1887
Volume 3, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2772-3720
  • E-ISSN: 2772-3739
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In this paper it is argued that the Hungarian future auxiliary is a modal rather than a temporal operator. As opposed to previous findings in the literature, the paper claims that it can be used when the proposition is inferred, therefore it can have an epistemic modal base. The results of a questionnaire study and introspective data are presented to support this claim. Based on these data, it is argued that the distributional difference between and the non-past cannot be explained by the presence or absence of temporal ambiguity only, the choice also depends on the context. Namely, the use of the non-past is marginal if the speaker infers the truth of the proposition from contextually known facts, while is natural and acceptable in such cases. The Hungarian data presented further strengthen the hypothesis that there is a strong connection between future-referring morphemes and epistemic modality.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00027.vir
2024-05-14
2024-06-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abush, Dorit
    1988 Sequences of tense, intensionality and scope. InHagit Borer (ed.), Proceedings of the Second West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 1–14. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Abusch, Dorit
    1997 Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy201. 1–50. 10.1023/A:1005331423820
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005331423820 [Google Scholar]
  3. 1998 Generalizing tense semantics for future contexts. InSusan Rothsteined., Events and Grammar, 13–33. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3969‑4_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_2 [Google Scholar]
  4. Condoravdi, Cleo
    2002 Temporal interpretations of modals: modals for the present and the past. InDavid Beaver, Stefan Kaufmann, Brady Clark & Casillas Martinez (eds.), Construction of meaning, 59881. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2003 Moods and modalities for will and would. Workshop on Mood and Modality Amsterdam Colloquium. December 21, 2003.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Copley, Bridget
    2009The semantics of the future. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203880258
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203880258 [Google Scholar]
  7. Csató, Éva Ágnes
    1994 Tense and actionality in Hungarian. InRolf Theiroff & Joachim Ballweg (eds.), Tense systems in European languages, 231–246. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dahl, Östen
    2000 The grammar of future time reference in European languages. InÖsten Dahl (ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe, 309–328. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197099.2.309
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197099.2.309 [Google Scholar]
  9. De Winter, Joost & Dodou, Dimitra
    2010 Five-point likert items: T test vs Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, Vol. 15, article111, 1–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Enç, Müvet
    1996 Tense and modality. InShalom Lappin (ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 345–158. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Grice, Paul
    1975 Logic and conversation. InPeter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds.), Speech acts (Syntax and Semantics 3), 41–58. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 [Google Scholar]
  12. 1989Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gugán, Katain & Mónika Varga
    2018 Fogos kérdések [Questions with fog]. Nyelv és Tudomány, 2018. július 25. https://www.nyest.hu/hirek/fogos-kerdesek
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Karttunen, Lauri
    1972 Possible and must. InJohn P. Kimball (ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 1, 1–20. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004372986_002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004372986_002 [Google Scholar]
  15. Kaufmann, Stefan
    2005 Conditional truth and future reference. Journal of Semantics221. 231–80. 10.1093/jos/ffh025
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffh025 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kiefer, Ferenc
    2012 Some observations on the Hungarian adverbial particle majd. Acta Linguistica Hungarica591. 427–438. 10.1556/ALing.59.2012.4.2
    https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.59.2012.4.2 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kissine, Mikhail
    2008 Why will is not a modal. Natural Language Semantics161. 129–155. 10.1007/s11050‑008‑9028‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-008-9028-0 [Google Scholar]
  18. Klecha, Peter
    2014 Diagnosing modality in predictive expressions. Journal of Semantics311. 443–455. 10.1093/jos/fft011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/fft011 [Google Scholar]
  19. Lotz, John
    1962 Semantic analysis of the tenses in Hungarian. Lingua111. 256–262. 10.1016/0024‑3841(62)90033‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(62)90033-5 [Google Scholar]
  20. Novák, Attila, Katalin Gugán, Mónika Varga & Adrienne Dömötör
    2018 Creation of an annotated corpus of Old and Middle Hungarian court records and private correspondence. Language Resources and Evaluation521. 1–28. 10.1007/s10579‑017‑9393‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-017-9393-8 [Google Scholar]
  21. Ogihara, Toshiyuki
    1996Tense, attitudes, and scope. Dordrecht and Boston: Reidel. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑8609‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8609-2 [Google Scholar]
  22. Palffy-Muhoray, Nicole
    2013 Future reference in Hungarian with and without future marking. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Vol. 19. Issue 1, Article 17.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2016 Hungarian temporal and aspectual references in the absence of dedicated markers. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University dissertation.
  24. Portner, Paul
    2009Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199292424.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199292424.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Prior, Norman Arthur
    1967Past, present, and future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198243113.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198243113.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Sherwood, Peter
    2006 Hungarian has no future. Hungarológiai Évkönyv Vol. 7. Issue 1, 39–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Thomas, Guillaume
    2014 Circumstantial modality and the diversity condition. InUrtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Fălăus, Aritz Irurtzun & Bryan Leferman (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung181, 433–450. Bayonne and Vitoria-Gasteiz.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Werner, Thomas
    2006 Future and non-future modal sentences. Natural Language Semantics141. 235–255. 10.1007/s11050‑006‑9001‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-006-9001-8 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00027.vir
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00027.vir
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): epistemic modality; future auxiliaries; future time reference; Hungarian
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error