37.2699, Reviews: Modal Sentences: Anastasia Giannakidou and Alda Mari (2026)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-37-2699. Tue Aug 18 2026. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 37.2699, Reviews: Modal Sentences: Anastasia Giannakidou and Alda Mari (2026)

Moderator: Steven Moran (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Valeriia Vyshnevetska
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Daniel Swanson
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Editor for this issue: Valeriia Vyshnevetska <valeriia at linguistlist.org>

================================================================


Date: 18-Aug-2026
From: Kathryn P Bove [kpbove at gmail.com]
Subject: Discipline of Linguistics, Semantics: Anastasia Giannakidou and Alda Mari (2026)


Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/37-967

Title: Modal Sentences
Series Title: Key Topics in Semantics and Pragmatics
Publication Year: 2026

Publisher: Cambridge University Press
           http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics
Book URL: https://www.cambridge.org/9781108839372

Author(s): Anastasia Giannakidou and Alda Mari

Reviewer: Kathryn P Bove

SUMMARY
Chapter 1: Linguistic Modality
This initial chapter introduces the theoretical framework of the book
and establishes the concepts that guide the following chapters.
According to the authors, the book aims to “offer a conceptual
grounding of modality within the notions of truth, (non)veridicality,
epistemic commitment, and evidential bias” (1). Giannakidou and Mari
begin by returning to the foundations of modal theory, distinguishing
between necessity and possibility modals as described by Aristotle.
They contrast modal statements, whose truth depends on conditions
under which a proposition could, would, should, or must be true, with
factual statements, whose truth depends on matters of fact. This
distinction is connected to contemporary approaches to modality,
including their own work (Giannakidou & Mari 2021) and analyses by
Karttunen and Peters (1979), Kratzer (1977, 1981), and Beaver and
Frazee (2016).
A central argument of the chapter is that modal expressions indicate
that speakers do not have complete knowledge of the truth of a
proposition and therefore maintain both p and ¬p as possible
alternatives. This concept of nonveridicality forms the foundation of
the authors’ theory, although they note that similar ideas appear in
earlier accounts, including Condoravdi’s (2002) diversity condition,
Kiefer’s (1987, 1997) notion of nonfactuality, Narrog (2005), Declerck
(2011), and Karttunen’s (1971) analysis of modalized assertions as
weaker than unmodalized ones.
Rather than providing an extensive discussion of formal modal logic,
the authors refer readers to Portner’s Modality and their previous
work for more detailed treatments. They focus instead on the
relationship between truth, veridicality, and speaker commitment.
Objective truth corresponds to truth-conditional meaning, whereas
subjective veridicality reflects the speaker’s perspective and degree
of commitment. Possibility modals express weaker commitment, while
necessity modals indicate stronger evidence and greater commitment.
The chapter concludes with an overview of how these concepts are
developed throughout the book.
Chapter 2: The Landscape of Modality
Chapter 2 examines different classes of modal expressions and
evidential markers, focusing on how they contribute to modal meaning
across languages. The authors review previous approaches to modality
and propose that modal expressions create a distinct modal mode. They
critique the traditional category of “root” modals (Hoffmann 1966;
Hacquard 2006; Bybee & Pagliuca 1994), arguing that it combines
semantically distinct expressions and therefore does not adequately
represent their differences.
The authors revisit Kratzer’s analysis of modal flavor, force, and
quality through a discussion of English modal auxiliaries,
particularly must, which they analyze as inferential. They extend this
discussion to cross-linguistic examples from English, Greek, French,
Italian, and Salish. Their analysis of modal adjectives and nouns
suggests that these forms often encode more specific modal meanings
than modal verbs. They also revisit Lyons’ (1977) concept of modal
concord, arguing that some combinations of modal expressions are
better explained through the concept of modal spread, developed
further in later chapters.
The chapter also examines modal particles and evidential markers.
Examples from German, Greek, Korean, and English demonstrate how
particles contribute to speaker perspective and epistemic stance.
Drawing on Aikhenvald (2004), the authors discuss grammaticalized
evidential systems in languages such as Tariana, Cherokee, Cheyenne,
and Quechua, as well as evidential interpretations associated with
Salish verb forms (Matthewson et al. 2007). The chapter concludes with
a discussion of questions and epistemic bias, which is expanded in
Chapter 8.
Chapter 3: A Formal Semantic Theory for Linguistic Modality
Chapter 3 traces the development of formal approaches to modality,
beginning with Kripke’s (1963) work on possible worlds, continuing
through Kratzer’s influential framework, and concluding with
Giannakidou and Mari’s own theory based on nonveridicality and
epistemic commitment. The authors emphasize that theories of modality
have continued to develop through evidence from a broader range of
languages, particularly understudied Indigenous languages.
The chapter introduces central concepts from Kripke’s framework,
including possible worlds, accessibility relations, and frames. It
then reviews Kratzer’s contributions, focusing on modal force, modal
base, and ordering sources. The modal base provides possible worlds,
while the ordering source ranks those worlds according to contextual
information, allowing the identification of optimal or “BEST” worlds
(Portner 2008). The authors apply this framework to a more detailed
analysis of must across languages.
The final section presents Giannakidou and Mari’s framework, which
centers on the relationship between modality, veridical commitment,
and nonveridicality. They define subjective veridicality as a
proposition being considered true relative to a speaker’s knowledge,
beliefs, or certainty (Giannakidou & Mari 2021). In contrast, modal
expressions are nonveridical because they maintain both p and ¬p as
possibilities within the speaker’s epistemic state. When one
possibility is favored over another, modal bias emerges, creating
different levels of epistemic commitment. Necessity modals such as
“must” therefore express stronger commitment than possibility modals
such as “might”. The chapter concludes by demonstrating how this
framework integrates modal force, epistemic commitment, and
nonveridicality into a unified analysis of modality.
Chapter 4: Unitary Modals, the Future, and Non-biased Necessity
Chapter 4 challenges a strict distinction between possibility and
necessity by examining the gradient nature of modal strength.
Giannakidou and Mari illustrate this flexibility through examples from
St’át’imcets Salish “k’a” (Matthewson et al. 2007) and Burmese “ya”
(Vittrant 2013), which can receive different modal interpretations
depending on context.
The authors then examine future morphology as a flexible modal
expression. While future forms are often associated with prediction,
they argue that they can also receive epistemic interpretations.
Examples from Greek, Dutch, and German demonstrate how temporal
orientation, context, and evidential information influence modal
meaning. The authors argue that future morphology and MUST share
important properties but differ in their relationship to evidence:
MUST is evidence-based and carries epistemic bias, whereas FUT may be
used with weaker or less reliable evidence.
Building on their previous work, Giannakidou and Mari (2023) propose
that FUT represents a flexible necessity modal without inherent bias.
Context determines whether the future interpretation becomes
predictive or remains compatible with uncertainty. They argue that all
modal expressions contain a meta-evaluative component that can
generate bias depending on contextual factors.
The chapter also discusses conditional tense as a weakened form of
future morphology. Following Schlenker (2004), the authors argue that
conditional tense maintains the ordering structure associated with
MUST while reducing modal force, producing a sense of distance or
weakened commitment. They conclude that cross-linguistic evidence,
particularly from Greek and St’át’imcets Salish, supports the
development of a unified theory of modality.
Chapter 5: Modality and Time
Chapter 5 examines the relationship between modality and tense,
emphasizing that temporal information is central to modal
interpretation because knowledge, beliefs, and circumstances change
over time. Building on Condoravdi’s (2002) notion of temporal
perspective, the authors argue that aspectual properties, including
stative past forms and present gerunds, often favor epistemic
interpretations. They explore how embedded tense influences the
distinction between epistemic and non-epistemic readings.
>From a syntactic perspective, Giannakidou and Mari propose that Modal
Phrase (ModP), which hosts nonveridical operators (e.g., Chatzopoulou,
2019) or prospective aspect (Matthewson, 2012), is structurally higher
than Tense Phrase (TP). This structure separates modality from
temporal information while allowing the modal layer to introduce the
“now-anchor” used for evaluation.
Extending the discussion of future morphology, the authors argue that
future expressions inherently involve epistemic uncertainty because
they refer to events that remain unsettled at speech time. They
distinguish predictive futures from epistemic modals, noting that
predictions are evaluated relative to the speaker’s perspective and
evidence rather than eventual truth. The chapter also examines
interactions between modality and tense, including mirative
constructions involving future reference (Mari, 2018), actuality
entailments (Bhatt, 1999), and anti-actuality inferences associated
with past ability.
Chapter 6: Epistemic Modality, Evidentiality, and Evidence
This chapter examines evidentiality through Giannakidou and Mari’s
theoretical framework, emphasizing the relationship between evidential
markers and epistemic modality. Although evidential systems differ
across languages, they share the function of encoding the source of
information used to evaluate a proposition. The authors analyze
evidentials as sentential operators and note that languages such as
English typically express evidential meanings through existing modal
verbs, perception verbs, and attitude predicates rather than dedicated
evidential morphology.
Following Matthewson (2012), they argue that evidentiality and
epistemic modality are closely connected: evidentials contribute
epistemic modal meaning, and epistemic modals contribute evidential
information. They further compare evidentiality to tense, proposing
that just as tense encodes temporal reference, evidentiality encodes
information source.
The authors distinguish between the source and reliability of evidence
and the speaker’s commitment to the truth of a proposition. They
discuss several evidential types, including semblance evidentials
(seem, look like), sensory evidentials, conjectural evidentials in
Quechua (Faller, 2011), and inferential evidentials analyzed as forms
of nonveridical must (Matthewson et al., 2007). The chapter concludes
with reportative evidentials, arguing that these markers indicate the
existence of a report rather than the speaker’s endorsement of its
truth. As Anderson (2014) observes, the speaker’s commitment concerns
the presence of reported information, not necessarily the truth of the
proposition.
Chapter 7: Directive Modality: Deontic and Imperative Sentences
Chapter 7 examines deontic modality and imperatives, focusing on how
language expresses obligation, directives, and expectations of
compliance. Building on Portner’s (2008) distinction between priority
and dynamic modals, Giannakidou and Mari argue that deontic modality
is fundamentally nonveridical because it evaluates possible worlds
according to normative standards rather than asserting that a
proposition is true.
For example, deontic “must” identifies ideal worlds based on
obligations or goals rather than describing the current state of
affairs. The authors also discuss the subjunctive in unembedded
directive contexts, proposing that the subjunctive itself may function
as a modal element.
Unlike deontic modals, imperatives include a pragmatic speech-act
component that makes them inherently directive. The authors compare
competing approaches, including Portner’s (2007) property-based
analysis, Condoravdi and Lauer’s (2012) preference-based account, and
Kaufmann’s (2012) modal analysis. Cross-linguistic evidence from
Greek, Japanese, Italian, Tariana, and Salish demonstrates connections
between imperatives, necessity modals, and future-oriented
expressions. The chapter concludes that imperatives and deontic modals
share important semantic properties by expressing expectations about
ideal states while allowing alternatives among possible worlds.
Chapter 8: Modal Structure in Questions: Reflection, Aporia, and Bias
Chapter 8 examines the relationship between interrogatives and
modality. Although questions differ from modals because they lack
truth conditions, both involve nonveridicality by maintaining multiple
possible alternatives. The authors adopt Giannakidou’s (2013) proposal
that nonveridical assertions can be understood as inquisitive
assertions, connecting interrogative meaning to epistemic commitment
and possibility.
The authors distinguish neutral yes/no questions, which represent a
state of nonveridical equilibrium, from biased questions, in which
speakers demonstrate a preference toward one possible answer. They
introduce reflective interrogatives, which are not primarily intended
to obtain information but instead express reflection, uncertainty, or
evaluation. These are connected to the concept of aporia, an enhanced
state of inquisitiveness in which the speaker’s epistemic space
expands.
Giannakidou and Mari argue that reflective interrogatives,
particularly those involving the subjunctive, demonstrate how
grammatical mood can widen epistemic possibilities. They conclude that
questions and modal expressions can be analyzed within the same
framework of nonveridicality, epistemic alternatives, and degrees of
speaker commitment.
EVALUATION
One of the book’s greatest strengths is the authors’ ability to
synthesize a complex body of literature in an area where terminology
and theoretical approaches often overlap. Giannakidou and Mari
carefully compare competing analyses before situating their own
framework within the broader field, making the relationship between
different proposals accessible to readers. Their two primary goals—to
introduce the empirical landscape of modality and to explain how modal
truth and satisfaction conditions are determined—are successfully
achieved.
The chapter on evidentiality was particularly effective because it
demonstrates how the authors’ framework extends beyond traditional
modal expressions while engaging with competing analyses. Throughout
the book, they connect individual topics back to nonveridicality
without simply repeating arguments from their earlier work. Instead,
the book functions as a synthesis and extension of their previous
research.
The authors also succeed in presenting complex ideas in a more
accessible and pedagogical format. Although I would not recommend this
book as a reader’s first introduction to formal semantics, readers
with some background in semantics will find the explanations more
approachable than the authors’ research articles. This shift in style
aligns well with the book’s goals and broadens its potential audience.
The organization of the book is another strength. Each chapter begins
with a clear overview, identifies its scope, and highlights
connections to other chapters. The concluding summaries function less
as traditional recaps and more as statements of each chapter’s central
contribution, reinforcing the major theoretical points before moving
forward.
As an instructor, I especially appreciated the discussion questions
and suggested readings provided at the end of each chapter. The
questions encourage critical thinking and would work well in graduate
or advanced undergraduate courses, while the annotated readings help
students identify relevant directions for further research. These
features make the book particularly well suited for classroom use.
Finally, one of the book’s most significant contributions is its
incorporation of data from lesser-studied languages. Giannakidou and
Mari demonstrate that theories of modality are strengthened by
evidence beyond the languages traditionally emphasized in formal
semantics. Their inclusion of languages such as St’át’imcets Salish,
Quechua, and Tariana alongside English, Greek, and Romance languages
highlights the importance of cross-linguistic evidence in developing a
comprehensive theory of modality.
AI STATEMENT
As a semanticist with a hard time with writing succinctly, I have used
ChatGPT to highlight repetitive areas to shorten a long review by
about 1000 words. I have reviewed the output, and it accurately
reflects what was in my original review. I take full responsibility
for the final content.
REFERENCES
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
AnderBois, Scott. 2014. On the exceptional status of reportative
evidentials. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 24.
234–254.
Beaver, David I. & Joey Frazee. 2016. The semantics of modality. In
Shalom Lappin & Chris Fox (eds.), The handbook of contemporary
semantic theory, 271–302. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bhatt, Rajesh. 1999. Covert modality in non-finite contexts.
Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.
Bybee, Joan, Revere D. Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution
of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ciardelli, Ivano, Jeroen Groenendijk & Floris Roelofsen. 2015.
Attention! Might in inquisitive semantics. In Proceedings of Semantics
and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 25. 91–108.
Condoravdi, Cleo. 2002. Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for
the present and for the past. In David Beaver, Stefan Kaufmann, Brady
Clark & Luis Casillas (eds.), The construction of meaning, 59–88.
Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Condoravdi, Cleo & Sven Lauer. 2012. Imperatives: Meaning and
illocutionary force. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9.
37–58.
Declerck, Renaat. 2011. Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and
Pesudo-Clefts, vol 5. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Faller, Martina. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in
Cuzco Quechua. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.
Faller, Martina. 2011. A possible worlds semantics for Cuzco Quechua
evidentials. In Nan Li & David Lutz (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 20.
Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2009. The dependency of the subjunctive
revisited: Temporal semantics and polarity. Lingua 119(12). 1883–1908.
Giannakidou, Anastasia & Alda Mari. 2016. Epistemic future and
epistemic modality: Evidence from Greek. Lingua 182. 1–32.
Giannakidou, Anastasia & Alda Mari. 2018. A unified theory of
modality: The epistemic, the metaphysical, and the deontic. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Giannakidou, Anastasia & Alda Mari. 2021. Truth and veridicality in
grammar and thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Giannakidou, Anastasia & Alda Mari. 2023. The Italian future as a
non-biased epistemic necessity: A reply to Ippolito and Farkas.
Linguistics and Philosophy 46(6). 1269–1284.
Hacquard, Valentine. 2006. Aspects of modality. Cambridge, MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.
Hoffmann, T. Ronald. 1966. Past tense replacement and the modal
system. In Anthony G. Oettinger (ed.), Mathematical linguistics and
automatic translation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Computational
Laboratory.
Karttunen, Lauri. 1971. Implicative verbs. Language 47(2). 340–358.
Karttunen, Lauri & Stanley Peters. 1979. Conventional implicature. In
Choon-Kyu Oh & David A. Dinneen (eds.), Syntax and semantics 11:
Presupposition, 1–56. New York: Academic Press.
Kaufmann, Magdalena. 2012. Interpreting imperatives. Berlin: Springer.
Kiefer, Ferenc. 1987. On defining modality. Folia Linguistica 21(1).
67–94.
Kiefer, Ferenc. 1997. Modality and pragmatics. Folia Linguistica 31.
241–253.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1977. What “must” and “can” mean. Linguistics and
Philosophy 1. 337–355.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In
Hans-Jürgen Eikmeyer & Hannes Rieser (eds.), Words, worlds, and
contexts: New approaches in word semantics, 38–74. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Kripke, Saul A. 1963. Semantical analysis of modal logic I: Normal
modal propositional calculi. Zeitschrift für mathematische Logik und
Grundlagen der Mathematik 9. 67–96.
Kush, Dave. 2011. Height-related determination of (non-root) modal
flavor: Evidence from Hindi. In Neil Ashton, Anca Chereches & David
Lutz (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 21. Austin, TX: Linguistic Society of
America.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mari, Alda. 2018. The French future: Evidentiality and incremental
information. In Ad Foolen, Helen de Hoop & Gijs Mulder (eds.),
Evidence for evidentiality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Matthewson, Lisa. 2010. Cross-linguistic variation in modality
systems: The role of mood. Semantics and Pragmatics 3. 1–74.
Matthewson, Lisa. 2012. On the (non)future orientation of modals. In
Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16. 431–446.
Matthewson, Lisa. 2020. Evidence type, evidence location, and evidence
strength. In Chungmin Lee & Jinho Park (eds.), Evidentials and modals.
Leiden: Brill.
Matthewson, Lisa, Hotze Rullmann & Henry Davis. 2007. Evidentials as
epistemic modals: Evidence from St'át'imcets. The Linguistic Variation
Yearbook 7(1). 201–254.
Murray, Sarah E. 2010. Evidentials and questions in Cheyenne. In Suzi
Lima (ed.), Proceedings of SULA 5: Semantics of underrepresented
languages in the Americas. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.
Murray, Sarah E. 2017. The semantics of evidentials. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Narrog, Heiko. 2005. On defining modality again. Language Sciences
27(2). 165–192.
Portner, Paul. 2007. Imperatives and modals. Natural Language
Semantics 15. 351–383.
Portner, Paul. 2008. Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Romero, Maribel & Chung-hye Han. 2004. On negative yes/no questions.
Linguistics and Philosophy 27. 609–658.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2004. Conditionals as definite descriptions: A
referential analysis. Research on Language and Computation 2. 417–462.
Smirnova, Anastasia. 2011. Evidentiality and mood: Grammatical
expressions of epistemic modality in Bulgarian. Columbus, OH: The Ohio
State University dissertation.
Speas, Margaret. 2018. Evidentiality and the grammar of information
source. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), The Oxford handbook of
evidentiality, 286–314. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vittrant, Alice. 2013. Evidentiality in Burmese. In Alexandra Y.
Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Studies in evidentiality, 269–291.
Leiden: Brill.
von Fintel, Kai & Sabine Iatridou. 2019. Unasked questions. Paper
presented at the 15th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics, Lomonosov
Moscow State University, Moscow.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Kathryn Bove is an associate professor of Hispanic Linguistics and
Linguistics Component Head in the department of Languages and
Linguistics at New Mexico State University. Her research interests
include semantics and semantic interfaces specifically in language
contact situations Her work focuses on Yucatec Maya/Spanish contact on
the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico and English/Spanish contact along the
U.S./Mexico Border. Currently, she is working on several projects
related to temporal/aspectual/modal semantics in language contact
situations.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

********************** LINGUIST List Support ***********************
Please consider donating to the Linguist List, a U.S. 501(c)(3) not for profit organization:

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=87C2AXTVC4PP8

LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

Australian Linguistics Society https://als.asn.au/Home

Bloomsbury Publishing http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/

Cambridge University Press http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics

Cascadilla Press http://www.cascadilla.com/

De Gruyter Brill https://www.degruyterbrill.com/?changeLang=en

Edinburgh University Press http://www.edinburghuniversitypress.com

European Language Resources Association (ELRA) http://www.elra.info

John Benjamins http://www.benjamins.com/

Language Science Press http://langsci-press.org

Lincom GmbH https://lincom-shop.eu/

MDPI Languages https://www.mdpi.com/journal/languages

MIT Press http://mitpress.mit.edu/

Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG http://www.narr.de/

Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT) http://www.lotpublications.nl/

Peter Lang AG http://www.peterlang.com

SIL International Publications http://www.sil.org/resources/publications


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-37-2699
----------------------------------------------------------