1887
Volume 1, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2950-189X
  • E-ISSN: 2950-1881

Abstract

Abstract

Desire verbs commonly change into markers of future events. Bybee et al. (1994) report of the common pattern in language change in which verbs like become future markers. Van Dooren et al. (2019) observe that Dutch ‘want’ shows indications that it is currently on the path from desire to future: A sentence like ‘It will probably rain today’ (lit. It wants rain today) indicates that rain might happen later today. The desire element has disappeared. In this short paper, we will further specify and explain van Dooren et al.’s semantic analysis of the future use of Dutch . We will argue that it is a root modal, which is pragmatically always future-oriented (extending Condoravdi 2002).

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/nb.00016.van
2025-01-24
2025-02-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/nb.00016.van.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/nb.00016.van&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Barbiers, Sjef
    1995 The syntax of interpretation. Leiden: Leiden University dissertation.
  2. Bochnak, M. Ryan
    2019 Future reference with and without future marking. Language and Linguistics Compass13(1). 10.1111/lnc3.12307
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12307 [Google Scholar]
  3. Boogaart, Ronny
    2013 De modaliteit van temporaliteit. Nederlandse Taalkunde18(3). 324–338. 10.5117/NEDTAA2013.3.BOOG
    https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2013.3.BOOG [Google Scholar]
  4. Bybee, Joan, Revere Dale Perkins & William Pagliuca
    1994The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Condoravdi, Cleo
    2002 Temporal interpretation of modals: modals for the present and for the past. InDavid Beaver, Luis Casillas, Brady Clark & Stefan Kaufmann (eds.), The construction of meaning, 59–88. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dooren, Annemarie van, Anouk Dieuleveut, Ailís Cournane & Valentine Hacquard
    2022 Figuring out root and epistemic uses of modals: The role of the input. Journal of Semantics39(4). 581–616. 10.1093/jos/ffac010
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffac010 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dooren, Annemarie van, Nick Huang & Gesoel Mendes
    2019, November15. Polysemous want: Language change from a synchronic perspective [Conference presentation]. Formal Diachronic Semantics41. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
  8. . Submitted. A future for desire verbs: Language change from a synchronic perspective.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Hacquard, Valentine
    2013 Modality. InClaudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusingerand & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, 1484–1515. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Heim, Irene
    1992 Presupposition Projection and the Semantics of Attitude Verbs. Journal of Semantics9(3). 183–221.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hogeweg, Lotte
    2009 The meaning and interpretation of the Dutch particle wel. Journal of Pragmatics41(3). 519–539. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.012 [Google Scholar]
  12. Janssen, Theo
    1989 Tempus: Interpretatie en betekenis. De Nieuwe Taalgids821. 305–329.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Kissine, Mikhail
    2008 Why will is not a modal. Natural Language Semantics16(2). 129–155. 10.1007/s11050‑008‑9028‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-008-9028-0 [Google Scholar]
  14. Klecha, Peter
    2013 Diagnosing modality in predictive expressions. Journal of Semantics31(3). 443–455. 10.1093/jos/fft011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/fft011 [Google Scholar]
  15. Kratzer, Angelika
    1977 What “must” and “can” must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy11. 337–355. 10.1007/BF00353453
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00353453 [Google Scholar]
  16. 1981 The notional category of modality. InPaul Portner & Barbara Partee (eds.), Formal semantics: The essential readings, 289–323. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Lightfoot, David
    1979Principles of diachronic syntax. London: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Palmer, Frank Robert
    1987Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Rooryck, Johan
    2017 Between desire and necessity: the complementarity of want and need. InHilke Reckman, Lisa Cheng, Maarten Hijzelendoorn & Rint Sybesma (eds.), Crossroads semantics: Computation, experiment and grammar, 263–279. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.210.16roo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.210.16roo [Google Scholar]
  20. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    1989 On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language. 31–55. 10.2307/414841
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414841 [Google Scholar]
  21. Verkuyl, Henk & Hans Broekhuis
    2013 Temporaliteit en modaliteit. Nederlandse Taalkunde18(3). 306–323. 10.5117/NEDTAA2013.3.VERK
    https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2013.3.VERK [Google Scholar]
  22. Zwicky, Arnold & Jerrold Sadock
    1973 Ambiguity tests and how to fail them. The Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics161. 1–34.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/nb.00016.van
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): change; language; modality; Semantics; tense
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