Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-7zcd7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T03:49:20.967Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modals without scales

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Amy Rose Deal
Amy Rose Deal*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
*
Department of Linguistics Boylston Hall 318 Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138, [ardeal@fas.harvard.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some natural languages do not lexically distinguish between modals of possibility and modals of necessity. From the perspective of languages like English, modals in such languages appear to do double duty: they are used both where possibility modals are expected and where necessity modals are expected. The Nez Perce modal suffix o'qa offers an example of this behavior. I offer a simple account of the flexibility of the o'qa modal centered on the absence of scalar implicatures. O'qa is a possibility modal that does not belong to a Horn scale; its use is never associated with a scalar implicature. Accordingly, in an upward-entailing environment, φ-o'qa is appropriate whenever there are accessible φ-worlds, even if indeed all accessible worlds are φ-worlds. In a downward-entailing environment, the flexibility of the o'qa modal is seen no more. Here, neither o'qa nor English possibility modals are associated with scalar implicatures, and the use of o'qa exactly parallels the use of English modals of possibility.

Given that o'qa is a possibility modal that does not contrast with a modal of necessity, just how do you talk about necessities in Nez Perce? Speakers translating into Nez Perce rely on a variety of techniques to paraphrase away expressions of simple necessity. Their strategies highlight an area where Nez Perce and English plausibly differ in the range of propositions they convey. The data cast doubt on any strong form of effability as a language universal.

Keywords

modalsscalar implicaturetranslationeffabilitysemantic variation

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 87 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 559 - 585
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aoki, Haruo. 1970. Nez Perce grammar. (University of California publications in linguistics.) Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bar-On, Dorit. 1993. Indeterminacy of translation: Theory and practice. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 53. 781–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bittner, Maria. 2005. Future discourse in a tenseless language. Journal of Semantics 22. 339–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, Virginia. 1993. Root and epistemic modal auxiliary verbs. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Cataldo, J. M. 1914. Jesus-Christ-nim kinne uetas-pa hut ka-kala time-nin i-ues pilep-ezapa taz-pa tamtai-pa numipu-timt-ki (The life of Jesus Christ from the four gospels in the Nez Perces language). Portland: Schwab.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 3, ed. by Belletti, Adriana, 39–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2006. Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the ‘logicality’ of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37. 535–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro, Fox, Danny; and Spector, Benjamin. 2008. The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University and MIT, ms.Google Scholar
Condoravdi, Cleo. 2001. Temporal interpretation of modals. Stanford papers on semantics, ed. by Beaver, David, Kaufmann, Stefan, Clark, Brady, and Casillas, Luis, 59–87. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Crnič, Luka, and Trinh, Tue. 2011. Embedding imperatives. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 39, to appear.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1974. On the very idea of a conceptual scheme. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 47. 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Henry, Matthewson, Lisa; and Rullmann, Hotze. 2009. ‘Out of control’ marking as circumstantial modality in St'át'imcets. Cross-linguistic semantics of tense, aspect, and modality, ed. by Hogeweg, Lotte, Hoop, Helen de, and Malchukov, Andrej L., 205–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2008. Morphosemantics of Nez Perce modals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Indigenous Languages of the Americas (SSILA), Chicago, January 2008.Google Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2010. Topics in the Nez Perce verb. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2011. Two sketches of modality in Nez Perce: A study in semantics for mixed audiences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, ms.Google Scholar
Enç, Mürvet. 1996. Tense and modality. The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. by Lappin, Shalom, 345–58. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gamut, L. T. F. 1991. Logic, language and meaning, vol. 1: Introduction to logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1978. Universal grammar, lexical structure and translatability. In Guenthner & Guenthner-Reutter, 235–72.Google Scholar
Guenthner, Franz, and Guenthner-Reutter, M. (eds.) 1978. Meaning and translation: Philosophical and linguistic approaches. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. 2006. Aspects of modality. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Hirschberg, Hirschberg Julia Linn. 1991. A theory of scalar implicature. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1959. On linguistic aspects of translation. On translation, ed. by Brower, Reuben A., 232–39. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 1997. Review of Kayne 1994. Lingua 102. 21–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit, and Landman, Fred. 1993. Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16. 353–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. 1976. A hypothesis about the uniqueness of natural language. Origin and evolution of language and speech, ed. by Harnad, Stevan R., Steklis, Horst D., and Lancaster, Jane, 33–41. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. 1978. Effability and translation. In Guenthner & Guenthner-Reutter, 191–234.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1978. Some logical problems in translation. In Guenthner & Guenthner-Reutter, 157–89.Google Scholar
Kenny, Dorothy. 2009. Equivalence. Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies, 2nd edn., ed. by Baker, Mona and Saldanha, Gabriela, 96–99. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kissine, Mikhail. 2008. Why will is not a modal. Natural Language Semantics 16. 129–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1977. What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1. 337–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. Words, worlds and contexts: New approaches in word semantics, ed. by Eikmeyer, Hans-Jürgen and Reiser, Hannes, 38–74. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. by Stechow, Arnim von and Wunderlich, Dieter, 639–50. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2012. The notional category of modality. Modals and conditionals: New and revised perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David K. 1973. Counter/actuals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2006. Presupposition and cross-linguistic variation. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 36. 63–76.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa, Davis, Henry; and Rullmann, Hotze. 2007. Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St'át'imcets. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 7. 201–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Tyler. 2010. Epistemic modality and evidentiality in Gitksan at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Vancouver: University of British Columbia dissertation.Google Scholar
Phinney, Archie. 1934. Nez Percé texts. (Columbia University contributions to anthropology.) New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 2007. Embedded imperatives. Imperative clauses in generative grammar: Studies in honour of Frits Beukema, ed. by van, Wim Wurff, der, 181–203. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2007. Imperatives and modals. Natural Language Semantics 15. 351–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. 1960. Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Rullmann, Hotze, Matthewson, Lisa; and Davis, Henry. 2008. Modals as distributive indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 16. 317–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rus, Dominik. 2005. Embedded imperatives in Slovenian. Georgetown University Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics 4. 153–83.Google Scholar
Russell, Benjamin. 2006. Against grammatical computation of scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 23. 361–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 2004. Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27. 367–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2004. Conditionals as definite descriptions (a referential analysis). Research on Language and Computation 2. 417–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1991. A theory of conditionals. Conditionals, ed. by Jackson, Frank, 28–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan, and Ammann, Andreas. 2008. Overlap between situational and epistemic modal marking. The world atlas of language structures, ed. by Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David, and Comrie, Bernard, 310–13. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Online: http://wals.info/feature/76.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai. 2001. Counterfactuals in a dynamic context. Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Kenstowicz, Michael, 123–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai, and Matthewson, Lisa. 2008. Universals in semantics. The Linguistic Review 25. 139–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar