Modality in Japanese: The Layered Structure of the Clause and Hierarchies of Functional Categories (Studies in Language Companion Series)

Modality in Japanese

Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS) This series has been established as a companion series to the periodical Studies in Language.

Editors Werner Abraham University of Vienna

Michael Noonan

University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee

Editorial Board Joan Bybee

Christian Lehmann

Ulrike Claudi

Robert E. Longacre

Bernard Comrie

Brian MacWhinney

University of New Mexico University of Cologne Max Planck Institute, Leipzig University of California, Santa Barbara

William Croft

University of New Mexico

Östen Dahl

University of Stockholm

Gerrit J. Dimmendaal University of Cologne

Ekkehard König

Free University of Berlin

University of Erfurt

University of Texas, Arlington Carnegie-Mellon University

Marianne Mithun

University of California, Santa Barbara

Edith Moravcsik

University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee

Masayoshi Shibatani

Rice University and Kobe University

Russell S. Tomlin

University of Oregon

Volume 109 Modality in Japanese. The layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories by Heiko Narrog

Modality in Japanese The layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories

Heiko Narrog Tohoku University

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Narrog, Heiko.   Modality in Japanese : the layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories / Heiko Narrog. p. cm. (Studies in Language Companion Series, issn 0165-7763 ; v. 109) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Japanese language--Modality.  I. Title. PL629.M63N36

2009

495.6'5--dc22 isbn 978 90 272 0576 6 (hb; alk. paper) isbn 978 90 272 8975 9 (eb)

2008050993

© 2009 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

To my family

Table of contents Acknowledgements List of abbreviations Morpheme boundary symbols List of figures List of tables chapter 1 Introduction

xiii xv xvii xix xxi

1

part i.   Modality and the layered structure of the clause chapter 2 A brief outline of modality 2.1 Modality as a grammatical category  7 2.2 Types of modality  9 2.3 The expression of modality  15 2.4 Clausal mood, illocutionary force and illocutionary modulation  18 chapter 3 Modality in Japanese linguistics 3.1 A brief history of research  22 3.1.1 Predication and theory  22 3.1.2 From ‘predication’ to modality  25 3.2 Current research on modality in Japanese linguistics  27 3.2.1 The common approach to modality in Japan  27 3.2.2 Other approaches  30

7

21

chapter 4 The layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories 33 4.1 Semanto-syntactic layers in functional linguistics  33 4.1.1 The layered structure of the clause in RRG  33 4.1.2 The layered structure of the clause in FG  35 4.2 Cartography of syntactic structures  36

 Modality in Japanese

4.3

The layered structure of the clause in Japanese Linguistics  37 4.3.1 Previous research  37 4.3.2 Morpheme order and scope in Japanese  45

chapter 5 Modality in theories of the layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories 5.1 Modality and layers of the clause (RRG, FG)  49 5.2 The place of modal categories in syntactic cartography  51 5.3 Evidence for layers and functional hierarchies  52

49

chapter 6 Modality and the layered structure of the clause in Japanese linguistics

55

chapter 7 Summary

59

part ii.   The modal markers of Japanese: A short description chapter 8 Criteria for the description of modality chapter 9 Formal means of expression – an overview 9.1 Japanese morphological structure  67 9.2 Morphological constraints on morpheme concatenation  70 9.3 Affixes (Modal system I)  71 9.4 Constructions beyond the one-word-phrase (Modal system II)  72 9.5 Verbal Mood  74 9.6 Adverbs  75 9.7 Mental predicates  76 chapter 10 The modal categories 10.1 Deontic modality  79 10.1.1 Possibility (permission)  80 10.1.2 Negated possibility (prohibition)  81 10.1.3 Necessity (obligation)  82 10.1.4 Negated necessity (exemption)  85 10.1.5 Recommendation  85

63

67

79



Table of contents 

10.1.6 Inevitability  88 10.1.7 Summary  89

10.2 Boulomaic modality  91 10.2.1 Intention  92 10.2.2 Desire  94 10.2.3 Wishes  95 10.3 Dynamic modality  96 10.4 Epistemic modality  99 10.4.1 Marking in the verbal complex  99 10.4.1.1 Epistemic necessity  100 10.4.1.2 Epistemic possibility  103 10.4.1.3 ‘Speculative’ daroo  105 10.4.2 Adverbs  108 10.4.3 Mental predicates  110 10.4.4 Scale of likelihood  112 10.5 Evidentials  113 10.5.1 Non-inferential evidentials (reportive rasii, soo(2))  116 10.5.2 Inferential evidentials (non-reportive rasii, –soo(1), yoo/mitai)  117 10.5.2.1 Yoo/mitai and rasii  117 10.5.2.2 –soo(1)  119 10.5.2.3 Comparison  123 10.6 Correspondences across different types of modality  126 10.6.1 Deontic and epistemic modality  126 10.6.2 Boulomaic and deontic (dynamic) modality  128 10.6.3 Epistemic modality and evidentiality  130 part iii.   Categories on the periphery of modality chapter 11 135 Clausal moods 11.1 Introduction  135 11.2 Declaratives  137 11.2.1 Does Japanese have a ‘suppositive mood’?  138 11.2.2 Counterfactuals  139 11.2.2.1 The epistemic type – Conditional construction with epistemic modal in the consequent  140 11.2.2.2 The volitive/evaluative type I – Conditional construction with an evaluative predicate in the consequent  141



Modality in Japanese

11.2.2.3 The volitive/evaluative type II – Non-conditional construction  142 11.2.2.4 Some remaining questions  143

11.3

11.4

11.5 11.6

Interrogatives  145 11.3.1 Requests for confirmation  146 11.3.2 Doubts  147 11.3.3 The ‘dubitative’ no de wa nai (ka)  148 Directives  150 11.4.1 Imperatives  150 11.4.2 Prohibitives  153 11.4.3 Hortatives  154 Optatives  157 Subordinate Moods  157

chapter 12 Illocutionary modulation

159

chapter 13 ‘Modality of explanation’

161

part iv.  Modality and the hierarchy of functional categories: An empirical study chapter 14 Data and methods 14.1 Data and frequencies  165 14.2 Corpus as a method  172 14.3 Principles of analysis  173 chapter 15 Modality embedding modality (double modality) 15.1 Dynamic modality embedding modality  177 15.2 Boulomaic modality embedding modality  179 15.3 Deontic modality embedding modality  181 15.4 Epistemic modality embedding modality  182 15.5 Evidentiality embedding modality  184 15.6 Mood embedding modality  186 15.7 Layers within modality  187

165

177



Table of contents 

chapter 16 Modality and tense, aspect, negation 16.1 Modality and negation  191 16.2 Scope ambiguities  196 16.3 Modality and aspect  198 16.4 Modality and tense  202 16.5 Scope ambiguities  204 chapter 17 Modality and higher categories 17.1 Modality and nominalization/complementation  211 17.2 Modality and illocutionary modulators  214 chapter 18 Modality embedded in adverbial clauses 18.1 Modality in causal clauses  218 18.2 Modality in concessive and adversative clauses  219 18.3 Modality in conditional clauses  221 chapter 19 Conclusion 19.1 Summary of the results  225 19.2 Relating the results to Role-and-Reference Grammar  229 19.3 Relating the results to Functional Grammar  230 19.4 Relating the result to the cartography of Syntactic Structures  232 19.5 Problems and solutions  236 19.6 Rethinking layering and hierarchies of functional categories  243

191

211

217

225

part v.  Collocations chapter 20 Collocations 20.1 By relevance to modality  247 20.2 By mutual relevance  249 20.3 By raw frequencies  252 20.4 Conclusions  253 References Index

247

255

Acknowledgements This book has grown out of my work on modality, for which I received the inspiration from Toshio Ohori almost 15 years ago at Tokyo University. While working on my PhD on the diachrony of Japanese modal expressions I noticed the necessity to arrive at a better understanding of Modern Japanese modality as a prerequisite to analyze diachronic phenomena. People who decisively supported me during my studies at Tokyo University further include Haruo Nitta, Takashi Nomura, Tai Suzuki, and Ryūzō Sakanashi. While Toshio Ohori also brought to my attention the concept of the layered structure of clause in functional linguistics (especially RRG), Fumihiko Ono helped me to learn more about the same concept in traditional Japanese linguistics. Hiroshi Kudō generously shared with me his knowledge of modality concepts in Japanese linguistics. I learnt the basic approach to analyze Japanese morphosyntactically from Jens Rickmeyer. Werner Abraham provided the final inspiration with his studies of modality and hierarchical clause structure in German, which he included in his teaching at the University of California, Berkeley. My stay there in 2001/2002 was supported by the Japanese Ministry of Education, and made possible by Eve Sweetser, who hosted me as a visiting scholar. Werner also ultimately helped me with the publication of this study. Finally, Mark Irwin kindly read through this book very thoroughly, eliminating countless mistakes and lending some elegance to my non-native English. I sincerely thank all those mentioned here, and many other colleagues who have supported and encouraged me on the way to this book. All remaining errors are my own.

List of abbreviations abl acc adn adv all avs bou cal cau CJ cla cmp cnc cpl cpv ctr com con cop dat dem deo EMJ enu epi ess evi exm F foc gen ger hon hor

ablative accusative adnominal adverbial allative adversative boulomaic causal causative Classical Japanese (9th–11th c) classifier comparative concessive complementizer completive contrastive comitative conditional copula dative demonstrative deontic Early Modern Japanese (18th–19th c) enumerative epistemic essive evidential exemplative frequency focus genitive gerund honorative hortative

hml humilitive ill illocutionary modulator imp imperative int intentional lim limitative loc locative MidJ Middle Japanese (12th–18th c) min minimum mj Modern Japanese neg negation nmz nominalization nom nominative nps non-past tense npo negative potential OJ Old Japanese (6th –8th c) P proposition pas passive plu plural pol politeness pot potential; prb prohibitive pst past tense qua quality que interrogative quo quotative rcp reciprocal s singular spn spontaneous sta stative tns tense toa term of address top topic vrb verbalization

Morpheme boundary symbols (Japanese examples; cf. Chapter 9) ~ = . -

boundary between two lexemes boundary before a particle boundary after prefix and before inflection boundary before other affix

List of figures Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure 11. Figure 12. Figure 13. Figure 14. Figure 15. Figure 16. Figure 17. Figure 18. Figure 19. Figure 20. Figure 21. Figure 22. Figure 23.

Dimensions of modality and subcategories Modality, mood and illocutionary modulation Layered structure of the clause in RRG Layered structure of the clause in FG Semanto-syntactic layering of the predicate, according to Saji (1977) Layering in Sakakura’s (1966) model Layering together with dependency and agreement Semanto-syntactic layering of the Japanese clause according to Nitta (1984) Layering of the Japanese clause according to Masuoka (1991) Minami’s (1974) model, as revised by Takubo (1987) and reconceptualized by Gunji (2002) Semantic hierarchy of major categories according to Nuyts (2002, 2005) Cinque’s (2006) hierarchy of clausal functional projections Modality in the semanto-syntactic layering of the Japanese clause, according to Nitta (1984) Modality in Japanese sentence structure, according to Nitta (1989b: 1) Scale of deontic expressions in Japanese (based on Moriyama 1997, 2000) Boulomaic categories in Modern Japanese Japanese epistemic adverbs ranked by degree of certainty Scale of likelihood Parallelism in the deontic and the epistemic domain Hierarchy of clausal functional projections in Japanese (modality only) Dimensions of modality and subcategories Layering of volitive modalities and other categories Layering of non-volitive modalities and other categories

15 20 34 36 39 41 41 42 43 44 51 52 57 57 90 92 108 112 126 232 239 243 243

List of tables Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Table 10. Table 11. Table 12. Table 13. Table 14. Table 15. Table 16. Table 17. Table 18. Table 19. Table 20. Table 21. Table 22. Table 23. Table 24. Table 25. Table 26. Table 27.

Elements of layers of the clause, according to Minami (1993) Different types of modality on different layers in RRG and FG Modal elements in the layered structure of the clause, according to Minami (1993) The assignment of different modal categories to sentence layers in three theories The word in Japanese – morphological composition (cf. Rickmeyer 1995: 41) The one-word-phrase in Japanese Modal affixes in Modern Japanese Periphrastic modal constructions in Modern Japanese Verb inflections in Modern Japanese Modal adverbs in Modern Japanese Compatibilities of different deontic modalities in Modern Japanese with different modal targets Epistemic adverbs and their compatibility with epistemic marking in the verbal complex Properties of the inferential evidentials Japanese inferential evidentials in terms of modal strength Frequencies of deontic-valuative markers and constructions Frequencies of boulomaic markers and constructions Frequencies of dynamic markers and constructions Frequencies of epistemic markers and constructions Frequencies of evidential markers and constructions Frequencies of mood markers Overview of modal markers selected for this study Dynamic modality embedding modality Boulomaic modality embedding modality Deontic modality embedding modality Epistemic modality embedding modality Evidentiality embedding modality Mood embedding modality

39 50 56 60 68 69 72 73 74 76 91 109 124 124 167 168 168 169 169 170 171 178 180 181 182 184 186

 Modality in Japanese

Table 28. Table 29. Table 30. Table 31. Table 32. Table 33. Table 34. Table 35. Table 36. Table 37. Table 38. Table 39. Table 40. Table 41. Table 42. Table 43. Table 44. Table 45. Table 46. Table 47. Table 48. Table 49. Table 50. Table 51. Table 52. Table 53. Table 54. Table 55. Table 56.

Layering within the evidentials Layering within the epistemic modal markers Layering within the deontic markers Layering based on the interaction between modal markers Modality in the scope of negation Negation in the scope of modality Overview of scope ambiguity between negation and modality Modality in the scope of aspect Aspect in the scope of modality Modality in the scope of tense Tense in the scope of modality Overview of implications of past tense on modal markers Implications of past tense on modal markers by modal category Modality in the scope of nominalization/complementation Nominalization/complementation in the scope of modality Illocutionary modulators embedding modality Illocutionary modulators in the scope of modality Modality in causal clauses Modality in concessive and adversative clauses Modality in conditional clauses Modal markers arranged by modal category and scopal behavior and layerings Modal markers arranged by scopal behavior Fitting the Japanese data into the RRG model Fitting the Japanese data into the FG model Volitive modal markers arranged by scopal behavior Non-volitive modal markers arranged by scopal behavior Most frequent collocations by relevance to modality Most frequent collocations by mutual relevance Most frequent collocations by raw frequencies

187 188 188 189 192 195 197 199 200 202 204 207 207 212 213 215 216 219 220 222 226 227 229 230 241 242 251 253 255

Introduction This book has two major goals. The first is to give a descriptive overview of Modern Japanese modality and mood in more detail than any other publication in a Western language so far. This goal is pursued in Parts II and III of this book, Chapters 8 to 13. After giving a structuralist overview of the morphosyntactic means of modality and mood marking in Modern Japanese, modality and related categories are described divided into semantic domains. The second major purpose is to explore the concepts of the ‘layered structure of the clause’ and hierarchies of functional categories with respect to modal categories in Japanese. Part IV, Chapters 14 to 19, is devoted to this purpose. In these chapters, the hypothesis put forward in some frameworks that different modal categories operate on different layers in clause structure, or occupy different positions on a hierarchy of functional categories, is put under empirical scrutiny. Modality deserves particular interest in relation to the issue of layering or hierarchical structure because its subcategories, that is, the different semantic domains within modality, spread across multiple layers of structure according to most accounts, or, more generally speaking, exhibit substantial differences in scope. However, there is disagreement over the question of to which level of the sentence particular modal categories should be assigned. In Role-and-Reference Grammar (RRG), for instance, root modality is placed at a lower layer than epistemic modality and evidentiality (cf. Van Valin and LaPolla 1997: 49–51),1 while in Functional Grammar (FG), so-called ‘objective’ modality, comprising both root and epistemic notions, is located at one level and ‘subjective’ modality and evidentiality at a different level (Hengeveld 1989:  137f).2 In a minimalist framework, Cinque has claimed that evidential marking is to be located higher in a universal hierarchy of clausal functional projections than epistemic modality and the latter 1. These three sub-categories of modality can be distinguished as follows: root modality expresses notions such as obligation, permission, ability and volition. Epistemic modality is concerned with the probability, possibility, or necessity of the occurrence of an event. Evidentiality relativizes the factuality of a proposition with respect to the evidence the speaker has for its occurrence. 2. Cf. also Dik (1997a: 242): “[There is] Epistemic objective modality, in which the speaker evaluates the actuality of the SoA in terms of his knowledge of SoAs in general….Through Subjective modalities, the speaker may take personal responsibility for the content of the proposition, and signals how certain he is about its truth.”



Modality in Japanese

in turn is higher than irrealis mood or various types of root modality (Cinque 1999: 71–73, 76, 106). Because the question of scope hierarchies between modal categories is an empirical one in the first place, it has to be investigated on the basis of extensive data from individual languages before any cross-linguistic or universal conclusions can be drawn with confidence. This has not been done so far. On the other hand, differences in the assignment of specific modal categories to specific layers or slots in scope hierarchies also inevitably leads us to question the validity of the divergent concepts of layering as well as universal scope hierarchies themselves. In this study, the language investigated is Japanese, a language in which morphosyntactic structures can be related very directly to the concepts of layered structure of the clause, or to hierarchies of functional categories. The reasons are as follows. Firstly, Japanese is highly agglutinative, and both in morphology and syntax consistently head-final.  Thus, morpheme order to a high degree directly reflects semantic and syntactic scope, and there is plenty of morphological material whose morphosyntactic behavior can be investigated. Secondly, unlike the standard varieties of English, Japanese allows relatively freely double or multiple modal marking, which involves more than one modal category in the verbal complex.3 In such cases, ordering and scope between the categories can be observed directly. Thirdly, only a small portion of modal markers4 in Modern Japanese is polyfunctional between different modal meanings (e.g. deontic and epistemic). Accordingly, there is little ambiguity with respect to the semantic domains of modality which are realized.5 While the present study confines itself to an investigation of Japanese modals, the findings are of potential interest beyond the frameworks referred to and the language investigated. This is because the issue of hierarchical structure is relevant not only for specific models of syntax, and additionally, to the extent that layering and scope hierarchies are conceived as being universal, results from one language can contribute to the theory of syntax beyond the confines of that particular language. As a preview of the results, the empirical data will show that individual modal markers with different semantics show diverse morphosyntactic (scopal) behavior. In this respect, this study offers evidence in support of theories positing scope 3. However, as Cormack and Smith (2002: 133) show, even in standard varieties of English the combination of modal with semi-modal (be able to, have to etc.) is possible. What is not possible is the combination of modal and modal. 4. Henceforth, the term ‘marker’ will be used for the expression of functional categories of all possible morphological structures, namely suffixes, lexemes and syntactic constructions. 5. As will be seen in Chapter 10, there is, however, a certain amount of polysemy with nonmodal meanings.



Introduction

hierarchies with modal categories in multiple positions. On the other hand, markers of the same modal domain (evidential, epistemic, and root) do not behave consistently as a group. This can be viewed as counterevidence to any theory that posits consistent behavior of modals of a specific category, for instance by claiming that evidential markers generally have wider scope than epistemic markers. It is therefore argued that markers cannot be assigned categorically to a specific level or position. Concepts such as the layering of categories or universal scope hierarchies of functional categories thus turn out to be fictitious if they are to entail a strict cross-linguistic correspondence of specific grammatical (functional) categories and specific layers. Furthermore, contradictions in scopal behavior with respect to different criteria/categories can be observed. It is argued that hierarchies for volitive (deontic, boulomaic) and non-volitive (epistemic, evidential, dynamic) modalities need to be split in order to resolve the contradictions. Current models are systematically biased in favor of sentences with epistemic and evidential modality, ranking deontic and boulomaic modalities low, corresponding to their descriptive, instead of performative, uses. Although the study presented in Part IV is based on corpus data, its goal is qualitative rather than quantitative. Part V, the last part of this book, is a brief follow-up to Part IV, which conversely highlights some salient quantitative tendencies in the data by giving an overview of the most frequent collocations with modal markers that were found. Part I (Chapters 2 to 7) lays the groundwork for the two goals pursued in Parts II to IV. It offers a discussion of the concept of modality employed in this study (Chapter 2) vs. modality in Japanese linguistics (Chapter 3). Models of hierarchical clause structure both in general and in Japanese linguistics are presented (Chapters 4 and 5), and the position of modality in these models is discussed (6), followed by a brief summary in Chapter 7.



part i

Modality and the layered structure of the clause

A brief outline of modality 2.1 Modality as a grammatical category Modality is a concept from philosophy that originally denoted the distinction between factual, necessary, possible and (sometimes) contingent propositions. Its use in linguistics can be traced back to the 19th century, where J. Chr. A. Heyse (1849: 7–8) used it for the distinction of sentence types that correspond to different communicative functions and different psychological states of the speaker. Other early writers saw it as the association of the subject with the predicate (Heyse 1856: 307; Sweet 1900(1892: 105). Similar notions of modality still live on in certain branches of linguistics (cf. Kristophson 1994; Maagerø 2001). In much of current linguistics, however, two other concepts of modality are more common. The first is modality as the set of elements of the sentence outside the proposition (cf. Fillmore 1968:  24). Non-propositionality can in turn be defined with divergent criteria, either structurally, based on hierarchical relations between categories in the sentence, or semantically, as not being subject to truth conditions, or pragmatically, as the expression of the speaker’s subjectivity. The second is modality as a grammatical category on a par with other grammatical categories such as tense, aspect, or voice. ‘Modality’ is an odd coinage because in the case of similar conceptual pairs such as ‘aspect’ vs. ‘aspectuality’ and ‘tense’ vs. ‘temporality’, the first member of the pair is usually employed to label the grammatical category while the second is reserved to label a corresponding notional category. In fact, in the case of modality as well, it was common to use the term ‘mood’ to designate the grammatical category which included exponents such as the English modals (cf. Sweet 1900(1892): 105–109; Noreen 1923:  304–305, Jespersen (1992(1924); ch. 23)). The fact that the term ‘modality’ has come to cover both the grammatical category and the notional category is probably due to the structural characteristics of English and some other prominent modern European languages, namely, that unlike the case of tense and aspect, mood marking on the verb has declined or almost vanished, and the notional category modality is grammatically realized very diversely throughout the sentence, in modal verbs and adverbs, for example. The broader term ‘modality’ thus reflects this formal diversity. ‘Mood’ is nowadays commonly used only for specific morphological categories of the verb or for clausal moods (declarative, interrogative etc.) (cf. Palmer 2001: 4–5; de Haan 2006: 33).



Modality in Japanese

In this book the concept of modality as a grammatical category on a par with tense or aspect is adopted. This concept is generally prevalent in cross-linguistically oriented research, and is also reflected in those frameworks to which this study specifically refers. When modality is conceptualized as a grammatical category, there are still, however, a number of choices in how to define and conceptualize it. Three major possibilities that have some theoretical currency are (i) modality in terms of modal logic, namely as an expression of necessity and possibility, (ii), modality as an expression of subjectivity (or ‘attitude of the speaker’) in language, and (iii) modality as an expression of relativized factuality (or realis/irrealis distinctions). All three choices can be found in cross-linguistic research, e.g. (i) in van der Auwera & Plungian 1998: 80, (ii) in Palmer (1986: 16) and Bybee et al. (1994: 176); and (iii) in Palmer (2001: 1–2). (i) is the most limited choice since it is generally acknowledged that modal logic covers modal meanings in natural language only partially (cf. Kiefer 1987: 72–73). In confining the study of modality to the study of possibility and necessity, Van der Auwera and research associates do not attempt to define the category comprehensively. Rather, for practical reasons, they sidestep the tricky question of the definition of modality and instead narrow down the object of research to two easily identifiable categories. Research the interaction of expressions of possibility and necessity with negation has been especially fruitful in this vein (e.g. van der Auwera 2001; van der Auwera & Bultinck 2001; Palmer 1995). The definition in terms of ‘speaker attitudes’ or subjectivity is an antipode to the modal logic approach. This definition brings about exactly the opposite problem from the modal logic approach, since, if taken seriously, it leads to a disproportionate expansion of the category and potentially even the absorption of most other grammatical categories such as voice, aspect, tense, or illocutionary force, which also tend to be strongly associated with the attitude of the speaker (cf. Narrog 2005a). Thus, approach (iii) is the most suitable candidate. Various labels, such as factivity (Lyons 1977: 794), factuality (Palmer 1986: 17), actuality (Chung & Timberlake 1985: 241; Papafragou 2000: 3), irrealis (Palmer 2001: 1–2), relativization of the validity of the sentence meanings (Kiefer 1987: 90; 1997: 243) and undetermined validity (Dietrich 1992: 27) have been used for this approach, but they do not entail serious differences in substance. Take the following sentence with a modal verb which expresses two prototypical modal meanings:

(1) They must be afraid of you.

Out of context, this sentence can be either interpreted epistemically as ‘I am sure that they are afraid of you’ or deontically as ‘I insist that you behave in such a way that they become afraid of you’. Both readings are semantically and pragmatically quite different but they have one thing in common, namely that the modal marker must marks a state of affairs (‘they are afraid of you’) as something non-factual, or



A brief outline of modality

not belonging to reality at the time of speech. It is assumed here that this is the common feature of all modal expression.1 In this view, negation is not regarded as part of modality, since negation does not mark a non-fact but a negative fact. Although some languages combine negation with irrealis marking (cf. Palmer 2001: 173f) we do not consider it as modal. In contrast, it is assumed that form and meaning are not always co-extensive, that is, a modal marker can also have non-modal functions and meanings. Highly grammaticalized ‘mood’ markers especially can acquire a great variety of grammatical functions, not all of which are modal. The resulting concept adopted here is thus broader than concepts identifying modality solely with morphological mood, or solely with the notions of necessity and possibility, and more restricted than concepts that define modality as a supercategory composed of all kinds of grammatical categories outside the proposition, or as a category concerned with all kinds of factuality distinctions that are sometimes associated with mood, including negation and presupposition (e.g. Givón 1995, 2001). To distinguish this more limited concept from the broader concepts the term ‘modality proper’ will be used in this book. 2.2 Types of modality As the concept of modality adopted in this study has been clarified in the previous section, we can now proceed to flesh out the sub-categories (this section), typical means of expression (2.3), and finally, clarify the relationship to related categories (2.4). In the traditional view of modality (e.g. Palmer 1990, Nuyts 2006), three types of modality, namely, epistemic, deontic, and dynamic modality are regarded as the central sub-categories of modality. From the standpoint of conceptualizing modality in terms of non-factuality we affirm this view, and additionally acknowledge the modal status of boulomaic modality, a category which is usually regarded as marginal to modality (cf. Nuyts 2006: 12; Palmer 1990: 25), and part of evidentiality, a category whose status has been contested. After a short round-up of these categories, the question of how they can be aligned or arranged for a broader view of the category as a whole is addressed. 1. In 2005, I suggested the following definition: “Modality is a linguistic category referring to the factual status of a state of affairs. The expression of a state of affairs is modalized if it is marked for being undetermined with respect to its factual status, i. e. is neither positively nor negatively factual.” (Narrog 2005a: 184). Kiefer, in the same spirit, defined modality earlier as follows: “[t]he essence of modality consists in the relativization of the validity of the sentence meanings to a set of possible worlds” (Kiefer 1987: 90).





Modality in Japanese

Epistemic modality expresses a judgment on the likelihood that a state-of-affairs is factual. Thus, the following sentences with the modal verb should and the adverb probably are epistemically modalized.

(2) This should be the best solution.



(3) She’s probably back home already.

In both cases, the proposition (‘this is the best solution’; ‘she’s back home already’) is rendered as non-factual by the modal operator which assesses the likelihood that the proposition is factual. The assessment of a state-of-affairs as non-factual is based on the speaker’s knowledge of the world. Different modal operators express different degrees of ‘probability’ of a state-of-affairs, or, from a communicative perspective, different degrees of ‘commitment’ by the speaker (cf. e.g. Huddleston 2002a: 175–177; Halliday 2004: 116, 148–149; Nuyts 2006: 6). This point is taken up again in Chapters 8 and 10.4. We include future in epistemic modality unless it is purely temporal, which is rarely the case (cf. Bybee, Pagliuca & Perkins (1991: 24), Huddleston (2002a: 188–190) for a similar stance, and Van der Auwera & Plungian (1998) for a different stance). A more comprehensive view of modality may include facts and negative facts at the extreme ends of the scale, and thus ascribe an epistemic judgment to every sentence whether epistemically marked or not (e.g. Givón 1995: 113–115). The concept of modality adopted here does not do this, since it is only concerned with the non-factual. The distinction between epistemic modality and evidentiality is a matter that has yet to be clarified. At one extreme, a categorical relationship between evidentiality and modality is denied (e.g. Aikhenvald 2004, De Haan 2006), and at the other extreme, evidentiality is viewed as part of epistemic modality (e.g. Palmer 1986, Frawley 1992). Conversely, yet another view has emerged according to which epistemic modality is essentially evidential (cf. Fintel & Gillies 2007). There are intermediate positions that have evidentiality and epistemic modality form together a sub-category of modality (Palmer 2001), or regard them as distinct but related modal categories (e.g. Nuyts 2001a, 2006). The concept of this study is to consequentially view modality in terms of factuality, which leads to taking the intermediate position. In this view, part of evidentiality is modal, while part of it is non-modal. Concretely, if evidentiality is divided into (a) direct, and (b) indirect2 (cf. Willett 1988; De Haan 2001), (b) is regarded as modal, while (a) is regarded as non-modal. Evidential notions are not fully grammaticalized in English but various adverbs and the semi-modal seem can be regarded as their exponents. (4) and (5) exemplify indirect evidence, that is, they are modal in our sense, while (6) exemplifies direct evidence: 2. Subtypes of ‘indirect’ are ‘reported’ and ‘inferring’



A brief outline of modality



(4) Apparently, the pilot sped up, because we landed earlier than expected.



(5) Scientists are allegedly the most logical of human beings.



(6) Elvis has left the building. I’ve seen it.

Decisively, the adverbs apparently, indicating a conclusion based on evidence, and allegedly, indicating hearsay, leave their respective propositions non-factual, or relativize their factuality in relation to the expressed evidence. In contrast, the specification of direct evidence as in (6), whether it is grammaticalized or not, does not affect the factuality status of the proposition. Furthermore, it has recently been pointed out that modal markers and constructions in the well-known Indo-European languages that have traditionally been classified as epistemic, may have an evidential component.3 Nuyts claims this for modal adjectives and mental state predicates, primarily in Dutch (cf. Nuyts 2001a: 227), Drubig (2001), for some modals in English, and Mortelmans (2000) for some modal verbs in German. Palmer (2001: 9) points out that must in a sentence like (7) normally expresses a deduction from facts known to the speaker.

(7) Kate must be at home.

According to him, the category ‘deductive’ is common to evidential and epistemic systems. Cases like this demonstrate that evidentiality and epistemic modality are related notions. The exclusion of evidentiality from the study of modality would therefore result in an incomplete account of this grammatical category. The typical exponents of deontic modality are obligation and permission. It is thus about what laws and norms allow and require. It has also been suggested that more generally speaking, it is concerned with the desirability and acceptability of a state-of-affairs (cf. Nuyts 2006: 4–5), or that deontic modality is essentially discourseoriented (Palmer 1990: 36). The typical exponents of deontic modality in English are modals such as should or must, as in ex. (8) and (9) from Collins Cobuild:

(8) The whole system should be abolished.



(9) You must be alive to opportunity!

Note that as with the epistemic sentences, the propositions on which the modal markers operate are, due to the presence of the modal marker, non-factual, which is crucial for our definition of modality. However, unlike the case of epistemic modality, the lack of factuality is not the intended meaning of the modal markers, but an inevitable implication of the primary deontic meanings, such as obligation. Therefore, deontic modal expressions have to be viewed as less typical and less

3.

The first to do so was probably Palmer (1990: 53).





Modality in Japanese

central to modality than epistemic ones under the concept of modality based on non-factuality. Deontic expressions are multi-faceted, as they can express at the same time a necessity or possibility (‘it is necessary that the whole system is abolished’), a valuative judgment by the speaker (‘in my opinion, the whole system is bad’), and pragmatically, a demand (‘I require from our leadership that they abolish the whole system’). The borderline between core deontic modal markers and lessgrammaticalized valuative constructions (e.g. had better) on the one hand, and to clausal moods such as imperative and hortative, on the other hand, is thin. Givón, from a cross-linguistic perspective, introduced the term ‘valuative attitude’ to centrally cover deontic modality (Givón 1995: 113f). This term certainly applies well to Japanese, where deontic notions are customarily expressed and grammaticalized in valuative terms (see Part II). If deontic modality is stripped of the notion of an external authority imposing action (or its ‘discourse-orientedness’ in terms of Palmer), it is often labeled as dynamic modality, that is, modality expressing ‘inherent potential or inherent necessity/inevitability’ (Nuyts 2006:  4), or ‘neutral’ and ‘dynamic’ notions (Palmer 1990: 36–37). Van der Auwera and Plungian (1998: 80) labeled this kind of modality ‘participant-internal’ modality, as opposed to ‘participant-external’ modality. The following would be an example of dynamic (inherent/participant-internal) must: (10) I mustn’t forget my keys (otherwise I won’t be able to get into the office). However, the distinction between ‘dynamic’ and ‘deontic’ or ‘participant-internal’ and ‘participant-external’ appears to be only relatively clear in the case of notions of possibility. Here, ‘dynamic’ and ‘deontic’ distinguish circumstantial possibilities and abilities on the one hand from permission on the other hand. Ex. (11) below stands for circumstantial possibility, while ex. (12) stands for permission: (11) Science can be exciting. (12) You may leave whenever you want to. The relatively clear distinction between permission on one hand and circumstantial possibility and ability on the other hand is reflected in English by the fact that the modal may focuses mainly on the former while the modal can mainly specializes on the latter. In contrast, as indicated above, with necessities, absence or presence of external authorities is mostly a matter of context and interpretation, and the modal must for example, covers both deontic and dynamic areas (ex. (9) and (10)). This leads to the question of whether it is meaningful at all to distinguish between ‘deontic’ and ‘dynamic’ with necessities. Palmer (1990: 131f) notices the indeterminacy



A brief outline of modality

between deontic and dynamic uses of must and suggest that they also can be framed in terms of ‘objective’ (i.e. dynamic) vs. ‘subjective’ (i.e. deontic). Similarly, Coates (1983: 21) notices a ‘cline’ between deontic and dynamic uses. The situation in Japanese resembles English, as the distinction between deontic and dynamic possibility is grammaticalized, but not a possible distinction between deontic and dynamic necessity (cf. Part II). Therefore, if we refer to ‘dynamic’ modality in this book, only circumstantial possibility and ability are meant unless otherwise noted. This narrower view of dynamic modality, confining it to the domain of possibility, is also shared by a number of other scholars (cf. De Haan 2006:  29; Hengeveld 2004: 1194 (using the term ‘facultative modality’)). Note that similar to the status of dynamic (‘inherent’/‘participant-internal’) modality, epistemic modality does not necessarily involve apparent speaker involvement either, and may express ‘objective’ logical conclusions. Dik (1997a: 242) set up the category ‘epistemic objective modality’, and Huddleston (2002a: 181) speaks of “objective uses” of epistemic modal verbs which can be exemplified by (13) (must) and (14) (may).4 (13) If I’m older than Ed and Ed is older than Jo, I must be older than Jo. (14) He may have misled Parliament: there’s going to be an inquiry. Boulomaic modality, understood as the modality of desire and volition, is also included in modality here. In English, it is expressed only marginally by modals (shall, will; cf. Palmer 1990: 75, 134f), but typically by the verb want (to): (15) I want you to forgive me. Crucially, the proposition you forgive me is rendered non-factual by the use of the expression of the verb want, and thus boulomaic expressions like this fall under the scope of modality. This is not the case with various emotional attitudinal markers which are also sometimes treated under the heading of ‘boulomaic’ or ‘bouletic’, such as the following (cf. Nuyts 2006: 12): (16) Unfortunately, the permit was never issued. (17) I love it that nature has the ability to rip through the carefully concreted countryside.

4. The concept of subjective vs. objective epistemic modality goes at least back to Lyons (1977: 797–804).





Modality in Japanese

In the case of such expressions, the attitudinal marking has no influence whatsoever on the factuality of the proposition, and it is not be treated under the heading of modality if modality is understood in terms of factuality or reality.5 The sub-categories named here should be uncontroversial with the exception of some details concerning evidentiality and boulomaic modality. Our view of modality is relatively wide, as it includes volitional (boulomaic) and evidential categories. Some treatments of modality agree in this point (e.g. Huddleston 2002a, Hengeveld 2004) while others exclude evidentiality (e.g. Bybee et al. 1994, de Haan 2006), volitional modality (John 1987), or both (van der Auwera & Plungian 1998). Now, taking a bird’s eye view of the sub-categories, larger divisions or groupings are possible. For example, sometimes all non-epistemic modalities have been grouped under the cover label ‘root’, thus highlighting the salient contract of epistemic and non-epistemic (e.g. Hofmann 1976; Coates 1983:  20–22; Sweetser 1990: 49). A more recent, and often cited broad classification comes from Palmer (2001), who groups epistemic modality and evidentiality together as ‘propositional modality’, that is, modality which is “concerned with the speaker’s attitude to the truth-value or factual status of the proposition” (Palmer 2001:  8). He contrasts propositional modality with ‘event modality’, which comprises deontic and dynamic modality and refers to “events that are not actualized, events that have not taken place but are merely potential” (ibid.). These terms remind one of the treatment of modality in the layered model of the clause in Functional Grammar, where ‘inherent’ and ‘objective’ modality operating on the ‘nuclear’ and ‘core predication’ level are distinguished from ‘subjective’ modalities which operate at the ‘extended predication’ level, thus forming ‘propositions’ (cf. Dik 1997a: 241–242, 50). This layering is a central concern of this book, investigated in detail in Part IV. At the same time, Palmer refers to event modality as “containing an element of will” and to propositional modality as “containing no element of will” (Palmer 1990: 8). In my view, the properties of semanto-syntactic layering on the one hand, and of the presence or absence of an element of will on the other hand, do not necessarily coincide. I have thus proposed a view of modality along two dimensions, one which distinguishes the presence or absence of an ‘element of will’ (the idea going back to Jespersen 1992(1924) and Heine 1995), and centers on the corresponding deontic vs. epistemic distinction, and one which represents a scale of increased speaker-orientation and corresponds to semanto-syntactic layers (Narrog 2005b). If the sub-categories of modality mentioned above are integrated into this model, the following semantic map is obtained. 5. Note that some authors treat boulomaic modality, as understood here, under the heading of dynamic modality (e.g. Palmer 1990; Brandt 1999; Huddleston 2002a).



A brief outline of modality

speakeroriented

deontic, boulomaic

epistemic /evidential

eventoriented

(dynamic)

(dynamic)

volitive

non-volitive

Figure 1.  Dimensions of modality and subcategories

The outlines of each category are kept intentionally rough, reflecting the consideration that an exact mapping should be based on detailed empirical evidence, which I consider not to be fully available at the present stage of research, and should not be made a priori. Some cross-linguistic and intra-linguistic variation can also not be excluded a priori. The distinction between volitive and non-volitive is a notional, and thus categorical, distinction. The notion of a scale or gradualness plays little or no role here. Deontic modal meanings contain an ‘element of will’ while epistemic modal meanings do not (cf. Heine 1995: 29). Dynamic modality, taken in the core sense of circumstantial possibility and ability as is done here, as well as evidential meanings, contain no element of will either. In contrast, the scale from event-oriented to speaker-oriented is not purely notional but depends on empirical backup. As a matter of common sense, “inherent” modality such as dynamic modality is regarded as event-oriented, low in subjectivity, and low in the semanto-syntactic layering, but without some concrete evidence, this remains a speculative claim. The study in this book aims to provide such evidence. 2.3 The expression of modality Palmer, in the second edition of his typological survey on mood and modality, distinguishes two major grammatical expression devices for modality, namely ‘modal systems’ and ‘mood’. He further sees them in competition with each other: “[M]ost languages can be characterized as having one or the other” (Palmer





Modality in Japanese

2001: 104). We wish to add here adverbs and mental state predicates as the major non-grammatical (or less grammaticalized) means of expression. The terms ‘modal systems’ and ‘mood’ in the sense of Palmer refer to categories which are characterized by distinct features both morphosyntactically and semantically. Typical exponents of modal systems are the modal verbs in the Germanic languages. Morphosyntactically they are characterized by formal independence of the main verb, that is, they are ‘periphrastic’ or ‘analytic’ expressions. Semantically, they are characterized by a wide range of semantic distinctions corresponding to a wide range of formal differentiations (cf. Palmer 2001: 6). It would be too narrow to limit the term ‘modal systems’ to auxiliary verbs. This term encompasses periphrastic constructions in the verb complex in general, including modal adjectives. Mood, in contrast, is usually marked directly on the verb, that is, is morphosyntactically more dependent. It is typically an obligatory choice in verb inflection, and semantically it is characterized by binary oppositions, such as those between ‘indicative’ and ‘subjunctive’ in some Indo-European languages and ‘realis’ vs. ‘irrealis’ in many other languages of the world. The question arises whether modal systems and mood represent simply different stages of grammaticalization. The abstractness of mood meanings vs. the concreteness and differentiation of modal system meanings probably corresponds to a higher degree of semantic bleaching of the former, while more morphological dependence is a common-place indicator of grammaticalization (cf. Lehmann 2002:  131–142 citing increasing ‘bondedness’ and decreasing ‘syntagmatic variability’ as indicators of grammaticalization). In fact, verbal mood is ancient in the Indo-European languages, presumably going back to late Indo-European (cf. Szemerényi 1996: 303), and highly grammaticalized, and most probably corresponding to an old stage of OV word order in Indo-European and Germanic (cf. Watkins 1998: 68). The modal verbs, in contrast, have grammaticalized relatively recently, and can be associated with shifts to VO word order that have taken place, or are in the process of taking place, in many Indo-European languages. It is also well-known that even languages with SVO word order have a preference for suffixing over prefixing (cf. Hawkins & Cutler 1988; Bybee, Pagliuca & Perkins 1990). The relative reluctance to prefix, especially the reluctance to prefix tense-aspect-mood categories (cf. Cysouw (2006)) apparently contributes to the preservation of analytic pre-verbal structures. In Japanese, which has been SOV throughout its documented history, an interestingly different situation is found, which nevertheless confirms the suspicion that modal systems and mood represent different stages of grammaticalization. In this language, both verbal mood and periphrastic modal operators can be found, and both are post-verbal, but the exponents of the former are historically much older than the exponents of the latter. Furthermore, the semantic observations of



A brief outline of modality 

Palmer on modal systems vs. mood also largely apply. The Japanese modal system will be discussed in more detail in Part II of this book. Verbal mood has one more important characteristic. Due to its high degree of grammaticalization and semantic bleaching it is usually associated only partially with the expression of modality, but has acquired various non-modal functions. Among these are the marking of temporal distinctions (cf. Palmer 2001: 5), the marking of clausal moods and clausal subordination, and various status of factuality besides nonfactuality (e.g. negative factuality (negation) and presupposition (cf. Givón 1995: 114–115)). It is thus important to be careful not to confound the functions of the morphological category of mood with modality as such, as some authors do. In OV and agglutinating languages particularly, modal affixes are also common (cf. de Haan 2006: 36). They are intermediate between modal systems and mood in terms of grammaticalization. They are more morphologically dependent than periphrastic marking (modal systems), but not as far grammaticalized, and crucially, not an obligatory paradigmatic choice of the verb such as mood. As will later be seen in Part II, Japanese has numerous modal affixes. While modal systems and moods are the most grammaticalized exponents of the category of modality, adverbs and mental state predicates are essentially lexical in nature, but nevertheless can play an important role in the expression of modality, and can display various degrees of grammaticalization (cf. Hoye 1997; Nuyts 2001a). Typical modal adverbs in English include probably, possibly, certainly and necessarily. The following is an example: (18) This is probably the best-selling small French dictionary. The adverb probably renders the proposition ‘this is the best-selling small French dictionary’ as non-factual, and is therefore clearly modal. However, other adverbs that are sometimes associated with modality in terms of ‘speaker attitudes’ such as well, easily, inevitably, almost or simply, are not modal within the concept of defining modality in terms of factuality, since they do not tamper with the factuality of the sentence. Cf. the example below: (19) I was simply overwhelmed by the situation. The adverb simply does not change the factual status of the proposition even if it functions as a downtoner that conveys the speaker’s attitude (cf. Hoye 1997: 173). Mental state predicates such as think, believe, or suppose, if used in present tense and with a first person subject as in (20), are salient means of expression of the epistemic attitude of the speaker. The following is an example: (20) I think they have run out of fuel (Nuyts 2001a: 107)



Modality in Japanese

The mental state predicate think in effect relativizes the factuality of the proposition they have run out of fuel in relation to the speaker’s knowledge. However, such predicates can also be used with subjects other than the speaker, and they are not apparently grammaticalized. Furthermore, they can also represent propositional contents themselves. Therefore, their status as exponents of modality as a grammatical category is controversial. Nuyts (2001a; ch. 3) and Givón (2001; ch. 6), for example, include them in modal markers while Palmer (2001) and De Haan (2006) do not. A related point that deserves consideration is that phrases such as I think in spoken language lose their categorial status and become ‘parentheticals’ (cf. Perkins (1983: 98); Hopper & Traugott (2003: 208)). Here, as Thompson & Mulac (1991) and Aijmer (1997) argue, grammaticalization has actually taken place and they eventually become adverbs (similar to maybe from it may be) or elements of the modal system (such as Modern Japanese epistemic possibility construction ka mo sirenai ‘I can’t know whether not’), depending on the structure of the language in question. Lastly, so-called modal particles, which are common in German, Dutch and a few other Germanic languages, but not in English, are grammaticalized, but cannot be regarded as part of the expression of modality, since they do not change the factual status of a sentence. Cf. ex. (21): (21) Ich weiß das doch schon! I know that (modal particle) already But I already know that! These particles, and similarly sentence-final particles in Japanese, have mostly discursive functions. Doch in (21) points back to a contrary assertion in the discourse and emphatically affirms the speaker’s stance. The factuality of the proposition is not relativized. In this manner, these particles usually operate on a textual level, and they should be identified with illocutionary ‘modulation’ or ‘modification’ (cf. Hengeveld (2004: 1192)) rather than with modality proper. 2.4 Clausal mood, illocutionary force and illocutionary modulation The term ‘mood’ can be used in various denotations. One is its identification with a specific morphological category of the verb, in which case we have labeled it as ‘verbal mood’. However, as was pointed out above, verbal mood as a morphological category rarely corresponds to a single notional category. Instead, it is usually multi-functional. The expression of modality proper is but one of these functions. Others include the marking of presupposition or negative factuality (negation),



A brief outline of modality 

that is, factuality status different from non-factuality, which is not regarded as part of modality proper in our approach to modality. The most salient function of verbal mood, however, is the expression of clausal mood. We understand under clausal moods patterns of expression that relate the clause to discourse, to the hearer and to factuality, and that usually carry illocutionary force. Representative clausal moods are declarative, imperative, and interrogative. Some of these moods match the criterion for inclusion in modality, that is, rendering a proposition non-factual as the imperative mood in the following example: (22) Take my advice and check out this book! The proposition ‘take my advice and check out the book’ is clearly rendered nonfactual by the imperative mood. The clausal mood is not marked exclusively on the verb (English uses the unmarked verb, while other languages have a special imperative inflection), but also through word order, intonation, and usually elision of the subject, reflecting the sentential nature of clausal mood. Other clausal moods would not match the criterion for modality. This applies to the declarative mood, and also to some interrogative moods. Cf. the following example. (23) Who has demolished my house? The proposition ‘someone has demolished my house’ is presented as factual. Only the identity of the subject/actor is open, and questioned. We also include the ‘subordinating moods’ in the clausal moods here. (24) is a subordinating subjunctive mood example in English: (24) That man is trying to help, whether it be for the wrong reasons or not. As stated above, the clausal moods of main clauses generally have illocutionary force. We use the term ‘illocutionary modulation’ for types of marking that modify illocutionary force, or contribute to relating the clause to discourse. The modal particles in German or the Japanese sentence-final particles are thus classified here under the label of ‘illocutionary modulation’. We regard clausal moods and illocutionary modulators as categories which are further advanced on the scale of speaker-orientation than modality proper. If they are added to our semantic map of modality they take a position adjacent to the upper end of modality proper on the speaker-orientation scale, as represented in Figure 2. More on clausal mood and illocutionary modulation will be found in Chapters 11 and 12.



Modality in Japanese

illocutionary modulation mood

speakeroriented

deontic, boulomaic

epistemic /evidential

eventoriented

(dynamic)

(dynamic)

volitive

non-volitive

Figure 2.  Modality, mood and illocutionary modulation

Modality in Japanese linguistics* It was mentioned in Chapter 2 that it is possible to view modality either (A) as the sum of all non-propositional elements of the sentence, or (B) as a grammatical category similar to tense, aspect, or voice. Further, it was suggested that especially in the latter case, three concepts of modality have had the widest currency, namely (i) modality in terms of modal logic, i.e. as an expression of necessity and possibility, (ii), modality as an expression of subjectivity (or ‘speaker attitude’) in language, and (iii) modality as an expression of relativized factuality (or realis/irrealis distinctions). To a certain extent, the preference for one or the other of these concepts also depends on the characteristics of the object of study. Modality in English presents itself quite differently from modality in Japanese, and for a cross-linguistic study an entirely different perspective may be called for. Now, while in this study stance (B) is taken, and it has been suggested that (iii) is the most appropriate concept for a cross-linguistic study, concept (i) has been widely used in the study of English, and it is concept (ii) which has figured in 90% or more of the studies on modality in Japanese linguistics. Modality in Japanese has overwhelmingly been treated in terms of subjectivity, and in addition, views (A) and (B) are quite often mixed and equated, or at least not kept separate. That is, modality is commonly viewed as a grammatical category on the one hand, but at the same time as something comprising everything non-propositional. This view of modality as non-propositional sentence elements already entails the question of semantic layers, at least assuming a layer of propositional and a layer of non-propositional elements. Furthermore, this book’s empirical study will be on Japanese, and therefore information on the concept of modality in Japanese linguistics should be of some interest, especially since Japanese linguistic thought on modality has received relatively little exposure in the English-speaking world. This chapter thus gives a short overview on how the current concept of modality in Japanese linguistics emerged, and what its salient features are.

* Henceforth, when referring to Japanese terms, the phonologically accurate Kunreishiki transcription will be used for quoting language material while the phonologically inaccurate but close-to-actual-pronunciation Hepburn transcription will be used for quoting everything else (names, references, linguistic terminology).



Modality in Japanese

3.1 A brief history of research 3.1.1 Predication theory The beginnings of the study of modality in Japanese linguistics, and the roots of the current thinking, can be found in the concept ‘predication’ (chinjutsu), and its study, that is, in ‘predication theory’ (chinjutsu-ron). The term ‘predication’, coined by one of the great founding figures of modern Japanese linguistics, Yoshio Yamada, in Yamada (1908), was originally a relatively innocent term apparently used as a counterpart to the term Aussage in J. C. A. Heyse’s Deutsche Grammatik, which appeared in numerous editions from 1814. Yamada was strongly influenced by state-of-the-art English and German grammars of his time, in particular Heyse, as well as Henry Sweet’s New English Grammar. Among other things, he was concerned with the question of what makes a clause a clause, particularly in light of the fact that many sentences in Japanese seemed incomplete in comparison with sentences in English or German due to the lack of an overt subject. The scholars of his time conceived of the sentence (or clause) as a unit of thought (“the expression of a complete thought or meaning” (Sweet 1892: 155)), and grammatically, as the linking of two major obligatory elements, the subject and the predicate. Heyse identified the verb as the center of the sentence or clause (the German term Satz has both meanings). The essence of a sentence/clause is predication (Aussage), and the element of the sentence/clause that bears the predication is the verb (Heyse 1868: 248f). This understanding of Aussage ‘predication’ is the basis for Yamada’s term chinjutsu. The frequent omission of subjects, and the frequent use of one-word-clauses in Japanese, however, compelled Yamada to add a psychological dimension to the grammatical definition of sentence. This he sought in the theory of Wilhelm Wundt, the first psycholinguist (Wundt 1900), where he found the concept of ‘apperception’. For Wundt, sentences/clauses are “the linguistic expression of the willful structuring of a total conception into units which stand in logical relationship to each other” (Wundt 1900: 240). ‘Apperception’ (which is, from a subjective perspective equal to ‘attention’ (Aufmerksamkeit)) is the psychological process responsible for the integration and structuring of various elements that make up conceptions (Wundt 1900: 244f). This ‘apperception’ can operate in all kind of sentences, even if superficially incomplete, as long as they form a complete thought. As a result of adding the psychological dimension of ‘apperception’, chinjutsu ‘predication’, then, becomes the apperceptive role of predicates (verbs and adjectives) in predicative (declarative, interrogative, imperative) clauses (cf. Yamada 1908: 1238f). Other linguists eagerly adopted Yamada’s concept and took it in diverse directions. Miyake (1934) distinguished himself through a relatively scientific approach



Modality in Japanese linguistics 

to the description of the Japanese language, based on phonological analysis. In contrast to Yamada, he regarded ‘predication’ essentially as an element at sentence level and not at clause level. For him, then, ‘predication’ is what makes a sentence a sentence. Consequently, he saw the locus of chinjutsu ‘predication’ not in the (lexical) verb itself, like Yamada, but in the inflectional endings of the verbs, in sentence-final particles, and in sentence intonation (Miyake 1934: 23f). Mio (1939) suggested dividing ‘predication’ into clause ‘integrating function’ and ‘judgment function’. The latter operates on top of the clause integrating function, so that two levels or layers are created. According, to him, it is the ‘judgment function’ which is the true chinjutsu ‘predication’ (Mio 1939: 77f). With this distinction between ‘clause integration’ and ‘judgment’ he took the theory one step further, proposing a point that was later to be integrated into the “standard” predication theory by Minoru Watanabe (see below). The ‘predication’ concept of Yamada and the other early linguists reviewed so far was concerned with what makes a clause a clause, and later, a sentence a sentence. It can thus be linked to clausal moods, but hardly to modality in general. Around the time of World War II, however, Motoki Tokieda and his successors gave the concept an entirely new twist, and, still under the name of chinjutsu ‘predication’, created the basis for the modality concept in current Japanese linguistics, which is fundamentally based on the idea of subjectivity.1 Tokieda (1900–1967), who is often viewed as one of a triad of the most influential scholars in the history of National Language Studies, together with Yamada and Shinkichi Hashimoto, came forward with a new subjectivized view of language as a process which, in principle, can only be investigated through introspection. He strongly opposed “objectivist” Western linguistics, and beyond that also revealed a fervent nationalism in his writings. Tokieda saw language primarily as the activity of the speaking subject (Tokieda 1950, Section 1.3). He divided all morphemes (go) into ‘objective’ shi (content words) and ‘subjective’ ji (function words). The subjective ji express the speaker’s judgment, while the shi express objective conceptual contents of things and states of affairs (Tokieda 1950, ch. 2). In the structure of clauses, a shi is always followed by a ji, thus forming “nested boxes” structures. If no overt ji is given, a zero-ji has to be posited (Tokieda 1950, ch. 3). For him, it is the subjective ji which have the predicative function, and not the verbs or predicates themselves, which represent objective material (Tokieda 1941: 334). That is, chinjutsu ‘predication’ can in principle be identified with subjectivity.

1. The term ‘subjectivity’ as it is used here comprises both ‘subjectivity’ and ‘intersubjectivity’ in the modern sense of Traugott & Dasher (2002).



Modality in Japanese

Thus, for Tokieda, ‘predication’ was not important as a concept for explaining what makes a clause a clause, or a sentence a sentence (he developed a different term for that element). It was about the speaker’s expression in the sentence. While the idea of ‘predication’ itself goes back to Yamada, the identification of ‘predication’ with a specific set of dependent morphemes, accompanied by the identification of those morphemes with ‘subjectivity’ is clearly an entirely new concept. This new concept of Tokieda’s then became the most fundamental idea behind the concept of modality in modern Japanese linguistics. From a purely linguistic point of view, the attraction of Tokieda’s model of language structure lay in the elegance of its simplicity and its theoretical consequences. The price that was paid for these merits was counterintuitive analyses and apparent mismatches with actual language data. Tokieda’s language model is therefore often compared to Generative Grammar in its earlier stages. Representative examples for problematic analyses are the so-called zero-ji, zero functional morphemes which the theory requires when no overt functional morphemes appear in the actual clause structure. Also, the idea that the subjective expression of the speaker is tied up with specific morpheme classes was controversial from the outset (cf. e.g. Mikami 1972 (1959): 115f). Despite some obvious shortcomings, the new concept of ‘predication theory’ as shaped by Tokieda continued to advance. Watanabe (1953) differentiated chinjutsu ‘predication’ as a subjective and communicative (hearer-oriented) function expressed mainly by sentence-final particles, and concluding a sentence, from jojutsu (also ‘predication’) as clause integration expressed mainly by the predicate. Watanabe thus liberates chinjutsu ‘predication’ from its predicative function as a purer subjective expression in the Tokiedan sense. Grammatically speaking, it is jojutsu ‘predication’ which is closer to Yamada’s original ‘predication’, since Yamada’s ‘predication’ is identified with the predicate in the (potentially subordinate) clause. While the development of predication theory and its identification with subjectivity in language is strongly associated with an anti-Western and nationalistic brand of linguistics, other scholars who were also interested in the idea of subjective elements in language but did not identify themselves with the nationalistic mainstream of their time, framed their ideas in terms of a concept by the Swiss scholar Charles Bally. Bally, a scholar of French language, advocated the bipartition of sentence elements into dictum and modus. The former is the sentence contents, the latter the expression of the speaking subject. He primarily identified the locus of the modus in a sentence with verbs of emotion and judgment and their overt and covert subjects (Bally 1965(1932): 36f). Thus the concept is quite different from the concept of modality, and, strictly speaking, also quite different from the ‘predication’ concepts of Japanese scholars of the time. Bally’s linguistic thought was introduced to Japan through translations and articles from the late 1920s on



Modality in Japanese linguistics 

and is widely cited by some of the authors associated with chinjutsu-ron ‘predication theory’. However, his ideas were not read and adopted in any detail, and those who cite him make clear that they have not learned about his ideas from his original writings. Apparently, reference to Bally primarily served as a confirmation that Japanese scholars’ intuitions about objective vs. subjective contents in the language had a broader foundation in linguistics. Also, it allowed those scholars who did not identify themselves with the linguistic tradition of Tokieda and Watanabe to use different terminology for the same or similar concepts, and thereby indicate a more internationally-minded approach. Important scholars who referred to Bally in their concept of chinjutsu include Yasushi Haga and Akira Mikami. Mikami adopted the dictum vs. modus bi-partition (1953 (1972): 20), and related the modus part to ‘moods’ (a term rarely used in Japanese linguistics until then). The moods, such as the finite mood or imperative mood, are identified with specific inflectional verb forms and particles (Mikami 1959 (1972): 123–127). Mikami also included information structure, such as topics, in the modus part of the sentence. Haga (1954, 1982) also adopted the dictum vs. modus bi-partition, but most importantly he distinguished two types of ‘predication’, ‘judgmental predication’ (jutteiteki chinjutsu) and ‘communicative predication’ (dentatsuteki chinjutsu), calling to mind ‘subjectivity’ and ‘intersubjectivity’ in the sense of Traugott & Dasher (2002). For him, however, these types of predication were associated with specific sentence types. Kindaichi (1953) proposed a different classification of objective vs. subjective linguistic expressions from Tokieda when he acknowledged subjectivity only for non-inflecting suffixes. He also identified his classification with Bally’s dictum vs. modus, as filtered by Kobayashi. 3.1.2 From ‘predication’ to modality The modern Japanese concept of ‘modality’ is based on the notion of subjectivity or ‘speaker attitudes’ and the identification of specific structural elements of the sentence with the subjective expression of the speaker. As was shown in the previous sub-section, the fundamental elements of this concept were already present in the 1950s, especially with Haga (1954), albeit under the label of ‘predication theory’. The label ‘modality’ came into use only 30 years later. It should be noted however that the label ‘modality’ and the study of modality as a grammatical category was not particularly common or popular in English or general linguistics in the 1950s either. It was Lyons (1977) and Palmer (1979) in particular who gave a boost to the concept, followed later by Palmer (1986). In Japanese linguistics, the first mention of the term ‘modality’ comes in Uyeno (1971), who did so in an English piece of writing, but with an understanding of the Japanese ‘predication’ tradition behind it, since she uses the term very



Modality in Japanese

broadly for particles, sentence types, modal suffixes etc. Suzuki (1972: 44) was the first to use the term in Japanese writing. He defines modality as “the attitude of the speaker towards reality and the hearer”. Okuda (1985: 240) likewise uses modus as the speaker’s expression of the relationship between sentence contents and reality. The idea of the relationship of sentence contents to reality as a central part of modality goes back to Vinogradov’s writings in the 1940s and 1950s, and was expounded in detail in the Russian academy grammar of 1980 (cf. Kristophson 1994). Okuda and Suzuki were central members of the Linguistic Study Group (Gengogaku Kenkyūkai), which was oriented towards Soviet linguistics. Their studies of the Japanese language were ground-breaking, but not representative of the field, since their influence on the main stream was limited. Another factor contributing to the relatively late recognition of modality as a linguistic category in Japanese linguistics is that the concept of grammatical categories as such was not common in the field. Instead, the focus was on the study of individual morphemes, and, with the notable exception of the Linguistic Study Group centered on Okuda and Suzuki just mentioned, the existence of categories such as tense, aspect, and mood for Japanese (note that chinjutsu ‘predication’ is not a category name either) was generally denied. The notion of grammatical categories started to become main stream only in the 1980s, together with the rise of ‘modality’. Although a little later than Suzuki and the Linguistic Study Group, a stronger influence than Russian linguistics came from English linguistics. Probably the first person to use the very term ‘modality’ in the sense of a bi-partition of the clause in subjective vs. non-subjective elements was the English linguist Nakau (1979). In the 1980s, this use spread. Another English linguist, Teramura, in keeping with Japanese tradition, also espoused a bipartition of the clause between objective and subjective elements, labeled as koto ‘things’ and muudo ‘mood’ respectively (Teramura 1982:  51). Similar to Haga’s ‘judgmental predication’ and ‘communicative predication’, he further divided muudo into content-oriented and hearer-oriented (ibid. p. 60). At this stage, the terms muudo ‘mood’ and modariti ‘modality’ still varied with each other. As the new label ‘modality’ gained acceptance and popularity, the older concept (or label) of ‘predication’ made a swift exit from the center stage of linguistic discussion. In 1990, a traditional-minded scholar commented on this development as follows: “‘Predication theory’, which was a hot commodity until just 12 or 13 years ago is lying unsold on the shelves now for no apparent reason. Even if it is still sometimes touched upon, its original spirit is forgotten, and it is reduced to



Modality in Japanese linguistics 

the discussion of modality, or to a practical means to arrange sentence-final word forms” (Onoe 1990: 16).2 3.2 Current research on modality in Japanese linguistics 3.2.1 The common approach to modality in Japan In the 1990s and 2000s, modality has become one of the most popular concepts in Japanese linguistics. This boom was kicked off by the publications of Nitta & Masuoka (1989), Masuoka (1991), and Nitta (1991a). Masuoka and Nitta were the first to employ the term in the title of major publications in Japanese, and the concept of modality which they presented around 1990 became the model for most of the subsequent research carried out in the domestic field of Japanese language studies. Since the modern study of modality in Japan is first and foremost identified with their names, an understanding of their concept of modality is essential to an understanding of contemporary writing on modality in Japan, and the concept of modality which most Japanese students of modality entertain. Masuoka’s and Nitta’s studies in modality clearly continue the traditional ‘predication’ concept discussed in the previous subsection. They are close to each other within this traditional framework of thinking, but not identical. First, Masuoka offers the following understanding of modality: “Proposition and modality are the two big elements that make up a sentence. I define them as the element that expresses objective facts, and the element that expresses subjective judgments and attitudes, respectively” (Masuoka 1991: 6; emphasis mine). Masuoka’s definition crucially refers to two factors. One is a bi-partition of the sentence into proposition and modality, the syntactic factor. The other is the identification of one part of the bi-partition with the expression of the speaker’s judgments and attitudes. This is the semantic-pragmatic factor. Research that builds on Masuoka thus has to assume that every sentence can be divided into proposition and modality, and that there is a criterion (or criteria) for the division. Masuoka originally named a whole set of criteria (interrogation, nominalization, past tense) as the dividing line (Masuoka 1991: 34–36). Further, it has to be assumed that the

2. The reasons why ‘modality’ as a label and as a concept took over from ‘predication theory’ in the 1980s cannot be understood in purely linguistic terms. Rather, it is part of larger social developments in academic Japan in general and in the Japanese linguistics of the time in particular. These include the need for a more international and practical orientation in Japanese linguistics which resulted in the demise of National Language Studies as a field and its replacement by Japanese Language Studies. These issues are discussed in some more detail in Narrog (to appear).



Modality in Japanese

dividing line between proposition and modality coincides with a semantic division between objective and subjective sentence elements. It is thus the dividing line in sentence structure between proposition and modality which becomes the crucial issue, and Masuoka has indeed repeatedly spent ink on this issue, including revisions of his position (e.g. Masuoka 1987:  9, 1991: 34–36, 1999). Given the obvious fact that many linguistic expressions are neither clearly objective nor subjective he introduced the terms of ‘primary modality’ (ichijiteki modariti) for always subjective expressions and ‘secondary modality’ (nijiteki modariti) for expressions that can be both subjective and objective (Masuoka 1991: 36). For many researchers, however, Masuoka’s definition has only served as a starting point to investigate a number of linguistic categories in Japanese which are saliently associated with some measure of subjectivity. In fact, the scope of modality which is entailed by his generous definition of the category is perfectly in accordance with the scope of ‘predication’ in traditional Japanese linguistics, but goes far beyond what is usually understood as ‘modality’ in most of Western linguistics. Masuoka distinguished nine major types of modality (Masuoka 1991: 47–59): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

modality of communicative attitude (sentence-final particles etc.) modality of politeness expression pattern modality (clausal mood) modality of truth judgment (corresponds to epistemic modality) modality of value judgment (corresponds to deontic modality) modality of explanation (incl. sentential nominalization) modality of tense modality of polarity modality of topic and focus (information structure)

As can be seen from this list, Masuoka’s concept of modality is extraordinarily wide and includes categories such as tense, polarity and information structure which are generally viewed as grammatical categories in their own right. On the other hand, also following the Japanese tradition, but in contrast to at least part of the tradition in Western linguistics, dynamic modality (modality of circumstantial possibility, ability, etc.) is not recognized as modal. Decisive for the concrete range of the concept is that the categories listed here are viewed as ‘subjective’ while others, such as voice, aspect or referent honorifics are viewed as ‘objective’. The study of these categories as the study of modality is therefore a study of their subjectivity.3 3. Masuoka later revised his position and slightly narrowed down the scope of modality. Specifically, in 1999, he shifted to complementation with the noun koto as the dividing line between modality and proposition (Masuoka 1999: 47). This led to the exclusion of at least tense and polarity from the list above.



Modality in Japanese linguistics 

The modality concept of the second scholar of outstanding importance in this field, Yoshio Nitta is based on the same principle of subjectivity, but is somewhat narrower. He defines modality as follows: “Real typical modality is the linguistic expression of the speaker’s psychological attitude towards the verbalized state of affairs or towards the utterance and the communication itself at the time of speech” (Nitta 1989b: 34; cf. also Nitta 1989b: 2, Nitta 2000: 81; emphasis mine). In this definition the same two fundamental elements can be found as with Masuoka, namely first, the notion of modality existing as a major sentence element in opposition to some other sentence elements, and second, the notion of subjectivity. However, the idea of a bi-partition of the sentence is less stressed than it is by Masuoka, since in Nitta’s view modality does not necessarily modify the proposition but can also modify an utterance or something else. As a result, the element of subjectivity becomes even more central. Nitta integrates modality in a layered structure of the clause model, which had become common in Japanese linguistics by the 1970s (cf. 4.3), by dividing the sentence in Japanese into a layer of ‘expressed situation’ (genpyō jitai) and a layer of ‘expressed attitude’ (genpyō taido) (Nitta 1989b, 1991a). The inner ‘expressed situation’ layer comprises the situational core as well as aspect, voice, and tense. The outer ‘attitude’ layer consists of modality and politeness (Nitta 1991a: 18). According to Nitta, a sentence can only be formed when the proposition (expressed situation) is enwrapped in modality (Nitta 2000: 81). That is, modality is seen as an indispensable semantic element of sentence formation. Nitta’s (1989b) two layers by and large correspond to proposition and modality in models such as Masuoka’s. However, Nitta distinguishes fewer sub-categories. In fact, he proposes only two bi-partitions of modality, which do not totally overlap (Nitta 1989b: 2, 34–40). First, a distinction is made between ‘contents-directed modality’ (genpyō jitai meate no modariti) and ‘utterance/communication modality’ (hatsuwa, dentatsu no modariti). The former includes expressions of volition and desire on the one hand, and epistemic modality on the other hand (Nitta 1989b: 41). The latter refers mainly to clausal moods, such as the declarative, imperative etc. (Nitta 1989b: 41). A second distinction is made between ‘true modality’ (shinsei modariti) and ‘pseudo-modality’ (giji modariti). The former can take no past tense, and no negation, and must always be associated with the first person (speaker). This distinction, which corresponds to Masuoka’s ‘primary’ vs. ‘secondary’ modality, is a consequence of the identification of modality with subjectivity. Presumably, past tense, negation, and non-first person signal a distancing from the speaker, and thus non-subjectivity. ‘True modality’ includes linguistic forms such as imperative inflectional endings that are not subject to past etc. marking, while ‘pseudo-modality’ markers include most deontic and boulomaic modal expressions (cf. Nitta 1989b: 34–38).



Modality in Japanese

3.2.2 Other approaches While the approach to modality in terms of subjectivity outlined in the previous subsections is dominating contemporary Japanese linguistics to a large degree, there are a certain number of scholars who have voiced criticism of this approach, and who have come forward with alternatives. In doing so, they have either been inspired by the Japanese linguistic tradition preceding Tokieda, or by European or American linguistics. Onoe is the leading voice among scholars of the former type, citing as his main inspiration the work of the pre-war scholar Yamada (see above). In criticizing modariti theory, he points out that equating modality with subjectivity is highly problematic. First, this use of the term of modality is not compatible with ‘modality’ in general linguistics, and second it is impossible to divide linguistic forms into objective and subjective ones (Onoe 2001: 432, 445, 485). Also, modariti-ron is unable to systematically explain the polysemous behavior of modal markers which may have meanings stretching across different semanto-syntactic layers (ibid. 437f, 483f; Onoe 2004: 51f). In contrast to the main stream concept, Onoe himself defines modality as “the meanings expressed by predicative forms (juttei keishiki) that describe an irrealis state of affairs” (Onoe 2001: 454). Onoe’s definition thus contains two major elements. The first is irrealis meaning, an idea which is, as seen above, not uncommon in general linguistics. Onoe in particular identifies himself with the Cognitive Grammar approach of Langacker, and Langacker indeed also shares the view that modality is defined by irrealis meaning.4 The second element central to Onoe’s definition, the ‘predicative forms’, are peculiar to Onoe’s theory. They refer to socalled auxiliaries (jodōshi) in Japanese school grammar and complex endings (fukugobi) in Yamada’s grammar. According to Onoe, these predicative forms correspond to basic types of predication and express various meanings in correlation to the syntactic position in which they are used. They can be identified with ‘mood’ in the Western sense (cf. Onoe 2001: 439). Thus, Onoe, in a shift back to Yamada’s idea of predication sees the locus of modality within the predicate, of which the auxiliaries and complex endings are a part, instead of modality being wrapped around the proposition like layers of an onion. Nomura (2003) is another scholar who focuses critically on the concept of subjectivity. He rejects the equation “subjectivity=modality” citing that subjectivity is an epistemological and not a grammatical category. Thus, for him maintains that subjectivity and modality are mutually independent categories. Modality is 4. “A modal indicates that the profiled process is not accepted as part of reality.” (Langacker 2003: 12).



Modality in Japanese linguistics

defined as the expression of the relationship between sentence contents and reality (cf. also Nomura 2004). Ōshika (1999, 2004) views modality from the perspective of sentence formation. For him, epistemic modality is at the core of the category, and forms the possibility of interrogation is the most fundamental criterion for the classification of moods. While the scholars named so far show themselves critical of the Tokiedan tradition that has culminated in the dominant concept of modality in modern Japanese linguistics, the opposite approach is also possible, namely pursuing to a conclusion the Tokiedan tradition of equating modality with subjectivity. This approach is exemplified by Senko Maynard who created the term ‘discourse modality’ and defined it as “the speaker’s subjective, emotional, mental or psychological attitude toward the message content, the speech act itself or toward his or her interlocutor in discourse” (Maynard 1993: 38). The core of modality characterized in such a way is constituted by final particles and discourse markers. Maynard’s approach appears to be more consequential and rigorous than the mainstream approach of Masuoka, Nitta and others. While the latter include in their notion of modality both discourse markers and the equivalents of traditional modality as well as other grammatical categories, thus conflating a wide range of categories with various and opaque degrees of subjectivity, Maynard maintains a clear focus on fundamentally subjective and hearer-oriented elements of language. Apart from the scholars in the main stream of Japanese linguistics, and a number of scholars who firmly place themselves in the Japanese tradition but are critical of the current main stream, some scholars inside and outside Japan take a third stance by orienting themselves towards the concept of modality in general linguistics. One such group of scholars is the above-mentioned Linguistic Study Group (Gengogaku Kenkyūkai) centering around Okuda and Suzuki who were strongly influenced by Soviet linguistics. Okuda (1985: 240), for example, in the Soviet tradition defined ‘modus’ as the speaker’s expression of the relationship between sentence contents and reality. According to him, modus is obligatory for every sentence. Their tradition is currently continued primarily by Hiroshi Kudō, who identifies himself less specifically with Soviet linguistics than with traditional European grammar in general (e.g. Kudō 1989, 2005) as well as Mayumi Kudō (e.g. Kudō 2004, 2006), who presents herself as a direct successor to the linguistics of Okuda, but also takes into account recent research in English-language linguistics. Both Kudōs’ stance towards modality is very similar. They both see modality as part of a broader concept of ‘predicativity’ (chinjutsu-sei), which also includes other categories such as temporality. They follow Vinogradov’s concept of modality as “the grammatical expression of the relationship between the sentence contents, reality, and the relationship [of the speaker] to the hearer from the speaker’s point of view”, as adopted by Okuda (cf. Kudō 1989: 14; Kudō 2004: 3, 15). The





Modality in Japanese

central concern in this view of modality is the interface between grammatical form, semantic contents, and communication, which is found most saliently in different sentence types. Therefore, the notion of ‘predication’, in Yamada’s sense of what makes a sentence a sentence, is also highly relevant for their line of research (cf. Kudō 1989: 16f). Unlike the dominant approach to chinjutsu and modariti in the Tokiedan tradition, a broad range of lexical, syntactical and morphological devices are identified with the expression of modality, including ‘objective’ modality (e.g. alethic and deontic modality, as well as emotive expressions) and evidentials. Thus, in a different manner from the main stream approach, the Kudōs also espouse a very broad view of modality, which is characterized first and foremost by its deliberate lack of distinction between grammar and pragmatics. Scholars who define Japanese modality in terms of traditional logically-oriented English linguistics, that is with the axes of necessity and possibility on the one hand, and epistemicity and deonticity on the other hand, include Harada (1999) and Johnson (2003). Johnson also has come up with the notion of ‘degree of modality’ as part of the dimension of epistemic modality. For her, the lower the degree of speaker conviction, the higher the degree of modality. As a consequence, epistemic necessity is regarded as lower in modality than epistemic possibility (Johnson 2003: 105, 116f). However, as has already been mentioned, within Japanese linguistics in Japan, approaches like this, oriented towards the approach to modality in English linguistics, hardly register. The ‘subjectivity’ approach overwhelms the linguistic landscape, especially descriptive linguistics.

The layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories In this chapter we return to general linguistics with the question of hierarchical clause structure. In functional linguistics, the most powerful model of hierarchical relations between categories in the clause has been formulated in terms of the ‘layered structure of the clause’ (Section 4.1). In generative grammar, the idea of hierarchical relations is at the very core of syntax. Within generative models, the most interesting approach with respect to this study is syntactic cartography with its cross-linguistic empirical orientation and its claim of universality for a highly differentiated hierarchy of functional categories (Section 4.2). Section 4.3 shows that long before the idea of clause ‘levels’ or ‘layers’ took hold in functional linguistics, Japanese linguistics had already developed fairly elaborate models of semanto-syntactic layers, although without any claim to cross-linguistic validity. 4.1 Semanto-syntactic layers in functional linguistics 4.1.1 The layered structure of the clause in RRG1 In Role-and-Reference Grammar, it is assumed that there is a layered structure of the clause (LSC) which reflects universal distinctions made by every language. A ‘clause’ consists of ‘core’ and ‘periphery’. The core includes a predicate and its arguments; non-arguments (adjuncts) constitute the periphery. The predicate itself is called the ‘nucleus’ (Van Valin & LaPolla 1997: 25–27). While predicates, arguments and non-arguments are ‘constituents’ of the clause, a clause can also contain markers of functional categories, so-called ‘operators’. Operators form a separate but parallel structure to the constituents. They “are not constituents of the layer, but are operators over the entire layer” (Foley & Van Valin 1984: 208). Aspect, for example, operates on the nucleus, and tense on the clause (cf. Van Valin & LaPolla 1997: 40–47). 1. ‘Layered Structure of the Clause’ (LSC) is an RRG term. In FG either the same term (cf. Anstey 2002) or the term ‘underlying clause structure’ (UCS; e.g. C. Butler 2003: 70) have been used to designate a very similar concept. As a matter of convenience I will use the same term here for the related concepts in both theories.



Modality in Japanese CLAUSE CORE NUCLEUS

PERIPHERY

Figure 3.  Layered structure of the clause in RRG (Van Valin & LaPolla 1997: 26)

In (25), the hierarchical scope order of operators as proposed by Van Valin and LaPolla (1997: 47) is displayed. For reasons of space, it is given here in a linear notation. The operator to the left is expected to have scope over the operator to the right, as indicated by the symbol “⊃”: (25) Illocutionary force ⊃ Evidentials ⊃ Tense ⊃ Status [including epistemic modality] ⊃ Negation (internal) ⊃ Modality [root modality] ⊃ Directionals ⊃ Negation (nucleus) ⊃ Aspect This layering is assumed to be universal, and this is reflected in the surface morphosyntactic structure of languages. Specifically, layering is thought to be reflected both in constituent structure and in morphosyntactic properties of the operators. With respect to the latter, layering can manifest itself mainly in two areas. The first is clause combination. Clausal units at a low level of juncture (that is, with a high degree of integration into the matrix clause) may share arguments and may depend on a matrix (or higher level) clause with respect to modification by operators.2 For example, the English to-infinitives such as those occurring with the verbs order to or try to, which are considered as core level junctures (cf. Van Valin & LaPolla 1997: 444, 455), depend on the matrix clause for tense marking. The other, cross-linguistically even more salient way layering manifests itself is the sequential order of operators with respect to each other and with respect to the predicate. Thus, “operators virtually always occur in the same linear sequence with respect to the predicating element. When an ordering relationship can be established among operators, they are always ordered in the same way cross-linguistically, such that their linear order reflects their scope … [The] ordering [of operators] follows universal principles” (Van Valin & LaPolla 1997: 49, 52).

2. RRG claims that it is only a certain type of ‘nexus’ where operator dependence occurs, namely ‘cosubordination’ (cf. Van Valin 1990: 216).



The layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories 

4.1.2 The layered structure of the clause in FG The principles of layering in the standard model of Functional Grammar (Dik 1997a, b) are very similar to those in RRG. In fact, the introduction of a LSC into FG was inspired by RRG.3 The central layers of ‘predication’, ‘proposition’ and ‘clause’ (Hengeveld 1989: 132) in FG correspond to core, clause, and sentence in RRG.4 The figure below shows the standard version of the layered structure of the clause in FG. The Greek letter π indicates grammatical ‘operators’ (‘form’ elements, such as suffixes and auxiliary verbs), and the letter σ indicates lexical ‘satellites’ (adverbs and other adjuncts) operating on each layer. I will forego here any detailed description of the contents of this figure and only interpret it with respect to RRG and the issue of layering. As in RRG, an operator at a higher level will have everything below it in its scope (Dik 1997a: 54, 381). However, while in RRG the LSC directly reflects syntactic structure, the FG LSC is semantic in nature, an ‘abstract underlying clause structure, which is mapped onto the actual form of the corresponding linguistic expression by a system of expression rules’ (Dik 1997a: 49). It is claimed, then, that there is a preferred order for the expression of operators (grammatical/functional categories) which iconically reflects their hierarchical relationship. This order is built centrifugally on the predicate, operators which are narrower in scope being placed closer to the predicate (Dik 1997a: 362, 381–382). RRG and FG employ partly different metaphors for layering. While in the RRG model one speaks of ‘inner’ layers and ‘outer’ layers of the clause (cf. Foley and Van Valin 1984: 216–220), the FG model has an up-down orientation with ‘higher’ vs. ‘lower’ layers (similar to higher vs. lower levels in formal tree structures).5 We will regard here ‘outer’ as equivalent to ‘higher’ and ‘inner’ as 3. The idea of layering was introduced into FG from RRG (Foley and Van Valin 1984) through Hengeveld in the late 1980s (Hengeveld 1987, 1989). Within RRG, it was originally developed through research on Barai, a Papuan language (cf. Foley and Van Valin 1984:  77; Van Valin 1990: 194). In a language such as English without agglutinative structure, evidence for layering is harder to come by. Furthermore, there has been some influence of the concept of the three metafunctions (ideational, interpersonal, and textual) in Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar on FG (C. Butler 1996: 1; 2003: 196), although the concept in Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar, and the concepts in FG and RRG are quite different. 4. The standard FG model differentiates the predication layer by nuclear, core, and extended predication (Dik 1997a: 50). Here it is not the predicate itself but the nuclear predication which is viewed as the first layer (Dik 1997a: 51). 5. Siewierska (1992) compares hierarchical structure in FG and in GB, and points out farreaching correspondences. A major difference is that the hierarchy in FG is semantically based, but in GB, as in RRG, syntactically motivated. Furthermore, the distinctions of levels in GB are considerably subtler than those in FG.



Modality in Japanese Clause “speech act”

π4

[Proposition] “possible fact”

σ4

π3

[Extended Predication] “located, qualified state of affairs”

σ3

π2

[Core Predication] “qualified state of affairs”

σ2

π1

[Nuclear Predication] “state of affairs”

σ1

Predicate “property” “relation”

Argument(s)

Term(s) “entities”

Figure 4.  Layered structure of the clause in FG

equivalent to ‘lower’. Furthermore, while in RRG the term ‘layer’ is used consequently, in FG the term ‘level’ can sometimes be found in equivalent usage (cf. e.g. C. Butler 2003: 73–83). We will prefer to use the term ‘layer’ here as the technical term when referring to functional syntax theories and use ‘level’ more broadly when speaking of hierarchical structure in syntax regardless of the theoretical framework. 4.2 Cartography of syntactic structures It goes without saying that the idea of hierarchical clause structure has been the staple of generative linguistics. The generative research that this study relates to directly is the ‘cartography of syntactic structures’ approach by Cinque and collaborators (Cinque 1999, 2001, 2006; Ricci 2004). The parallels to research in FG and RRG are striking, since in all approaches a universally valid hierarchy of



The layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories 

grammatical categories is posited.6 Cinque claims that “… the same number, type and order (hierarchy) of functional projections holds across languages and clause types …” (Cinque 1999: vi). He thus argues for a rigid hierarchy of functional projections inUniversal Grammar Also, as in RRG and FG, but unlike some other generative models, modality is split up into multiple positions. However, there are also some salient differences to RRG, for example when Cinque claims that the “same, rich hierarchy of functional projections … is present in all languages, and in every sentence of each language, even when no morphological material overtly realizes the corresponding head or specifier” (Cinque 1999: 141), an assumption that is alien to functional approaches such as RRG. The concrete position of modal categories in the FG, RRG and syntactic cartography model will be discussed in Chapter 5. 4.3 The layered structure of the clause in Japanese Linguistics 4.3.1 Previous research While the layered structure of the clause is a relatively new topic in Western functional linguistics, there has been an extensive literature on layering in Japanese for more than 40 years, going at least back to Hayashi (1960). The apparent reason is that Japanese reveals its semantic scope structure on its morphosyntactic surface fairly transparently. This is due to its consequential head-final behavior, agglutinative character, and the fact that the order of elements largely reflects semantic scope. One can say that Japanese has a language structure which is conducive to the study of concepts like scope hierarchies and layering. The development of theories of layered structure of the clause in Japanese linguistics is intricately related to the predication theory discussed in Chapter 3. Japanese linguists sought to distinguish elements of the sentence that are ‘predicative’ from those that are not, and, relatedly, ‘subjective’ from ‘non-subjective’ elements. It was soon noticed that between these types of sentence elements, there hold regularities in linear ordering, namely that the predicative or subjective elements follow the non-predicative, non-subjective ones (cf. Yamada 1936: 1028–1029, Kindaichi 1953). Watanabe (1953) made more refined observations on the ordering of grammatical markers in the verbal complex, distinguishing three types of ‘auxiliaries’ corresponding to their position in an abstract template of the verbal predicate. Haga (1954) made even finer distinctions on the verb- (and sentence-) final morphological markers, differentiating between speaker-centered epistemic 6. In fact, Cinque himself points out the parallelism (Cinque 2001: 47).



Modality in Japanese

markers and hearer-oriented (intersubjective) markers, noticing an ordering relationship between them, since the speaker-centered markers always precede the hearer-oriented ones. Building on such research within the framework of predication theory, Hayashi (1960) was the first Japanese linguist to explicitly formulate a theory of layers, positing four layers of predication. These were description (sobyō dankai), containing the predicate only; judgment (handan dankai), containing negation, tense and certain modalities; expression (hyōshutsu dankai), containing emotive expressions; and communication (dentatsu dankai), containing expressions of mood and illocutionary force (Hayashi 1960: 42f). The evidence for this layering, as indicated above, however, was limited to the verbal complex. Nevertheless, Hayashi proceeded to equate the structure found in the verbal complex with sentence structure, even reaching out into discourse structure (Hayashi 1960: 119f). This is not unjustified, since not only all of the functional categories pertaining to the verb, but also virtually all categories pertaining to the clause are expressed in the form of suffixes or periphrastic constructions in the verbal complex. The standard version of layering theory in Japanese linguistics, then, can be found in the work of Fujio Minami, who in his consecutive studies (Minami 1964, 1974, 1993 et al.) developed a much more elaborate theory of LSC. This theory, similar to Hayashi (1960), also posits four layers, called description (sobyō), judgment (handan), presentation (teishutsu), and expression (hyōshutsu) or simply A, B, C, and D (Minami 1993: 45, 54). The new element brought into play by Minami is that he based his theory not only on evidence from the order of meaningful elements in the verbal complex, but also, and even primarily, on evidence from clause combination. Minami investigated various types of (mainly) adverbial subordinate clauses and classified them according to what elements of the predicate, and what elements outside the predicate can occur in them. The ‘lowest’ (most dependent) class of adverbial clauses in terms of layering, class A, for example, cannot contain any temporal or modal markers on the predicate, and, within the clause, cannot contain a topic or a subject. The ‘highest’ (most independent) class of clauses, in contrast, can contain all these elements. Class B clauses can contain some elements but not others. The observations on classes of subordinate clauses then form the basis for a layered structure of the clause. Elements of the clause that can occur in class A subordinate clauses belong to layer A, elements of the clause that can occur in class B subordinate clauses belong to layer B etc. Finally, there are elements of the clause that cannot occur in any subordinate clause at all. They form the basis for the highest layer, layer D. The following is a list of elements that according to Minami (1993: 52–56, 96f) are part of each layer.



The layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories 

Table 1.  Elements of layers of the clause, according to Minami (1993) Layer

elements inside the predicate

A

B C D

outside the predicate inside the predicate outside the predicate inside the predicate outside the predicate inside the predicate outside the predicate

causative and passive voice; referent honorifics; benefactive constructions dative, accusative and other non-subject arguments; adverbs of state and of degree negative -(a)nai, addressee honorific -masu, past tense -Ta subject, locative and temporal adjuncts; evaluative adverbs modal markers daroo, -(y)oo topic wa, epistemic adverbs tabun, masaka final particles na, ne, yo terms of address (vocatives)

Other scholars expanded the work Hayashi did in the verbal complex in different directions. Saji (1977, 1989) explored the elements of the verbal complex and their order in even more detail. He interestingly posited overlaps in layering between specific elements (cf. Saji 1977: 343), in contrast to most other scholars, who assume a neat layering with discrete categories and layers. He represented his layered structure of the predicate in an onion shape as in the figure below (cf. Saji 1977: 356). The onion shape suggests that each higher layer encompasses the elements of the lower layer. This onion-shaped layered structure of the predicate simultaneously corresponds to the layered structure of the clause.

a

b(i)

b(ii)

c

d

e

(a)material describing a state-of-affairs (b)(i) judgment about realization of state of affairs (incl. polarity, tense) (b)(ii) judgment about (b)(i) (incl. tense, evidential modal markers) (c) judgment about (a) and (b) in communication (incl. epistemic modal markers) (d) judgment about (a), (b), and (c) towards the hearer (incl. interrogative marking) (e) approach to the hearer (incl. final particles)

Figure 5.  Semanto-syntactic layering of the predicate, according to Saji (1977)



Modality in Japanese

Saji later revised his layering. On the one hand, he reduced the number of layers to four in accordance with the dominating Minami model (Saji 1989: 181), but at the same time he split each of the four layers into two sub-layers (ibid. p. 133), thus putting forward a more detailed analysis. For Saji (1977), the biggest break in the layering was between (a – d) on the one hand, and (e) on the other hand. The former layers he labeled as the ‘predicative parts’ (jojutsu bubun) and the latter as the ‘communicative part’ (dentatsu bubun) (Saji 1977: 356). Sakakura (1966) and Kitahara (1979 (1970), 1981) gave consideration to word order within the non-predicational sentence elements and their correlation to elements of the predicate. In the case of Kitahara, this was based on empirical word order data provided in studies by Saeki (1960) and Miyajima (1962). Although word order in Japanese, except for the sentence-final predicate, is highly flexible, there are some strong preferences in the ordering of arguments and adjuncts. Saeki, analyzing written literary discourse, came to the following conclusion about basic word order between arguments and adjuncts in Japanese (recall that Japanese is strictly head-final): (26) Time – place – nominative – ablative – allative/dative – accusative (cf. Saeki 1960: 59–61) This basic word order can be overridden by other factors, such as the heaviness of constituents or idiomatic bonding with the predicate (cf. Saeki 1960: 61–63). Miyajima, based on a similar material base as Saeki, largely confirmed the word order tendencies stated in (26), while also providing an in-depth statistical analysis. His rough order of sentence constituents before the predicate has the following shape: (27) Time > place > (Miyajima 1962: 8)

subject

>

circumstances/object

>

result

The location of allative and dative functions is not so clear in Miyajima’s calculations because he distinguishes a large number of allative and dative functions. Now, if the ordering of elements in the verbal complex is combined with the ordering of elements outside the verbal complex, the result can be represented as an onion-like structure of the clause, which has labels and elements extending in both horizontal directions, and peripheral elements encircling the core of the clause. Horizontal extension reflects linear order in the Japanese sentence. The proposed structure below is from Sakakura (1966: 156). We find the morphological categories of the verb complex to the right of the core, and the other categories to the left. The categories depicted in this model shall not be explained in any detail here, but it is clear that, with respect to the



The layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories 

auxiliaries & particles

endings II

attributes (arguments) lexical stem

endings I

manner adverbs predicative adverbs evaluative words topic

conjunction

Figure 6.  Layering in Sakakura’s (1966) model7

categories of the verb, we are dealing with morphological categories and not semantically defined grammatical categories. As an alternative to the onion-shaped model of layers within the clause, one can prefer a linear representation with dependency and agreement relationships between elements inside and outside the verbal complex, as in Kitahara (1981: 149) (Figure 7). Note that for technical and expository reasons, I have represented the elements to the right of the verb with category labels (CAU for ‘causative’ etc.), even though Kitahara only shows concrete morphemes (-(s)ase- for causative, -(a)nafor negation, -Ta for tense, and daroo for epistemic modality). The correspondences of elements on the left of the verb to elements on the right of the verb are as follows. The direct object depends on verb valency, with the causee argument depending on the morphological causative ending to the right. The ‘causee’ may also stand more generally for a dative argument and the ‘object’ more generally for an accusative argument (cf. Kitahara 1979: 51). Furthermore, in Kitahara’s view, the subject position corresponds to negation. On the periphery, temporal adverbs correspond to verbal tense marking and sentential adverbs, including epistemic adverbs, correspond to epistemic marking in the verbal complex.

sent. adverb temp. adv. subject causee

object verb (tr.) +CAU +NEG +TNS +EPI

Figure 7.  Layering together with dependency and agreement relationships according to Kitahara (1981)

7. Note that for technical reasons, the orientation of the figure has been shifted from vertical to horizontal, and the location and orientation of the category labels had to be changed as well.



Modality in Japanese

communicative mood

judgmental mood

tense

polarity

aspect

voice

case / inflecting word

Figure 8.  Semanto-syntactic layering of the Japanese clause according to Nitta (1984)

The layered structure of the clause models which sprang up and evolved from the 1960s to the early 1980s, including those by Minami and Kitahara, were mainly concerned with morphological categories and individual markers. In the 1980s a shift took place as the idea of grammatical (semanto-syntactic) categories such as tense, aspect, voice, and modality, gained ground in Japanese linguistics. The most prominent figures in this new development were the aforementioned Nitta and Masuoka. Nitta was the first to switch to grammatical categories and presented the following map of layered clause structure in Japanese (Nitta 1984: 128): This layering, unlike those by Hayashi or Minami does not posit abstract semanto-syntactic layers each of which contains a variety of elements, but a layering purely based on grammatical categories. It is assumed that grammatical categories of the predicate, notwithstanding variation in their formal expression, form a neat hierarchy, a hierarchy that can more or less be read off from the linear word order. After some hesitation on how to integrate politeness into this structure (Nitta 1989a), and after shifting the terminology from ‘mood’ to ‘modality’, Nitta later slightly revised his layering and represented it in linear form as in (28): (28) [[[[[[voice] aspect] polarity] tense] event modality] communicative modality/politeness] (Nitta 1997: 142) The layering proposed by Masuoka (1991: 44), shown in Figure 9 below, likewise builds on grammatical categories, but at the same time tries to integrate dependency and agreement relationships: Masuoka’s structural tree shows the presumptive layering of grammatical categories to the right and implies, though does not name, corresponding elements on the left sentence periphery. As was explained in Chapter 3, Masuoka espouses a bipartite structure of the clause in which he views everything outside the ‘proposition’ as ‘modality’, including other categories such as tense and polarity. Therefore, all categories to the right of the ‘proposition’ are labeled as ‘modality’.



The layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories 

sentence/clause

Modality of communicative attitude Modality of politeness

Expression pattern modality

Modality of truth judgment Modality of value judgment Modality of explanation

Modality of tense

Modality of polarity

Modality of topic and focus

proposition

Figure 9.  Layering of the Japanese clause according to Masuoka (1991)

Inspired by Nitta and Masuoka, other scholars presented similar layerings. They are rendered here in linear form irrespective of the original manner of presentation. (29) [[[[[[voice] aspect] polarity] tense] politeness] contents-oriented modality] modality of speech attitude] (Kaneko 1996: 102) (30) [Voice – aspect – politeness – polarity]A politeness [tense – politeness – indefinite modality] B modality of approach (A = judgment; B = validation) (Saeki 1998: 17) It is apparent that the differences between layerings of categories that have been proposed are minor in nature. In principle, they only concern the position of ‘politeness’, which in Saeki’s layering even appears three times. This problem will be taken up again in the next subsection. Gunji (2002), based on an observation by Takubo (1987), who suggested a split within the A layer between event-labeling (A1) and processual (unaccusative) events (A2), attempted a new representation of Minami’s layered model in a style that both refers to semanto-syntactic grammatical categories beyond the individual means of expression and at the same time draws attention to the affinities of layering in traditional and functional linguistics with functional category hierarchies in generative grammar (Gunji 2002: 154):



Modality in Japanese D [communication]

C [judgment]

final particles

topic

C [judgment]

B [state-of-affairs]

action subject

modal

B [state-of-affairs]

A2 [process, state] unaccusative subject

tense

A1 [action] (object)

verb

Figure 10.  Minami’s (1974) model, as revised by Takubo (1987) and reconceptualized by Gunji (2002)

Gunji comments that “...one can think of process, state as a projection of the verb, state-of-affairs as a projection of tense, judgment as a projection of modal auxiliaries, and communication as a projection of the final particles”. Furthermore, according to him, the unaccusative subject is originally located in the ‘(object)’ slot but later moved to the specifier position of the verb, where it is shown in Figure 10 above. In summary, layered structure of the clause has been a long-standing research issue in Japanese linguistics, fostered by a relatively transparent surface structure that is conducive to the pursuit of the topic. The most common and representative of the layered structure of clause models that have evolved in Japan is the one by Minami (1974, 1993), who posits four layers, largely following Hayashi (1960). It is quite remarkable that linguists such as Hayashi and Minami working on Japanese on the one hand, and Van Valin and associates working cross-linguistically, but inspired by the grammar of Papuan languages have come to the same conclusion



The layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories 

with respect to the number of layers in spite of having developed their theories unbeknownst each other,.8 It should noted that most models, e.g. Hayashi (1960), Minami (1974, 1993), Saji (1977), and Kitahara (1981), were concerned solely with assigning individual markers to specific layers, and not with grammatical (or functional) categories as a whole. This is consistent with the tradition in Japanese linguistics, from which the concept of grammatical categories such as tense, aspect and modality was virtually absent until rather recently. Since the 1980s, however, layerings based on grammatical categories have been attempted (e.g. Nitta 1984, 1997; Masuoka 1991), and, finally, abstract hierarchies integrating the concept of grammatical categories have also been proposed (e.g. Gunji 2002). 4.3.2 Morpheme order and scope in Japanese It is widely recognized that the order of operators in Japanese, particularly those operators that occur in the verb phrase generally reflects their semantic scope. Morpheme order and scope in Modern Japanese seem to bear out nicely Van Valin and LaPolla’s predictions. Recall the layering by Nitta (previous section), who represented Japanese clause structure as a layering of the following categories: (31) [[[[[[voice] aspect] polarity] tense] event modality] communicative modality/politeness] (Nitta 1997: 142)9 This sequence of grammatical (functional) categories can be exemplified by the following sentence:10 (32) Taroo-ga mina-ni home-rare.te i-na-kat-ta-daroo-ne. (name)-nom everybody-dat praise-ger be-neg-vrb-pst-epi-illf ‘Taroo was probably not praised by everybody’

8. Takubo (1987), however, suggested splitting the A layer into two, similar to newer models of FG which make even three distinctions within the predication layer. It deserves mentioning here that in FG as well, several proposals have been made to change the number of layers, mostly in the direction of an increase by one or two (cf. C. Butler 2003: 91). 9. Nitta labels epistemic modality as ‘judgmental mood’ (handan no muudo) and illocutionary force as ‘communicative mood’ (dentatsu no muudo). Referent honorification, politeness, and root modality are for unknown reasons not represented in this template. 10. In the glosses, one-morpheme modal markers are simply glossed by their modal category (e.g., epi, evi), multi-morpheme modal markers are as a rule split up into the morphemes they consist of and are glossed for the meaning of those morphemes.



Modality in Japanese

The scopal relations between the morphemes in this sentence are shown in (33). (33) [[[[[[[Taroo-ga mina-ni home-]rare-]te i-]na-]kat-ta]-daroo]ne] In terms of grammatical categories, this can be represented as in (34). (34) [[[[[[[(verb)]passive]stative aspect]negation]past tense]epistemic modality]illocutionary force modulation] The order of meaningful elements in the verbal complex home-rare-te i-na-kat-tadaroo-ne is in complete accordance with semantic scope. Order and scope are also in complete accordance with the hypotheses presented in the RRG model (see Section 4.1.1 above).11 There is one major exception to the neat correspondence between morphosyntax and semantics that Nitta noted later: in Modern Japanese, morphologically-marked politeness is always placed before tense (e.g. -masi.ta POL+PST), and sometimes even before negation (e.g. -mas-en POL+NEG). Saeki (1998: 17), as in (30) above, even posits three positions for politeness: between aspect and negation, between negation and tense, and between tense and modality. Examples are given here for each order of elements: (35)

aspect-politeness-negation: si-te i-mas-en. do-ger be-pol-neg ‘[(S)he] is not doing it.’

(36)

negation-politeness-tense: si-na-i-des.u. do-neg-pol-nps ‘[(S)he] doesn’t do it.’

(37)

tense-politeness-modality: si-ta-des-yoo. do-pst-pol-epi ‘[(S)he] has probably done it.’

As Nitta observes, if a negative marker follows a politeness marker as in (35), the politeness as such is not negated at all (Nitta 1989a: 48). The same holds for tense (36). The politeness is not located in the past. Nor is some epistemic judgment made about politeness in (37). These orderings, therefore, are not iconic. 11. Contrary to the fact that epistemic modality has scope over tense in the present example, Van Valin & LaPolla (1997: 47) have Tense ⊃ Status, although they concede that there is crosslinguistic variation in the ordering and scope relationship between these two categories (Van Valin & LaPolla 1997: 46, 51).



The layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories 

This is the only blatant violation of morpheme order reflecting semantic scope, and the immediate causes are probably historical. As is well-known, suffixes are usually derived from independent words, and the two verbal politeness markers of Modern Japanese, -masu and desu, are comparatively new formations. The suffix -masu has been in use since about the 17th century and the particle verb desu is even newer, coming into use at the end of the 19th century (Narrog 1999a: 126, 142). They are thus newer than any other suffixes in the Japanese paradigm of verb inflection and derivation. When they were still independent words they naturally had negation and tense markers following their stem. As Mithun (2000:  231–232) notes, morpheme order is the product of often time-consuming historical processes. It can thus be expected that in the centuries to come -masu and desu will move further to the outside of the verb phrase, to a slot that reflects their scope better.12 A potential synchronic account for the “misplacement” of politeness markers, claimed, for example by Shinzato (2007: 195), holds that -masu and desu may not be honorific markers but style markers (similarly Maynard 2001, although Maynard is not concerned with semanto-syntactic issues, only with discourse). However, the conceptualization of politeness markers as style markers as such does not solve the problem of non-iconic word order, since if politeness has scope over clausal categories such as tense or negation, then style certainly has, too. The explanation that I suggest here is that politeness simply interacts semantically neither with tense, modality nor negation, etc. For example, politeness itself can neither be marked as a thing of the past nor can the concept of past itself be conceptualized as polite or impolite. Politeness always refers to the utterance as a whole, regardless of its temporal location. That is, wherever politeness is put, there is no possibility of scope ambiguity or misinterpretation, because the interpretation does not and cannot change. In contrast, differences in mutual placement between tense, modality, negation etc. lead to different interpretations. In other words, it simply does not matter to any great extent for the cognitive processing and communicative function of language where politeness markers are placed. More subtle exceptions to layering, which have been noticed in the literature only more recently, concern negation, tense and modality. They will be discussed in more detail at the relevant points in the data study (16.2 for negation; 16.5 for tense). They do not threaten the general concept of the study, as it is possible to 12. Fukushima & Uehara (2003) investigated the difference between the negative polite forms -mas-en (pol+neg) and -(a)nai-desu (neg+pol) diachronically within Modern Japanese. With respect to the problem of layering and scope discussed in the present paper, the latter conforms to the expected morpheme order, as politeness follows negation, but the former contradicts it as negation follows politeness. The authors claimed that the latter (i.e., more iconic) form (1) has been used more frequently recently, and (2) is being used in particular more frequently in conversation. However, their study is based only on a very small database and has a preliminary character.



Modality in Japanese

identify them. Moreover, with the exception of the politeness marker -masu, excluded from the study, there is no systematic scope reversal with any category, i.e., there is always at least the possibility that the markers have the scope relationship that is indicated by their order in the surface structure.

Modality in theories of the layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories It has long been recognized that there are at least two types of modality which are not only semantically but probably also syntactically distinct, namely epistemic modality on one hand, and root, agent-oriented or deontic modality on the other (cf. e.g. Palmer 1986: 18f). The question whether and in what manner they differ syntactically has drawn the attention of scholars in the generative tradition since the 1960s, as succinctly reviewed in Barbiers (2002). Recently, as knowledge of non-Indo-European languages is increasingly making an impact on linguistic theory, a third modal category has gained wide recognition, namely evidentiality. However, there is little agreement yet on how to integrate evidentiality into the system. While some scholars view evidential and epistemic modality as two subtypes of essentially the same kind of modality (e.g. Palmer 2001: 8), others view it as a distinct type of completely independent modality (e.g. Nuyts 2001a: 27). This chapter discusses how different types of modality, including evidentiality, are located in the hierarchical clause structure in different theories. 5.1 Modality and layers of the clause (RRG, FG) Functional theories that make use of layering theory are a relatively recent development, but since their rise in the 1980s they have been concerned with the differences between different modal categories.1 Different types of modal operators are assigned to different layers of the clause. However, there is no consensus on where to exactly locate them. Thus, as mentioned in 4.1.1, Van Valin and LaPolla assign root modality (‘modality’) to the modification of the ‘core’ layer, and epistemic modality (‘status’2) and evidentiality (‘evidentials’) to the ‘clause’ layer, that is a higher (or ‘outer’) layer. In the sequence of operators in the clause layer, evidentiality is 1.

See Foley & Van Valin (1984: 213–224); Hengeveld 1987.

2. Status also includes categories such as external negation and irrealis vs. irrealis besides epistemic modality (Van Valin and LaPolla 1997: 41).



Modality in Japanese

depicted as following epistemic modality, indicating that it is regarded as somewhat higher in the hierarchy (cf. Van Valin and LaPolla 1997: 49). Indeed, Van Valin and LaPolla state that they view evidentials as ‘utterance modifiers’, in contrast to epistemic modality, which they see as a ‘propositional modifier’ (Van Valin and LaPolla 1997: 51). Accordingly, while they acknowledge in principle the possibility of ‘some variation in ordering within a given layer’ (Van Valin and LaPolla 1997: 49), no variation is expected between epistemics and evidentials. Variation across layers, e.g. between root modality on the one hand and epistemic modality and evidentials on the other, is categorically excluded (Van Valin and LaPolla 1997: 51). In FG, so-called ‘objective’ modality, comprising both root and epistemic notions qualifies the ‘nuclear predication’ while ‘subjective’ modality and evidentiality qualify the ‘extended predication’ (Hengeveld 1989: 137f). Differentiating even further, Dik (1997a: 241–242, 296) defines ‘inherent’ modality as comprising notions such as willingness, ability, obligation and permission as an operator on the level of nuclear predication (modifying the ‘predicate’). ‘Objective’ modality, expressing the speaker’s evaluation of the likelihood of occurrence of a state of affairs is an operator on the ‘core predication’, and ‘subjective epistemic’ and ‘volitive’ (wishing, hoping) modality and evidentiality are operators on the ‘extended predication’, thus forming the ‘proposition’ level. Table 2 contrasts the claims of RRG and FG. Operators are shown in the layer which they ‘modify’ (RRG) or ‘qualify’ (FG), thus forming the next layer of the clause structure. Table 2.  Different types of modality on different layers in RRG and FG RRG Layer

Category

FG Category

sentence clause

Layer clause (level 4)

illocutionary force evidentials

illocutionary operators

proposition (level 3)

epistemic modality (included in ‘status’) root modality (‘modality’) core

nucleus predicate

epistemic and volitional extended predication subjective modality, (level 2) evidential modality epistemic objective modality, deontic objective modality

core predication (level 1)

inherent modality

nuclear predication predicate

Modality in theories of the layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories 

Table 2 shows that FG offers more differentiation, splitting both epistemic and root modality into two levels. RRG on the other hand claims a distinction in the scope of epistemic and evidentials that is not claimed by the standard FG model. The FG model is thus more flexible overall in accommodating for different types of modality in different positions in the layering, whereas RRG posits a more rigid hierarchy. In addition, Nuyts (2002, 2005), pursuing an independent cognitivist approach inspired by FG and RRG has suggested the semantic hierarchy of ‘major categories’ presented in Figure 11 (Nuyts 2002: 440; 2005: 73). Nuyts’ model shares a mutual ranking of modal categories with the RRG model. ‘Time’ is surprisingly ranked lower than any modal category mentioned in the hierarchy. An internal differentiation within aspect is shared with FG. Since this hierarchy differs from both the FG and the RRG models, it can be regarded as a third functionalist hypothesis about the hierarchy of categories. 5.2 The place of modal categories in syntactic cartography Cinque (1999, 2006) offers more detail than either the FG standard model or the RRG model. His often cited 1999 hierarchy of clausal functional projections, if reduced to the modal categories alone, reads as: [Moodevidential [Modepistemic [Moodirrealis [Modnecessity [Modpossibility [Modvolitional]]]]]] (Cinque 1999: 106). Figure 12 is a tree structure diagram of his revised hierarchy as presented in Cinque (2001: 47–48) and Cinque (2006: 175–176). Because of the large number of categories it is technically impossible to include all of them in this diagram. Instead, those modal categories not dealt with in this study on Japanese are excluded, while those that are part of the empirical data study are preserved. A dotted line indicates that one or more intermediate categories were skipped. > evidentiality > epistemic modality > deontic modality > time > quantificational aspect (frequency) > qualificational aspect (internal temporal constituency) >

(parts of the) STATE OF AFFAIRS

Figure 11.  Semantic hierarchy of major categories according to Nuyts (2002, 2005)



Modality in Japanese MoodPspeech act MoodPevidential ModPepistemic TPpast ModPalethic ModPvolition AspPprogressive ModPobligation ModPability AspPcompletive(I)

Figure 12.  Cinque’s (2006) hierarchy of clausal functional projections

It is crucial for Cinque’s theory that one grammatical item with a specific meaning can in principle only occupy one slot in the hierarchy. With respect to potential counterexamples, Cinque notes that “[f]unctional heads are rigidly fixed, though one and the same morpheme, by filling different heads (with concomitantly different function) may give the impression of changing places” (2006: 183). That is, if one grammatical morpheme indeed occurs in different positions in the hierarchy, different functions must be assumed for these morphemes. In principle, it should be possible to divide this hierarchy of positions into layers (“shells” in generative grammar), such as a VP-shell or an IP-shell, but this is not proposed by Cinque. Glaringly absent from the hierarchy is negation. The reason for this is “the existence of many potential positions for negation within the universal hierarchy” (Cinque 2006: 171). The introduction of all potential positions for negations apparently would considerably complicate the hierarchy. Also, nominalization and complementization, treated in this volume, are absent. That they interact intimately with modality may be a peculiarity of Japanese as compared to Indo-European languages. 5.3 Evidence for layers and functional hierarchies We turn now to evidence for the proposed hierarchies. Until very recently, systematic evidence for the placement of specific modalities with respect to each other has not been made available either in RRG or in the standard version of FG. In-

Modality in theories of the layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories 

stead, only sporadic examples have been cited. Thus, for FG, Dik gives the following example from Turkish, where the order and scope of two modal operators on one predicate confirm the assumptions made by the model:3 (38) Gel-me-meli-ymiş-siniz come-neg-necess-infer-2pl ‘It seems (inferential) you ought (objective deontic) not to come’ (Dik 1997a: 296) Here, the subjective (inferential) modality takes the objective (deontic) modality in its scope. Further, he inferential marker is further from the predicate ‘come’ than the objective deontic, thus supporting FG’s claims with respect to layering/ scope and morpheme order. Evidence for Cinque’s hierarchy is more systematic. It comes from Italian adverbs (Cinque 1999; Chapter 1) and is further backed up with fragmentary evidence from adverb, suffix and auxiliary order from a large number of languages. However, the systematicity and validity of this type of evidence has also been questioned. Manninen (2005:  454–455) has pointed out that Cinque (1999) only presents evidence that supports his ordering but makes no rigorous effort to find reverse and counter-directional orderings. Within functional frameworks, Nuyts (2004) was probably the first study that undertook the task of systematically testing the scopal relationships of modal markers from different categories (deontic, epistemic, evidential) in a single language empirically on a corpus. Nuyts looked for co-occurrences of markers (adverbs, adjectives, auxiliaries, verbs, idioms) of different modalities in the same clause in two databases, one of which is the Corpus of Spoken Dutch (Corpus Gesproken Nederlands). He tested for the combination of deontic with epistemic, epistemic with evidential, and deontic with evidential. Overall, as the author admits himself, the number of co-occurrences, particularly those involving evidentiality, is extremely low, apparently due to the database limitations. Nevertheless, the results show that when deontic co-occur with epistemic or evidential markers, the deontic marker is always used ‘descriptively’ (i.e. is lower in scope/layering), while the other marker is used ‘performatively’ (i.e. is higher in scope/layering) (cf. Nuyts 2004:  50, 71). When epistemic and evidential markers co-occur no such clear tendency can be identified. Examples can be found in both directions, markers of each type assuming the role of the performative marker and the descriptive marker alternately (Nuyts 2004: 63–64). Nevertheless, on the basis of purely conceptual considerations Nuyts tentatively concludes that evidentiality outranks

3.

necess, deontic necessity; infer, inference; 2pl, second person plural.



Modality in Japanese

epistemic modality in the hierarchy (Nuyts 2004: 84).4 This conclusion seems to be somewhat forced. At least, it is apparently not supported by the corpus data. On the other hand, Nuyts’ study has added evidence to the common conception that deontic modality (as part of root modality) is lower in layering than epistemic and evidential modality. As the latter two always take deontic modality in their scope, the actual layering relationships would seem to be simpler than posited in FG, and closer to the rigid model in RRG.5 The study presented in this book attempts to make a further step forward in the empirical study of scope hierarchies. This is done by making use of a much larger database than Nuyts and by trying to be more systematic with the Japanese data than Cinque was with his data. Furthermore, a different language is used. In fact, there is a notable advantage in using data from a language like Japanese, rather than Dutch, English, or Italian, since the Japanese predicate complex contains an abundance of agglutinative morphology and the scopal relationship can in most cases be read off mechanically from the surface structure. Also, a larger number of criteria was employed than Cinque and Nuyts did, including, for example, behavior in clause combination, a central criterion in theories of layering.

4. Cinque shows that in Korean and Turkish evidential markers can take epistemic markers in their scope (Cinque 1999: 71f). However, no data or tests are offered for the reverse case. 5. Nuyts, however, produces two construed examples where deontic modality co-occurs with epistemic and evidential modality, and both types of modality are used ‘performatively’ (Nuyts 2004: 83). In such a case, the layering would be less clear.

Modality and the layered structure of the clause in Japanese linguistics Having dealt with the general study of the layered-structure-of-clause in general in Japanese linguistics in Section 4.3, we return here specifically to the question of the place of modality within it. As mentioned above, traditional models of semanto-syntactic layering in the Japanese clause do not acknowledge grammatical categories and only deal with individual markers. Only recently have grammatical categories such as ‘modality’ been recognized as a whole. Hayashi (1960), who posits four levels in the predicate, has only the evidential -soo(1) at the lowest level (1960:  129). At the second-lowest level of ‘judgment’, practically all modality markers are present, including those of situational possibility, deontic and epistemic modality (‘conjecture’) (Hayashi 1960:  131–152). Wishes (e.g. -Te hosii), recommendations (e.g. -Tara ii), intentions (-tai, volitional -(y)oo) and other boulomaic categories are located at the second highest, the ‘expression’ level (ibid. 157–161). Clearly speech-act-oriented clausal moods such as imperative, request, and questioning are located at the highest, the ‘communication’, level (ibid. 163–174). Sakakura (1966), who has five layers, does not deal explicitly with modality at all. In Sakakura (1979: 60) he produces a chart, in which an evidential-epistemic marker is located at the third of his five levels. Saji (1977), who also has five levels, from A as the lowest to E as the highest1, with a split B level, presents evidentials at Bii, the sentence-final epistemics daroo, -(y)oo and -mai at C, and only speech act-related categories expressed by final particles at levels D and E. In Saji (1989), he moved the evidentials up from Bii to Ci, while locating the epistemics at newly created Cii. Minami (1993: 54, 97) has no modal markers at the lowest of his four levels, his A level.2 He has situational possibility (-(r)eru; -(r)areru) and evidentiality (yoo da, rasii) on B level (ibid. 191–192, 209), and a negative future -mai stretched between B and C level on one chart (p. 54; also p. 52), but exclusively on C level on another chart (p. 97). Further, he has volitional modality, including even impera1.

Saji (1977) uses small letters for his levels.

2. He does have -(r)areru at A level (cf. Minami 1993: 54) but comments that he restricts -(r) areru to the passive meaning (Minami 1993: 56).



Modality in Japanese

tives and prohibitives, plus epistemic modality, including the epistemic adverb tabun and the epistemic suffixes daroo and -(y)oo, on C level (ibid. p. 97, 215f).3 On his D level (ibid. p. 226), C level volitional elements acquire (mostly hearerrelated) illocutionary force. That is, the volitional elements are first generated on C level in their relationship to sentence contents, and then related to the speech act on D level. Table 3 shows to which layers various modal elements are assigned in Minami’s theory. Kitahara & Kitahara (2003), building on Kitahara (1979(1970), 1981), see the epistemic and evidential-epistemic markers -(y)oo, daroo, soo, and rasii to be in the outermost level when in correlation with sentence adverbs, while another marker from the same evidential-epistemic category, -soo(1) is placed in the innermost level in correlation with subject and object, together with the volitional (boulomaic) marker -tai (cf. Kitahara & Kitahara 2003: 29, 40). Finally, in the approach by Nitta (1984, 1989a), Masuoka (1991) and others, which identifies semanto-syntactic layers with grammatical categories, the location of modality is clear. In Figure 13, reproduced from above, it is the secondhighest layer, highlighted by use of heavy lines, which contains modality. The highest layer, ‘communicative mood’ (or later: ‘communicative modality’) corresponds to illocutionary force, and not to modality proper in our sense. As was mentioned in 3.2, this layering can be even further simplified, with modality and illocutionary force-marking categories encircling everything else. Table 3.  Modal elements in the layered structure of the clause, according to Minami (1993) Layer

elements

A B

(none) situational possibility (-(r)areru etc.) evidentials (yoo, mitai, rasii) epistemic daroo, volitional+epistemic -(y)oo, mai epistemic adverbs like tabun imperative form (acquisition of illocutionary force)

C

D

3. -(y)oo in Modern Japanese has also a volitive intention meaning, which is even more salient than the epistemic meaning (see Part III for more detail). However, since Minami groups it together with daroo, he seems to refer to the epistemic meaning.



Modality and the layered structure of the clause in Japanese linguistics 

communicative mood

judgmental mood

tense

polarity

aspect

voice

case / inflecting word

Figure 13.  Modality in the semanto-syntactic layering of the Japanese clause, according to Nitta (1984)

expressed situation attitude towards the expressed situation

Figure 14.  Modality in Japanese sentence structure, according to Nitta (1989b: 1)

This semantic category-based approach may appear to be theoretically the most elegant, since it is the simplest by virtue of its generalizing over numerous and more specific morphological and morphosyntactic categories. However, the assumption that layers coincide with grammatical categories encounters empirical problems. It is apparent that there are a number of categories and markers that are usually associated with modality which do not appear in the highest or next-tohighest layer of the clause. Thus, Minami (1997) had negative future (mai) spread between the middle layers, and Kitahara & Kitahara (2003) had boulomaic and evidential-epistemic marking in the second lowest layer. Hayashi (1960) even located the majority of modal markers in the next to lowest layer. Naturally, not all of these hypotheses about the location of specific categories and markers can be correct. A major goal of this study is to empirically verify the actual location of modal markers and categories in a layered structure of clause. But if the hypotheses of the older models of layering, not based on grammatical categories, are correct, the conclusion would be that some modal categories do not fit the simplified layering in the category-based models of Nitta (1984 et al.) or Masuoka (1991). Either the semantic category-based layering needs to be revised, or those categories which do not fit the proposed layering have to be categorically excluded from



Modality in Japanese

modality. Nitta, Masuoka and others who share their approach, have chosen the latter path (cf. Masuoka 1999). While defining the layering via categories they also define categories, especially modality, by layering properties. This circular approach leaves us then with the question to which other category the modal categories that do not fit the layering belong, a question that has not yet been answered within the framework of these models.

Summary In the first part of this book, modality was defined as a grammatical category related to the notion of factuality. Subcategories of modality, and the typical means of morphosyntactic expression were discussed (Chapter 2). Chapter 3 introduced the concept of modality in Japanese linguistics, where it has traditionally been linked to the notion of subjectivity on the one hand, and to the layered structure of the clause on the other. Chapter 4 dealt with the layered structure of the clause, first from a general linguistic and then from a Japanese perspective, and Chapters 5 and 6 described the relationship between modality and the layered structure of the clause in greater detail. It became apparent that between theories that all claim a universal layering of grammatical categories substantial differences exist when it comes to the exact location of modality in such a universal layering. Even in studies on layering in just one language, namely Japanese, a considerable amount of differences was observable. RRG, FG, and the most popular of the layered structure of the clause models in Japan, Minami (1964, 1974, 1993) all posit a sentence structure with four layers. Although we cannot assume here that these layers are meant to correspond with each other exactly, it is still possible to compare where each theory locates modal categories. This is done in Table 4 below. The four layers are neutrally labeled as A, B, C and D. There is some agreement between the theories, especially with respect to the common insight that the highest layer in principle is reserved for illocutionary force or speech-act-related elements. Also, all theories apparently agree that situational or dynamic modalities are to be located very low (in RRG this is presumably included in ‘root modality’), and that at least part of epistemic modality has to be located relatively high. Other than that, however, differences prevail. The same holds in comparison with the ‘cartography of syntactic structures’ approach. Recall the following hierarchy of functional categories (cf. Cinque 2001: 47–48): (39) [MoodPspeech act [ModPevidential [ModPepistemic [MoodPirrealis [ModPalethic [ModPvolition[ModPobligation[ModPability[ModPpermission]]]]]]]]]

 Modality in Japanese

Table 4.  The assignment of different modal categories to sentence layers in three theories Layer

RRG Category

FG Category

D

C

B

A

Illocutionary force Illocutionary operators evidentials epistemic modality (‘status’) root modality (‘modality’) Epistemic and volitional subjective modality, evidential modality epistemic objective modality, deontic objective modality

Minami Category (modalities acquire illocutionary force) volition, incl. imperative, prohibitive epistemic modality (negative future) (negative future) evidentiality situational possibility

inherent modality

Obligation and permission take a relatively low position, in accordance with the other theories. The position of ‘irrealis’ in the other theories is unclear. In contrast, the position of volitional, epistemic and evidential modality, and the mutual position of obligation, ability and permission is partially at odds with what is claimed in other models. Overall, although all models of grammar that posit non-relational (hierarchical) categories, and which have been discussed here, also assume that specific subtypes occupy specific slots in hierarchical sentence structure, hypotheses about the actual location of specific subtypes of modality diverge, and the issue of where specific modality subtypes must be located is far from solved. The empirical study which follows in the third part of this book aims to contribute to the solution of this issue with the help of empirical data from Japanese.

part ii

The modal markers of Japanese A short description

In this part of the volume, a descriptive introduction into Modern Japanese modality is provided. Although labeled as ‘short’, it is in fact more comprehensive than any other description of Japanese modality in English up to now. Chapter 8 names the potential criteria for the description of modality; Chapter 9 offers a brief overview of the morphology of Japanese modal marking, and Chapter 10, finally, gives a rather detailed description of the markers in each modal category. Part III of the volume will continue the description in areas outside modality proper.

Criteria for the description of modality When describing modal markers in a specific language, a large number of views and criteria are possible, depending, for example, on theoretical stance or the goal of the description. The following is a non-exhaustive list of criteria and classifications that have been applied in previous studies on modality, ordered by the domains of grammar to which they apply. I. Morphosyntactic criteria a. Morphosyntactic properties of the markers and the degree of their grammaticalization (cf. Section 2.3). II. Syntactic and semanto-syntactic criteria b. The syntactic properties of the modal marker in terms of argument structure (theta grid) and construction in which the modal markers appear; for example, control vs. raising (e.g. Abraham 2001, 2005b; Barbiers 2002; J. Butler 2003). c. The semanto-syntactic properties of the marker as empirically observable in its interaction with other verbal categories, particularly aspect, tense, voice, interrogation, and its use in subordinate clauses. Additionally, interaction with other modal categories of the same morphosyntactic type; e.g. double modals or multiple adverbs (cf. e.g. Palmer 1990; Brandt 1999; Cinque 1999; Abraham 2002, 2005b). III. Semantic and semanto-pragmatic criteria d. Type or domain of modality, i.e., whether the marker is expressing, for example, epistemic, deontic, or dynamic modality (cf. Section 2.2) e. The ‘modal source’, going back to Bech’s (1951: 7) ‘modalfaktor’. Modals can be either ‘intrasubjective’ (e.g. German wollen), ‘extrasubjective’ (e.g. German sollen, dürfen) or ‘neutral’ (müssen, mögen, können). In Bech’s tradition, Brandt distinguishes “abilitive (intrasubjective) modals where the modal source is canonically inherent in the subject itself and the deontic (extrasubjective) modals where the modal source is canonically not inherent in the subject” (Brandt 1999: 31). Van der Auwera & Plungian (1998: 80) took this as one of the most basic distinctions in modality, and in their cross-linguistic study of modality distinguished ‘participant-internal



Modality in Japanese

modality’, “[which]... refers to a kind of possibility or necessity internal to a participant engaged in the state of affairs” from ‘participant-external modality’, “[which]...refers to circumstances that are external to the participant, if any, engaged in the state of affairs and that make this state of affairs either possible or necessary”. Relatedly, Frawley (1992:  412–416) proposes a common deictic system for epistemic and evidential modality, in which epistemic and evidential categories are classified according to source and direction of knowledge. f. The ‘modal target’, which is identified as the “patiens of the causal force emanating from the modal source” (Brandt 1999: 31). The modal target coincides with the sentence subject for dynamic modality but does not necessarily do so in the case of all modalities. With epistemics, there is no modal target (ibid. 32). g. The semantic property of ‘degree of modality’. For English, Palmer (1987:  97–98; 1990:  36–37) distinguishes ‘necessity’ (must), ‘possibility’ (may, can), and an unnamed third type (shall, will).1 Huddleston (2002a: 175–177) refers to ‘strength of modality’ and ‘strength of commitment’ when he distinguishes ‘necessity’ (must, need) ‘possibility’ (may, can) and ‘medium’ modality (ought to, probably, likely, appear, seem). Halliday (2004: 116, 148–149) similarly speaks of ‘high’ (e.g. must, ought to), ‘median’ (e.g. will, should), and ‘low’ (e.g. can, may) modal operators, and, only in the case of epistemic modality he speaks of a ‘system of probability’ with the categories ‘certain’ (e.g. must, certainly), ‘probable’ (e.g. will, probably), and ‘possible’ (e.g. may, possibly). Wärnsby (2006: 26) has an ‘epistemic scale’ of ‘degrees of speaker commitment’ which forms a continuum from ‘confident inference’ to ‘possible conclusion’. Her ‘deontic scale’ (p. 33) is organized from ‘obligation’ to ‘recommendation’ to ‘permission’, reflecting the speaker’s gradually decreasing authority. Lock (1996: 194) has high, mid and low ‘likelihood’ for the English modals. Likewise, Pietrandrea (2005: 47, 101) has three ‘degrees of certainty’ for Italian modality, viz. ‘strong’, ‘medium’, and ‘weak’, and Brandt (1999: 33f) has ‘necessity’, ‘predictability’ and ‘possibility’ as the three ‘focal points’ on a scale of ‘modal intensity’ for the Germanic languages. It thus appears to be common to assume three degrees on a scale. Many authors speak of a cline or

1. It should be noted, however, that Palmer later proposed a different system. In Palmer (2001: 25, 34) he differentiates between three systems, namely one of ‘degrees of confidence’ (or ‘certainty’) expressed by adverbs, one of ‘strength of conclusion’, expressed by the modals, and one of ‘source of inference’, also realized by the modals.



Criteria for the description of modality 

h.

i.

j.

k.

l.

m.

continuum between these degrees, a notion that is less acceptable to formally-oriented researchers (cf. Nuyts 2006: 6). ‘Degree of modality’ in a different sense, namely, a low degree of modality if the modal marking “repeats or is in harmony with, the modality expressed in the larger construction”, as is presumably the case with may in concessive clauses, should in conditional clauses, and future will in general, and a high degree of modality if the modal marker (but not will) stands alone. (cf. Huddleston 2002a: 179f). The semantic, and potentially also syntactic and pragmatic property of correspondence or ‘harmony’ of modal elements in the verbal complex (e.g. auxiliaries) with modal adverbs (e.g. Palmer 1990, Hoye 1997, Brandt 1999). The criterion of ‘subjectivity’ vs. ‘objectivity’. Most modals in English, and presumably the corresponding modal markers in other languages as well, are supposed to have both ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ uses. This was pointed out early on by Lyons (1977: 797–804), and was elaborated on later by other authors such as Coates (1983), Nuyts (1992), Verstraete (2001), Huddleston (2002a: 181,183) and Cornillie (2006). Nuyts (2001a) divides the notion of ‘subjectivity’ into the dimensions of ‘evidentiality’ and ‘performativity’ (see below) for epistemic modality. The criterion of ‘evidentiality’, i. e. the evidence the speaker has for a modal judgment. It has been frequently noted in studies on epistemic modality in European languages that modal markers previously were treated in purely epistemic terms in fact have an evidential component (e.g. Nuyts (2001a, 2001b) for Dutch; Cornillie (2004) for Spanish), and that purely epistemic judgments are rare (cf. Pietrandrea (2005: 85f, 99, 101) for Italian, who sees ‘genuine epistemicity’ only in future marking). Nuyts (2001a: 35) labels epistemic modality with a strong evidential component as ‘intersubjective’, in contrast to ‘subjective’ modality. The criterion of ‘performativity’. According to Nuyts (2001a: 39), “[e]xpressions which report an epistemic qualification of a state of affairs without involving speaker commitment to it at the moment of speaking [...can] be called ‘descriptive’.....Epistemic forms which express the speaker’s current attitude towards the state of affairs, i. e. which do involve his/ her commitment to the qualification at the moment of speaking, [...can] be called ‘performative’.” Performativity or lack of it can be indicated by the properties in (c) above, that is tense inflection and occurrence in conditionals or interrogatives etc. (cf. Pietrandrea 2005: 49f). The criterion of ‘modal orientation’ as formulated by Brandt (1999: 37), who defines a modal verb as ‘directed’ “[...] if it suggests the actualization



Modality in Japanese

of the predication governed by the modal and as non-directed if it does not”. In this sense, English will, may, have to, and must are viewed as ‘directed’ and can, shall, need, and ought to as ‘non-directed’.2 IV. Pragmatic criteria n. The criterion of information structure. Nuyts (2001a: 41) explains that “[b]y this I mean differences in the status (the importance) of parts of the information in the utterance – here the epistemic qualification vs. other elements – in view of their role in the current discourse context.” Further, “the relevant question will be whether different epistemic expression types allow the epistemic qualification to occur in focus, and if they do, how frequently this happens” (ibid., p. 43). o. Other pragmatic criteria. These include discourse strategies3, including politeness strategies (e.g. Hoye 1997; Nuyts 2001a), differences in use depending on register (genre) (e.g. Wunderlich 1981) or situation (e.g. Brünner & Redder 1983), and tendencies of use with either first, second, or third person subject (e.g. Wunderlich 1981; Coates 1983). The number of criteria is large, and the above listing is probably not exhaustive. It is clear that any study of modality can only focus on some of these. I take morphosyntax (a) and the classification of domains (d) to be the most basic for any description. An overview of the morphosyntactic means of marking modality in Japanese is given in the following chapter, Chapter 9. Chapter 10 offers an overview of modal domains (d), and simultaneously refers to most of the criteria from (b) to (o). Criterion (c) is at the very heart of the study in this book and will be broached in some detail in Part IV ((l) is strongly related to (c)). Other criteria are treated more marginally, or are not touched upon at all (particularly (b), (h), (m), (n)), although from a different perspective they may be of equal or even superior interest. Since this is a study of Japanese modality, special attention will be given to previous analyses in the Japanese linguistic tradition.

2. Perkins (1983: 29–49) comes to a somewhat different classification when he groups can and may together as ‘does not preclude’ modals on the one hand, while on the other hand must ‘entails’ and will and shall ‘be disposed towards’ are conceptualized as having a sense directed towards realization. 3. “... [E]pistemic expressions are often used to achieve special effects in discourse [...]. Speakers use them to make different types of ‘strategic’ adjustments to an utterance, in function of their interpersonal relationship with the listener/reader (...), and/or in view of the properties of the actual discourse situation” (Nuyts 2001a: 44)

Formal means of expression An overview

According to Palmer (2001) languages may have both a ‘modal system’ and ‘mood’ for the purposes of marking modal notions. However, “in most languages [...], only one of these devices seems to occur or, at least, one is much more salient than the other” (ibid.: 4). The term ‘modal system’ is not clearly defined in his book, but the English modals are presented as a typical example. This term can therefore be understood as referring to periphrastic expressions in the verbal complex, in contrast to elements outside the verbal complex, such as adverbs, on the one hand, and to inflectional mood of the verb on the other hand. Modern Japanese has indeed both periphrastic marking and mood, but the periphrastic marking is, similar to many modern Indo-European languages, much more salient for the marking of central modal notions, while mood is mainly endowed with functions which are peripheral to modality proper. In between periphrastic constructions and modal inflections we find modal affixes on the verb which, unlike mood inflections, are not part of an obligatory inflectional paradigm but, similar to inflections, are marked directly on the verb. General information on Japanese grammar can be found in reference works on the language such as Makino & Tsutsui (1986), Hinds (1986), Martin (1988), Kaiser et al. (2001), and Iwasaki (2002). Nevertheless, a short summary of morphosyntactic structures in the light of the morphosyntactic analysis employed in this study is in order before embarking on the actual description. 9.1 Japanese morphological structure Japanese is prevalently agglutinative with some inflecting and isolating elements (cf. Narrog 1999b). ‘Agglutinative’ means that grammatical categories are commonly realized as affixes (usually suffixes) on lexical stems, which may not appear in any actual syntactic position without the appropriate ending. The degree of fusion between stems and affixes is relatively low, and portmanteau morphemes (morphemes expressing two or more grammatical categories simultaneously) are relatively rare.



Modality in Japanese

Although most Japanese linguists would probably agree with the statement about overall morphological structure in the preceding paragraphs, there is quite an amount of variation regarding actual morphological analysis. One particular problem is the dominance of so-called “school grammar” analysis, which goes back to Shinkichi Hashimoto and is based on Classical Japanese instead of Modern Japanese, and on the Japanese writing system instead of phonological transcription. Although this analysis has been frequently criticized as obsolete, it can still be found in the majority of writings on Japanese in English. The morphological analysis employed here is based strictly on phonological transcription and distributional analysis, and follows the taxonomic structuralist model of Rickmeyer (1984, 1994, 1995). Analytical procedure is expounded in some detail in Narrog (1998). According to this model, a word in Japanese has the following structure: (40) qr±(L±s)r±f (Rickmeyer 1995: 42f) ‘q’ stands for prefix, ‘L’ for a lexeme, ‘s’ for a (derivational) suffix, and ‘f ’ for an inflection. This formula states that every word must have at least one lexeme while all other elements are optional, indicated by the symbol “±”. The subscript ‘r’ stands for recursivity. The table below fleshes out the concrete word classes to which lexemes and derivational affixes can belong: Besides verbs (V), adjectives (A), and nouns (N), Japanese also has nominal adjectives (NA), adverbs (ADV), adnominals (ADN) and interjections (I). Derivational suffixes can belong to any of these classes, with the exception of interjections, which can only be independent words. Only verbs and adjectives inflect.1 As will be shown later, although periphrastic marking in the verbal complex primarily involves verbal categories, nominal and nominal-adjectival elements also play a role. Table 5.  The word in Japanese – morphological composition (cf. Rickmeyer 1995: 41)

q-

V A

-v -a

N NA ADV ADN I

-n -na -adv -adn

-f

1. Traditional Japanese grammar also interprets nominal adjectives as inflecting (cf. e.g. Makino & Tsutsui 1986: 580f), but this idea can be rejected on the grounds of distributional analysis.



Formal means of expression 

Table 6.  The one-word-phrase in Japanese

q-

V

-v

A

-a

N NA ADV ADN I

-n -na -adv -adn

-f

=v =a

-v

-f

=n =na =p

Japanese morphology is further complicated by one more distributional class of elements called ‘particles’ (“=p”). Particles are bound more loosely than other suffix classes, and some of them can be inflected by themselves. If particles are added to the word structure then, in the terminology of Rickmeyer, a ‘one-word-phrase’ is obtained, which consists of a word as the kernel plus one or more particles with or without derivations and inflections. The one-word-phrase is represented in the formula below: (41) W ± (=p±s±f)r (Rickmeyer 1995: 46) In this formula, ‘p’ stands for particle, with the symbol indicating a different, in this case loser, kind of bonding between the elements than ‘-’. When word classes are spelt out, the one-word-phrase can have the elements indicated in Table 6. The shaded areas indicate possible recursion. Particles can belong to the word classes of verbs (=v), adjectives (=a), nouns (=n) and nominal adjectives (=na), or they can have no word class feature (=p). Particles without a word class feature are the primary means of marking grammatical relations in the clause for non-inflecting word classes. Thus, we have the case particles ga for nominative, o for accusative, ni for dative, etc. When referring to these particles in text and in tables, the symbol ‘=’ is omitted. In every position bar inflections, recursion is possible. The derivational suffix slot following the particle slot can only be filled by a (recursive) ‘-v’. There is no morphological rule inhibiting the occurrence of non-verbal word class suffixes here. However, empirically only a few verbal suffixes occur in this peripheral slot. (42) is an example of a one-word-phrase whose use is not natural but which is grammatical and includes all positional elements, with one of them, the lexical stem, even occurring recursively. The morphological ‘word’ is put in brackets.



Modality in Japanese

Prefixes and inflections are separated by an “.”. Lexemes are separated by an “~”, particles by an “=”, and other affixes by an “-”: (42)

(o.hiki~uke~si-na.i)=rasi-kat.ta. (hon-pull-receive-do-neg- nps)-evi-vrb-pst (q+V+V+V+a+f)=a+v+f ‘It was said that [(s)he] wouldn’t accept’

The one-word-phrase in (42) consists of nine morphemes each carrying a different meaning or function, but only constitutes one one-word-phrase. However, grammatical categories in Japanese are sometimes also expressed periphrastically, i.e., across word (one-word-phrase) boundaries. Stative aspect, for example, is expressed by the main verb in its gerundive -Te form plus the existential verb iru, spreading across two words. Functional heads that periphrastically follow the main predicate even include non-verbal categories such as adjectives (e.g. the construction V+Te hosii ‘want someone to V’), nominal adjectives (e.g. the epistemicevidential yoo for appearance) and nouns (e.g. epistemic hazu for expectation). In this book, the term ‘verbal complex’ is used to refer to the aggregate of the main predicate one-word-phrase plus the functional heads following it in various morphosyntactic realizations. Syntactically, Japanese is strictly head-final (SOV). As a result, linear word order reflects dependency relationships from left to right. It is therefore convenient to refer to dependency relationships in terms such as ‘adverbial’ (governed by / dependent on a verbal element) and ‘adnominal’ (governed by / dependent on a nominal element). 9.2 Morphological constraints on morpheme concatenation Unlike languages which have strict morphological templates that constrain the cooccurrence of morphemes in a word regardless of their semantics, relatively few such constraints are observed in Japanese, and the order of elements largely follows semantics and pragmatics. The constraints that actually hold are of the following kind. 1. Two inflections cannot follow each other (cf. Table 6 which indicates that no recursion is possible for inflectional suffixes). This also rules out the combination of a suffix that etymologically contains an inflection (the speculative marker daroo < dar.oo (copula+future inflection)) with an inflection; e.g. *daroo.ta (daroo+past). 2. Non-inflecting particles (=p) cannot be followed by anything else than another particle (cf. Table 6)



Formal means of expression 

3. Many affixes can be concatenated only to a stem of a specific word class. Thus, the negation suffix -(a)nai and the past suffix -Ta can only be suffixed to morphological verbs. Adjectives deal with this constraint by having a different, periphrastic construction for negation (A+ku nai), and by adding the verbalizing suffix -kar- for suffixing strictly verbal inflections such as -Ta. Furthermore, certain forms can only be added to certain inflectional forms of the word class to which they are added. Thus, the deontic suffix beki can only be concatenated to the non-past tense form of a verb, and to nothing else. 4. It is generally impossible to have the same morpheme repeated immediately. Again, there are strategies to circumvent this constraint if the speaker needs to express a given meaning. For example, the grammaticalized necessity construction -(a)nakereba naranai ‘must’ begins on the negation suffix -(a)nai and can therefore not immediately embed a negated predicate. However, the peculiarity of having two negations immediately following each other can be circumvented by embedding the negated proposition in a complement clause governed by the light verb suru: -(a)nai yoo ni sinakereba naranai ‘must do that (something) not happens.’ Thus, in general, there are a number of constraints on the combinability of morphemes, but there are also many strategies to circumvent them, especially with periphrastic constructions. Constraints on the concatenation of morphemes, and the simultaneous lack of strategies to circumvent these constraints, will be indicated with an “*” in the tables of the study in Part III. Sections 9.3 to 9.7 now following provide an overview of the morphosyntactic means of modal marking in Modern Japanese. 9.3 Affixes (Modal system I) Table 7 shows all the common modal affixes in Modern Japanese with the exception of inflections, which are treated separately in 9.5. In addition to the affixes listed above, Japanese also has adjectival affixes similar to the English adjectival suffix -able (e.g. countable), namely -nikui, -durai ‘hard to’ and -yasui ‘easy to’. Like -able they are embedded in word formation, and are usually not taken into account in descriptions of modality, although they may belong to the category peripherally.



Modality in Japanese

Table 7.  Modal affixes in Modern Japanese affix be.ki -ta.i daroo (dar.oo) -E.ru rasi.i -soo(1) mitai soo(2) -(r)are.ru -(r)e.ru -kane.ru -kane-na.i

morphological structure

category

=a+f –a+f =p (=v+f) –v+f =a+f =na =na =p –v+f –v+f –v+f –v+a+f

deo bou epi epi evi evi evi evi dyn dyn dyn epi

meaning valuative obligation general intention speculative possibility distant appearance, reportive predictive appearance present/past-oriented appearance reportive potential potential negative potential apprehensive

9.4 Constructions beyond the one-word-phrase (Modal system II) While the modal markers presented in the previous section are clearly suffixes, i.e., morphologically dependent, the constructions in this section can be analyzed as extending beyond the one-word-phrase. In Old and Classical Japanese, modal notions were primarily expressed through suffixes, many of which ceased to exist in Middle Japanese. Instead, particularly from Early Modern Japanese on, new constructions came to be used which have not yet reached unambiguous suffixal status (cf. Narrog 2007). Functionally, they are on a par with suffixes and from either a strictly functional perspective, or from a generative perspective, they may be regarded as morphosyntactic units already. From the more conservative structuralist perspective adopted in the description (especially, transcription) here, however, they are not yet regarded as suffixes, as all of them contain elements that, at least in different contexts, still behave like independent lexical items. -(a)nakereba naranai, for example contains the negated form of the verb naru ‘become’, and tumori, for example, can be used as a lexical noun, as witnessed in the construction sono tumori ‘this intention’. The writing system does not give insight on word boundaries because Japanese writing does not separate words.



Formal means of expression 

Table 8.  Periphrastic modal constructions in Modern Japanese Construction -(a)na.kereba nar-ana.i neg-neg-con become-neg-nps -(a)zar.u=o e-na.i neg-nps-acc obtain-neg- nps V+(r)u=sika na.i (verb)-lim not.be-nps V+(r)u/Ta hoo=ga i.i (verb) direction-nom good-nps V+(r)u=ga i.i (verb)-nom good- nps V+(r)u=to/-Tara/-(r)eba i.i (verb)+con good- nps V+Te-(mo) i.i (verb)+ger-foc good- nps V+Te=wa ik-e-na.i (verb)+ger-top go-pot-neg-nps V+(r)u wake=ni=wa ik-ana.i (verb)+nps ground-dat-top go-neg-nps V+(r)u mono=da (verb) thing-cop-(nps) V+(r)u koto=da (verb) thing-cop-(nps) V+Te hosi.i (verb)+ger want-nps V+Te morai-ta.i (verb)+ger get-bou-nps V+(r)u/Ta tumori (verb) intention ka=mo sir-e-na.i que-foc know-pot-neg-nps ni tigai na.i dat difference not.be-nps kanoosei=ga ar.u possibility-nom be-nps V+(r)u/Ta hazu (verb) nock V+(r)u/Ta yoo (verb) appearance V+(r)u koto=ga deki.ru (verb) thing-nom be.possible-nps

structure

category

meaning

–a-f V+a+f

deo

–a+f=p V+a+f

deo

V+f=p A+f

deo

general necessity/obligation (lit. ‘it doesn’t become if not’) inevitability (lit. ‘do not obtain not to’) inevitability (lit. ‘there is only)

V+f N=p A+f

deo

V+f=p A+f

deo

V+f=p/V+f A+f

deo

V+f=p A+f

deo

V+f=p V+v+a+f

deo

V+f N=p=p V+a+f

deo

V+f N=v(+f)

deo

V+f N=v(+f)

deo

V+f A+f

bou

V+f V+a+f

bou

V+f N

bou

=p=p V+v+a+f

epi

=p N A+f

epi

N=p V+f

epi

V+f N

epi

V+f N

evi

(V+f) N=p V+f

dyn

recommendation (lit. ‘it is better to’) recommendation (lit. ‘doing P is good’) recommendation (lit. ‘it would be good if ’) & wish deontic/valuative possibility (lit. ‘it is even good if ’) deontic/valuative impossibility (lit. ‘it cannot go if ’) deontic/valuative impossibility (lit. ‘it doesn’t go if ’) impersonal/universal obligation (lit. ‘the thing is to’) strict obligation (lit. ‘the thing is to’) desire (‘want someone to do something’) & wish benefactive request (‘want to receive from someone to do something’) & wish premeditated intention subjective epistemic possibility (lit. ‘one cannot know if ’) epistemic necessity – conclusion (lit. ‘there is no mistake that’) objective epistemic possibility (‘there is the possibility that’) epistemic necessity – expectation present-/past-oriented appearance situational possibility



Modality in Japanese

Thus, the constructions in Table 8 are presented as analytically and as conservatively as possible. While they certainly have different degrees of grammaticalization, to give comprehensive evidence for these different degrees would require separate study.2 In fact, Section 14.1 provides frequencies for these constructions, which are probably the most reliable indicators of grammaticalization. Some of the constructions in Table 8 have morphological variants. These will be discussed together with semantics and pragmatics in Chapter 10. 9.5 Verbal mood The following table shows the paradigm of Modern Japanese verb inflections (cf. Rickmeyer 1995: 77; Narrog 1998: 20–22; Muraki 1991: 68f). First, an explanation of the purely morphological aspects is in order. Verbs have two stem forms to which inflections are added. The first of these is a verb ‘stem’, which ends in a consonant for consonant-stem verbs, and on a vowel for vowel-stem verbs. Japanese does not allow a sequence of two or more consonants within the same mora while also generally avoiding vowel sequences. Therefore, when the inflectional ending is added to the stem, bracketed consonants on the left side of the table are retained in the case of vowel-ending verb stems, and are deleted in the case of consonant-ending verb stems, when the inflectional ending is added to the stem (e.g.: tabe- + -(r)u > tabe.ru ‘eat’; ker- + -(r)u > ker.u ‘kick’). The second form is the verb ‘base’, which is identical to the verb stem for vowel-stem verbs, but has an additional -i for the consonant stem verbs. When inflections on the right side of the table are added to the verb base, various assimilations and even some fusions take place, indicated by using majuscule for the first consonant of the relevant inflection (e.g.: keri ‘kick’ + -Te gerund > ket.te). Table 9.  Verb inflections in Modern Japanese Inflections on the verb stem -(r)u -(r)eba -(y)oo -E/yo/ro -(a)zu -mai

non-past conditional I hortative imperative adverbial negation negative hortative

Inflections on the verb base -Te -Ta -Tari -Tara(ba) -Taroo -tamae

gerund past exemplative conditional II past speculative imperative

2. Hanazono (1999) is such a study, which investigates different degrees of grammaticalization in some periphrastic deontic markers.



Formal means of expression 

Semantically, all of the inflectional forms can be associated with ‘mood’. In fact, about half of the inflections, namely the conditionals, the gerund, the exemplative, and the adverbial negation can be associated with subordinating mood marking. The imperatives and hortatives are typical sentence-final moods, although both can also have subordinating mood functions (the hortatives require the addition of the particles ga or to to acquire this function (cf. Rickmeyer 1995: 159, 166). The other inflections can be associated with declarative mood, although ascribing this mood to the endings themselves is problematic. The tense/aspect markers -(r)u and -Ta especially are usually seen as modally unmarked forms, as they can be used in a large variety of syntactic positions and contexts. Arguably, then, ‘declarative’ or ‘indicative’ mood is a function of the context and the sentence as a whole rather than a property of these endings. On the other hand,-(r)u particularly often features in discussions about Japanese mood and modality, because sentences with this ending can also have a commissive meaning. Cf. the following example from Nitta (2000: 68). (43) Zyaa boku=ga mat-u. then 1s-nom wait-nps ‘Then I’ll wait.’ That is, -(r)u is associated with both declarative and commissive mood, depending on the context. Two of the markers can also be associated with ‘modality proper’, namely -(y)oo in its epistemic use, and the past dubitative -Taroo. Both are almost obsolete. In sum, however, verbal mood in Modern Japanese plays at best a secondary role when it comes to marking modality proper. Its main functional domain is the marking of subordinate and clausal moods. 9.6 Adverbs Adverbs in Modern Japanese are copious and have a large variety of functions, including the expression of time, frequency, location, degree, manner, quantity, evaluation and logical relations (cf. the list in Martin 1988: 802–819). Those that are associated with modality proper and clausal moods include those listed in the following table (Table 10) (cf. Kudō 2000: 188–191). Japanese has many more adverbs that express some kind of speaker’s stance or correspond to some kind of sentence ending (cf. Kudō 2000), but they are not included in this table because they do not fit the concept of modality that is espoused in this study.



Modality in Japanese

Table 10.  Modal adverbs in Modern Japanese Modality Epistemic Evidential Deontic Boulomaic Dynamic

kitto, kanarazu ‘certainly’ tabun ‘likely’, osoraku ‘probably’, aruiwa ‘possibly’, mosi ka si.te ‘perhaps’, hyotto si.tara ‘maybe’ ~ni yoreba, ~ni sitagaeba ‘according to’; doo yara, doomo ‘apparently’ kanarazu, doosite mo ‘at any cost/by all means’ nantoka ‘somehow’, zehi ‘by all means’, narubeku ‘if possible’ doosite mo + neg ‘in no way’

Clausal mood Request Wish Inducement Interrogative Conditional

doozo, doo ka, nani-bun ‘please’ (see boulomaic modality) saa ‘well’ hatasite ‘really’, ittai ‘really’ mosi, manichi, kari ni ‘if ’; tatoe ‘even if ’

Those adverbs related to volitive modality and mood (e.g. nan to ka, zehi) can usually be employed with various kinds of volitive moods (e.g. request, wish, obligation). As was discussed in earlier chapters, with volitive modality, the borderline between modality and clausal mood, e.g. the description of an obligation and its performance, i. e. request, is fluid. Interestingly, the adverb kanarazu ‘necessarily, by all means’ can be used both in epistemic and deontic contexts, although Japanese usually does not have deontic-epistemic polysemy. Modal adverbs in Japanese usually co-occur with modal markers in the verbal complex. This is similar to English where Hoye (1997) speaks of ‘adverb satellites’ for modals. For those adverbs in the table associated with clausal mood, this cooccurrence is obligatory. That is, either they can only be used together with clausefinal mood forms (e.g. mosi is always used with a verb in the conditional form), or they change their meaning (e.g. saa, which is multi-functional). More on the correspondence between adverbs and modal marking in the verbal complex can be found in the next chapter. 9.7 Mental predicates Although Japanese has a variety of mental predicates, similar to English, e.g. omou ‘feel/think’, kangaeru ‘think’, sinziru ‘believe’, kakushin-suru ‘be convinced (that)’ etc., only one of them, omou has been regularly associated with the study of



Formal means of expression 

modality. The reason is that mental predicates are often not regarded as grammatical forms but as lexical, and part of propositional contents. Essentially, the problem of how to deal with mental predicates is similar to English, where for example Kiefer (1987: 76) distinguishes parenthetical use as verbs of propositional attitude from propositional use, and recognizes first person use and the absence of the complementizer that as the distinguishing feature of parentheticals (p. 83). In English, especially (I) think, with its overwhelming frequency of use marking epistemic stance has come to be recognized as a parenthetical or discourse marker (cf. Thompson & Mulac 1991; Aijmer 1997). In Japanese, formal criteria to distinguish parenthetical from regular matrix clause predicate use are harder to come by, as subjects are frequently deleted and the complementizing particle to is not. Nevertheless, (to) omou, is sometimes regarded as a functional equivalent to parentheticals in English. Again, more details can be found in the following chapter (10.4.3).

The modal categories This chapter, based on the description in the previous chapter, approaches modal markers in Japanese from their semantics and pragmatics, and gives an overview of modality in Japanese by modal domains, providing detail on the usage of individual morphemes and constructions. 10.1 Deontic modality Deontic modality, as defined in this study, is in Japanese preferentially marked by periphrastic constructions and modal suffixes. Modal adverbs function to reinforce the modal notions marked in the predicate complex but cannot mark deontic modality alone. As is known from the writings of Akatsuka (e.g. 1992, 1997) and others, the most prominent means of expressing deontic notions are conditional constructions which end in an evaluative expression in the consequent. In terms of morphological markedness, the system of conditionals is based on permission, the most unmarked form. Akatsuka (1992: 7) demonstrated the following system: (44)

GOOD (p) – GOOD (–p) – –GOOD (p) – –GOOD (–p) –

Permission Exemption Prohibition Obligation

Although conditionals are not the only means of expressing deontic modality we will follow this classification in covering the various Japanese deontic expressions. We will make a further distinction within the obligation domain between ‘obligation’, ‘recommendation’ and ‘inevitability’. In Japanese communication there is a strong sociolinguistic tendency towards negative politeness and indirectness, making it difficult to use straightforward deontic expressions towards interlocutors. Weaker expressions of recommendation partially fulfill this function, while expressions of ‘inevitability’ indicate that a choice of action is not the responsibility of the subject and/or speaker but due to circumstance.



Modality in Japanese

10.1.1

Possibility (permission)

In the domain of deontic possibility, permission is mostly expressed by the periphrastic (conditional) construction –Te mo ii (‘it is good, even if ’), as in ex. (45): (45) Tukare.tara yasun.de=mo i.i=des.u=yo. (Takanashi 1995b: 247) get.tired-con rest-ger-foc good-nps-cop-ill ‘[You] may rest if you’re tired’ [lit. ‘It is okay even if you rest if you’re tired’] (permission) While the basic meaning of this construction is permission of action (“[it] states that the relevant state-of-affairs can be allowed” (Takanashi 1995b: 246)), other meanings arise depending on context. It has been especially noted that in the case of a first person subject, the construction pragmatically reveals a ‘willingness’ on part of the speaker (46), while with uncontrollable events it reveals ‘tolerance’ or ‘acceptance’ rather than ‘permission’ (47) (cf. Takanashi 2002: 107). (46)

Kyoo=no yuuhan=wa boku=ga tukut.te=mo today-gen supper-top 1S-nom prepare-ger-foc i.i=yo. (NKBK 2003: 118) good-nps-ill ‘I can prepare [= ‘I don’t mind preparing] supper tonight.’ (lit. ‘It is okay, even if I prepare supper tonight’)

(47)

Shinamono=sae yo.kereba, tasyoo=wa taka.kute=mo goods-foc good-con somewhat-top expensive-ger-foc i.i=des.u=yo. (Sakata 1993b: 212) good-nps-pol-nps-ill ‘If something is good, I don’t mind paying more’ (lit. ‘It is okay, even if the goods are a little expensive, if they are good’)

Chiang (2007: 119), in a comparative study of the relationship between modality and person in Japanese and Chinese, has shown the following frequency distributions of -Te mo ii by person in a large corpus of literary prose: 1st person 48%, 2nd person 43%, 3rd person 9%. This indicates that, pragmatically, ‘willingness’ use may be no less frequent than the semantically basic ‘permission’ use. The fact that the 2nd person use is not as frequent as expected may be pragmatically motivated by the general avoidance to state permission or obligation directly. The construction -Te mo ii contains the focus particle mo which can also be elided, although the resulting construction, -Te ii ‘it is good to’, differs from -Te mo ii. It is similar in indicating permission (Takanashi 1995b: 251) but, according to Kuramochi (1993a: 211), -Te ii, without the focus particle, has a sense of positively



The modal categories 

urging which is absent in -Te mo ii. Accordingly, sentence (45), reformulated with mo, could even be an invitation or recommendation. In contrast to the change in meaning prompted by elision of the focus particle mo, the replacement of the consequent ii ‘it is good’ by its honorific synonyms yorosii and kekkoo, or by kamawanai ‘I don’t mind’, does not trigger any significant change in meaning. 10.1.2 Negated possibility (prohibition) Japanese has a prohibitive clausal mood (see ch. 11.4), but on the level of modality it also has the periphrastic (conditional) construction -Te wa ikenai ‘must not’, lit. ‘it cannot go if ’, with a topical antecedent and a negatively evaluative consequent. NKBK (2003: 129) notes that the basic meaning is “the fact that the realization of a state of affairs cannot be tolerated”. (48) is an example: (48) Eigo=de=sika hanasi.tya ik-e-na.i=to=ka# (Male 30s, conversation) 1 English-ess-lim talk-[ger-top] go-pot-neg-nps-quo-que ‘[At that company], they say, you’re only allowed to speak in English’ [lit. ‘it cannot go if you don’t speak in English only, or so’] Ikenai (n=2,004) is the most common consequent in my corpus data, followed by naranai (n=1,544) ‘it does not become’. Dame ‘bad’, komaru ‘it’s a problem’, ikan ‘does not go’ and akan ‘bad’ (dialectal) are significantly less frequent alternatives. Also, as in ex. (48), the morphemes indicating the conditional, namely the gerund -Te and the topic marker wa, are often fused into one morpheme. This is a common phenomenon in the spoken language, indicative of the conventionalization and frequent use of these constructions. A less frequent construction with a prohibitive implication is -(r)u wake ni wa ikanai ‘it does not go if you do…’, as in: (49)

Nihon=to si.te=wa kaku=no ar.u choosen hantoo=o Japan-sta do-ger-top nucleus-gen be-and Korea peninsula-acc mitome.ru wake=ni=wa ik-ana.i. (Mainichi Newspaper 4/2003) recognize-nps grounds-adv-top go-neg-nps-ill ‘Japan cannot accept a Korean peninsula with nukes’

1. The notation “[GER-TOP]” in the morpheme gloss indicates a fusion of morphemes, in this case -te and wa.



Modality in Japanese

In the literature, no specific adverbs co-occurring with negated possibility are mentioned. My own corpus data suggest that zettai ‘absolutely’ modifies them, as in (50): (50)

“Kak-ana.i uti=wa zettai=ni ie=ni kaet.te=wa write-neg-nps while-top absolute-adv house-dat return-ger-top ik-e-na.i”=to iw-are.ta. go-pot-neg-nps-quo say-pas-pst ‘I was told that I’d absolutely not be allowed to return home until I had written [the 700 characters].’ (Satoru Hamano: Shin Toshi Ongaku Nōto, 1998)

10.1.3 Necessity (obligation) Necessity -(a)nakereba naranai ‘must’, lit. ‘it does not become if not’ is commonly treated as the typical deontic periphrastic construction of Modern Japanese. It is a conditional construction consisting of an antecedent with negation and a consequent containing a negative evaluation. The following is an example: (51)

21-seiki=ni tekigoo~s.uru yoo=ni kaikaku~si-na.kereba 21-century-adv fit-do-nps manner-adv reform-do-neg-con nar-ana.i. (Mainichi Newspaper 11/1998) become-neg-nps ‘We must reform [the currency system] for the 21st century’ [lit. ‘It does not become if we do not reform the currency system to fit the 21st century’]

The meaning range of -(a)nakereba naranai is relatively broad, covering not only external but also internal necessity, a range that in English would be rendered variously with ‘must’, ‘have to’ or ‘need to’. Okuda (1999: 238–251) identifies six meanings, namely (1) necessity according to social rules, (2) necessity according to custom, (3) necessity following a plan, (4) practical necessity, (5) technical necessity, and (6) necessity following the pressure from a situation. In my corpus data, the most common variants of the antecedent, which invariably contains a negative morpheme and a conditional marker, are -(a)nakereba (n=16,584) (cf. Section 14.1), including the written-style variant -(a)neba and the colloquial variants -(a)nakerya, -(a)nakya), -(a)nakute wa (n=2,906), and -(a)nai to (n=1,756). As for the consequent, which gives a negative evaluation, naranai ‘does not become’ (n=14,329 in my corpus data) is most common, followed by ikenai ‘cannot go’ (n=4,289), and dame ‘bad’ (n=296). It has been pointed out that ikenai is more personal as it leaves open a choice and thus implies moral responsibility while naranai emphasizes the generality or inevitability of the necessity. Accordingly ikenai is



The modal categories 

strongly skewed towards use with the speaker as subject, while naranai is rather used for subjects other than the speaker (Takagi 1995; cf. also Kuramochi 1993a: 98). Overall, the use of strong obligation with second person subjects is problematic in Japanese communication, where there is a tendency towards indirectness and negative politeness. Chiang (2007: 72), in her study on modality and person, found not a single example of the grammatically “correct” form -(a)nakereba naranai in conversation with a second person subject, but only fused forms. The correct form would probably not only sound stiff but also imposing and authoritarian. Instead, in conversation, forms are used where the negative evaluative consequent is deleted and left to the inference of the hearer as in (52): (52)

“Kore=dake sugo.i kane=o kake.te this-lim terrible- nps money-acc put.in-ger i.ru=n=da=kara donna=ni iya=de=mo be-nps-nmz-cop(-nps)-cal which.way-adv dislike-ess-foc oyog-ana.kya.” swim-neg-con “Since we’ve put so much money into this, you gotta swim, no matter how much you hate it.” (Mainichi Newspaper 2/1998)

In contrast to the periphrastic construction -(a)nakereba naranai as a strong obligation and necessity, the affix beki indicates a presumably weaker, valuative obligation of the should-type. According to Takanashi (2002: 118), Modern Japanese beki expresses the evaluation that a state-of-affairs is ‘appropriate’. The evaluation or judgment expressed by beki is often based on moral grounds (NKBK 2003: 107). The following is an example: (53)

Nihon=wa keizai taikoku=o koe.te doo i.u Japan-top economy big.nation-acc exceed-ger how say-nps kuni=o mezas.u=beki=na=no=ka. (Mainichi Newspaper 1/1998) country-acc aim.for-nps-deo-adn-nom-que ‘What kind of country should Japan strive to be, going beyond being an economic power?’

Besides the general characterization of beki as being a weak obligation in contrast to -(a)nakereba naranai as a strong one, and thus similar to should and must in English, the following differences have also been pointed out. i. Beki can only be used when the modal target has a choice of action, while -(a)nakereba naranai can be used both in cases when there is and is not a choice (NKBK 2003: 107). ii. The use of beki is always dependent on the moral or valuative judgment of the speaker, while -(a)nakereba naranai can also be used ‘objectively’ to denote a



Modality in Japanese

real world necessity. Consequently, if the necessity is not controllable, that is beyond the reach of moral or valuative judgment, beki cannot be used (Niwa 1991; Takanashi 2002: 119). iii. Ozaki (1998) has pointed out that when to omou ‘I think’ is added to various expressions of deontic modality as an indicator of subjective judgment, beki is always in harmony to it, while -(a)nakereba naranai isn’t (also cf. Moriyama 1997: 117 for -(a)nakereba naranai). Furthermore, the addition of factual conditions and of the verb naru ‘become’ both show that the judgment expressed in -(a)nakereba naranai can change according to circumstance, while that of beki cannot, and is bound to the present judgment of the speaker. -(a)nakereba naranai and beki are undisputedly the central expressions of deontic necessity in Japanese. More marginally, and more restricted contextually, obligation can also be expressed through sentences nominalized with the nouns mono ‘thing’ and koto ‘fact’. V+(r)u mono expresses a judgment of general necessity. The verb phrase used with mono must be employed together with a wa-topic referring to a group of people, to people in general, or to a time or place. This topic cannot refer to the addressee directly, nor to a single instantiation of the action judged to be necessary (Noda 1995a: 256, 261). The following is a typical example of usage. (54) Byooin=de=wa, sizuka=ni s.uru mono=da. (Noda 1995a: 257) Hospital-loc-top quiet-adv do-nps thing-cop(-nps) ‘In a hospital, one has to be quiet’ V+(r)u koto expresses a necessity which pragmatically functions as an admonition or caution. The non-realization of the action in the proposition will either lead to the non-achievement of a goal or have other negative consequences (NKBK 2003: 112) (ex. (55)): (55) Gookaku~si-ta.kereba, motto benkyoo~s.uru koto=da. (NKBK 2003: 112) pass.exam-do-bou-con more study-do-nps thing-cop(-nps) ‘If you want to pass your exam, you’ll have to study more’ Unlike V+(r)u mono, this construction can be used with the hearer as the modal target, and for specific instances. Due to its harshness, however, it presupposes a clear hierarchical relationship between speaker and hearer, and is avoided in close relationships (Noda 1995a: 259, NKBK 2003: 112). These two constructions involving sentence nominalization have the common characteristic that they express something which is already known and decided (i.e., supposed to be known and decided) (cf. Noda 1995a: 261). By using them, the speaker “reminds” the hearer of which action is appropriate. Due to their



The modal categories 

relatively limited use, some researchers do not include them in their system of Japanese deontic modality (e.g. Moriyama 2000: 41–42). Adverbs co-occurring with sentence-final forms denoting a necessity or obligation include naru beku, dekiru dake ‘if possible’, doosite mo ‘at any cost’, zehi ‘by all means’, toozen ‘as a matter of course’ etc. (cf. Kudō 2000: 188–189). 10.1.4 Negated necessity (exemption) Negation in the proposition followed by -Te mo ii (‘it is good, even if ’) (10.1.1), resulting in the form -(a)nakute mo ii (‘it is good, even if not’), leads to the expression of exemption, i.e. negation of necessity ((56)). (56)

Kyoo=wa suutu=de syukkin~si-na.kute=mo today-top business.suit-ess come.to.work-do-neg-foc i.i. (NKBK 2003: 122) good-nps ‘[You] don’t need to come to work in your business suit today’ [lit. ‘It is okay even if you don’t come to work in your business suit’] (exemption)

The basic meaning of this construction is permission of non-action, i.e. it “[…] expresses that the non-realization of the state-of-affairs is permissible” (NKBK 2003: 123) As seen in 10.1.1,-Te ii without a focus particle has a sense of urging absent in -Te mo ii. Accordingly, sentence (56) reformulated as (57) below, without the focus particle mo, might even be a strong invitation to come without a business suit. (57) Kyoo=wa suutu=de syukkin~si-na.kute i.i. ‘It is good if you come to work without your suit today’ 10.1.5

Recommendation

As direct expressions of ‘strong’ obligation directed at the hearer tend to be avoided in Japanese communication, the language has developed a range of constructions which express various sorts of recommendation, i.e., very weak obligation. Unlike the ‘must’-type obligation and prohibition they do not end in a negative evaluation but in a positive one, usually the adjective ii ‘good’. V+(r)eba/(r)u to/Tara ii consists of a conditional subordinate clause and the positively valuative consequent ii ‘good’. Its basic meaning is that the state-of-affairs expressed in the antecedent is thought to be desirable (NKBK 2003: 99). There is a certain difference between constructions with -(r)eba or -Tara as their antecedent, and those with to. With -(r)eba and -Tara some purpose (or desired result) is un-



Modality in Japanese

derlyingly implied while the construction with the “factual” conditional to resists such an implication and is a neutral positive evaluation (Takanashi 1995a). The following two examples illustrate this difference: (58)

Yama=e nobor.u toki=wa, amagu=o mot.te mountain-all climb-nps time-top rain.gear-acc take-ger ik.eba/it.tara/ik.u=to i.i. (cf. NKBK 2003: 100) go-con/go-con/go-nps-con good-nps ‘If you go mountain climbing, you’d better take your rain gear with you’ (lit. ‘It would be good if you took your rain gear with you’)

(59)

Yase-ta-kat.tara, kuw-ana.kereba/kat.tara/??i=to slim.down-vol-vrb-con eat-neg-con/vrb-con/nps-con i.i. (Takanashi 1995a: 238, 242) good-nps ‘If you want to slim down, you should eat less’ (lit. ‘It would be good if you ate less, if you want to slim down’)

The sentence in (58) expresses neutral advice – a general desirability – and therefore all three conditional forms are allowed. In contrast, in (59), where a purpose forms the background to the evaluation, the acceptability of the to-conditional is low. These constructions have a ‘recommendation’ or weak obligation meaning if they are used with controllable state-of-affairs. With uncontrollable state-of-affairs they acquire the meaning of a wish (see Section 10.2.3). V+(r)u/Ta hoo ga ii ‘the way/direction of (doing) X is better’ implies a comparison to some unspecified alternative state-of-affairs. NKBK (2003:  103) defines it as “expressing that a certain state-of-affairs is more desirable than another one”. (60) is an example: (60)

Siken=no zenya=wa yoku nemut.te ok.u exam-gen night.before-top well sleep-ger put-nps hoo=ga i.i. (NKBK 2003: 103) direction-nom good-nps ‘You’d better try to sleep well the night before the exam.’

In (60), a contrast between ‘sleeping well’ and ‘not sleeping well’ is implied, and a preference for the former is expressed. Hoo ga ii can be preceded by a verb either in present (-(r)u) or past tense (-Ta) form, but the past tense form has merely a perfective meaning, so that both forms are equally future-oriented. Imai (1990) showed that the past tense form is used about five times more frequently, and that there is a differentiation wherein the present tense form more literally expresses a



The modal categories 

comparison while the past tense form is more grammaticalized in expressing a modal judgment of appropriateness. V+(r)u/Ta hoo ga ii is often compared to beki since V+(r)u/Ta hoo ga ii implies a weak obligation and is thus similar. There are some differences, however. First, Pyamawade (1992) provided tests which showed that hoo ga ii is still weaker than beki. Second, V+(r)u/Ta hoo ga ii implies negative evaluation against an alternative state-of-affairs and can therefore be used in warnings (Takanashi 2002: 119). Thirdly, the judgment expressed by beki is often based on moral or social appropriateness, while in the case of V+(r)u/Ta hoo ga ii, the moral element is absent, and the judgment is based on practical considerations (NKBK 2003: 107; Iori et al. 2001: 222– 223; cf. ex. (60) above). Lastly, the use of the recommendation pattern V+(r)u/Ta hoo ga ii, is a strategy to avoid expressing obligations directly. Therefore, as Chiang (2007) showed in her corpus study on modality and person, V+(r)u/Ta hoo ga ii is predominantly used when referring to the interlocutors (1st and 2nd person subject), but rarely for 3rd person subjects. This is not the case with beki. Lastly, the construction V+(r)u ga ii ‘it is good to’ also expresses recommendation or weak obligation, but has a nuance of ‘non-interference’ and sounds oldfashioned (NKBK 2003:  101). In fact, the morphological form V+(r)u ga ii is a fossilization belonging to the classical style. The grammatically “correct” Modern Japanese form would be V+(r)u no ga ii with a nominalization marker. (61) is an example: (61)

Sonna=ni kaeri-ta.i=nara, tottoto kaer.u=ga like.that-adv return-bou-nps-con quickly return-nps-nom i.i. (NKBK 2003: 101) good-nps ‘If you [desperately] want to go home like this, why don’t you do so immediately?’ [lit. ‘If you want to go home like this, it is good to go home immediately’]

Unlike the constructions with the conditional, V+(r)u ga ii is only felicitous with the hearer as the modal target and is therefore limited in its use (Morita & Matsuki 1989: 265). I am not aware of adverbs that are specifically linked to ‘recommendation’ markers in the literature. My own corpus data suggest that -(r)eba ii associates with tonikaku ‘in any case’, and hoo ga ii with musiro ‘rather/preferably’.



Modality in Japanese

10.1.6 Inevitability V+(a)zaru o enai ‘be forced to/can’t help but/have no other choice than (V)’ and V+(r)u sika nai ‘there is only (V-ing)’ express a lack of choice of action and, in consequence, the inevitability of taking an action. V+(a)zaru o enai is morphologically a fossilized Classical Japanese form. Literally meaning ‘cannot get/obtain not doing [something]’, it denotes necessity due to lack of choice and, pragmatically, often denotes regret that taking the action expressed by the verb is inevitable (cf. Kuramochi 1993a: 104f). The following is an example: (62)

Kekka=o mat.u tame, watasi=wa hoteru=ni ip-paku~s.ezaru=o result-acc wait-nps purpose 1S-top hotel-loc one-stay-do-neg-acc e-na-kat.ta. (Kōtarō Sawaki: Isshun no Natsu, 1982) obtain-neg-vrb-pst ‘In order to wait for the result, I had [no choice but] to stay the night at a hotel’

This construction is sometimes compared to the more common V+(a)nakereba naranai, which also expresses a strong necessity. It has been pointed out that (a) V+(a)zaru o enai expresses the idea that something is beyond the control of the subject (mostly the speaker), which is not necessarily the case with V+(a)nakereba naranai; consequently V+(a)nakereba naranai has a potential element of subjective speaker judgment that V+(a)zaru o enai has not (Kuramochi 1993a;Ozaki 1998); (b) the construction has an implication of regret that V+(a)nakereba naranai does not have (Kuramochi 1993a: 105), and (c) as a rule it cannot be used for second person subjects since it is infelicitous to predict a lack of choice of action for a second person (??’you are forced to’, ??‘you can’t help but’) (NKBK 2003: 115). A second common construction with a similar meaning is V+(r)u sika nai ‘there is only (V-ing)’, containing the limitative particle sika ‘only’, which, being a negative polarity item, formally triggers negation in the predicate, and thus accompanies nai ‘not be’ as the predicate. The following is an example: (63) Yowa.i mono=wa rensyuu~s.uru=sika na.i. weak-nps person-top practice-do-nps-lim not.be-nps ‘The weak must [= have no other choice than to] practice.’ Concerning the difference between V+(a)zaru o enai and V+(r)u sika nai, Ozaki (1998) has noted that the former tends to be used when an action is demanded out of concern for negative consequences, while the latter is used to indicate a means towards positively achieving a goal (cf. also NKBK 2003: 116). A third, less common, but nevertheless occasionally mentioned construction, is V+(a)nai wake ni wa ikanai ‘it does not go not to do (V)’ (the internally negated



The modal categories 

equivalent of V+(r)u wake ni wa ikanai in Table 8 and 10.1.2), which likewise indicates lack of choice, as in (64) below: (64)

“…Gakkoo=de su.u=na=yo. Kotti=mo okor-ana.i school-loc smoke-nps-prb-ill here-foc get.angry-neg-nps wake=ni=wa ik-ana.i=yo.” (Mainichi Newspaper 4/1998) grounds-adv-top go-neg-nps-ill ‘…don’t smoke at school! Me too, I have to get mad at you!

A big difference between these three ‘inevitability’ constructions on the one hand, and the ‘obligation’ constructions such as V+(a)nakereba naranai and V+(r)u beki on the other is that the inevitability constructions imply realization in the past, while the obligation/necessity constructions do not (Moriyama 1997: 115; NKBK 2003: 115). Cf. the following example: (65)

Sen-syuumatsu=wa syukkin~*s.ezaru=o e-na-kat.ta last-weekend-top go.to.work-do-neg-acc obtain-neg-vrb-pst/ /si-na.kereba nar-ana-kat.ta=ga, /do-neg-con become-neg-vrb-pst-avs soo si-na-kat.ta. (NKBK 2003: 115) that.way do-neg-vrb-pst ‘Last weekend I had to go to work, but I didn’t.’

In this sentence, where the actual realization of the event is denied in the second clause, only the obligation/necessity construction is acceptable while the inevitability constructions (represented by V+(a)zaru o enai) are not. My corpus data suggest that V+(a)zaru o enai typically co-occurs with doosite mo ‘at any cost’, while sika nai co-occurs with tonikaku ‘in any case’. 10.1.7 Summary As was mentioned in the introduction to this section, many deontic expressions in Modern Japanese are formally based on conditionals, and the morphologically most basic, i.e. unmarked, conditional construction is the one for permission. Whether ‘permission’ is also the most unmarked deontic domain in cognitive and pragmatic terms is a different matter. As will be seen later (Section 14.1), the obligation construction, which is morphologically the most marked, is the most common construction in terms of frequency of use, and is generally perceived as the typical or representative deontic form in Modern Japanese. The most influential proposal presenting a coherent ‘system’ of Japanese deontic modality based on a single concept has been that put forward by Moriyama (1997, 2000). Moriyama views Japanese deontic modal expressions as forming a

 Modality in Japanese

FREEDOM OF CHOICE

scale of ‘choice of state-of-affairs’ expressions. He focused on the most typical or salient among the markers and constructions of deontic modality described in the previous subsections, and applied three tests to them revealing the ‘degree of freedom of choice’ (for the modal target) that they express2 and arriving at the scale represented in Figure 15 below (cf. Moriyama 1997: 23). Note that the particular spatial arrangement and the category labels have been changed in order to make it fit the description and presentation given here. This scale of ‘degree of freedom of choice’ can also be viewed without difficulty as a more traditional scale of ‘degree of modal strength’ from (high) necessity to possibility. Ozaki (1998) conceptualized the ‘necessity’ area from ‘inevitability’ to ‘weak obligation’ in terms of different grounds for the modal deontic judgment. He proposed one division in terms of subjective judgment vs. situationally-conditioned judgment, where the weak obligation beki expresses subjective judgment, the inevitability markers situationally-conditioned judgment, and the strong obligation markers express both. Lastly, it should have become clear from the description above that various types of deontic modality in Modern Japanese are compatible in various ways with the ‘person’ of the modal target. The first person is in principle compatible with all types, but with ‘recommendation’ and ‘weak obligation’ an epistemic qualification or illocutionary modulation is necessary to make the expression felicitous (cf. Moriyama 1992a). Further, with ‘permission’ -Te mo ii, the meaning changes from ‘permission’ to ‘willingness’. In contrast, the ‘recommendation’ and ‘permission’

–(a)zaru o enai

INEVITABILITY

–(a)nakereba naranai

GENERAL OBLIGATION

beki

VALUATIVE OBLIGATION

hoo ga ii

RECOMMENDATION

–Te mo ii

PERMISSION/EXEMPTION

Figure 15.  Scale of deontic expressions in Japanese (based on Moriyama 1997, 2000) 2. The three tests are: 1) Contradictory choice test: ‘I have to/can/... do it, but I won’t’. 2) Free addition test: ‘I have to/can/... do it, but I don’t have to’. 3) Combined negation test: ‘I have to/ can/... do it, but I don’t have to/can.’



The modal categories 

Table 11.  Compatibilities of different deontic modalities in Modern Japanese with different modal targets Modal target

High compatibility

Low compatibility

1st Person 2nd person

general necessity/obligation, inevitability, willingness recommendation, permission

3rd person

all types of obligation

recommendation, valuative obligation inevitability, general necessity/obligation recommendation, permission/willingness

expressions are especially suitable for second person modal targets while the ‘inevitability’ expressions are usually not. Lastly, the third person is compatible with any kind of modality but is in fact only rarely used with ‘recommendation’ expressions. These are not grammatical constraints but observations about some solid pragmatic tendencies. They can be summarized as in Table 11: 10.2 Boulomaic modality Boulomaic modality in this study is viewed as a volitive modal category dealing with wishes and desires. In Modern Japanese, boulomaic modality is grammaticalized with the first person (speaker) as the default modal source, and different forms are distinguishable according to the modal target and to the controllability of the state of affairs.3 When the state-of-affairs is controllable and the modal target is the first person, ‘intention’ markers are used. When the modal target is the second or third person, ‘desire’ markers are used, and when the state-of-affairs is uncontrollable, expressions for ‘wishes’ are used. The classification proposed for this section can thus be represented as in Figure 16 below: Even more so than in the case of deontic modality, the borderline with clausal moods is hazy. We consider as clausal moods forms and constructions that are used (as a rule) purely performatively and that therefore have an in-built illocutionary force. In contrast, those markers and constructions treated under the heading of ‘boulomaic modality’ only acquire illocutionary force if used sentencefinally and if morphologically unmodified, but are easily modified for descriptive use and integrated into the proposition. As in the case of deontic modality, we are 3. In a cross-linguistic study, Sugawara (2005) shows that in a number of languages, ‘desideratives’ are bound to person (modal source) distinctions. However, Sugawara draws a line between 1st and 2nd person, instead of 1st person and other persons, as in this study. This is problematic, since in Japanese it is clearly only the first person with which the various boulomaic modal forms (incl. ‘desideratives’ in the sense of Sugawara) can be used unmarkedly in a declarative sentence.



Modality in Japanese

+

modal target

controllability of state-of-affairs

1P 2/3P

−

INTENTION DESIRE

WISH

Figure 16.  Boulomaic categories in Modern Japanese

dealing here with periphrastic constructions and suffixes. Modal adverbs only reinforce boulomaic modal notions which are already marked in the predicate (verbal complex). There is considerable overlap between adverbs harmonizing with boulomaic expressions and with those marking deontic expressions. 10.2.1 Intention The most prominent markers for intention are the suffixal adjective -tai and the noun tumori. -tai “expresses a strong desire by the speaker [...] for the realization of an action” (Group Jamashii 1998: 180). The construction with -tai is bound to the speaker (66) unless it is either used in interrogatives (67), modified evidentially (68), or by the verbalizing suffix -garu, or it is embedded in an adverbial or adnominal construction (cf. Makino & Tsutsui 1986: 443; Iori et al. 2000: 140–141). (66)

Tumeta.i mono=ga nomi-ta.i=des.u. (cf. Group Jamashii 1998: 180) cold-nps thing-nom drink-int-nps-pol-nps ‘I want to drink something cold’ #‘You want to drink something cold’ #‘(S)he wants to drink something cold’

(67)

Tumeta.i mono=ga nomi-ta.i=des.u=ka. cold-nps thing-nom drink-int-nps ‘Do you want to drink something cold?’ ??‘Does (s)he want to drink something cold?’ #‘Do I want to drink something cold?’

(68)

Tumeta.i mono=ga nomi-ta.i yoo=des.u. cold-nps thing-nom drink-int-nps evi-pol-nps ‘Apparently, (s)he wants to drink something cold’ #‘Apparently, I want to drink something cold’ #‘Apparently, you want to drink something cold’



The modal categories 

-tai in questions (67) is still problematic because it is considered to be rude to directly ask for someone’s wishes or intentions, unless speaker and hearer are close (cf. Iori et al. 2000: 142). Another well-known fact about -tai is that it optionally changes case-marking in the proposition. Accusative o-marking on the object can be converted to gamarking. Thus, in Examples (66) to (68) above, mono ga would be ungrammatical in a clause without -tai marking. Instead, mono o would have to be used. In an empirical study on the ga-o conversion with -tai, Iori showed that this conversion is in principle only possible with indigenous Japanese verbs, and when the object immediately precedes the predicate (Iori 1995: 56f). As Masuoka (2006) has pointed out, the use of -tai has been marginally extended to denoting an evaluation. This use is remotely comparable to patterns such as you may want to in English. However, the modal target is an unspecified second or third person and general desirability is expressed, as in Example (69) below. Also, this use is found primarily in written language. (69)

Syoohi-sya=wa [...] henpin~toraburu=ni sonae-ta.i consume-person-top return.goods-trouble-dat prepare-int-nps mono=des.u. (cf. Masuoka 2006: 71; from a newspaper text) thing-pol-nps ‘Consumers [...] should be prepared for problems when it comes to returning goods.’ (lit. ‘Consumers want to be prepared for problems....’)

Tumori ‘intention’ (ex. (70)) is a noun that, added to the non-past form of a verb, “expresses an intention which is based on a plan that has been made before the time of speech” (NKBK 2003: 59). (70)

Asita-koso=wa Tanaka-kun=ni hakkiri hanasi=o s.uru tomorrow-ctr-top (name)-tom-dat clearly talk-acc do-nps tumori=da. (NKBK 2003: 59) intention-cop(-nps) ‘Tomorrow I want to talk openly with Tanaka.’

Moriyama (2000: 69–70) suggests that there are three stages in making and talking about an intention. -(y)oo is the stage of making up one’s mind, unmarked -(r)u (non-past) is announcing a decision with illocutionary (commissive) force and tumori indicates that the speaker has already made up his or her mind in the past. It thus lacks immediate illocutionary force.4 Relatedly, it has been pointed out that 4. Moriyama (2000) does not state so explicitly, but I presume that -tai cannot be pinned down to any of these three stages. Instead, it can be used in principle for all three stages, which makes it the broadest of all intention markers.



Modality in Japanese

tumori is easier to use in expressions of the intention for 3rd person modal sources than is -tai (NKBK 2003: 59). Furthermore, it has been claimed that tumori presupposes the presence of a hearer, that is, it is infelicitous in soliloquy (Nitta 1991b). Adverbs harmoniously used with expressions of intentions include zehi ‘by all means’, dekireba ‘if possible’ and nan to ka ‘in some way or other’ (cf. Kudō 2000: 188–189). 10.2.2 Desire When the modal target of a desire is the hearer (second person), the forms V+Te hosii and V+Te moraitai are employed. These forms end in the adjectives hosii ‘be desirable (to the speaker’)’ and moraitai, consisting of the benefactive verb morau ‘get/have done for one’s benefit’ plus the intention ending -tai. They are generally held to be synonyms (cf. Moriyama & Adachi 1996; Miyagawa 1998), as they both express “the speaker’s wish that an action is realized towards the hearer”, and thus also function as indirect requests (NKBK 2003:  75). An example for each construction is given in (71) and (72): (71) Anata=ni=wa zutto koko=ni i.te hosi.i. (NKBK 2003: 75) 2S-dat-top all.along here-loc be-ger want-nps ‘I want you to be here [with me] all the way.’ (72) Zemi=no happyoo=o tetudat.te morai-ta.i. seminar-gen presentation-acc help-ger get-int-nps ‘I want you to help me with my seminar presentation.’ (Moriyama & Adachi 1996: 118) Although these constructions are largely synonymous, it has been pointed out that -Te moraitai is more direct, presupposing a specific modal target, and thus better suited for actual requests, while -Te hosii is conversely more appropriate when the speaker utters his desire with low expectation about actual fulfillment or with no specific modal target in mind (Morita & Matsuki 1989: 282; Sakata 1993a: 62f; Yui 1995: 224f). This contrast can be illustrated by the contrast between Example (73), with a straightforward request, and (75), with a general wish: (73)

Matigat.te i.tara anata=ni naosi.te be.mistaken-ger be-con 2s-dat correct-ger morai-ta.i / ?hosi.i. (Yui 1995: 224) get-int-nps / want-nps ‘I want you to correct me if I am mistaken.’



The modal categories 

(74)

Motto sumi~yo.i syakai=ni nat.te more live-good-nps society-dat become-ger ?morai-ta.i / hosi.i. (cf. Sakata 1993a: 63) get-int-nps / want-nps ‘I want this to become a better society.’

10.2.3 Wishes To express wishing the realization of an uncontrollable state-of-affairs, two constructions are used. Both have already been mentioned in their primary function in different contexts, namely the ‘recommendation’ construction V+Tara/reba/(r)u to ii, and the ‘desire’ construction V+Te hosii (the virtual synonym V+Te moraitai is usually infelicitous in this context; cf. Miyagawa 1998: 41). The following are examples: (75) Haya.ku suzusi.ku nat.te hosi.i=des.u. (Morita & Matsuki 1989: 282) quick-adv cool-adv become-ger want-nps-pol-nps ‘I wish it would become [a bit] cooler soon’ (76)

Asu ame=ga hur.u=to / hur.eba / hut.tara tomorrow rain-nom fall-nps-con / fall-con / fall-con i.i=naa. (Takanashi 1995a: 236) good-nps-ill ‘I wish it would rain tomorrow.’

Although these two constructions have the same function with the same type of proposition, there are a few differences. V+Tara/reba/-(r)u to ii usually requires the addition of some illocutionary modulation, which in ex. (76) is provided by the particle naa expressing the speaker’s emotion, while V+Te hosii does not. Also, V+Tara/reba/-(r)u to ii can be used to express an unfulfillable wish with the speaker himself as the modal target (ex. (77)), while V+Te hosii is always bound to second and third persons. (77)

Watasi, o.kane~moti=ni nar-e.tara i.i=naa. / 1S hon-money-have-dat become-pot-con good-nps-ill / #nar-e.te hosi.i=naa. become- pot-ger want-nps-ill ‘I wish I could become rich’

The construction V+Te hosii in this example would only be felicitous with a second or third person modal target.



Modality in Japanese

10.3 Dynamic modality Modern Japanese has three major affixes and constructions to mark dynamic (root) modality in the sense of ability and situational possibility, namely the verbal suffixes -(r)areru and -(r)eru, and the construction koto ga dekiru. We will call them ‘potential’ constructions and markers here. -(r)areru is highly polysemous, having also passive, spontaneous, and honorific marking function. The development of the alternative potential form -(r)eru (called kanō dōshi (allomorph -eru) and ra-nuki kotoba (allomorph -reru) in Japanese linguistics) that started in late Middle Japanese has in effect relieved -(r)areru of some of its functional load. That is, -(r)areru with potential meaning has become relatively rare. The construction koto ga dekiru is also a development of Modern Japanese (cf. Kanda 1961: 72). The following sentence is an example where these three forms can be used without apparent change in meaning or function. (78)

Eki=made=nara, basu=de=mo ik-e.ru/ ik-are.ru/ station-lim-con bus-ins-foc go-pot-nps/ go-pot-nps/ ik.u koto=ga deki.ru. go-nps thing-nom be.possible-nps ‘We can also take the bus to the station.’

In semantic terms, these three forms are believed to by synonyms (cf. Okuda 1986: 187). Their differences are mainly stylistic, morphological, and pragmatic. Specifically, the following divergences have been pointed out: i. -(r)eru is mainly used with consonant-stem verbs while -(r)areru is used with vowel-stem verbs.5 However, recently -(r)eru has also made inroads into vowel-stem verbs (cf. Nakagomi 1988). ii. -(r)areru and especially -(r)eru belong mainly to spoken language, while koto ga dekiru belongs mainly to written style (cf. Kanda 1961: 82; Endo 1977: 53). Within the written language, there is an even stronger tendency to use koto ga dekiru in newspaper language as compared to fiction (Endo 1977: 53). iii. The constructions differ slightly with respect to the types of predicates they modify. Koto ga dekiru is better than -(r)eru and -(r)areru modifying predicates of low volitionality. -(r)eru and -(r)areru, unlike koto ga dekiru, are sometimes used with predicates that refer to the properties of a subject conveying a positive or negative evaluation by the speaker (cf. Shibuya 1995: 118–19). iv. Koto ga dekiru, being an analytic construction, allows more freedom in formal variation, and thus also in terms of information packaging. For example, in

5.

Suru ‘do’ has the suppletive potential form dekiru.



The modal categories 

contrast to -(r)eru and -(r)areru, this construction allows the focusing or topicalization of the embedded proposition (cf. Shibuya 1995: 117–18). The following examples illustrate points (iii) and (iv). (79) shows koto ga dekiru with a predicate of low volitionality, (80) shows -(r)eru in an evaluative sentence, and (81) koto ga dekiru with focusing of the proposition. (79)

Kono daigaku=ni ik.eba, i.i sensei=ni osowar.u dem university-dat go-con good-nps teacher-dat be.taught-nps koto=ga deki.ru / ?osowar-e.ru. (Shibuya 1995: 116) thing-nom be.possible-nps / be.taught-pot-nps ‘If you go to this university, you can learn [‘have the opportunity to be taught’] from good teachers.’

(80)

Ano katyoo=wa totemo hanas-e.ru=yo dem section.head-top very speak-pot-nps-ill /? hanas.u koto=ga deki.ru=yo. (cf. Shibuya 1995: 119) talk-nps thing-nom be.possible-ill ‘That section head is good at talking.’

(81)

Taroo=wa hitori=de syokudoo=ni hair.u Taroo-top alone-ess cafeteria-dat enter-nps koto=sura deki-na.i. (Shibuya 1995: 117) thing-min be.possible-neg-nps ‘Tarō is unable to even enter the cafeteria alone.’

A salient property of potential markers in Japanese is that they lead to an optional change in case marking if the predicate is transitive. The canonical transitive case frame X1 ga (nom) X2 o (acc) can be changed to either (i) X1 ga X2 ga or (ii) X1 ni (dat) X2 ga (cf. Rickmeyer 1995: 94).6 In other words, the person to whom the ability or possibility is attributed can be expressed as a dative (experiencer), and the object can become a nominative. (82) is an example of (i) X1 ga X2 ga and (83) an example of (ii) X1 ni (dat) X2 ga. (82)

Yuukensya=wa […] zibun=no tugoo=ni awase.te voter-top self-gen circumstance-dat adjust-ger kityoo=na ippyoo=ga koosi~s.uru koto=ga deki.te, precious-adn vote-nom exercise-do-nps thing-nom be.possible-ger […] (Mori 2005: 25) ‘The voters can exercise their precious voting right when it suits their circumstances.’

6. Martin (1988:  302) notes a third pattern X-ni X-o only for koto-ga dekiru, but not for -(r)areru. If this pattern exists, it is certainly rare.



Modality in Japanese

(83) Taziro=ni=wa sore=ga tae-rare-na.i=no=da. (Masuoka 1987: 171) (name)-dat-top that-nom bear-pot-neg-nps-nmz-cop(-nps) ‘Tajiro can’t bear this.’ The change in case marking is more common with -(r)areru and -(r)eru than with koto ga dekiru, although it has been pointed out that -(r)areru and -(r)eru with variable case marking are declining in Modern Japanese (cf. Takahashi 1991: 40). Because of this optional change in the case frame of the predicate, traditional Japanese grammar views the potential constructions as ‘voice’ even if no change in the case frame actually takes place (cf. e.g. Masuoka 1987: 171).7 Besides the three major potential constructions with -(r)areru, -(r)eru and koto ga dekiru, Modern Japanese has two minor potential suffixes, the use of which is constrained in various ways. The use of -Eru ‘be possible’ is mainly limited to written language (Sakata 1993d: 75), and it is actually rare compared to the three other forms, particularly in conversation, novels and textbooks (Endō 1977: 53). It is productively used only with a small number of verbs, especially verbs of existence and coming-into-existence. Cf. the following example: (84) Onazi yoo=na ziken=wa kongo=mo okori.uru. (Kaneko 1986: 89) same way-adn incident-top after.this-foc occur-pot ‘It is possible that incidents like this also occur in the future.’ In examples like this, -Eru denotes the objective existence of a possibility. -Eru is usually classified as an expression of potential, but since it frequently marks stateof-affairs that are not controllable by the subject, it comes closer to epistemic modality than the three major ‘potential’ constructions. Lastly, the suffix verb -kaneru is a negative potential which is used in formal contexts in order to express a polite refusal or disapproval, as in (85). Its negation is pragmatically completely different, as it takes a negatively evaluated proposition as its complement and denotes an apprehension or warning (86): (85) Go.iken=ni sansei~si-kane-mas.u. (Group Jamashii 1998: 83) hon-opinion-dat approval-do-neg-pot-hon-nps ‘I can’t agree with your (honorable) opinion.’ (86) Deai-kei saito=wa ziken=no hikigane=ni meet-system site-top incident-gen trigger -dat nari-kane-na.i. 7. Takahashi (1991:  39–40) takes an intermediate position in suggesting that the potential constructions are originally voice constructions but are on their way towards modality. To justify this hypothesis he cites the proceeding formal differentiation between voice and potential constructions and the fact that the change in case marking is receding.



The modal categories 

become-neg-pot-neg-nps ‘Online dating sites can become the trigger for (unfortunate) incidents.’ The negated -kanenai, denoting a fear or apprehension is also close to epistemic modality, as it takes uncontrollable states of affairs as complements. Expressions of dynamic modality associate with specific adverbs only in negation. Kudō (2000: 189) lists totemo ‘very’, tootei ‘possibly’, nakanaka ‘beyond expectation’ and doosite mo ‘by all means’ as adverbs co-occurring with expressions of negated possibility. The following is an example of doosite mo (87). (87)

Komako=wa doosite=mo aite=o (name)-top by.all.means other.person-dat omoi~das-e-na-kat.ta. (Kudō (1996: 166) recall-bring.out-pot-neg-vrb-nps ‘Komako was completely unable to recall the other person.’

10.4 Epistemic modality This section will be organized differently from previous ones. Unlike deontic, boulomaic and dynamic modality, epistemic modality is also saliently expressed outside the predicate. In this section we proceed from marking in the verbal complex, through adverbs, to mental state predicates. 10.4.1 Marking in the verbal complex Although with epistemic modality, other means of marking also play an important role, periphrastic and affixal marking on the predicate is nevertheless central. The reasons are that adverb marking to a large degree cannot occur independently of marking on the predicate (cf. Section 10.4.2), and that mental state predicates (Section 10.4.3) are ambiguous in their status between ordinary complement-taking verbs and modal markers, that is, are no clear modal markers. Although Modern Japanese has no morphosyntactically coherent set of modal markers like the English modals, there is a set of grammaticalized periphrastic constructions and affixes that are generally believed to form the core of epistemic modal expression (the evidential being accounted for separately). These are hazu and ni tigai nai, which can roughly be identified with epistemic necessity, ka mo sirenai, which is identified with epistemic possibility, and the speculative daroo (cf. Miyake 1995a: 3; Morita 2002: 292; NKBK 2003: ch. 3, 4). Epistemic necessity and epistemic possibility are distinguished by expressing a high vs. low degree of likelihood

 Modality in Japanese

(from the perspective of the state-of-affairs) or confidence (from the perspective of the speaker) (cf. Kuramochi 1993c: 184; Morita 2002: 293; Nitta 2000: 131). The ‘speculative’ is allegedly not bound to a specific degree of certainty or probability. According to the forms available in Japanese, this section will be divided into the three subsections of epistemic necessity, epistemic possibility, and the speculative. 10.4.1.1 Epistemic necessity The periphrastic construction ni tigai nai lit. ‘there is no mistake in’ is a close counterpart to English epistemic must. (88) is an example of ni tigai nai: (88)

Sono nimotu=wa sensyuu okut.ta=no=da=kara, moo tui.te dem luggage-top last.week send-pst-nmz-cal already arrive-ger i.ru=ni tigai na.i. (NKBK 2003: 163) be-nps-dat mistake not.be-nps ‘Since I sent off the luggage last weak, it must already be there.’

ni tigai nai is rarely used with reference to the speaker or the hearer. Chiang (2007) recorded numbers of less than 10% usage of ni tigai nai for the first person, and not a single example for ni tigai nai with the second person. Apparently, it is pragmatically odd to express an inference with a high certainty about oneself, because speaker’s and hearers have control over themselves. Either they do not know (low certainty), or they are certain, in which case they can give an epistemically unqualified judgment. Ni tigai nai has the stylistic (formal) variant ni sooi nai, in which the Japanese noun tigai is replaced by the Sino-Japanese synonym sooi. The so-called ‘formal noun’ hazu, etymologically derived from a noun with the meaning ‘arrow nock’, has mostly been labeled as a ‘matter-of-course’ marker in Japanese grammar studies (cf. Okuda 1993: 180; NKBK 2003: 161), but Western-minded studies have sometimes also labeled it as an epistemic necessity marker, together with ni tigai nai (cf. Yamada 1990: 72; Johnson 2003: 37). In fact, in many contexts it corresponds to English must, and in others to should or be supposed to. The best translation is probably as ‘well-founded expectation’ or ‘conclusion’, that is, ‘there is a well-founded expectation/conclusion that’. Hazu is semantically close to, and has often been compared to ni tigai nai. In ex. (88), for example, hazu could be used as well, as is shown in (89) below: (89) Sono nimotu=wa sensyuu okut.ta=no=da=kara, moo tui.te dem luggage-top last.week send-pst-nmz-cop-cal already arrive-ger



The modal categories 

i.ru hazu=da. (NKBK 2003: 163) be-nps epi-cop(-nps) ‘Since I sent off the luggage last weak, it must already be there [lit. ‘the well-founded expectation/conclusion is that it is already there].’ In such a context of a logical conclusion, hazu and ni tigai nai are practically interchangeable (NKBK 2003: 163). Concerning their mutual differences, it has sometimes been suggested that hazu expresses a conclusion on the basis of strong evidence while ni tigai nai in principle merely presents the speaker’s subjective belief (e.g. Kuramochi 1993b: 127–130; Miyake 1993: 41; Nakamura 2003: 20). There is some reason, however, to doubt this claim. Consider ex. (89), where despite strong evidence being available in context, and the conclusion having no particular ‘subjective’ flavor, ni tigai nai is still completely natural. We will thus first look at the concrete differences between hazu and tigai nai that have been claimed before presenting a conclusion. First, as Miyake pointed out, ni tigai nai cannot be used in contexts where the speaker has authority and where (s)he has to take responsibility for his/her utterances, for example, a doctor speaking to a patient (Miyake 1993: 40). Secondly, only hazu and not ni tigai nai can be used when only one conclusion is logically possible (Kinoshita 1997:  170), and when the truth value is already decided. These possibilities are unavailable not only to ni tigai nai but to other epistemic forms as well (cf. Okuda 1993: 180; NKBK 2003: 163).8 In (90), hazu is felicitous, but ni tigai nai not, because the conclusion modalized by hazu in this example is the only logically possible one: (90)

Yamamoto=wa boku=yori hutatu sita=da=kara, kotosi=de (name)-top 1S-abl two low-cop-cal this.year-adv san-zyuu=ni nar.u hazu=da / *ni-tigai na.i. three-ten-dat become-nps nock-cop(-nps) / -dat mistake not.be-nps ‘Since Yamamoto is two years younger than me, he should become 30 this year.’ (NKBK 2003: 163)

Ni tigai nai would be odd since its use implies that the conclusion is the result of a choice between two or more alternative conclusions. Likewise, in (184), hazu modifies a proposition the truth value of which is known to the speaker. (91) Zenkai=no toki=ni o-kotowari~si.te oi.ta hazu=yo last.time-gen time-adv hon-decline-do-ger put-pst epi-ill

8. Adachi (1999:  56, 103) cites this as a reason not to include hazu in his “epistemic predicate forms”.

 Modality in Japanese



/*ni tigai na.i=yo. Kekkon aite-gurai zibun=de /-dat mistake not.be-nps-ill marriage partner-lim self-adv mituke.ru. (cf. Matsuda 1994: 66) find-nps ‘I presume I [already] declined the other day. I can find a partner for marriage by myself ’

For the speaker, it is a fact that she declined to be introduced to prospective marriage partners. She only rhetorically presents this as a supposition. In the following two Examples (92) and (93), the reverse situation holds. Ni tigai nai is felicitous but hazu not. With respect to (92), Okabe (2004) points out that ni tigai nai can be used to infer a reason (cause), which is not possible with hazu. (92)

Karada=ga daru.i. Kaze=o hii.ta=ni tigai na.i. body-nom languid-nps cold-acc catch-pst-dat mistake not.be-nps / ?hazu=da. (cf. Okabe 2004: 119) / epi-cop(-nps) ‘I feel listless. I must have caught a cold’

Lastly, (93), which for Miyake (1993: 42) illustrates ni tigai nai’s presumptive subjectivity is infelicitous with hazu because it expresses, in Okabe’s (2004: 116) terms, ‘the interpretation of a (present) situation’, a use not equally available to hazu. (93)

Ikken mi.te sono otoko=ga hannin=ni tigai na.i/ one-look see-ger dem man-nom culprit-dat mistake not.be-nps *=no hazu=da=to kanzi.ta. (cf. Miyake 1993: 42) gen epi-cop(-nps)-quo feel-pst ‘On first glance I had the feeling that [(s)he] must be the culprit’

We now come back to the question of what lies behind all these individual differences, rather than resorting to the term ‘subjectivity’ which has been used rather vaguely in this context. Martin (1988: 736) has interpreted hazu’s basic ‘matter-ofcourse’ meaning as ‘(what matches) the general expectation’, ‘what one has every reason to think’ Kinoshita (1997) couched the same observation in terms of ‘presupposition’, that is, the use of hazu always entails he speaker having some presupposition in mind that serves as grounds for the conclusion. This can be shown with the following example (Kinoshita 1997: 171): (94) A: Kono heya atu.ku na.i=ne. dem room hot-adv not.be-np-ill B: Soo=da=ne. Kore=dake hito=ga i.ru=kara atu.i this.way-cop-(nps)-ill this-lim person-nom be-nps-cal hot-nps



The modal categories 

hazu=na=no=ni=ne. epi- adn-nmz-cnc-ill ‘A: “This room isn’t hot, is it?” – B: “No. [It isn’t hot] although it should be because there are so many people [in it].” The speaker verbalizes his or her inference based on the rule that rooms with many people in them should be hot, and on the case that there are many people in this room, thus concluding the room should be hot. This is typical deductive reasoning. Note that in this example, ni tigai nai or ka mo sirenai would be infelicitous. Now, recall again that, as in (92), hazu cannot be used towhen inferring a reason. Formulated more precisely, if Okabe (2004) is correct, ni tigai nai is also used for abductive and inductive reasoning, while hazu is only used for deductive reasoning.9 Hazu thus denotes that a proposition is held to be true relative to strong beliefs, general rules or knowledge in the mind of the speaker, which function as the presuppositions for the conclusion modified by hazu. Ni tigai nai, in contrast, does not imply the existence of such presuppositions and is therefore suited for inductive and abductive reasoning. Compared to hazu, it expresses so-to-speak ad hoc conclusions based on the observation of circumstances. We suggest that this is the reason why ni tigai nai is pragmatically infelicitous if speakers in the position of authority or expert knowledge share their inferences with patients, clients etc.: they are supposed to speak presupposing their knowledge and beliefs. Lastly, ni tigai nai and hazu are also stylistically different. Ni tigai nai is rarely used in conversation. Chiang (2007: 170), in her study on modality and person, counted only 3% of occurrences in (represented) conversation. In the mode of conversation, no daroo and no ka mo sirenai are more common to express ‘inferences about reasons’. There is no such restriction on hazu. 10.4.1.2 Epistemic possibility Ka mo sirenai, a periphrastic construction literally meaning ‘one cannot know if even...’ is the major construction marking epistemic possibility. As some scholars have pointed out, it simply expresses the possibility of the existence or cominginto-being of a state-of-affairs, rather than positively expressing that the possibility is low (Miyake 1992: 38, Miyazaki 2002b: 145). Cf. the following example: (95) Hyotto~si.te ninki~kasyu=ni nar-e.ru=ka=mo by.chance-do-ger popular-singer-dat become-pot-nps-que-foc

9. 90 suggests that ni tigai nai is infelicitous with deductive reasoning, but this is not always the case. 88 shows felicitous use of ni tigai nai with deductive reasoning. The detailed conditions of the use of ni tigai nai with deductive reasoning still need to be spelt out.

 Modality in Japanese



sir-e-na.iyo! ... Iya zettai nar-e.ru=zo, know-pot-neg-nps-ill no absolutely become-pot-nps-ill Tomoko-tyan=nara. (Miyake 1992: 39) (name)-tom-con ‘You could even become a famous singer... No, you’ll definitely become one, as it’s you, Tomoko!’

The first sentence ‘you could become’ denotes just one possibility, and at the same time a relatively low certainty on part of the speaker. The second sentence cancels the low certainty and replaces it with a high certainty prediction. The point with respect to ka mo sirenai however is that it does not express ‘there is a low possibility you will become a famous singer’, but simply ‘there is a possibility’. In contrast to epistemic necessity where one possibility is also chosen, albeit a possibility much greater than any other, epistemic possibility implies the existence of various other possibilities on a par. This can be shown in the following type of construction. (96)

Ik.u=ka=mo sir-e-na.i=si ik-ana.i=ka=mo go-nps-que-foc know-pot-neg-nps go-neg-nps-que-foc sir-e-na.i. know-pot-neg-nps ‘I may go but I might as well not go’

The juxtaposition of two contradictory possibilities is only permissible with expressions of epistemic possibility, not with epistemic necessity markers or the ‘speculative’ (cf. Nitta 2000: 130; 2002: 145; NKBK 2003: 153).10 A further interesting aspect characterizing epistemic possibility is that ka mo sirenai can also be used when the proposition contradicts the speaker’s convictions, as in ex. (97). (97)

Kare=wa moo ie=ni tui.ta=to omo.u=ga, aruiwa, he-top already house-all arrive-pst-quo believe-nps-ctr or mada tui.te i-na.i=ka=mo sir-e-na.i. (Miyake 1992: 40) still arrive-ger be-neg-nps-que-foc know-pot-neg-nps ‘I believe he’s already arrived home, but it is possible he hasn’t yet’

Based on uses like this, where ka mo sirenai is contrasted with the speaker’s own belief, it has been ascribed to a function of objectification (Hirata 2001: 63). Likewise, in parallel to English may (cf. Coates 1983: 135), ka mo sirenai is used in concessive clauses, acknowledging an interlocutor’s opinion, while at the same time withholding the speaker’s commitment to the validity of this opinion. Such 10. In English, may may present two contradictory possibilities but can may not (cf. Coates 1983: 134).



The modal categories 

uses are possible because ka mo sirenai expresses just one of many competing possibilities. Ni tigai nai, hazu and daroo (next sections) would all be infelicitous in these contexts (cf. Miyake 1992: 42).11 Ka mo sirenai can also be used to express the speaker’s own plans (98). (98)

Kimi=wa asita, gakkoo=ni k.uru? you-top tomorrow school-all come-nps Iya, yasum.u=ka=mo sir-e-na.i. (Miyake 1992: 42) no rest-nps-que-foc know-pot-neg-nps ‘Will you come to school tomorrow?’ – ‘No, probably not’

In fact, ka mo sirenai is quite often used to speculate about a possibility concerning the speaker him- or herself. Chiang (2007: 204) found a 26% co-occurrence rate of ka mo sirenai with the first person, a stark contrast to necessity markers, which rarely occur with first person subjects. There are other minor constructions that express epistemic possibility. Firstly, there are various lexical and periphrastic expressions which show no sign of grammaticalization, e.g. kanoosei ga aru ‘there is the possibility that’, osore ga aru ‘there is the concern that’ etc. Secondly, there are two grammaticalized markers of situational possibility (cf. 10.2) that have acquired epistemic uses. These are the negation of the negative potential -kaneru, -kanenai, expressing apprehension (99), and -Eru suffixed to non-volitional verbs, signaling a probability (100) (cf. Moriyama 2002). (99) Poisute=ga syoogai ziken=ni nari-kane-na.i. littering-nom injury case-dat become-npo-neg-nps ‘Careless littering can lead to cases of injury’ (100) Nitigin=no ri~age=mo ari.uru. Bank.of.Japan-gen interest.rate-raise-foc be-pot ‘The Bank of Japan might also raise its interest rates’ It is not quite clear whether these cases are really epistemic or still situational. Also, the use of these constructions is limited to specific grammatical and pragmatic contexts (‘fear’ in the case of -kanenai, and a few non-volitional verbs in the case of -Eru). 10.4.1.3 ‘Speculative’ daroo The meaning of daroo has been variously defined as “expressing that a conclusion has not yet been reached, and that a judgment is in the process of being formed” 11. Hirata (2001: 61) also points out that among the epistemic markers only daroo and ka-mo sirenai have become mitigators (enkyoku hyōgen).

 Modality in Japanese

(Moriyama 1992b: 73, 80), as “the speaker cognizing some proposition as true in his/her imagination” (Miyake 1997: 70), or as “presenting a state-of-affairs as uncertain, and as belonging to the realm of the speaker’s inference and thought” (Nitta 2000: 94). NKBK state that daroo, being based on the speaker’s imagination and thought, has the nuance of expressing a one-sidedly speaker-centered judgment (NKBK 2003: 148). While the epistemics that were labeled as ‘epistemic possibility’ and ‘epistemic necessity’ are often conceived as a set of markers of ‘probability’ that can be arranged on a scale of low to high likelihood, and hazu is sometimes added to this scale, most Japanese grammarians have attributed a special status to daroo (e.g. Moriyama 1992b; Ōshika 1993; Miyake 1995a; Moriyama 2000; Nitta 2000; Miyazaki 2002b; NKBK 2003). The main reasons adduced for this special treatment are 1) daroo can appear in interrogative clauses while the other epistemics cannot (e.g. Takayama 1986: 12f, Moriyama 1992b: 64f; Ōshika 1993: 96; Miyazaki 2002b: 122f); 2) daroo cannot be tensed while the other epistemics can (e.g. Miyake 1995a: 8f; Moriyama 2000: 17f); and 3) daroo can be used illocutionarily as a ‘request for confirmation’ while the other epistemics cannot (e.g. Miyake 1993: 37, 1995: 8; Moriyama 2000: 24). Also, it has been claimed that the use of daroo is, in contrast to markers of epistemic possibility and necessity, not limited to a specific degree of likelihood or speaker commitment (e.g. Nitta 2000: 121f). We will shortly discuss here each of these characteristics. First, one can form interrogatives, formally marked by the interrogative particle ka, or marked only by intonation, with daroo (ex. (101)): (101) Kono hito=wa dare=daroo(=ka)? dem person-top who-epi(-que) ‘Who’ll that be?’ Essentially, two explanations have been offered for this phenomenon. The first by Moriyama says that daroo harmonizes with interrogation because both daroo and interrogation entail that the speaker has not made up his or her mind about the truth value of a proposition (cf. Moriyama 1992b: 72). The second by Miyazaki says that daroo itself is not in the scope of negation, but daroo ka as a whole is a formal variant of daroo (cf. Miyazaki 2002b: 122). Daroo, according to Miyazaki (2002b: 137), and in contrast to Moriyama, presents a conclusion, while daroo ka expresses that a conclusion has not yet been reached. Furthermore, daroo cannot be tensed (ex. (102)): (102) *Jonson=daroo.ta (name)-epi-pst ‘That had to be Johnson’



The modal categories 

However, this fact can also be attributed to the morphological constraints of Japanese that do not allow two inflections (-oo (which is contained in daroo), and -ta) to follow each other (cf. Section 9.2). Daroo can be used pragmatically, however, to ask the hearer for confirmation of information, as in ex. (103): (103) Ore=ga it.ta=n=daroo? 1S-nom say-nmz-epi ‘I told you, didn’t I?’ The interrogative particle ka cannot be added in this use. If it where added, the result would be a ‘doubt’, implying a negative answer (cf. 11.3.2). Finally, there is the issue of degree of likelihood, which has been controversial. Makino & Tsutsui (1986: 306), for example, suggested that daroo denotes an intermediate ‘degree of probability’ between ka mo sirenai (possibility) and ni tigai nai (necessity). Likewise, Morita (2002: 292) locates daroo in the middle (at about 50%) of a scale of ‘degree of conjecture’ between ka mo sirenai at the low end and ni tigai nai, at the higher end. For him, hazu expresses the greatest ‘confidence of the speaker’. Akatsuka (1990: 68, 74f), in contrast, claims that in Japanese daroo expresses high certainty as it is frequently equivalent to ni tigai nai and hazu, and it shares the same semantic domain as English will, would, and must. Likewise, Miyake (1995a: 7) points out that daroo is often interchangeable with ni tigai nai without perceptible change of meaning. Relatedly, Sugi Riggs (Sugi 2004: 54f; Sugi Riggs 2006: 244) observed that contrary to the general assumption that daroo expresses an irresponsible guess by the speaker, “daroo is often used to indicate speaker conviction toward their conjectural judgments.” A questionnaire by Aoyama (1997) asking native speakers to rank sentences with various epistemic expressions on a scale of ‘degree of certainty’ from 0 to 100, produced mixed results. In this survey, daroo on its own was only ranked in the second-lowest of four groups of epistemic markers. In contrast, its combination with various adverbs also was ranked in the highest and in the lowest group. Nitta (2000: 121f) put forward examples of the co-occurrence of daroo with adverbs (see Section 10.4.2) expressing all degrees of probability, thus claiming that daroo cannot be associated with any degree of likelihood at all. The presentation of individual examples, however, obscures the fact that daroo only very rarely co-occurs with adverbs expressing a low degree of likelihood (cf. Kudō 2000: 204). That is, daroo is not ‘ungrammatical’ with adverbs of low frequency in all contexts, but in most contexts it is at least infelicitous (cf. also Sugimura 2000a: 216, Miyazaki 2001: 24). Consequently, it is clear that daroo is associated with at least a me-

 Modality in Japanese

dium degree of likelihood, but that it has more freedom than the other epistemic markers with respect to the contexts in which it can be used. 10.4.2 Adverbs It is a well-known fact that in languages such as Modern English modal adverbs play a prominent role in the marking of epistemic modality (cf. Perkins 1983, Hoye 1997). The same is true for Modern Japanese as well, but not to the same extent, since generally (but not in all cases) epistemic modal adverbs need simultaneous expression of the modality in the predicate. Kudō (2000: 203) distinguishes four groups of ‘inferential’ adverbs. Three of them belong to the domain of epistemic modality, while one of them corresponds to evidentiality. The three groups of epistemic adverbs and their most common (frequent) exponents are listed below in order of the frequency with which they appear in Kudō’s (written-language) database: A. Certainty: kitto ‘certainly’, kanarazu ‘necessarily’, zettai (ni) ‘absolutely’ B. Supposition: osoraku ‘probably’, tabun ‘probably’, sazo ‘surely’ C. Uncertainty: aruiwa ‘perhaps’, mosi ka sureba ‘perhaps’, hyotto sitara ‘possibly’12 According to Kudō (2000: 205), these groups can be ranked in terms of low to high ‘certainty’ (or ‘probability’).13 This can be represented as in Figure 17:

aruiwa mosika sureba hyotto shitara C

osoraku tabuN sazo B

kitto kanarazu zettai (ni) A

CERTAINTY

Figure 17.  Japanese epistemic adverbs ranked by degree of certainty

12. Some of the adverbs listed here have non-epistemic uses as well. These are kitto, kanarazu, zettai (ni), and aruiwa. In the case of kanarazu, the non-epistemic uses are even more frequent (cf. Kudō 2000: 204). 13. Masuoka (1991:  115), for example, observed the same three-step gradation in terms of certainty with the adverbs kitto, tabun, and aruiwa, each of which, in his view, is representative of one of the steps.



The modal categories 

Table 12.  Epistemic adverbs and their compatibility with epistemic marking in the verbal complex Group

Adverb

Compatible forms in the verbal complex

A

zettai ni kanarazu kitto

Ø Ø > daroo > ni tigai nai Ø > daroo > ni tigai nai

B

tabun osoraku sazo

daroo > Ø daroo > Ø > ni tigai nai daroo

C

aruiwa mosi ka sureba hyotto sitara

ka mo sirenai ka mo sirenai ka mo sirenai

Kudō (2000: 203) however, admits that despite the grouping, in fact these adverbs form a continuum in terms of ‘degree of certainty’. This continuum can be captured in their co-occurrence with epistemic marking in the verbal complex, obligatory for those adverbs expressing a lower degree of certainty. Table 12 is based on the grammaticality judgments by Sugimura (2000a) and the frequency data by Kudō (2000:  204), checked against the data by Koike (2002: 54f)14. It shows with which type of marking on the predicate each adverb is compatible, and, if it is compatible, the order of frequency (higher frequency > lower frequency) in which adverb and clause-final marking co-occur. “Ø” refers to the unmarked (unmodalized) form of the predicate. Besides zero-marking, daroo, ni tigai nai, and ka mo sirenai are included, while hazu, which generally rarely cooccurs with adverbs, is not included. All co-occurrences which amount to 10% or more of the total occurrences of the adverb are ranked as ‘compatible’. Accordingly, forms that do not appear in the respective row are of low compatibility or zero compatibility with the adverb in question.15 Kudō’s corpus data, as reflected in the table present a neat picture of a gradual cline. Adverbs in group A harmonize best with the unmarked verb form, adverbs 14. Koike’s diachronic study within Modern Japanese only includes osoraku, tabun, kitto, sazo, and sadameshi. Sadameshi is obsolete in contemporary language and is therefore not included in the description of this chapter. 15. I did not split ‘low or zero compatibility’ into two categories, one for ‘low’ and one for ‘zero’, and show them here, as some of the co-occurrences which are judged to be of low acceptability or even as “ungrammatical” by Sugimura are actually observed in Kudō’s corpus data. On the other hand, some co-occurrences missing in Kudō’s corpus data would not necessarily be ungrammatical.

 Modality in Japanese

in group B harmonize best with daroo, and adverbs in group C harmonize only with ka mo sirenai. According to Sugimura (2000a: 216), the Ø-form, daroo or ni tigai nai on the predicate are even ungrammatical with the C-adverbs, or more concretely, their most typical exponent mosi ka sureba. Within each group, except C, a gradient can be observed if one looks at the data in more detail. The ranking within the groups here is also supported by the intuition-based description by Morita (1977: 180–182, 441- 443), who compares degrees of certainty that specific epistemic adverbs express. This semantic scenario of a cline of degrees of likelihood has been criticized as being simplistic. Sugimura (1998, 2000a, and others) has raised awareness of the fact that these adverbs exhibit pragmatic differences that go beyond mere degrees of certainty. For him, the adverbs of group C are fundamentally different from those in group A and B in that they express the fact that “a possibility exists despite previous expectations” while those in group A and B express the “speaker’s degree of confidence in his inferential judgment” (Sugimura 1998: 35; 2000a: 285). Furthermore, he distinguishes ‘modal adverbs’ from ‘(inner-)propositional adverbs’ in terms of semantic layers. All of the adverbs cited above except kanarazu belong to his ‘modal’ layer, so this is an issue that does not further concern us here. Despite justified concern about the pragmatic differences, for the purposes of description, the arrangement in terms of degrees of likelihood (probability/certainty) gives the best overall classification of Modern Japanese epistemic adverbs. One of their most remarkable characteristics is their co-occurrence with epistemic marking in the verbal complex, which corresponds with the degree of likelihood.16 10.4.3 Mental predicates Although Japanese, similar to English, has a fair number of mental predicates,17 there is generally only one, omou ‘think, feel’ (with the complementizer to as (to) omou), which is commonly discussed in the context of epistemic modality. Two reasons can be given to justify this, one quantitative in nature and one qualitative in nature. First, similar to English think (particularly in the form I think),18 which is often classified as an epistemic parenthetical, omou is used with overwhelming 16. Sazo is a little different from the other adverbs in the table as its use is tightly limited pragmatically. It occurs only in sentences which express sympathy by the speaker with the hearer or the sentence subject. 17. Yokomizo (1997: 121f) identifies 44 among a list of 728 of the most basic Japanese verbs. 18. In Thompson’s (2002:  138–139) conversational data, think is much more frequent than other mental predicates taking complement clauses, and it most frequently (77%) occurs with first person subjects.



The modal categories 

frequency in comparison to other mental predicates. A lexical survey of spoken language in television reveals that omou is the 20th most frequent word in the spoken language, five times more frequent than the next frequent mental verb kangaeru ‘think’ (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo 2001). Sasaki (2000), in a comparative study of interviews, showed that (to) omou is even used significantly more often than think in English (Japanese speakers used (to) omou in about 19% of all of their sentences while English speakers used think in only about 6%). Second, as Yokomizo argued, unlike most other mental predicates, omou is not bound to a specific type of complement. Therefore, while most other mental state predicates “emphasize […] the existence of a specific mental activity”, omou indicates the “speaker’s commitment or involvement” (Yokomizo 1997: 125). In other words, it is generalized and semantically bleached beyond the expression of a specific mental activity. A further fact that supports this special status is the fact that omou, unlike most other mental verbs, can be used in the unmarked (non-stative) form to express a present state-of-mind of the speaker.19 (To) omou, being highly generalized, can be used with three types of complements, namely with complements of believing, wanting, and feeling (cf. Yokomizo 1997: 65–69). It has further been strongly associated with the concept of ‘subjectivity’. Moriyama (1992c: 113), for example, defined it as the “expression of personal information”. This association, however, is generally thought to be limited to the (frequent) case that (to) omou is used without temporal or aspectual modification or negation, and with an unexpressed first person subject (cf. Nitta 1991a: 58; Sawada 1993: 173; Ono 2000). In these cases, and if the predicate of the complement is itself is not temporally or modally marked, (to) omou can often be replaced with the ‘speculative’ daroo without significant change of meaning (Miyazaki 2002b: 164; NKBK 2003: 184). That is, it presumably expresses an epistemic judgment with relatively high certainty. The following is an example. (104)

Ken=wa kitto odorok.u=to omo.u / (name)-top definitely be.surprised-nps-quo think-nps / odorok.u=daroo. be.surprised-nps-epi ‘Ken will definitely be surprised’.

The interchangeability between (to) omou and daroo only works if the complement falls into the domain of ‘believing’, that is, expresses a truth judgment (cf. Miyazaki 2002b: 165). With evaluative propositions, (to) omou instead seems to work as a mitigator. Thus, Moriyama (1992c) distinguishes two basic functions of 19. There are two other verbs that qualitatively show the same behavior as omou, namely kanziru ‘feel’ and kangaeru ‘think’ (cf. Yokomizo 1997: 127).

 Modality in Japanese

(to) omou, one being “expressing uncertainty”, and the other “clearly stating a subjective point of view”. The former of the two has already been exemplified with (104), and presumably is a full-fledged epistemic usage, while in the latter function, (to) omou can be regarded as a pure stance marker that falls into the domain of modality only if modality is defined in terms of subjectivity or ‘speaker stance and opinion’. Here is an example: (105) Burukkunaa=wa tensai=da=to omo.u. (Moriyama 1992c: 112) (name)-top genius-cop(-nps)-quo think-nps ‘I believe that Bruckner is a genius’ 10.4.4 Scale of likelihood The discussion in the preceding sections has made it clear that distinctions between Modern Japanese epistemic markers are extremely complex. If we nevertheless allow for some simplification, the major markers in the verbal complex (hazu, ni tigai nai, ka mo sirenai, daroo) can be placed on a scale of likelihood (or, from a communicative perspective, ‘degree of speaker commitment’), where the main criterion is co-occurrence with adverbs. This has been done by Yamada (1990: 101), Johnson (1999: 157; 2003: 105), and Morita (2002: 292), who have all come to basically the same conclusion, which is represented in Figure 18.20 Ka mo sirenai expresses the lowest degree of likelihood, daroo is in the middle and ni tigai nai and hazu both express high degrees of likelihood, hazu being the highest. (To) omou ‘think’, as was explained in 10.4.3, if it were integrated into this cline, would have to be located at about the same position as daroo. This ordering of epistemic modal markers along a scale of likelihood is controversial. It has been claimed, for example, that daroo is not bound to a specific degree of likelihood (cf. 10.4.1.3), and that hazu has an important component of presupposition not reflected in the cline. Nevertheless, this scale offers a first orientation, if one graciously overlooks the details. ka mo sirenai

daroo

ni tigai nai

hazu

Figure 18.  Scale of likelihood

20. Some authors also included other markers on this cline. The four markers represented here are common to all authors.



The modal categories 

10.5 Evidentials As part of the burgeoning interest in the concept of evidentiality in the past two decades, different concepts of it have emerged. On the one hand, there is a highly restrictive concept of evidentiality, in which only languages that have an obligatory system of evidential markers are acknowledged as having it (e.g. Aikhenvald 2004: 6). At the other extreme, modal markers that have been traditionally viewed as epistemic (such as E. must or its German cognate müssen) are now reconceptualized as epistemic-evidential, or even as fully-fledged evidentials, especially in European linguistics (e.g. Westmoreland 1998; Mortelmans 2000; Drubig 2001). The Japanese markers discussed here are relatively unproblematic ‘evidentials’ that fit the meanwhile classic concept of evidentiality espoused in Willett (1988), unless one takes an extreme position. Essentially, Japanese has a set of five markers, namely rasii, -soo(1), soo, yoo, and mitai, which have been labeled as ‘evidentials’ in Japanese linguistics, evidentiality being viewed as a sub-type of epistemic modality, similar to Palmer (2001) (cf. Moriyama 1989; Miyake 1994; Nitta 2000; NKBK 2003; ch. 4).21 These markers do not form a coherent set in morphosyntactic terms as Aikhenvald (2004) demands, but their semantics are undeniably evidential, and therefore they must be regarded as such even in a more conservative view of evidentiality. If we follow the typology of evidentiality by Willett (1988) they all belong to the ‘indirect’ domain. That is, Japanese has no grammaticalized marker that expresses ‘direct evidential’ notions such as ‘I visually perceived (state-of-affairs)’, ‘I auditively perceived (stateof-affairs). States-of-affairs which can be directly experienced and are accepted as reality are unmarked in Japanese. Cf. the following example: (106) Kono kami=wa siro.i ??yoo=da /??rasi.i / ??siro-soo=da. dem paper-top white-nps evi-cop(-nps) /evi-nps / white-evi-cop(-nps) ‘This paper is white / …??appears to be white /…?? looks white’ In circumstances where the speaker her-/himself has visual access to the state-ofaffairs, it would be ungrammatical to add any evidential marker to this sentence, except for a reportive to express a third person’s opinion on the quality of the paper. The same would be true for an auditive perception. A sentence meaning ‘this room is noisy’ would normally be evidentially unmarked if the speaker has direct perceptual access to the state-of-affairs. 21. I do not consider verbalization through -garu and nominalization through no (da) as evidentials although they are sometimes discussed in this context (e.g. Aoki 1986). -Garu is a more general verb-deriving suffix that is also used in first-person contexts that are clearly non-evidential. No (da) nominalizes all kind of propositions and thus presents them as facts. Both constructions have an effect of objectivizing information, and in this sense they overlap with evidentials in their use.

 Modality in Japanese

Japanese evidentials can be divided into two types. First, there are pure evidentials, which contain no element of inference (10.5.1), and second, there are inferential evidentials (10.5.2), which do contain such an element. Nitta (1992) suggested the following two tests that distinguish the pure (reportive) evidentials in Japanese from inferential evidential, and epistemics. First, reportives (represented by soo(2)) are characterized by the fact that the truth value of the proposition they modify can be immediately negated by an expression of the speaker’s belief in the opposite state-of-affairs (107): (107)

A-si=ni yor.eba, syusyoo=mo syoonin-kanmon=ni A-paper-dat depend-con prime.minister-foc witness-summons-dat oozi.ru=soo=da=ga, boku=wa soo=wa omow-ana.i. respond-nps-evi-cop(-nps)-ctr 1s-top so-top think-neg-nps ‘According to paper A, the prime minister is going to respond and give sworn testimony, but I don’t believe so.’ (Nitta 1992: 5)

Replacing soo(2) with epistemics (represented by daroo) or inferential evidentials (represented by yoo) would render the sentence ungrammatical: (108)

*A-si=ni yor.eba, syusyoo=mo syoonin-kanmon=ni A-paper-dat depend-con prime.minister-foc witness-summons-dat oozi.ru=soo=da=ga, boku =wa soo=wa omow-ana.i. respond-nps-evi-cop(-nps)-ctr 1S-top so-top think-neg-nps ‘According to paper A, the prime minister is going to respond and give sworn testimony, but I don’t believe so.’

As a second step, inferential evidentials can be distinguished from epistemics in that the speaker can cast doubt on the truth value of the proposition they modify in the same sentence. This contrast can be illustrated with the following example: (109)

Ano hikooki=wa tobi~tat.u yoo=da=ga /*daroo=ga, hontoo=ni dem plane-top fly-rise-nps evi-cop(-nps)-ctr /epi-avs reality-adv tobi~tat.u=ka=na. (Nitta 2000: 142) fly-rise-nps-que-ill ‘That plane looks like it is going to take off / *will probably take off, but will it really?’

In other words, with pure evidentials (reportives) the speaker is able to completely distance him-/herself from a judgment, and with inferential evidentials (s)he can at least partially distance her-/himself by expressing doubt. This may be attributed to the fact that in the case of evidentials, the source of the judgment is partially (inferential evidentials) or entirely (pure evidentials) outside the speaker. With epistemics, however, this is not possible, presumably because they already express



The modal categories 

a certain degree of commitment by the speaker to the modal judgment, and the speaker him-/herself is the source of this judgment. As is known for modal markers in European languages (e.g. Mortelmans 2000, Nuyts 2001b), epistemic modal markers also have an evidential aspect, in that the judgment they express may be based on evidence. The reason is that in natural language use, as opposed to logical modality, usually some kind of evidence is necessary to support strong epistemic (i.e. necessity) judgments. The same is true for Japanese epistemic necessity markers, as was shown in 10.4.1.1. It is open to debate, however, if this is sufficient grounds to classify such markers as ‘evidentials’, as has recently been the tendency in European linguistics. The markers classified as evidentials here, in contrast, are not epistemics with an evidential component, but essentially evidential, with an inferential sub-component. The closest translational equivalents in English are seem (to), appear (to) or the adverbs obviously, apparently. Besides the tests suggested by Nitta presented above, a number of other criteria have been suggested as well that distinguish them from epistemics (which can also have an evidential background). Examples are given here for yoo representing evidentials in contrast to daroo representing epistemics. i. Unlike the must-type epistemics, they cannot express a conclusion based on an explicit condition or cause (cf. Ōshika 1995: 535f; Nitta 2000: 136f, 140; Miyazaki 2002b: 143f). Therefore, in a sentence with a conditional or causal clause, the subordinate clause can only be interpreted as falling in their scope (Takubo 2001: 1006f). Cf. the following examples, where the intended scope is shown in brackets in the translations: (110)

Ippai ne-reba, genki=ga de.ru=daroo / yoo=da. a.lot sleep-con energy-nom emerge-nps-epi /evi-cop(-nps) ‘If you sleep a lot you’ll get your strength back’ (daroo) #‘ [[If you sleep a lot] you’ll get your strength back]’ (yoo) ‘[It seems that [you’ll get your strength back if you sleep a lot]]’ (yoo)

(111)

Kare=wa ippai ne.ta=kara, genki=ga de.ta=no=daroo He-top a.lot sleep-pst-calenergy -nom emerge-pst-nmz-epi /yoo=da. /evi-cop(-nps) ‘He is probably better now because he’s slept a lot’ (daroo) #‘[He seems to be better now [because he’s slept a lot]]’ (yoo) ‘[It seems that [he’s better now because he has slept a lot]]’ (yoo)

This test works for yoo/mitai, rasii (10.5.2.1), and soo(2) (10.5.1). It does not work for -soo(1) ((112)), which behaves like an epistemic with respect to this test (cf. Nitta 2000: 140, Miyazaki 2002b: 144).

 Modality in Japanese

(112) Kare=wa ippai ne.ta=kara, genki=ga de-soo=da. He-top a.lot sleep-pst-cal energy -nom emerge-evi-cop(-nps) ‘He is going to get his strength back because he’s slept a lot’ ii. A clause with them cannot be embedded in to omou ‘I think (that)’ (cf. Nitta 2000: 141; Miyazaki 2002b: 143f) (113) Keiki=wa tika.i uti=ni kaihuku~s.uru=daroo /yoo=da. Business-top near-nps inside-adv recover-do-nps-epi /evi-cop(-nps) ‘Business will certainly recover soon’/‘It seems that business is going to recover soon’ (114) Keiki=wa tika.i uti=ni kaihuku~s.uru=daroo /#yoo=da=to omou. ‘I think that business will certainly recover soon’/#‘I think that business seems to recover soon’ iii. In comparison to the epistemics, they show a completely different distribution in their co-occurrence with adverbs (cf. Chan 2003: 46; Nitta 2000: 141). Specifically, the reportives co-occur with reportive adverbials meaning ‘according to’ (cf. 10.5.1), and the inferentials regularly co-occur with doo yara ‘somehow’ and doomo ‘indeed’, but not with the like of kitto ‘certainly’, tabun ‘probably’ and mosi ka site ‘perhaps’.22 The following is an example from Nitta (2000: 141): (115)

Doo=yara /*tabun hikooki=ga tobi~tat.u yoo=da. Somehow / probably airplane-nom fly-rise-nps evi-cop(-nps) ‘Somehow it seems that the plane is going to take off.’ #‘Probably it seems that the plane is going to take off ’

10.5.1

Non-inferential evidentials (reportive rasii, soo(2))

The suffixes rasii in its reportive use and soo(2) both indicate that the speaker has obtained his or her information from a third person, and they are used to communicate the information to the hearer. The speaker does not have to commit him- or herself to the truth of the reported contents. The following is an example in which both forms can be used. (116) Aru gakusya=ni yor.eba, yo=no naka=wa a.certain scholar-dat depend-con world-gen inside-top

22. The reportives (soo(2), reportive rasii) co-occur with neither.



The modal categories 

muzyun=ni miti.te i.ru=soo=da / rasi.i. (Nobayashi 1999: 60) contradiction-dat be.full.of-ger be-nps-evi-cop(-nps) / evi-nps ‘According to a certain scholar, the world is full of contradictions.’ Adverbial constructions such as ni yoreba ‘according to’or de wa ‘as to’ typically indicate the source of information but they are not obligatory. Soo(2) and rasii differ in that rasii has a non-reportive inferential use as well. Therefore, if no adverbials indicating the source of reported information are given, there is inevitably vagueness between the reportive and the inferential reading, and even in its reportive use, it must be assumed that rasii is not simply rendering a quotation but the speaker has added some reasoning to it (Kikuchi 2000a: 48). Soo(2), in contrast, is a pure reportive. In sentences which function purely for ‘delivering a message’ from a third person, only soo(2), and not rasii can be used (cf. Nobayashi 1999: 61, 65). This is the case in the following Example (117): (117)

Inori=to keiai=to=o itu=mo uke.te prayer-com love-com-acc when-foc receive-ger itadaki-ta.i=soo=des.u /? rasi.i=des.u. (Nobayashi 1999: 61) get(hml)-int-nps-evi-cop-nps / evi-cop-nps (A message from the vice abbot) ‘He wants you to always receive his prayers and his love.’

As Miyake (1995b: 202) notes, soo(2) (and also reportive rasii) presuppose the existence of a hearer to whom the message is communicated and are infelicitous in soliloquy. 10.5.2 Inferential evidentials (non-reportive rasii, -soo(1), yoo/mitai) 10.5.2.1 Yoo/mitai and rasii Yoo (colloquially mitai) and rasii are two polysemous items which overlap in their use as inferential evidentials. Yoo comes from the Sino-Japanese noun yoo (Mandarin yàng) denoting a manner or an appearance, and its colloquial counterpart mitai is derived from the contraction of mita yoo na ‘looking like’ (cf. NKD vol. 13: 492; NKD vol. 12: 717). Besides their inferential evidential meaning, yoo and mitai are used to express similarity, comparison and category membership (cf. Moriyama 1995). Only yoo and not mitai is used as a complementizer with specific predicates and clause types. Rasii is derived from a noun suffix denoting typicality (cf. Akimoto 2001: 839). Besides its inferential evidential use, it is also used as a reportive (10.5.1), and still has the ‘typicality’ use as a noun suffix.

 Modality in Japanese

As evidentials, yoo/mitai and rasii both can express a ‘reverse’ conclusion based on evidence (cf. Ōshika 1995: 532–534; Kinoshita 1998)23. That is, if normally a conclusion q is reached on some grounds p (p → q), these evidentials express an inference about some reason or grounds p, based on evidence q, which is the result of p. Thus, if a speaker knocks someone’s door and gets no answer, (s)he can conclude the following: (118) Ano hito=wa i-na.i yoo=da / rasi.i. dem person-top be-neg-nps evi-cop(-nps) / evi-nps ‘She’s apparently not.’ That is, the speaker infers some reason based on some evidence. In contrast, if the speaker knows that somebody is absent (reason), and concludes that this person will not respond to his/her call (result), this conclusion cannot be expressed by inferential evidentials but only by epistemics: (119)

Ano hito=wa i-na.i=kara, doa=ni=mo dem person-top be-neg-nps-cal door-all-foc de-na.i=daroo / hazu=da /#-rasi.i / #yoo=da. appear-neg-nps-epi / epi-cop(-nps) / evi-(nps) / evi-cop(nps) ‘As she’s not in now, she won’t come to the door/#she appears not to come to the door’

Given their commonalities, much ink has been spent on the issue of how rasii and yoo/mitai differ in their inferential evidential use. First, it has been pointed out that only yoo/mitai can be used to render an immediate (typically visual) impression or appearance, an inference concerning the speaker him- or herself, or a personal opinion (cf. Tanomura 1991: 72f; Nakamizo et al. 1995: 5; Nobayashi 1999: 58f). Consider the following Example (120) of an immediate visual impression: (120)

Kao~iro=ga yo.ku na.i. Face-color-nom good-adv neg-nps yoo/#-rasi.i=des.u=na. (cf. Tanomura 1991: 72) evi-/evi-cop-nps-ill ‘You look pale.’

Conversely, rasii is used to indicate that the conclusion, beyond being an impression, is the result of a reasoning process in which the state-of-affairs is inaccessible to the speaker perception or unexpected, or when the speaker distances him- or

23. Kudō (2006: 180) defines them as “inference about a subject based on evidence from some phenomenon”.



The modal categories 

herself from the conclusion (that is, does not identify with it) (cf. Kamiya 1995: 566f; Nakamizo et al. 1995: 5f). Cf. Example (121): (121)

Saru=ni=wa sikasi, saru=nari=no mokuteki=ga monkey-dat-top but monkey-cop-gen goal-nom ar.u-rasi.i / #yoo=da. (cf. Kamiya 1995: 566) be-nps-evi-nps / evi-cop(-nps) ‘But monkeys appear to have their own goals’

This sentence would be felicitous with yoo only if the speaker were an expert on monkeys. If it is outside his or her territory of perception and experience, or even surprising, rasii has to be used. Relatedly, Sugi Riggs (2006: 248) made the interesting observation that typically only rasii and not yoo is used with the adverbial zitu wa ‘in reality’ which indicates that important or unexpected information is presented in discourse. Sugi Riggs (2006: 247) thus labels rasii as ‘high focus’ vs. ‘low focus’ yoo. Overall, the difference between yoo/mitai and rasii as evidentials has been couched convincingly in terms of ‘distance’ by Hayatsu (1988) and Kikuchi (2000a). This can further be related to the concept of ‘territory of information’ (Kamio 1997; Lee 2006). Rasii indicates pragmatically a distancing of the speaker from the information, and semantically, indirectness of evidence. That is, overall it indicates that something falls outside the speaker’s ‘territory of information’. In contrast, yoo indicates that the information falls into the speaker’s territory, and that (s)he identifies with the conclusion. 10.5.2.2 -soo(1) -soo(1) is believed to go back either to the Japanese noun sama or the Sino-Japanese noun soo (Mandarin xiāng), both meaning ‘appearance’ (NKD vol. 8: 290). Three meanings can be attributed to its modern use as a suffix, the choice of which depends on the type of predicate and on context (cf. Toyota 1987; Sakata 1993c; Sawanishi 1999).24 First, with adjectives and other stative predicates, it usually denotes the appearance of an object, primarily based on visual impressions, but secondarily also on auditive impressions25 or knowledge that the speaker has otherwise gained. The following would be a typical example: (122) (Looking at an apple) Kono ringo=wa oisi-soo=da. 24. Generally, the labeling of the Japanese ‘evidentials’ is attributed to Aoki 1986. In fact, however, Martin already labeled -soo(1) as an ‘evidential’ as early as 1975 (cf. Martin 1988: 991). 25. Sawanishi claims that in contrast to the other evidentials, -soo(1) can only be used on the basis of visual and auditive evidence, while it is infelicitous with evidence from tactile, olfactory, or gustatory experience (Sawanishi 1999: 252).

 Modality in Japanese

dem apple-top delicious-evi-cop-(nps) ‘This apple looks delicious’ The judgment ‘looks delicious’ is supported by the outward appearance of the object, but also by the speaker’s knowledge of the general idea of how a delicious apple would typically look. It is a well-known fact that in Japanese some evidential or epistemic qualification is needed when speaking about internal states of second or third persons (cf. e.g. Martin 1988: 356; Aoki 1986: 223–224; Kamio 1997: 60–63). -Soo(1) is often used in this function, as in the following example: (123) Kare=wa kanasi-soo=da. (Sawanishi 1999: 251) 3S-top sad-evi-cop(-nps) ‘He looks sad.’ Note that this sentence is ungrammatical without -soo(1), that is, kare wa kanasi.i ‘he is sad’ is infelicitous in Japanese (cf. Sawanishi 1999: 251). A closely related use with dynamic predicates is that of ‘apparent imminence’. Based on a typically, but not necessarily, visual impression, it denotes the meaning ‘X looks like being about to (predicate)’, e.g. (124) (Looking at the sky) Ame=ga huri-soo=da. (Sawanishi 1999: 254) rain-nom fall-evi-cop(-nps) ‘It looks like it is going to rain’ Thirdly, as an apparent extension of this meaning with dynamic verbs, -soo(1) also expresses a general ‘prediction’ about things to happen in the near future, e.g., (125)

Rainen-atari=wa, boku=mo kaigai kinmu=o next.year-around-top 1S-foc abroad work-acc meizi-rare-soo=da. (Sakata 1993c: 81) order-pass-evi-cop(-nps) ‘It looks like around next year I might be ordered to work abroad.’

In (125), a tentative prediction is expressed, based on various possible sources, including hearsay and speaker knowledge of her or his company’s workings. This use is sometimes bleached to the extent that the evidential sources are not discernible anymore, but that a tentative prediction is being expressed. As an English translation, ‘might’ (which was also used to complement ‘look like’ in the translation of the previous example) is a better equivalent than ‘look’, ‘seem’ or ‘appear’ (126). (126) […] syuuraku=de naga.ku i.ru=to sabisi.ku village-adv long-adv stay-nps-con lonesome-adv



The modal categories 

nari-soo=de ar.u. (Tanomura 1992: 10) become-evi-ess be-nps ‘If I stayed in [this small] village for a long time, I might become lonely.’ Various efforts have been made to give a unified basic underlying meaning for these uses. These uses all have in common that they denote speculation about an ‘unconfirmed’ state-of-affairs (Nakahata 1990:  31), based on some related symptom or indication, which is at its most fundamental level something within sight of the speaker, but can be extended far beyond that. One interesting proposal comes from Kinoshita (2001), who claims that -soo(1) essentially expresses metonymy, i. e. that “a state-of-affairs which is contiguous to the expressed state of affairs exists or has occurred” (p. 137).26 Applied to the examples given here this would mean that, in the case of (122), the speaker observes the redness and good shape of an apple and associates with it the property of deliciousness. In the case of (126), at the other extreme of the meaning range, the speaker senses signs of loneliness or remoteness in observing a small village, and projects this impression into her own emotional world in a hypothetical future. Kekize (2000), in contrast, sees the basic meaning as being that ‘the conditions are fulfilled for some state-of-affairs to hold or come into being’ (p. 7). In the case of (122), the redness of the apple or its good shape may indicate that the conditions for it to taste good are a given, and in (126), the conditions for the speaker to feel lonesome in the future were she to live in the small village are a given, based on the impression of its remoteness. Another important point in characterizing -soo(1) that has already mentioned is that unlike the other inferential evidentials it can operate in the apodosis of a conditional or causal clause. The reason is that unlike the other inferential evidentials it expresses a deductive conclusion, inferring an individual result or conse26. While -soo(1) can be characterized as metonymy, according to Kinoshita (2001: 151), it can only be used for contiguous or part-whole relationships, and not for member-set relationships. Here, conversely, only yoo/mitai and rasii can be used. Cf. the example below with the following background. The speaker has conducted an experiment, burning the sample of some material, and makes a conclusion about the nature of the material. (i)

A=to i.u bussitu=ga A-quo say-nps material-nom moe.ru yoo=da /#moe-soo=da. (Kinoshita 2001: 151) burn-nps evi- cop(-nps) /burn-evi-cop-(nps)



‘Material A seems to burn’

The speaker here makes an inductive conclusion from the sample material (the member) to the material as such (the set). Here, only yoo/mitai (next section) is felicitous (rasii would be odd, since the information belongs to the speaker’s territory of knowledge and experience as a scientist). According to Kinoshita, inferences in the reverse direction, from set to member, are also infelicitous with -soo(1).

 Modality in Japanese

quence from a general rule and a case (cf. Lee 2006: 102–109). Let us consider ex. (122)/(127) again, where both -soo and yoo can be used: (127)

Kono ringo=ga oisi-soo=da / oisi.i dem apple-nom delicious-evi-cop(-nps) / delicious-nps yoo=da. (Lee 2006: 103) evi-cop(-nps) ‘This apple looks delicious’ (-soo) ‘This apple appears to be delicious (yoo)’

Although the sentences with-soo and yoo are both grammatical, they require a different context and express a different type of conclusion. In the case of -soo(1), the typical context is that someone looks at an apple and makes a conclusion based on its outer appearance (e.g. color, shape). The conclusion (‘this apple is delicious’) is inferred from a general rule (‘red, big apples are delicious’) and the case (‘this apple is red and big’). In such a context, the use of yoo would be infelicitous. The use of yoo would be felicitous if ‘this apple is delicious’ is abductively concluded as the case (the cause) from a general rule (e.g. ‘delicious apples sell well’) and a result (e.g. ‘this apple is selling well’). Finally, the fact deserves attention that -soo(1), unlike most other epistemics and evidentials, which are mono-phasic, essentially projects bi-phasicness (cf. Abraham 2005a, b) on the state-of-affairs in the complement. That is, similar to deontic modal markers, the complement of -soo(1) is usually future-oriented. This is clear in the case of dynamic events (124)-(126). Similar to deontics, which imply two event phases, namely a current state-of-affairs, and an irrealis desired (obliged etc.) state-of-affairs, -soo(1) implies a current phase in which the symptoms hold and a second phase in which the actual event is going to take place. The question is whether the bi-phasicness even pertains to part of the stative state-of-affairs. In (122), one might posit a current phase where the state-of-affairs ‘tastes good’ is unconfirmed, and a later phase, the eating, when the ‘deliciousness’ is going to be confirmed. Thus, one can detect a latent future-orientedness even in the proposition of stative events. This point can be made clearer with a further example contrasting -soo(1) and yoo with a stative state-of-affairs (128). (128)

Kono mondai=wa muzukasi-soo=des.u / muzukasi.i yoo=des.u. dem problem-top difficult-evi-cop-nps / difficult-nps evi-cop-nps ‘This problem looks difficult’ (-soo(1)) ‘This problem appears to be difficult’ (yoo)

If -soo(1) is used, the speaker is supposing that the problem will be difficult to solve were somebody to actually attempt to solve it. That is, -soo(1) basically refers to a future state-of-affairs. With yoo, the fact that the problem is difficult has



The modal categories 

already been established, e.g. by someone attempting to solve it but failing. The speaker has some evidence that the problem is difficult but by using yoo (s)he indicates that (s)he lacks absolute certainty about this fact. In this manner, yoo is basically oriented towards a present or past state of affairs. Consequently, only -soo(1) can be used in a future-oriented context such as the following (129). (129) A: Kono mondai=wa san-zip-pun=de toi.te hosi.i. dem problem-acc three-ten-minute-adv solve-ger want-nps ‘I want you to solve this problem within thirty minutes’ B:

Sore=wa muzukasi-soo=des.u / #muzukasi.i yoo=des.u. that-top difficult-evi-cop-nps difficult-nps evi-cop-nps ‘That looks like it’s going to be difficult’ (-soo(1)) #‘That appears to be difficult’ (yoo)

However, the future-orientedness of -soo(1) is difficult to maintain in the type of context that ex. (123) represents. In such a context, the state-of-affairs marked by -soo is ‘unconfirmed’ in the present, but arguably there is no prospect for a future state of ‘confirmation’ either. We therefore must leave open the question of the aspectuality of -soo with stative predicates at this point. 10.5.2.3 Comparison We can now summarize in the table below what distinguishes -soo on the one hand from yoo/mitai and rasii on the other, and what further distinguishes yoo/mitai from rasii. -Soo(1) distinguishes itself from the other inferential evidentials as it behaves like an epistemic in that it can be used in inferring a result from a cause. On the other hand, yoo/mitai and rasii operate in the reverse direction, inferring a cause or condition from a result or consequence, which is the evidence. -Soo(1) is also special in projecting bi-phasicness on the complement, at least with dynamic predicates. On the other hand, rasii has some marked characteristics which set it apart from -soo(1) and yoo/mitai, and which are all related to each other. It expresses information that the speaker typically has obtained indirectly, and with which (s)he does not fully identify, and which is unexpected, or ‘focused’, in terms of discourse. It also most strongly indicates the process of logical inferencing (from result to cause). In contrast, -soo(1) and yoo express an inferential judgment to which the speaker has more direct access. Typically, the evidence is something appearing in front of his or her eyes. The terms ‘direct’ vs. ‘indirect’ are used in the sense of referring to the perception of evidence from which the inference is drawn. They are therefore not identical to the terms in Willett’s (1988) typology, which refer to direct vs. indirect perception of the fact itself. State-of-affairs which can be directly experienced, and are accepted as reality, are unmarked in Japanese.

 Modality in Japanese

Masuoka (2000) has tried to establish a further contrast between yoo and rasii in terms of ‘degree of certainty’. According to him, yoo is both used with state-of-affairs which are more certain pragmatically, and used more easily with the adverbials indicating a high degree of certainty matigai naku ‘without fail’ and tasika ni ‘certainly’. If we add to this the fact that -soo(1) is a mere metonymic guess, which can be used for states-of-affairs which are rather uncertain or even impossible (cf. e.g. Tanomura 1992: 10–12; Kikuchi 2000b: 20), the three inferential evidentials can also be ranked by degree of modal strength: According to this reasoning, -soo(1) with a low degree of modal strength can be contrasted with rasii and yoo, the latter of which denotes an even higher degree of modal strength. However, while it is unquestionable that -soo(1) is distinct from rasii and yoo in expressing a rather speculative judgment, the relative low degree of speaker commitment expressed in rasii in comparison with yoo can be adduced from the more general properties of indirectness of evidence and distancing of the speaker which is indicated by this form. The lower degree of modal strength implied by -soo(1) can be attributed to the fact that it basically refers to future state-ofaffairs, which are by definition irrealis, in contrast to yoo and rasii, which usually refer to present or past states-of-affairs, which can already be established as facts. Also, as was mentioned in Section 10.5, the inferential evidentials generally do not co-occur with the typical adverbs that indicate different degrees of likelihood. Table 13.  Properties of the inferential evidentials marker

type of conclusion

-soo(1)

deduction

yoo rasii

abduction abduction

aspectual projectivity

territory of information

type of information status evidence

bi-phasic speaker direct (monophasic with some stative predicates?) monophasic speaker direct monophasic non-speaker indirect

yoo modal strength

rasii

–soo

Table 14.  Japanese inferential evidentials in terms of modal strength

unfocussed

unfocussed focused



The modal categories 

One last difference between the inferential evidential markers that deserves to be pointed out here is that yoo is frequently used in a so-called ‘euphemism’ function. This is a mitigating sense. The speaker adds yoo to the proposition despite being sure about its truth value in order to downtown an assertion, or indicate that the state-of-affairs is beyond her or his control. The following is an example: (130)

Doomo, anata=no i.u koto=wa, watasi=ni=wa somehow 2S-gen say-nps thing-top 1S-dat-top rikai~deki-na.i yoo=des.u. (NKBK 2003: 165) understand-pot-neg-nps evi-cop-nps ‘It seems that I can’t understand what you are saying’

The use of yoo in this sentence tones down the speaker’s assertion and consequently the implication of criticizing the hearer. Rasii is sometimes used as a mitigator as well, but it is questionable whether -soo(1) can be used at all in this function (cf. Nitta 1992: 9). Overall, due to the different type of logical reasoning, and the different aspectuality, the difference between -soo(1) on the one hand, and yoo/mitai and rasii on the other is bigger than the difference between yoo/mitai and rasii, which are often treated as near synonyms. However, rasii is the most ‘marked’ term in that it designates information as unexpected and outside the speaker’s territory. Yoo, which is couched between -soo(1) and rasii, is the most unmarked in terms of semantic and pragmatic properties. The closest equivalents to -soo(1), rasii, and yoo/mitai in English are the semimodals look, appear and seem. Although they do not differ from each other as systematically as the Japanese evidential suffixes, it is possible to find a partial parallel to the distinctions of -soo(1), rasii, and yoo/mitai in their behavior. Usoniene (2000) has argued that the construction ‘look/appear/seem Ø P’ differs fundamentally both semantically and syntactically from ‘look/appear/seem to be P’. While the former is ‘experiential’, denoting the ‘immediate perception of a state of affairs’, the latter is non-experiential, denoting ‘mental perception of propositional content’, and providing some modal qualification.27 The complements in the former (zero) construction belong to a lower type of state-of-affairs in Dik’s typology of state-of-affairs than the latter (Usoniene 2000:  189f). Clearly, -soo(1), at least in its use with stative predicates, corresponds to the ‘look/appear/seem Ø P’ construction while yoo and rasii correspond to the higher-order ‘look/appear/ seem to be P’ construction. I have already indicated this in the contrastive 27. Sugimura (2000b) likewise has suggested that -soo(1) expresses an intuitive feeling or impression, while yoo and especially rasii, even when rendering the speaker’s immediate perception, has a stronger inferential meaning.

 Modality in Japanese

translation for the Examples (127) and (128). This difference in the semantic nature between -soo(1) on the one hand and yoo/mitai and rasii on the other, is also clearly reflected in their syntactic behavior, as Part IV will show. 10.6 Correspondences across different types of modality It is a salient fact about English modal verbs that they express meanings across different types of modalities. First and foremost, there are deontic-epistemic polysemies (e.g. must, may). Besides these, dynamic-epistemic (can), dynamicdeontic (can), and boulomaic-epistemic (shall, (will)) polysemies can be found as well. In contrast, Japanese modal markers are as a rule specialized in the expression of only one type of modality. Nevertheless, one can discern some cross-modal correspondences, most saliently between deontic and epistemic, between deontic and boulomaic, and between epistemic and evidential modality. They will be discussed in this section. 10.6.1 Deontic and epistemic modality Although there is practically no overlap between expressions of deontic and epistemic modality in Modern Japanese (we will come to some marginal exceptions below), there is a noticeable parallelism between the major categories found in deontic and in epistemic modality. Specifically, both in deontic and in epistemic modality two major necessity markers and one major possibility marker can be found, so that each major deontic marker has a corresponding major epistemic marker and vice versa. Before detailing this observation more closely, it is represented in the figure below:

necessity I (general necessity)

—(a)nakereba naranai

ni tigai nai

necessity II (‘matter of course’)

beki

hazu

possibility

—Te mo ii

ka mo sirenai

Figure 19.  Parallelism in the deontic and the epistemic domain



The modal categories 

First, concerning possibility markers in the epistemic and deontic domain, both, in contrast to necessity markers, can embed contradictory propositions in a single sentence. See (131) for deontic -Te mo ii and (132) for epistemic ka mo sirenai. (131) Soo si.te=mo i.i=si, soo si-na.kute=mo i.i. this.way do-ger-foc good-nps-enu this.way do-neg-ger-foc good-nps ‘You may do it or not.’ (132)

Soo s.uru=ka=mo sir-e-na.i=si, this.way do-nps-que-foc know-pot-neg-nps-enu soo si-na.i=ka=mo sir-e-na.i. this.way do-neg-nps-que-foc know-pot-neg-nps ‘I may do it, but I also may not.’

Likewise, they can both be used to rhetorically admit the validity of a proposition in discourse, only to immediately reject it, or indicate the speaker’s disapproval of it ((133) for -Te mo ii and (134) for ka mo sirenai). (133) Moo yame.ru=no? Motiron, soo si.te=mo i.i=kedo… Already call.off-nps-nmz of.course this.way do-ger-foc good-nps-ctr ‘You are already calling this off? [Of course] you can do this, but… (134) Anata=no i.u toori=ka=mo sir-e-na.i=kedo,… 2S-gen say-nps way-que-foc know-pot-neg-nps-ctr ‘It might be as you say, but…’ In these examples, both -Te mo ii and ka mo sirenai indicate just one among two or more equally valid possibilities, and one to which the speaker does not commit. Hazu and beki are two modal markers that have both been traditionally defined in terms of ‘matter of course’ (cf. the comparison of both forms by Nakahata (1998)), and they can both frequently (but not always) be translated as ‘should’. As has been shown in the discussion of the individual markers, the ‘matter of course’ interpretation can be adduced from the existence of a strong presupposition, or expectation on the part of the speaker. This expectation may rest on moral values or personal convictions in the case of deontic beki, and knowledge in the case of hazu. Behind these expectations, then, the realization of some state-of-affairs is conceived as a ‘matter of course’. Also, the association of these markers with speaker expectations, based on knowledge or moral values, make hazu and beki the most ‘subjective’ among the set of deontic and epistemic markers. Coates (1983: 17, 77–79) has pointed out for English should and ought that there are frequent instances of ‘merger’ of deontic and epistemic meaning, that is, instances where an epistemic and a deontic reading of the modal are indistinguishable. This is presumably due to cognitive similarity. It has been pointed out

 Modality in Japanese

that non-native speakers of Japanese often mistake hazu for beki (see e.g. Nakahata 1998: 26), presumably as a result of this similarity. Deontic -(a)nakereba naranai and epistemic ni tigai nai have in common that they both denote a necessity, and they are presumably the closest equivalent for the English modal verb must on the epistemic side, and on the deontic side, respectively. (cf. Harada 1999: 124; Tamura 2001: 424). In the discussion of the individual markers (10.1.3, 10.4.1.1), one further commonality emerged as well, namely that in contrast to the pair hazu and beki they both express a necessity which is based on the observation of external circumstances, rather than on presuppositions or the beliefs of the speaker. Besides correspondences between different forms across modalities, rare instances of -(a)nakereba naranai in ‘epistemic’ use have been observed (e.g. Morita and Matsuki 1989: 186f, Kuramochi 1993a: 103). More precisely, a logical necessity, and not a degree of certainty on part of the speaker, is expressed so that the designation ‘dynamic necessity’ may be more appropriate. The following is an example. (135)

Daawin sinka-ron=ga zettai-teki=ni tadasi.i=to s.uru=nara, Darwin evolution-theory-nom absolute-qua right-fpr-sta do-con sinka=wa ima sinkoo-tyuu=de na.kereba nar-ana.i. evolution-top now progress-during-ess not.be-con become-neg-nps ‘If Darwin’s theory of evolution is absolutely right, then evolution must be in progress now.’ (Hideomi Nakahara: Shinkaron ga kawaru, 1991)

The most natural way to express this conclusion in colloquial Japanese would be with hazu, but nevertheless examples like these can be found. Since they belong to the domain of written language, the possibility of a calque from English must cannot be excluded. Narrog (2008) offers a more detailed study of this phenomenon. Finally, it should be mentioned that ‘speculative’ daroo has no apparent deontic equivalent. The corresponding non-epistemic marker is boulomaic -(y)oo, which we classify under clausal mood rather than under ‘modality’ (see 11.4.3). 10.6.2 Boulomaic and deontic (dynamic) modality The second set of domains which exhibit salient similarities is deontic and boulomaic modality. These similarities are also present in English although less conspicuous than the deontic-epistemic relationships. Shall, admittedly rare in Modern English, has both deontic and boulomaic uses. In Japanese, several links between these two domains can be observed. First, some markers exhibit deontic-boulomaic polyfunctionality. In previous sections, it was shown that the modal construction V+Tara/reba/-(r)u to ii can be used



The modal categories 

both deontically as ‘recommendation’ (10.1.5) (136), and boulomaically as a ‘wish’ (10.2.3) (137). (136) Haya.ku ik.u=to i.i. quick-adv go-nps-con good-nps ‘You’d better go quickly’ (137)

Asu ame=ga hur.u=to / hur.eba / hut.tara tomorrow rain-nom fall-nps-con / fall-con / fall-con i.i=naa. (Takanashi 1995a: 236) good-nps-ill ‘I hope it rains tomorrow.’

The difference in interpretation is due to whether the target of the modal force has control over the state of affairs (recommendation), or not (wish). Secondly, a number of adverbs can be used with both boulomaic and deontic modal expressions. These include zehi ‘by all means’, semete ‘at least’, naru beku ‘if possible’, doosite mo ‘at any cost’, nan to ka ‘in some way or other’ (cf. Kudō 2000: 188–189). In fact, these comprise the majority of adverbs used in the boulomaic and deontic domain. The following examples show the use of zehi with a deontic (138), and a boulomaic (139) modal expression. (138) Kimi=wa zehi soo s.u=beki=da. (Morimoto 1990: 94) 2S-top by.all.means that.way do-nps-deo-cop(-nps) ‘You should by all means do that’ (139) Zehi soo s.uru tumori=da. (Morimoto 1990: 94) by.all.means that.way do-nps intention-cop(-nps) ‘I want to do that by all means’ The use of these adverbs across deontic and boulomaic modality highlights the commonality between these two domains, which have been classified together as ‘volitive’ modalities in the approach advocated in this book. Both types of modality are related to a person’s (prototypically the speaker’s) volition and desires, and the adverbs express a degree of urgency or desirability. A further parallel between boulomaic and deontic modalities is their use in counterfactuals (cf. 11.2.2). Counterfactual clauses marked by boulomaic or deontic modality form one group of counterfactuals in opposition to the epistemic counterfactuals. Concerning the commonalities of deontic and boulomaic modality in general, Takanashi (2006: 96) attributes them to the fact that both have valuative elements and predicate what is ‘desirable’. According to the stance taken in this study, they

 Modality in Japanese

both share an ‘element of will’ and are therefore ‘volitive’ modalities. This ‘element of will’ implies evaluation, which is the basis for willful judgment. Lastly, it deserves mentioning that there is also a small overlap between adverbs used for boulomaic modality and dynamic modality. Interestingly, this applies only to negated dynamic modality. The adverbs doosite mo ‘at any cost’ (lit. ‘whatever you do’) and totemo ‘very’ are typical for both boulomaic sentences and sentences with negated dynamic modality (cf. Kudō 1996 for doosite mo). The following are examples of dynamic and boulomaic use, respectively, of doosite mo. (140)

Kare=ni=wa doosite=mo ippai=sika 3S-dat-top do.whatever-foc one.bowl-lim ku-e-na-kat.ta. (Kudō 1996: 165) eat-pot-neg-vrb-pst ‘He was completely unable to eat more [than one bowl of rice]’

(141)

Omae doosite=mo asu tat.u 2S do.whatever-foc tomorrow depart-nps tumori=ka=i. (Kudō 1996: 175) intention-que-ill ‘Do you want to depart tomorrow by all means?’

Doosite mo even co-occurs with deontic expressions as well, as in the following example: (142)

Doosite=mo kono koi=o yurusi.te moraw-an.eba do.whatever-foc dem love-acc allow-ger get-neg-con nar-an.u… (Kudō 1996: 178) become-neg-nps ‘[It was written that] this love should by all means be approved of.’

The commonalities found between negated dynamic modality and boulomaic and deontic modality is presumably due to the fact that negated dynamic modality in many contexts expresses an impossibility counter to the subject’s (or someone else’s) volition and efforts to bring about a state-of-affairs. Thus, in (140), the subject’s volition and/or social standards demanded that they eat more than just one bowl of rice, but the subject was unable to fulfill these demands. 10.6.3 Epistemic modality and evidentiality Epistemic modality and inferential evidentiality are notionally closely related. In contrast to boulomaic, deontic, and dynamic modality, where the lack of factivity is only a semantic feature that follows secondarily from the primary meaning of



The modal categories 

obligation, ability, volition etc., lack of factivity is the primary semantic value of epistemics and inferential evidentials. This may be either relativized to speaker knowledge, in the case of epistemics, or to some visual or other evidence in the case of inferential evidentials. Non-inferential evidentials are not similar to epistemics, but they are related to the inferential evidentials with whom they have in common the fact that both express a judgment based on evidence. It is therefore not surprising that in traditional Japanese grammar epistemics and evidentials have been grouped together (see Section 10.5).

part iii

Categories on the periphery of modality The categories discussed in this part of the book are considered as being related to modality but as not belonging to modality proper (cf. the discussion of modality as a grammatical category in Section 2). These are clausal mood, illocutionary modulation, and the so-called ‘modality of explanation’. A section is devoted to each of these categories.

Clausal moods 11.1 Introduction The question of how many levels of description are necessary to capture the meaning of clauses and their relationship to illocutions is controversial. Recently it has been common to assume either two or three levels since it is obvious that there is no direct one-to-one relationship between clause types and illocutions (cf. Grewendorf & Zaefferer 1991; Brandt et al. 1992; Allan 2006). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL), for example, assumes a level of ‘clause types’ which relates to a level of ‘illocution’ (Huddleston 2002b), while Reis and collaborators assume the three levels of ‘clause type’ (which is highly abstract), ‘clausal mood’ (Satzmodus) and ‘illocution’ (Brandt et al. 1992; Reis 1999). Similarly, Quirk et al. (1985: 803f) make a threefold distinction between ‘formal sentence type’, ‘discourse function’ and ‘illocutionary acts’. The number of clause types is controversial as well. On the basis of a crosslinguistic survey, Sadock & Zwicky (1985: 160) conclude that most languages have three basic sentence types (declaratives, interrogative, imperative) but their actual range and characteristics may differ and many languages have minor types as well. For English, Huddleston (2002b) generously posits five major clause types (declarative; closed interrogative; open interrogative; exclamative; imperative) plus a few minor ones, while Allan (2006) basically proposes only four (declarative; interrogative; imperative; expressive) with a fifth very marginal one (hypothetical wishes). Brandt et al. (1992), from a universalistic point of view, posit only three for German (declarative, interrogative, imperative). This contrasts with traditional German grammar, which posits five (e.g. Helbig & Buscha 1996: 610; Hentschel & Weydt 2003: 412). In Japanese grammar as well, a comprehensive description of clause types and their relationship to illocutions is a task for which a satisfying solution has yet to be found. I will make a few assumptions for this study which are primarily motivated by the practical needs of description within its framework. I assume that there are three major clause types in Japanese, namely the three clause types which are believed to be universal, i.e. interrogatives, imperatives, and declaratives. In addition, I assume that there are exclamatives, which have a long history of study in Japanese grammar as an independent clause type. Furthermore, I suggest that

 Modality in Japanese

hypotheticals and optatives in Modern Japanese can be split up between the three major clause types. Similar to Sadock & Zwicky (1985) and Brandt et al. (1992), I assume that the major clause types as such are abstractions and that their concrete realization is in more specific clause types. Thus, there is a family of directive (imperative) clauses, including imperatives proper, hortatives, propositives, and wishes; a family of interrogatives, which include at least yes/no- and wh-interrogatives, and a family of declaratives, which include pure declaratives and commissives. These specific clause types all carry a ‘primary illocution’ (Allan 2006: 2) which needs to be further interpreted to arrive at the ‘illocutionary point’ (Allan 2006: 3), that is, the actual illocutionary force of the clause in a specific context. Clause types relate the contents of clauses to reality, to the addressee and speech situation, and to discourse. Thus, they have a clausal mood. The term ‘mood’ when applied to clauses (sentences) has been used in a manner closely related to, or even in place of, the concept of clause type (e.g. Stenius 1967; Lock 1996, ch. 9.3). It has been more popular in German grammar (as ‘Satzmodus’; e.g. Meibauer 1987) than in English grammar where often, as in the CGEL, no term additional to ‘clause type’ and ‘illocution’ is deemed necessary. This difference may be due to the fact that in English, more than in most other Indo-European languages, inflectional mood, which often indicates clause types in languages with mood, has almost vanished, and the concept of ‘mood’ as such has relatively little appeal. Now, in contrast to Allan (2006), but following Brandt et al. (1992) and Reis (1999), I assume that subordinate clauses can also be classified into clause types and have clausal moods. This is a highly useful assumption in order to describe the relationship between modality and mood, especially with respect to subordinate moods. Subordinate clauses may (cf. Reis 1999: 204f), though usually do not have, illocutionary force. However, even so, they can relate a proposition to reality or to discourse. Therefore, we consider illocutionary force not as a prerequisite for ‘clause’ status, nor as a prerequisite for the existence of ‘mood’. This chapter is thus concerned with devices that indicate clause type, and consequently clausal mood. Potentially such devices include inflectional moods and other morphological markers such as particles, lexical items, constructions, word order, and, above all, intonation (cf. e.g. König & Siemund 2007). We will focus here, however, on morphological markers and constructions, as they are most closely related to markers of modality, and we further focus on irrealis moods, since these are the moods most closely related to modality, which in our definition renders propositions non-factive.



Clausal moods 

Finally, note that here is a fine borderline between modality and mood, both in epistemics and deontics, and for this reason they are often treated together. Consider ex. (143): (143) You must be back by five o’ clock. In the view espoused here the sentence is a declarative with the primary illocution of a declarative but with the illocutionary point of a request. From a radically functional point of view, (143) may be viewed as an imperative sentence and must be viewed as a device marking imperative clausal mood. We do not share this view, since we make a distinction between form and function. Must, in our view is classified as a deontic modal marker, and not as mood. This is due to the fact that must is not associated by default with imperative sentences or any other specific sentence type. It can be used performatively as well as descriptively. Markers and constructions considered as clausal moods are only those which are by default associated with a specific clause type, and conversely, mark the clause as belonging to this clause type. 11.2 Declaratives Declaratives, as in most other languages are the unmarked clause type in Japanese. A sentence with a verbal or nominal predicate ending on past -Ta or non-past -(r) u with falling intonation can by default be regarded as declarative. If not further marked, declarative clauses are realis, and thus do not directly pertain to our discussion here. They can, however, be irrealis if they contain one of the various modal markers discussed in Chapter 10. We do not consider sentences with these markers as constituting a specific mood. There are no obvious reasons to posit either a hypothetical or an inferential mood for main clauses in Japanese. However, it has been claimed by some authors that daroo (10.4.1.3) constitutes a mood. We will briefly review this hypothesis in the next subsection. In contrast, I consider counterfactuals as a mood here. Counterfactuals in Japanese are constructions that concern the sentence as a whole, and cannot be pinned down to a specific morpheme. This fact is consistent with Iatridou (2000) who points out that marking from multiple grammatical categories contribute to the construction of counterfactual sentences. Furthermore, counterfactuals carry specific illocutionary force.

 Modality in Japanese

11.2.1

Does Japanese have a ‘suppositive mood’?

Some scholars of Japanese have claimed that daroo, in contrast to the other epistemic markers in fact constitutes a ‘mood’. This view has been espoused, for example, by Miyake (1995a), Suzuki (1996), Moriyama (2000), and Miyazaki (2002a, b). If we followed this view, we would have to posit a fourth major mood at this point, or at least a sub-mood of declaratives. Thus, Miyake (1995a: 8–9) claims that Modern Japanese has a ‘suppositive mood’ (suirōyhō) with daroo on the same level as the declarative and interrogative mood. According to the Gengogaku Kenkyūkai group (Suzuki 1996:  47), predicates with daroo form a ‘suppositive’ sub-mood (suirōyhō) of the ‘indicative’ (chokusetsuhō), which is opposed to the imperative.1 Likewise, Miyazaki (2002a: 15; 2002b: 122) posits an ‘epistemic mood’ as a submood of the declarative mood. Moriyama (2000: 16–25) posits four ‘basic moods’ for finite clauses in Japanese, namely the ‘unmarked mood’ and the imperative, volitive, and ‘irrealis’ daroo as ‘marked moods’. All three researchers cited here do not clearly distinguish between the morphological mood of the verb and clausal (sentential) mood. As Moriyama (2000: 16) puts it, “As [the choice between these four forms] is the choice of sentence-final predicate form, [these forms] necessarily express the mental attitude of the speaker, and we will therefore call them ‘basic moods’.” Concerning specifically the ‘marked moods’ he states, “…as the form of sentence-final predicates they determine the meaning of the sentence” (p. 17). These authors present the following arguments in favor of this view. i. Daroo does not inflect for tense etc. unlike other epistemic modal markers, indicating that daroo belongs to a different (higher) syntactic level (Miyake 1995:  8f). Similarly, Moriyama (2000:  17–19) states that daroo can take no (past) tense marking and cannot be nominalized by no da. Furthermore it cannot be negated but has a suppletive negative form (mai). ii. Daroo both overlaps and differs semantically from other expressions of epistemic possibility and epistemic necessity. The fine semantic differences are taken as an indication that daroo is qualitatively different (Miyake 1995a: 9, 6, 7). iii. Daroo, in contrast to other epistemic markers can be used interrogatively and with the question particle ka (cf. Miyazaki 2002b: 122f) The argument that daroo differs semantically from expressions of epistemic possibility and epistemic necessity (Miyake 1995a) is relatively weak because expressions of epistemic possibility and epistemic necessity differ from each other as well. There is no evidence indicating that the way daroo differs from epistemic 1. In his earlier grammar of Japanese, Suzuki (1972) did not yet posit a suppositive mood. This concept was apparently introduced into the Gengogaku Kenkyūkai group’s theory of Japanese grammar in the early 1990s by Yasuo Okuda (unpublished manuscripts).



Clausal moods 

necessity and possibility is qualitatively different from the way these two differ from each other. The argument as concerns interrogation is also rather unclear. In fact, its use in questions would on the face of it rather speak against viewing daroo as mood. As in the case of tense and negation, if daroo were subject to interrogation this would show that daroo is an element inside the proposition, and within the scope of a particular clausal mood (interrogation). If on the other hand, daroo does not fall into the scope of interrogation but forms a ‘chunk’ (constructional unit) with the interrogative marker ka, as darooka, nothing is shown about the nature of daroo itself. Ultimately, therefore, the claim that daroo is a mood boils down to the morphosyntactic differences of daroo and other epistemic markers in their interaction with tense, negation and other functional categories. These morphosyntactic differences are exactly the subject of the empirical corpus study to be presented in Part IV. This study will reveal that daroo is indeed wider in scope than most other Japanese epistemic and evidential markers, but not as wide as mood markers. It is thus in the process of grammaticalizing into a mood, but has not yet advanced that far. One can say that there are two aspects to daroo. On the one hand, daroo stands in a paradigmatic relationship with the unmarked verb form, at least in some part of its functions, and thus is mood-like (cf. Nitta 2000: 116). On the other hand, it is an epistemic modal marker standing in a paradigmatic relationship with other epistemic markers such as hazu, ni tigai nai and ka mo sirenai. Numerous studies which compare these markers with daroo and show where they differ and where they are used synonymously (cf. Section 10.4) bear witness to the fact that these epistemic markers, as well as daroo, stand in a relationship of paradigmatic choice. Furthermore, and decisively for this chapter, daroo does not mark a specific clause type or clause construction. We therefore do not posit a separate mood for clauses including daroo. 11.2.2

Counterfactuals

As Iatridou (2000: 231) defines it, counterfactuals are grammatical constructions that “express or make reference to situations that are ‘contrary to fact’”. In principle, counterfactuals can refer only to past or present situations because the “future is conceptualized as not yet fact.” In English, and some other European languages, two main types are distinguished, namely ‘wish counterfactuals’ and ‘conditional counterfactuals’ (cf. Iatridou 2000; Han 2006). This distinction is difficult to uphold in Japanese, since the wishes themselves are usually construed as conditionals (cf. 10.2.3). Instead, I propose here a distinction of three formal types, namely, (a) a conditional construction with an epistemic in the consequent, (b) a conditional with an evaluative expression in the consequent (11.2.2.2), and finally, (c) a non-conditional sentence ending in a volitive (deontic or boulomaic) modal

 Modality in Japanese

marker in the past tense (11.2.2.3). The second and the third type (b and c) are in fact closely related, since in Japanese conditional constructions with evaluative predicates as a whole are equivalent to deontic or boulomaic markers (cf. 10.1, 10.2). We will call these volitive/evaluative here, and contrast them with the conditional-epistemic type. In the volitive/evaluative constructions, the concessive marker (no) ni is required in some contexts. 11.2.2.1 The epistemic type – Conditional construction with epistemic modal in the consequent Conditional constructions with an epistemic modal in the consequent in Japanese correspond to the conditional counterfactuals of English and other languages. Here are examples for present-oriented (144) and past-oriented (145) conditional counterfactuals: (144)

Mosi watasi=ga tensi=dat.tara, minna=no kokoro=ga If 1S-nom angel -cop-con everybody-gen mind-nom yom-e.ru=daroo. read-pot-nps-epi ‘If I were an angel, I could read everybody’s mind.’

(145)

O.kane=o watas-ana-kat.tara, hido.i me=ni hon-money-acc hand.over-neg-vrb-con terrible-nps eye-dat at.ta=daroo. meet-pst-epi ‘If I hadn’t handed over the money, I’d have been in trouble.’

In the present-oriented counterfactual (144), epistemic marking is necessary for a counterfactual understanding. In contrast, the past-oriented counterfactual (145) is fully comprehensible as a counterfactual in the appropriate context (shared knowledge between speaker and hearer) even without epistemic marking. The epistemic marking in the consequent can also be provided by markers other than daroo, particularly ka mo sirenai and ni tigai nai (cf. 10.4.1). As (144) shows, past tense marking is not necessary in order to convey counterfactuality. If the consequent in (144) were marked as past, it would simply refer to a past counterfactual state-of-affairs, instead of referring to the present. (146)

Mosi watasi=ga tensi=dat.tara, minna=no kokoro=ga If 1S-nom angel -cop-con everybody-gen mind-nom yom-e.ta=daroo. read-pot-nps-epi ‘If I’d been an angel, I might have been able to read everybody’s mind.’



Clausal moods 

This is in contrast to Kudō (1997: 51), who claims that the past marking is necessary for a counterfactual interpretation. Her claim cannot be upheld, as a variation of one of Kudō’s own examples with present tense in the consequent (147) shows: (147)

Kyonen sin.da ano ko=ga ima iki.te i-reba, genki=ni last.year die-pst dem child-nom now live-ger be-con healthy-adv ason.de i.ru=daroo. play-ger be-nps-epi ‘If that kid who died last year were still alive now, she’d be playing cheerfully.’

On the other hand, as noted by Iatridou (2000) and Han (2006), with presentoriented counterfactuals the predicate has to be stative, as is the case with (144) and (147).2 If only the antecedent is stative, the sentence is ambiguous between hypotheticality and counterfactuality (ex. (148)), and if both antecedent and consequent are non-stative, the state-of-affairs is unambiguously interpreted as a (hypothetical) future (compare (149) to (144)):3 (148) O.kane=ga ar.eba, ryokoo~s.uru=no=ni. (Taniguchi 1995: 47) hon-money-nom be-con, travel-do-nps-nmz-cnc ‘If I had money, I’d travel’ (149)

Mosi watasi=ga tensi=ni nat.tara, minna=no kokoro=o If 1S-nom angel become-con everybody-gen mind-acc yom.u=daroo. read-nps-epi ‘If I became an angel, I’d read people’s minds.’

11.2.2.2 The volitive/evaluative type I – Conditional construction with an evaluative predicate in the consequent Conditional constructions with evaluative predicates in the consequent play a central role in the expression of deontic and boulomaic modalities in Japanese (cf. 10.1, 10.2). One of them is to express wishes (cf. 10.2.3). The following examples

2. Arita (2006: 147), pace Jacobsen (2002), points out that the consequent of a counterfactual does not have to be stative, but her counterexample is in the past. Thus consequents have to be either in the past or stative. The addition of tokoro da ‘be about to’ to a non-stative verb (Arita 2006: 146) is also a form of stativization. 3.

Cf. also Takubo (1993) on the role of stativity in counterfactual expressions.

 Modality in Japanese

shows counterfactual wishes built on a conditional construction that refers to the present in (150) and to the past in (151). (150) Kono CD, 20-kyoku=gurai hait.te i-reba i.i=no=ni. dem CD 20 song-lim enter-ger be-con good-nps-nmz-cnc ‘I wish there were 20 songs on this CD’ (lit.: ‘Although it were good if there were 20 songs on this CD’). (151) Kinoo ame=ga fur.eba yo-kat.ta=no=ni. yesterday rain-nom fall-con good-vrb-pst-nmz-cnc ‘I wish it had rained yesterday’ (lit.: ‘Although it were good if it had rained yesterday’) Wishes always express a state-of-affairs that is beyond the control of the speaker and the hearer. The same construction gains a different illocutionary point if the state-ofaffairs is controllable, or, was controllable in the past. The state-of-affairs is still counterfactual although it expresses express a ‘reproach’, not a ‘wish’. Cf. ex. (152): (152) Kimi, kinoo ano hito=ni ayamar.eba yo-kat.ta=no=ni. 2S yesterday dem person-dat apologize-con good-vrb-pst-nmz-cnc ‘You should have apologized to him yesterday.’ (lit.: ‘Although it were good if you had apologized to him yesterday’) The examples given so far for this type contain the fixed construction V+(r)eba/(r) u to/Tara ii. However, the evaluative part does not have to follow this fixed pattern as the following variation of (152) shows: (153)

Kimi, kinoo ano hito=ni ayamar.eba konna koto=ni 2S yesterday dem person-dat apologize-con this thing-dat nar-ana-kat.ta=no=ni. become-neg-vrb-pst-nmz-cnc ‘(Although) it wouldn’t have turned out like this if you’d apologized to him yesterday.’

11.2.2.3 The volitive/evaluative type II – Non-conditional construction As noted above, Japanese conditional constructions with valuative predicates in the consequent serve on the whole as markers of deontic and boulomaic modality. A number of non-complex deontic and boulomaic markers, if in the past tense, express counterfactuality as well. Iori (2006: 153) lists (a) beki ‘should’, no da ‘it is to’, hoo ga ii ‘it is better to’, and (b) hazu ‘should’, and tumori ‘intent’ as markers which obligatorily (a), or commonly (b), turn counterfactual if used in the past tense. Other markers of the same deontic and boulomaic domains, such as -tai, -Te hosii (not listed by Iori), and -Te mo ii can be used counterfactually depending on



Clausal moods 

context. Note that the list even contains one epistemic marker, hazu, which is an exception in this domain. The following are examples for beki (deontic) (154) and tumori (boulomaic) (155). (154) Watasi=wa ki=o tuke.ru=beki=dat.ta. 1S-top mind-acc attach-nps-deo-vrb-pst ‘I should have been more careful.’ (155) Watasi=wa ki=o tuke.ru tumori=dat.ta=no=ni. 1S-top mind-acc attach-nps intention-vrb-pst-nmz-cnc ‘I’d meant to be more careful though’ (Lit., ‘Although I had intended to be more careful’) It is difficult to find common English constructions that correspond to Japanese counterfactuals such as (155). As Iori (2006), and before him Takanashi (2004), have noted, the counterfactual vs. non-counterfactual reading of tumori depends on the discourse context. Takanashi (2004:  47) counted roughly a 4:1 ratio of counterfactual vs. non-counterfactual readings of tumori. The following is a noncounterfactual example: (156) Saisyo=kara untensyu=o koros.u tumori=dat.ta. (Takanashi 2004: 46) beginning-abl driver-acc kill-nps intention-cop-pst ‘I wanted to kill the driver from the beginning’ (156) is from a newspaper text, quoting the suspect in a murder trial. A counterfactual reading is ruled out here, since the event described here is pragmatically an actual fact of the past. 11.2.2.4 Some remaining questions Many of the counterfactual examples presented so far contained a concessive marker (no ni; others such as keredo are possible as well with a different nuance) at the end of the sentence. This is particularly true for the volitive/deontic type, with the exception of (154). Masuoka (2000) claims that there is a general rule according to which concessive marking is bound to a second person subject and the lack of this marking is bound to first person subject. (152) and (154) appear to confirm this rule, as (152) refers to a second person subject and has concessive marking, while (154) refers to a first person subject and has none. Masuoka only discusses volitive/evaluative examples and claims that the association is stronger with what we have labeled as ‘type II’ as opposed to ‘type I’. However, as ex. (155) with a first person subject and concessive marking already shows, this rule is flexible. Masuoka himself gives counterexamples, among others with the volitive marker -Ta and with no da. Finally, with the epistemic

 Modality in Japanese

type, concessive marking is not obligatory at all. On the contrary, it can be infelicitous, as (no)ni added to (145) shows: (157)

#O.kane=o watas-ana-kat.tara, hido-i me=ni hon-money-acc hand.over-neg-vrb-con terrible-nps eye-dat at.ta=daroo=ni. meet-pst-epi-cnc ‘I’d have been in trouble though, if I hadn’t handed over the money.’

Apparently, (157) is infelicitous because the concessive marking implies discontent or regret while the realization of the state-of-affairs ‘be in trouble’ is not desirable. If this observation is generalized, it can be concluded that concessive marking is only felicitous when the realization of a state-of-affairs is evaluated positively and its non-realization (non-factuality) is the object of a negative evaluation. In (149), the addition of (no)ni would be felicitous, because the state-of-affairs can be evaluated as desirable, and its non-realization as regrettable. Cf. (158)

Mosi watasi=ga tensi=dat.tara, minna=no kokoro=ga If 1S-nom angel -cop-con everybody-gen mind-nom yom-e.ru=daroo=ni. read-pot-nps-epi-cnc ‘If I were an angel, I could read everybody’s mind.’

Now, the effect of (no)ni differs with the person of the subject. With the first person, the illocutionary point is one of ‘regret’ (cf. (154)), with second person one of ‘reproach’ (cf. (152)), and with third person one of ‘discontent’ (cf. (150)). The pragmatic fit of the illocutionary point of the sentence-final concessive with the semantics of the specific modal marker probably accounts for the felicity of use of (no)ni. A second problem concerning counterfactuals is the existence of counterfactual readings of sentences that have no special marking at all. Cf. (159). (159) Ano siai=wa zettai kat.te (i).ru=yo. (Taniguchi 1995: 46) dem game-top absolutely win-ger be-nps-ill ‘We’d definitely won that game’ This sentence may be interpreted as being proceeded by the elided protasis of a conditional (‘if … had happened’). The counterfactuality here must be attributed entirely to the context and the shared knowledge between hearer and speaker about the facts. In an observation on a related phenomenon, Haiman & Kuteva (2002) give examples of counterfactual conditionals in colloquial English which, contrary to prescriptive grammar, bear no past marking, e.g. (160).



Clausal moods 

(160) If that ball gets by Moreland, we’ve got three runs. (In fact, it hadn’t and they didn’t) (Haiman & Kuteva 2002: 101) Haiman & Kuteva (2002: 113, 118) point out that there are a fair number of languages which have no marking for counterfactuality at all. Marking is thus not a cognitive requirement for the use of counterfactuals in human language, and even in languages such as English and Japanese, which have certain patterns of marking, unmarked conditionals can be used counterfactually if the counterfactuality is sufficiently understandable in context. 11.3 Interrogatives Although in the typological literature, three types of interrogatives, namely yes-no questions, alternative questions and wh-questions have been taken to be (almost) universal (cf. Sadock & Zwicky 1985: 178–179; Givón 2001 (vol. 2): 291–311), in specific languages the actual description and classification tends to be more complex. Huddleston (2002b: 867) suggests that interrogatives can be classified along four dimensions, only one of them being the one already mentioned (yes-no questions vs. alternative questions vs. wh-questions). The others, for him, are information questions vs. direction questions (“where the answers have the force of directives, not of statements”), neutral vs. biased questions, and ordinary vs. echo questions. In Japanese grammar as well, classification of interrogatives has been a controversial matter. Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo (1960:  109), Masuoka (1991:  85; 1997: 75) and Adachi (1999: 11f) follow traditional grammar in seeing the most fundamental distinction between yes-no questions and ­wh-questions. Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo (1960: 109, 116) group alternative questions together with whquestions, Masuoka (1997:  75) views them as a third category on par with the others, while Adachi (1999) is not explicit on this point. For Nitta (1987: 179, 194; 1989b: 5, 29), in contrast, the most fundamental distinction is between interrogatives that ask for a judgment on a state-of-affairs (handan no toikake) and interrogatives that ask for the speaker’s wishes (jōi no toikake). This corresponds to Huddleston’s dimension of information vs. direction. Most interrogatives naturally fall under the category of information questions. For Miyazaki (2002a: 15), finally, the most fundamental distinction is between ‘questions’ and ‘doubts’ on the one hand, and ‘requests for confirmation’, on the other. This roughly corresponds to Huddleston’s distinction between neutral vs. biased questions. In this study, we are only interested in categories related to modality. This principally leads to the exclusion of wh-questions, since the status of the state-ofaffairs encoded in them is (in the absence of additional modal marking) not irrealis

 Modality in Japanese

or undecided but presupposed (cf. also Masuoka 1992). Three types of (non-wh) interrogatives have a particularly strong connection with modality. These are direction questions, which contain a volitive element, ‘doubts’ and so-called ‘requests for confirmation’. The ‘direction questions’ will not be dealt with further here. They will be mentioned in the chapter on imperatives (11.4). Instead we will discuss ‘requests for confirmation’ (11.3.1) and ‘doubts’ (11.3.2). Some forms in this area straddle the border with epistemic statements. They are called ‘dubitatives’ here (11.3.3). 11.3.1

Requests for confirmation

If there are two major conditions for questions, namely that (a) the speaker lacks some information, and that (b) (s)he requests this information from his or her interlocutor (cf. Adachi 1999: 12; 2002: 175), ‘requests for confirmation’ are questions that fail to fulfill condition (a), i.e. they present information that the speaker is in principle already certain about. In English, they are normally expressed as statements with tag questions, e.g.: (161) You already know that, don’t you? In Japanese, grammaticalized form patterns, consisting of specific sentence-endings in conjunction with a specific intonation, express requests for confirmation in a single clause. The morphological forms are primarily daroo, de wa nai ka, and the particle ne (Adachi 2002b: 176–7; Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo 1960:  109– 112). Here are examples for daroo and de wa nai ka: (162) Hora, it.ta toori, kare=wa ki.ta=daroo? (Adachi 1999: 143) Hey say-pst way 3S-top come-pst-epi ‘Hey, he has come, as I said, (hasn’t he?). (163) Zibun=ga ii~dasi.ta=zya na.i=ka? (Tanomura 1988: 17) Self-nom say-begin-pst-[ess-top] not.be-nps-que ‘You said that yourself, didn’t you?’ As mentioned before, Miyazaki (2002a: 15) sees the most fundamental distinction in interrogatives between these ‘requests for confirmation’ and all other questions. ‘Requests for information’ state a fact, and ask the interlocutor for confirmation by (mostly) rhetorically expressing uncertainty about this fact. They are not epistemic (non-factive) statements but nevertheless there is a relationship between these categories. This is witnessed by the fact that the ‘speculative’ marker daroo has acquired the function of marking confirmations for request. This constitutes an



Clausal moods 

extension of the epistemic uncertainty towards the proposition that daroo expressed at the speech act level. 11.3.2

Doubts

Given the two major conditions for questions already mentioned, i.e. that (a) the speaker lacks some information, and that (b) (s)he requests this information from his or her interlocutor, then ‘doubts’ are questions that fail to fulfill condition (b), i.e. they are essentially self-directed utterances. In English, they are explicitly encoded in complex sentences with embedded questions, e.g.: (164) I wonder whether this will work. In Japanese, in contrast, they are grammaticalized patterns in a single clause with specific endings and a specific intonation. As for the endings, Adachi (2002b: 183) names daroo ka, ka na, kasira, and ka ne. The following is an example: (165) Kare=wa watasi=o ukeire.te kure.ru=daroo=ka? (Miyazaki 2002b: 138) 3S-top 1S-acc accept-ger give-nps-epi-que ‘I wonder whether he will accept me.’ Miyazaki (2002b), and Nitta (2000: 96, 156), in contrast to Adachi (1999), suggest that these forms already belong to the domain of epistemic modality, as they allegedly “express that the speaker’s epistemic judgment is not concluded” (Miyazaki 2002b: 138), or “express an epistemic attitude towards the proposition” (Nitta 2000: 156). A possible argument in favor of this view is that clauses of ‘doubt’ can include epistemic adverbials, cf. (166) with mosi ka site ‘perhaps’. (166)

Mosi=ka si.tara, kono keizi=wa zibun=no koto=o if-que do-con dem detective-top self-gen thing-acc utagat.te i.ru=no=daroo=ka? (Miyazaki 2001: 20) doubt-ger be-nps-nmz-epi-que ‘Is this detective perhaps suspicious of me?’

Miyazaki (2001:  20), examining daroo ka in detail, distinguishes three types of ‘doubt’: ‘unbiased’, ‘biased towards negation’, and ‘biased towards confirmation’. This example belongs to the third type, i.e. bias towards confirmation, which is (at least in the view of the present author) closest to an epistemic judgment. Nevertheless, it appears to me, that daroo ka always retains an interrogative character, and does not have the character of an indirect epistemic statement. This can be demonstrated by the fact that daroo ka (and the other forms of ‘doubt’ as well), in

 Modality in Japanese

contrast to no de wa nai ka (11.3.3), can also be used with wh-questions, which are by definition not epistemic modal: (167) Taroo=wa ima doko=ni sun.de i.ru=no=daroo=ka? (name)-top now where-loc live-ger be-nps-nom-epi-que ‘I wonder where Taro might be living now.’ 11.3.3

The ‘dubitative’ no de wa nai (ka)

No de wa nai (ka), has been variably classified as a regular interrogative (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo 1960: 113), a ‘doubt’ (Miyazaki 2001), and a ‘request for confirmation’ (Miyazaki 2002c). Since it has features that distinguish it from all these categories (cf. Miyazaki 2002b: 142), it is best viewed in a category of its own, between ‘requests for confirmation’ and ‘doubts’. Decisively, for the purposes of this study, no de wa nai ka is the interrogative clause type that comes closest to epistemic statements. The reason is that while ‘doubts’ lack the ‘request for information’ aspect of interrogatives, and ‘requests for confirmation’ lack the ‘lack of information’ aspect, no de wa nai (ka), to a certain extent, can lack both simultaneously. As in a ‘request for confirmation’, the question form, with its in-built negation is strongly biased towards a specific answer, namely a confirmation. In this way the speaker presents some information about which (s)he has a certain degree of conviction, but about which (s)he is not entirely sure. Cf. the following example. (168)

Motto betu=no riyuu=ga at.ta=no=de=wa More other-gen reason-nom be-pst-nmz-ess-top na.i=ka? (Miyazaki 2001: 15) not.be-nps-que ‘There must have been some other reason [for this]’ (lit. ‘Wasn’t there another reason for this?’)

This type of sentence with no de wa nai (ka) can be easily embedded into omou ‘think’, in which case the speaker rather straightforwardly gives his or her opinion. (169)

Motto betu=no riyuu=ga at.ta=no=de=wa na.i=ka=to More other-gen reason-nom be-pst-nmz-ess-top not.be-nps-que omou. think-nps ‘There must have been some other reason [for this]’ (lit. ‘I think wasn’t there another reason for this’)



Clausal moods 

No de wa nai (ka), however, has not been entirely grammaticalized to expressing an epistemic judgment and has retained its usage as an actual request for information. Since no de wa nai (ka), as a negated question, has an in-built bias through negation, its actual question use is pragmatically limited to that of a request for an opinion or confirmation, as in ex. (170): (170) O-isogasi.i=n=zya na.i? (Miyazaki 2001: 23) Hon-busy-nps-nmz-[ess-top] not.be-nps-que ‘Aren’t you busy?’ The speaker is already biased towards the conclusion that the interlocutor is busy, and with the no de wa nai (ka) question (s)he seeks to confirm that. Nevertheless, the interrogative function is more alive in (170) than in (168). There are no formal criteria to distinguish the (biased) question function and the indirect epistemic judgment function. The decisive factor is context. If the speaker presumes that the hearer has more knowledge than, or a different knowledge from, the speaker, the effect is interrogative. This is the case in (170), because the speaker asks the hearer about his or her affairs. If the same sentence is transformed to refer not to a second but to a third person, as in (171) below, it will be naturally interpreted as an indirect epistemic judgment: (171) Kanozyo=wa isogasi.i=n=zya na.i? she-top busy-nps-nmz-[ess-top] not.be-nps-que ‘She must be busy’ Daroo ka (11.3.2), sometimes also linked to epistemic judgment, does not have an in-built bias as strong as no de wa nai (ka) towards a conclusion. It is open to any type of bias or non-bias). In fact, NKBK (2003) do not include it in the epistemics, in contrast to no de wa nai (ka). They state that daroo ka expresses a state in which the speaker (as in a question) has no insight yet into the truth of a state-of-affairs, while in no de wa nai (ka) (s)he is already presenting a tentative conclusion NKBK (2003: 181). Finally, the ‘doubt’ constructions ending in ka na and kasira are also sometimes associated with epistemic judgments (cf. Adachi 2002b: 183f; NKBK 2003: 181). In a detailed study on ka na, which consists of the interrogative marker ka and the emotive na, Matsugu (2005) suggested that ka na has six uses, which can be largely classified into interrogative and mitigating. One of the uses, ‘to

 Modality in Japanese

reduce certainty’, is on the sentence level the functional equivalent of an epistemic judgment. Here is an example: (172) A: … kyoo zyuu~go-niti? today ten-five-day? ‘Is today the fifteenth?’ B:

Zyuu~go-niti=ka=na. (Matsugu 2005: 42) ten-five-day-que-ill ‘It should be the fifteenth’

The speaker tentatively affirms the state-of-affairs with ka na. If daroo ka were used in place of ka na, the question whether that day was the fifteenth would still be open. Cf. (173) A: … kyoo zyuu~go-niti? today ten-five-day? ‘Is today the fifteenth?’ B:

??Zyuu~go-niti=daroo=ka. ten-five-day-epi-que ‘I wonder if it’s the fifteenth’

As an answer, daroo ka is usually inappropriate. Ka na reveals the stronger bias towards a conclusion and is therefore much better suited for indirectly stating an epistemic judgment than daroo ka. According to Matsugu (2005: 433), this ‘reducing certainty’ use of ka na appears in more than a third of all uses in her conversational corpus. Nevertheless, this is only a minority use of ka na, and it would be premature to identify ka na as a marker of epistemic modality. 11.4 Directives We use ‘directives’ here as a label for clause types, in place of the more common but narrower term ‘imperatives’, and not as a label for speech acts. This group comprises mainly imperatives, prohibitives, and hortatives. 11.4.1

Imperatives

Japanese has a specific verbal (inflectional) mood, -E/yo/ro, which is at the core of imperative clauses. Besides the morphological marking and intonation, the subject of the clause is usually elided. However, the addressee can appear as a vocative



Clausal moods 

in the sentence (cf. E. Hey you, come here!), or even openly as the subjective if it is pragmatically contrastive. Cf. (174) Omae=ga ik.e. (Nitta 1991a: 241) 2S-nom go-imp ‘You go!’ Any subject other than a second person, however, would be ungrammatical in a Japanese imperative (cf. Nitta 1991a: 241). E.g. (175) *Kare=ga ik.e. (Nitta 1991a: 241) 3S-nom go-imp ‘He go!’ In this point Japanese resembles English, in contrast to a number of other languages (cf. van der Auwera et al. 2004: 50–1). Besides the simple morphological marking with -E/yo/ro,4 there is extended morphological marking with -nasai ‘do!’, and -Te kudasai, lit. ‘give me doing’, which contains the benefactive verb kudasaru. These forms morphologically contain the allomorph -i of the imperative morpheme. Furthermore, plain declarative sentences with a specific intonation (e.g. suwaru!/suwaru n da ‘Sit!’), and forms with elided benefactive verb (e.g. suwatte! ‘Sit!’ (< suwatte kure! ‘Sit for my benefit!’)) must also be regarded as imperative clauses. In contrast, here I am not labeling as ‘imperatives’ clauses which are formally questions or statements but that are indirectly (even if routinely) used for requests, e.g. suwatte kurenai ka? ‘Won’t you sit (for my benefit)?’ According to Nitta (1991a: 239–40), three types of conditions must be fulfilled to make an imperative sentence felicitous. These are, (1) speaker conditions, e.g. that (s)he is in the position to give the hearer an order; (2) conditions on the part of the hearer, particularly that (s)he is willing and able to carry out an order; and (3) the fact that the state-of-affairs whose realization is demanded is not yet realized. In terms of grammar these translate into the requirement the predicate must be volitional and its subject agentive (cf. condition 2)), and the fact that imperatives have no tense since they are always future-oriented (cf. condition 3)).5

4. There is also the archaic imperative ending -tamae. 5. In the general linguistics literature, the felicity of imperatives is has been related to (1) agentive subjects (Kearns 2000:  237–238), (2) non-stative aspect (Frawley 1992:  151; Kearns 2000:  211–213; Bennett 2002:  42), (3) volitionality of the event (Whaley 1997:  237), and (4) controllability of the state of affairs by the subject (Dik 1997a: 113, Whaley 1997: 237).

 Modality in Japanese

Pragmatically, depending on context, a typical imperative clause can serve not only to give an order but also as a warning, recommendation, permission or to signal consent (cf. Murakami 1993: 78–84). Of particular interest pragmatically are untypical imperatives, which violate one or more of the conditions stated above. Murakami (1993) and Ozaki (2007) call these ‘non-imperative uses of imperatives’. Ozaki (2007: 72, 74) lists ‘wish’, ‘expression of discontent’ and ‘deontic judgment’ as their main functions while Murakami (1993: 107–113) lists a number of additional functions such as hypothetical use, ‘expression of resignation’, use in proverbs etc. The following imperative lacks the condition of a hearer who is able and willing to bring about the state-ofaffairs. It thus becomes a ‘wish’. (176) O.Ito-san=no renai=ni=mo syukuhuku ar.e. (Murakami 1993: 109) hon-(name)-gen love-dat-foc blessing be-imp ‘May there be blessings on Ito’s love’. This is a pattern of prayers and wishes confined to the existential verb aru which reflects archaic style. Wishes formulated as imperatives can also be directed towards specific hearers which are figuratively conceived as persons with volition and ability, as in the following imperative (177) addressing the wind. (177)

Tuyomar.e! Tuyomar.e! become.strong-imp become.strong-imp Motto haya.ku!... (Murakami 1993: 109) more fast-adv ‘Become stronger! Become stronger! Become faster!’

Finally, the following example lacks the condition of pertaining to a state-of-affairs which has not yet materialized. The following imperative is uttered in a situation where someone has entered a room without knocking. (178) Nokku-gurai si.ro!... (Ozaki 2007: 72) Knock-lim do-imp ‘Knock at least!’ Ozaki (2007: 72) classifies this use as ‘deontic judgment’. Arguably, however, the imperative also refers to the next (future) instance of the hearer entering the room, so that the future-orientation of the imperative is still maintained. Another pragmatically interesting type of imperatives are those which imply their negative, and function, for example as ‘threats’, e.g.: (179) Make a move!



Clausal moods 

Mori (2006: 139) claims that Japanese has a sub-class of imperatives that is not available in English, namely, imperatives with a prohibitive implication that refer to a state-of-affairs that has already materialized: (180) Uso=o tuk.e! (Mori 2006: 135) lie-acc thrust-imp ‘Tell me a lie!’ Such imperatives function pragmatically not as threats but as an evaluation. This example would be translated more idiomatically into English as ‘that’s a lie!’ (cf. Mori 2006: 149). 11.4.2

Prohibitives

Prohibitives in Modern Japanese are formed with a non-past verb form followed by the particle na, with falling intonation. For example: (181) Sono isu=ni suwar.u=na! (Ozaki 2007: 66) dem chair-loc sit-nps-prb ‘Don’t sit on this chair!’ The conditions for the use of the prohibitive are in principle the same as for the imperatives, as are rule violations and their implications. In parallel to the ‘wish’ imperative constructions with the verb aru, there are ancient-style negative ‘wish’ constructions with nakare ‘be there not!’, e.g.: (182) Ogor.u na-kar.e, Zimin~too. (Martin 1988: 942) be.arrogant-nps not.be-vrb-imp Liberal.Democratic-party ‘Beware of pride, O Liberal Democratic Party!’ Nevertheless, there are significant pragmatic differences to the positive imperatives. Ozaki (2007: 70) showed in a corpus study that violations of the two main conditions of imperative use, namely, the existence of a hearer who has volition and future-orientation, are far more frequent with prohibitives than with positive imperatives. Concretely, she showed that while 93.9% of (positive) imperatives in her data fulfilled the two main conditions, only 55.5% of the prohibitives did. Particularly frequent is the use of prohibitives that refer to a past event and express a negative ‘evaluation’ rather than an actual command. Cf. the following example where the speaker ‘evaluates’ something uttered by his interlocutor: (183) Kudarana.i koto=o i.u=na! (Ozaki 2007: 73) worthless-nps thing-acc say-nps-prb ‘Don’t tell me rubbish!’

 Modality in Japanese

Note that this use corresponds to the ‘implied prohibitive’ use of the imperative as in (180).6 On the basis of these observations, Ozaki (Ozaki 2007: 75) concludes that prohibitives have a strong tendency to be used ‘declaratively’, compared to imperatives. Note that Ozaki’s observations can also be interpreted differently if the evaluative imperatives/prohibitives are taken to be generalized, and not bound to a specific event. 11.4.3

Hortatives

Clauses that appeal to the realization of a state-of-affairs, with a willful addressee other than the exclusive second person, particularly an inclusive 1st person, can be labeled as hortative (cf. Jespersen (1992(1924): 320); Sadock & Zwicky (1985: 177); Bussmann (1996: 6); van der Auwera, Dobrushina & Goussev (2005: 294)). With the verbal inflection -(y)oo, Japanese has grammaticalized morphological marking of hortatives. -(Y)oo is morphologically and functionally on a par with the imperative endings (cf. Shirota 1979), and as a default signals an appeal for the joint realization of a state of affairs by speaker and addressee, i.e. ‘let’s’. For example: (184) Saa, kaimono=ni iki-mas.yoo. (Higuchi 1992: 182) (appeal) shopping-dat go-hon-hor ‘Come on, let’s go shopping!’ -(Y)oo can also be used to signal the intention of the speaker alone to realize some state-of-affairs. In the example below, the speaker makes an offer to the hearer. The proposed action is to be realized by the speaker alone: (185) Obasan. O.tetudai~si-mas.yoo. (Higuchi 1992: 182) auntie hon-help-do-hon-hor ‘Auntie, let me help you!’ The issue of whether 1st +2nd person use, or 1st person use is primary is contentious. Adachi (2002a: 18) claims that 1st person intention use is primary and that hortative use is an extension. This is probably true if one looks at -(y)oo from a historical-etymological perspective.7 However, for Modern Japanese, the opposite seems to be the case. The reason is that clauses ending in -(y)oo are interpreted by

6. Ozaki (2007: 75) notes that this use is only available to prohibitives and not to imperatives, but this is obviously a mistake. 7.

-(y)oo is historically derived from the volitional marker -(a)m.u.



Clausal moods 

default as hortatives, and special syntactic or pragmatic conditions are needed for the ‘intention’ interpretation. These conditions are: i. Offering to take an action that benefits the hearer (cf. Nitta 1991b: 9); cf. ex. (185)), ii. Soliloquy/absence of a hearer (cf. Nitta 1991b: 10).8 Cf. the following sentence, in which the verb is unmarked except for the hortative, and where no hints to the extralinguistic situation are contained: (186) Sorosoro kaer.oo. Soon return-hor ‘Let’s go home now!’ Under any condition other than soliloquy, this sentence must be interpreted as a hortative, appealing to the hearer. Thus, according to Adachi (2002a), the following sentence, in which the use of honorifics signals the presence of a hearer, but which at the same time refers to a singular first person, and where no benefit to the hearer is implied, is infelicitous: (187) #Watasi, sorosoro kaeri-mas.yoo. (Adachi 2002a: 19) 1S soon return-hon-hor ‘I’ll go home now!’ iii. Embedding. -(Y)oo is, by use of quotative to, frequently embedded in the complement clauses of cognition verbs of the type omou and kangaeru. Here, the meaning shifts automatically from hortative to ‘intention’.9 Cf. (188). (188) Kyoo go-zi-gurai, kaimono=ni ik.oo=to omo.u. today 5-hour-lim shopping-dat go- hor-quo think-nps ‘I’d like to go shopping at five today.’ The fact that embedding in complement clauses leads to an ‘intention’ reading is consistent with the cross-linguistic observation that older meanings and constructions are preserved in subordinate clauses (cf. Bybee 2002).

8. Adachi (2002a: 21) posits a ‘state a decision’ use that is intermediate, since in this use a hearer is present, but the speaker’s intention is stated one-sidedly as if in soliloquy. 9. A 1st person plural interpretation in embedding is not entirely impossible. However, there must be some explicit indication of the participation of the second person, e.g. through issyo ni ‘together’ (issyo ni ikoo to omou ‘I’d like to go together [with you’]’. This sentence has no direct illocutionary force as a hortative, though.

 Modality in Japanese

Clauses with -(y)oo can also be used to indirectly expresses a command to the hearer. Cf. (189)

I=to i.u zi=o itutu, nooto=ni i-quo say-nps letter-acc five notebook-dat kai.te mi-mas.yoo. (Higuchi 1992: 183) write-ger see-hon-hor [A teacher to her students:] ‘Let’s write the letter ‘i’ five times into our notebooks.’

This marginal type of use reminds one of the similar usage of let’s in English (cf. Collins 2004; Traugott & Dasher 2002: 177). However, -(y)oo and English let’s, differ considerably in two ways. First, unlike -(y)oo, let’s has only a very marginal ‘intention’ use (cf. Collins 2004: 302). Conversely, the so-called ‘open’ use of let’s (ex. (190)), in which let’s conveys an appeal to a third person, and which is frequent in English (cf. Huddleston 2002b: 936–7; Collins 2004: 305), cannot usually not be transposed directly to a sentence with -(y)oo in Japanese. (190) Let anyone who thinks they can do better stand for office at the next election. (Huddleston 2002b: 936) In a Japanese translation, the permission construction with -Te mo ii (rikkooho site mo ii ‘may stand for office’ would have to be used. In other words, unlike let’s, -(y) oo is not available as a directive to the third person. It is therefore basically a ‘cohortative’, that is, a hortative for use referring to the inclusive first person plural. More than imperative inflection, which is with one exception (see Section 11.6) confined to imperative clauses, -(y)oo is used in a variety of grammatical constructions. We have already mentioned embedding. With the interrogative particle ka, it forms direction questions (191): (191) Ichiroo, booto=ni nori=ni ik.oo=ka. (Himeno 1998: 133) (name) boat-dat ride-dat go-hor-que ‘Ichirō, shall we go and get on a boat?’ It has been noted (Nitta 1989c: 64; Himeno 1998: 138) that this type of clause is not a regular interrogative clause since the interrogative particle cannot be elided and replaced by rising intonation or the nominalizer no. That is, -(y)oo ka direction questions behave grammatically as (self-directed) ‘doubts’. Presumably, this reflects a conversational strategy in which asking the interlocutor’s opinion or intention directly is avoided by formally posing a question to oneself. -(Y)oo has other patterns of use, most of which are fixed or archaic (e.g. aroo koto ‘something possible’, aroo hazu ‘something expected’; cf. Onoe 2001:  420),



Clausal moods 

and which do not build on ‘intention’ or a hortative meaning but the archaic epistemic meaning of -(y)oo. The concessive use will be briefly dealt with in 11.6. 11.5 Optatives Modern Japanese does not appear to have a special optative mood. Instead, some boulomaic and deontic expressions are used in an optative sense if they are directed to a non-volitional or imaginary entity (cf. 10.2.3). 11.6 Subordinate moods As stated before, we also presume that subordinate clauses have a clausal mood. In this study, the interest is focused on modality. Accordingly, we are especially interested in subordinate clause types which are marked as non-factual. In Japanese, there are primarily two types of such clauses, conditionals and conditional concessives. There is no need to discuss conditionals here, as a substantial amount of literature already exists. Instead, I will shortly take up the issue of main clause mood markers which have grammaticalized into subordinate clause markers, i.e. concessive conditionals. In Modern Japanese, concessive conditionals are most commonly marked by -Te mo. However, with particular verbs they can also be marked by the imperative, and, somewhat archaically, by the hortative plus the particles ga or to (mo). The first example below is of the imperative used as a marker of the concessive conditional: (192)

Neko=ni s.eyo, inu=ni s.eyo, okor.u taimingu=ga cat-dat do-imp dog-dat do-imp get.angry-nps timing-nom muzukasi.i. difficult-nps ‘Whether you’re dealing with cats or dogs, it’s difficult to judge the right time to get angry with them.’

Leuschner (1998, 2005), inspired by Herring (1991) and König (1992) has developed an explanation for the origins of concessive conditionals according to which concessive conditionals form “rhetorical dialogues”. These are feigned dialogues in which “[t]he speaker integrates another’s contribution into her own.[…] By setting up an

 Modality in Japanese

apparent dialogue around an interlocutor’s potential intervention, a speaker may foresee and avoid an actual exchange, indeed hide behind another’s ‘voice’ in order to make all the more effectively her own rhetorical move” (Leuschner 1998: 169). This explanation applies well to the concessive conditional use of imperative clauses in Japanese. Conditions brought up by a fictitious interlocutor are presented as imperatives (‘Choose cats!’, ‘Choose dogs!’) and contrasted with the speaker’s conclusion (‘the right timing for getting angry with them is difficult’). Concessive conditionals with hortatives can be viewed in terms of the same rhetoric structure. However, the concessive conditions are not deontic as in the case of the imperative, but epistemic, as they are based on the otherwise obsolete epistemic ‘speculative’ use of -(y)oo which has survived mainly in specific constructions like these:10 (193)

Ame=ga hur.oo=to, kaze=ga huk.oo=to, rain-nom fall-hor-cnc, wind-nom blow-hor-cnc mainiti dekake.te iki-masi.ta. (Rickmeyer 1995: 159) every.day go.out-ger go-hon-pst ‘Whether it rained or whether the wind blew, I would go out every day’

(194)

Riyuu=ga ar.oo=ga, na-kar.oo=ga, nagur-are.ru=no=wa reason-nom be-hor-avs, not.be-vrb-hor-avs punch-pas-nps-nmz-top dare=simo iya=da. (Martin 1988: 981) who-foc dislike-cop(-nps) ‘Nobody likes to get punched, whether there is a reason for it or not.’

Here, the concessive conditions are presented as the epistemic speculations ‘rain might fall’, ‘the wind may blow’, ‘there may be a reason or not’. This is similar to English concessive may (cf. Coates 1983: 135; Palmer 1987: 108) in conceding a likelihood, but presenting a conclusion to which the speaker is committed more strongly. Japanese is not alone in having special mood marking for conditionals and concessive conditionals (cf. Xrakovskij 2005: 74–85). Some languages, like Spanish, go even further by obligatorily employing mood marking in specific types of epistemic complement clauses (cf. Givón 2001: 317–322). In Japanese, this is not the case.

10. The fact that the use of -(y)oo in concessives is based on its former epistemic meaning and not its contemporary hortative or ‘intention’ meaning can be demonstrated by the fact that it can be often replaced by the speculative daroo (cf. examples with daroo in Martin 1988: 981)

Illocutionary modulation With ‘illocutionary modulation’ we mean additional marking of clauses already marked as a specific clause type by elements that link the clause to the discourse and speech situation or that strengthen or mitigate illocutionary force (cf. Hengeveld 2004: 1192). Modern Japanese has a specific set of markers that fulfill this function, namely the sentence-final particles, which include yo, ne, zo, ze, and wa. As a rule, these particles (and illocutionary modulation as such) have nothing to do with modality, since they have no influence on the factivity of a clause. However, they may modify clausal moods. In particular, the combination of the particles yo and ne, yo ne, and sometimes ne alone, with an appropriate (rising) intonation, can form a special subtype of interrogatives, namely ‘requests for confirmation’, which correspond to tag questions in English (cf. Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo 1960: 109; Hasenuma 1995; Nakano 1996) (ex. (195)): (195)

Dookyuusei=ni Katoo-san=tte i.ta=yo=ne? classmate-dat (name)-hon-quo be-pst-ill-ill Se=no taka.i otoko=no ko. (Hasenuma 1995: 393) back-gen high-nps male-gen child ‘We had a classmate called Katō, didn’t we, a tall boy?’

Yo ne in this sentence could be replaced by either daroo or no de wa nai (ka) without any apparent change of meaning (cf. Hasenuma 1995: 393). On the other hand, if it were replaced by no to form a ‘regular’ question the meaning would change from a ‘request for confirmation’ to a ‘request for information’. Cf. (196): (196) Dookyuusei=ni Katoo-san-tte i.ta=no? classmate-dat (name)-hon-quo be-pst-nmz ‘Did we (really) have a classmate called Katō?’ As can be seen, there is some interaction between clausal moods and illocutionary modulation, yo ne being the most salient example. However, there is no direct interaction with modality. This view of illocutionary modulation as a category differing from modality starkly contrasts with the dominant view of modality in (domestic) Japanese linguistics (e.g. Masuoka 1991, Nitta 1991a, and Noda 2002). There, illocutionary modulation is not only included in modality as defined in terms of subjectivity, but also is the one category which most prototypically fulfills the conditions set for modality, as it is not subject to tense marking, negation etc.

‘Modality of explanation’ A further category that is not viewed as modal in our concept of modality, although it is viewed as an important part of modality in the dominant modality theories in domestic Japanese linguistics (e.g. Teramura 1984, ch. 6.2; Masuoka 1991, ch. 5), is clause nominalization, also labeled as ‘modality of explanation’. Clause nominalization, primarily through the particle no, and less frequently through the noun wake, fulfills the function of relating a clause to linguistic and extra-linguistic context, a function that is often rendered by intonation in English and the modal particles in German. Whether all formally nominalized clauses should be viewed as ‘modal’ is a contested issue. Noda (1997), for example, distinguishes nominalization for the purpose of indicating scope from ‘modal’ nominalization. He defines the latter as “expressing the speaker’s mental attitude by giving a clause the form of a nominalized clause” (Noda 1997: 66). The following is an example for nominalizing as a form of modality in this sense. (197)

Boku, asu=wa k-ona.i=yo. Yoozi=ga 1s tomorrow-top come-neg-nps-ill business-nom ar.u=no=da. be-nps-nmz-cop(-nps) ‘I’m not coming tomorrow. I’ve got some business to do.’ (Noda 1997: 64)

The nominalization through no is not rendered in the translation because there is no direct equivalent in English. A relatively close equivalent would be the German modal particle ja. No relates the clause ‘I’ve got some business to do’ to the preceding clause ‘I’m not coming tomorrow’ indicating a relationship between the two clauses, which, in this case, is the second clause giving a reason for the state-ofaffairs described in the first clause. Since this is the typical function of no, it has been labeled as ‘modality of explanation’. This function has little to do with modality defined in terms of factivity as espoused in this study.

part iv

Modality and the hierarchy of functional categories An empirical study

Data and methods 14.1 Data and frequencies The goal of the study presented in this part of the book is to empirically investigate the layering of modal categories in relation to each other and in relation to adjacent functional categories. Corpus data are employed in order to pursue this goal. The corpus used for this investigation consists of 206 MB plain text1 of Modern Japanese, including 660 novels and short stories ranging from 1889 to 2004, 145 essays, two half-yearly series of the Mainichi Shinbun newspaper, 484 spontaneous conversations, and the non-planned part of the Corpus of Spontaneous Japanese (CSJ).2 The majority of the material comes from the post-war period, especially the 1990s and early 2000s. However, about a third of the fiction (247 novels and short stories amounting to 21 MB of text as opposed to 413 novels and short stories amounting to 42 MB of text) is from pre-war literary classics. It is not claimed that this is a representative corpus for Modern Japanese. It is merely a

1. Based on the morpheme count of The Corpus of Spontaneous Japanese (National Research Institute for Japanese Language and National Institute of Information and Communications Technology, 2004), a figure of about 65 million morphemes can be estimated for this database. Given that many (but not all) dependent morphemes in agglutinative Japanese correspond to words in English, this corpus is comparable to a corpus of about 40 million words in English. 2. The written data include Shinchōsha Bunko no Hyakusatsu [A 100 books from Shinchōsha paperbacks](Shinchōsha, 1995) though excluding works translated from foreign languages, major parts of Castel/J 2000 (Nihongo Kyōiku Shien Shisutemu Kenkyūkai, 2000), and the first six months each of the Mainichi Shinbun 1998 and 2003 CD editions published by Nitigai Associates. The conversation data include Josei no Kotoba – Shokubahen [Women’s language at the workplace] and Dansei no Kotoba – Shokubahen [Men’s language at the workplace] (Gendai Nihongo Kenkyūkai (ed.); Hitsuji Shobō, 1999 and 2002), and the non-planned parts of The Corpus of Spontaneous Japanese. It is certainly desirable to construct an even larger corpus. However, at present newspaper texts and pre-war literary and news texts are the only areas for which a significant expansion of the database is practically possible. Using more of them is not desirable since it would lead to a loss in balance (in the case of newspaper text), or to a skewing towards archaic usage (pre-war texts).

 Modality in Japanese

reasonable approximation to such a corpus on the basis of publicly available material, with a bias towards written language.3 I will first introduce here the frequency of the markers and constructions of modality that were discussed in the preceding Chapters 10 and 11, as they appear in the corpus. For the study of co-occurrences which follows, markers and constructions had to be selected. Recall that there is no group of markers in Japanese that can be set apart on the basis of morphosyntactic criteria, as would be the case, for example, with the English modals. The best criterion therefore is frequency. Many studies claim that high frequency markers and constructions are more deeply entrenched in the grammar than low frequency markers and constructions (cf. Bybee & Thompson 1997, Bybee 2003; Hopper & Traugott 2003: 126–127; Heine, Claudi & Hünnemeyer 1991: 214). High-frequency items also have the crucial advantage that co-occurrence can be tested more reliably in a limited sample of a language such as a corpus. As will be argued in the next subsection, only with high frequency items can we firmly maintain that non-co-occurrence is not a product of chance. The dividing line in this study was drawn at a frequency of 5,000. The selection made on frequency principles generally coincides with those markers which are usually mentioned for the expression of modality in Japanese grammars such as Iwasaki (2002; ch. 13.1). In the paragraphs and tables to follow frequencies are given along with background information should difficulties, such as allomorphy or polyfunctionality of a marker and construction, arise in ascertaining these frequencies. The tables that follow are divided into categories (i.e., different semantic domains) within modality. They provide the morphological form, the representative meaning and the overall frequency of occurrence in the database of each marker. Within each modal category, the markers are listed in order of frequency. Those markers eventually chosen are highlighted in bold script. Only “unique” occurrences of each marker/construction were counted, that is, instances where occurrences of the same utterance were repeated were deleted. Table 15 below shows the frequencies of deontic markers and constructions. The logical denotation is represented by the symbols (operators) ◊ for ‘possible’, ☐ for necessary, and ¬ for negation.4 3. At present, no corpus of Japanese comparable to the BNC or other general corpora of English is available, presumably due to copyright problems and lack of initiative on the part of publishers or language research institutions. 4. The list of deontic markers is the only one where logical denotations are used because this is the only modal domain where its application to all markers is both relatively unproblematic and meaningful.



Data and methods 

Table 15.  Frequencies of deontic-valuative markers and constructions marker/construction

central meaning

-(a)nakereba naranai beki -(r)eba ii hituyoo ga aru -Te wa naranai -Te mo ii hoo ga ii -(a)zaru o enai sika nai -Tara ii -(a)nai wake ni wa ikanai -(a)na.kute mo ii -(r)u ga ii -(r)u to ii -(r)u wake ni wa ikanai

general necessity/obligation valuative obligation recommendation objective necessity deontic/valuative impossibility deontic/valuative possibility recommendation inevitability ‘cannot but’ inevitability ‘can only’ recommendation inevitability possibility of not doing recommendation recommendation deontic/valuative impossibility

frequency ¬◊¬p ☐p ☐p ☐p ¬◊p ◊p ☐p ¬◊¬p only[p] ☐p ¬◊¬p ◊¬p ☐p ☐p ¬◊p

21252 17186 5719 4929 4168 3548 3415 2510 1971 1936 1329 686 637 477 230

The figure for -(a)nakereba naranai and -Te wa naranai includes naranai, ikenai, ikan, akan, and dame as the consequent of the negative evaluative conditional construction. It further includes variants of the antecendent, such as -(u)nai to, and 2,254 instances in which the consequent is colloquially deleted. The figures for -(r)eba ii, -Tara ii, and -(r)u to ii do not include the instances where these constructions are used to express a wish (cf. 10.2.3). ‘Wishes’ are counted separately in the next table. Table 16 shows the frequencies of boulomaic makers and constructions. The numbers for -tai do not include the objectivizing form -tagaru. This table shows that the marker -tai for speaker intention is by far the most frequently used in Modern Japanese in this semantic domain. The ‘wish’ constructions all piggyback on other deontic and boulomaic constructions, and are used rather infrequently, not qualifying them for inclusion in the set of markers and constructions to be tested.

 Modality in Japanese

Table 16.  Frequencies of boulomaic markers and constructions marker/construction

meaning

-tai -Te hosii tumori -Te moraitai -(r)eba ii -Te hosii -Tara ii -(r)u to ii -Te moraitai

general intention desire premeditated intention benefactive request wish wish wish wish wish

frequency 49124 5927 4762 1577 623 396 264 188 23

Table 17 shows frequencies in the dynamic domain. Koto ga dekiru and -(r)areru are the most frequent constructions in this domain. As already mentioned -(r)areru exhibits polysemy between participant honorification, passive, spontaneity and potential. The non-potential uses amount to 329,000 tokens, that is, roughly 15 times more than potential use. This reflects the fact that -(r)areru in the modern language has yielded its potential use to a large degree to koto ga dekiru and -(r)eru, which express potentiality unambiguously. With consonant-stem verbs potentiality is, to all practical purposes, not expressed by -(r)areru at all anymore, and many examples with vowel-stem verbs are ambiguous as to passive, spontaneity, and honorification. For technical reasons, it is not possible to survey the frequencies for -(r)eru: verbs ending in the allomorph -eru cannot be systematically distinguished from morphologically simplex verbs ending in -eru. For the allomorph -reru alone (so-called ra-nuki in traditional grammar), 765 occurrences could be identified. However, -(r)eru is morphologically in complementary distribution with -(r)areru, and it has the same grammatical properties. Therefore, in terms of layering, -(r)areru can stand in this study for both -(r)areru and -(r)eru. Table 17.  Frequencies of dynamic markers and constructions marker/construction

meaning label

koto ga dekiru -(r)areru -Eru -kanenai -kaneru -(r)eru

root possibility potential possibility negated negative potential (apprehensive) negative potential potential

frequency 21072 20746 5856 1827 1072 n/a



Data and methods 

The frequency of epistemic markers and constructions in the corpus is shown in Table 18. Daroo, as expected, is by far the most frequent, followed by ka mo sirenai and hazu. “Daroo” stands as a lemma for both daroo and its polite equivalent desyoo. The figure for daroo does not contain 16,398 instances of interrogative daroo/desyoo or daroo ka/desyoo ka, which is viewed here as a separate construction, nor does it contain instances of the abbreviated -daro/-desyo, which is an unambiguous illocutionary force modulation marker. The expression for objective epistemic necessity is infrequent, showing that it is not grammaticalized or entrenched as a grammatical construction at all. Table 19 shows the frequencies for the evidential marker.The numbers for yoo include 3634 instances of yoo in adverbial, and 1017 in adnominal position, which were judged as evidential. Yoo is highly polysemous, covering manner, comparison/simile, and complementation and purposive clause marking uses (cf. Kaiser et al. 2001: 595–604). These uses make for another 131,000 tokens not included here. Likewise, the non-evidential ‘likeness’ or ‘typicality’ use of the evidential rasii is also excluded from the figures for rasii. Mitai is dubbed here as a “stylistic variant” of yoo, but this is true only for its evidential use, not for other uses where yoo and mitai diverge (cf. 10.5.2.1). Table 18.  Frequencies of epistemic markers and constructions marker/construction

meaning label

daroo ka mo sirenai hazu ni tigai nai kanoosei ga aru ni sooi nai hituzensei ga aru

speculative subjective epistemic possibility epistemic necessity – expectation epistemic necessity – conclusion objective epistemic possibility (stylistic variant of ni tigai nai) objective epistemic necessity

frequency 45643 17843 10547 3376 3092 373 27

Table 19.  Frequencies of evidential markers and constructions marker/construction

meaning label

-soo(1) yoo rasii soo(2) mitai

predictive appearance present/past-oriented appearance distant appearance, reportive reportive (stylistic variant of yoo)

frequency 21222 18388 10392 6035 2004

 Modality in Japanese

Table 20.  Frequencies of mood markers marker/construction -tamae/nasai/-Te kure/-Te kudasai -(y)oo -e/i/ro -(r)u na

meaning label marked imperative (Imperative II) hortative plain imperative (Imperative I) prohibitive

frequency 16111 14799 14540 2541

Finally, we come to mood. In many models, including the one espoused here, mood is not regarded as part of modality proper, but it is nevertheless appended here for purposes of comparison. Because notions such as imperative and hortative relate to the utterance, we would a priori expect them to operate on a higher (or outer) layer than deontics, epistemics, and evidentials. In fact, in FG, moods operate on a putatively higher (or outer) layer than all the other modal categories mentioned here (cf. Dik 1997a: 56, 301). In RRG, in contrast, illocutionary force, including speaker-oriented modal notions, is assigned to the second highest layer, together with epistemic modality and evidentiality (cf. Van Valin and LaPolla 1997: 46, 49). However, Van Valin and LaPolla state that illocutionary force has scope over those modalities, that is, it is assigned a similar status as in FG.5 The data will show whether these expectations are borne out. Table 20 shows the frequencies of the mood markers: Among the mood markers, only -(y)oo is extremely polyfunctional. I have extracted instances of those functions which belong to mood as a semantically defined category, as opposed to non-mood functions also expressed by morphological mood as part of its polyfunctionality. Thus, for -(y)oo, besides the hortative occurrences shown in the table, roughly 33,000 non-hortative volitive occurrences, 14,000 future/epistemic occurrences, and 2,000 concessive occurrences were recorded. The (plain) imperative has exactly one non-imperative use, namely as a concessive marker. This was found in 2,300 occurrences. Table 21 is a list of all selected markers and constructions, regardless of category, arranged in order of frequency.

5. ‘Among clausal operators, the scope relations are illocutionary force ⊃ evidentials ⊃ tense/ status’ (Van Valin and LaPolla 1997: 46; ‘status’ includes epistemic modality).



Data and methods 

Table 21.  Overview of modal markers selected for this study marker/construction

category

meaning

frequency

-tai daroo -(a)nakereba naranai -soo (1) koto ga dekiru -(r)are.ru yoo ka mo sirenai beki -tamae/nasai; -Te kure/kudasai -(y)oo -e/i/ro hazu rasii soo (2) -Te hosii -Eru -(r)eba ii

bou epi deo evi dyn dyn evi epi deo moo

general intention speculative general necessity/obligation predictive appearance root possibility potential present/past-oriented appearance subjective epistemic possibility valuative obligation socially marked imperative (Imperative II)

49124 45643 21252 21222 21072 20746 18388 17843 17186 16111

moo moo epi evi evi bou dyn deo

hortative plain imperative (Imperative I) epistemic necessity – expectation distant appearance, reportive reportive desire possibility recommendation

14799 14540 10547 10392 6035 5927 5856 5719

Adverbs are not included in this study, as we have confined ourselves to markers and constructions that appear within the verbal complex. This decision has been made with the purpose of observing the order of meaningful elements in direct concatenation. The remaining means of expression still belong to different morphological classes, such as suffixes, lexemes, and constructions across word boundaries. However, their morphological diversity is no hindrance to the investigation of their scope properties. For one thing, with respect to theory, not only in formal theories, but also in RRG, for example, operators are expected and allowed to have diverse morphological status (cf. Van Valin and LaPolla 1997: 40). Also, in Japanese, as can be seen from the data presented in this book, elements of different morphological status still appear in the order of their scope as long as they belong to the verbal complex.

 Modality in Japanese

14.2 Corpus as a method The nature of data in linguistic research, namely corpus data vs. questionnaires and introspection is highly controversial (e.g. Givón (1979) for a functional view, Bybee and Hopper (2001) for a frequency-driven view of grammar, and Newmeyer (2003) for a formalist view). There can be no doubt, however, that the use of corpus data for grammar research is rapidly gaining ground. Introspection, which has traditionally been the most common research method in grammar studies, is dubious as a method, as it neither represents observational data nor experimental data in any scientifically viable sense. Corpus data, in contrast, are straightforwardly observational data from an extensive range of language users. At the same time they have two clearly identifiable drawbacks, namely that (1), they can never represent the full range of combinatorial possibilities of linguistic items in a language, since the syntactic combination of available lexical and grammatical items in any language is practically infinite, and (2), because of (1), the ungrammaticality of a certain combination of items cannot be proven. Non-occurrence of any combination of items can always be the product of chance. However, the problems posed by these drawbacks are of less importance for the study presented here than might appear at first sight. The reason is that we are dealing with high frequency items which, because they occur in the same part of the clause, namely in the verbal complex, can be expected to co-occur. Non-cooccurrence of such high-frequency items is indeed significant. Consider, for example, the English word strings might have to and might must. A simple search of the (relatively small) Collins Cobuild Corpus reveals 22 tokens of might have to and no tokens of might must. This does not constitute direct evidence that might must is a completely impossible word string in English (in fact, some speakers may have this word string in their idiolect or dialect), but the fact there is no actual cooccurrence of two relatively high-frequency items which both belong to the verbal complex in English strongly indicates that this is a combination semantically and pragmatically unacceptable to most speakers of the language. The same is true for the data presented here. There are a number of morpheme combinations which are simply ungrammatical in terms of the morpheme combination rules of Japanese (cf. 9.2). These will be indicated as such (see below). However, there is a large number of other combinations of high-frequency items which, although not ungrammatical, still do not occur. The only possible explanation for this non-occurrence is that their combination does not make sense to speakers. This is in fact the whole point about the hierarchy of functional categories discussed in this study, a cognitive hierarchy based on semantic and pragmatic principles, and a hierarchy reflecting what makes sense to speakers. These principles therefore are also reflected in corpus data.



Data and methods 

Nevertheless, in order to make the results as valid as possible, morpheme combinations that did not appear in the corpus were furthermore crosschecked on the internet. Combinations that did appear there (in well-formed sentences) but not in the corpus must be regarded as extremely rare, but possible. 14.3 Principles of analysis Corpus data show co-occurrences and non-co-occurrences of categories. The cooccurrences reveal semantic scope since (with a limited number of exceptions), morpheme order in strictly head-final Japanese reflects this. However, layering in the sense of FG and RRG cannot be directly deduced from morpheme order and scope because there can be hierarchical scope relationships within categories of one and the same layer. Moreover, neither RRG nor the FG standard theory offer any specific procedures with which their hypotheses about layering can be falsified. Nevertheless, from a general theoretical perspective it seems reasonable to make the following assumptions: (198) If a theory hypothesizes that functional category A is operating on a higher layer than functional category B, but the data show that markers of the functional category B are wider in scope than functional category A, the hypothesis is falsified and the theory needs to be revised. (199) If a theory hypothesizes that functional category A has a wider scope than functional category B of the same layer, but the data show that markers of the functional category A are narrower in scope than functional category B, the hypothesis is falsified and the theory needs to be revised. Note that whereas the question of scope relationship between functional categories is relatively clear, the question of where to draw lines between layers in functional theories is not. A comprehensive view of the interaction of all categories with each other and with constituent structure is necessary in order to arrive at a definite layering. Because the present study is confined to modality and the categories with which it directly interacts, the construction of a full layering within a specific theory is a task beyond the scope of this study. In order to explore the scope and layering properties of the modal markers chosen, they were tested with respect to those parameters which are most frequently referred to in theories that posit a hierarchical structure, namely (A) morpheme/constituent ordering and (B) behavior in complex sentences. In the case of Japanese, the following parameters are particularly useful: A Morpheme/constituent order

 Modality in Japanese

A1 Co-occurrence of modal markers with other modal markers, and ordering in case of co-occurrence A2 Co-occurrence of modal markers with other non-modal grammatical categories, and ordering in case of co-occurrence. B Occurrence of the modal markers in different types of non-matrix clauses While in a linguistic study based on the researcher’s introspection the grammaticality of co-occurrence is the sole focus of investigation, a corpus study crucially gives additional information about co-occurrence frequency. In principle, two possible measures of frequency of co-occurrence are of relevance. First, the absolute or “raw” frequency of co-occurrence may indicate how entrenched the collocation of two markers is in the language. Even more important for our study is the question of how relevant two markers or constructions are to each other. The most frequent markers and constructions (-ta.i; daroo) are roughly 10 times more frequent than the least frequent ones (-(r)eba ii; -Uru). This means that the probability of co-occurrence of these forms is about a 100 times higher than that of cooccurrence between the least frequent markers. A figure of 50 co-occurrences between the most frequent markers and constructions therefore means something completely different from 50 co-occurrences between the least frequent markers and constructions. For the least frequent markers and constructions it means a high mutual relevance while for the most frequent markers and constructions, 50 co-occurrences would merely point to a solid possibility of co-occurrence but relatively little mutual relevance. In order to level out these differences, the frequencies of all modal markers and constructions were normalized to 10,000. The numbers provided in the tables in the following sections are therefore all normalized and show the relevance of specific categories to modals markers, or of modal markers to each other, rather than the absolute number of concurrences. The absolute figure can of course be easily reconstructed by calculating from the absolute figure of occurrence given in Table 21.6 A normalized frequency with a value of less than 10 indicates rarity of coconcurrence. Combinations that did not occur in the corpus but were found on 6. In lexical corpus studies, two measures of co-occurrence are especially common, namely the t-score and the MI-score (cf. Bartsch 2004). Both integrate the total word frequency of the corpus into the calculation. However, it has not been established how useful these measures are for cooccurrence between grammatical items. In fact, the scores that were obtained with the data in this study were unsatisfactory; the t-scores were generally too high, and the MI-scores too low. Another problem is how to integrate total word frequency of a corpus with the frequencies of suffixes and constructions that cut across word boundaries. Moreover, it is the relevance of another category for a modal marker or construction which is of interest here, and not mutual relevance. For these reasons, a score that simply normalized the frequency of the markers and constructions to 10,000 seemed to be the most appropriate measure for indicating mutual relevance.



Data and methods 

the internet in well-formed sentences are indicated by a “+” and must be regarded as extremely rare. A normalized frequency of more than 1,000 indicates an unusually high rate of co-occurrence, something that would be called a ‘collocation’ in corpus linguistics (cf. McEnery & Wilson 2001:  85). In between that, two-digit numbers can be understood as relatively uncommon, while three-digit numbers point at common co-occurrence. The following chapters correspond to the types of co-occurrences that are investigated. Chapter 15 deals with combinations among modal markers (A1), Chapters 16 and 17 treat the combination of modal markers with markers of other categories (A2), and Chapter 18 deals with the occurrence of modal markers in non-matrix clauses of different types (B). Each section is divided into subsections according to the kinds of co-occurrences tested. In each subsection tables with the numbers of co-occurrences and at least one illustrative example for the co-occurrence from the database will be given, and a conclusion put forward on how the results reflect on the scope properties and layering of the categories involved.

Modality embedding modality (double modality) This section is divided into subsections according to the embedding rather than the embedded modality. It starts with embedding dynamic modality and proceeds to boulomaic, deontic, and epistemic modality, then to evidentiality, and finally to mood. This is the ascending order of likelihood with which, based on previous research, we can expect embedding. The investigation of modality embedding modality also includes markers of the same type of modality embedding each other. The expectation in theories like RRG which posit a strict order of categories would be that there is no interaction, because in such theories members of each category have the same scope, whereas co-occurrence indicates differences in scope. In a framework like FG that allows for more flexibility within layers (cf. Section 3.), scope interaction within the same category is more conceivable. As both epistemic and root modality can be found at two different layers in this model, a higher-ranking modal marker of the same modal domain should be able to take a lower-ranking marker in its scope. 15.1 Dynamic modality embedding modality Dynamic modality is a type of modality that we expect to be very low in the hierarchy of modal categories. In FG, it is labeled as ‘inherent modality’ and ranked at the lowest possible level in the model (cf. Dik 1997a: 241). In RRG, general ‘root’ modality is ranked at the ‘core’ level (cf. Van Valin & LaPolla 1997: 47), and Cinque (2001: 48) ranks it below all other types of modality except ‘permission’ (!). Thus, although there are differences between the models, they agree in ranking dynamic modality at a low level, and it cannot be expected that dynamic modality should embed any other modality, except, perhaps, permission (deontic possibility), according to Cinque. The actual empirical results for Modern Japanese are shown in Table 22. From here on, the tables will always be organized in the following manner: markers in the column on the left are those that precede the other marker, that is, which are taken as embedded, while the markers in the top row are those that follow another

 Modality in Japanese

marker in morpheme order, that is, have the other marker in their scope. The markers on the left are listed in order of category, and within a category in order of frequency. The “embedding” markers and constructions at the top are listed in order of frequency from left to right. An asterisk * indicates impossibility of morphological combination (cf. Section 9), that is, ungrammaticality. As expected, Japanese dynamic modal markers do not embed markers and constructions from other modal categories. Somewhat surprisingly, however, they can embed each other, which occurs very infrequently. The following is an example. (200)

Siawase=na, zibun=ga omoi~egai.te i.ta izyoo=no fortune-adn self-nom think-depict-ger be-pst beyond-gen risoo=o koe.ta kekkon-siki=o age-rare.ru ideal-acc transcend-pst wedding-ceremony-acc hold-pot-nps koto=ga deki-masi.ta…(Spoken, monologue) thing-nom be.possible-pol-pst ‘I was able to have a happy wedding ceremony, better than I had ever imagined and beyond even my dreams.’

Table 22.  Dynamic modality embedding modality marker -Eru -(r)areru koto ga dekiru -tai -Te hosii -(a)nakereba naranai -beki -(r)eba ii -Te wa naranai -daroo ka mo sirenai hazu -soo(1) yoo -rasii soo(2) -(y)oo Imperative I Imperative II

category

koto=ga dekiru

-(r)areru

-Eru

dyn dyn dyn bou bou deo deo deo deo epi epi epi evi evi evi evi moo moo moo

3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

+ 0 + * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

+ + 0.8 * * * 0 * * * * 0 0 0 0 0 * * *



Modality embedding modality (double modality) 

Although koto ga dekiru formally embeds -(r)areru, semantically, it seems that the second dynamic marker might as well just be reinforcing the first. Similar to modifying her wedding ceremony three times as ‘happy’, ‘better than imagined’ and ‘beyond her dreams’, the speaker emphasizes its successful realization by adding two possibility markers. Note that there is no semantic difference between the potential reading of -(r)areru and koto ga dekiru. This strategy of reinforcing one marker with a marker of the same meaning is perhaps comparable to a double negative marking denoting simple negation in some languages (e.g. nonstandard English ‘I don’t want no cake’ (cf. Quirk et al. (1985: 18, 787); or Portuguese (cf. Parkinson (1988: 158)). The other examples in the corpus are of the same type. Almost all these examples are from spoken language, where they are acceptable. They would be stylistically inappropriate in writing, however. 15.2 Boulomaic modality embedding modality Boulomaic modality is only marginally treated in the literature on modality. FG has a slot for ‘subjective volition’ but lack. concrete examples and it is unclear what kind of modality is meant here. Likewise, in RRG, boulomaic modality may be included in root modality and located at the ‘core’ level, but as examples are lacking this remains unclear. Only Cinque (2001: 47) has a clear position for it, namely below epistemic, evidential and alethic modalities and above deontic and dynamic modalities. Table 23 below shows what kind of other modal markers boulomaic modal markers can actually embed in Modern Japanese. -Tai and -Te hosii can embed only dynamic modal markers and the evidential -soo(1), but these collocations are so rare that they were not found in the corpus, only on the internet. Below is an example from the internet with -Te hosi.i embedding dynamic koto=ga deki.ru. (201)

Tada sono mae=ni =mo, hanasi=o kitinto kik.u koto=ga only dem before-adv-foc talk-acc properly listen-nps thing-nom deki.te hosi.i=si, hanasi=o kik.u koto=ga be.possible-ger want-nps-enu talk-acc listen-nps thing-nom suki=de at.te hosi.i. (www.kogumakai.co.jp/column/ito/ito017.html) like-ess be-ger want-nps ’Before that, I want them to be able to listen to someone talking, and I want them to enjoy listening to someone talking.’

 Modality in Japanese

Table 23.  Boulomaic modality embedding modality marker -Eru koto ga dekiru -soo(1) -(r)areru yoo -daroo -(y)oo Imperative I Imperative II -tai -Te hosii -(a)nakereba naranai -beki -(r)eba ii -rasii ka mo sirenai hazu soo(2)

category

-tai

-Te hosii

dyn dyn evi dyn evi epi moo moo moo bou bou deo deo deo evi epi epi evi

+ (+) + # # * * * * * * * * * * * 0 0

+ + + # # * * * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

The symbol “#” is new and indicates that the collocation formally exists but with a different meaning or function. Thus, for example, the polysemous -(r)areru is embedded by boulomaic markers, but the examples found were only for the passive and honorific and not for the potential meaning. 15.3 Deontic modality embedding modality FG has ‘deontic objective modality’ qualifying level 1. Subjective modality qualifying level 2 at level 3 may or may not include deontic modality and this is not made clear (cf. Dik 1997a: 242, 296). RG has deontic modality as a ‘modality (root)’ at the ‘core’ level (Van Valin & LaPolla 1997: 47), and Cinque (2001: 48) splits deontic modality into ModPobligation and ModPpermission. In his model, these modalities are ranked lower than all other modalities except ModPability which is ranked between these two. Table 24 shows the empirical results concerning what other modal markers deontic modal markers can embed in Modern Japanese. The results show that deontic modality can embed dynamic, boulomaic, one evidential, and some deontic markers, although everything except the embedding of dynamic markers is extremely rare. Nevertheless, they can embed more than dynamic and boulomaic markers can.



Modality embedding modality (double modality) 

Table 24.  Deontic modality embedding modality marker -Eru -(r)areru koto ga dekiru -soo(1) -tai -Te hosii -(a)nakereba naranai beki yoo hazu soo(2) -(r)eba ii ka mo sirenai -rasii -daroo -(y)oo Imperative I Imperative II

category

-(a)nakereba naranai

beki

-(r)eba ii

dyn dyn dyn evi bou bou deo deo evi epi evi deo epi evi epi moo moo moo

+ 0.5 1 + + + 0 + # 0 0 0 0 0 * * * *

72 0.6 + + + + + * 0 0 0 * * * * * * *

12 17 6 + + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * * * *

The combination of dynamic and deontic modality expresses the obligation, moral expectation or necessity of a possibility to hold. (202)

Soikara, kairo=o yon.de rikai~s.uru koto=ga also circuit-acc read-ger understand-do-nps thing-nom deki-na.kereba nar-ana.i. (Spoken, monologue) be.possible-neg-con become-neg-nps ‘Also, you must be able to read and understand (electrical) circuits.’

With the exception of apparently low-level evidential -soo(1), deontic markers do not embed epistemic or evidential markers. However, it is questionable whether this is solely a result of scope properties and faithfully reflects their position in a hierarchical structure of functional categories. This is an issue that will become clearer in the course of the presentation and discussion of the results presented later in this study.

 Modality in Japanese

15.4 Epistemic modality embedding modality It is a very common assumption that epistemic modality is situated in an outer layer and root modality (dynamic, boulomaic and deontic modality) in an inner layer, i.e., that epistemic modality takes root modality in its scope (e.g. Cinque 1999: 72f; Van Valin and LaPolla 1997: 49). FG differentiates between types of epistemic modality by positing a subcategory of ‘epistemic objective modality’ at the same level as ‘deontic objective modalities’ (Dik 1997a: 241f). Nuyts’ (2004) data from Dutch, however, seem to provide empirical evidence that epistemic modal markers unilaterally embed root modal markers (Nuyts 2004: 50). With respect to the relationship between evidential modality and epistemic modality, two hypotheses have been put forward. First, some scholars assume that subjective epistemic modality and evidential modality should be located at the same level (FG: Dik 1997a: 296; C. Butler 2003: 79) with objective epistemic modality ranking lower, but other scholars have assumed that evidentiality takes epistemic modality in its scope (RRG: Van Valin and LaPolla 1997: 51; Cinque 1999: 106). Despite his theoretical expectations that evidentials outrank epistemic modality, the data in Nuyts’ study showed that epistemic and evidential modality can both embed each other (Nuyts 2004: 63f). Table 25.  Epistemic modality embedding modality marker -Eru beki koto ga dekiru -(r)areru -(r)eba ii -(a)nakereba naranai -tai hazu -Te hosii -soo(1) ka mo sirenai yoo -daroo -rasii soo(2) -(y)oo Imperative I Imperative II

category

daroo

ka =mo sirenai

hazu

total

dyn deo dyn dyn deo deo bou epi bou evi epi evi epi evi evi moo moo moo

36 63 38 28 71 36 10 9 3 0.7 0.4 # 0 0 0 0 0 0

41 38 34 30 25 14 6 2 0.9 0.5 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0

89 34 56 57 12 38 5 4 + 2 + 0 0 0 0 # 0 0

166 135 128 115 108 88 21 15 4 3 0.4 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0



Modality embedding modality (double modality) 

Table 25 shows the actual results for epistemic modal markers embedding modality in Modern Japanese. As expected, epistemic modal markers frequently embed root (dynamic, boulomaic, deontic) markers and constructions. The fact that epistemic modality takes root modality in its scope is totally unambiguous. Unexpectedly, they also regularly embed one epistemic and one evidential marker each, namely epistemic necessity hazu and evidential -soo(1). Epistemic ka mo sirenai and evidential yoo are rarely embedded by epistemic markers, and the rest of the epistemic and evidential markers, as well as all mood markers, are never embedded. Furthermore, hazu which is itself embedded by other epistemic markers, is significantly less able to embed other modal markers than ka mo sirenai and daroo. Boulomaic -Te hosii is one of the markers not embedded by hazu. Also in the data to follow, -Te hosii shows more resistance to embedding than other root markers, presumably due to its strongly performative nature. The following is an example illustrating the co-occurrence of deontic and epistemic modality. The epistemic construction ka mo sirenai follows the deontic construction -(a)nakereba naranai and has it in its scope: (203)

Puraibasii=o aru teido gisei=ni si-na.kereba Privacy-acc certain degree victim-dat do-neg-con nar-ana.i=ka=mo sir-e-na.i. (Mainichi Newspaper 1998) become-neg-npst-que-foc know-pot-neg-npst ‘One might have to sacrifice privacy to a certain degree’

(204) shows the epistemic marker hazu taking evidential -soo(1) in its scope. (204)

mihari=no hitori=kurai=wa i.te=mo yo-sasoo=na watch-keeping-gen one.person-lim-top be-ger-foc good-evi-adn hazu=na=no=ni, sore=mo i-na.i. epi-adn-nmz-adv that-foc be-neg-npst ‘There should be at least one lookout man, but (we) don’t have even that.’ (Haruki Murakami: Sekai no Owari to Haadoboirudo Wandaarando, 1985)

(205), finally, is one of those rare instances, where one subjective epistemic marker embeds another one. (205)

fukinsin=da musinkei=da=nado=to hihan~s-are.ru=ka=mo indiscreet-vrb insensitive-vrb-expl-quo criticism-do-pass-npst-que-foc sir-e-na.i=daroo koto=mo syooti~si.te i-mas.u. know-pot-neg-npst-epi thing-foc be.aware.of-do-ger be-pol-npst

 Modality in Japanese

‘[I] am aware that [I] could probably be criticized for being indiscreet, insensitive and so on’ (Noboru Tsukui: Watashi no Natsuyasumi, 1996) In many instances where daroo has another epistemic marker in its scope, daroo does not have its original epistemic function but shifts to an illocutionary force function. Examples where daroo retains its epistemic functions are rare but do nevertheless occur (see Table 25). They are difficult to parse. It appears that the writer here intends to strengthen the relatively weak (low possibility) ka mo sirenai with the stronger daroo, thus modifying ka mo sirenai with daroo. 15.5 Evidentiality embedding modality Evidential markers are commonly seen as occupying the same (Dik 1997a: 242 (FG)), or even a higher (Van Valin & LaPolla 1997: 47 (RRG); Cinque 2001: 47) layer than epistemic modality. As epistemic markers embed root markers with high frequency, and even some epistemic and evidential markers with low frequency, we can expect at least the same from evidentials. The actual behavior of Modern Japanese evidential markers is presented in Table 26. Table 26.  Evidentiality embedding modality marker -(r)areru -tai koto ga dekiru -Eru -(a)nakereba naranai -(r)eba ii -Te hosii -soo(1) ka mo sirenai beki hazu yoo -rasii -daroo soo(2) -(y)oo Imperative I Imperative II

category

-soo(1)

yoo

-rasii

soo(2)

total

dyn bou dyn dyn deo deo bou evi epi deo epi evi evi epi evi moo moo moo

56 7 14 5 0.2 2 2 0.2 + + 0 0.3 # * 0 * * *

8 7 5 7 5 2 + 0.3 + 0.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

9 14 7 5 7 3 2 + 0.5 0.6 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 6 7 11 7 9 8 2 2 + 2 0.9 3 0 0 0 0 0

88 34 33 29 20 16 12 3 3 1 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0



Modality embedding modality (double modality) 

Surprisingly, evidential markers in Japanese embed less modal markers and constructions than their epistemic counterparts. Even with those markers they do embed, the frequency is conspicuously lower than that of epistemics. Some markers can be embedded by all evidentials, some by only three, some only by only two or fewer evidentials, two only by one, and some cannot be embedded by evidential markers at all. The non-embeddable markers are epistemic daroo, evidential soo(2) and the moods. Most evidentials and epistemics, except -soo(1), as well as the deontic beki belong to the intermediate category. As concerns the embedding markers, -soo(1) has the weakest ability of all evidential markers to embed others, followed by yoo, rasii and soo(2). The following example shows the evidential yoo embedding the deontic -(a)nakereba naranai: (206) Too.kute=mo ik-ana.kereba nar-an yoo=da. far-ger-foc go-neg-con become-neg evi-cop(-nps) ‘It looks like I must go even if it is far away’ (Satoshi Doi: Yasumi no Sono; 1993) In (207) the evidential soo(2) has the epistemic ka mo sirenai in its scope. (207)

Kisyoo zyookyoo=ni yot.te=wa syuppatu=ga weather conditions-dat depend-ger-top departure-nom enki~s-are.ru=ka=mo sir-e-na.i=soo=de ari-mas.u. delay-do-pass-npst-que-foc know-pot-neg-npst-evi-ess be-pol-npst ‘According to the weather report our departure might be delayed’ (Sakyō Komatsu: Shuto Shōshitsu, 1983)

In (208) the same evidential soo(2) has another evidential, rasii, in its scope. (208)

Kore=wa kessite sono hito=ga syakai-hyooron=ka=de this-top by.any.means dem person-nom society-criticism-person-ess at.ta=to i.u wake=de=wa na.i=rasi.i=soo=de… be-pst-quo say-npst sense-ess-top not.be-npst-evi-npst-evi-ess ‘This purportedly does not seem to mean at all that that person was a social critic,…’ (Haruhiko Kindaichi: Nihonjin no Gengo Hyōgen, 1975)

The two evidentials are both reportives, thus indicated something reported to the speaker/writer from a person who him/herself obtained the information indirectly through report.

 Modality in Japanese

Table 27.  Mood embedding modality marker koto ga dekiru -(r)areru -Uru -tai -Te hosii -(a)nakereba naranai beki -(r)eba ii -daroo ka mo sirenai hazu -soo(1) yoo -rasii soo(2) -(y)oo Imperative I Imperative II

category

-(y)oo

Imperative I

Imperative II

dyn dyn dyn bou bou deo deo deo epi epi epi evi evi evi evi moo moo moo

# # # # 0 0 0 # * 0 # 0 # 0 0 * * *

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 * * *

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 * * *

15.6 Mood embedding modality Both FG (cf. Dik 1997a: 301), and RRG (cf. Van Valin & LaPolla 1997: 47), have illocutionary force ranking higher than all other modalities with FG even locating it at a higher level than other modal categories.. Cinque (2001: 47) has MoodPspeech act higher than all other modal, temporal or aspectual categories. We would thus expect mood to embed other modalities. The actual results for Modern Japanese are shown in Table 27. It turns out that mood markers do not embed any other modality. While the fact that mood is not taken into the scope of other modalities is to be expected, the reverse is rather unexpected given its putative scope and layering properties. However, recall that epistemic markers embedded root modal markers, but that they did not do the same with speaker-oriented markers (cf. 15.4). This indicates that speaker-oriented markers are indeed to be located higher in the scope hierarchy than root modal markers, and at least not at a lower level than the epistemic markers. Speaker-oriented modality (mood markers) and deontic and boulomaic root modals express the same (or very similar) semantic notions, with the difference that



Modality embedding modality (double modality) 

speaker-oriented modality operates on the utterance level and root modals within the proposition. Therefore, the fact that putatively high-level speaker oriented modals do not take other modals in their scope throws new light on the fact that the low-level root modals with few exceptions cannot take modals in their scope either. In other words, co-occurrence or non-occurrence of markers cannot be exclusively a function of hierarchical scope and layering properties, but must be due to other factors as well. This point will be discussed in more detail later in 19.5. 15.7 Layers within modality The data from the preceding subsections lead to two tentative generalizations. (1) Modal markers that belong to a specific type of modality tend to have a similar scope when compared as a whole with markers of different types of modality. However, surprisingly for some theories, (2) modal markers belonging to the same type of modality do not always have identical scope. This applies particularly to epistemic and evidential markers. We can thus, on the contrary, observe classes of items with similar scope across modal categories/domains. We proceed here domain by domain, starting with the evidentials. Class A is conceived here as the class with the widest scope. Consecutively numbered classes indicate increasingly narrower scope. Within the evidentials, clearly the reportive soo(2) has the widest scope, while the future-oriented appearance marker -soo(1) behaves like a root marker. Yoo and rasii lie in between. With the epistemics, we have obtained the following picture: Within the epistemics, daroo clearly has wider scope than the other markers. Ka mo sirenai distinguishes itself from hazu in that it is rarely embedded in other epistemics, but on the other hand, hazu is more rarely embedded in evidentials. Otherwise, there is little difference between them. The ensuing sections will show if they belong to different positions in the sentence hierarchy. Compared to epistemic and evidential markers, dynamic, deontic, boulomaic and mood markers behave relatively homogenously. Table 28.  Layering within the evidentials Class 1

soo(2)

Class 2 Class 3

yoo, rasii -soo(1)

 Modality in Japanese

Table 29.  Layering within the epistemic modal markers Class 1

daroo

Class 2

ka mo sirenai, hazu

Table 30.  Layering within the deontic markers Class 1a

beki, -(r)eba ii

Class 1b

-(a)nakereba naranai

Within the dynamic, boulomaic and mood markers, differences are virtually undetectable. -Te hosii is generally less frequently embedded than -tai but this seems to be a quantitative and not a qualitative difference at this point. Within the deontic markers, beki and -(r)eba ii both differ only slightly from -(a)nakereba naranai. Beki resists embedding in evidentials, while -(r)eba ii embeds all dynamic markers and does not get embedded by other deontic markers. Whether this amounts to a different position in semanto-syntactic layering will become clearer in the following sections. For the time being, we set up two subclasses of deontic modality as in Table 30. Table 31 below combines markers of all modal categories. It represents a preliminary hypothesis about the scope hierarchy between the modal markers that are investigated in this study, based on their behavior in mutual embedding. This time, the classes are preliminarily labeled as “layers”, without any direct correspondane, however, to the layers posited in RRG and FG. The speaker-oriented moods are assigned to a layer “0” because they do not interact at all with the other modalities. The deontic and boulomaic markers are provisionally assigned a layer which is lower than that of the epistemic and evidential markers (except for low-level evidential -soo(1)) because the epistemics and evidentials embed them but not vice versa. Although no salient differences can be observed between the categories ‘boulomaic’ and ‘deontic’ markers as a whole, within the deontic category, there are small differences. Dynamic markers are assigned to the lowest layer since they are the only ones that can be regularly embedded by all modal categories. Evidential -soo(1) displays fairly contradictory behavior, as it can be embedded by most other modal markers, even deontic and boulomaic ones, but at the same time can embed the majority of the other modal markers as well. The validity of this preliminary layering will be tested with data from other categories in the following three sections.



Modality embedding modality (double modality) 

Table 31.  Layering based on the interaction between modal markers Layer 0

-(y)oo, Imperative 1, Imperative 2 (moo)

Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3a Layer 3b Layer 4

daroo (epi), soo(2) (evi) ka mo sirenai, hazu (epi), yoo, rasii (evi) -beki (deo), -(r)eba ii (deo) -soo(1) (evi), -(a)nakereba naranai (deo), -Te hosii (bou), -tai (bou) -Eru, -rareru, koto ga dekiru (dyn)

Modality and tense, aspect, negation This section deals with categories commonly located on the same or similar level to various types of modality. These are aspect, which is usually ranked at a similar or identical level to low-level modalities (e.g., the ‘core’ level in RRG; vP in generative grammar), tense, ranked on a similar level to higher-ranking modalities (‘clause’ in RRG, IP-shell in generative grammar), and negation, which can take various position in a hierarchy of functional categories. 16.1 Modality and negation RRG has reserved two slots for negation in its hierarchy of functional categories. One, ‘internal’ negation, is at the nuclear level below any kind of modality, and the other, ‘external’ or ‘clausal’ negation, is on a par with epistemic modality (cf. Van Valin and LaPolla 1997: 46). External negation in this model can be paraphrased by ‘it is not the case that’, and apparently corresponds to what is called ‘metalinguistic negation’ in semantics (cf. Horn 1989: 362–363; Bennett 2002: 150). FG acknowledges the possibility of negation at any layer of the clause (cf. Dik 1997b: 169–187). Since in FG it is not expected that languages have different (segmental) means for each layer in order to distinguish negation, in this model the interaction of a modal category and negation does not necessarily give conclusive evidence for the layering properties of that modal category. Cinque (2006: 171) states that “[f] or reasons of scope relative to other operators [negation] can occur in numerous positions (filled, in some languages, simultaneously).” In Japanese, there are two distinct forms of negation, which we identify here with the distinction between internal and external (that is, metalinguistic) negation in RRG. Internal negation is expressed by the suffixes -(a)nai, -(a)zu, and -(a)nu on verbal predicates, and, with non-verbal predicates by the adjective nai. External negation is expressed mainly by the constructions no de wa nai and wake de wa nai ‘it is not that’/‘it does not mean that’.1 These constructions were tested here. 1. The rhetorical question construction no de wa nai (ka) ‘Isn’t it that…?’ is excluded here and treated separately in the next section. Koto wa nai ‘there is no thing that’ is another construction that potentially serves to express external negation. However, external negation use is rare and

 Modality in Japanese

Table 32.  Modality in the scope of negation marker -(r)areru koto ga dekiru -Uru hazu -tai -soo(1) beki -Te hosii -(r)eba ii yoo -(a)nakereba naranai -(y)oo -rasii ka mo sirenai daroo soo(2) Imperative I Imperative II

category dyn dyn dyn epi bou evi deo bou deo evi deo moo evi epi epi evi moo moo

Internal NEG

External NEG

total

5386 3666 3356 1729 860 530 380 240 SUP 14 SUP/+ * 3 02 * 0 * *

12 1 9 + 6 + 2 7 17 0.5 4 4 + + 0 0 0 0

5398 3667 3365 1729 866 530 382 247 17 15 4 4 3 0 0 0 0 0

The corpus contained an estimated 322,000 instances of internal negation (based on a count of 10% of the corpus), and exactly 10,816 instances of external negation. The occurrences of each marker are again normalized to n=20,000. All root (deontic, dynamic, boulomaic) modal markers are subject to both external and internal negation. A number of epistemic and evidential markers, as well as, surprisingly, a mood marker are subject to either internal or external negation. Finally, four markers, namely the evidential soo(2), the epistemic daroo, and the imperatives cannot be subjected to any kind of negation. “SUP” in the table stands for suppletion. If the modality is to be negated, a different construction is used. This is cross-linguistically fairly common (cf. Palmer 1995). Two types of suppletion are involved in the Japanese data. First, negation might be expressed through a different marker or construction. Thus, the negation of -(a)nakereba naranai ‘must’, is usually expressed through the construction hardly distinguishable from the more frequent use denoting ‘non-occurrence’ of the same construction and is therefore also excluded. 2. One can in fact find instances for ka=mo sir-e-na.ku na.i on the internet, but they apparently do not semantically (or pragmatically) involve negation. The doubling of the negation nai has the same value as a single negation.



Modality and tense, aspect, negation 

-(a)nakute mo ii ‘need not’ rather than the awkward direct negation -(a)nakereba naranaku nai, which is rarely used. Second, there is ambiguity of scope between negation and modal marker. “Suppletion” thus takes place through the same construction but in the non-iconic (reverse) morpheme order. Therefore, the figures for such markers in Table 32 include cases where the semantic scope relationship is the reverse of the morpheme order. For example, when negation follows a grammatical marker of volition, there is ambiguity as to whether the negation is inside or outside the scope of the marker. Consider ex. (209) from Kawashima (2004: 63): (209) Kyuuzitu=ni tomodati=ni ki.te hosi.ku na.i. holiday-adv friend-dat come-ger want-adv not.be-npst ‘I don’t want my friend to come on my day off ’ Note that the negation follows the marker of volition and should therefore have it in its scope. Kawashima, however, argues that one can construe two different contexts: one has the meaning ‘I want my friend not to come’ (volition ⊃ negation), and the other the meaning is ‘I don’t want my friend to come’ (negation ⊃ volition). Similarly, in (210), negation morphosyntactically follows the volitive -tai but semantically falls under its scope. (210) Kurusi.i. Kurusimi-ta.ku na.i. Sini-ta.ku na.i. painful-npst suffer-vol-adv not.be-npst die-vol-adv not.be ‘[This is] painful! I don’t want to suffer! I don’t want to die!’ (Morio Kita: Nire no Hitobito, 1964) Although the interpretation ‘not [want [to suffer/die]]’ cannot be entirely ruled out, the interpretation with reverse scope ‘want [not [to suffer/die]]’ makes more sense. The same is the case for the marker of moral or common sense obligation, beki ‘should’. Beki cannot be directly preceded by negation, because of a morphological constraint that only allows it to be suffixed to morphological verbs, while negated verbs become morphologically adjectival. However, when it is followed by negation, the scope of negation can be interpreted in both ways: (211)

Shopan=wa ama.i=nante karugarusi.ku kuti=ni Chopin-top sweet -expl light-adv mouth-adv s.u=beki=zya na.i=to omo.u=no=sa. do-nps-deo-[ess-top] not.be-nps-quo think-npst-emp-ill ‘[I] think that one shouldn’t say lightly that [the music of] Chopin is sweet’ (Fukunaga Takehiko: Kusa no hana, 1956)

The intended meaning could either be the negation of the appropriateness of saying that Chopin’s music is sweet, or that it is appropriate not to say that Chopin’s

 Modality in Japanese

music is sweet. This is not easy to judge, as there is no salient difference between both interpretations. Ambiguity of scope between certain types of modal markers and negation is cross-linguistically common. This has been shown in a study by Palmer (1995) on modals of possibility and necessity and their negation. Interestingly, it is the scope relationship ‘deontic necessity > negation’ where cross-linguistically by far the most irregularity is encountered (cf. Palmer 1995: 465), and where the negative marker is most frequently ‘misplaced’ with respect to its order with the modal marker. Moreover, in the case of the ‘mid-scale’ modals, scope ambiguity with respect to negation has been generally observed (Horn 1978, Section 4; Givón 2001: 394). As De Haan (1997: 126–129) argues, ‘should’ in particular might be a uniscopal notion cross-linguistically, that is, it “is inherently incapable of showing differences in scope” (De Haan 1997: 128). We will assume here more conservatively that the construction with -beki and negation is simply ambiguous with respect to scope. In the case of -(r)eba ii, the negative marker preceding (and not following) the construction is ambiguous with respect to scope, and thus “suppletes” negation following the modal. In addition, -Te wa naranai ‘must not’ might be regarded as a negative counterpart of -(r)eba ii, although it is higher on the scale of modal strength. In this sense, there is double suppletion for neg ⊃ mod with -(r)eba ii. Another puzzling fact about negation ‘outside’ of modality is that three epistemic and evidential markers, namely hazu, -soo(1), and yoo, are frequently followed by internal negation, but only extremely rarely by external negation.3 The reverse should be expected, since epistemic and evidential modality is generally believed to be wide in scope. The most likely explanation is that external negation involves nominalization but as these three markers are already nominal (hazu and yoo are nouns, -soo(1) is a suffixal nominal adjective), they resist further nominalization.4 In any event, external negation in Japanese is a strongly pragmatic phenomenon, highly dependent on context, highly marked and therefore rare. Its function and its semanto-syntactic position are not yet well understood in linguistics. Table 33 shows modal markers embedding negated propositions. 3. Hazu is usually negated in the form hazu ga/wa nai, but in contrast to suggestions in the literature (Okuda 1993: 208, Tamura 1995: 52), sometimes hazu de wa nai is also found in the same function (i) Sikasi soo oso.ku todoi.ta hazu=de=wa na.i. but so late-adv arrive-pst evi-ess-top not.be-nps ‘It should not have arrived so lately, though.’ (Hōmei Iwano 1910: Hōrō) 4. In section 9.2 it was mentioned that the direct concatenation of morphemes carrying the same semantic feature is usually avoided in Japanese.



Modality and tense, aspect, negation 

Table 33.  Negation in the scope of modality -(y)oo

-Te hosii

-soo(1)

soo(2)

ka mo sirenai

yoo

rasii

daroo

hazu

moo

moo

bou

evi

evi

epi

evi

evi

epi

epi

deo

Imperative 2

deo

dyn

beki

dyn

-(r)areru

-(r)reba ii

moo

koto ga dekiru

bou

deo

-tai

dyn

Imperative 1 -(a)nakereba naranai

-Eru

Internal + 1 2 NEG + SUP External 0 0 0 NEG

8

8 12 52 121 329 19 358 429 580 979 986 1078 1233 1410 + + + + + SUP SUP SUP SUP SUP 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 4 5 6 5 25 11 4

The most notable contrast in this table is between, on the one hand, all root (dynamic, boulomaic, deontic) and mood (speaker-oriented) markers, none of which can embed external negation, and all the epistemics and evidentials, which can. Recall that in RRG external negation is classified as a status operator like epistemic modality (Van Valin & LaPolla 1997: 46). It represents a speaker’s judgment on the proposition and presumably because of that root modal markers cannot embed it. In contrast, all modal markers, except the dynamic -Eru, can embed internal negation. Example (212) shows the evidential rasii embedding an internally negated proposition. (212) Amari zyootatu=wa si.te i-na.i=rasi.i. much improvement-top do-ger be-neg-npst-evi-npst ‘[He] seems to have made little improvement’ (Seiko Tanabe: Shin Genji Monogatari, 1979) For an example of external negation embedded in modality, see (208). As in Table 32, “SUP” stands for two types of suppletion. In the case of -(a)nakereba naranai (negative counterpart -Te wa naranai), -(y)oo (negative counterpart mai), and the imperatives (negative counterpart -(r)u na)), negation is usually achieved through a different construction. In the case of -tai and beki, as suggested above, suppletion takes place through the same construction in reverse morpheme order. Many root and mood markers, besides having suppletion still have constructions that allow for the possibility of embedding negation regularly. For example, in the case of -(a)nakereba naranai, a directly preceding negative morpheme is

 Modality in Japanese

morphologically impossible. 5Instead, a periphrastic construction yoo ni sinakereba naranai ‘must do so that …not…’ can be formed, which occurs with the relatively low normalized frequency of 2. The equally low numbers for negation embedded in -tai, beki, and -(y)oo are of the same periphrastic type. With the imperatives, the situation is a little different. The polite imperatives can regularly form a construction with embedded negation, namely -(a)nai de kure/kudasai. The plain imperatives cannot. For them, there is only a written-style form embedding negation, namely nakare ‘be it not that’, as in (213): (213)

Seisyo=wa, “nanzi koros.u na-kar.e# nanzi nusum.u bible-top thou kill-npst not.be-vrb-imp thou steal na-kar.e=to meizi.te i.ru. not.be-vrb-imp-quo order-ger be-npst ‘The bible tells [us], “Thou shalt not kill”, “Thou shalt not steal.”’ (Gō Nakagawa: Nihonjin no Hō-Kankaku, 1989)

This construction is not part of modern colloquial Japanese. As the relatively low numbers suggest, the request not to do something is usually suppletively expressed with a prohibitive (-(r)u na). In the case of the adhortative -(y)oo, a negative corresponding (suppletive) form mai exists, but this as well is colloquially almost obsolete. The admonition not to do something is usually expressed positively as an admonition to give up or abstain from doing something (cf. ikoo ‘let’s go!’ vs. iku no o yameyoo ‘let’s give up going!’). 16.2 Scope ambiguities The scope ambiguities of modality with negation were already discussed at some length in the preceding sub-section. This section will give a final overview. As Table 34 shows, three cases can be distinguished. First, (A) negation formally embedded in modality also stands for a reverse scope relationship (cf. English should not), second, (B) modality embedded in negation also stands for a reverse scope relationship (cf. English not want to), and third, (C) although formally both options are available, there is usually no significant semantic distinction (cf. English not think that vs. think that not).

5. -(a)nakereba naranai is only added to morphological verbs but the verb negation -(a)nai is adjectival.



Modality and tense, aspect, negation 

Table 34.  Overview of scope ambiguity between negation and modality Label A B C

Type of ambiguity mod+neg also stands for neg+mod neg+mod also stands for mod+neg mod+neg, neg+mod both formally available but semantically virtually undistinguishable

marker beki, -tai -(r)eba ii hazu, -Te hosii, yoo, rasii

Examples for case A have already been given. Example (214) illustrates case B. (214)

Kuroon=ga sinbun-ya terebi bangumi=o gyuuzit.te i.ru=nara, clone-nom newspaper-enu TV program-acc control-ger be-nps-con sinbun, terebi=wa mi-na.kereba i.i. newspaper TV-top see-neg-con good-nps ‘If clones are controlling newspapers and television, it’s better not to look at them.’ (Ichiyo Kuwahara: Ningen no Kihon, 1998)

There is no marked semantic difference between the interpretation ‘it’s better not to look at newspapers’ and ‘it’s not good to look at newspapers’, and only the morphosyntactic means for expressing the former is available. The next example illustrates case C. In (215), an evidential is chosen, as deontic and boulomaic modal markers have already been used to illustrate A and B. (215)

Kanzin=no gooi naiyoo=ni tuite=wa crucial-gen agreement contents-dat concerning-top syoosai=wa wakat.te i-na.i. Beikoku=mo wakat.te detail-top understand-ger be-neg-nps America-foc understand-ger i-na.i yoo=da=to i.u. (Mainichi Newspaper 2/1998) be-neg-nps evi-cop(-nps)-quo say-nps ‘Concerning the crucial contents of the agreement they say that they don’t know the details. They say that the U.S. as well seems not to know the details.’

Again, arguably there is hardly any noticeable difference between interpreting this utterance as ‘America appears not to understand’ (mod ⊃ neg) and ‘America doesn’t appear to understand’ (neg ⊃ mod). However, habitually, mostly the construction for the former scope relationship is used in Japanese. Negation following yoo is rare. Overall, I do not wish to claim here that there is absolutely no semantic difference in those cases where both options, mod ⊃ neg and neg ⊃ mod are formally available with mid-scale modal markers. There may be subtle differences, and Japanese linguistics offers some literature and different points of view on this is-

 Modality in Japanese

sue.6 However, these differences are much smaller than in the case of modals on the extremities of the scale (must and can-types), so small in fact that some of the mid-scale modal markers make no formal distinction between both cases. 16.3 Modality and aspect Aspect is ranked at the low ‘nucleus’ level in RRG (Van Valin & LaPolla 1997: 49). In both FG and syntactic cartography, different types of aspect are assigned to different levels or positions. Dik (1997a: 225, 236–241) suggested that perfectivity/ imperfectivity and phasal aspects operate on the ‘nuclear predication’ while ‘perspectival aspect’ (Prospective, Perfect etc.) and ‘quantificational aspect’ (iterative etc.) operate on the ‘core predication’. Cinque (2001: 47–48) has numerous aspects interspersed with modal categories. Of potential interest are ‘progressive’ aspect, positioned between ModPvolition (higher) and ModPobligation (lower) and ‘completive’ aspect, located lower than all modalities. Modern Japanese has one major aspect marker, namely the stative -Te iru, which denotes the progressive with activity verbs, and a resultant state and (rarely) the perfect with telic verbs (i.e., all stative notions). The ‘perfect’ reading would rank higher than the ‘progressive’ reading in Cinque’s hierarchy but would still have the same position with respect to modal categories. Japanese has two further minor imperfectivizing markers in the resultative state marker -Te aru and the progressive -tutu aru. The most common perfectivizing marker is the completive -Te simau ‘do something completely/ entirely’. It is much less common than imperfectivizing -Te iru due to the fact that the vast majority of Modern Japanese verbs is lexically perfective, that is, presumably not in need of being grammatically perfectivized. If the completive is nevertheless used its function is either to stress that an action is performed in its entirety, or to add an emotive evaluation of regret. The frequency of -Te iru in the corpus was estimated at 436800, based on a count of 10% of the corpus, while the frequency of -Te simau was counted at 46257 (that is, roughly a tenth of -Te iru).

6. The negation of hazu has been of particular interest. Yamada (1982:  102) and Tamura (1995: 52), for example, suggest that hazu wa nai (‘there is no expectation/conclusion that p’) is the stronger negation than nai hazu da (‘the conclusion is that not p’). In contrast, Okuda (1993: 205) suggested that the negation of hazu wa nai means ‘it is impossible that’. That would give a pairing nai hazu da ( ¬p) vs. hazu wa nai (¬◊p), which is in logical terms semantically equivalent. Thus, even for native speakers the meaning difference between nai hazu da and hazu wa nai is difficult to detect. It would be misleading to assume, however, that hazu changes its meaning in negation. Glossing it as ‘conclusion’ accounts for both the possibility of hazu embedding a negated proposition and hazu being negated itself.



Modality and tense, aspect, negation 

Table 35.  Modality in the scope of aspect marker

category

-Eru -(r)areru koto ga dekiru -(a)nakereba naranai -soo(1) -tai -Te hosii beki -(r)eba ii yoo -rasii soo(2) ka mo sirenai hazu -daroo -(y)oo Imperative I Imperative II

dyn dyn dyn deo evi bou bou deo deo evi evi evi epi epi epi moo moo moo

Stative

Completive

total

67 38 34 6 4 2 + * 0 0 0 0 0 * * * * *

2 24 28 7 6 8 2 * 0 0 0 0 0 * * * * *

69 62 62 13 10 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 35 displays the numbers for modal markers followed by markers of aspect and tense. ‘Stative’ stands for -Te iru, and ‘completive’ for -Te simau. The following examples show dynamic koto ga dekiru with stative aspect (216), and -(r)areru with completive aspect (217): (216)

… hakkiri=to zibun=no syutyoo=o nobe.ru=to i.u koto=ga clear-adv self-gen opinion-acc state-nps-quo say-nps thing-nom deki.te i-na.i gakusei=ga ar.u yoo=ni omow-are-mas.u. can-ger be-neg-nps student-nom be-nps way-adv think-spn-pol-nps ‘I believe that there are students who are not being able to clearly speak their mind’. (Spoken, monologue)

(217)

“Ima tabe.tara, ban~gohan now eat-con evening-meal tabe-rare-na.ku nat-tya.u.” (Kumo Murayama: Ishitatami no Machi, 2002) eat-pot-neg-adv become-cpv-nps ’If we eat now, we won’t be able to eat our supper.’

A modal marker with an aspectual marker on it seems odd, since modal predications are by nature stative and thus should neither be further stativized by -Te iru

 Modality in Japanese

nor perfectivized by -Te simau. The actual co-occurrences with the completive generally show a change of state, in the case of (217), a change from the state of being able to eat to one of not being able to eat. In the case of the stative aspect and dynamic modal markers, a state is expressed which is only temporary and can potentially be altered as in (216) (similar to the use of the progressive aspect with stative predicates in English (He is being nice etc.)). In contrast, the other modal markers that can be embedded in stative aspect only do this if the stative aspect has the resultant state reading and if the light verb naru (‘become’) intervenes between modal marker and aspect. (218) is an example for deontic -(a)nakereba naranai embedded in the stative aspect with naru. (218)

Sentakusi=ga mata hue.te simat.ta=no=de, yokei choice-nom again increase-ger cpv-pst-nmz-cal excessively sagas-ana.kutya ik-e-na.ku nat.te i.ru. search-neg-[adv-top] go-pot-neg-adv become-ger be-nps ‘As choices have increased, I now have to search around more.’ (Spoken; monologue)

In the case of all epistemic and evidential markers, with the exception however of the appearance marker -soo(1), even the construction with resultant state is impossible and they can never be embedded in aspect. Table 36 shows the frequencies for modals embedding propositions that are marked for aspect: Table 36.  Aspect in the scope of modality koto ga dekiru

-Te hosii

-tai

Imperative 2

-(y)oo

-soo(1)

-(a)nakereba naranai

Imperative 1

-(r)reba ii

-(r)areru

daroo

hazu

ka mo sirenai

soo(2)

rasii

dyn

deo

dyn

bou

bou

moo

moo

evi

deo

moo

deo

dyn

epi

epi

epi

evi

evi

evi

beki

+ 22 38 98 74 128 31 53 187 128 308 537 716 959 1108 1458 2447 2583

Completive + Total

yoo

-Eru

Stative

3 16 2 44 16 128 149 23 153 197 SUP 119 27 189 103 218

99

(0) 25 54 100 118 144 159 202 210 281 505 (537) 835 986 1297 1561 2665 2682



Modality and tense, aspect, negation 

All modal markers embed aspect, although with some root modal markers this is a rare event. Ex. (219) shows an imperative following a stative: (219) “Mat.te i-ro. Ima mot.te ki.te yar.u.” wait-ger be-imp now take-ger come-ger give-nps ‘Wait (lit, ‘be waiting)! I’ll bring it for you right now.’ (Jirō Nitta: Kokō no Hito, 1968) It has been noted in the literature that imperatives of states are normally not felicitous (‘States (and some achievements) are […] impossible in the imperative’ (Bennett 2002: 42; cf. also Frawley 1992: 151 and Kearns 2000: 212)). However, in the case of (219), the stative aspect indicates a temporary state, and the speaker demands its realization in the future. Thus, the presumable incompatibility between states and the imperative is cancelled out. Furthermore, unlike the case of aspect embedding modality, there is no distinction with respect to whether a progressive or resultative reading is allowed. Even presumably low-ranking dynamic modality can embed stative aspect with a resultant state reading. Ex. (220) shows the potential -(r)areru embedding a resultant state proposition. (220)

Ukauka me=nado tozi.te i-rare-na.i=to i.u carelessly eye-exm close-ger be-pot-neg-nps-quo say-nps zizyoo=mo ar.oo=ka=to omow-are.ru. situation-foc be-evi-que-quo think-spn-nps ‘Certainly, there may be circumstances that don’t allow us to carelessly keep our eyes closed.’ (Tadashi Inoue: Manazashi no Ningen Kankei, 1982)

Finally, it is remarkable that there are no differences in the behavior of the stative and the completive aspect marker with respect to modality, so that, at least with respect to this parameter, there is no evidence for distinct positions in a functional hierarchy of categories. There is only a differentiation within stative aspect which points to the possibility that the resultant state reading has wider scope than the progressive reading. This differentiation, however, can only observed when aspect embeds modality and not vice versa.7

7. A somewhat more detailed analysis of the interaction of modality and aspect in Japanese can be found in Narrog (2008).

 Modality in Japanese

16.4 Modality and tense Tense in RRG is lower in the hierarchy than evidentiality. It is equal to epistemic modality, and higher than root modality (cf. Van Valin and LaPolla 1997: 51). FG views tense as being on the same level as the equivalent of root modality, that is, below subjective epistemic modality and evidentiality. We tested for the past marker -Ta since ‘past’ is the only marked tense in Japanese. It has already been mentioned that some Japanese linguists draw the dividing line between modal categories and non-modal categories at the ability of a marker or category to take tense marking, usually identified with ‘past’ marking (cf. Moriyama 2000:  17, Johnson 2003: 27, 34). However, as the data below show, tense marking does not offer a clear cut-off line at all, and therefore it is difficult to follow through with tense as a criterion for distinguishing modal from non-modal categories, or for distinguishing different types of modal categories.8 Instances of past tense in the corpus were estimated at n=222,000, based on a count of 10% of the corpus. The occurrences of each marker are again normalized to n=20,000. Table 37.  Modality in the scope of tense marker koto ga dekiru -(r)areru yoo -Eru hazu -(r)eba ii -tai -soo(1) -(a)nakereba naranai -rasii -Te hosii beki ka mo sirenai soo(2) -daroo -(y)oo Imperative I Imperative II

category

Past tense

dyn dyn evi dyn epi deo bou evi deo evi bou deo epi evi epi moo moo moo

2441 1689 1532 1379 1195 926 860 820 773 766 469 380 229 50 * * * *

8. Johnson (2003: 34), despite espousing this criterion, in fact includes a majority of modal markers in her study that can be tense-marked.



Modality and tense, aspect, negation 

The following examples show deontic -(a)nakereba naranai (221), epistemic ka mo sirenai (222), and evidential soo(2) (223) with past tense: (221)

Mazu sore=o honyaku~si.te mora.u koto=kara first this-acc translation-do-ger receive-npst thing-abl hazime-na.kute=wa nar-ana-kat.ta. begin-neg-ger-top become-neg-vrb-pst ‘We had to start from getting this translated first.’ (Tsuyoshi Hirata: Ryomin Kaitai, 1998)

(222)

Kono toki=mo watasi=wa hui=ni ut-are.ru=ka=mo this time-foc 1s-top sudden-adv shoot-pass-npst-que-foc sir-e-na-kat.ta. know-pot-neg-vrb-pst ‘This time too, I could suddenly have been shot.’ (Ōoka Shōhei: Nobi, 1952)

(223)

Seiseki=no yo.i syoonen=wa syuuyoo kikan record-gen good-nps youth-top detention period manryoo~mae=ni kari-taiin~s-ase.ru koto=ga expiration-before-adv provisional-discharge-do-cau-nps thing-nom ar.u=soo=de at.ta. be-nps-evi-ess be-nps ‘Allegedly, youths with a good record were provisionally released before the end of their detention period’ (Masaaki Tachihara: Fuyu no Tabi, 1968)

All epistemic and evidential markers, except daroo, can be tense-marked. It is surprising to see that the highest-ranking evidential soo(2), in contrast, does take tense, although with a relatively low frequency. The speaker/writer indicates that the evidence itself is a matter of the past. Daroo cannot be tense-marked for reasons of morphological combination (the ending -oo in dar:oo stands in regular paradigmatic relationship to the past ending -Ta as in dat-ta), so that the question of semantic-pragmatic compatibility does not arise from the beginning. What the data in Table 37 do not reveal is the existence of scope ambiguities with the tense marker. This becomes relevant for the embedding of tense in modality. Table 38 shows the data for modals embedding tense. As has been pointed out in the literature (e.g. Bybee et al. 1994: 185; Enç 1996: 353; Ziegeler 2006: 215–216), root modality and deontic moods are intrinsically future-oriented. Non-embedding of tense is therefore what should be expected with them for semantic and pragmatic reasons. This expectation is fully borne out only with dynamic modality and mood. In addition, the evidential -soo(1) is intrinsically future-oriented like root modality, and therefore cannot embed tense either.

 Modality in Japanese

Table 38.  Tense in the scope of modality -Eru

koto ga dekiru

-(r)areru

-soo(1)

-(y)oo

Imperative 1

Imperative 2

-Te hosii

-tai

-(a)nakereba naranai

beki

-(r)reba ii

daroo

hazu

ka mo sirenai

yoo

soo(2)

rasii

dyn

dyn

dyn

evi

moo

moo

moo

bou

bou

deo

deo

deo

epi

epi

epi

evi

evi

evi

0

*

*

*

*

Past *

* SUP SUP SUP SUP SUP 1329 1937 1946 3923 4212 4808

The other epistemic and evidential markers embed tense without difficulty. Example (224) shows the epistemic daroo embedding a proposition in the past: (224)

Naze kono toki=mo ano hito=no ato=o tui.te why this time-foc that person-gen behind-acc follow-ger it.ta=no=daroo. (Shūsaku Endō: Chinmoku, 1966) go-pst-adn-epi ‘Why did he follow that person this time as well?’

From a quantitative perspective, the fact stands out that past propositions are especially frequently embedded in evidentials. This point will be taken up again in Chapter 20. The trickiest issue with respect to tense embedded in modality pertains to non-iconic ordering of tense and modal morphemes, specifically those combinations marked with a suppletion (SUP) symbol in Table 38. The next section is devoted to analyzing this issue. 16.5 Scope ambiguities There are two questions associated with the interpretation of past tense modifying modal markers. A) Does the modal marker with past tense imply realization or non-realization of the embedded state-of-affairs? B) Is the modal judgment part of the past (i.e., tns ⊃ mod), or is it located at speech time, and the event in the past (i.e. mod ⊃ tns)? Clearly, it is question B) which is relevant for establishing scope hierarchies and not question A). However, since these issues are not unrelated, and in descriptive



Modality and tense, aspect, negation 

Japanese linguistics they have been treated together (Takanashi 2004, 2006), we will start here with a review of issue A). It has been noted (Takanashi 2004, 2006) that in the interaction with past tense there are three kinds of modal makers, namely, those that imply realization of the state-of-affairs in the proposition, those that carry no special implication, and those that have a strong tendency to implying non-realization. They can be illustrated respectively by Examples (225), (226) and (227). (225)

Kekka=o mat.u tame, watasi=wa hoteru=ni ip-paku~s.ezaru=o result-acc wait-nps purpose 1S-top hotel-loc one-stay-do-neg-acc e-na-kat.ta. (Kōtarō Sawaki: Isshun no Natsu, 1982) obtain-neg-vrb-pst ‘In order to wait for the result, I had no choice but to stay the night at a hotel [‘could not but stay the night at a hotel’].’

(226)

Kinoo=wa, sigoto si-na.kereba nar-ana-kat.ta. Da=kara, yesterday-top work do-neg-con become-neg-vrb-pst cop-cal sigoto~ba=e it.ta. work-place-all go-pst ‘I had to do work yesterday. Therefore, I went to my workplace.’

(227)

??Kinoo=wa, sigoto=o s.uru=beki=dat.ta. Da=kara, yesterday-top work-acc do-deo-vrb-pst cop-cal sigoto~ba=e it.ta. work-place-all go-pst ‘I should have worked yesterday. Therefore, I went to my workplace.’

Example (225) with the lack of choice -(a)zaru o enai ‘cannot but’ (cf. 10.1.6) instantiates the type always implying realization of a state of affairs. It is implied that the narrator actually had to stay at the hotel and no other interpretation is possible. This is a general feature of ‘lack of choice’ markers (cf. Takanashi 2004). Example (226) with the strong obligation construction -(a)nakereba naranai is compatible with both realization and non-realization of the embedded state-of-affairs (the subject went to work or did not). The second clause in (226) shows realization. Sentence (227) with the weak/valuative obligation marker beki has a strong tendency towards implying non-realization of the state-of-affairs. In this particular example, no other interpretation is possible. Takanashi (2004: 52) even claims that beki always implies non-realization but this is empirically not correct. It is in fact possible to find counterexamples such as (228). (228) Oosaka=wa, motomoto oasisu kokka=to si.te hatten~s.u=beki (place name)-top originally oasis state-sta do-ger develop-do-nps-deo

 Modality in Japanese



mono=de at.ta=si, zissai=ni soo nat.te thing-ess be-pst-enu reality-adv this.way become-ger i.ta=no=des.u=ga… be-pst-nmz-pol-nps-avs ‘Osaka was originally supposed to develop as an oasis state, and actually it became just that, but…’(Spoken, discussion)

Likewise, contrary to expectation (and contrary to Takanashi (2004)), it is possible to find examples of -(a)nakereba naranai in contexts where non-realization is implied, as in (229) below, although this is not common: (229)

Soo it.ta tiiki=to, motto haya.ku=kara, tuyo.i yuukoo this.way say-pst region-com more early-nmz-abl strong-nps friendship kankei=to soogo ka nkei=o hakat.te ok-ana.kereba relationship- com mutual relationship-acc plan-ger put-neg-con nar-ana-kat.ta-n=da!=to yatoo iin=no become-neg-vrb-pst-nmz-cop(-nps)-quo opposition delegate-gen hitori=ga, teeburu=o tatai.te… one.person-nom table-acc knock-ger ‘“We should have strived much earlier for friendship and close relationships with those regions”, [said] one of the committee members from the opposition, knocking on the table.’ (Sakyō Komatsu: Nihon Chinbotsu, 1973)

According to Takanashi (2004, 2006) most deontic markers are either of the neutral (no implication) type or the type strongly implying non-realization while boulomaic markers (cf. 10.2) and epistemic hazu tend towards implying non-realization. Those modal markers and constructions which are tested in this book, and which actually can take past tense, show the behavior in Table 39. The information from Takanashi (2004, 2006) was supplemented by the author on the basis of the observation of his corpus data. These findings can be generalized in terms of modal categories as in Table 40. This table shows whether there are markers or constructions in a certain modal domain that imply a specific state of realization of the state-of-affairs if the modal marker is in the past. The table shows that the past of dynamic and evidential modality does not interfere with the status of realization of the state-of-affairs in the proposition. There are brackets around the “yes” for boulomaic modal markers under the category “open” because their tendency towards implying non-realization is bound to context (Takanashi (2006: 92) suggests it is associated with sentence-final use and use in concessive clauses; in other positions the interpretation is “open”). With the



Modality and tense, aspect, negation 

Table 39.  Overview of implications of past tense on modal markers marker/construction

category

koto ga dekiru -(r)are.ru -Eru -tai -Te hosii -(a)nakereba naranai beki -(r)eba ii ka mo sirenai hazu -soo(1) yoo rasii soo(2)

dyn dyn dyn bou bou deo deo deo epi epi evi evi evi evi

implication open open open often non-realization often non-realization rarely non-realization overwhelmingly non-realization overwhelmingly non-realization open overwhelmingly non-realization open open open open

Table 40.  Implications of past tense on modal markers by modal category category open Dynamic modality Evidential modality Epistemic modality Boulomaic modality Deontic modality

yes yes yes (yes) yes

realization of state-of-affairs strong tendency of non-realization realization non-realization n/a n/a yes yes yes

n/a n/a n/a n/a yes

n/a n/a n/a n/a yes

epistemic modal markers it is only the necessity marker hazu which exhibits a strong tendency of non-realization. Finally, within deontic modality, each of the possibilities is realized by a specific set of markers and constructions. It turns out that the issue of scope is linked to the issue of implication of (non-) realization. Namely, only in the case of those markers that can imply non-realization, can the modal judgment have the past tense in its scope (i.e., non-iconic ordering of morphemes). In (226), a past obligation is reported. The scope must be read as tns ⊃ mod. In contrast, in (227), no obligation in the past is reported. Even if such an obligation actually existed in the past, it is not expressed by beki. Beki only expresses the judgment of the speaker at time of speech that some event in the past had to be

 Modality in Japanese

realized, i. e. mod ⊃ tns. Since it is pragmatically and cognitively infelicitous to oblige the realization of an event in the past, the past event is counterfactual.9 Advice -(r)eba ii behaves like beki in usually strongly implying non-realization and simultaneously expressing present and not past modal judgment. With the boulomaic markers, the same possibility is available although it is not as common as with the aforementioned deontic markers. (230) is an example for -tai. (230)

“Soo=ka… Sore=wa zannen=dat.ta=naa.” this.way-que that-top unfortunate-cop-pst-ill Watasi=mo at.te mi-ta-kat.ta. (Kōtarō Sawai: Isshun no Natsu, 1982) 1s-foc meet-ger see-bou-vrb-pst ‘[”I wanted to bring you together”] ”Oh, that’s a shame” [I said]. I also had wanted to meet him / Me as well, I wish I had met him.”’

Out of context, Example (230) is open to either the interpretation rendered in English as ‘I wanted to meet him’, i.e. tns ⊃ mod, or to the interpretation rendered in English as ‘I wish I had met him’, i. e. mod ⊃ tns. In the actual context of the sentence, the latter is meant. In the case of the deontic and boulomaic modal markers, implication of nonrealization is always linked to modal judgment in the present.10 In the case of epistemic hazu, this link is not given. On the contrary, the modal judgment is always located in the past, as in (231): (231)

Totemo attaka.i kimono=dat.ta. Tasika=ni attaka.i very warm-nps kimono-cop-pst certain-adv warm-nps hazu=dat.ta. Hun~sensei=wa tora=no kawa=no epi-cop-pst (name)-teacher-top tiger-gen fur-gen pantu=o haki, kuma=no kawa=no dotera=o pants-acc wear bear-gen fur-gen gown-acc

9. There is again a strong parallel between beki and English deontic should and ought to. As Declerck (1991: 379) notes, should and ought to followed by a perfect infinitive often may imply ‘unreality (nonactualisation)’. Furthermore, this construction is a typical means of expressing reproach in English. 10. Takanashi (2006: 96) hypothesized that “The implications of the -Ta-form of valuative [deontic] and boulomaic modality can be generalized in the following hypothesis: […] If the [modal] form expresses the speakers evaluation or wish at the point of time of speech, it implies counterfactuality (non-realization)”.



Modality and tense, aspect, negation 

haot.te i.ta. put.on-ger be-pst ‘That was a very warm kimono. It just had to be warm. Hun was wearing pants made of tiger fur and an overcoat made of bear fur.’ (Hisashi Inoue: Bun to Hun, 1970) In summing up these facts, I suggest the following generalizations. Those modal markers and constructions that with past marking regularly imply non-realization of the state-of-affairs in the proposition interpretation have in common that (a) they are all mid-scale, that is, ‘should’ (beki, -(r)eba ii, hazu) or ‘want’ type (-tai, -Te hosii) of modality. (b) they all contain an element of positive evaluation. With respect to (b), recall that the only epistemic marker involved here (hazu; close to English epistemic should) entails a salient element of expectation on the part of the speaker/writer. It thus shares an evaluative element with the deontic and boulomaic markers. Furthermore, among this group of markers and constructions, it is only the boulomaic and deontic markers which also imply a reversal of scope between tense and modality, not the epistemic one. Among the deontic markers, -(a)nakereba naranai very rarely implies this scope reversal. This optional reversal of scope was labeled as a type of suppletion “SUP” in Table 38.

Modality and higher categories This chapter deals with the scope relationship between modal markers and categories potentially ranking higher than modality, for example those at a CP or ForceP level in generative models, or as qualifying the ‘proposition’ level in FG, namely illocutionary force modulation and nominalization/complementation. 17.1 Modality and nominalization/complementation FG and RRG both acknowledge complementization at three different levels. FG speaks of complement clauses at the levels of ‘predication’, ‘proposition’, and ‘clause’ (Dik 1997b: 93–95), while RRG has complement clauses at the levels of ‘nuclear’, ‘core’, and ‘clausal’ juncture, that is, practically at every level of clause juncture (Van Valin & LaPolla 1997: 442–444, 464–465). Modern Japanese has two major forms that serve to nominalize, and make complements of, non-nominal propositions, namely the particle no and the noun koto ‘thing’. With respect to complementation alone, there is also the quotative particle to. No also features in the clause-ending nominalizing construction no da ‘it is that’, which is extremely frequent. The distinction between no and koto as nominalizers and complementizers is extremely complex. The standard view is that no involves direct experience, while koto is used for complements of indirect experience, indicating psychological distancing from the proposition by the speaker (e.g. Yamamoto 1987, Noda 1995b). To my knowledge, no and koto have not been assigned to different layers of clause structure in Japanese linguistics. Nevertheless, there is a tendency for koto to be used with verbs (e.g. kangaeru/omou ‘think’; cf. Kamada 1998: 2) which are higher on the ‘complementation scale’ (cf. Givón 2001; ch. 12), that is, which involve looser clause integration, while with many verbs that are lower on the complementation scale (e.g. hazimaru ‘begin’), only no can be used. Nevertheless, no can also be used with a number of verbs high on the scale (e.g. siru ‘know’). Thus, no clear distinction of the two in terms of syntactic position is possible. The frequency in the corpus, estimated based on a count of their occurrence in 10% of it, is 193000 for koto, and 234500 for no. The numbers for no do not include the adverbial conjunctive particle combinations no de and no ni and the illocutionary force modulating construction no de wa nai (ka), which were counted separately. The results for modal markers in the scope of no and koto are shown in Table 41.

 Modality in Japanese

Table 41.  Modality in the scope of nominalization/complementation marker -(r)eba ii -Uru -(a)nakereba naranai -rasii -tai -(r)areru koto ga dekiru beki -Te hosii hazu ka mo sirenai -soo(1) yoo daroo soo(2) -(y)oo Imperative I Imperative II

category

no

koto

total

deo dyn deo evi bou dyn dyn deo bou epi epi evi evi epi evi moo moo moo

3089 877 1003 1017 911 820 913 318 602 387 378 190 128 0.2 360 0 0 0

85 589 262 145 240 323 77 550 78 24 13 94 0.5 9 0 # * *

3174 1466 1265 1162 1151 1143 990 868 680 411 391 284 129 9 360 0 0 0

As should be expected from a potential higher-level category, the nominalization/ complementization markers take modal markers freely in their scope with little distinction between dynamic, deontic, epistemic, boulomaic and evidential markers. However, the two markers daroo and soo(2) appear to have restrictions on nominalization, and clauses with mood markers cannot be nominalized at all. The restrictions with daroo and soo(2) are that daroo usually cannot be embedded by no (there is one example in the corpus from the writer Akutagawa Ryūnosuke; in Japanese linguistics, however, the combination is generally regarded as ungrammatical (cf. Moriyama 2000: 17)); and that soo(2) cannot be embedded by koto. Daroo is generally resisting embedding by any form of no, including no de, no ni, and no de wa nai (ka) (see following sections). Example (232) shows beki in the scope of koto: (232)

Tohoo=ni kure.ta mama=no kazoku=ga, Kaenzi=e direction-dat miss-pst state-gen family-nom (name)-all denpoo=o ut.u-beki koto=ni yooyaku kidui.ta=no=wa, telegram-acc type-nps-deo thing-dat finally notice-pst-nmz-top



Modality and higher categories 

akuru hi=no gogo=de at.ta. (Yukio Mishima: Kinkakuji, 1956) next day-gen afternoon-ess be-pst ‘The family who were at a complete loss [over the sudden death] only realized the next day that they ought to send a telegram to Kaen-ji [temple].’ The results in Table 42 show embedding in the reverse direction, namely nominalized propositions in the scope of modal markers. Most modal markers can embed nominalized propositions, but do so only in extremely low numbers. The three exceptions, those markers that frequently embed nominalized propositions, are evidential soo(2) and epistemic daroo, and the fellow epistemic ka mo sirenai. Example (233) shows a nominalized proposition in the scope of soo(2). (233)

Sono otoko=wa dekake.ru toki, ie-zyuu=no kutu=o dem man-top go.out-nps time house-inside-gen shoe-acc kakusi.te ik.u=no=da=soo=da. hide-ger go-nps-nmz-cop(-nps)-evi-cop(-nps) ‘That man allegedly would hide all his shoes in the house when he was going out.’ (Shioko Ogawa: Kyōfu Eigasai, 2000)

A question arises here as to why koto ga dekiru and -soo(1) do not embed nominalized propositions at all. The obvious answer is that they are already nominal in nature. Koto ga dekiru contains koto ‘thing’, a noun that already nominalizes the preceding proposition, and -soo(1) is a nominal adjective. The same factor is probably responsible for the fact that embedding of nominalized propositions is so rare with hazu, which we would expect to behave similarly to the other mid-level epistemic ka mo sirenai. Again, the obvious answer is that hazu is already a noun. Table 42.  Nominalization/complementation in the scope of modality -soo(1)

koto ga dekiru

-tai

-Te hosii

-(r)areru

beki

-(r)reba ii

Imperative 2

Imperative 1

-(y)oo

hazu

-Eru

-(a)nakereba naranai

yoo

rasii

soo(2)

ka mo sirenai

daroo

evi

dyn

bou

bou

dyn

deo

deo

moo

moo

moo

epi

dyn

deo

evi

evi

evi

epi

epi

no-da koto

1 3

1 3

0 0 + + + + + 0 * * * * * *

0 4

  0    0 + + 11 139 0.9 24

30 1476 2390 2416   2    28    16   193

 Modality in Japanese

Therefore, in principle all modal markers can embed nominalized propositions. As FG and RRG suggest, complementation is possible at a wide range of levels of clause. Unlike English, where different levels of complementation are marked differently, Japanese no and koto cover all these levels with the exception of the highest-ranking, non-nominalizing quotative complements which are marked by to. Therefore, the embedding of nominalized propositions/complements does not serve to detect scope differences between modal markers, at least not qualitatively. 17.2 Modality and illocutionary modulators The last category against which modality is tested here is illocutionary modulation. This is located at the very periphery of the clause, and we would expect it to take modality into its scope but not vice versa. The most common illocutionary modulators in Japanese are the sentence-final particles ne, yo, and wa. Yo marks speaker confidence in the information in the proposition, as well as marking an appeal to the hearer. Ne marks the desire to share or confirm an information or emotion. Wa marks a weak assertion, and is mostly used by female speakers (cf. Makino & Tsutsui 1986: 286, 520, 543; Barke 2001: 240–241; Cook 2006: 104) The combination yo ne is sometimes assigned an independent status in the literature, as representing something beyond a transparent combination of yo and ne. It was pointed out in 11.3.1 that yo ne is a pragmatic equivalent of daroo in the ‘request for confirmation’ function. It is therefore counted separately here. Furthermore, I have added the sentence final constructions no de wa nai (ka) and de wa nai (ka) ‘isn’t it that…?’ which have the function of appealing to the listener, and are often discussed within the framework of modality in Japanese linguistics (e.g. Fukao 2005). Table 43 shows the frequency of the combination of modal markers preceding this group of markers. All modal markers can take at least two illocutionary modulators. The imperatives are most resistant to them, presumably because they already carry a strong illocutionary force themselves. Many markers are incompatible with either no de wa nai (ka) or de wa nai (ka). Daroo also only very rarely takes yone, whose pragmatic is similar to daroo itself. Example (234) shows the reportive evidential soo(2) with the particle ne, which is one of the most frequent collocations of modal or mood markers with an illocutionary force modifier.



Modality and higher categories 

Table 43.  Illocutionary modulators embedding modality yo=ne

ne

yo

total

(234)

deo epi epi deo dyn bou bou evi dyn dyn deo evi moo evi evi epi moo moo

wa

-(r)eba ii ka mo sirenai hazu -(a)nakereba naranai -(r)areru -Te hosii -tai -soo(1) -Eru koto ga dekiru beki soo(2) -(y)oo -rasii yoo daroo Imperative I Imperative II

de wa nai (ka)

category

no de wa nai (ka)

marker

212 1 5 62 68 2 15 0.9 108 97 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

442 22 102 11 20 + 4 17 10 9 129 121 308 8 14 5 0 0

47 95 45 16 39 34 36 20 7 4 6 7 4 53 18 0.4 0 0

21 10 22 10 14 17 11 25 10 5 3 13 2 33 4 + + 3

113 359 86 137 98 135 115 124 48 59 23 517 155 286 216 529 8 171

244 144 173 97 91 78 70 39 33 40 28 297 383 188 45 43 835 408

1079 631 433 333 330 266 251 226 216 214 203 955 852 568 297 577 843 582

Miyuki-san=no hanasi=ni yor.u=to mainiti tappuri (name)-toa-gen talk-dat be.based.on-nps-con every.day amply hiru~ne~nasar.u=soo=des.u=ne. noon-sleep-do(hon)-nps-evi-cop-nps-ill ‘According to Miyuki, you have a long (midday) nap every day, don’t you? (Ayako Sono: Tarō Monogatari, 1973)

The particle ne adds the meaning of a request for shared information, and in English, in this example, is perhaps best rendered by a tag question. The results for the reverse scope relationship (mod ⊃ ill) are shown in Table 44: No modal marker can take an illocutionary modulator in its scope. This is a clear indication of the scope relationship between modality and illocutionary force modulation.

 Modality in Japanese

Table 44.  Illocutionary modulators in the scope of modality koto ga dekiru

-(r)areru

-Eru

-tai

-Te hosii

-(a)nakereba naranai

beki

-(r)reba ii

daroo

ka mo sirenai

hazu

-soo(1)

yoo

rasii

soo(2)

-(y)oo

Imperative 1

Imperative 2

dyn

dyn

dyn

bou

bou

deo

deo

deo

epi

epi

epi

evi

evi

evi

evi

moo

moo

moo

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

0

0

*

*

0

0

0

*

*

*

ne yo

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

0

0

*

*

0

0

0

*

*

*

yone

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

0

0

*

*

0

0

0

*

*

*

wa

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

0

0

*

*

0

0

0

*

*

*

no=de=wa…

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

0

0

*

*

0

0

0

*

*

*

de=wa…

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

0

0

*

*

0

0

0

*

*

*

Modality embedded in adverbial clauses While the scope relationship of modal markers in comparison to markers of other categories is the most straightforward criterion for determining their position in a hierarchy of grammatical structures, or in the layered structure of the clause, in Japanese linguistics, their behavior in adverbial clauses has been a criterion used just as frequently. As mentioned in Section 4.3, the study of the layered structure of the clause in Japanese linguistics is associated first and foremost with Minami’s theory. On the basis of various parameters, Minami divided the clause into an A (lowest), B, C, and D (highest) layer. Decisively for our study here, the parameters for the definition of each layer are independent of the modal markers tested here, with the exception of only two markers, -(y)oo and daroo, which are included in Minami’s set of 24 parameters.1 That is, the approach taken here is not circular. Other parameters include markers for voice, subject and topic (cf. Minami 1993: 97). Minami’s D layer is the outermost layer that contains elements which cannot appear in any non-matrix clauses. Layers A, B, C are defined through types of nonmatrix clauses in which certain grammatical elements can, or cannot, appear. The C-layer is the second highest layer of clause in Minami’s theory. Elements that cannot appear at this layer (that is, cannot occur in non-matrix clauses that represent this layer) can only appear at the independent clause level. Conversely, elements that are able to appear in non-matrix clauses of this layer belong to the C-layer or a lower layer. Representative markers of the C-layer include the contrastive ga, the causal kara, and the causal/enumerative si (cf. Minami 1993: 96f). The Minami B-layer is one layer below the C-layer, and is characterized by being unable to have an independent topic. B-type clauses include gerundive adverbials,2 conditionals, causal clauses with no de and concessive clauses with no ni, which are two morphologically parallel constructions.3 A-type clauses are the lowest-ranking 1. Minami includes the epistemic and other uses of -(y)oo, which are excluded here. He therefore comes to a slightly different result for the layering properties of -(y)oo from this study. 2. The term ‘gerundive adverbials’ here refers to semantically unmarked clause chaining as achieved by the verb base (ren’yōkei in traditional grammar) and by the inflection -Te, as well as -(a)zu in negation. I did not include these clauses in this study because they can sometimes also appear at the A- or C- layer, that is, cannot be identified with a specific layers. 3. However, Noda (1996: 171) has claimed that no ni, no de and kara belong to both the B- and C-layer.

 Modality in Japanese

non-matrix clauses, which can have no independent subject. They are represented by the simultaneity markers -nagara and -tutu.4 For presentation of the data, the clauses were divided into semantically-motivated groups, namely causal, concessive, adversative, and conditional clauses. 18.1 Modality in causal clauses Two of the causal connectors are traditionally associated with the Minami C-layer, and one with the Minami B-layer. However, as Noda (1996: 171) has pointed out, no de sometimes shows behavior characteristic of the C-layer. I have therefore marked it as “B-C”. For kara, 44,087 occurrences were counted in the corpus, for no de 26,735, and for si 20,152.5 Table 45 shows their numbers in embedding modal markers. The numbers are as before normalized to n=20,000. All types of modal markers can be embedded in causal clauses except for mood markers. Hortative -(y)oo is very infrequently found in causal clauses, and all such examples come from pre-war literature. All non-mood markers can be embedded in all causal markers. However, tokens of daroo embedded in no de were found only on the internet. As already mentioned, daroo (and the etymologically related -(y)oo) resist embedding with no, and daroo no de is prescriptively speaking an infelicitous combination. However, epistemic modality and causality as such are perfectly compatible, and numerous examples on the internet attest for the fact that many Japanese speakers have no problem with daroo no de in an informal setting, whereas prescriptive grammar demands daroo kara. (235)

Namae=ga na.i=to yobi-dura.i=daroo=no=de, “Hara”=to name-nom not.be-nps-quo call-difficult-nps-nmz-cal (name)-quo o.yobi~kudasa.i. hon-call-give-imp ‘Because it is probably difficult to address someone without a name, please call me Hara!’ (http://ameblo.jp/reopurinnkopann/entry-10074771219. html)

4. Nagara could not be included in this study because of the polysemy with B-layer concessive nagara (they are not distinguishable in the surface structure). Nor was -tutu, because its frequency of occurrence was too low (n= 2,751). 5. Si also has an enumerative use which is only distinguishable from context, and is usually not assigned different syntactic characteristics.



Modality embedded in adverbial clauses 

Table 45.  Modality in causal clauses connector category Minami layer -Eru -(a)nakereba naranai koto ga dekiru hazu ka mo sirenai soo(2) -(r)areru -(r)eba ii -tai -soo(1) yoo -rasii -Te hosii beki daroo -(y)oo Imperative I Imperative II

dyn deo dyn epi epi evi dyn deo bou evi evi evi bou deo epi moo moo moo

no de CAL B-C

kara CAL C

si CAL C

total

215 123 123 37 39 61 64 42 56 91 59 65 14 4 + 0 0 0

130 154 125 211 86 206 128 132 128 86 72 83 42 15 108 2 0 0

79 109 128 82 170 35 59 68 51 44 57 32 35 30 147 0.7 0 0

424 386 376 330 305 302 251 242 236 221 188 180 91 49 255 3 0    0

18.2 Modality in concessive and adversative clauses The concessive marker no ni was counted at 8,816 occurrences. The more formal ni mo kakawarazu had too low a frequency (1574) to be included here, and concessive nagara cannot be systematically distinguished from temporal nagara, also leading to non-inclusion. No ni, despite traditionally being classified as “B” also has characteristics of the C-layer (cf. Noda 1996: 171), and is therefore labeled as “B-C”. The adversative ga occurred with a frequency of 150249, and its more informal counterpart ke(re)do(mo) with a frequency of 63593 in the corpus. Table 46 shows the frequency with which these markers embed propositions with modal markers.

 Modality in Japanese

Table 46.  Modality in concessive and adversative clauses connector category Minami layer ka mo sirenai hazu soo(2) -(r)eba ii yoo -rasii daroo -tai koto ga dekiru -(r)areru -(a)nakereba naranai -soo(1) -Eru -Te hosii beki -(y)oo Imperative I Imperative II

epi epi evi deo evi evi epi bou dyn dyn deo evi dyn bou deo moo moo moo

no ni CNC B-C

keredo AVS

ga AVS C

total

23 416 + 505 5 18 39 20 13 14 40 24 19 14 32 # 0 0

597 109 234 172 129 286 177 126 73 70 76 56 29 96 11 + 0 0

1172 668 920 300 780 541 524 246 261 230 197 232 202 96 115 2 0 0

1792 1193 1154 977 914 845 740 392 347 314 313 312 250 206 158 2 0 0

The situation is similar to the causal clauses. The mood markers are hardly embedded at all in subordinate clauses of this type, while all other markers are. Soo(2) with no ni is only found on the internet, but similar to daroo and no de, nothing argues against this combination semantically. Note that the common form for daroo combining with no ni is daroo ni, rather than daroo no ni, which is rare. The following example illustrates epistemic hazu being used in a ga-marked non-matrix clause: (236) Sore=o sir-ana.i hito=wa sukuna.i hazu=da=ga, … this-acc know-neg-npst person-top few-npst epi-vrb-(nps-)ctr ‘People who don’t know that ought to be few, but…’ (Ikuo Yoshioka: Shintai no Fushigi, 1986)



Modality embedded in adverbial clauses 

18.3 Modality in conditional clauses Finally we come to modality in conditional clauses, a lower-level type of clause than causals or concessives and adversatives in the Minami model. Modern Japanese has six markers in this domain, namely -(r)u to, -(r)eba, -Tara and nara for pure conditionals, and -Te mo and to (mo) for concessive conditionals. -Te mo and to (mo) are complete functional equivalents which are in partly complementary distribution (only to (mo) can be suffixed to the inflection -(y)oo), and are partly, especially with adjectives, stylistic variants. They are therefore grouped together here. -(R)u to had a frequency of n=90,645, -Te mo and to (mo) a combined frequency of n=55,929 (n=50,942 for -Te mo, and n=4,987 for to (mo)), -(r)eba a frequency of n=55,581, -Tara a frequency of n=32,677, and nara a frequency of n=8,081. The concessive conditional -Te mo/to (mo) is not included in Minami’s data but we assume here that it must be assigned to the same layer as the conditionals, namely B. Although all of the “pure” conditionals were assigned to the same B layer by Minami (1993: 96–97), it has nevertheless been pointed out that differences in their behavior exist. It is generally assumed that -(r)u to has the narrowest scope and nara the widest scope. Masuoka (1993) suggested that, with the three conditionals with relatively wide scope, scope increases in the order -(r)eba > -Tara > nara. The actual results concerning what modal markers they can embed are displayed in Table 47. These results show that conditional clauses do indeed have more difficulty embedding modal markers than causal and concessive clauses. Even if they do embed modal markers, their frequencies are usually low to extremely low. Only the dynamic modal markers, the boulomaic ones, the (apparent low-level) evidential -soo(1), and the deontic -(a)nakereba naranai can be found in the corpus at least three types of conditional clause. Epistemic daroo is only found in one type of conditional, and the mood markers as well as the evidentials rasii and soo(2) are not found in conditional clauses at all. Concerning the conditional clauses themselves, the figures indicate that to has clearly the narrowest scope and nara the widest, as suggested in the literature. The other three constructions are squeezed in between with no salient difference. However, the distinction between nara and the other conditional constructions is smaller than expected and only surfaces in the evidential yoo, the deontic -(r)eba ii, and the fact that it has the relative highest frequency among all those markers regularly occurring in conditional clauses.

 Modality in Japanese

Table 47.  Modality in conditional clauses connector category Minami layer -(r)areru koto ga dekiru -soo(1) -tai -Eru -(a)nakereba naranai -Te hosii beki ka mo sirenai -(r)eba ii hazu yoo -daroo -rasii soo(2) -(y)oo Imperative I Imperative II

dyn dyn evi bou dyn deo bou deo epi deo epi evi epi evi evi moo moo moo

to

-(r)eba

-Tara

CON

CON

CON

B

B

(B)

9 2 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # 0 0 0 0 0 0

86 120 6 29 17 1 3 + + 0 + # * # 0 * * *

25 57 17 23 10 5 5 + 0.6 + + 1 * # 0 * * *

-Te mo/ -to (mo) CONCNC B 16 44 7 39 15 0.5 0 1 + + + # 8 # 0 # 0 0

nara CON

total

B 32 38 + 31 17 7 5 2 + 4 + 0.5 0 + 0 # 0 0

168 261 43 122 59 14 13 3 0.6 4 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 0

The examples below show the dynamic marker -(r)areru embedded in a conditional with to (237), and the epistemic marker daroo in a concessive-conditional clause (238): (237)

Yoru, sizuka=ni ne-rare-na.i=de i.ru=to, night quiet-adv sleep-pot-neg-nps-adv be-nps-con sora=o goisagi=ga nai.te kayot.ta. sky-acc night.heron-nom scream-ger cross-pst ‘When I couldn’t sleep peacefully at night, a screaming night heron crossed the sky.’ (Motojirō Kajii: Shiro no aru Machi ni te, 1925)

(238) Zi=wa sono hito zisin=o hyoogen~s.uru. “Akuhitu=daroo=to, letter-top dem person self-acc express-do-nps bad.handwriting-epi-cnc



Modality embedded in adverbial clauses 

zibun=no zi=de kak.u=beki=da”=ga sinzyoo=da. self-gen letter-ins write-nps-deo-cop(-nps)-nom creed-cop(-nps) ‘(Handwritten) letters tell us about the person [who wrote them]. It is my belief that even if their handwriting is bad, people should write by hand.’ (Sankei Newspaper 12/2001) Overall, the results complex clauses show a clear cut-off point between mood markers, which practically cannot be embedded, and all other modal markers. The mood markers thus belong to Minami’s layer D (-(y)oo showing a small number of deviations), while everything else belongs to layer C or lower. Distinctions between the non-mood modal markers can be observed in the first place with the conditional clauses. There is a cline from markers that can be embedded in anything without a problem, including conditional clauses (particularly the dynamic modal markers), to markers that strongly resist embedding (especially soo(2) and daroo), especially in the conditionals.

Conclusion 19.1 Summary of the results In Table 48, conclusions from the data in Section 15 concerning the behavior of modals interacting with each other is combined with the results from Sections 16 and 17 for modals interacting with categories, and the results from Section 18 for modals in non-matrix clauses. The tentative layering obtained in Section 15 was expressed by the numbers 0 to 4, a smaller number indicating a higher layer. The results from interaction with tense, aspect, negation and higher categories are indicated with the following symbols: ⊃ ‘can embed the other category’1, that is, has it in its scope; ⊂ ‘can be embedded by the other category’, that is, falls under its scope; ⊂|⊃ ‘both directions apply’, that is, can both embed the other category, and can be embedded by it; – ‘no interaction’. Finally, layering in the Minami model, based on the interaction within adverbial clauses is indicated with the letters B (low) to D (high). The markers are arranged by semantic domain (modal category), and, within each domain, by width of scope. An asterisk * in the tense (past tense) column with the deontic and boulomaic markers denotes the possibility of embedding is restricted to the counterfactual past. A small circle ° in the stative aspect column shows that embedding is only possible in a resultative reading. Table 48 reveals that the markers from the same modal category do not necessarily have the same scope. In fact, only the dynamic, the boulomaic and the mood markers behave fairly uniformly. With the other modal categories it is impossible (or would be very inaccurate) to assign them to a specific position or layer as a whole. For the purpose of determining the layers, it is therefore necessary to rearrange the modal markers in order of width of scope regardless of the modal domain they belong to. This is done in Table 49. Table 49 rearranges the markers purely in order of their scope properties. That is, markers that exhibit wider scope across all criteria are placed lower in the table irrespective of the modal category they belong to. At the same time, the “interacting” categories have been rearranged according to the scope properties they exhibit in relationship to modality. Among the categories tested against modality, the aspects 1.

See Van Valin & LaPolla (1997: 47; 4.1.1) for the use of this symbol.

 Modality in Japanese

have the narrowest scope followed by internal negation, external negation, tense, nominalization/complementation, and illocutionary force modulation, which has apparently (and, as expected) the widest scope. Nominalization/complementation and internal negation are extremely flexible in being able both to be embedded by, and embed a wide range of modal categories. As suggested in Section 17.1, especially the embedding criterion of nominalized propositions is not very revealing, as all modal markers can do so, with only two easily explained exceptions. Table 48.  Modal markers arranged by modal category and scopal behavior and layerings

⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂

3a 3a 3b 3b 2 2 1 3b 2 2 1 0 0 0

⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃

Layering in adverbial clauses (Minami model) Illocutionary modulation

⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃

Nominalization/ complementation

compl. aspect

4 4 4 3b

tense (past)

stative aspect

external neg

-Eru -(r)areru koto ga dekiru Deontic -(a)nakereba modality naranai -(r)eba ii beki Boulomaic -tai modality -Te hosii Epistemic hazu modality ka mo sirenai daroo Evidential -soo(1) modality yoo -rasii -soo(2) Mood Hortative -(y)oo (Speaker- Imperative I oriented Imperative II modality)

Dynamic modality

internal neg

Marker

Layering with other modals

Category

⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂°|⊃

⊂|⊃ ⊂ ⊂|⊃ ⊂ ⊂|⊃ ⊂ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃*

⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂ ⊂|⊃

⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂

B B B B

⊂ ⊃ ⊃ ⊂|⊃* ⊂ ⊃ ⊃ ⊂|⊃* ⊂ ⊂°|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃* ⊂ ⊂°|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃* ⊂|⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂ ⊂|⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊂|⊃ — ⊂|⊃ ⊃ ⊃ — — ⊃ ⊃ — — ⊃ ⊃

⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃

⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ (⊂) (⊂)

B~C B~C B B B~C B~C C B B~C B~C C C~D D D



Conclusion 

Table 49.  Modal markers arranged by scopal behavior Layering with other modals

stative aspect

compl. aspect

internal neg

external neg

tense

Nominalization/ complementation

Illocutionary modulation

Layering in non-matrix clauses (Minami model)

-Eru -(r)areru koto ga dekiru -soo(1) -tai -Te hosii -(a)nakereba naranai -(r)eba ii beki hazu yoo rasii ka mo sirenai -soo(2) daroo Hortative -(y)oo Imperative I Imperative II

Modal category

Marker

dyn dyn dyn evi bou bou deo deo deo epi evi evi epi evi epi moo moo moo

4 4 4 3b 3b 3b 3b 3a 3a 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 0

⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂°|⊃ ⊂°|⊃ ⊂°|⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃

⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃

⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃

⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂|⊃ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊂|⊃ — —

⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂|⊃* ⊂|⊃* ⊂|⊃* ⊂|⊃* ⊂|⊃* ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊃ — — —

⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃

⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ (⊂) (⊂)

B B B B B B B B~C B~C B~C B~C B~C B~C C B~C C~D D D

Table 49 furthermore demonstrates that it is almost, but not entirely possible to arrange markers across a consistent cline. There are three apparent contradictions within the cline. These are (excluding nominalization/complementation): 1. Evidential -soo(1) is able to embed external negation, a property which is otherwise associated with relatively wide scope markers, especially all other evidentials and epistemics. Most strikingly, it can embed some markers ranked higher than itself in respect of scopal relationships with other categories (cf. Table 26). But at the same time it has typical narrow scope properties that it shares with most dynamic, deontic, and boulomaic markers, such as being taken into the scope of aspect, and not being able to take tense in its scope. It can even be embedded by deontic and boulomaic markers.

 Modality in Japanese

2. Epistemic daroo but not evidential soo(2) appears in conditional clauses (relatively lower scope), but at the same time, in contrast to soo(2), it is not subject to tense marking (relatively high scope). That is, it is impossible to order the two high-level modal markers daroo and soo(2) consistently against each other. 3. Hortative -(y)oo can be embedded in external negation (relatively low scope), unlike two of the modal markers that are ranked lower, while otherwise it has only wide scope properties. Contradictions such as these are a serious challenge to all theories that posit a strict layering. A further problem for some theories is that categories such as aspect, tense, and negation “overlap” with modal categories. Instead of cleanly embedding one type of modality and being embedded in another type of modality, there are stretches on the scope cline where they can both embed the modal markers and be embedded by them. Before discussing these challenges in the following subsections, I wish to draw attention to two issues concerning the results presented in Table 49. First, on the basis of their scope, the 19 markers can be divided into 11 groups. If we ignore nominalization, ten of these groups are internally entirely consistent. In the case of daroo and soo(2), their scope properties are contradictory and it is simply impossible to decide which one should be ranked higher. The inferential evidentials yoo and rasii were placed higher than epistemic necessity hazu because they can take hazu in their scope but not vice versa (this detail is not revealed in Table 48 and Table 49). Likewise, -(a)nakereba naranai can include the boulomaic modals in its scope but not vice versa. Secondly, the position of markers in the scope hierarchy is not a function of their morphological class or degree of grammaticalization. Thus, for instance, rasii, soo(2), beki and daroo have in common that they are morphologically particles which are suffixed to fully inflected verbs, but they nevertheless have fairly distinct scope properties. -Soo(1), -Uru and -tai are highly grammaticalized suffixes, while, for instance, -(a)nakereba naranai and ka mo sirenai are syntactic constructions with considerably more phonological substance and a lower degree of grammaticalization. Nevertheless, the highly grammaticalized suffixes are not consistently ranked higher in the scope hierarchy. As a case in point, -soo(1), the most grammaticalized evidential marker in terms of morphological categories is simultaneously the lowest-ranking evidential marker instead of being the highestranking as one might expect if degree of grammaticalization and scope were correlated across markers and constructions.



Conclusion 

19.2 Relating the results to Role-and-Reference Grammar In the following sections, the results of the data study are discussed in direct relation to the models proposed by RRG, FG and the cartographic approach. The consistency of these theories with the empirical data will also be investigated. Table 50 contrasts the layering in RRG, as represented in Figure 3 and Table 2, with the scope hierarchy of the Japanese modal markers that emerged as a result of the empirical investigation. An attempt was made to match the empirical data as closely as possible to the RRG model. There is a rough overall fit, but the only perfect fit here is between illocutionary force in RRG and mood (speaker-oriented) markers. While in RRG the only layering distinction between modal categories is between root modality at the core level and all other modalities at the clause level, our data reveal that the biggest gap in behavioral properties is between moods (speaker-oriented modality) and all other modals, which seem to form a continuum. For all modal markers other than speaker-oriented ones there is no perfect match in RRG. Epistemics and evidentials definitely do not form separate sublayers as posited in the theory, and the evidentials are not wider in scope; on the contrary, one evidential marker is apparently narrower in scope than the epistemics. The root modals as well do not form a consistent group since there is an evidential marker with the same scope properties as them, and they also exhibit considerable internal differences. Table 50.  Fitting the Japanese data into the RRG model Layer in RRG

Expected modal domain in RRG

sentence clause

(none) Speaker-oriented modality (“Illocutionary Force”) Evidentiality Epistemic modality (“status”)

core

Root modality (“Modality”)

nucleus

(none)

Japanese modal markers moo Imperative I, II moo Hortative evi -soo(2), epi -daroo epi ka mo sirenai evi yoo, -rasii epi hazu deo -beki, -(r)eba ii deo-(a)nakereba naranai vol -tai, -Te hosii evi -soo(1) dyn -(r)areru, koto ga dekiru, -Eru

 Modality in Japanese

If the behavior of every marker in a single layer had to be consistent with respect to each criterion, and in addition were we to further require that each layer must consistently contain markers of the same modal domain, as expected from the RRG model, then we would end up with 13 layers for 19 modal markers. This would clearly be undesirable for the RRG model. 19.3 Relating the results to Functional Grammar Next, Table 51 shows the best possible match between the FG model and the results of our study. Two alternative solutions (A and B) for matching the data with the theory are provided. Again, operators (grammatical categories) are assigned to the level which they qualify. On the face of it, the FG model offers a higher degree of consistency with the data than the RRG model. The moods (speaker-oriented modality) are set apart from other modality through a division in layering. More decisively, no systematic distinction between the scope of evidentials and epistemics is posited in FG, which is closer to the empirical data. Solution A follows Dik (1997a: 296) in having inferential evidentials qualifying the ‘proposition’ layer. Further, ka mo sirenai and hazu are classified as ‘epistemic subjective modality’ together with daroo, while solution B Table 51.  Fitting the Japanese data into the FG model Layer in FG Expected modal domain in FG clause proposition (level 3) extended predication (level 2)

Japanese (solution A)

illocutionary Force

moo Imperative I, II moo Hortative -(y)oo epistemic and volitional epi daroo; evi soo(2) subjective modality, epi ka mo sirenai evidential modality evi rasii, yoo epi hazu core predica- epistemic objective deo -(r)eba ii, beki tion (level 1) modality, root modality deo -(a)nakereba naranai I (deontic objective bou -Te hosii; -tai modality) evi -soo(1)

nuclear predication

root modality II (inherent modality)

predicate

(none)

dyn - (r)areru, koto ga, dekiru, -Eru

Japanese (solution B)

moo Imperative I, II moo Hortative -(y)oo epi daroo; evi soo(2)

epi ka mo sirenai evi rasii, yoo epi hazu deo -(r)eba ii, beki deo -(a)nakereba naranai bou -Te hosii; -tai evi -soo(1) dyn - (r)areru, koto ga, dekiru, -Eru



Conclusion 

classifies them together with root modal markers. A problem here is how to clearly distinguish so-called objective modality from subjective modality.2 If ‘subjective’ is understood in the sense of expressing speaker opinion, which is Dik’s (1997a: 296) point of view, then ka mo sirenai and hazu are certainly subjective and solution A is to be preferred.3 On the other hand, solution B would have to be chosen if interaction with tense is the decisive criterion, because tense qualifies the ‘core predication’ layer (Dik 1997a: 237) and can have ka mo sirenai, hazu, yoo and rasii in its scope. This would lead to placing a large number of evidential and epistemic markers that are usually viewed as ‘subjective’ at the extended predication layer. Overall, therefore, solution A should be preferred.4 The biggest mismatch is perhaps the evidential marker -soo(1) occurring at the same level as the root markers. This could be solved by proposing a small revision to the model: the fact that objective root and epistemic modality, but not evidential modality, are provided for at the extended predication level is probably due to the lack of detailed knowledge of non-Indo-European languages with relatively rich systems of evidential marking. ‘Objective evidential modality’ could be added at this level. The facts that different cut-off points can be chosen, and that two or more solutions to match the empirical data and the modals are possible, illustrate that the behavioral criteria render a continuum without clear breaks. As stated before, the only clear gap in behavior can be found between the moods and modality. Moreover, in all the proposals, behavior with respect to tense and negation crosses the boundaries between putative layers. RRG posits a distinction between internal and external negation, while FG posits the possibility of negation at any layer, but the data confirm neither of these models: contrary to RRG, the formal distinction between internal vs. external negation turns out to be only partially distinctive, and contrary to FG higher-level modals cannot be taken into the scope of negation.

2. It is not clear from the FG definition what criteria could be objectively applied other than scope phenomena themselves. In fact, the distinction between objective and subjective modalities in FG has been inseparable from the scope properties of their markers, the most prominent of which are interaction with tense, negation, and interrogation, and use in conditional clauses (cf. Verstraete 2004: 246–248). 3. Johnson (2003: 60, 105), who defined modality in terms of speaker conviction, even labeled ka mo sirenai as the marker with the highest ‘degree of modality’ among the Japanese epistemics. 4. In part of the research tradition in Japanese linguistics, proposal B might be preferred. Thus, Moriyama draws a line between daroo, hortatives and imperatives on the one hand, and other modal markers on the other (cf. Moriyama 2000: 16f, 77f), while Nitta gives special status to both soo(2) and daroo (cf. Nitta 2000: 87f, 94f). Daroo clearly distinguishes itself from other epistemics by taking them in its scope and not falling under the scope of tense.

 Modality in Japanese

19.4 Relating the results to the cartography of syntactic structures The data presented here are also problematic for Cinque’s (1999; 2006) hierarchy. Cinque posits a rigid hierarchy comparable to that of RRG, but offers more differentiation, exceeding even FG in this respect. In principle, this could fit well with the data in this study which also warrant fine differentiation, and call for at least 11 positions for modality in a hierarchy of grammatical categories. In a cross-linguistic study, most likely other positions would have to be added that cannot be covered by, or do not correspond to, categories morphosyntactically realized in Japanese. However, Japanese itself may even have more categories and positions than suggested here, as some modal markers could not be tested in this study for lack of frequent occurrence in the corpus material. The modal categories tested in this study may be presented in a tree diagram as in Figure 20. Intermediate categories are categorically ignored in this figure. Therefore, unlike in Figure 12, all connections are indicated by straight lines. In order to produce a hierarchy where one type of modality occurs in exactly one position, a decision had to be made. Daroo (epistemic I) was placed above soo(2) (reportive) because interaction with tense (daroo does not fall in the scope of tense) was valued higher than use in conditional clauses (soo(2) cannot be used MoodPspeech act I (imperative) MoodPspeech act II (hortative) ModPepistemic I (speculative) ModPevidential I (reportive) ModPepistemic II (epistemic possibility) ModPevidential II (inferential evidentiality) ModPepistemic III (epistemic necessity) ModPdeontic I (weak deontic necessity) ModPdeontic II (strong deontic necessity) ModPvolition ModPevidential III (predictive) ModProot possibility

Figure 20.  Hierarchy of clausal functional projections in Japanese (modality only)



Conclusion 

in conditional clauses). Also, occurrence in subordinate clauses is not a criterion used by Cinque and may be regarded as irrelevant in the theory. Note that daroo probably needs two positions in a hierarchy, one as the speculative marker, and one as an illocutionary force modulating marker. However, the latter function was not systematically tested for in this study and is therefore not included. There are four big challenges for Cinque’s theory if the Japanese data are to be integrated. The first is that the number and kind of categories in Japanese are different from what is offered in Cinque (1999, 2006). I believe that this challenge can be met by simply increasing the types and numbers of positions in the universal hierarchy. There are currently 35 to 40 that are considered, and in-depth studies of individual non-European languages may necessitate a doubling of this number (numerous positions for negation are already not included in Cinque’s hierarchies). Note that there are, for example, languages which have much more complex evidential systems than Japanese, and Cinque (1999, 2006) only has one position for evidentiality so far. The second challenge is the mismatch between theory and data with respect to those categories that both appear in Cinque’s hierarchies and the Japanese data. First, there is the mismatch in the placement of epistemic and evidential categories. Cinque (1999, 2006) has one evidential position, which is ranked higher than all modal positions. In the Japanese data, there are three evidential positions, and all of them have epistemics ranking higher than, or at least as high as them. Second, according to Cinque (1999, 2006), volition modal markers should be ranked higher than deontic markers (cf. Figure 12), but the Japanese data show the reverse. Again, the only conceivable remedy is a proliferation of modal categories, increasing the number of slots (positions) for deontic and boulomaic modal categories. The third and biggest challenge to syntactic cartography are the large areas of “overlap” between modal markers and other categories, namely, tense, aspect, negation and nominalization/complementation, that is the large number of markers which can both have these categories in their scope and be taken in their scope. With the exception of negation, syntactic cartography posits that in these cases the modal markers must be multifunctional, and that they are in the scope of the other category in one function and embed it in a different function. This does not apply to the Japanese data. Those cases in which one marker has two or more meanings or functions have already been dealt with and have been reflected in the analysis. By way of further illustration, the examples below demonstrate stative aspect in the scope of the potential marker on the one hand (239), and taking the potential marker in its scope on the other (240); and past tense embedded in the reportive evidential in on the one hand (241), and marking the reportive evidential on the other (242).

 Modality in Japanese

(239)

Tome.ru mono=dake=ga ansin~si.te kurasi.te i-rare.ru. be.rich-nps person-lim-nom safety-do-ger live-ger be-pot-nps Mazusi.i mono=wa zibun=no inoti=o sasae.ru=dake=de poor-nps person-top self-gen life-acc support-nps-lim-adv siku hakku~si-na.kute=wa nar-ana.i. four.sufferings eight.sufferings-do-neg-ger-top become-neg-nps ‘Only rich people can live free from care [these days]. The poor have to endure suffering just in order to sustain their lives.’ (Tatsuzō Ishikawa: Seishun no Satetsu, 1968)

(240)

58-kyuu=de maundo=o ori.ta. I.i kanzi=de 58-ball-adv mound-acc step.down-pst good-nps feeling-adv nage-rare.te i.ta=no=de zannen=des.u. (Mainichi Newspaper 4/2003) pitch-ger be-pst-cal regret-cop-nps ‘I left the mound after throwing 58 pitches. As I was being able to pitch feeling pretty good, it’s a disappointment.’

(241)

Okusan=to issyo=de na.i=to, keiyakusyo=ni wife-com together-essn not.be-nps-con contract-loc sain~si-na.i=soo=de gozaimasi.ta. (Spoken; monologue) sign-do-neg-nps-evi-ess be(pol)-pst ‘(It was said that) he wouldn’t sign the contract if not together with his wife.’

(242)

Ziko=no yoku-asa, aitu=wa ore-tati=no ie=made accident-gen next-morning that.guy-top 1s-plu-gen house-lim it.ta=soo=da. (Keigo Higashino: Tomo no Jogen, 1999) go-pst-evi-cop(-nps) ‘On the next morning after the accident, that guy allegedly came to our house.’

There are no semantic differences between -Te i.ru (progressive) and -(r)are.ru (potential) in both Examples (239) and (240), and between past -Ta and the hearsay evidential soo(2) in both Examples (241) and (242). In order to accommodate this “overlap” between modality, tense, and aspect, and negation we would have to increase the number of positions for these categories in the same way that negation occupies numerous positions in the hierarchy. If we confine ourselves only to the modal categories in this study, the addition of those positions would result in the hierarchy in (243), which is presented in a linear fashion because the 30 positions that it contains are technically too many to be presented in a tree diagram.



Conclusion 

(243) MoodPspeech act I (imperative) > MoodPspeech act II (hortative) > ModPepistemic I (speculative) > TPpast I > ModPevidential I (reportive) > TPpast II > ModPepistemic II (epistemic possibility) > TPpast III > NegPIntNegI > ModPevidential II (inferential evidentiality) > TPpast IV > NegPIntNegII > ModPepistemic III (epistemic necessity) > TPpast V > NegPIntNegIII > ModPdeontic I (weak deontic necessity) > TPpast VI > NegPIntNegIV > AspPresult./compl. I > ModPdeontic II (strong deontic necessity) > TPpast V > NegPIntNegV > AspPresult./compl. III > ModPvolition > TPpast VIII > NegPIntNegVI > AspPresult./ compl. IV > ModPevidential III (future-oriented) > NegPIntNegVII > AspPresult./progress./ compl. II > ModProot possibility I > NegPIntNegVIII > AspP result./progress./compl. V This hierarchy is still simplified because it gives only one position to all the types of aspect that in fact did not reveal any differences with respect to modality (in contrast, the differentiation between resultative and progressive readings of the stative aspect is reflected in this hierarchy). Furthermore, in the case of embedded tense, it could also be argued that we are not dealing with past tense but with anterior tense, which also has a place in Cinque’s hierarchy (2001: 47). This would lead potentially to an increase of past tense positions, providing one position for cases of past tense embedding some category, and another one (anterior) for past tense being embedded. Another problem with past tense is whether to label the counterfactual past differently. Again, this would not lead to simplification but instead to more complexity. Further, this hierarchy does not include external negation, the introduction of which would lead to contradictions with the positions of tense, aspect and -soo(1). Nominalization is also not included because it is not part of Cinque’s cartography. If it were integrated it would lead to the introduction of numerous additional positions. Lastly, the hierarchy does not explain why certain categories cannot occur in the scope of others although they are lower in the hierarchy. This is the case, for example, with speech act mood and past tense. Past tense can never be embedded in speech act mood although it is lower in the hierarchy. Although I assume the assumption that this problem is to be solved by the introduction of additional rules to interpret the hierarchy, the question is whether this fact should not be reflected in the hierarchy itself. In conclusion, in order to salvage the syntactic cartography hierarchy, two measures would have to be taken. First, the number of positions for modal categories would have to be significantly increased. Secondly, basic tense and aspect categories would have to be assigned multiple positions in the hierarchy in parallel to negation. These two measures would lead to a considerable proliferation of positions but are probably unavoidable. However, even these measures would not be enough to solve a number of the problems with the hierarchy, namely anomalies

 Modality in Japanese

in which lower ranked categories with respect to some criteria behave like higherranking categories and vice versa. 19.5 Problems and solutions The Japanese modality data have presented us with a number of problems for any theory of universal layering or category hierarchies. The most fundamental problems are that 1. Contrary to what is expected from “layering” theories such as FG or RRG, there are no clear cut-off points between “layers” or “levels” (or “shells”, in generative terms). Instead, the markers and their behavior form a continuum (see Table 49). 2a. Contrary to what is expected from syntactic cartography, markers and categories cannot be neatly arranged in a scopal hierarchy. Instead, contradictory behavior is observed with respect to different parameters. In many, if not most, cases the contradictory behavior cannot be adduced from different meanings/ functions of the markers and categories in question. 2b. Furthermore, there is an “areal” overlap between modality on the one hand and tense, aspect and negation on the other. That is, instead of clean scopal relationships, there are whole stretches on the hierarchical cline of modal markers where modal markers can both embed another category, and be embedded by it. 3. Higher categories often cannot embed some lower-ranking categories. In this section, I will offer a preliminary solution to these problems. At the very least, I wish to point out the direction in which, in my view, solutions ought to proceed. With respect to problem 1), it is obvious from the data that the idea of layers with clearly discernible cut-off points cannot be upheld. I am not the first to point this out. Goossens (1996) came to a similar conclusion when he investigated the semantic properties of English modals and their interaction with tense in relation to the FG model: Rigid layering and scope hierarchies do not account for the actual language facts: “[T]here is no clear demarcation between tense marking … and subjective epistemic operators …. Without trying to come up with a ‘final’ solution to this problem, I would like to emphasize that this minimally requires a view of layering where layers are not separated sharply” (Goossens 1996:  48f). Summing up the problems of a layering model he concluded, ‘[i]t follows that a rigorous division into different layers will have to make room for a more flexible layering approach’ (Goossens 1996: 50).



Conclusion 

This is not to deny the possibility that a specific area of grammar (e.g. adverbial clauses) in a specific language can be described in terms of a contradictionfree layering, especially if the area is relatively low in complexity. Nevertheless, in general, and if the interplay of multiple and complex categories is involved, it is much more likely that a continuum or cline will emerge from any in-depth description. If “layers” or “levels” are to be upheld in grammatical theory, this can only be done on the basis of an understanding that these are only convenient metaphors that help to visualize the approximate structure of clauses, and that they do not exactly the reality of language. Syntactic cartography (which has problems 2) and 3)) comes closer to our findings in that they do not posit strict layers or shells but instead offer a continuum of finely distinguished categories. However, its contradictions with empirical language data are just as large, if not larger, since it faces problem 2b), which is not a distinct problem for layering theories with no clear scope hierarchy for categories within one layer. In order to resolve a good part of the contradictions in the modal cline of Table 49, I suggest rethinking the practice of placing epistemic and evidential (i.e., non-volitive) modalities, and speech-act deontic and boulomaic (i.e., volitive) modalities on the same cline. Volitive and non-volitive sentences are cognitively and pragmatically different, that is, deontic and boulomaic modalities have properties fundamentally different from epistemic and evidential modalities. The types of propositions they can embed are different, and placing them on the same cline or hierarchy leads to contradictions. Before and beyond considerations of scope and layering, volitive modality imposed on epistemically marked clauses is simply pragmatically infelicitous. Take for instance the following sentence with an epistemic modal: (244) You might be a caffeine addict. Consider the same sentence with an obligation imposed, or put into the imperative: (245) *You must might be a caffeine addict. (246) *Might be a caffeine addict! These sentences are impossible because imposing an obligation on an epistemic judgment is pragmatically impossible. This is independent of layering since in all models imperatives are ranked higher than epistemic modals such as might. It is impossible to conclude from (245) that deontic must is not ranked higher than epistemic might, because one cannot conclude from (246) that the imperative is not ranked higher than the epistemic modal.

 Modality in Japanese

The same holds for tense. The following sentences with tense in the scope of the deontic/speech-act modality are ungrammatical. (247) *You must were (#have been) a caffeine addict. (248) *Was a caffeine addict! (248) illustrates that speech-act modality (moods) such as the imperative cannot embed past tense although it ranks higher. Accordingly, one can also not conclude from (247) that deontic must does not rank higher than past tense. Constraints on commands, which have nothing to do with layering per se, are well-known in the general semantic literature. These constraints van be formulated as follows: (250) “[V]erbs which denote actions that are not potentially under the control of the subject are highly dispreferred in imperatives…The commands … are formed of verbs that denote nonvolitional events. Therefore, the will to carry out such an act is pragmatically odd” (Whaley 1997: 237). Past events and epistemic evaluations are states that are not under the control of the subject and can therefore not be embedded in commands and volitive modality in general (unless the past is counterfactual (cf. 16.5)). Volitive modality is always future-bound (cf. Bybee et al. 1994: 185; Enç 1996: 353; Ziegeler 2006: 215–216). The data on what modal markers can embed are therefore inconclusive with categories such as epistemic and evidential modality, tense, and external negation, which is also a type of epistemic judgment. As a rule, then, empirical data on volitive modality only give us a clear insight on the lowest position in which they can be used (through embedding in other categories) but not on the highest possible position of use. As a result, in hierarchies such as Cinque (1999, 2006) there is a huge gap between lowly-ranked deontic ModPobligation on the one hand and MoodPspeech act on the other. The same is true for deontic modality and speech-act modality (mood) in FG and RRG. It is highly doubtful that this is cognitively and pragmatically realistic. Instead, performative uses of a deontic modals such as must directly border on speech-act modalities (moods) such as imperatives. Compare the following two sentences. (251) You must leave right now! (252) Leave right now! There is hardly any semantic or pragmatic difference between must used performatively with the second person subject and the imperative. In its performative use, must cannot be embedded in epistemic modality. That is, its “upper range” of



Conclusion 

usage borders directly on speech-act modality. It simply has a wider range of use, from low (descriptive) to high (performative) than most epistemic modals, which are confined to a high level. However, layerings usually only take into account the lower bounds of usage. Therefore, layerings and hierarchies that place deontic modality far below epistemic modality and speech-act modality on the basis of descriptive use are basically biased towards reflecting descriptive use. The same applies to boulomaic modality. -tai and -Te hosii, if used performatively, are undeniably close to speech-act moods. Consider Example (253). (253) Iki-ta.i! go-bou-nps ‘I want to go!’ As has frequently been observed, the performative use of -tai is limited to the first person. The use of a pronoun indicating the first person subject is superfluous unless there is a contrast. This is parallel to the imperative mood, e.g. Ik.e! ‘go!’ or the hortative mood, e.g. ik.oo! ‘Let’s go!’. A model that reflects the divergent properties of volitive and non-volitive modalities has already been presented in Narrog (2005b; 2007; Chapter 2 of this book)) and is repeated here in Figure 21. Two parallel layerings for volitive and non-volitive modality are posited. In the case of volitive modality, most markers cover a wide stretch from low-level descriptive use to high-level performative use. Non-volitive (epistemic, evidential and dynamic) markers are usually more constrained in their range of use. In

speakeroriented

deontic, boulomaic

epistemic /evidential

eventoriented

(dynamic)

(dynamic)

volitive

non-volitive

Figure 21.  Dimensions of modality and subcategories

 Modality in Japanese

contrast to volitive modal markers, their range of use can be pinned down more exactly because they are not pragmatically limited with respect to the type of proposition they embed. The separation of layerings for volitive and non-volitive modalities also resolves all the contradictions contained in Table 49 with the exception of one. This is shown in Table 52 and Table 53. In Table 52, the volitive (deontic and boulomaic, and speech act (mood)) modal markers line up entirely without contradiction. Dynamic modality would fit harmonically into both the volitive and the nonvolitive cline, but due to its semantically non-volitive nature, it is included in the non-volitive table. In Table 53, one contradiction remains, namely that between evidential soo(2) and epistemic daroo. One possible solution would be to split the hierarchies for epistemic clauses and evidential modal markers just as we split the hierarchy between volitive modal markers and non-volitive modal markers in general. Given that the cognitive and pragmatic differences between epistemic and evidential modality are otherwise small, at least in Japanese, this is not a desirable solution. Instead, we must assume that they operate at the same level. A full picture of the interaction of modality with the central verbal categories, tense, aspect, and (internal) negation now emerges. Dynamic modality is at the same level as stative and completive aspect. Boulomaic and deontic modality stretch from as low as aspect to speech-act function (mood). In most if not all layerings and functional hierarchies, it is only their low-level descriptive use which is reflected in their position, not their performative uses. As I have argued, they cover a longer stretch on the hierarchy than most epistemic, evidential or dynamic markers. The epistemic and evidential markers covered in this investigation are limited to a relatively high position. As in English, there are ‘it is possible that…’type of low-ranking epistemic constructions in Japanese that were not included in the data in this study. Presumably they would be located lower than the epistemic markers tested. Modality with its subcategories border on mood and illocutionary force. Hortative mood -(y)oo had boulomaic uses that were excluded from this study. Also, epistemic daroo has an illocutionary force modulation use. In both cases, there is a synchronic and diachronic continuum from modality into mood and illocutionary force modulation. Illocutionary force modulation cannot be ranked unquestionably higher than mood, because, as was seen in the data, mood constrains the use of illocutionary force markers. Lastly, we are not forced to decide whether soo(2) is ranked higher than daroo, or vice versa, because we are allowed to assume that there are evidential and epistemic markers at the same level. The detailed behavior of daroo (no embedding in tense but embedding in concessive and conditional clauses) may be explained diachronically. Daroo cannot take tense marking because its historical component



Conclusion 

-(y)oo is an inflection in paradigmatic relationship with tense markers. Likewise, the concessive constructions with to and ni can also be put down to diachronic inheritance from -(y)oo, which was (and is) used in these constructions. The results are represented differently in Figure 22 and Figure 23, where the range of scope that each category has at its disposal is displayed. Categories located on the right of the cline have wider scope than categories on the left. An overlap on the cline signals that a category can both embed and be embedded by the other category. For example, the overlap between stative and completive aspect with boulomaic modality and deontic modality indicates that stative and completive aspect in Japanese can both embed these categories and can be embedded by them. Deontic modality, on the other hand, can only embed boulomaic modality, and not vice versa. Therefore, there is no overlap between these categories. Note that the layering displayed here is only valid for interaction of modal categories with each other and with non-modal categories. It is not valid for scopal relationships between non-modal categories, e.g. negation with tense, which were not investigated in this study. If they were to be included as well, the picture would become considerably more complicated. Also, both in Figure 22 and in Figure 23, not every category to the right actually includes every category to its left in its scope. Imperatives, for example (Figure 22), as a rule, never embed another modal category, and epistemic daroo (Figure 23) never embeds evidential soo(2). The mutual ordering between these categories is based on the relationship to other categories in the table. Table 52.  Volitive modal markers arranged by scopal behavior tense

⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃

⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂|⊃ — —

⊂|⊃* ⊂|⊃* ⊂|⊃* ⊂|⊃* ⊂|⊃* — — —

⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃

⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ (⊂) (⊂)

Layering in non-matrix clauses (Minami model)

ext neg

⊂°|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂°|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂°|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃

Illocutionary modulation Nominalization/ complementation

int neg

3b 3b 3b 3a 3a 0 0 0

compl. aspect

bou bou deo deo deo moo moo moo

stative aspect

-tai -Te hosii -(a)nakereba naranai -(r)eba ii beki Hortative -(y)oo Imperative I Imperative II

Layering with other modals

Marker

B B B B~C B~C C~D D D

 Modality in Japanese

Table 53.  Non-volitive modal markers arranged by scopal behavior compl. aspect

int neg

ext neg

tense

Nominalization/ complementation

Illocutionary modulation

Layering in non-matrix clauses (Minami model)

dyn dyn dyn evi epi evi evi epi evi epi

stative aspect

-Eru -(r)areru koto ga dekiru -soo(1) hazu yoo rasii ka mo sirenai soo(2) daroo

Layering with other modals

Marker

4 4 4 3b 2 2 2 2 1 1

⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃

⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃

⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊃ ⊃ ⊃

⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊃ ⊃

⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊃

⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃ ⊂|⊃

⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂ ⊂

B B B B B~C B~C B~C B~C C B~C

A fact that visually stands out in this type or representation is that the non-modal categories, aspect, tense and negation, cover relatively wide stretches while the scope range of the modal categories is relatively narrowly defined. This is particularly true for non-volitive (dynamic, epistemic, and evidential) modality. BOU DEO1 (-(a)nakereba ...) COMP./STAT. ASP DEO2 (-(r)eba ii, beki) INTNEG NEG INT TENSE EXT NEG HORTATIVE IMPERATIVE ILL MOD

Figure 22.  Layering of volitive modalities and other categories



Conclusion 

DYN COMP ./STAT. ASP EVI 1 (-soo(1)) EPI 1 (hazu) EVI2 (yoo, rasii)

INT NEG EPI2 (kamo sirenai) EXT NEG

EVI3 (soo (2)) TENSE

EPI3 (daroo)

ILL MOD

Figure 23.  Layering of non-volitive modalities and other categories

19.6 Rethinking layering and hierarchies of functional categories This study has shown that various subtypes of modality all lie on a continuous cline with respect to scopal behavior, the individual markers of different modal domains intermingling with each other. The scope hierarchies found in this study on Japanese therefore did not reveal a clear hierarchical ordering between modal categories as a whole, as Layered-Structure-of-clause models demand. The inevitable conclusion is that although a layering model may be useful as an ad hoc explanation for phenomena such as the scopal behavior of functional categories and clause linkage, it is ultimately a fictional construct, especially if it is to be understood as a universally valid model in which layers have clear cut-off points and distinct behavioral properties. If layered-structure-of-clause models are to be maintained, they can at best be understood as idealizations, or rough approximations to actual language data. The same holds for hierarchies of functional categories, such as those proposed by Cinque (1999, 2006). The present study has shown large stretches of overlap between categories, not only negation, which has already been assigned multiple slots by Cinque. It has also shown the existence of categories that are not been included in Cinque’s hierarchy, and hints at the existence of many more positions in languages which have, for example, elaborate evidential systems. In order to account for the overlap and the increase in categories, a vast proliferation of categories is needed, calling into question the psychological reality of the existence of the same universal hierarchy of categories in every sentence of any language of the world. In addition, contradictions in the scopal behavior between individual

 Modality in Japanese

markers of the kind that otherwise wide-scope category A displays relatively narrow scope with respect to category X while otherwise narrow scope category B displays relatively wide scope with respect to X, will have to be resolved. Furthermore, the Japanese data have shown that a better match between language data and hierarchies is achieved if volitive and non-volitive modalities are ranked separately. The distinction between volitive and non-volitive corresponds to the fundamental distinction between constative and performative utterances introduced by Austin (1962) (performative utterances with deontic modal marking are ‘implicitly’ performative utterances). The former have a truth value while the latter are felicitous or not, that is, they are used under different pragmatic conditions, and arguably should not be mixed. Deontic modal categories often offer the possibility of descriptive use and therefore have a larger range of uses from descriptive to performative. In contrast, many epistemic modal categories have no descriptive use. Present hierarchies, both formal and functional, are biased to reflect the descriptive uses in constative utterances, that is, the lower border of the range of usage. This is one factor that leads to a low ranking of deontic modal categories. Also, as pointed out in the previous section, the relevance of the inability of volitive (deontic etc.) modalities to embed certain other categories needs to be reevaluated. Further, this study suggests that epistemic modality and evidentiality basically operate at the same level, and that considerable variation between individual modal meanings and markers is possible. The existence of ‘intra-propositional’ evidentiality has already been pointed out by McCready & Ogata (2006). Also, equal ranking of epistemic modality and evidentiality is in accord with the empirical data in Nuyts’ (2004) study, in contrast to his conclusion that evidentiality ranks higher than epistemic modality. This conclusion seems to be theoretically forced. Another important question pertains to universality, that is, whether the makeup of scope hierarchies is really universal, or to some extent also language-specific, allowing for cross-linguistic variation. It is well-known that there is wide variation with respect to which functional categories are grammaticalized in a particular language, and which not. Scopal properties between these categories may also differ to a certain extent. If that is the case, scope hierarchies can be conceived to reflect tendencies (or non-absolute universals), such as are standard in linguistic typology (cf. Comrie 1989: 19–23, Dryer 1997). However, this question cannot be answered on the basis of this study alone. More systematic and detailed empirical studies in specific languages such as that presented here are needed in order to shed light on the cross-linguistic differences and commonalities of scope properties between modal domains, and ultimately on scope hierarchies in general.

part v

Collocations Although the study in Part IV was based on language use data, its purpose was mainly qualitative and not quantitative. The quantitative aspects of the data have therefore been largely underused. The final part of this volume, consisting of just one chapter, is intended to make some amends for this neglect by presenting and discussing, although rather briefly, the most frequent collocations in the area of modality. These may be divided into three categories, namely, (a) by relevance for modal categories (20.1), (b) by mutual relevance (20.2), and (c) by absolute number (20.3). In each category the five most frequent collocations are presented. In corpus studies (e.g. Biber et al. 1998), normalized frequencies that reveal relevance are usually preferred over raw counts. However, raw frequencies were also added at the end, as they may show something about how far entrenched a collocation is in the minds of the speakers/writers of a specific language. As this chapter will show, the results of the three measures diverge and thus complement each other. Finally, I believe that at least some of the quantitative tendencies shown here are not language-specific for Japanese but reflect cognitive and pragmatic tendencies that hold across many languages. Whether this assumption is correct will have to be proven by corpus studies in other languages. I do not claim at all, however, that the results presented here are representative for languages in general. To start with, some categories could not be included that might be highly relevant for other languages. Present or future tense, for example, were not part of the study because they are unmarked in Modern Japanese. Conversely, other categories that are highly relevant for Japanese might be less relevant in other languages, e.g. nominalizations and evidentiality.

Collocations 20.1 By relevance to modality The measure employed here is the same as the one employed in the presentation of data in Part IV, namely, the frequencies of the modal markers and constructions are normalized to 10,000 while those of the interacting categories are not normalized. This simple measure shows how relatively relevant an interacting (co-occurring) category is to each modal marker or construction. The most frequent collocation concerns dynamic modality and negation, namely -(r)areru + internal negation with 5,387 co-occurrences out of 10,000 occurrences of -(r)areru. Koto ga dekiru co-occurs 3,666 times with internal negation and -Eru 3,356 times, thus providing evidence for highly frequent co-occurrence across all markers. (254) is an example of -(r)areru with internal negation. (254) “Syooziki=ni it.te zikkan=to si.te sinzi-rare-mas-en=ne.“ honest-adv say-ger real.feeling-sta do-ger believe-pot-pol-neg-ill ‘To be honest, I can’t believe this is real.’ (Sakyō Komatsu: Nippon Chinbotsu, 1973) Apparently there is a strong communicative need to refer to things that are not possible, just as much or even more than to refer to things that are possible. This contrasts with the comparatively low need to refer to things that are not necessary. Recall that expression for negated necessity is rare in Japanese (cf. Table 15 section 14.1; Table 32). Another remarkable fact about negated possibility is that there are specific verbs which particularly often combine with negated possibility. Thus sinzi-rare-na.i ‘[I] can’t believe’ of ex. (255) is found 852 times in the corpus, and kangae-rare-na.i ‘[I] can’t imagine’ even 1,136 times, that is, together they account for almost 10 per cent of all occurrences of the potential -(r)areru. The second most frequent collocation concerns past tense with evidential marking. The indirect inferential evidential rasii embeds a past proposition 4,808 times, followed by the reportive soo(2), which embeds a past proposition 4,212

 Modality in Japanese

times and yoo, which embeds a past proposition 3,923 times out of a normalized 10,000 occurrences. (255) is an example for rasii with past tense. (255) “Sono hito, koros.u=no=ga tanosi-kat.ta=rasi.i=zyan.” dem person kill-nps-nmz-nom pleasant-vrb-pst-evi-nps-ill ‘Allegedly, that guy enjoyed killing.’(Mainichi Newspaper 3/1998) It is easy to think of cognitive and pragmatic motivations as giving evidence for past events, rather than future events that have not yet taken place. This reminds one of the fact that cross-linguistically in many languages evidential markers are either etymologically related to past or perfect markers, or their use is confined to past (sometimes present, but not future) situations (cf. Slobin & Aksu 1982, Sun 1993, De Haan 2001). The third most frequent collocation was the ‘recommendation’ -(r)eba ii with the nominalizing no (da), which occurred 3,089 times for 10,000 instances of -(r) eba ii. Cf. ex. (256). (256)

Soko=kara tobi~ori.te, nagas-are-tya.eba there-abl fly-descend-ger float-pas-cpv-con i.i-n=da=wa. (Takeshi Koha: Sophia, 1999) good-nps-nmz-cop(-nps)-ill ‘We just need to jump down there and drift with the current.’

This is again a pragmatically motivated collocation. By adding the nominalizer no da to the recommendation the speaker adds an element of factivity and thus of emphasis or insistence to his or her recommendation. It is hard to think of parallels for this construction in languages such as English. Fourthly, evidential markers frequently embedded in their scope propositions imperfectivized with -Te iru. 10,000 instances of yoo embedded 2,583, 10,000 instances of rasii 2,447, and 10,000 instances of soo(2) embedded 1,458 imperfectivized propositions, as in ex. (257) with -Te iru and yoo. (257)

“Kinu-san=mo kuroo~si.te i.ru yoo=da=na. Onna (name)-toa-foc hardship-do-ger be-nps evi-cop(-nps)-ill woman hitori=zya[de=wa] taihen=daroo.“ (Akiyuki Nosaka: Shōdosō, 1972) one- ess-top tough-epi ‘“It looks like Kinu is also suffering a lot. It must be tough for a woman [living] alone.”’

This collocation is closely related to the embedding of past-marked events by evidential markers, since -Te iru, like past -Ta, stands in paradigmatic contrast to non-past -(r)u.



Collocations 

Table 54.  Most frequent collocations by relevance to modality rank 1 2 3 4 5

Pattern dyn+neg pst+evi deo+nmz prg+evi dyn+pst

Instance A -(r)areru +neg pst+ rasii -(r)eba ii + no(da) prg+yoo koto ga dekiru + pst

f 5387 4808 3089 2583 2441

Instance B

f

Instance C

f

koto ga dekiru + neg 3666 -Eru + neg 3356 pst+ soo(2) 4212 pst+yoo 3923 prg+rasii -(r)areru +pst

2447 prg+soo(2) 1458 1689 -Uru +pst 1379

Lastly, the fifth most common collocation concerned dynamic modality marked by past tense. This was the case with 2,441 out of 10,000 instances of koto ga dekiru. The frequencies for the other dynamic markers were for reasons that remain unclear, lower, with 1,689 for -(r)areru and 1,379 for -Uru. Ex. (258) shows koto ga dekiru with past tense. (258)

Yooyaku me=to me=o mi~kawas.u koto=ga deki.ta finally eye-com eye-acc see-exchange-nps thing-nom be.possible-pst toki=wa uresi-kat.ta. time-top happy-vrb-pst ‘When I finally was able to exchange glances with [her], I was happy.’ (Yuki Miyabe: Tōkyō Shitamachi Satsujinboshoku, 1990)

Dynamic markers and constructions embedded in the past tense usually present an event that was realized in the past overcoming some difficulty or involving some effort. The necessity to express such a state-of-affairs appears to be much higher than the need to express a past obligation, a past wish, or a past epistemic or evidential judgment. Table 54 summarizes the collocations presented in this section. 20.2 By mutual relevance In this section, the numbers for modal markers and their interacting categories are both normalized to 10,000, thus revealing relevance of the collocation not only to the modal marker but also to the interacting category. Among the three simple measures employed here, this one is closest to what is labeled as a ‘collocation’ in corpus linguistics.

 Modality in Japanese

The most frequent collocation concerns modal markers with concessive markers namely the ‘recommendation’ -(r)eba ii and the epistemic hazu with no ni, at a normalized frequency of 572 and 472, respectively. Ex. (259) shows -(r)eba ii with no ni: (259)

Isi=ni tyokusetu kik.eba i.i=no=ni, sore=mo doctor-dat directly ask-con good-nps-nmz-cnc that-foc kowa.kute deki-na.i. (Mainichi Newspaper 4/2003) frightening-ger be.possible-neg-nps ‘I should ask a doctor straight, but I’m too afraid to.’

This combination has become so entrenched colloquially that the consequent of the concessive is omitted in all but 12 out of 281 raw occurrences of this pattern in my corpus, thus leading to elliptic sentences such as ex. (260) (cf. also Section 11.2.2). (260) “Motto haya.ku k.ureba yo-kat.ta=no=ni.” more early-adv come-con good-vrb-pst-nmz-cnc ‘You should have come earlier, [but you didn’t].’ (Jun Ishikawa: Marusu no Uta, 1938) The second most frequent type of collocation was with -(r)eba ii and the illocutionary modulation construction de wa nai (ka) at n=442, as in ex. (261). (261)

...atumat.te ki.ta rentyuu=ni minna=ni tyokusetu tutae.reba come.together-ger come-pst fellows-dat all-dat directly tell-con i.i=zya na.i=ka! good-nps-[ess-top] not.be-nps-que ‘Why don’t you tell it directly to the people who’ve assembled [here]?’ (Sakyō Komatsu: Kyomu Kairō, 1986)

De wa nai (ka) (colloquially zya nai (ka)) adds a sense of insistence and strong appeal to the hearer (cf. Miyazaki 2002c: 207; NKBK 2003: 40, 182). This harmonizes with the ‘recommendation’ -(r)eba ii, which is a hearer-oriented expression as well. Overall, it is remarkable that -(r)eba ii shows up in so many of the most frequent collocations. I assume that this is related to the fact -(r)eba ii is a strongly colloquial expression. Actual language use to a large degree takes place in prefabricated chunks, and this tendency is even stronger in spoken language than in written communication, where language users (writers) have time to process language more analytically (cf. Erman & Warren 2000: 37; Ellis 2002: 156).



Collocations 

The third most frequent collocation is similar to the second in containing de wa nai (ka), but this time added to the hortative -(y)oo, as in (262) (frequency n=275): (262)

Moo saigo=na=n=da. Zibun-tati=no basuke=o already last-adn-nmz-cop(-nps) self-plu-gen basketball-acc yar.oo=zya na.i=ka. (Mainichi Newspaper 2/1998) do-hor-[ess-top] not.be-neg-que ‘This is our last [chance]. Why don’t we just play our own basketball?’

This again, is a highly colloquial expression that appears in newspaper text here but only as a quotation. As already noted below in ex. (261), de wa nai (ka) denotes insistence and a strong appeal to the hearer. It follows the hortative which itself is an appeal to the hearer to do something. The hortative and the illocutionary force modulator thus harmonize very well with each other. The fourth most frequent collocation was the plain imperative with yo (n=319), as in (263): (263)

“Maa, otituk.e=yo, Miki-kun!“ Kitaoka=ga odayaka=ni (interjection) calm.down-imp-ill (name)-toa (name)-nom gentle-adv it.ta. (Jirō Akagawa: Onna Shachō ni Kanpai, 1982) say-pst ‘“Just calm down, Miki”, said Kitaoka gently.’

The naked imperative otituke ‘calmdown’ alone would be rude and direct, and the particle yo is habitually used to tone down the imperative and mitigate it. Finally, the fifth most frequent collocation has already appeared in the previous section, as it concerns an evidential marker embedding a past proposition (past + rasii at n=216). Table 55 gives an overview of the collocations mentioned in this section. It only has two columns because none of the patterns has more than two particularly frequent instantiations. Table 55.  Most frequent collocations by mutual relevance rank Pattern

Instance A

1 2 3 4 5

-(r)eba ii + no ni -(r)eba ii + de wa nai ka -(y)oo + de wa nai ka Imperative I + yo pst+ rasii

mod+cnc deo+ill moo+ill moo+ill pst+evi

f 572 442 343 319 216

Instance B hazu+ (na-)no ni -(r)eba ii + no de wa nai ka – Imperative II + yo –

f 472 151 – 156 –

 Modality in Japanese

20.3 By raw frequencies Two out of the five most frequent collocation in terms of absolute numbers have already appeared in the two preceding sections, namely (1) dynamic modal marker and negation (-(r)areru + internal negation at n=11,173; koto ga dekiru +internal negation at n=7,723); and (3) past tense plus evidential marking (past plus yoo at n=7,214; past plus rasii at n=4,996). Three are new. The second most frequent collocation was with the epistemic (speculative) daroo embedding a proposition nominalized with no (da) (n=11,026), as in (264). (264)

Nan=da, ima=no oto=wa? — Kikoe-na-kat.ta — what-cop-(nps) now-gen noise-top hear-neg-vrb-pst Tabun sora-mimi=dat.ta=no=daroo. (Kōbō Abe: Suna no Onna, 1962) probably empty-ear-cop-pst-nmz-epi ‘“What was that noise?” – “I didn’t hear it.” – “Probably I just misheard.”’

The nominalizing no da intervening between the proposition and daroo frequently refers to a reason, that is, the speaker/writer is speculating about the reason of an (often past) event. Epistemic daroo is also involved in the fourth and fifth ‘absolutely’ most frequent collocations. It was added to a past proposition 6,064 times, as in (264), and 5629 times to an internally negated proposition ((265)). (265) … hiki~-kaes.u tyansu=wa soo naga.ku tuduk-ana.i=daroo. pull-turn-nps chance-top that long-adv continue-neg-nps-epi ‘The chance to turn back will probably not be there for long.’ (On Dansha 1998: Taiyō ga Yamanami ni Shizumu Toki, 1998) In the case of negated proposition with daroo, the speaker/writer speculates about the non-existence of something. This is much more frequent than, for example, a negated proposition with an evidential marker (yoo follows a negated proposition 1813 times; the other evidential markers are even far less frequent in this collocation). It appears then, that there is more communicative need to speculate about the non-existence of things than to give evidence for their non-existence. Table 56 gives an overview of the most frequent collocations in terms of raw frequencies.



Collocations 

Table 56.  Most frequent collocations by raw frequencies rank 1 2 3 4 5

Pattern dyn+neg nmz+epi pst+evi pst+epi neg+epi

Instance A -(r)areru +neg no + daroo pst+yoo pst+daroo neg+daroo

f 11137 11026 7214 6064 5629

Instance B koto ga dekiru + neg no + ka mo sirenai pst+ rasii pst+ ka mo sirenai -(r)areru +pst

f 7723 4264 4996 3473 1689

20.4 Conclusions The last two collocations of the previous section, together with the collocations presented in 20.1 and 20.2 demonstrate strong tendencies for epistemic and evidential modalities to embed tense-, aspect- and negation-marked propositions, while with dynamic modality, the ‘lowest’ modality in terms of hierarchical order of categories, exactly the reverse is the case. Namely, dynamic modal markers are frequently taken in the scope of tense and negation. This shows that semantosyntactic hierarchies, which are mostly a qualitative issue of investigation, are also backed up by quantitative facts. A second major point that came into view in the figures was that ‘collocations’ (in a sense which includes mutual relevance) are more likely to emerge in colloquial expressions where speakers tend to habitually lump linguistic elements together for their rhetorical purposes and for the convenience of fast online processing. Certainly many more interesting facts about the use of individual modality and mood markers can be found in comparing frequency of co-occurence. I have restricted myself here to some basic observations, and I will leave the more finegrained descriptive study of collocations to future research on Japanese modal markers in use.

References Abraham, Werner. 2001. Modals: Toward explaining the non-finiteness gap. Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 9: 7–36. Abraham, Werner. 2002. Modal verbs. Epistemics in German and English. In: Barbiers, Sjef, Frits Beukema & Wim van der Wurff (eds.), Modality and its interaction with the verbal system, 18–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Abraham, Werner. 2005a. Deutsche Syntax im Sprachenvergleich. Grundlegung einer typologischen Syntax des Deutschen. 2. Auflage. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag. Abraham, Werner. 2005b. Event arguments and modal verbs. In: Maienborn, Claudia & Angelika Wöllstein (eds.), Event arguments. Foundations and applications, 243–276. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Adachi, Tarō. 1999. Nihongo gimonbun ni okeru handan no shosō [Aspects of judgment in Japanese interrogative clauses]. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Adachi, Tarō. 2002a. Ishi, kanyū no modariti [The modality of volition and inducement]. In: Miyazaki, Kazuto et al. Modariti [Modality] (Shin Nihongo bunpō sensho 4), 18–41. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Adachi, Tarō. 2002b. Shitsumon to utagai [Questions and doubts]. In: Miyazaki, Kazuto et al. Modariti [Modality] (Shin Nihongo bunpō sensho 4), 174–202. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Aijmer, Karin. 1997. I think – an English modal particle. In: Swan, Toril & Olaf Jansen Westvik (eds.), Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives, 1–47. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP. Akatsuka, Noriko. 1990. On the meaning of daroo. In: Kamada, Osamu & Wesley M. Jacobsen (eds.), On Japanese and how to teach It. In honor of Seiichi Makino, 67–75. Tokyo: The Japan Times. Akatsuka, Noriko. 1992. Japanese modals are conditionals. In: Brentari, Diane, Gary N. Larson & Lynn A. Macleod (eds.), The joy of grammar. A festschrift in honor of James D. McCawley, 1–10. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Akatsuka, Noriko. 1997. Negative conditionality, subjectification, and conditional reasoning. In: Athanasiadou, Angeliki & René Dirven (eds.), On conditionals again, 323–354. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Akimoto, Morihide. 2001. Rasi. In: Yamaguchi, Akiho & Morihide Akimoto (eds.) Nihongo bunpō daijiten, 838–839. Tōkyō: Meiji Shoin. Allan, Keith. 2006. Clause-type, primary illocution, and mood-like operators in English. Language Sciences 28: 1–50. Anstey, Matthew. 2002. Layers and operators revisited (Working Papers in Functional Grammar 77). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Aoki, Haruo. 1986. Evidentials in Japanese. In: Chafe, Wallace & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality. The linguistic coding of epistomology, 223–238. Norwood NJ: Ablex.

 Modality in Japanese Aoyama, Hiroshi. 1997. Shingi handan to kakushindo [Truth judgment and degree of certainty]. Keiryō Kokugogaku [Mathematical Linguistics] 21(1): 1–10. Arita, Setsuko. 2006. Nihongo jōkenbun to jiseisetsusei [Japanese conditional clauses and temporality]. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Austin, John L. 1962. How to do things with words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Bally, Charles. 1965 (1932). Linguistique Générale et Linguistique Française, 4th edn. Bern: Francke. Barbiers, Sjef. 2002. Current issues in modality. An introduction to modality and its interaction with the verbal system. In: Barbiers, Sjef, Frits Beukema & Wim van der Wurff (eds.), Modality and its interaction with the verbal system, 1–17. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Barke, Andrew J. 2001. Inconspicuous gender marking: The case of Japanese sentence-final particles yo and ne. In: Horie, Kaoru & Shigeru Sato (eds.) Cognitive-functional linguistics in an East-Asian context, 235–255. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Bartsch, Sabine 2004. Structural and functional properties of collocations in English. A corpus study of lexical and pragmatic constraints on lexical co-occurrence. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Bech, Gunnar. 1951. Grundzüge der semantischen Entwicklungsgeschichte der hochdeutschen Modalverba. Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser 32(6): 1–28. Bennett, Paul. 2002. Semantics: An introduction to non-lexical aspects of meaning. München: Lincom. Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad & Randi Peppen 1998. Corpus linguistics. Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: CUP. Brandt, Margareta et al. 1992. Satztyp, Satzmodus und Illokution. In: Rosengren, Inger (ed.), Satz und Illokution, Bd. 1, 1–90. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Brandt, Søren. 1999. Modal verbs in Danish (Travaux du cercle linguistique de Copenhague 30). Copenhagen: C. A. Reitzel. Brünner, Gisela & Angelika Redder. 1983. Studien zur Verwendung der Modalverben. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Bussmann, Hadumod. 1996. Routledge dictionary of language and linguistics. London: Routledge. Butler, Christopher S. 1996. Layering in functional grammars: A comparative survey. In: Devriendt, Betty, Louis Goossens & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), Complex structures. A functionalist perspective, 1–27. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Butler, Christopher S. 2003. Structure and function. A guide to three major structural-functional theories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Butler, Johnny. 2003. A minimalist treatment of modality. Lingua 113: 967–996. Bybee, Joan. 2002. Main clauses are innovative, subordinate clauses are conservative. Consequences for the nature of constructions. In: Bybee, Joan & Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse, 1–17. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bybee, Joan. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization. The role of frequency. In: Joseph, Brian D. & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 602–623. London: Blackwell. Bybee, Joan & Paul Hopper. 2001. Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. In: Bybee, Joan & Paul Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 1–25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bybee, Joan L., William Pagliuca & Revere D. Perkins. 1990. On the assymmetries in affixation of grammatical material.  In: Croft, William, Suzanne Kemmer & Keith Denning (eds.),



References  Studies in typology and diachrony. Papers presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on his 75th birthday, 1–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bybee, Joan, William Pagliuca & Revere D. Perkins. 1991. Back to the future. In Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. II, 17–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar. Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press. Bybee, Joan & Sandra Thompson. 1997. Three frequency effects in syntax. In: Juge, Matthew L. & Jeri L. Moxley (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, February 14–17, 1997. General session and parasession on pragmatics and grammatical structure, 378–388. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Chan, Konsu. 2003. Shōkosei handan o arawasu fukushi ni tsuite – dōyara to dōmo o rei ni [On adverbs expressing an evidential judgment – dōyara and dōmo as an example]. Nihongo to Nihon Bungaku 37: 43–56. Chiang, Chien-Ling. 2007. Nihongo no modariti hyōgen to ninshō ni tsuite [On Japanese modality and person]. PhD dissertation, Tohoku University. Chung, Sandra & Alan Timberlake. 1985. Tense, aspect and mood. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 3, 202–258. Cambridge: CUP. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford: OUP. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2001. A note on mood, modality, tense and aspect affixes in Turkish. In: Taylan, Eser Erguvanli (ed.), The verb in Turkish, 47–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2006. Restructuring and functional heads. The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 4. Oxford: OUP. Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm. Collins, Peter. 2004. Let-imperatives in English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(2): 299–319. Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology, 2nd edn. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Cook, Haruko Minegishi. 2006. The acquisition of the particles ne, yo, and no. In: Nakayama, Mineharu, Reiko Mazuka & Yasuhiro Shirai (eds.), The handbook of East Asian psycholinguistics, Vol. II: Japanese, 103–109. Cambridge: CUP. Cormack, Annabel & Neil Smith. 2002. Modals and negation in English. In Barbiers, Sjef, Frits Beukema & Wim van der Wurff (eds.), Modality and its interaction with the verbal system, 133–163. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cornillie, Bert. 2004. Evidentiality and epistemic modality in Spanish (semi-)auxiliaries. A functional-pragmatic and cognitive-linguistic approach. PhD dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Cornillie, Bert. 2006. Conceptual and constructional considerations on the subjectivity of English and Spanish modals. In: Athanasiadou, Angeliki, Costas Canakis & Bert Cornillie (eds.), Subjectification. Various paths to subjectivity, 177–205. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cysouw, Michael. 2006. The asymmetry of affixation. In: Hans-Martin Gärtner, Sigrid Beck, Regine Eckardt, Renate Musan & Barbara Stiebels (eds.), Puzzles for Krifka. (http://www. zas.gwz-berlin.de/publications/40–60-puzzles-for-krifka/). Declerck, Renaat. 1991. A comprehensive descriptive grammar of English. Tōkyō: Kaitakusha. De Haan, Ferdinand. 1997. The interaction of modality and negation. A typological study. New York NY: Garland.

 Modality in Japanese De Haan, Ferdinand. 2001. The cognitive basis of visual evidentials. In: Alan Cienki, Barbara Luka, Michael Smith (eds.), Conceptual and discourse factors in linguistic Structure, 91–106. Stanford CA: CSLI. De Haan, Ferdinand. 2006. Typological approaches to modality. In: William Frawley (ed.), The expression of modality, 27–69. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dietrich, Rainer. 1992. Modalität im Deutschen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Dik, Simon. 1997a. The theory of Functional Grammar, Part 1: The structure of the clause, 2nd, rev. edn, edited by Kees Hengeveld. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dik, Simon. 1997b. The theory of Functional Grammar, Part 2: Complex and derived constructions, 2nd, rev. edn, edited by Kees Hengeveld. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Drubig, Hans Bernhard. 2001. On the syntactic form of epistemic modality. Ms, University of Tübingen. Dryer, Matthew. 1997. Why statistical universals are better than absolute universals. In: Singer, Korall, Randall Eggart & Gregory Anderson (eds.), Papers from the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 123–145. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. Ellis, Nick C. 2002. Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in second language acquisition 24: 143–188. Enç, Mürvet. 1996. Tense and Modality. In: Shalom Lappin (ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 345–358. London: Blackwell. Endō, Orie. 1977. Gendaigo no kanō hyōgen – Chōsa kara mita sono ichisokumen [Potential expressions of Modern Japanese – an aspect observed in an investigation]. Kokubun 47: 52–61. Erman, Britt & Beatrice Warren. 2000. The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text 20(1): 29–62. Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. In: Bach, Emmon & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1–88. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Fintel, Kai von & Anthony Gillies. 2007. An opinionated guide to epistemic modality. In: Gendler, Tamar S. & John Hawthorne (eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology 2, 32–62. Oxford: OUP. Foley, William & Robert D. Van Valin Jr. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: CUP. Frawley, William. 1992. Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Fukao, Madoka. 2005. Yone saikō. Ninshō to kyōki seigen kara [Rethinking yone. From the point of view of person and restrictions on collocations]. Nihongo Kyōiku 125: 18–27. Fukushima, Etsuko & Satoshi Uehara. 2003. Nihongo no teineitai hiteiji nikeishiki ni kansuru tsūjiteki kenkyū [Diachronic research on the two negated forms in Japanese polite style]. Journal of Graduate School of International Cultural Studies 11: 79–89. Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York NY: Academic Press. Givón, Talmy. 1995. Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax. An introduction, 2nd edn, 2 Vols. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Goossens, Louis. 1996. English modals and functional models: A confrontation (Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 86). University of Antwerp: Department of Linguistics. Grewendorf, Günther & Dieter Zaefferer. 1991. Semantic foundations of speech acts. In: von Stechow, Armin & Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik – Semantics (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft Vol. 6), 270–285. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Group Jamashii. 1998. Nihongo bunkei jiten [Japanese pattern dictionary]. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan.



References  Gunji, Takao. 2002. Tango to bun no kōzō [The word and sentence structure]. (Gendai gengogaku nyūmon 3). Tōkyō: Iwanami Shoten. Haga, Yasushi. 1954. “Chinjutsu” to wa nani-mono? [What is chinjutsu?]. Kokugo Kokubun 23(4): 47–61. Haga, Yasushi. 1982. Shintei nihon bunpō kyōshitsu [(Newly edited) Japanese language classroom]. Shinkōsha. Haiman, John & Tania Kuteva. 2002. The symmetry of counterfactuals. In: Joan Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse. Essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson, 101–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Halliday, M.A.K. 2004. An introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd edn, revised by Christian M.I.M. Matthiesen. London: Arnold. Han, Chung-Hye. 2006. Variation in form-meaning mapping between Korean and English counterfactuals. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15: 167–193. Hanazono, Satoru. 1999. Jōkenkei fukugō yōgen keishiki no nintei [The acknowledgement of complex predicate forms based on conditionals]. Kokugogaku 197, 39–90. Harada, Tomi. 1999. Modariti-ron shōkō – modariti o meguru nihongo kenkyū no futatsu no dōkō [Thoughts on modality theory – two tendencies in Japanese modality research]. Gengo to Bunka 3: 123–136. Hasenuma, Akiko. 1995. Taiwa ni okeru kakunin kōi daroo, zya nai ka, yone no kakunin yōhō [Acts of confirmation in dialogue – the confirmation function of daroo, zya nai ka and yone]. In: Nitta, Yoshio (ed.), Fukubun no kenkyū, Vol. 2, 389–419. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Hawkins, John A. & Anne Cutler. 1988. Psycholinguistic factors in morphological asymmetry. In: Hawkins, John A. (ed.), Explaining language universals, 280–317. Oxford: Blackwell. Hayashi, Shirō. 1960. Kihon bunkei no kenkyū [Research on basic sentence patterns]. Tōkyō: Meiji Tosho. Hayatsu, Mieko. 1988. Rashii to yōda [Rashii and yōda]. Nihongogaku 7(4): 46–61. Heine, Bernd. 1995. Agent-oriented vs. epistemic modality: Some observations on German modals. In Joan Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse, 17–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press. Helbig, Gerhard & Joachim Buscha. 1996. Deutsche Grammatik. Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht. 17th edn. Leipzig: Langenscheidt. Hengeveld, Kees. 1987. Clause structure and modality in Functional Grammar. In: van der Auwera, Johan & Louis Goossen (eds.), Ins and outs of the predication, 53–66. Dordrecht: Foris. Hengeveld, Kees. 1989. Layers and operators in Functional Grammar. Journal of Linguistics 25: 127–157. Hengeveld, Kees. 2004. Illocution, mood, and modality. In: Booij, Gert et al. (eds.), Morphologie: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft Vol. 17.2), 1190–1201. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hentschel, Elke Hentschel &Harald Weydt. 2003. Handbuch der deutschen Grammatik. Berlin: De Gruyter. Herring, Susan C. 1991. The grammaticalization of rhetorical questions in Tamil. In Elizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. I, 253–284. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

 Modality in Japanese Heyse, Johann Christian August. 1849. Theoretisch-praktische deutsche Grammatik oder Lehrbuch der deutschen Sprache. 5. Auflage. Hannover: Sahn. (Reprint G. Olms, Hildesheim & New York, 1972) Heyse, Johann Christian August. 1868. Deutsche Schulgrammatik oder kurzgefasstes Lehrbuch der deutschen Sprache. 21. Auflage. Hannover: Hahn’sche Hof-Buchhandlung. Heyse, Karl Wilhelm Ludwig. 1856. System der Sprachwissenschaft. Hannover: Berlin: Ferdinand Dümmler. Higuchi, Fumihiko. 1992. Kanyūbun – shiyō, shimashō – [Sentences of inducement – shiyō, shimashō]. Kotoba no Kagaku 5: 175–186. Himeno, Tomoko. 1998. Kanyū hyōgen no ichi – shiyō, shiyōka, shinaika [Expressions of inducement – shiyō, shiyōka, shinaika]. Nihongo Kyōiku 96: 132–142. Hinds, John. 1986. Japanese. London: Croom Helms. Hirata, Mami. 2001. Ka mo shirenai no imi – modariti to goyōron no setten o saguru [The meaning of ka mo shirenai – searching for points of contact between modality and pragmatics]. Nihongo Kyōiku 108: 60–68. Hofmann, T. R. 1976. Tense replacement and the modal system. In McCawley, James D. (ed.), Notes from the linguistic underground (Syntax and Semantics 7), 85–100. New York NY: Academic Press. (reprint of an article that first appeared in Report NSF-17 of the Aiken Computation Laboratory Harvard University, 1966). Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. Horn, Laurence R. 1978. Some aspects of negation. In: Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.), Universals of human language, Vol. 4, 127–170. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press. Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press. Hoye, Leo. 1997. Adverbs and modality in English. London: Longman. Huddleston, Rodney. 2002a. The verb. In: Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. The Cambridge grammar of the English language, 71–212. Cambridge: CUP. Huddleston, Rodney. 2002b. Clause type and illocutionary force. In: Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum, The Cambridge grammar of the English language, 851–945. Cambridge: CUP. Iatridou, Sabine. 2000. The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31(2): 231–270. Imai, Shingo. 1990. Shita hoo ga ii to suru hoo ga ii no imi, kōbunteki na chigai [The semantic and syntactic differences between shita hoo ga ii and suru hoo ga ii]. Nihongo Kagaku Nenpō 12: 63–84. Iori, Isao. 1995. Ga ~ shitai to o ~ shitai. Chokusetsu mokutekigo no kaku-hyōji no yure [Ga ~ shitai and o ~ shitai. Variation in the case marking of the direct object]. In: Miyajima, Tatsuo & Yoshio Nitta (eds.), Nihongo ruigi hyōgen no bunpō (1), 53–61. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Iori, Isao. 2006. Modariti keishiki no ta-kei ni kansuru ikkōsatsu [One consideration on the taform of modal markers]. In: Takashi Masuoka, Hisashi Noda & Takurō (eds.), Nihongo bunpō no shinchihei 2, 137–154. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Iori, Isao et al. 2000. Shokyū o oshieru hito no tame no nihongo bunpō handobukku [Handbook of Japanese Grammar for Teachers of Basic Japanese]. Tōkyō: Surii Ee Nettowaaku. Iori, Isao et al. 2001. Chūjōkyū o oshieru hito no tame no nihongo bunpō handobukku [Handbook of Japanese Grammar for Teachers of Intermediate and Advanced Japanese]. Tōkyō: Surii Ee Nettowaaku.



References  Iwasaki, Shoichi. 2002. Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jacobsen, Wesley M. 2002. On the interaction of temporal and modal meaning in Japanese conditionals. In Akatsuka, Noriko M. & Susan Strauss (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10, 3–17. Stanford CA: CSLI. Jespersen, Otto. 1992 (1924). The philosophy of grammar. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. John, Athialy P. 1987. The semantics of modality – A study based on Malayalam and English. Trivandrum: Dravidian Linguistics Association. Johnson, Yuki. 1999. Modariti riron no meikakuka o motomete [Towards a clarification of modality theory]. In: Alam-Sazaki, Yukiko (ed.) Gengogaku to nihongo kyōiku, 145–160. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Johnson, Yuki. 2003. Modality and the Japanese language. Ann Arbor MI: Center for Japanese Studies, The University of Michigan. Kaiser, Stefan et al. 2001. Japanese. A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge. Kamada, Noriko. 1998. Naiyōsetsu o toru dōshi no koto to no no sentaku kisei – shudōshi no imi bunrui to setsu no jisei kara [Constraints of choice for verbs taking complement clauses – from the semantic classification of the main verbs and the tense of the complement clauses]. Nihongo Kyōiku 98: 1–12. Kamio, Akio. 1997. Territory of information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kamiya, Eiji. 1995. Jodōshi yōda, rashii ni tsuite [On the auxiliaries yōda and rashii] In Miyaji Hiroshi, Atsuko Sensei Koki Kinen Ronshū Kankōkai (ed.), Miyaji Hiroshi, Atsuko sensei koki kinen ronshū nihongo no kenkyū, 549–573. Tōkyō: Meiji Shoin. Kanda, Sumiko. 1961. Gendai Tōkyōgo no kanō hyōgen ni tsuite [On potential expressions in modern Tokyo Japanese]. Nihon Bungaku 16: 70–84. Kaneko, Hiroshi. 1996. Bunpō [Grammar]. In: Satō, Takeyoshi (ed.) Tenbō gendai no nihongo [Perspectives on Modern Japanese], 80–106. Tōkyō: Hakuteisha. Kaneko, Hisakazu. 1986. Nihongo no kanō hyōgen –gendaigo- hyōjungo no baai [Japanese potential expressions – the modern language – the case of the standard language]. Kokubungaku Kaishaku to Kanshō 1986(1): 74–90. Kawashima, Nobue. 2004. Hiteikei o motsu modariti keishiki to meidai no hyōkasei. Kibō hyōgen no hitei taku nai o rei ni [Negated modal forms and the evaluation of the proposition – taking negated wish taku nai as an example. Nihongo Kyōiku 118: 57–66. Kearns, Kate. 2000. Semantics. London: Macmillan. Kekize, Tatiana. 2000. (si-)sōda no imi bunseki [The semantic analysis of (si-)sōda]. Nihongo Kyōiku 107: 7–15. Kiefer, Ferenc. 1987. On defining modality. Folia Linguistica XXI/1: 67–94. Kikuchi, Yasuto. 2000a. Yōda to rashii – sōda, darō to no hikaku o fukumete [Yōda and rashii – including comparison with sōda and darō]. Kokugogaku 51(1): 46–60. Kikuchi, Yasuto. 2000b. Iwayuru yōtai no sōda no kihonteki imi – awasete, sono hitei kakkei no imi no sa ni tsuite [The basic meaning of appearance sōda – together with a consideration of its various negative forms]. Nihongo Kyōiku 107: 16–25. Kindaichi, Haruhiko. 1953. Fuhenka jodōshi no honshitsu (1, 2). Shukanteki hyōgen to kyakkanteki hyōgen no betsu ni tsuite [The essence of uninflecting auxiliaries (1, 2). About the distinction between subjective and objective expressions]. Kokugo Kokubun 22(2): 1–18; 22(3): 15–35.

 Modality in Japanese Kinoshita, Rika. 1997. Hazu da no imi bunseki. Hoka no shingi handan no modariti keishiki to hikaku shite [The semantic analysis of hazu da. Comparing it with other forms of truth judgment modality]. Nihongo Kyōiku 92: 165–176. Kinoshita, Rika. 1998. Yōda, rashii – shingi handan no modariti no taikei ni okeru suiron [Yōda, rashii – inference in the system of truth judgment modality]. Nihongo Kyōiku 96: 154–165. Kinoshita, Rika. 2001. Jitai no rinsetsu kankei to yōtai no sōda [Contiguous relationships between state of affairs and the ‘appearance’ sōda]. Nihongo Bunpō 1(1): 137–158. Kitahara, Yasuo. 1979 (1970). Jodōshi no sōgō shōsetsu ni tsuite no kōbunronteki kōsatsu [Syntactic considerations about the mutual ordering of auxiliaries]. In: Umehara, Yasunori (ed.), Ronshū nihongo kenkyū. Jodōshi, 51–80. Tōkyō: Yūseidō Shuppan. Originally appeared in Kokugogaku 83 (1970). Kitahara, Yasuo. 1981. Nihongo jodōshi no kenkyū [Studies of Japanese Auxiliaries]. Tōkyō: Taishūkan Shoten. Kitahara, Yasuo & Hiroo Kitahara. 2003. Bun no kōzō [Sentence structure]. In: Kitahara, Yasuo (ed.) Bunpō I (Asakura nihongo kōza 5), 11–51. Tōkyō: Asakura Shoten. Koike, Yasushi. 2002. Fukushi no kyōki keishiki ni kansuru shiteki hensen [On the relationship between inferential modal adverbs and co-occurrence forms in Modern Japanese]. Nihongo Kagaku 12: 48–71. Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo. 1960. Hanashi-kotoba no bunkei (1). Taiwa shiryō ni yoru kenkyū [Sentence patterns in spoken language (1). Research based on dialogic materials]. Tōkyō: Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo. Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo. 2001. Terebi hōsō no goi chōsa, goihyō [Vocabulary survey of television broadcasts, vocabulary list] (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo Gengo Shori Deetashū 8; CD-ROM). Tōkyō: Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyūjo. König, Ekkehard. 1992. From discourse to syntax: the case of concessive conditionals. In Rosemarie Tracy (ed.), Who climbs the grammar-Tree, 423–433. Tübingen: Niemeyer. König, Ekkehard & Peter Siemund. 2007. Speech act distinctions in grammar. In: Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, 2nd edn, 276–324. Cambridge: CUP. Kristophson, Jürgen. 1994. Zur Geschichte der Modalitätsforschung in Russland. In: Jachnow, H.H. et al. (eds.), Modalität und Modus. Allgemeine Fragen und Realisierung im Slavischen, 37–51. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kudō, Hiroshi. 1989. Gendai nihongo no bun no johōsei – joshō [Modality of the Modern Japanese sentence – an introduction]. Tōkyō Gaikokugo Daigaku Ronshū 39: 13–33. Kudō, Hiroshi. 1996. Dōshitemo–kō [Considerations on dōshitemo]. In: Suzuki, Tai & Tasaku Tsunoda (eds.), Nihongo bunpō no shomondai. Takahashi Tarō sensei koki kinen ronbunshū, 163–192. Tōkyō: Hitsuji Shobō. Kudō, Hiroshi. 2000. Fukushi to bun no chinjutsuteki na taipu [Adverbs and predicative sentence types]. In: Moriyama, Takurō, Yoshio Nitta, and Hiroshi Kudō Modariti (Nihongo no bunpō 3), 164–234. Tōkyō: Iwanami Shoten. Kudō, Hiroshi. 2005. Bun no kinō to johōsei [The function of sentences and modality]. Kokugo to Kokubungaku 82(8): 1–15. Kudō, Mayumi. 1997. Hanjijitsusei no hyōgen ni tsuite [On expressions of counterfactuality]. Yokohama Kokuritsu Daigaku Jinbun Kiyō 44: 51–65. Kudō, Mayumi. 2004. Muudo to tensu, asupekuto no sōkansei ni tsuite [On the interrelation between mood, tense and aspect] Handai Nihongo Kenkyū 16: 1–17.



References  Kudō, Mayumi. 2006. Bun no taishōteki naiyō, modaritii, temporaritii no sōkansei o megutte – rashii to yōda [On the interrelation between the contents of a sentence, modality, and temporality – rashii and yōda]. In: Gengogaku Kenkyūkai (ed.) Kotoba no kagaku 11, 139–182. Tōkyō: Mugi Shobō. Kuramochi, Yasuo. 1993a. Handan no hitsuzenteki na kiketsu o arawasu iikata [Patterns that express the judgment of an inevitable conclusion]. In: Sakata, Yukiko & Yasuo Kuramochi: Kyōshiyō nihongo kyōiku handobukku 4. Bunpō II, rev. edn, 97–112. Tōkyō: Heibonsha. Kuramochi, Yasuo. 1993b. Dantei o arawasu iikata [Patterns that express conclusion]. In: Sakata, Yukiko & Yasuo Kuramochi: Kyōshiyō nihongo kyōiku handobukku 4. Bunpō II, rev. edn, 113–135. Tōkyō: Heibonsha. Kuramochi, Yasuo. 1993c. Suiryō, suitei, suisoku o arawasu iikata [Patterns that express inferences and conjectures]. In: Sakata, Yukiko & Yasuo Kuramochi: Kyōshiyō nihongo kyōiku handobukku 4. Bunpō II, rev. edn, 169–201. Tōkyō: Heibonsha. Langacker, Ronald W. 2003. Extreme subjectification. English tense and modals. In: Cuyckens, Hubert et al. (eds.), Motivation in language. Studies in honor of Günter Radden, 3–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lee, Mi-Hyeon. 2006. Shōkosei hyōgen no nikkan taishō kenkyū. PhD dissertation, Tohoku University. Lehmann, Christian. 2002. Thoughts on grammaticalization. 2nd, rev. edn (ASSidUE 9). Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Leuschner, Torsten. 1998. At the boundaries of grammaticalization. What interrogatives are doing in concessive conditionals. In: Anna Giacalone Ramat & Paul J. Hopper (eds.), The limits of grammaticalization, 159–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Leuschner, Torsten. 2005. Ob blond, ob braun, ich liebe alle Frau’n – Irrelevanzkonditionale als grammatikalisierter Diskurs. In: Torsten Leuschner, Tanja Mortelmans & Sarah De Groodt (eds.), Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen, 279–307. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Lock, Graham. 1996. Functional English grammar. An introduction for second language teachers. Cambridge: CUP. Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, Vol.2. Cambridge: CUP. Maagerø, Eva. 2001. Modality in Functional Grammar. In: Vater, Heinz & Ole Letnes (eds.), Modalität und mehr / Modality and more, 27–41. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag. Makino, Seiichi & Michio Tsutsui. 1986. A dictionary of basic Japanese grammar. Tōkyō: The Japan Times. Manninen, Satu 2005. Review of Guglielmo Cinque. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective, 1999. Journal of Linguistics 41(2): 452–457. Martin, Samuel E. 1988. A reference grammar of Japanese, 1st Tuttle edn. Rutland, Vermont: Charles E. Tuttle Company (originally appeared 1975 at Yale University Press). Masuoka, Takashi. 1987. Meidai no bunpō [The grammar of the proposition]. Tōkyō: Kuroshio. Masuoka, Takashi. 1991. Modariti no bunpō [The grammar of modality]. Tōkyō: Kuroshio. Masuoka, Takashi. 1992. Futeisei no reberu [The level of indeterminacy]. Nihongo Kyōiku 77, 14–25. Masuoka, Takashi. 1993. Jōken hyōgen to bun no gainen reberu [Conditional expressions and the conceptual level of the clause] In: Masuoka, Takashi (ed.), Nihongo no jōken hyōgen, 23–39. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Masuoka, Takashi. 1997. Bunpō no kiso gainen I – kōzōteki, keitaiteki gainen [Basic concepts of grammar I – structural and morphological concepts] In: Masuoka, Takashi, Yoshio Nitta, Takao Gunji & Satoshi Kinsui: Bunpō (Gengo no Kagaku 5), 41–78. Tōkyō: Iwanami Shoten.

 Modality in Japanese Masuoka, Takashi. 1999. Meidai to no kyōkai o motomete [Searching for the borderline between [modality] and proposition]. Gekkan Gengo 28(6): 46–52. Masuoka, Takashi. 2000. Nihongo bunpō no shosō [Aspects of Japanese Grammar]. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Masuoka, Takashi. 2006. ~tai-kōbun ni okeru imi no kakuchō –ganbō to kachi handan– [The semantic extension of tai-sentences. Wishes and valuative judgments]. In: Takashi Masuoka, Hisashi Noda & Takurō (eds.) Nihongo bunpō no shinchihei 2, 63–76. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Matsuda, Reiko. 1994. Hazuda ni kansuru ichikōsatsu. Suiri ni yoru gainen no sekai to sono soto ni jitsuzai suru genjitsu no sekai o megutte [A consideration on hazuda. The conceptual world based on assumptions and the real world outside of it]. Musashi Daigaku Jinbun Gakkai Zasshi 26(1): 53–89. Matsugu, Yuka. 2005. Japanese epistemic sentence-final particle KANA: Its function as a ‘mitigation marker’ in discourse data. Pragmatics 15(4): 423–436. Maynard, Senko K. 1993. Discourse modality. Subjectivity, emotion and voice in the Japanese language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Maynard, Senko K. 2001. Falling in love with style. Expressive functions of stylistic shifts in a Japanese television drama series. Functions of Language 8(1): 1–39. McCready, Eric & Norry Ogata. 2006. Evidentiality, modality and probability. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(2): 147–206. McEnery, Tony & Andrew Wilson. 2001. Corpus linguistics. 2nd edn. Edinburgh: EUP. Meibauer, Jörg (ed.). 1987. Satzmodus zwischen Grammatik und Pragmatik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Mikami Akira. 1972 (1953). Gendai gohō josetsu. Shintakusu no kokoromi [Introduction to the grammar of the modern language. An attempt at syntax] Tōkyō: Kuroshio. Mikami, Akira. 1972 (1959). Zoku gendai gohō josetsu [An introduction to modern grammar (continued)]. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Minami, Fujio. 1964. Jutsugobun no kōzō [The structure of sentences with a predicate]. Kokugo kenkyū 18, reprinted in Minami, Fujio 1997. Gendai nihongo kenkyū [Research on Modern Japanese], 37–57. Tōkyō: Sanseidō. Minami, Fujio. 1974. Gendai nihongo no kōzō [The Structure of Modern Japanese]. Tōkyō: Taishūkan Shoten. Minami, Fujio. 1993. Gendai nihongo bunpō no rinkaku [Outline of Modern Japanese grammar]. Tōkyō: Taishūkan Shoten. Minami, Fujio. 1997. Gendai nihongo kenkyū. Tōkyō: Sanseidō. Mio, Isago. 1939. Bun ni okeru chinjutsu sayō to wa nani zo ya [What is predicational function in the sentence?] Kokugo to Kokubungaku 16(1): 66–78. Mithun, Marianne. 2000. The reordering of morphemes. In: Gildea, Spike (ed.), Reconstructing grammars. Comparative linguistics and grammaticalization, 231–255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Miyagawa, Kazuko. 1998. Shite hoshii to shite moraitai – shite hoshii no shinshutsu, teichaku [Shite hoshii and shite moraitai – the advance and establishing of shite hoshii] Kokubungaku Kaishaku to Kanshō 63(1): 41–50. Miyajima, Tatsuo. 1962. Kakari no ichi [The place of dependent elements]. Keiryō Kokugogaku 23: 3–11. Miyake, Takeo. 1934. Onsei kōgo-hō [Phonetics of the spoken language] (Hashimoto, Shinkichi (ed.), Kokugo-hō (Kokugo Kagaku Kōza 6). Meiji Shoin.



References  Miyake, Tomohiro. 1992. Ninshikiteki modariti ni okeru kanōsei handan ni tsuite [About the judgment of possibility in epistemic modality]. Taikensan Ronshū Nihongakuhen 26: 35–47. Miyake, Tomohiro. 1993. Ninshikiteki modariti ni okeru kakushin handan ni tsuite [About the judgment of certainty in epistemic modality]. Gobun 61: 36–46. Miyake, Tomohiro. 1994. Ninshikiteki modariti ni okeru jisshōteki handan ni tsuite [About evidential judgment in epistemic modality]. Kokugo Kokubun 63(11): 20–34. Miyake, Tomohiro. 1995a. Suiryō ni tsuite [About supposition]. Kokugogaku 183: 1–11. Miyake, Tomohiro. 1995b. Soo-da to to iu – gaigen no jodōshi 4 [Soo-da and to iu – modal auxiliaries 4]. In: Miyajima, Tatsuo & Yoshio Nitta (eds.), Nihongo ruigi hyōgen no bunpō (1), 201–203. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Miyake, Tomohiro. 1997. Ai daro, ai – suiryō to kakunin yōkyū [Ai daro, ai – conjecture and request for confirmation]. Gekkan Gengo 26(2): 68–73. Miyazaki, Kazuhito. 2001. Ninshiki modariti to shite no utagai [Doubt as epistemic modality] Kokugogaku 52(3): 15–29. Miyazaki, Kazuhito. 2002a. Modariti no gainen [The concept of modality]. In: Miyazaki, Kazuhito et al.: Modariti [Modality] (Shin Nihongo bunpō sensho 4), 1–15. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Miyazaki, Kazuhito. 2002b. Ninshiki no modariti [Epistemic modality] In: Miyazaki, Kazuhito, Tarō Adachi, Harumi Noda, & Shino Takanashi, Modariti [Modality] (Shin Nihongo Bunpō Sensho 4), 121–171. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Miyazaki, Kazuhito. 2002c. Kakunin yōkyū [Requests for confirmation] In: Miyazaki, Kazuhito, Tarō Adachi, Harumi Noda, & Shino Takanashi, Modariti [Modality] (Shin Nihongo Bunpō Sensho 4), 203–227. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Mori, Sadashi. 2005. Vsuru koto ga dekiru kōbun ni okeru chokusetsu mokutekigo no ga-kaku ni yoru hyōji ni tsuite [On the marking of direct objects with ga in the construction]. Nihongo Gakkai 2005 Nendo Shuuki Taikai Yokōshū, 25–32. Mori, Hideki. 2006. Mittsu no meireibun: Nichieigo no meireibun to senzaigata/kizongata sukeeru [Three types of imperatives: Japanese/English imperatives and the scale of potential/ actual-type]. Gengo Kenkyū 129: 135–160. Morimoto, Junko. 1990. Fukushi zehi ni tsuite [On the adverb zehi]. Nihongogaku 9(1): 93–103. Morita, Yoshiyuki. 1977. Kiso nihongo. Imi to tsukaikata [Basic Japanese. Meaning and use]. Tōkyō: Kadokawa Shoten. Morita, Yoshiyuki. 2002. Nihongo bunpō no hassō [The logic behind Japanese grammar]. Tōkyō: Hitsuji Shobō. Morita, Yoshiyuki & Masae Matsuki. 1989. Nihongo hyōgen bunkei [Japanese expression patterns]. Tōkyō: Aruku. Moriyama, Takurō. 1989. Ninshiki no muudo to sono shūhen [Epistemic mood and its periphery]. In: Nitta, Yoshio & Takashi Masuoka (eds.), Nihongo no modariti [Japanese Modality], 57–120. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Moriyama, Takurō. 1992a. Kachi handan no muudo keishiki to ninshō [Valuative mood forms and person]. Nihongo Kyōiku 77: 26–35. Moriyama, Takurō. 1992b. Nihongo ni okeru suiryō o megutte [On conjecture in Japanese]. Gengo Kenkyū 101: 64–83.

 Modality in Japanese Moriyama, Takurō. 1992c. Bunmatsu shikō dōshi omou o megutte – bun no imi to shite no shukansei, kyakkansei [About the sentence-final thinking verb omou – subjectivity and objectivity as sentence meanings]. Nihongogaku 11/8, 105–116. Moriyama, Takurō. 1995. Suiryō, hiyu hikyō, reiji – yō, mitai no tagisei o megutte [Supposition, simile, example – the polysemy of yō and mitai]. In Miyaji Hiroshi, Atsuko Sensei Koki Kinen Ronshū Kankōkai (ed.), Miyaji Hiroshi, Atsuko Sensei koki kinen ronshū nihongo no kenkyū, 493–526. Tōkyō: Meiji Shoin. Moriyama, Takurō. 1997. Nihongo ni okeru jitai sentaku keishiki – gimu, hitsuyō, kyoka nado no muudo keishiki no imi kōzō [Forms expressing choice of state-of-affairs in Japanese – the semantic structure of modal forms of obligation, necessity, permission]. Kokugogaku 188: 12–25. Moriyama, Takurō. 2000. Kihon johō to sentaku kankei to shite no modariti. In: Moriyama, Takurō, Yoshio Nitta & Hiroshi Kudō: Modariti (Nihongo no Bunpō 3). Tōkyō: Iwanami Shoten. Moriyama, Takurō. 2002. Kanōsei to sono shūhen. Kanenai, ariuru, kanōsei ga aru nado no ugenteki hyōgen to ka mo shirenai [Possibility and its periphery. Kanenai, ariuru, kanōsei ga aru and other periphrastic expressions and ka mo shirenai]. Nihongogaku 21(2): 17–26. Moriyama, Takurō & Tarō Adachi. 1996. Bun no nobekata [How to form sentences] (Nihongo Bunpō Serufu Masutaa Shiriizu 6). Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Mortelmans, Tanja. 2000. On the ‘evidential’ nature of the ‘epistemic’ use of the German modals müssen and sollen’. In: van der Auwera, Johan & Patrick Dendale (eds.), Modal verbs in Germanic and Romance languages (Belgian Journal of Linguistics 14), 131–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Murakami, Mitsuhisa. 1993. Meireibun – shiro, shinasai – [Imperative sentences – shiro, shinasai]. Kotoba no Kagaku 6: 67–115. Muraki, Shinjirō. 1991. Nihongo dōshi no shosō [Various aspects of the verb in Japanese]. Tōkyō: Hitsuji Shobō. Nakagomi, Kiyoto. 1988. Gendaigo ni okeru kanō hyōgen – ichidan kanō dōshi o megutte [Potential expressions of the modern language – on vowel-stem potential verbs]. Chūō Daigaku Kokubun 31: 104–124. Nakahata, Takayuki. 1990. Futashika na yōsō – yōda to sōda. Uncertain appearance. yōda and sōda]. Mie Daigaku Nihongogaku Bungaku 1: 26–33. Nakahata, Takayuki. 1998. Tōzen o arawasu modariti keishiki ni tsuite. Hazu da to beki da. [About modal forms expressing matter-of-course. Hazu da and beki da]. Kōnan Daigaku Kiyō 111: 15–28. Nakamizo, Tomoko, Ikuko Ogawa & Feili Fang. 1995. Rashii, yōda and sōda. Igi sosei, imi, hyōgen kōka no chigai to kyōiku e no ōyō [Rashii, yōda and sōda. Semantic components, meaning, pragmatic effects, and their application to Japanese language teaching]. Nihongo Kyōiku Gakkai Shunki Taikai Yokōshū, 1–12 Nakamura Wataru. 2003. Hazu ni okeru suiron. Yotei, kioku, kakunin o megutte [The inference in hazu. About ‘planning’, ‘recollection’ and ‘confirmation’ uses]. Nihongo Kyōiku 117: 13–22. Nakano, Nobuhiko. 1996. Kakunin yōkyū no heijobun to shūjoshi ne – Edogo to gendaigo [The final particle ne in declarative requests for confirmation – Edo language and the modern language]. In: Yamaguchi Akiho Kyōju Kanreki Kinenkai (eds.) Yamaguchi Akiho kyōju kanreki kinen kokugogaku ronshū, 485–500. Tōkyō: Meiji Shoin.



References  Nakau, Minoru. 1979. Modariti to meidai [Modality and proposition]. In: Hayashi Eiichi Kyōju Kanreki Kinen Ronbunshū Kankō Iinkai (ed.), Eigo to nihongo to, 223–250. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Narrog, Heiko. 1998. Nihongo dōshi no katsuyō taikei [The inflection system of Japanese verbs]. In Nihongo Kagaku [Japanese Linguistics] 4: 7–30. Narrog, Heiko. 1999a. Japanische Verbflexive und flektierbare Verbalsuffixe. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Narrog, Heiko. 1999b. Morphologisch-typologische Überlegungen zum Japanischen im Vergleich zum Deutschen und Chinesischen. In: Nitta, Haruo, Minoru Shigeto & Götz Wienold (eds.), Kontrastive Studien zur Beschreibung des Japanischen und des Deutschen, 257–275. München: iudicium Verlag. Narrog, Heiko. 2005a. On defining modality again. Language Sciences 27(2): 165–192. Narrog, Heiko. 2005b. Modality, mood, and change of modal meanings – A new perspective. Cognitive Linguistics 16(4): 677–731. Narrog, Heiko. 2007. Modality and grammaticalization in Japanese. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8(2): 269–294. Narrog, Heiko. 2008. The aspect-modality link in the Japanese verbal complex and beyond. In Abraham, Werner & Leiss, Elisabeth (eds.), Modality-aspect interfaces. Implications and typological solutions, 279–307. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Narrog, Heiko (to appear) Modality, modariti and predication – The story of modality in Japan. In: Pizziconi, Barbara & Mika Kizu (eds.), Japanese modality: Exploring its scope and interpretation. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2003. Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language 79, 682–707. Nihongo Kijutsu Bunpō Kenkyūkai. 2003. Gendai nihongo bunpō 4. Modariti [Modern Japanese Grammar 4. Modality] Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Nitta, Yoshio. 1984. Kakarimusubi ni tsuite [On kakarimusubi agreement] In: Suzuki, Kazuhiko & Ōki Hayashi (eds.), Kenkyū shiryō nihon bunpō 5. Joji-hen (1) Joshi, 102–135. Tōkyō: Meiji Shoin. Nitta, Yoshio. 1987. Nihongo gimon hyōgen no shosō [Various aspects of Japanese interrogatives] In: Koizumi Tamotsu Kyōju Kanreki Kinen Ronbunshū Henshū Iinkai (eds.), Gengogaku no shikai, 179–202. Tōkyō: Daigaku Shorin. Nitta, Yoshio. 1989a. Bun no kōzō [The structure of the sentence]. In: Kitahara, Yasuo (ed.), Nihongo no bunpō, buntai 1 (Kōza Nihongo to Nihongo Kyōiku 4), 25–52. Tōkyō: Meiji Shoin. Nitta, Yoshio. 1989b. Gendai nihongobun no modariti no taikei to kōzō [The system and structure of modality in Modern Japanese sentences]. In: Yoshio Nitta & Takashi Masuoka (eds.), Nihongo no modariti, 1–56. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Nitta, Yoshio. 1989c. Ikōka modorōka o megutte – ishi hyōgen no gimonka [On ikōka modorōka – the questioning of volitional expressions]. Nihongogaku 8(8): 57–69. Nitta, Yoshio. 1991a. Nihongo no modariti to ninshō [Japanese Modality and Person]. Tōkyō: Hitsuji Shobō. Nitta, Yoshio. 1991b. Ishi no hyōgen to kikite sonzai [Volitive expressions and the existence of the hearer]. Kokugogaku 165: 1–13. Nitta, Yoshio. 1992. Handan kara hatsuwa, dentatsu e – denbun, enkyoku no hyōgen o chūshin ni [From judgment to utterance and communication – centered on the expression of hearsay and euphemisms]. Nihongo Kyōiku 77: 1–13.

 Modality in Japanese Nitta, Yoshio. 1997. Nihongo bunpō kenkyū josetsu [Preliminaries to the study of Japanese grammar]. Tōkyō: Kuroshio. Nitta, Yoshio. 2000. Ninshiki no modariti to sono shūhen [Epistemic modality and its periphery] In Moriyama, Takurō, Yoshio Nitta & Hiroshi Kudō: Modariti (Nihongo no bunpō 3), 81–159. Tōkyō: Iwanami. Nitta, Yoshio & Takashi Masuoka 1989. Nihongo no modariti [Japanese modality]. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Niwa, Tetsuya. 1991. Beki da to nakereba naranai [beki da and nakereba naranai]. Ōsaka Gakuin Daigaku Shizen Ronsō 23/24: 53–72. NKBK 2003 = Nihongo Kijutsu Bunpō Kenkyūkai 2003 Nobayashi, Yasuhiko. 1999. Ruigi no modariti keishiki yōda, rashii, sōda – San-suijun ni wataru jūsōteki kōsatsu [The synonymous modal forms yōda, rashii and sōda – A multi-layered analysis based on three criteria]. Kokugogaku 197: 54–68. Noda, Harumi. 1995a. Mono-da to koto-da to no-da – meishisei no jodōshi no tōiteki na yōhō [Mono-da and koto-da and no-da – the deontic use of nominal auxiliaries]. In: Miyajima, Tatsuo & Yoshio Nitta (eds.), Nihongo ruigi hyōgen no bunpō (1), 253–262. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Noda, Harumi. 1995b. No to koto – umekomisetsu o tsukuru daihyōteki na keishiki [No and koto – representative forms for embedded clauses]. In: Miyajima, Tatsuo & Yoshio Nitta (eds.), Nihongo ruigi hyōgen no bunpō (2), 419–428. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Noda, Harumi. 1997. Noda no Kinō [The function of noda]. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Noda, Harumi. 2002. Shūjoshi no kinō [The functions of the final particles]. In: Miyazaki, Kazuhito et al.: Modariti [Modality], 261–288. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Noda, Hisashi. 1996. Wa to ga [Wa and ga]. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Nomura, Takashi. 2003. Modariti keishiki no bunrui [On the classification of Japanese modal forms]. Kokugogaku [National Language Studies] 54(1): 17–31. Nomura, Takashi. 2004. Jutsugo no keitai to imi [Form and meaning of predicates]. In: In: Onoe, Keisuke (ed.), Asakura nihongo kōza 6, bunpō II, 81–104. Tōkyō: Asakura Shoten. Noreen, Adolf. 1923. Einführung in die wissenschaftliche Betrachtung der Sprache. Beiträge zur Methode und Terminologie der Grammatik. (Partial translation of the 9 volume work Vårt Språk, published 1903–1919). Saale: Niemeyer. Nuyts, Jan. 1992. Subjective vs. objective modality: what is the difference? In Michael Fortescue, Peter Harder & Lars Kristoffersen (eds.), Layered structure and reference in a functional perspective, 73–97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nuyts, Jan. 2001a. Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization (Human Cognitive Processing 5). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nuyts, Jan. 2001b. Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 383–400. Nuyts, Jan. 2002. Grounding and the system of epistemic expressions in Dutch: A cognitivefunctional view. In: Brisard, Frank (ed.), The epistemic rooting of deixis and reference, 433–466. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Nuyts, Jan. 2004. Over de (beperkte) combineerbaarheid van deontische, epistemische en evidentiële uitdrukkingen in het Nederlands (Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 108). Antwerpen: Universiteit Antwerpen. Nuyts, Jan. 2005. Brothers in arms? On the relations between Cognitive and Functional Linguistics. In: Ruiz de Ibáñez, Francisco J. & M. Sandra Peña Cervel (eds.), Cognitive linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary action, 69–100. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.



References  Nuyts, Jan. 2006. Modality: Overview and linguistic issues. In: Frawley, William (ed.), The expression of modality, 1–26. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Okabe, Yoshiyuki. 2004. Hazu-da to ni chigai nai ni tsuite. Ryōsha okikae no kahi o chūshin ni [On the difference between Hazu-da and ni chigai nai. The possibility to replace them with each other]. Nihongo Kagaku 13: 109–122. Okuda, Yasuo. 1985. Kotoba no Kenkyū, josetsu [Language research, an introduction]. Tōkyō: Mugi Shobō. Okuda, Yasuo. 1986. Genjitsu, kanō, hitsuzen (1) [Reality, possibility, necessity (1)]. Kotoba no Kagaku 1: 181–212. Okuda, Yasuo. 1993. Setsumei (sono 3) – hazu-da [Explanation (3) – hazu-da]. Kotoba no Kagaku 6: 179–211. Okuda, Yasuo. 1999. Genjitsu, kanō, hitsuzen (3) – sinakereba naranai [Reality, possibility, necessity (3) – sinakereba naranai]. Kotoba no Kagaku 9: 195–261. Ono, Masaki. 2000. To omou jutsugobun no jōhō kōzō ni tsuite [On the Information Structure of “to omou”]. Studies in Language and Literature. Language 38: 57–70. Onoe, Keisuke. 1990. Bunpōron: Chinjutsu-ron no tanjō to shūen [Grammar: The birth and the death of predication theory]. Kokugo to Kokubungaku 6(4): 1–16. Onoe, Keisuke. 2001. Bunpō to Imi I [Grammar and meaning I]. Tōkyō: Kuroshio. Onoe, Keisuke. 2004. Shugo to jutsugo o meguru bunpō [The grammar of subject and predicate] In: Onoe, Keisuke (ed.) Asakura nihongo kōza 6, bunpō II, 43–57. Tōkyō: Asakura Shoten. Ōshika, Tadahisa. 1993. Suiryō to ka mo shirenai, ni chigai nai – johō no taikeika o mezashite [Inference and ka mo shirenai, ni chigai nai – aiming at a systematization of mood]. In Kotoba to Koto no Ha 10: 96–104. Ōshika, Tadahisa. 1995. Hontai haaku – rashii no setsu [Grasping the real nature – a hypothesis about rashii]. In Miyaji Hiroshi, Atsuko Sensei Koki Kinen Ronshū Kankōkai (ed.), Miyaji Hiroshi, Atsuko sensei koki kinen ronshū nihongo no kenkyū, 527–548. Tōkyō: Meiji Shoin. Ōshika, Tadahisa. 1999. Johō shōkō [Miscellaneous thoughts on modality]. Nihon Bungei Kenkyū 50(4): 35–45. Ōshika, Tadahisa. 2004. Modariti o bunpōshiteki ni miru [Modality in the history of grammar]. In Onoe, Keisuke (ed.) Asakura nihongo kōza 6, bunpō II, 193–214. Tōkyō: Asakura Shoten. Ozaki, Natsu. 1998. Gendai nihongo no tōi hyōgen o megutte [On Modern Japanese deontic expressions]. Presentation at the 1998 Spring Conference of the National Language Association (Tōkyō, Shirayuri Joshi Daigaku; 5/30~31/1998). Ozaki, Natsu. 2007. Nihongo no hitei meireibun o megutte – suruna o jutsugo to suru bun no tokusei to kinō [On negative imperative sentences in Japanese: The properties and functions of sentences with the predicate suruna]. Nihongo no Kenkyū 3(1): 65–79. Palmer, Frank R. 1979. Modality and the English modals. London: Longman. Palmer, Frank R. 1986. Mood and modality. Cambridge: CUP. Palmer, Frank R. 1987. The English verb, 2nd edn. London: Longman. Palmer, Frank R. 1990. Modality and the English modals, 2nd edn. London: Longman. Palmer, Frank R. 1995. Negation and the modals of possibility and necessity. In Joan Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse, 453–471. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Palmer, Frank R. 2001. Mood and modality, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. Papafragou, Anna. 2000. Modality: Issues in the semantics-pragmatics interface. Oxford: Elsevier.

 Modality in Japanese Parkinson, Stephen. 1988. Portuguese. In: Harris, Martin & Nigel Vincent (eds.), The Romance languages, 131–169. London: Routledge. Perkins, Michael R. 1983. Modal expressions in English. Norwood NJ: Ablex. Pietrandrea, Paola. 2005. Epistemic modality. Functional properties and the Italian system (Studies in Language Companion Series 74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pyamawade, Racchani. 1992. Nihongo to Taigo no modariti no taishō kenkyū. PhD dissertation, Tsukuba University. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. Reis, Marga. 1999. On sentence types in German: An enquiry into the relationship between grammar and pragmatics. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis, 195–236. Rizzi, Luigi (ed.). 2004. The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 2. Oxford: OUP. Rickmeyer, Jens. 1984. Prolegomena zur Morphosyntax der japanischen Gegenwartssprache. Bochumer Jahrbuch zur Ostasienforschung 7: 57–112. Rickmeyer, Jens. 1994. Ein taxonomisch-dependentielles Modell für eine deskriptive Grammatik der japanischen Sprache. Bochumer Jahrbuch zur Ostasienforschung 18: 249–258. Rickmeyer, Jens. 1995. Japanische Morphosyntax. Heidelberg: Julius Groos. Sadock, Jerold M. & Arnold M. Zwicky. 1985. Speech act distinctions in syntax. In: Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 1, 155–196. Cambridge: CUP. Saeki, Tetsuo. 1960. Gendaibun ni okeru gojun no keikō [Tendencies of word order in Modern Japanese]. Gengo Seikatsu 111 (12/1960): 56–63. Saeki, Tetsuo. 1998. Yōsetsu nihongo no gojun [Essentials of Japanese word order]. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Saji, Keizō. 1977. Jutsugo no kōzō to bun no seibun [The structure of the predicate, and the elements of the sentence]. Kokugo Kokubun 46(5) (513): 342–348. Saji, Keizō. 1989. Bunpō [Grammar]. In: Katō, Akihiko, Keizō Saji & Yoshiyuki Morita (eds.), Nihongo gaisetsu, 107–185. Tōkyō: Ōfūsha. Sakakura, Atsuyoshi. 1966. Gokeisei no kenkyū [Research on word formation]. Tōkyō: Kadokawa Shoten. Sakakura, Atsuyoshi. 1979. Nihongo no kōzōjō no tokushoku. In: Bunkachō (ed.): Nihongo no tokushoku [The characteristics of Japanese]. Tōkyō: Ōkurashō Insatsukyoku. Sakata, Yukiko. 1993a. Kibō, yokkyū o arawasu iikata [Expressions of desire and wish]. In: Sakata, Yukiko & Yasuo Kuramochi: Kyōshiyō nihongo kyōiku handobukku 4. Bunpō II, rev. edn, 51–65. Tōkyō: Heibonsha. Sakata, Yukiko. 1993b. Kyoka, kyoyō oyobi kinshi o arawasu iikata [Expressions of permission, allowance, and prohibition]. In: Sakata, Yukiko & Yasuo Kuramochi: Kyōshiyō nihongo kyōiku handobukku 4. Bunpō II, rev. edn, 210–216. Tōkyō: Heibonsha. Sakata, Yukiko. 1993c. Yōtai o arawasu iikata – sōda [Expressions of appearance – sōda]. In: Sakata, Yukiko & Yasuo Kuramochi: Kyōshiyō nihongo kyōiku handobukku 4. Bunpō II, rev. edn, 79–85. Tōkyō: Heibonsha. Sakata, Yukiko. 1993d. Kanō o arawasu iikata [Expressions of possibility]. In: Sakata, Yukiko & Yasuo Kuramochi: Kyōshiyō nihongo kyōiku handobukku 4. Bunpō II, rev. edn, 66–78. Tōkyō: Heibonsha.



References  Sasaki, Michiko. 2000. Ninshiki modariti shūhen no nichiei taishōrei – ikenbun kara [Contrasts on the periphery of English and Japanese epistemic modality – from sentences expressing an opinion]. The National Language Research Institute (ed.), Epistemic modality and related phenomena: The cases of Japanese, English and Chinese, 86–100. Tōkyō: The National Language Institute. Sawada, Harumi. 1993. Shiten to shukansei – Nichieigo jodōshi no bunseki [Perspective and subjectivity – an analysis of Japanese and English auxiliaries]. Tōkyō: Hitsuji Shobō. Sawanishi, Toshiko. 1999. Sōda (yōtai) ni tsuite no kōsatsu – danwa de no hyōgen o chūshin ni [Thoughts on sōda (appearance) – with special reference to expressions in discourse]. In: Yoshida Yasuo Sensei Koki Kinen Ronshū Iinkai (ed.) Nihongo no chiheisen – Yoshida Yasuo sensei koki kinen ronshū, 249–260. Tōkyō: Kuroshio. Shibuya, Katsumi. 1995. Kanō dōshi to suru koto ga dekiru – kanō no sekai [Potential verbs and suru koto ga dekiru – the world of possibility]. In: Miyajima, Tatsuo & Yoshio Nitta (eds.), Nihongo ruigi hyōgen no bunpō (1), 111–120. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Shinzato, Rumiko. 2007. (Inter)subjectification, Japanese syntax and syntactic scope increase. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8(2): 171–206. Siewierska, Anna. 1992. Layers in FG and GB. Layered structure and reference in a functional perspective. In: Fortescue, Michael, Peter Harder & Lars Kristoffersen (eds.), Papers from the Functional Grammar Conference in Copenhagen 1990, 409–432. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Slobin, Dan I. & Ayhan A. Aksu. 1982. Tense, aspect, and modality in the use of the Turkish evidential. In: Hopper, Paul (ed.), Tense-aspect: Between semantics & pragmatics, 185–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Stenius, Erik. 1967. Mood and language game. Synthese 17: 254–274. Sugawara, Toshihiro. 2005. Desideratives and person: Constructing a semantic map. Journal of Universal Language 6: 117–153. Sugi, Hidemi. 2004. Synchronic and diachronic studies on the Japanese inferential System: daroo, mitai, rashii, soo, and yooda. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Sugi Riggs, Hidemi. 2006. The structure of the Japanese inferential system: A functional analysis of daroo, rashii, soo-da, and yooda. In: Davis, Joseph, Radmila J. Gorup & Nancy Stern (eds.), Advances in Functional Linguistics, 239–262. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sugimura, Yasushi. 1998. Shingi handan o arawasu modariti fukushi moshi ka suru to, hyotto suru to no kenkyū [A study of adverbs that express truth judgments, moshi ka suru to and hyotto suru to]. Nihongo Kyōiku 98: 25–36. Sugimura, Yasushi. 2000a. Gendai nihongo ni okeru gaizensei o arawasu fukushi no kenkyū [A study of adverbs expressing probability in Modern Japanese]. PhD dissertation, Nagoya University, Graduate School of Languages and Cultures. Sugimura, Yasushi. 2000b. Yōda to sōda no shukansei [The subjectivity of yōda and sōda]. Gengo Bunka Ronshū 22(1): 85–100. Sun, Jackson T.-S. 1993. Evidentials in Amdo Tibetan. Zhongyang Yanjiuyuan Lishi Yuyan Yanjiusuo Jikan 63(4): 945–1001. Suzuki, Shigeyuki. 1972. Nihongo bunpō – keitairon [Japanese grammar – morphology]. Tōkyō: Mugi Shobō. Suzuki, Shigeyuki. 1996. Keitairon, josetsu [Morphology, an introduction]. Tōkyō: Mugi Shobō. Sweet, Henry. 1900 (1892) A New English grammar. Logical and historical. Part I. Oxford: Clarendon.

 Modality in Japanese Sweetser, Eve E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: CUP. Szemerényi, Oswald J.L. 1996. Introduction to Indoeuropean linguistics. 4th edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Takagi, Yōko. 1995. ~nakereba naranai to sono ikeitai ni tsuite [On ~nakereba naranai and its formal variants]. In: Ogino, Tsunao (ed.) Nihongo bunpō no kōzō 3, 1–12. Tsukuba: Tsukuba Daigaku Bungei, Gengogakukei. Takahashi, Tarō. 1991. Teramura Hideo ni okeru kanō to jihatsu [Potential and Spontaneity with Teramura Hideo]. Nihongogaku 10(2): 34–43. Takanashi, Shino. 1995a. Suru-to ii to sureba ii to shitara ii. Jōken setsuzoku keishiki ni yoru hyōkateki fukugō hyōgen 1 [Suru-to ii, sureba ii and sitara ii. Complex evaluative expressions through conditional forms 2]. In: Miyajima, Tatsuo & Yoshio Nitta (eds.), Nihongo ruigi hyōgen no bunpō (1), 235–243. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Takanashi, Shino. 1995b. Shite mo ii to shite ii. Jōken setsuzoku keishiki ni yoru hyōkateki fukugō hyōgen 2 [Shite mo ii and shite ii. Complex evaluative expressions through conditional forms 2]. In: Miyajima, Tatsuo & Yoshio Nitta (eds.) Nihongo ruigi hyōgen no bunpō (1), 244–252. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Takanashi, Shino. 2002. Hyōka no modariti [Valuative modality]. In Miyazaki, Kazuhito, Tarō Adachi, Harumi Noda, & Shino Takanashi, Modariti [Modality]. (Shin Nihongo Bunpō Sensho 4), 79–120. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Takanashi, Shino. 2004. Hyōka no modariti keishiki no ta-kei ni tsuite – beki-datta, nakute-wa ikenakatta, zaru-o enakatta [The ta-form of valuative modality – beki-datta, nakute-wa ikenakatta, zaru-o enakatta]. Nihongo Bunpō 4(1): 38–54. Takanashi, Shino. 2006. Hyōka no modariti to kibō hyōgen – ta-kei no seishitsu o chūshin ni [Valuative modality and expression of desires – the ta-form in the focus]. In: In: Takashi Masuoka, Hisashi Noda & Takurō (eds.) Nihongo bunpō no Shinchihei 2: 77–97. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Takayama, Yoshiyuki. 1986. Suitei hyōgen to shitsumon hyōgen no kōshō [The interaction between inferential expressions and interrogation]. Machikaneyama Ronsō 20: 1–19. Takubo, Yukinori. 1987. Tōgō kōzō to bunmyaku jōhō [Syntactic structure and contextual information]. Nihongogaku [Japanese Language Studies] 6: 37–47. Takubo, Yukinori. 1993. Danwa kanri riron kara mita nihongo no hanjijitsuteki jōkenbun [Japanese counterfactual conditionals from the perspective of discourse management]. In: Masuoka, Takashi (ed.), Nihongo no jōken hyōgen, 169–183. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Takubo, Yukinori. 2001. Gendai nihongo ni okeru ni-shurui no moodaru jodōshi nit suite [On the two kinds of modal auxiliaries in Modern Japanese]. In: Umeda Hiroyuki Kyōju Koki Kinen Ronsō Kankō Iinkai (eds.), Kannichi gobungaku ronsō, 1003–1025. Seoul: Taigakusha. Tamura, Naoko. 1995. Hazu da no imi to yōhō [The meaning and use of hazu da]. Nihongo to Nihon Bungaku 21: 43–53. Tamura, Naoko. 2001. Fukugō bunmatsu keishiki no imi to yōhō – nakereba naranai ya te wa ikenai o rei ni – [The meaning and use of complex sentence-final forms. nakereba naranai and te wa ikenai as examples]. In: Nakau Minoru Kyōju Kanreki Kinen Ronbunshū Iinkai (eds.) Imi to katachi no intaafeesu 1: 423–433. Taniguchi, Hideharu. 1995. Hanjijitsu o arawasu nihongo hyōgen ni tsuite [On counterfactual expressions in Japanese]. Hiroshima Daigaku Ryūgakusei Sentaa Kiyō 6: 43–48. Tanomura, Tadaharu. 1988. Hitei gimonbun shōkō [Minor considerations on negative interrogatives]. Kokugogaku 152: 16–30.



References  Tanomura, Tadaharu. 1991. Rashii to yōda no imi no sōi ni tsuite [On the difference in meaning between rashii and yōda]. Gengogaku Kenkyū 10: 62–78. Tanomura, Tadaharu. 1992. Gendaigo ni okeru yosō no sōda no imi ni tsuite – yōda to no taihi o fukumete [The meaning of the Modern Japanese prospective sōda – including a comparison with yōda]. Kokugo Goishi no Kenkyū 12: 1–20. Teramura, Hideo. 1982. Nihongo no shintakusu to imi I [Japanese syntax and meaning 1]. Tōkyō: Kuroshio. Teramura, Hideo. 1984. Nihongo no shintakusu to imi II [Japanese syntax and meaning 2]. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. “Object complements” and conversation – towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26(1): 125–164. Thompson, Sandra A. & Anthony Mulac. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. II, 313–329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tokieda, Motoki. 1941. Kokugogaku genron. Gengo kateisetsu no seiritsu to sono tenkai [Principles of National Language Studies. The formation of language processing theory and its expansion]. Tōkyō: Iwanami Shoten. Tokieda, Motoki. 1950. Nihon bunpō kōgo-hen [Japanese grammar – the spoken language]. Tōkyō: Iwanami Shoten. Toyota, Toyoko. 1987. Sōda (yōtai) no imi, yōhō to hiteikei (1) [The meaning and use of sōda (appearance) (1)]. In: Nihongo Gakkō Ronshū 14: 1–13. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: CUP. Usoniene, Aurelia. 2000. On the modality of the English verbs of seeming. In: van der Auwera, Johan & Patrick Dendale (eds.), Modal verbs in Germanic and Romance languages (Belgian Journal of Linguistics 14), 185–205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Uyeno, Tazuko Yamanaka. 1971. A study of Japanese modality – a performative analysis of sentence particles. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan. Van der Auwera, Johan & Vladimir A. Plungian. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2(1): 79–124. Van der Auwera, Johan. 2001. On the typology of negative modals. In: Hoeksma, Jan et al. (eds.), Perspectives on negation and polarity items, 23–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Van der Auwera, Johan & Bert Bultinck. 2001. On the lexical typology of modals, quantifiers, and connectives. In: Kenesei, István & Robert M. Harnish (eds.), Perspectives on semantics, pragmatics, and discourse, 173–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Van der Auwera, Johan, Nina Dobrushina & Valentin Goussev. 2004. A semantic map for imperative-hortatives. In: Dominique Willems, Bart Defranq, Timothy Colleman & Dirk Nol (eds.), Contrastive analysis in language. Identifying linguistic units of comparison, 44–66. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Van der Auwera, Johan, Nina Dobrushina & Valentin Goussev. 2005. Imperative-hortative systems. In: Haspelmath, Martin, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil, & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structures, 294–297. Oxford: OUP. Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1990. Layered syntax in role and reference grammar. In: Nuyts, Jan, A. Machtelt Bolkestein & Co Vet (eds.), Layers and levels of representation in language theory: A functional view, 193–231. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. & Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: CUP.

 Modality in Japanese Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2001. Subjective and objective modality. Interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1505–1528. Wärnsby, Anna. 2006. (De)coding modality. The case of must, may, måste, and kan. Lund: Lund University. Wasa, Atsuko. 2005. Supeingo to nihongo no modariti [Modality in Spanish and Japanese] (Shiriizu Gengo Taishō 11). Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Watanabe, Minoru. 1953. Jojutsu to chinjutsu. Jutsugo bunsetsu no kōzō [Internal and external predication. The structure of predicative phrases]. Kokugogaku 13/14: 20–34. Watkins, Calvert. 1998. Proto-Indo-European: comparison and reconstruction. In: Ramat, Anna Giacalone & Paolo Ramat (eds.), The Indo-European languages, 25–73. London: Routledge. Westmoreland, Robert R. 1998. Information and intonation in natural language modality. PhD dissertation, Indiana University. Whaley, Lindsay J. 1997. Introduction to typology. The unity and diversity of language. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Willett, Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12(1): 51–97. Wunderlich, Dieter. 1981. Modalverben im Diskurs und im System. In: Rosengren, Inger (ed.), Sprache und Pragmatik. Lunder Symposium 1980, 13–53. Lund: CWK Gleerup. Wundt, Wilhelm. 1900. Völkerpsychologie. Untersuchung der Entwicklungsgesetze von Sprache, Mythus und Sitte. Die Sprache. Zweiter Theil. Leipzig: Engelmann/Stuttgart: Kröner. Xrakovskij, Victor S. 2005. Conditional constructions: a theoretical description (meaning, calculus, typology). In: Xrakovskij, Victor S. (ed.), Typology of conditional constructions, 3–95. München: Lincom. Yamada, Susumu. 1982. Chigai nai, hazu da [Chigai nai and hazu da]. In: Kunihiro, Tetsuya et al., Kotoba no imi 3, 95–103. Tōkyō: Heibonsha Yamada, Yoshio. 1908. Nihon bunpōron [Japanese grammar theory]. Tōkyō: Hōbunkan. Yamada, Yoshio. 1936. Nihon bunpōgaku gairon [Outline of Japanese grammar theory]. Tōkyō: Hōbunkan. Yamada, Sae. 1990. Modariti. Tōkyō: Dōgakusha. Yamamoto, Eiichi. 1987. Ninshiki no yōtai to hobun hyōshiki [Manner of perception and the complementation marker]. In: Koizumi Tamotsu Kyōju Kanreki Kinen Ronbunshū Henshū Iinkai (eds.), Gengogaku no shikai, 73–89: Tōkyō: Daigaku Shorin. Yokomizo, Shinichiro. 1997. Omou/Omotte iru: Speaker’s subjectivity reflected In the Japanese language. PhD dissertation, University of Hawaii. Yui, Kikuko. 1995. Shite kudasai to shite moraitai to shite hoshii – irai o arawasu yōhō [Shite kudasai and shite moraitai and shite hoshii – their use to express requests]. In: Miyajima, Tatsuo & Yoshio Nitta (eds.) Nihongo ruigi hyōgen no bunpō (1), 220–225. Tōkyō: Kuroshio Shuppan. Ziegeler, Debra. 2006. Interfaces with English aspect. Diachronic and empirical studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Index A ability  12, 50, 96 Abraham, Werner  63, 122 Adachi, Tarō  94, 101, 145–149, 154–155 adversative clause  219–220 Akatsuka, Noriko  79, 107 Aoki, Haruo  113, 119–120 aspect  42–46, 198–201, 241–243 –(a)nakereba naranai  71–72, 82–84, 88–90, 126, 128, 167, 205–209, 226–230, 241 –(a)zaru o enai  88–90, 167, 205 B Bally, Charles  24–25 Bech, Gunnar  63 beki  71, 83–4, 87, 89–90, 126–129, 142–143, 167, 197, 205–209, 226–230, 241–242 boulomaic modality  9, 14, 91, 128–130, 239, 241 Brandt, Søren  14, 63–65 Butler, Christopher S.  33, 35–36, 45, 182 Butler, Johnny  63 Bybee, Joan  8, 10, 14, 16, 155, 166, 172, 203, 238 C cartography of syntactic structures  36, 59, 232 causal clause  217–219 Cinque, Guglielmo  1–2, 36–37, 51–53, 59, 63, 232–235, 238, 243 circumstantial possibility  12, 13 clausal mood  7, 12, 17, 19, 135–139, 157 Coates, Jennifer  13–14, 65–66, 104, 127, 158 complementation  169, 211–214, 226–227 completive aspect  198–201, 241 concessive clause  219–220, 240–241, 250

conditional clause  221–223, 228, 232–233, 240 counterfactuals  129, 137, 139–145 D daroo (‘speculative’)  41, 45, 46, 55–56, 70, 100, 103–107, 109–112, 114–116, 128, 137–141, 146–150, 159, 169, 183–187, 228–235, 240–241 degree of modality  32, 64–65 De Haan, Ferdinand  7, 10, 13–14, 17–18, 194, 248 deontic modality  11–12, 49, 54, 79, 129–130, 180–182, 207, 238–241 deontic necessity  82–85, 194 deontic possibility  80, 177 Dik, Simon (see FG) dynamic modality  9, 12–15, 28, 63, 177, 247, 249, 253 E epistemic modality  10–11, 34, 41, 46, 49–50, 54–56, 63–65, 99, 126, 147, 177, 182–184, 231, 238–239, 244 epistemic necessity  100, 106, 183, 228 epistemic possibility  103–106 –Eru  98, 105, 168, 226–229, 242, 247, 249 evidentiality  9, 10, 11, 50–51, 65, 113–123, 130, 227–230, 233, 235, 244–5 external negation  192–195, 226–228 F FG (Functional Grammar)  1, 13–14, 35–36, 37, 49–50, 51, 52–54, 59, 170, 173, 177, 179, 180, 182, 184, 186, 188, 191, 198, 202, 211, 214, 229, 230–232, 236, 238, 271

dubitative  146, 148–149 Fillmore, Charles  7 G Givón, T.  9, 10, 12, 17, 18, 172, 194 grammaticalization  16, 17, 18, 63, 74, 228 H Hayashi, Shirō  37–45, 55, 57 hazu  70, 99–103, 105–107, 109, 112, 127, 128, 142, 143, 169, 183, 187, 194, 206–209, 228, 230–231, 250 Heine, Bernd  14, 15, 166 Hengeveld, Kees  13–14, 18–19, 35, 50, 159 Heyse, Johann Christoph August  7, 22 hoo ga ii  86–7, 90, 142, 167 Hopper, Paul  18, 166, 172 Hoye, Leo  65–66, 76, 108 Huddleston, Rodney  10, 13–14, 64–65, 135, 145, 156 I illocutionary force (modulation)  8, 18–20, 38, 46, 56, 59, 91, 93, 136–137, 159, 211, 214, 215, 226, 229, 250 imperative  12, 19, 55, 135, 137, 138, 150–158, 201, 237–239, 251 inevitability  79, 82, 88–91 inferential evidentials  114–124, 131 interrogatives  65, 106, 135–136, 145–148, 159 Iwasaki, Shoichi  67, 166 J Jespersen, Otto  7, 14, 154 Johnson, Yuki  32, 100, 112, 202, 231

 Modality in Japanese K ka mo sirenai  18, 103–105, 109–112, 127, 139–140, 169, 183, 203, 229–231 –kanenai  99, 105, 168 –kaneru  98, 105, 168 Kiefer, Ferenc  8, 77 koto ga dekiru  96–98, 168, 249, 252 Kudō, Hiroshi  31–32, 75, 85, 94, 99, 107–109, 129–130 Kudō, Mayumi  31–32, 141 L LaPolla, Randy J. (see RRG) likelihood  10, 64, 99, 106–112, 124 Lyons, John  8, 25, 65 M Martin, Samuel E.  67, 75, 97, 102, 119–20, 153, 158 Masuoka, Takashi  27–31, 42–45, 56–58, 93, 98, 124, 143, 145–146, 159, 161, 221 Maynard, Senko K.  31, 47 mental predicates  76–77, 110–111 Minami, Fujio  38–45, 55–59, 217–223 mitai  113–9, 123–6, 169 Miyake, Tomohiro  22–23, 99, 101–107, 113, 117, 138 Miyazaki, Kazuhito  103, 106–107, 111, 115–116, 138, 145–149, 250 modal adverbs  17, 65, 108–110 modal affixes  17, 67, 71 modal particles  18–19 modal system  15–18, 67 Morita, Yoshiyuki  87, 94–95, 99–100, 107, 110, 112, 128 Moriyama, Takurō  84–85, 89–90, 93, 105–106, 111–113, 117, 138, 202, 212 N Narrog, Heiko  8, 9, 14, 27, 47, 67–68, 72, 74, 128, 201, 239 Nakau, Minoru  26 negation  8, 9, 17, 18, 38, 41, 46, 47, 52, 71, 82, 85, 147–149, 166, 191–197, 225–228, 231, 233–236, 240–247, 252, 253

ni sooi nai  100, 169 ni tigai nai  99–103, 109, 112, 128, 169 Nitta, Yoshio  27, 29, 31, 42, 43, 45, 46, 56–58, 75, 94, 100, 104, 106, 107, 111, 113–116, 125, 139, 145, 147, 151, 155, 156, 159 Noda, Harumi  84, 159, 161, 211 Noda, Hisashi  217–219 nominalization  27–28, 161, 211–212, 226–228 Nomura, Takashi  30–31 non-volitive modality  3, 15, 237–244 Nuyts, Jan  9, 10–13, 17–18, 49, 51, 53–54, 65, 66, 115, 182, 244 O obligation  11, 50, 64, 79, 80–90, 193, 205, 207, 237 Okuda, Yasuhiro  26, 31, 82, 96, 100–101, 138, 194, 198 one-word-phrase  69–70 Onoe, Keisuke  27, 30, 156 Ōshika, Tadahisa  31, 106, 115, 118 P Palmer, F.R.  7–18, 49, 63–67, 113, 158, 192, 194 particle  18, 47, 69, 70, 146, 153, 211, 214–215, 251 past tense  27, 29, 46, 71, 140, 142, 202–207, 225, 233, 235, 238, 247–249, 252 Perkins, Michael R.  18, 66, 108 permission  11–12, 50, 64, 79–80, 89–90 Pietrandrea, Paola  64–65 politeness  28–29, 42–48, 66 prohibitive  81, 153–154 R –(r)areru  55–56, 96–98, 168, 226–230, 242, 247–249, 252–253 rasii  55–56, 113–126, 169, 195, 228, 231, 247–248, 251–252 –(r)eba ii  85–87, 95, 167–168, 226–230, 240, 248–251 recommendation  55, 64, 79, 85–87, 90, 95, 129, 248, 250 –(r)eru  55, 96–8, 168

RRG (Role and Reference Grammar)  1, 33–37, 46, 49, 50–52, 54, 59, 170–171, 173, 177, 179, 180, 182, 184, 186, 188, 191, 195, 198, 202, 211, 214, 229–232, 236, 238 –(r)u ga ii  87, 167 S Saji, Keizō  39, 40, 45, 55 Sakakura, Atsuyoshi  40, 41, 55 Sawada, Harumi  111 scope ambiguity  47, 194–197, 204–209 semantic scope  37, 45–47, 173, 193 –soo(1)  55–56, 113, 115, 117, 119–126, 169, 227–228, 231, 235 soo(2)  114–117, 169, 228, 232, 234, 240–241, 247–248 speculative (see daroo) stative aspect  46, 123, 125, 141, 198–201, 225, 233, 235, 240–241 subjectivity  7, 8, 15, 21, 23–25, 28–32, 65, 102, 111–112, 159 subordinate clause  38, 63, 136 subordinate mood  136, 157 Sweet, Henry  7, 22 T –tai  55–56, 92–94, 142, 167, 228, 239 Takanashi, Shino  80, 83–87, 95, 129, 143, 205–208 Takubo, Yukinori  43–45, 115, 141 Tanomura, Tadaharu  118, 121, 124, 146, –Tara ii  55, 85–87, 95, 142, 167–168 –Te hosii  55, 94–95, 142, 168, 239 –Te mo ii  80–81, 85, 90, 126–127, 142, 167 –Te moraitai  94–95, 168 tense  7–8, 16–17, 28–29, 33–34, 38–39, 41–47, 63, 65, 141–142, 202–209, 225–228, 231–242, 245, 249, 253 Teramura, Hideo  26, 161 Tokieda, Motoki  23–5, 30 Traugott, Elizabeth C.  18, 23, 25, 156, 166 tumori  72, 92–94, 129–130, 142, 143, 168



Index  V van der Auwera, Johan  8, 14, 151, 154 Van Valin, Robert D. (see RRG) verbal complex  2, 37–41, 46, 65, 67–70, 171 verbal mood  16–19, 74–75

volitive modality  3, 15, 76, 129, 130, 237–244 word  68–72 Y Yamada, Yoshio  22–24, 30, 32, 37

yoo  55–56, 70, 113–126, 169, 196–197, 228, 231, 248, 252 –(y)oo  39, 55–56, 74–75, 93, 154–158, 170, 226–228, 230, 240–241, 251 Z Ziegeler, Debra  203, 238

Studies in Language Companion Series A complete list of titles in this series can be found on the publishers’ website, www.benjamins.com 113 Comrie, Bernard, Ray Fabri, Elizabeth Hume, Manwel Mifsud, Thomas Stolz and Martine Vanhove (eds.): Introducing Maltese Linguistics. Selected papers from the 1st International Conference on Maltese Linguistics, Bremen, 17-19 October, 2007. Expected May 2009 112 Dufter, Andreas and Daniel Jacob (eds.): Focus and Background in Romance Languages. Expected May 2009 111 Polguère, Alain and Igor A. Mel’čuk (eds.): Dependency in Linguistic Description. xxii, 281 pp. Expected March 2009 110 Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. (ed.): Coding Participant Marking. Construction types in twelve African languages. xiii, 386 pp. + index. Expected April 2009 109 Narrog, Heiko: Modality in Japanese. The layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories. 2009. xxii, 277 pp. 108 Barðdal, Jóhanna and Shobhana L. Chelliah (eds.): The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic, and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case. xx, 422 pp. + index. Expected March 2009 107 Butler, Christopher S. and Javier Martín Arista (eds.): Deconstructing Constructions. 2009. xx, 306 pp. 106 Vanhove, Martine (ed.): From Polysemy to Semantic Change. Towards a typology of lexical semantic associations. 2008. xiii, 404 pp. 105 Van Valin, Jr., Robert D. (ed.): Investigations of the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface. 2008. xxiv, 484 pp. 104 Mushin, Ilana and Brett Baker (eds.): Discourse and Grammar in Australian Languages. 2008. x, 239 pp. 103 Josephson, Folke and Ingmar Söhrman (eds.): Interdependence of Diachronic and Synchronic Analyses. 2008. viii, 350 pp. 102 Goddard, Cliff (ed.): Cross-Linguistic Semantics. 2008. xvi, 356 pp. 101 Stolz, Thomas, Sonja Kettler, Cornelia Stroh and Aina Urdze: Split Possession. An areallinguistic study of the alienability correlation and related phenomena in the languages of Europe. 2008. x, 546 pp. 100 Ameka, Felix K. and M.E. Kropp Dakubu (eds.): Aspect and Modality in Kwa Languages. 2008. ix, 335 pp. 99 Høeg Müller, Henrik and Alex Klinge (eds.): Essays on Nominal Determination. From morphology to discourse management. 2008. xviii, 369 pp. 98 Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine and Wiebke Ramm (eds.): 'Subordination' versus 'Coordination' in Sentence and Text. A cross-linguistic perspective. 2008. vi, 359 pp. 97 Dollinger, Stefan: New-Dialect Formation in Canada. Evidence from the English modal auxiliaries. 2008. xxii, 355 pp. 96 Romeo, Nicoletta: Aspect in Burmese. Meaning and function. 2008. xv, 289 pp. 95 O’Connor, Loretta: Motion, Transfer and Transformation. The grammar of change in Lowland Chontal. 2007. xiv, 251 pp. 94 Miestamo, Matti, Kaius Sinnemäki and Fred Karlsson (eds.): Language Complexity. Typology, contact, change. 2008. xiv, 356 pp. 93 Schalley, Andrea C. and Drew Khlentzos (eds.): Mental States. Volume 2: Language and cognitive structure. 2007. x, 362 pp. 92 Schalley, Andrea C. and Drew Khlentzos (eds.): Mental States. Volume 1: Evolution, function, nature. 2007. xii, 304 pp. 91 Filipović, Luna: Talking about Motion. A crosslinguistic investigation of lexicalization patterns. 2007. x, 182 pp. 90 Muysken, Pieter (ed.): From Linguistic Areas to Areal Linguistics. 2008. vii, 293 pp. 89 Stark, Elisabeth, Elisabeth Leiss and Werner Abraham (eds.): Nominal Determination. Typology, context constraints, and historical emergence. 2007. viii, 370 pp. 88 Ramat, Paolo and Elisa Roma (eds.): Europe and the Mediterranean as Linguistic Areas. Convergencies from a historical and typological perspective. 2007. xxvi, 364 pp.

87 Verhoeven, Elisabeth: Experiential Constructions in Yucatec Maya. A typologically based analysis of a functional domain in a Mayan language. 2007. xiv, 380 pp. 86 Schwarz-Friesel, Monika, Manfred Consten and Mareile Knees (eds.): Anaphors in Text. Cognitive, formal and applied approaches to anaphoric reference. 2007. xvi, 282 pp. 85 Butler, Christopher S., Raquel Hidalgo Downing and Julia Lavid (eds.): Functional Perspectives on Grammar and Discourse. In honour of Angela Downing. 2007. xxx, 481 pp. 84 Wanner, Leo (ed.): Selected Lexical and Grammatical Issues in the Meaning–Text Theory. In honour of Igor Mel'čuk. 2007. xviii, 380 pp. 83 Hannay, Mike and Gerard J. Steen (eds.): Structural-Functional Studies in English Grammar. In honour of Lachlan Mackenzie. 2007. vi, 393 pp. 82 Ziegeler, Debra: Interfaces with English Aspect. Diachronic and empirical studies. 2006. xvi, 325 pp. 81 Peeters, Bert (ed.): Semantic Primes and Universal Grammar. Empirical evidence from the Romance languages. 2006. xvi, 374 pp. 80 Birner, Betty J. and Gregory Ward (eds.): Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning. Neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn. 2006. xii, 350 pp. 79 Laffut, An: Three-Participant Constructions in English. A functional-cognitive approach to caused relations. 2006. ix, 268 pp. 78 Yamamoto, Mutsumi: Agency and Impersonality. Their Linguistic and Cultural Manifestations. 2006. x, 152 pp. 77 Kulikov, Leonid, Andrej Malchukov and Peter de Swart (eds.): Case, Valency and Transitivity. 2006. xx, 503 pp. 76 Nevalainen, Terttu, Juhani Klemola and Mikko Laitinen (eds.): Types of Variation. Diachronic, dialectal and typological interfaces. 2006. viii, 378 pp. 75 Hole, Daniel, André Meinunger and Werner Abraham (eds.): Datives and Other Cases. Between argument structure and event structure. 2006. viii, 385 pp. 74 Pietrandrea, Paola: Epistemic Modality. Functional properties and the Italian system. 2005. xii, 232 pp. 73 Xiao, Richard and Tony McEnery: Aspect in Mandarin Chinese. A corpus-based study. 2004. x, 305 pp. 72 Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, Adam Hodges and David S. Rood (eds.): Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories. 2005. xii, 432 pp. 71 Dahl, Östen: The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. 2004. x, 336 pp. 70 Lefebvre, Claire: Issues in the Study of Pidgin and Creole Languages. 2004. xvi, 358 pp. 69 Tanaka, Lidia: Gender, Language and Culture. A study of Japanese television interview discourse. 2004. xvii, 233 pp. 68 Moder, Carol Lynn and Aida Martinovic-Zic (eds.): Discourse Across Languages and Cultures. 2004. vi, 366 pp. 67 Luraghi, Silvia: On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases. The expression of semantic roles in Ancient Greek. 2003. xii, 366 pp. 66 Nariyama, Shigeko: Ellipsis and Reference Tracking in Japanese. 2003. xvi, 400 pp. 65 Matsumoto, Kazuko: Intonation Units in Japanese Conversation. Syntactic, informational and functional structures. 2003. xviii, 215 pp. 64 Butler, Christopher S.: Structure and Function – A Guide to Three Major Structural-Functional Theories. Part 2: From clause to discourse and beyond. 2003. xiv, 579 pp. 63 Butler, Christopher S.: Structure and Function – A Guide to Three Major Structural-Functional Theories. Part 1: Approaches to the simplex clause. 2003. xx, 573 pp. 62 Field, Fredric: Linguistic Borrowing in Bilingual Contexts. With a foreword by Bernard Comrie. 2002. xviii, 255 pp. 61 Goddard, Cliff and Anna Wierzbicka (eds.): Meaning and Universal Grammar. Theory and empirical findings. Volume 2. 2002. xvi, 337 pp. 60 Goddard, Cliff and Anna Wierzbicka (eds.): Meaning and Universal Grammar. Theory and empirical findings. Volume 1. 2002. xvi, 337 pp. 59 Shi, Yuzhi: The Establishment of Modern Chinese Grammar. The formation of the resultative construction and its effects. 2002. xiv, 262 pp. 58 Maylor, B. Roger: Lexical Template Morphology. Change of state and the verbal prefixes in German. 2002. x, 273 pp.

57 Mel’čuk, Igor A.: Communicative Organization in Natural Language. The semantic-communicative structure of sentences. 2001. xii, 393 pp. 56 Faarlund, Jan Terje (ed.): Grammatical Relations in Change. 2001. viii, 326 pp. 55 Dahl, Östen and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.): Circum-Baltic Languages. Volume 2: Grammar and Typology. 2001. xx, 423 pp. 54 Dahl, Östen and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.): Circum-Baltic Languages. Volume 1: Past and Present. 2001. xx, 382 pp. 53 Fischer, Olga, Anette Rosenbach and Dieter Stein (eds.): Pathways of Change. Grammaticalization in English. 2000. x, 391 pp. 52 Torres Cacoullos, Rena: Grammaticization, Synchronic Variation, and Language Contact. A study of Spanish progressive -ndo constructions. 2000. xvi, 255 pp. 51 Ziegeler, Debra: Hypothetical Modality. Grammaticalisation in an L2 dialect. 2000. xx, 290 pp. 50 Abraham, Werner and Leonid Kulikov (eds.): Tense-Aspect, Transitivity and Causativity. Essays in honour of Vladimir Nedjalkov. 1999. xxxiv, 359 pp. 49 Bhat, D.N.S.: The Prominence of Tense, Aspect and Mood. 1999. xii, 198 pp. 48 Manney, Linda Joyce: Middle Voice in Modern Greek. Meaning and function of an inflectional category. 2000. xiii, 262 pp. 47 Brinton, Laurel J. and Minoji Akimoto (eds.): Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English. 1999. xiv, 283 pp. 46 Yamamoto, Mutsumi: Animacy and Reference. A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics. 1999. xviii, 278 pp. 45 Collins, Peter C. and David Lee (eds.): The Clause in English. In honour of Rodney Huddleston. 1999. xv, 342 pp. 44 Hannay, Mike and A. Machtelt Bolkestein (eds.): Functional Grammar and Verbal Interaction. 1998. xii, 304 pp. 43 Olbertz, Hella, Kees Hengeveld and Jesús Sánchez García (eds.): The Structure of the Lexicon in Functional Grammar. 1998. xii, 312 pp. 42 Darnell, Michael, Edith A. Moravcsik, Michael Noonan, Frederick J. Newmeyer and Kathleen M. Wheatley (eds.): Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. Volume II: Case studies. 1999. vi, 407 pp. 41 Darnell, Michael, Edith A. Moravcsik, Michael Noonan, Frederick J. Newmeyer and Kathleen M. Wheatley (eds.): Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. Volume I: General papers. 1999. vi, 486 pp. 40 Birner, Betty J. and Gregory Ward: Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. 1998. xiv, 314 pp. 39 Wanner, Leo (ed.): Recent Trends in Meaning–Text Theory. 1997. xx, 202 pp. 38 Hacking, Jane F.: Coding the Hypothetical. A comparative typology of Russian and Macedonian conditionals. 1998. vi, 156 pp. 37 Harvey, Mark and Nicholas Reid (eds.): Nominal Classification in Aboriginal Australia. 1997. x, 296 pp. 36 Kamio, Akio (ed.): Directions in Functional Linguistics. 1997. xiii, 259 pp. 35 Matsumoto, Yoshiko: Noun-Modifying Constructions in Japanese. A frame semantic approach. 1997. viii, 204 pp. 34 Hatav, Galia: The Semantics of Aspect and Modality. Evidence from English and Biblical Hebrew. 1997. x, 224 pp. 33 Velázquez-Castillo, Maura: The Grammar of Possession. Inalienability, incorporation and possessor ascension in Guaraní. 1996. xvi, 274 pp. 32 Frajzyngier, Zygmunt: Grammaticalization of the Complex Sentence. A case study in Chadic. 1996. xviii, 501 pp. 31 Wanner, Leo (ed.): Lexical Functions in Lexicography and Natural Language Processing. 1996. xx, 355 pp. 30 Huffman, Alan: The Categories of Grammar. French lui and le. 1997. xiv, 379 pp. 29 Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth, Michael Fortescue, Peter Harder, Lars Heltoft and Lisbeth Falster Jakobsen (eds.): Content, Expression and Structure. Studies in Danish functional grammar. 1996. xvi, 510 pp.

28 Herman, József (ed.): Linguistic Studies on Latin. Selected papers from the 6th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics (Budapest, 23–27 March 1991). 1994. ix, 421 pp. 27 Abraham, Werner, T. Givón and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.): Discourse, Grammar and Typology. Papers in honor of John W.M. Verhaar. 1995. xx, 352 pp. 26 Lima, Susan D., Roberta Corrigan and Gregory K. Iverson: The Reality of Linguistic Rules. 1994. xxiii, 480 pp. 25 Goddard, Cliff and Anna Wierzbicka (eds.): Semantic and Lexical Universals. Theory and empirical findings. 1994. viii, 510 pp. 24 Bhat, D.N.S.: The Adjectival Category. Criteria for differentiation and identification. 1994. xii, 295 pp. 23 Comrie, Bernard and Maria Polinsky (eds.): Causatives and Transitivity. 1993. x, 399 pp. 22 McGregor, William B.: A Functional Grammar of Gooniyandi. 1990. xx, 618 pp. 21 Coleman, Robert (ed.): New Studies in Latin Linguistics. Proceedings of the 4th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Cambridge, April 1987. 1990. x, 480 pp. 20 Verhaar, John W.M. S.J. (ed.): Melanesian Pidgin and Tok Pisin. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Pidgins and Creoles in Melanesia. 1990. xiv, 409 pp. 19 Blust, Robert A.: Austronesian Root Theory. An essay on the limits of morphology. 1988. xi, 190 pp. 18 Wierzbicka, Anna: The Semantics of Grammar. 1988. vii, 581 pp. 17 Calboli, Gualtiero (ed.): Subordination and Other Topics in Latin. Proceedings of the Third Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Bologna, 1–5 April 1985. 1989. xxix, 691 pp. 16 Conte, Maria-Elisabeth, János Sánder Petöfi and Emel Sözer (eds.): Text and Discourse Connectedness. Proceedings of the Conference on Connexity and Coherence, Urbino, July 16–21, 1984. 1989. xxiv, 584 pp. 15 Justice, David: The Semantics of Form in Arabic. In the mirror of European languages. 1987. iv, 417 pp. 14 Benson, Morton, Evelyn Benson and Robert F. Ilson: Lexicographic Description of English. 1986. xiii, 275 pp. 13 Reesink, Ger: Structures and their Functions in Usan. 1987. xviii, 369 pp. 12 Pinkster, Harm (ed.): Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Proceedings of the 1st International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Amsterdam, April 1981. 1983. xviii, 307 pp. 11 Panhuis, Dirk G.J.: The Communicative Perspective in the Sentence. A study of Latin word order. 1982. viii, 172 pp. 10 Dressler, Wolfgang U., Willi Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl and Wolfgang Ullrich Wurzel: Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. 1988. ix, 168 pp. 9 Lang, Ewald and John Pheby: The Semantics of Coordination. (English transl. by John Pheby from the German orig. ed. 'Semantik der koordinativen Verknüpfung', Berlin, 1977). 1984. 300 pp. 8 Barth, E.M. and J.L. Martens (eds.): Argumentation: Approaches to Theory Formation. Containing the Contributions to the Groningen Conference on the Theory of Argumentation, October 1978. 1982. xviii, 333 pp. 7 Parret, Herman, Marina Sbisà and Jef Verschueren (eds.): Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics. Proceedings of the Conference on Pragmatics, Urbino, July 8–14, 1979. 1981. x, 854 pp. 6 Vago, Robert M. (ed.): Issues in Vowel Harmony. Proceedings of the CUNY Linguistics Conference on Vowel Harmony, May 14, 1977. 1980. xx, 340 pp. 5 Haiman, John: Hua: A Papuan Language of the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea. 1980. iv, 550 pp. 4 Lloyd, Albert L.: Anatomy of the Verb. The Gothic Verb as a Model for a Unified Theory of Aspect, Actional Types, and Verbal Velocity. (Part I: Theory; Part II: Application). 1979. x, 351 pp. 3 Malkiel, Yakov: From Particular to General Linguistics. Selected Essays 1965–1978. With an introduction by the author, an index rerum and an index nominum. 1983. xxii, 659 pp. 2 Anwar, Mohamed Sami: BE and Equational Sentences in Egyptian Colloquial Arabic. 1979. vi, 128 pp. 1 Abraham, Werner (ed.): Valence, Semantic Case, and Grammatical Relations. Workshop studies prepared for the 12th International Congress of Linguists, Vienna, August 29th to September 3rd, 1977. 1978. xiv, 729 pp.