Cover not available
Part of
Focus Realization in Romance and Beyond
Edited by Marco García García and Melanie Uth
[Studies in Language Companion Series 201] 2018
► pp. 203–228

Chapter 7
Presupposed modality

 | FU Berlin
My contribution explores the possibility to treat meanings that have intuitively been called surprise and obviousness within a theory of presupposed modal operators. A bird’s eye review of the literature on relevant intonational, morphological and syntactic expressions gathered from a broad range of languages is meant to give an impression both of the importance of these meanings as well as of the lack of a common pragmatic account. The case of miratives in Quechua is discussed considering some new data. The theory is developed in the form of language games and compares the behavior of presupposed modal operators both with the behavior of canonical modal expressions and with presuppositions triggered by lexical items.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Expressions of surprise and obviousness in the linguistic literature
    • 2.1Phonology: Epistemic tunes
    • 2.2Morphology: Mirativity – and some obviousness
    • 2.3Syntax
    • 2.4Empirical trouble
  • 3.Presupposed modality
    • 3.1Expected worlds
    • 3.2Forbidden worlds
    • 3.3Emotional worlds
    • 3.4Presupposed modality mirrors the logical and pragmatic relations of modal operators in at-issue meanings
    • 3.5Heritage properties
    • 3.6Rhetorical uses
  • 4.Conclusions and perspectives
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.201.07rei
References (46)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2012. Essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology 16: 435–485.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bänziger, Tanja & Scherer, Klaus R. 2005. The role of intonation in emotional expressions. Speech Communication 46(3–4): 252–267.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behrens, Leila. 2012. Evidentiality, modality, focus and other puzzles. In Practical Theories and Empirical Practice [Human Cognitive Processing 40], Andrea C. Schalley (ed.), 185–243. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina, Bocci, Giuliano & Cruschina, Silvio. 2016. Focus fronting, unexpectedness, and evaluative implicatures. Semantics and Pragmatics 9(3): 1–54.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1989. Intonation and Its Uses: Melody in Grammar and Discourse. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Subject and Topic, Charles Li (ed.), 27–55. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro & McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1990. Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan. 1986. Intonation. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1: 33–52.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Estebas-Vilaplana, Eva & Prieto, Pilar. 2010. Castilian Spanish intonation. In Transcription of Intonation of the Spanish Language, Pilar Prieto & Paolo Roseano (eds), 17–48. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Faller, Martina T. 2002. Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD dissertation, Stanford University. <[URL]>
Faller, Martin 2004. The deictic core of ‘Non-Experienced Past’ in Cuzco Quechua. Journal of Semantics 21(1): 45–85.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 1993. German Intonational Patterns. Tübingen: Niemeyer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Herbert Paul. 1989. Logic and conversation. In Studies in the Way of Words, Herbert Paul Grice, 22–40. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, Martine & Baumann, Stefan. 2002. Deutsche Intonation und GToBI. Linguistische Berichte 191: 267–298.Google Scholar
Grice, Martine & Savino, Michelina. 1995. Intonation and communicative function in a regional variety of Italian. Phonus 1: 19–32.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos 2004. The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & Olbertz, Hella. 2012. Didn’t you know? Mirativity does exist! Linguistic Typology 17: 487–503.Google Scholar
Hintz, Daniel & Hintz, Diane. 2017. The evidential category of mutual knowledge in Quechua. Lingua 186–187: 88–109.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hyslop, Gwendolyn. 2011. A Grammar of Kurtöp. Eugene OR: UO Libraries. <[URL]>
Kadmon, Nirit. 2001. Formal Pragmatics. Semantics, Pragmatics, Presupposition, and Focus. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1974. Presuppositions and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1: 181–194.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kohler, Klaus. 1987. Categorical pitch perception. Proc. XIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 5, 331–333. Tallinn.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In The Notions of Information Structure [Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 6], Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow & Manfred Krifka (eds), 13–56. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1996. Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel & Escandell Vidal, Victoria. 2009. Fronting and Verum-Focus in Spanish. In Focus and Background in Romance Languages [Studies in Language Companion Series 112], Andreas Dufter & Daniel Jacob (eds), 155–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Language, Speech, and Communication. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark. 1979. The Intonational System of English. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Moraes, João. 2008. The pitch accents in Brazilian Portuguese: Analysis by synthesis. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2008, Plinio Barbosa, Sandra Madureira & César Reis (eds.), 389–398. Campinas: Unicamp.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 2 2001. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parker, Gary. 1976. Gramática quechua: Ancash-Huailas. Lima: Ministerio de Educación.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2009. Modality. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2007. Conventional implicatures, a distinguished class of meanings. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds), 475–501. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2015. Presupposition and implicature. In The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, 2nd edn, 168–202, Shalom Lappin & Chris Fox (eds), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth. 2002. Contrastive FOCUS vs. Presentational Focus: Prosodic evidence from the right node raising in English. In Speech Prosody 2002, 643–646, Bernard Bel & Isabelle Marlien (eds). Aix en Provence.Google Scholar
Scherer, Klaus R. 2003. Vocal communication of emotion: A review of research paradigms. Speech Communication 40: 227–256.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert C. 1973. Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2(4): 447–457.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. In Semantics and Philosophy, Milton K. Munitz & Peter K. Unger (eds), 197–213. New York NY: New York University Press.Google Scholar
2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith, Beaver, David, Roberts, Craige & Simons, Mandy. 2013. Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language 89(1): 66–109.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uth, Melanie. 2014. Spanish preverbal subjects in contexts of narrow information focus: Non-contrastive focalization or epistemic-evidential marking? Grazer Linguistische Studien 81: 87–104.Google Scholar
. In press. F0 contours in data from picture-based elicitation experiments: Evidence from contrastive cleft sentences in Yucatecan Spanish. In Empirical Methods in Romance Prosody Research, Ingo Feldhausen, Jan Fließbach & Maria del Mar Vanrell Bosch (eds). Berlin: Language Science Press.
Vanrell Bosch, Maria del Mar. 2011. The Phonological Relevance of Tonal Scaling in the Intonational Grammar of Catalan. PhD dissertation, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2008. Contrastive focus and emphasis. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 347–360.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Favaro, Marco
2020. From focus marking to illocutionary modification. In Information-structural perspectives on discourse particles [Studies in Language Companion Series, 213], ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo
Uth, Melanie & Marco García García
2018. Introduction. In Focus realization in Romance and Beyond [Studies in Language Companion Series, 201], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.