Thomas Grano, Grayson Ziegler, Amanda Bohnert, Emily Hanink, Kelly H. Berkson, S. Chelliah, S. Par
{"title":"非现实表达和模态:对冯-普林斯、克拉伊诺维奇和克里夫卡的回应","authors":"Thomas Grano, Grayson Ziegler, Amanda Bohnert, Emily Hanink, Kelly H. Berkson, S. Chelliah, S. Par","doi":"10.1353/lan.2024.a929755","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Von Prince, Krajinović, and Krifka (2022) argue that irrealis is a crosslinguistically legitimate semantic category, and they define it in terms of a domain encompassing both future possibility and counterfactuality. In this response, we argue that this definition is too narrow, because it excludes past and present possibility and necessity. We suggest instead that the correct characterization is that irrealis expressions correlate with quantification over possible worlds—or in simpler terms, with modality. We then ask a compositional question: do irrealis expressions signal the presence of modality contributed by other morphemes in the clause, or do they contribute modality themselves? Based on a comparison between the languages in von Prince et al.’s sample and preliminary data from Lutuv (Lautu) Chin (South Central Tibeto-Burman, formerly called Kuki-Chin), we suggest that the answer to this question may vary from one language to the next, thereby contributing to a richer picture of how modal meaning is reflected and encoded crosslinguistically.","PeriodicalId":17956,"journal":{"name":"Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Irrealis expressions and modality: A response to von Prince, Krajinović, and Krifka\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Grano, Grayson Ziegler, Amanda Bohnert, Emily Hanink, Kelly H. Berkson, S. Chelliah, S. Par\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/lan.2024.a929755\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:Von Prince, Krajinović, and Krifka (2022) argue that irrealis is a crosslinguistically legitimate semantic category, and they define it in terms of a domain encompassing both future possibility and counterfactuality. In this response, we argue that this definition is too narrow, because it excludes past and present possibility and necessity. We suggest instead that the correct characterization is that irrealis expressions correlate with quantification over possible worlds—or in simpler terms, with modality. We then ask a compositional question: do irrealis expressions signal the presence of modality contributed by other morphemes in the clause, or do they contribute modality themselves? Based on a comparison between the languages in von Prince et al.’s sample and preliminary data from Lutuv (Lautu) Chin (South Central Tibeto-Burman, formerly called Kuki-Chin), we suggest that the answer to this question may vary from one language to the next, thereby contributing to a richer picture of how modal meaning is reflected and encoded crosslinguistically.\",\"PeriodicalId\":17956,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Language\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Language\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2024.a929755\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2024.a929755","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
摘要:Von Prince、Krajinović 和 Krifka(2022 年)认为,iralis 是一个跨语言的合法语义范畴,他们将其定义为包含未来可能性和反事实性的领域。在这一回应中,我们认为这一定义过于狭隘,因为它排除了过去和现在的可能性和必然性。相反,我们认为正确的表征是,iralis 表达式与对可能世界的量化相关--或者用更简单的话说,与模态相关。然后,我们提出了一个构成性问题:iralis 表达式是表示由句子中的其他语素促成的模态的存在,还是它们本身促成了模态的存在?根据对 von Prince 等人的样本语言和来自 Lutuv (Lautu) Chin(中南部藏缅语系,以前称为 Kuki-Chin )的初步数据的比较,我们认为这个问题的答案可能因语言而异,从而有助于更丰富地了解模态意义是如何跨语言反映和编码的。
Irrealis expressions and modality: A response to von Prince, Krajinović, and Krifka
Abstract:Von Prince, Krajinović, and Krifka (2022) argue that irrealis is a crosslinguistically legitimate semantic category, and they define it in terms of a domain encompassing both future possibility and counterfactuality. In this response, we argue that this definition is too narrow, because it excludes past and present possibility and necessity. We suggest instead that the correct characterization is that irrealis expressions correlate with quantification over possible worlds—or in simpler terms, with modality. We then ask a compositional question: do irrealis expressions signal the presence of modality contributed by other morphemes in the clause, or do they contribute modality themselves? Based on a comparison between the languages in von Prince et al.’s sample and preliminary data from Lutuv (Lautu) Chin (South Central Tibeto-Burman, formerly called Kuki-Chin), we suggest that the answer to this question may vary from one language to the next, thereby contributing to a richer picture of how modal meaning is reflected and encoded crosslinguistically.
期刊介绍:
Language, the official journal for the Linguistic Society of America, is published quarterly and contains articles, short reports, book reviews and book notices on all aspects of linguistics, focussing on the area of theoretical linguistics. Edited by Greg Carlson, Language serves a readership of over 5,000 and has been the primary literary vehicle for the Society since 1924.