JALL 2020; 41(2): 195–238 John Gluckman* and Margit Bowler* The expression of modality in Logoori https://doi.org/10.1515/jall-2020-2010 Abstract: This study presents a theoretically informed description of the expres- sion of modality in Logoori (Luyia; Bantu). We document verbal and non-verbal modal expressions in Logoori, and show how these expressions fit into proposed typologies of modal systems (Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Hans-Jurgen Eikmeyer & Hannes Rieser (eds.), Words, worlds, and contexts: New approaches in word semantics,38–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In Armin von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, 639–650. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; van der Auwera, Johan & Vladimir Plungian. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2. 79–124. https://doi.org/10.1515/ lity.1998.2.1.79; Nauze, Fabrice. 2008. Modality in typological perspective. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language, and Computation PhD thesis). We show that Logoori’s modal system raises some interesting questions regarding the typology and theoretical analysis of modality and its relationship to other kinds of meaning. Our study contributes to the nascent but growing research on modal systems cross linguistically by adding data from an understudied Bantu language. Keywords: Logoori, modality, Bantu, typology Abstract in Loogori: Kuloma sia linyalika na lidemadema, kya kulanganga “imiima” (“modality”), gavoleka mu Lulogooli. Lulogooli ni lulimi lwa ihiri ya avaluhya, na lumolomwa mu vivala vya imugwi wa Afrika. Ulusuma ilu lunduta kutula ku zisaabu na lilekanya lya uvuhandiki na uvwimiridzu vwa imiima. Kulangama sia livugirirana lya tsingulu (“force”) na lifunya (“flavor”) kutula ku Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Hans-Jurgen Eik- meyer & Hannes Rieser (eds.), Words, worlds, and contexts: New approaches in word semantics,38–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In Armin von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, 639–650. Berlin: Mouton de *Corresponding authors: John Gluckman, Linguistics, University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA, E-mail: [email protected]; and Margit Bowler, Linguistics and English Language, University of Manchester, Manchester, USA, E-mail: [email protected] Open Access. © 2021 John Gluckman and Margit Bowler, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 196 J. Gluckman and M. Bowler Gruyter limannywa mu Lulogooli, na kuviika imiima djia Lulogooli mu vugeri vwa imiima djia tsinyimi tsya lilova. Misingi minene djia likaladasi yili ni: (a) Aman- g’ana gamannya imiima djia amakuva ga Lulogooli gamannya mativuli manyingi. Mala gaveye na luvera na imiima na khandi si gaveye navwo dave. Yagandi gavuula he, ni mativuli galiha gavoyong’ana na imiima gya amang’ana (henza Bowler na Gluckman. To appear. Gradability across grammatical domains. Lin- guistic Variation); na (b) imiima mu Lulogooli gyavukanya mugati mwa imiima msi mwa umundu (“participant-internal”) na imiima ikyova wa mundu (“participant- external”) sia Nauze, Fabrice. 2008. Modality in typological perspective. Amster- dam: Institute for Logic, Language, and Computation PhD thesis na Auwera, Johan & Vladimir Plungian. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2. 79–124. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79 vaahandika. Mu goosi ndio, likaladasi lyetu limeda ku igasi ineneha imannya imiima mu tsinyimi tsya Avaafrika (Kawalya, Deo, Gilles-Maurice de Schryver, & Koen Bostoen. 2019. A corpus-driven study of the expression of necessity in Luganda (Bantu JE15). Southern African Linguistics and Language Studies 37. 361–381). 1 Introduction This article provides a theoretically informed description of modality in Logoori (Bantu, JE 41, rag), a Luyia language spoken in East Africa, primarily in Kenya.1 Logoori is also known as Maragoli, Llogoori, Logooli, and Luragooli, among other names. Conceptually speaking, modals are used to talk about what is possible or necessary, rather than what is real. We show examples of some basic modal expressions in English in (1); the relevant modal elements are underlined. (1) a. Mary might be at home. b. Mary must be at home. Cross-linguistic research has revealed a great deal of variation in how modal categories are grammaticalized (Bybee et al. 1994; Deal 2011; Matthewson et al. 2007; Nauze 2008; Vander Klok 2013; van der Auwera and Plungian 1998, among others). However, from a typological standpoint, the modal systems of African languages are relatively under-described. This article therefore works towards addressing this descriptive gap, and contributes to our overall body of typological literature on modality. 1 It is spoken by approximately 620,000 people in western Kenya (Kakamega district) and Tanzania (Simons and Fennig 2018). Modality in Logoori 197 The Logoori modal system is of linguistic interest for several reasons. First, Logoori verbal modals have a synchronic “double life” as both modal and lexical (i.e., main, non-modal) verbs. Second, Logoori displays what we believe is a previously undescribed connection between the expression of strong necessity modality and scalar (including spatial) thresholds (discussed in Section 4.5). Third, the Logoori modal system is of typological interest in that it makes some categorial distinctions that are not commonly grammaticized in other languages, namely, the distinction between “participant-internal” and “participant-external” modality (Nauze 2008; van der Auwera and Plungian 1998; discussed in Section 2.2). We otherwise find confirmation of some previously observed cross-linguistically robust patterns e.g., Logoori modals are fixed for Kratzerian force, but vary in flavor.2 Our primary focus is on the Logoori verbal modals, though we will also briefly discuss some non-verbal modal markers. We primarily aim for descriptive ade- quacy. While our goal is theoretically informed description, we will not attempt to formalize any of the notions discussed below. That said, it is not possible to talk about modal categories without presupposing some basic theoretical concepts. We therefore begin by summarizing previous literature on formal and typological approaches to modality in Section 2. This will frame our own discussion of the Logoori data. We discuss our fieldwork methodology and data presentation in Section 2.4, and provide our data in Sections 3, 4, and 5 on possibility, strong necessity, and weak necessity modality, respectively. In Section 6, we conclude and discuss our findings. 2 Existing categorizations of modal systems In this section, we briefly review two proposed categorizations of modal systems. We discuss Kratzer’s (1981, 1991) highly influential theory of modality in Section 2.1. Kratzer distinguishes between modal “force” and “flavor,” which we show in Sections 3, 4, and 5 are relevant distinctions in Logoori. In Section 2.2, we discuss van der Auwera and Plungian (1998) and Nauze (2008)’s proposed modal typol- ogies, focusing particularly on their distinction between “participant-internal” and “participant-external” modality. In our presentation of the Logoori data, we show that this distinction is relevant in capturing some morphosyntactic facts about the Logoori modals. We present our Logoori modal data in Sections 3, 4, and 5 roughly according to the modal classification proposed by Nauze (2008) (following van der Auwera and Plungian 1998). In Section 2.4, we discuss how we collected the data in this paper. 2 This appears to be consistent across the Luyia languages, as reported in Gluckman et al. (2017). 198 J. Gluckman and M. Bowler 2.1 Kratzerian modal force and flavor Conceptually speaking, the English modal elements might and must in (2) differ with respect to the “strength” of the speaker’s belief in the proposition “Mary is at home right now.” (Hence-forth, we will refer to the proposition embedded under a modal as the scope proposition.) (2) a. It’s the weekend. Sometimes Mary stays at home on the weekend, sometimes she goes to the park or the farmer’s market, so … Mary might be at home right now. b. Mary always drives her car to and from work. It’s 7pm on a work day, and I see that her car is parked in front of her house, so … Mary must be at home right now. Might in (2a) conveys that the speaker believes that it is a possibility that Mary is at home. Must in (2b) conveys that for all the speaker knows (based on e.g. her perception of Mary’s car in front of her house), the speaker is certain that Mary is at home (i.e., the speaker believes it is necessarily true that Mary is at home). Kratzer (1981, 1991) describes might and must as differing in modal force. In the broadest strokes, Kratzer distinguishes between what she calls “existential force” modals like might and “universal force” modals like must.3 In addition to encoding a distinction in force, modals can also encode a distinction in what Kratzer terms modal flavor. This describes the kind of facts that speakers use to evaluate a modal. Given the contexts provided in (2), might and must convey that the speaker is using their knowledge of the world to reason about 3 For readers of this paper, it is important to understand the conceptual distinctions between different modal forces, but understanding the theoretical distinction is not necessary; nonetheless, we provide a basic formal description and semantics for existential might and universal must in (i). Kratzerian theories of modality treat modals as denoting quantifiers over possible worlds; the terms “existential” and “universal” refer to the respective kinds of quantifiers. The denotation for existential force might in (ia) contains the existential quantifier ∃, whereas the denotation for universal force must in (ib) contains the universal quantifier ∀. These quantifiers operate over the set of worlds picked out by a contextually determined function, f(w), that determines the modal flavor. This set of worlds is called the “modal base.” (i) a.