[Lingtyp] Apprehensive modality

Fri Sep 20 04:28:19 UTC 2024

Dear all
I really appreciate the references supplied by Alex on apprehensives.
This category is well represented in Australian languages.
A diachronic source of verbal apprehensive markers is discussed in my recent presentation to the International Morphological Meeting in Vienna.
See abstract below.
Harold

A diachronic pathway from nominal to verbal inflection: Evidence from Australian languages
Harold James Koch
Australian National University, Canberra, Australia; harold.koch at anu.edu.au<mailto:harold.koch at anu.edu.au>

This paper calls attention to a diachronic pathway that results in verbal inflections (for mood, aspect, tense, or polarity) being cognate with nominal inflections (especially case).  It is illustrated with data from Australian languages, whose typological structure includes the use of suffixes to mark: case relations on nominals, kinds of dependent clause relations on verbs, and TAM values on finite verbs. The cross-categorial correspondences described here are consequent on morphological reanalyses that follow from a sequence of two separate syntactic changes. The first change consists of the extension of markers of intra-clausal relations (case suffixes on nominals) to signalling inter-clausal relations (with case suffixes added to non-finite verbs). This is described in Australianist literature as the “complementiser function” of cases (Dench & Evans 1988). The combination of markers of non-finiteness and case may then be reanalysed as subordinate verbal inflections (e.g. Kaytetye -nge-le non.finite-locative > -ngele simultaneous.same.subject ‘while VERBing’). The second change, insubordination (Evans 2007), consists of the use of dependent clauses as main clauses, with the reanalysis of subordinate verbal inflections as finite verb inflections in independent clauses. Whereas the first kind of change, in the form of the extension of adpositions to clausal conjunctions, is familiar from European languages (e.g. English before noon, before leaving, before he left), the second kind of change, insubordination, is a relatively new concept and has been applied more to synchronic studies of discourse pragmatics than to diachronic change (Evans & Watanabe 2017).

The Australian cases and their diachronic reflexes described and exemplified here include:

  *   dative > purposive subordination > desiderative/intentive mood (> future tense)
  *   aversive (avoidance) > apprehensive (‘lest’) subordination > apprehensive mood (‘might’)
  *   locative > simultaneous subordination > progressive aspect (> present tense)
  *   ablative > prior subordination > perfect aspect (> past tense)
  *   privative (‘without’) > negative subordinate (‘not VERBing’) > standard negation

Some of these relations have been previously recognised in Australian linguistics (e.g. Blake 1976, Meakins 2016, Koch Forthcoming), and their extreme effects in the morphosyntax of Kayardidt have been described by Evans (1995) and Round (2013). Here we present a uniform account of the diachronic chain of developments and highlight their relevance to historical morphology and the etymology of verbal inflections.

References
Blake, Barry J. 1976. The bivalent suffix -ku. In R.M.W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. 421-424.
Dench, Alan, and Nicholas Evans. 1988. Multiple case marking in Australian languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 8:1-48.
Evans, Nicholas. 1995. A grammar of Kayardild: with historical-comparative notes on Tangkic (Mouton Grammar Library 15) Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations. Oxford University Press. 366-431.
Evans, Nicholas & Honoré Watanabe (eds), 2017. Insubordination, 393–422. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Koch, Harold. Forthcoming. Nominal privative suffixes as a diachronic source of verbal negative markers: Evidence from Australian languages. In Holly Kennard et al. (eds), Historical Linguistics 2022. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Meakins, Felicity. 2016. No fixed address: The grammaticalisation of the Gurindji locative as a progressive suffix. In Felicity Meakins and Carmel O’Shannessy (eds), Loss and renewal: Australian languages since colonisation. Boston/Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 367-395.
Round, Erich R. 2013. Kayardild morphology and syntax. Oxford University Press.

Dr Harold Koch
School of Literatures Languages and Linguistics
Australian National University
harold.koch at anu.edu.au
From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> On Behalf Of Alex Francois via Lingtyp
Sent: Thursday, 19 September 2024 11:26 PM
To: LingTyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Cc: Hanno Beck <hannobec at buffalo.edu>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Apprehensive modality

Dear all,

Indeed, the domain of apprehensive (~ apprehensional) modality has lately been the object of much research in linguistic typology.
It is, in particular, the object of an upcoming volume:

  *   Marine Vuillermet, Eva Schultze-Berndt & Martina Faller (eds) (f/c) A typology of apprehensives.
Studies in Diversity Linguistics. Language Science Press.
Let me put together a few references about apprehensive modality (among many).  I've tried to find links for all of them:

  *   Angelo, Denise & Eva Schultze-Berndt. 2016. Beware bambai – lest it be apprehensive. In F. Meakins & C. O’Shannessy (eds.), Loss and Renewal: Australian languages since colonisation, 255–296. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [online<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297503377>]
  *   Daniel, Michael & Nina Dobrushina (f/c). Apprehensives in East Caucasian. In Vuillermet, Schultze-Berndt & Faller (eds).
  *   Dobrushina, Nina. 2006. Грамматические формы и конструкции со значением опасения и предостережения [Grammatical forms and constructions with the meaning of fear and caution]. Вопросы языкознания (Voprosy jazykoznanija) (2). 28–67. [online<https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=9245205>]
  *   Faller, Martina & Eva Schultze-Berndt. 2018. Introduction to the workshop “The semantics and pragmatics of apprehensive markers in a cross-linguistic perspective". In 51st Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea. Tallin, Estonia. [abstract<https://societaslinguistica.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/SLE-2018-Book-of-abstracts.pdf#page=540>]
  *   François, Alexandre. 2003. La sémantique du prédicat en mwotlap (Vanuatu) (Collection Linguistique de La Société de Linguistique de Paris, 84). Paris, Louvain: Peeters. [online<http://alex.francois.online.fr/AFpub_books_e.htm#:~:text=La%20S%C3%A9mantique%20du%20Pr%C3%A9dicat%20en%20Mwotlap>] (→pp.301-312<https://marama.huma-num.fr/data/AlexFrancois_Mwotlap-Predicat_2003_SLP.pdf#page=321>, chapter “L'évitatif”)
  *   François, Alexandre. (f/c) Explicit apprehensions, implicit instructions: An indirect speech act in the grammar. In Vuillermet, Schultze-Berndt & Faller (eds). [preprint<http://alex.francois.online.fr/AFpub_articles_e.htm#fcd>]
  *   Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1995. Apprehensional epistemics. In Joan Bybee & Suzanne Fleischmann (eds.), Modality in Grammar and Discourse (Typological Studies in Language 32), 293–327. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [online<https://benjamins.com/catalog/tsl.32.12lic>]
  *   Pakendorf, Brigitte & Ewa Schalley. 2007. From possibility to prohibition: A rare grammaticalization pathway. Linguistic Typology 11(3). [online<https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/LINGTY.2007.032/html?lang=en>]
  *   Schultze-Berndt, Eva. 2024. Risking a new classification of possibility modals: The role of apprehensives. Presidential address, SLE Annual Meeting. Helsinki, Aug 2024. [online<https://www.academia.edu/123332263>]
  *   Smith-Dennis, Ellen. 2021. Don’t feel obligated, lest it be undesirable: the relationship between prohibitives and apprehensives in Papapana and beyond. Linguistic Typology 25(3). 413–459. [online<https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/lingty-2020-2070/html?lang=en>]
  *   Vuillermet, Marine. 2017. Questionnaire on apprehensional morphology. Laboratoire Dynamique Du Langage, Lyon, France, ms. [online<http://tulquest.huma-num.fr/fr/node/135>].
  *   Vuillermet, Marine. 2018. Grammatical fear morphemes in Ese Ejja: Making the case for a morphosemantic apprehensional domain. Studies in Language 42(1). 256–293. [online<https://www.academia.edu/34905046/>]
  *   Vuillermet, Marine, Eva Schultze-Berndt & Martina Faller. (f/c) Apprehensional constructions in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Vuillermet, Schultze-Berndt & Faller (eds).
  *   Vuillermet, Marine, Eva Schultze-Berndt & Martina Faller (eds). (f/c) A typology of apprehensives. Studies in Diversity Linguistics. Language Science Press.

It does seem that the sa- morpheme found by Cat in in Dalkalaen could indeed be labelled an apprehensive.

best
Alex
________________________________

Alex François
LaTTiCe<http://www.lattice.cnrs.fr/en/alexandre-francois/> — CNRS–<https://www.cnrs.fr/en>ENS<https://www.ens.fr/laboratoire/lattice-langues-textes-traitements-informatiques-et-cognition-umr-8094>–PSL<https://www.psl.eu/en>–Sorbonne nouvelle<http://www.univ-paris3.fr/lattice-langues-textes-traitements-informatiques-cognition-umr-8094-3458.kjsp>
Australian National University<https://researchers.anu.edu.au/researchers/francois-a>
Personal homepage<http://alex.francois.online.fr/>
_________________________________________

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Hanno Beck via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>>
Date: Thu, 19 Sept 2024 at 14:13
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Lingtyp Digest, Vol 120, Issue 12
To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>>

Dear Friends,

Just a small followup to Christian's remark that maybe /sa-/ could be characterized as 'apprehensive.' Scott AnderBois and colleagues (Brown University) have recent and current research running on what they call "apprehensive modality" -- it is quite interesting and almost certainly relevant here.

In an undergraduate class that I teach, we spent an entire pleasant day playing around with the closest equivalent thing in English, which seems to be the word "lest."

Never a dull moment.

Hanno

=====================
Dr. Hanno T. Beck
Department of Linguistics
The University at Buffalo

________________________________

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Christian Lehmann via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>>
Date: Wed, 18 Sept 2024 at 16:50
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Please help me label two Dalkalaen (Oceanic) TAM markers
To: <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>>

Dear Cat,

given function #d of ga-, it seems to be a universal subordinator; and this function would include #a - #c. In the interlinear gloss, just abbreviate it by SR.

It seems that you will have to both define a concept and coin a term for sa-. Something like 'apprehensive' might suit it.

Best,
Christian
Dear Lingtyp community,

I'm trying to understand the function and relationship of two morphemes in Dalkalaen (Oceanic). I'm not sure they're prefixes, but for now, let's assume they are. They both occupy the same slot in the prefixal template of verbs, namely the outermost one.

1.: ga-
As far as I can tell, this prefix serves four functions:
a) specific temporal co-/subordination, e.g. GA-go "when they went (to place x, event y happened)"
b) general temporal/conditional co-/subordination, e.g. GA-chirp "when [a kingfisher] chirps (under circumstances x, then that means y)"
c) final/purposive subordination, e.g. GA-make "(x got ready) to make (food item y)", ga-GO "(x got up) to go (to the restroom)"
d) a kind of general complementation, e.g. we want GA-x "we want that x happens"

2.: sa-
This one never occurs on its own, but always in combination with
a) the potential marker (which refers to future possibilities, prospectives, hortatives), in which case the combo seems to refer to an undesirable prospective, e.g. SA-POT-eat "this fire could/will consume me [if I don't get out of here]". This combo is pretty rare.
b) the negative potential marker, which in fact can't occur without sa-. This combo refers to warnings and prohibitives, e.g. SA-NEG.POT-fall "(watch out so you) don't fall!", but also to more generally negated future possibilities, e.g. SA-NEG.POT-hurt "we're not going to / don't want to hurt you".

Ga- also often occurs with other TMA markers, including the potential marker, but I haven't been able to identify any kind of transparent pattern as to what exactly those markers contribute in those contexts; they seem to be kind of optional and interchangeable.

So my question is basically: How would you label these two markers?

Please send ANY kind of idea, literature recommendation etc. etc. etc. my way. Thank you, and I hope you have a nice week.

Warmest,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20240920/27cc9c2f/attachment.htm>