02.12.2012 Views

Relativism and Universalism in Linguistics - Fachbereich 10 ...

Relativism and Universalism in Linguistics - Fachbereich 10 ...

Relativism and Universalism in Linguistics - Fachbereich 10 ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Workshop 1 – Abr 145<br />

<strong>and</strong> Dasher 2002), <strong>and</strong> illustrat<strong>in</strong>g that the determ<strong>in</strong>ation of modal type is a result of historical<br />

developments. Abraham (1998-2002) has also shown that historical factors are at issue,<br />

<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g the loss of Old English perfective prefixes <strong>and</strong> the development of def<strong>in</strong>ite articles,<br />

which co-occur with the tendency for deontic modality to associate with perfective ma<strong>in</strong><br />

verbs <strong>and</strong> epistemic modality to be found with imperfective ma<strong>in</strong> verbs. Evidence from a<br />

study of the history of be supposed to reveals that a pre-modal stage of mark<strong>in</strong>g generic<br />

aspectual situations may be found prior to the development of deontic mean<strong>in</strong>gs (Ziegeler<br />

2003; <strong>in</strong> prep.); further evidence is found <strong>in</strong> the case of a core modal, will, for the same<br />

generic aspectual conditions to arise <strong>in</strong> Old English examples, prior to the stage known as<br />

'future-project<strong>in</strong>g modality'. In the latter case, the generic examples studied are all seen to<br />

have generic subjects, thus creat<strong>in</strong>g the mean<strong>in</strong>g of general proclivity rather than <strong>in</strong>tention, a<br />

semantic property of <strong>in</strong>dividuated subjects.<br />

Compositional theories of aspect refer to the need to consider not only verbal semantics but<br />

the semantics of the entire construction of verb plus nom<strong>in</strong>al arguments <strong>and</strong> adjuncts <strong>in</strong><br />

describ<strong>in</strong>g aspect (Verkuyl 1993; 1999). In other studies, e.g. Visconti (2004), <strong>and</strong> as also<br />

suggested by Bybee (1985), the shift to deontic mean<strong>in</strong>gs of be supposed to took place when<br />

the ma<strong>in</strong> verb referred to events tak<strong>in</strong>g place after the moment of speak<strong>in</strong>g (thus entail<strong>in</strong>g<br />

perfective aspect <strong>in</strong> the verb). However, even with a perfective ma<strong>in</strong> verb, the presence of<br />

generic subjects still renders the mean<strong>in</strong>g of the construction truth-conditionally gnomic, <strong>and</strong><br />

such generic uses of the emerg<strong>in</strong>g modal were frequent <strong>in</strong> early stages of development. In the<br />

shift from generic aspectual functions to future-project<strong>in</strong>g modality seen <strong>in</strong> the present<br />

studies, it will be observed that the <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividuated, specifically-referr<strong>in</strong>g arguments<br />

plays a significant role. However, the present paper will exam<strong>in</strong>e what additional factors may<br />

have been relevant <strong>in</strong> the transition from generic, pre-modal constructions to the futureproject<strong>in</strong>g<br />

modality associated with the development of deontic functions today.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!