Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the interaction of aspect and modal auxiliaries

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper discusses the interaction of aspect and modality, and focuses on the puzzling implicative effect that arises when perfective aspect appears on certain modals: perfective somehow seems to force the proposition expressed by the complement of the modal to hold in the actual world, and not merely in some possible world. I show that this puzzling behavior, originally discussed in Bhatt (1999, Covert modality in non-finite contexts) for the ability modal, extends to all modal auxiliaries with a circumstantial modal base (i.e., root modals), while epistemic interpretations of the same modals are immune to the effect. I propose that implicative readings are contingent on the relative position of the modal w.r.t. aspect: when aspect scopes over the modal (as I argue is the case for root modals), it forces an actual event, thereby yielding an implicative reading. When a modal element scopes over aspect, no actual event is forced. This happens (i) with epistemics, which structurally appear above tense and aspect; (ii) with imperfective on a root modal: imperfective brings in an additional layer of modality, itself responsible for removing the necessity for an actual event. This proposal enables us to solve the puzzle while maintaining a standardized semantics for aspects and modals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abusch D. (1997) Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20: 1–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arregui, A. (2004). On the accessibility of possible worlds: The role of tense and aspect. Ph.D. Thesis, UMass, Amherst.

  • Arregui A. (2007) When aspect matters. Natural Language Semantics 15: 221–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleiber G. (2006) Pour une reanalyze de l’imparfait de rupture dans le cadre de l’hypothèse anaphorique méronomique. Cahiers de Praxématique, 32: 119–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhatt, R. (1998). Obligation and possession. In H. Harley (Ed.), Papers from the UPenn/MIT roundtable on argument structure and aspect, MITWPL 32. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.

  • Bhatt, R. (1999). Covert modality in non-finite contexts. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Bonomi A. (1997) Aspect, quantification and when-clauses in Italian. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 469–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, V. (1993). Root and epistemic modal auxiliary verbs. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Brogonovo, C., Cummins, S. (2006). Past-tense modals in Spanish and French. Paper presented at the 16e Coloquio de Gramática Generativa, Madrid, handout.

  • Butler J. (2003) A minimalist treatment of modality. Lingua 113: 967–996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cinque G. (1999) Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax). Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cipria A., Roberts C. (2000) Spanish Imperfecto and Preterito: Truth conditions and aktionsart effects in situation semantics. Natural Language Semantics 8(4): 297–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coates J. (1983) The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. Croom Helm, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrie B. (1976) Aspect. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Condoravdi, C. (1994). Descriptions in context. Ph.D. Thesis, Yale.

  • Condoravdi C. (2002) Temporal interpretations of modals. In: Beaver D., Kaufman S., Clark B. (eds) Stanford papers in semantics. CSLI Publications, Palo Alto

    Google Scholar 

  • Corblin F., de Swart H. (eds) (2004) Handbook of French semantics. CSLI Publications, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cormack A., Smith N. (2002) Modals and negation in English. In: Barbiers S., Beukema F., van der Wurff W. (eds) Modality and its interaction with the verbal system. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 133–163

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson D. (1967) The logical form of action Sentences. In: Rescher N. (eds) The logic of decision and action. University of Pittsburg Press, Pittsburg, pp 81–120

    Google Scholar 

  • De Haan F. (1997) The interaction of modality and negation: A typological study. Garland, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowty D. (1977) Towards a semantic analysis of verb aspect and the English ‘imperfective’ progressive. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 45–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drubig, H. B. (2001). On the syntactic form of epistemic modality, ms. https://doi.org/www.sfb441.uni-tuebingende/b2.papers/DrubigModality.pdf.

  • Feldman F. (1986) Doing the best we can. Reidel, Dortrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hacquard, V. (2006). Aspects of modality. Ph.D. Thesis, MIT.

  • Hacquard, V. (2008a). Restructuring and implicative properties of volere. In A. Gronn (Ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12.

  • Hacquard, V. (2008b). On the event relativity of modal auxiliaries, ms. University of Maryland.

  • Heim I. (1994) Comments on Abusch’s theory of tense. In: Kamp H. (eds) Ellipsis, tense and questions. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Iatridou, S. (1990). The past, the possible and the evident. Linguistic Inquiry, 21.1, 123–129.

  • Ippolito, M. (2004). Imperfect modality. In J. Guéron & J. Lecarme (Eds.), The syntax of time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Jackendoff R. (1972) Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H., Rohrer, C. (1983). Tense in texts. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow, (Eds.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Klein W. (1994) Time in language. London/New York, Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer A. (1981). The notional category of modality. In: Eikmeyer H.-J., Rieser H. (eds). Words, worlds, and contexts. New approaches in word semantics. Berlin, de Gruyter

  • Kratzer A. (1991) Modality. In: von Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds) Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenoessischer Forschung. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 639–650

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. (1998). More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In D. Strolovich &A. Lawson (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT VIII. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University.

  • Krifka M. (1992) Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In: Sag I., Szabolsci A. (eds) Lexical matters. University of Chicago Press, CSLI Lecture Notes, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M., Pelletier, F. J., Carlson, G. N., ter Meulen, A., Link, G., & Chierchia, G. (1995). Introduction. In G. N. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Kripke S. (1972) Naming and necessity. In: Davidson D., Gilbert H. (eds) Semantics of natural language. Reidel, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Landman F. (1992) The progressive. Natural Language Semantics 1: 1–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, F. (2006). Have to and the scope of modality. In Proceedings of WCCFL 25. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

  • Lenci A., Bertinetto P.M. (2000) Aspect, adverbs and events: Habituality and perfectivity in J. In: Higginbotham. Pianesi F., Varzi A.C. (eds) Speaking of events. Oxford University Press, Oxford/ New York, pp 65–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D. (1968) On the plurality of worlds. Basil Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Mari, A., & Martin, F. (2007). Tense, abilities, and actuality Entailment. In Proceedings of the Amsterdam Colloquium.

  • Menéndez-Benito, P. (2002). Aspect and adverbial quantification. NELS 32 proceedings. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

  • Moscati, V. (2008). The scope of negation. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Sienna.

  • Ninan, D. (2005). Two puzzles about deontic necessity. In J. Gajewski, V. Hacquard, B. Nickel & S. Yalcin (Eds.), New work on modality, MITWPL 51. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.

  • Palmer F.R. (2001) Mood and modality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Partee B. (1973) Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns. The Journal of Philosophy 70: 601–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Percus O. (2000) Constraints on some other variables in syntax. Natural Language Semantics 8: 173–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Picallo M. (1990) Modal verbs in Catalan. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 285–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piñón, C. (2003). Being able to. In G. Garding & M. Tsujimura (Eds.), WCCFL 22 Proceedings (pp. 384–397). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

  • Portner P. (1998) The progressive in modal semantics. Language 74(4): 760–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portner P. (2009) Modality. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker P. (2004) Conditionals as definite descriptions (a referential analysis). Research on Language and Computation 2(3): 417–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert L., Pelletier F.J. (1989) Generically speaking, or, using discourse representation theory to interpret generics. In: Chierchia G., Partee B., Turner R. (eds) types and meaning II. Properties, Dordercht, Kluwer

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharvit Y. (2003) Trying to be progressive: The extensionality of try. Journal of Semantics 20: 403–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith C. (1991) The parameter of aspect. Kluwer Academic Press, Boston, MA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, R. (1968). A theory of conditionals. Studies in Logical Theory, American Philosophical Quarterly, Monograph: 2 pp. 98–112. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Stowell T. (2004). Tense and modals. In J. Guéron & J. Lecarme (Eds.), The syntax of time. Cambridge MA, MIT Press

  • Thalberg, I. (1969). Austin on abilities. In K. T. Fann (Ed.), Symposium on J. L. Austin. New York: Humanities Press Inc.

  • Verkuyl, H., Vet, C., Borillo, A., Bras, M., Le Draoulec, A., Molendijk, A., de Swart, H., Vetters, C., & Vieu, L. (2004). Meaning and uses of past tenses in discourse. In F. Corblin & H. de Swart (Eds.), Handbook of French semantics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

  • von Fintel, K., & Heim, I. (2005). Intensional semantics. Lecture Notes, MIT.

  • von Fintel K., Iatridou S. (2003) Epistemic containment. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 173–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel, K., & Iatridou, S. (2004). What to do if you want to go to Harlem: Notes on Anankastic conditionals and related matters, ms., MIT.

  • Zubizaretta, M. (1982). On the relationship of the Lexicon to syntax. Ph.D. Thesis, MIT.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20742-7505, USA

    Valentine Hacquard

Authors
  1. Valentine Hacquard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valentine Hacquard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hacquard, V. On the interaction of aspect and modal auxiliaries. Linguist and Philos 32, 279–315 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-009-9061-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-009-9061-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation