 37. I …………….that these two are related/intimate to each other. 38. Now you…………..that they are intimate, how is it your business? 39. ……………that you win a big amount of money, what would you do with it? 40. He …………..a good person.
C. Adverbs 41. This is his right to know about it you ……….tell him. 42. Tonight we ………..go to cinema 43. This problem ……….occurs to you as well/………makes your mind busy as well. 44. One of the most beautiful city I have ever seen is …………..Kerman. 45. ………………………he is one of the best professors in this field. 46. ……………………she can help. 47. ……………………she can help but she won’t.
D. Noun: 48. In front of the army building it was written in big fonts “Taking photo…………..”. 49. To do that there is no………….., if you wish, you can collaborate.
380
50. A) We wanted to use class number 233 for our workshop but the rector said it is against law!! B) it is ………….that he even did not get what we mean.
E. Auxiliaries 51. You are my father, you …….give your opinion on this. 52. If you want you ……..find this money for me. 53. If Parisa ……………….so let her come. 54. When I needed him he ………helped me/…………..help me. 55. If I have told him directly ….he would get that I simply need his help. 56. If he ……….he could help. 57. I don’t know, …….tomorrow I go to her and talk to her about this topic. 58. Girls …………..to laugh aloud on the streets. 59. But boys ……………whatever they want.
III. Future-time Source: The future time reference questionnaire By: Osten Dahl Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe, in Empirical approaches to language typology. Mouton de Gruyter. Berlin. New York 2000
A. Future tense 60. What your brother do if you don’t go to see him today, do you think? (will he come to you or give you a call) 61. What does your brother do if we arrive there right now, you think? 62. What do you want to do know, what is your plan? 63. The glass of our table is so firm that even if you throw a stone to it …………….. 64. You are expecting some money. What do you do if you have that? 65. You were expecting some money, which you couldn’t have that. What would you do with that money if you could have that? 66. You are a teacher at school. You assign some homework for the students and you leave for the office, before you leave you tell them… 67. Make a promise 68. Mother to the child: put that ball away or…. 69. Mother to the child: if you don’t put that ball away …. 70. When I grow old/become old…
381
71. Mother is feeding the child but the child is busy with his plays, mother tells him :… 72. You have left for a mission to Mashhad. Next year you must be in Isfahan for the same mission. Your friend which is in Mashhad asks you, are you going to stay here forever? What is your response? 73. What do you plan to do tonight? 74. The sky is full of dark clouds, what do you predict? 75. The sun…………..at 5:30 a.m. 76. Do you want to live here forever? 77. If it rains tomorrow ………….. 78. If it is cold tomorrow…….. 79. If it stays cold tomorrow…….. 80. What does your brother want to buy? 81. Although this stone is too heavy but my brother ……… 82. How can I get to the hospital? 83. I don’t like this guy and …………….like him ever. 84. I woke up yesterday and I saw it is cloudy. I took my umbrella with me because ……
B. Aspect 85. A) I don’t think your sister has ever finished reading a book B) No, she ……………Kaleidar completely. 86. Sarah wants to go for play but she has lots of homework to do for tomorrow. She asks her mother if she can go for a play, her mother says/asks……….. 87. What have you done till an hour ago to now? 88. You wake up and you see the streets are all wet, what do you guess? 89. You are working as a daily worker. it is morning and you ask for your salary that you normally receive it at night when you work is done. But the guy in charge says I will give your salary when …………..
C. imperfective aspect: 90. Someone is on the phone and wants to know about me, you say: 91. Sepideh BE here and READ news paper 92. Sepideh BE here and PEEL the tomatoes (integration of the object) 93. Sepideh BE here and FEED the baby (accusative verb) 94. Sepideh BE here, LEAVE now (Motion verb) 95. Maryam is leaning on the sofa, I am sure she THINK about her boyfriend. 96. Look, the sun RISE. 97. Mozhgan KNOW the answer (Finite) 98. Narges LIKE this music
382
99. what a nice guy, he is BE KIND (auxiliaries) 100. Jila got her hair cut, she asks her sister how is my new hair style. Mozhgan answers it looks awful. Jila says: today you BE so rude. 101. hurry up the train LEAVE 102. hurry up the train LEAVE in a minute 103. Modal verbs 104. if I am not mistaken, it is Sahar’s turn to WATER the flowers. 105. I am sure it is Parisa’s turn to COOK/MAKE food.
IV. Modal questionnaire for cross-linguistic use: Jozina Vander Klok
A. NECESSITY DEONTIC VS. NECESSITY EPISTEMIC 106. [Target: necessity deontic] In Indonesia, the law states that when you ride a motor bike... (You MUST wear a helmet) 107. [Target: necessity epistemic] Kiyan routinely has coffee at main Bazar every day. Even if he's sick, he doesn't miss a day! It's not obligatory for Kiyan; he just goes for coffee there all the time. It's coffee time now, so...(Kiyan MUST be at main Bazar.) 108. [Target: necessity epistemic] (from Rullmann et al 2008:321) Context: You have a headache that won’t go away, so you go to the doctor. All the tests show negative. So, (it MUST just be from tension/stress.) 109. [Target: necessity epistemic] You know that Mahla goes to the market every morning after first prayer/dawn, even though she is not required to. Right now, you wonder where Mahla is. You check the clock: it's 5:30am. (Mahla MUST be at the market)
B. POSSIBILITY EPISTEMIC VS. NECESSITY EPISTEMIC 110. [Target: possibility epistemic] Professor Farihi 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 to the university today.) 111. [Target: necessity epistemic] you are calling for your cat. The cat is not coming. You look for the cat in the kitchen, but the cat is not there. Then you look in the living room, and in the bathroom, and in your sister's bedroom. The cat is not in any of those rooms. You look all over the house again, but the cat is nowhere to be found in the house. You think...(The cat must not be in the house.) 112. [Target: possibility epistemic] You are looking for her necklace. You are not sure if she lost it or if it is still somewhere in the house because
383
you don’t remember the last time that you wore the necklace. You look in your wardrobe and on top of the wardrobe. It’s not there. You look on top of the tv. It’s not there. You look in your backpack; it’s not there. Wait! You didn’t check your sister’s wardrobe yet…(your necklace MIGHT / #must be lost.)
C. NECESSITY DEONTIC VS. WEAK NECESSITY DEONTIC 113. [Target: weak necessity deontic] Rima is not yet used to riding a motorbike, she just started learning to ride 1 month ago. Her friend suggests that/gives her advice to: (Rima should drive slowly.)
D. POSSIBILITY DEONTIC VS. NECESSITY DEONTIC 114. [Target: possibility deontic] The ferries wheel ride at WBL is only for children under 15 years old. Raha is 12 years old. It is not obligatory for her to go on the ride if she doesn't want to. (MAY/#must ride the Ferris wheel)
E. NECESSITY VS. WEAK NECESSITY TELEOLOGICAL 115. [Target: necessity teleological] (adapted from von Fintel & Iatridou 2008) There is only one main road, Shirudi, to go to the hospital. So, if you want to go there by car, you ( HAVE TO/ #SHOULD take this road)
F. WEAK NECESS. DEONTIC VS. WEAK NECESS. EPISTEMIC 116. [Target: weak necessity deontic] Samyar is the oldest child, and he is not yet married. His younger brother, Saman, wants to get married. But according to tradition... (the oldest OUGHT TO marry first.) 117. [Target: weak necessity epistemic] When the light is on at Raeika’s house, it is usually a sign that she is home. You want to go visit Raeika, and walking by her house, you see that the light is on right now. You think to yourself: (Raeika SHOULD / #OUGHT be at home.)
G. POSSIBILITY CIRCUMSTANTIAL VS. POSS. EPISTEMIC 118. [Target: possibility circumstantial] (Adapted from Kratzer 1991) Context: Nika came to visit Isfahan from Iraq. She noticed that the climate and many of the plants are similar to some places she visited in her
384
country. For example, the temperature is the same, the rainfall is the same, the types of rocks and the soil are the same. But when she looked around, she didn't find any Palm trees anywhere. But because the temperature, rainfall, and soil are the same, she thinks that: (Palm can/#might grow here)
V. Complementary questions
1. Sara definitely will not go to that party 2. I am sure she won’t go 3. I don’t think she goes 4. She may go/may be she goes for that party 5. maybe she doesn’t go 6. I see it really remote that she goes to that party 7. She must go 8. She must not go 9. she may want to go 10. Is it the case that she doesn’t go? it is possible that she doesn’t go? 11. You must peel them 12. She would probably go for that party 13. she will probably not go 14. Jila cannot go 15. She may not be able to peel them all 16. She may be able to peel them. 17. It is not possible that Raha doesn’t go to her sister’s wedding party. 18. Can/may Narges to auntie’s home? 19. May be she has gone to the university 20. May be she has not gone yet 21. Maybe Matin has not peel them yet 22. her work must be over till now 23. She must have peeled them all till now 24. Nika have to finish her work until the end of summer or she will be fired. 25. her work will be over till the end of summer 26. There must be a force on you? 27. Boys used to do all things related to wedding party. 28. Can/may I read? 29. Sara can read. 30. Sara cannot read. 31. Was it possible for the girls to find their own husbands 50 years ago? 32. You cannot use book in this exam. 33. She has studied a lot but I don’t think she can pass
385
34. although she has studied a lot but I see it really far for her to pass 35. Can/may I sit here 36. Just anyone can tell me what to do or what not to do. 37. She may feel better if she goes for that party. 38. It might be a thief. 39. It is hardly possible that I can make it to come. 40. I have heard it with my own ears. 41. I have seen it with my own eyes 42. They have told that the house will be cheaper this year. 43. I wish I could go abroad. 44. It is raining 45. if you don’t do something, you will lose it for ever 46. Let me know when you find it 47. As they have told me, there is no other way.
Sources Corbett, G.1992. ‘Typology Checklist-ESF Working Group on NP Structure’. University of Surrey. Dahl, O. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Balckwell ------.2000. ‘Tense and Aspect in the languages of Europe’. In Bossong, G & Bernard Comrie: Empirical Approaches to Language and Typology. Mouton de Gruyter. Berlin-NewYork.
Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard KÖnig. 1998. "Concessive conditionals in the languages of Europe." In: van der Auwera, Johan (ed.) Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe. (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology/EUROTYP, 20-3.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 563-640.Plank. F. 1989-99, 2005-2008. Themes in Typology: Basic Reading List. Universitat Konstanz. Siewierska, A. Eurotyp: Word Order Questionnaire. The University of Amsterdam. Vander Klok, J. 2012. ‘Modal Questionnaire for Cross-Linguistics Use’. In Tense, aspect and modality in Paciran Javanese, Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University. A guide to collect data on dialects for Iranian dialect treasure. Persian Academy. 2011 (Rahnamay-e gerd avari-e gooyesh-ha) Eurotyp Project, Group 6 (Tense-Aspect Systems): Questionnaire on the Progressive Aspect.
386
Abstract
Modaliteit betreft de modificaties die een spreker aanbrengt in de propositie met de bedoeling zijn/haar evaluatie van en betrokkenheid bij de stand van zaken aan te geven. Typologie bestudeert de variatie tussen talen en tracht daaruit intertalige generalisaties te extraheren. Dit proefschrift combineert de studie van modaliteit, als een semantische begrip, met een typologisch perspectief, dat gewoonlijk op formele taalkenmerken inzoemt, met betrekking tot elf Nieuw-West-Iraanse talen, nl. Balochi (Bamposht), Gerashi, Gilaki (Shaft), Hawrami (Hawraman Takht), Kahangi, Kordi (Sanandaj), Lori (Balaguariveh), Perzisch, Semnani, Tati (Takestan) en Vafsi. En het doet dat op basis van Nuyts (2005 en volgende). Het hoofddoel is na te gaan of het mogelijk is talen te categoriseren op basis van een semantische eigenschap, in dit geval modaliteit, en zo ja, hoe zo’n classificatie verschilt van eerdere classificaties, die gewoonlijk gebaseerd zijn op morfologische of syntactische kenmerken. De studie toont dat alle onderzochte talen een waaier van types van modale uitdrukkingsmiddelen bezitten, waaronder modale hulpwerkwoorden, nomina, adjectieven, bijwoorden, en (meestal samengestelde) hoofdwerkwoorden. Ze hebben als gemeenschappelijk kenmerk dat de modale hulpwerkwoorden zeer frequent zijn en ook het meest endogeen zijn. Sommige talen, waaronder Balochi (het Bamposht dialect) en Hawrami (het Hawraman Takht dialect), gebruiken echter adverbia voor de uitdrukkingen van bepaalde modale dimensies die in andere talen typisch door modale hulpwerkwoorden worden uitgedrukt, en hebben daardoor ook minder modale hulpwerkwoorden dan de andere talen. Modale nomina en adjectieven (en bijgevolg ook de modale hoofdwerkwoorden, die meestal complexen zijn gebaseerd op een combinatie van een modaal nomen of adjectief met een ‘licht’ werkwoord) daarentegen zijn over het algemeen directe of indirecte ontleningen uit het Arabisch. De talen delen ook dat de modale hulpwerkwoorden, maar ook sommige andere modale uitdrukkingsvormen, polyseem zijn, en dus een waaier van modale betekenissen kunnen uitdrukken. In de zoektocht naar een manier om de talen te classificeren op basis van deze semantische kenmerken, worden, naast de semantische kaart van modaliteit, twee andere methoden voorgesteld. Eén betreft de classificatie van de talen volgens het aantal vormen dat ze beschikbaar hebben voor de uitdrukking van modaliteit. In deze methode gaat het niet om een ‘taalboom’ met takken waar talen al of niet inzitten, maar om een continuum waarop alle talen gepositioneerd zijn op basis van het aantal modale hulpwerkwoorden en adverbia dat ze rijk zijn. De andere methode classificeert talen op basis van de origine van de vormen: de talen met modale hulpwerkwoorden met een zelfde (historische) bron worden samengevoegd in één categorie.
Keywords: modaliteit, typologie, Nieuw-West-Iraanse talen, semantische kaart, polysemie, grammaticalisatie, (inter)subjectificatie.
387
388