Heiko Narrog

Modality, subjectivity, and semantic change : a cross-linguistic perspective

1. Introduction 2. Modality and Subjectivity 3. Modality and Semantic Change 4. Illustrating the Model - some case studies 5. Cross-linguistic Patterns of Polysemy and Change Within Modality and Mood 6. Shifts Between Types of Modality in Traditional Terms 7. Into (and out of) Modality 8. Conclusions Appendix References

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

Hierarchical clause structure is an important feature of most theories of grammar. While it has been an indispensable part of formal syntactic theories, functional theories have more recently discovered for themselves a ‘layered structure of the clause’. A major focus of the current discussion on semanto-syntactic clause structure is the hierarchical ordering of grammatical categories such as tense, aspect and modality. However, there are very few empirical studies yet to provide systematic evidence for presumably universal hierarchical structures. This book presents a systematic corpus-based study of the semantic and morphosyntactic interaction of modality with tense, aspect, negation, and modal markers embedded in subordinate clauses. The results are critically compared with extant theories of hierarchies of grammatical categories, including those in Functional Grammar, Role and Reference Grammar, and the Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Also provided is an extensive description of the expression of modality and related categories in Modern Japanese.

Coding causal–noncausal verb alternations: A form–frequency correspondence explanation

We propose, and provide corpus-based support for, a usage-based explanation for cross-linguistic trends in the coding of causal–noncausal verb pairs, such as raise/rise, break (tr.)/ break (intr.). While English mostly uses the same verb form both for the causal and the noncausal sense (labile coding), most languages have extra coding for the causal verb (causative coding) and/or for the noncausal verb (anticausative coding). Causative and anticausative coding is not randomly distributed (Haspelmath 1993): Some verb meanings, such as ‘freeze’, ‘dry’ and ‘melt’, tend to be coded as causatives, while others, such as ‘break’, ‘open’ and ‘split’, tend to be coded as anticausatives. We propose an explanation of these coding tendencies on the basis of the form–frequency correspondence principle, which is a general efficiency principle that is responsible for many grammatical asymmetries, ultimately grounded in predictability of frequently expressed meanings. In corpus data from seven languages, we find that verb pairs for which the noncausal member is more frequent tend to be coded as anticausatives, while verb pairs for which the causal member is more frequent tend to be coded as causatives. Our approach implies that linguists should not rely on form–meaning parallelism when trying to explain cross-linguistic or language-particular patterns in this domain.

The grammaticalization of tense, aspect, modality and evidentiality : a functional perspective

This book brings together a series of contributions to the study of the grammaticalization of tense, aspect, modality and evidentiality from a functional perspective. All contributions share the aim to uncover the functional motivations behind the processes of grammaticalization under discussion, but they do so from different points of view.

Coding causal–noncausal verb alternations: A form–frequency correspondence explanation – CORRIGENDUM

The PENULTIMATE SENTENCE OF THE ABSTRACT of the article by Haspelmath et al. (2014), ‘In corpus data from seven languages, we find that verb pairs for which the noncausal member is more frequent tend to be coded as anticausatives, while verb pairs for which the causal member is more frequent tend to be coded as causatives’, should read: In corpus data from seven languages, we find that verb pairs for which the causal member is more frequent tend to be coded as anticausatives, while verb pairs for which the noncausal member is more frequent tend to be coded as causatives.