17.1542, Review: Semantics/Pragmatics/Romance Lang: Pietrandrea (2005)

[linguist at LINGUISTLIST.ORG]

LINGUIST List: Vol-17-1542. Thu May 18 2006. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 17.1542, Review: Semantics/Pragmatics/Romance Lang: Pietrandrea (2005)

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org) 
        Sheila Dooley, U of Arizona  
        Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona  

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Lindsay Butler <lindsay at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

This LINGUIST List issue is a review of a book published by one of our
supporting publishers, commissioned by our book review editorial staff. We
welcome discussion of this book review on the list, and particularly invite
the author(s) or editor(s) of this book to join in. To start a discussion of
this book, you can use the Discussion form on the LINGUIST List website. For
the subject of the discussion, specify "Book Review" and the issue number of
this review. If you are interested in reviewing a book for LINGUIST, look for
the most recent posting with the subject "Reviews: AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW", and
follow the instructions at the top of the message. You can also contact the
book review staff directly.


===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 17-May-2006
From: Heiko Narrog < narrog at intcul.tohoku.ac.jp >
Subject: Epistemic Modality: Functional properties and the Italian system 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 21:44:34
From: Heiko Narrog < narrog at intcul.tohoku.ac.jp >
Subject: Epistemic Modality: Functional properties and the Italian system 
 

Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-3260.html 

AUTHOR: Pietrandrea, Paola
TITLE: Epistemic Modality.
SUBTITLE: Functional Properties and the Italian System.
SERIES: Studies in Language Companion Series 74
PUBLISHER: John Benjamins 
YEAR: 2005

Heiko Narrog, GSICS, Tohoku University, Japan

OVERVIEW

This is a book on epistemic modality in Italian and in general. It is 
organized into 9 chapters and a conclusion. Chapter 1 introduces 
the ''notional category of epistemic modality''. In this chapter, epistemic 
modality is distinguished from related categories and concepts, such 
as deontic modality, mood, illocution, reality status and evidentiality. 
Furthermore, the relationship between modality and subjectivity is 
discussed in some detail. The author views modality essentially as a 
pragmatic category, and concludes in defining it as ''[a] performative 
category expressing the speaker's genuine opinion towards the 
modalized proposition'' (p. 39) (it should be noted here that this 
definition is strictly speaking circular, as it already contains the 
term ''modalized''). Chapter 2 provides ''a typological classification of 
epistemic systems.'' Drawing on data from Palmer (1986), Pietrandrea 
(P) identifies five parameters along which epistemic modality in a 
specific language can be characterized typologically: 
(1) ''specific vs. parasitic'' marking of epistemic modality, that is, 
whether a modal marker is specialized on marking epistemic modality 
or piggybacks on a different category, 
(2) degrees of certainty (e.g. necessity vs. possibility), 
(3) genuine epistemicity vs. inferential evidentiality, 
(4) the degree to which evidentiality is differentiated between direct 
vs. indirect, and reported vs. non-reported evidence, and 
(5) degrees of performativity. 

It should be mentioned here that P shares an understanding of 
evidentiality increasingly common in European linguistics, in which 
evidentiality is seen as a notional category expressed in many 
markers that traditionally were viewed as epistemic modal markers. 
This notion of evidentiality contrasts with the notion advocated by 
other scholars such as Aikhenvald (Aikhenvald 2004), for whom only 
languages with a grammaticalized system of evidentiality, and 
obligatory presence of this category in the sentence, have 
evidentiality. Chapter 3 introduces ''epistemic modality in Italian'', 
identifying a large number of epistemic modal expressions in this 
language, among which only the modal verbs and the epistemic future 
(a mood) are classified as ''grammatical'' (p. 67).

Chapter 4 deals with ''semantic oppositions'' among these grammatical 
epistemic modal expressions. Deve 'must', for example, is said to 
express a higher degree of certainty than può 'can', and the same 
deve contrasts strongly with the epistemic future in that the former has 
a distinct evidential nature while the latter is the only purely (non-
evidential) epistemic marker in Italian.

Chapter 5 offers ''a typological characterization of Italian epistemic 
modality'' along the parameters presented in Chapter 2. It adds to 
chapter 4 a more detailed view of the evidentiality of Italian epistemic 
modals, which, in the authors view, form a ''complex'' evidential 
system, distinguishing both direct vs. indirect evidence and reportive 
vs. non-reportive evidence.

Chapter 6 discusses ''inflectional and distributional constraints'' on 
epistemic modality. It shows the degree to which epistemic modal 
markers in Italian are constrained in their interaction with tense and 
person marking, and the degree to which they can occur in conditional 
and interrogative contexts. The relative freedom with which especially 
the modals can occur in such collocations and constructions points to 
their low perfomativity. According to P, this can be ascribed to the fact 
that ''in Italian evidential forms are borrowed and employed for the 
expression of epistemic modality.'' In other words, the author views the 
Italian epistemic modals as essentially evidentials. 

Chapter 7 discusses ''aspectual constraints on the propositional 
contents''. Here it is claimed that epistemically modalized propositions 
have to be aspectually ''incomplete'', that is, they must either belong to 
the actional class of ''states'' in the sense of Vendler, or they must be 
marked as progressive, habitual or perfect. The notion of 
incompleteness builds on work by Desclés. 

Chapter 8 continues this argument by claiming 
the ''metapropositionality'' of epistemic modality. In a layered structure 
of clause, epistemic modality only takes full propositions, which must 
be incomplete'' into as complements while deontic modality takes units 
of a lower layer as complements, namely predications, which 
are ''complete''. This fact is explained by a ''semantic projection'' of 
incompleteness by epistemic modal markers on their complements.

The last chapter, chapter 9, presents a diachronic hypothesis about 
the development of epistemic meanings in deontic modal markers. P 
contrasts four different assumptions about the semantic relation 
between deontic and epistemic modality in the same modal marker, 
namely homonymy (Palmer 1986), metaphoric change (Sweetser 1990 
and others), conventionalization of conversational implicatures 
(Traugott 1989 and others), and context-driven interpretation (Heine 
1995 and others). The last approach (by Heine) fits P's own research 
approach and her data best, and she essentially claims that ''the 
reinterpretation of modal operators is the result of a reinterpretation of 
their semantic scope from predicational to propositional'' (p. 187). It is 
remarkable, however, that the epistemic meanings are already 
present as far as P goes back in Italian/Latin language history (cf. p. 
198). Therefore, it is not possible for P to make an argument based on 
the actual analysis of historical data, and she has to rely on internal 
reconstruction.

EVALUATION

Contents-wise, this book can be divided into three parts, namely 
chapter 1, which provides the definition of the topic, chapters 2 
through 5, which delineate Italian epistemic modality, and the last 
three chapters, which deal with the interaction of modality with other 
categories, most notably aspectuality. In terms of quality, that is, as an 
evaluation, I would not hesitate to divide the book into a weak first part 
from chapter 1 to 3, which is fairly informative and interesting to read, 
but scores low in terms of rigor and analyticity, a strong part close to 
the end, from chapter 6 to 7, which offers fresh and intriguing data 
and hypotheses, and, finally, chapters 4, 5 and 8, which stand 
somewhat in between quality-wise. In the following few paragraphs, I 
will substantiate my evaluation, especially with respect to the weak 
and the strong chapters.

Chapters 1 to 5 are the general chapters of the book. They are worth 
reading because of the good command of the literature on modality 
from a functional perspective that the author displays, and her ability 
to pick out topics which are currently relevant, and present them 
concisely. Her conclusions are largely either common-sensical or 
intuitively acceptable. On the other hand, the manner these 
conclusions are reached and the arguments are built up is neither 
analytic nor rigorous. I'll give a few examples. On the first page of the 
first chapter (p. 6), the category of modality is introduced through 
quotes from Benveniste, Givón, Bally, and Palmer. This is done so in a 
manner as if these linguists were referring to the same concept. 
However, even if they used the same label, each of them had (or has) 
a different concept in mind. In particular, the concept of Bally is only 
partly compatible with the common concepts of modality in current 
linguistics. The confusion culminates on the top of the following page 
where the author contrasts ''modality'' with ''deontic modality'' 
and ''dynamic modality''. Is this also in the sense of Benveniste, Givón, 
Bally and Palmer? Later in this chapter the reader will learn that for 
the author only epistemic modality is true modality, and deontic 
modality etc. don't deserve the same label. This should have been 
clarified first, and then epistemic modality could have been relabeled 
as ''modality'' and new labels could have been used for deontic and 
dynamic modality. Also, it would have been interesting to know where 
Benveniste, Givón, Bally and Palmer converge in their concepts, and 
where they differ, and how the author's own concept contrasts to the 
others. Instead, uncertainty about the author's use of terms prevails 
throughout the introductory chapter 1, while from chapter 2 on, 
surprisingly, the traditional labels are used fairly consistently. Another 
remark is in place here about the author's use of the 
term ''irrealis.'' ''Irrealis'' is dismissed as a concept for the definition of 
modality (2.4.), but in doing so, the author seems to conflate irrealis as 
a form category and as a semantic concept. It is only in the latter 
sense that ''irrealis'' becomes a candidate concept for defining 
modality (cf. van der Auwera and Schalley 2004).

Chapter 2 promises a typological classification, but the 
term ''typological'' is used here in a very loose sense. Examples from a 
number of genealogically unrelated languages are offered, but largely 
they are second hand quotes taken from Palmer (1986) or other 
textbooks, and there is no indication that the choice of languages is 
systematic. Also, when it is stated that some phenomena are rare (e.g. 
languages with specific markers for epistemic modality), and others 
are frequent (languages with parasitic markers for epistemic modality), 
no numbers from specific language samples are provided. The reader 
is forced to believe the author instead of being invited to verify her 
evidence. In this chapter, specific marking of epistemic modality is 
contrasted with parasitic marking. However, a confusion of form and 
meaning categories seems to take place, as parasitic markers are 
characterized as ''auxiliary or semi-auxiliary modal verbs, generally 
used also for the expression of deontic necessity and deontic 
possibility; verbal moods; verbal tenses; clitics or non-affixed particles; 
complementizers'' (p. 41). Logically, there is no reason, why a clitic or 
non-affixed particle should not be a specific marker for epistemic 
modality. 

Chapter 3 introduces a large number of epistemic markers, 
constructions and lexical items in Italian. Based on Lehmann (1985), 
the author presents a catalogue of criteria to decide which of them are 
grammaticalized. However, with the exception of a brief demonstration 
of tense inflection on capace che 'may' and si vede che 'I see' (p. 64-
66), it is not shown how these criteria are applied, and only the 
conclusion on which of the forms are grammaticalized is provided. 
Showing the actual application of the criteria and its results would 
have immeasurably increased the value of this chapter, and the 
credibility of the conclusions provided.

I wish to close the critical part of my evaluation with a remark on P's 
definition of modality. It is entirely legitimate to define modality as a 
pragmatic notion, and in terms of ''speakers' opinions''. However, if it is 
done so, this definition should be followed through consequentially. If 
the defining criterion is the expression of speakers' opinions, then 
lexical and grammatical classes such as mental attitude verbs, 
epistemic adverbs and evaluative adjectives and constructions should 
be presented as the core of the category, and the question how far 
these expressions are grammaticalized or only lexical should not play 
a decisive role. This direction in modality studies has been pursued 
more consequentially by scholars like Maynard, e.g. Maynard (1993). 
Instead, the mental attitude verbs and the epistemic adverbs are 
mentioned but dismissed rather easily as non-grammatical (a point, 
which, at least in the case of epistemic adverbs would deserve closer 
investigation), and evaluative expressions are not mentioned at all. P 
very conventionally picks out the modal verbs and future mood 
marking as the typical epistemic markers. In order to do so, it would 
have been more appropriate to stick to a more conventional definition 
of modality, from a semantic, rather than a pragmatic point of view, 
based on concepts like factuality, validity or relativization of the 
proposition, e. g. Kiefer (1987)), Narrog (2005). The reviewer himself 
has raised the question before whether it is possible at all to define a 
grammatical category in pragmatic terms like ''speakers' attitudes'' 
or ''speakers' opinions'' (Narrog 2005). P's introductory chapters do 
not present a strong case in favor of such a definition.

The best part of the book comes in chapters 6 and 7. In chapter 6, 
finally some systematic language data are presented, showing, for 
example, the constraints on the use of Italian modals with respect to 
grammatical person. The hypothesis of the connection between 
epistemic modality and ''incompleteness'' presented in chapter 7, in 
the very terms in which the author defines it should be original to her, 
and has not been discussed in this explicitness in any other book in 
the functional literature on modality. However, the connection between 
different types of modality and aspectuality has already been explored 
from a different theoretical perspective, particularly by Abraham (e.g. 
Abraham 1995), but also by other authors -- see Leiss 2002: 75-76; 
P's book antedates Leiss' article (see below) -- and it would have 
been interesting to read how P's approach and conclusions differ from 
previous ones. Nevertheless, a detailed analysis of this topic from a 
functional perspective is still rare, and with this book, P has secured 
her place in a discussion which is certain to draw even more attention 
in the future. In this chapter, P presents a thorough theoretical 
discussion and a good number of tests and examples. In one central 
point, however, her hypothesis appears to be problematic, if not 
flawed. In analogy to Kiparsky and Kiparsky's factive predicates, which 
render their complements factive, she suggests that epistemic 
operators ''project'' a property of incompleteness on their 
complements. The comparison appears to be misguided. Factive 
predicates indeed seem to make the sentences that they take as their 
complements factive, but epistemic operators apparently cannot make 
their complements incomplete. On the contrary, they have to ''select'' 
complements which are already incomplete, that is, either stative, or 
marked as progressive, habitual etc..

Chapter 8 on diachrony should have made mention of Traugott and 
Dasher (2001). Traugott's position is identified by P with her 1989 
paper, but chapter 3 of the 2001 book gives a more developed and 
explicit scenario of change in modal meaning. From the list of 
references it becomes apparent, however, that the actual writing of 
the book must have stopped at some point in 2001. It was accepted as 
a PhD thesis written in Italian in 2003, and the English translation has 
come out in 2005, apparently without any update. I wish I would not 
have to mention this, but typos, grammatical and stylistic errors are 
pervasive to an extent that I cannot remember to have seen in any 
book published by Benjamins. I'll give a few examples: 
''expressd'' (p. 11), 
''you my [may?] have been tired'', ''is specular [peculiar?] to the 
behaviour'' (p. 172), 
''It has been submitted [suggested?] in this chapter'' (p. 205). 

Throughout the book spaces are missing after punctuation marks, and 
in some places there are two spaces instead of one. Some typos may 
seriously hamper understanding, e.g.: '''more direct' is 'less reliable''' 
(p. 101) should read '''more direct' is 'more reliable''', or, ''This entails 
the Italian system being strongly oriented towards the epistemic pole 
of the epistemic-evidential axis'' (p. 107), where the author in fact 
means ''the evidential pole of the epistemic-evidential axis''. It appears 
that the book was not proofread prior to publication. In fact, the 
introduction does not mention any proofreading.

It is the task of any review to be critical and point out potential 
problems. In this review I have mentioned several such problems. 
They should not distract from the fact that overall this book is a very 
valuable contribution to the discussion on modality from a functional 
perspective, which in some parts presents data that should be of 
interest to anyone researching modality. In the opening chapters, the 
author reveals a good instinct for topics which are currently relevant in 
the discussion on modality. In chapters 6 and 7 she comes up with an 
in-depth analysis of the relationship between modality and other 
grammatical categories, particularly aspectuality, resulting in the 
presentation of intriguing data and hypotheses.

REFERENCES

Abraham, Werner (1995) Deutsche Syntax im Sprachenvergleich. 
Grundlegung einer typologischen Syntax des Deutschen Tübingen. 
Tübingen: G. Narr.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2004) Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford 
University Press.

Heine, Bernd (1995) Agent-oriented vs. Epistemic Modality: Some 
Observations on German modals. In Bybee, Joan and Suzanne 
Fleischman (eds.) Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: 
John Benjamins, 17-53.

Kiefer, Ferenc (1987) On defining modality. Folia Linguistica XXI/1, 67-
94.

Lehmann, Christian (1985) Grammaticalization. Synchronic Variationa 
and Diachronic Change. Lingua e Stile 20/3, 303-319.

Leiss, Elisabeth (2002) Explizite und implizite Kodierung von 
Deontizität und Epistemizität: Über die grammatische Musterbildung 
vor der Entstehung von Modalverben. Jezikoslovije 3/1-2, 69-98.

Maynard, Senko K. (1993) Discourse Modality. Subjectivity, Emotion 
and Voice in the Japanese Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Narrog, Heiko (2005) On defining modality again. Language Sciences 
27/2. pp. 165-192.

Palmer, F. R.  (1986) Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1989) On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings 
in English: An Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change. 
Language 65/1, 31-55.

Traugott, Elizabeth & Dasher, Richard (2001) Regularity in Semantic 
Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Van der Auwera, Johan & Ewa Schalley (2004) From optative and 
subjunctive to irrealis. In: Brisard, Frank et al. (eds.) Seduction, 
community, speech: A Festschrift for Hermann Parret. Amsterdam: 
John Benjamins, 87-96. 

ABOUT THE REVIEWER


Heiko Narrog is an associate professor at Tohoku University, Japan. 
His research interests include historical linguistics, syntax and 
semantics, modality, linguistic typology, and the Japanese language.





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-17-1542