On root modality and thematic relations in Tagalog and English

Maayan Abenina-Adar, Nikos Angelopoulos


The literature on modality discusses how context and grammar interact to produce different flavors of necessity primarily in connection with functional modals e.g. English auxiliaries. Hence the grammatical properties of lexical modals (i.e. thematic verbs) are less understood. In this paper, we use the Tagalog necessity modal kailangan and English need as a case study in the syntax-semantics of lexical modals. Kailangan and need enter two structures, which we call ‘thematic’ and ‘impersonal’. We show that when they establish a thematic dependency with a subject, they express necessity in light of this subject’s priorities, and in the absence of an overt thematic subject, they express necessity in light of priorities endorsed by the speaker. To account for this syntax-flavor mapping, we propose a single lexical entry for kailangan / need that uniformly selects for a ‘needer’ argument. In thematic constructions, the needer is the overt subject, and in impersonal constructions, it is an implicit speaker-bound pronoun. 

Full Text:



Asarina, Alya & Anna Holt. 2005. Syntax and semantics of tagalog modals. In J. Heinz & D. Ntelitheos (eds.), Proceedings of the Austronesian Formal Lin- guistics Association XII, LA, CA.

Brennan, Virginia Mary. 1993. Root and Epistemic Modal Auxiliary Verbs: UMass Amherst PhD dissertation.

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

von Fintel, Kai. 1999. NPI licensing, Strawson entailment, and context dependency. Journal of Semantics 16(2). 97–148.

von Fintel, Kai & Anthony S. Gillies. 2008. CIA leaks. Philosophical Review 117(1). 77–98. doi:10.1215/00318108-2007-025.

Hacquard, Valentine. 2006. Aspects of Modality: MIT Thesis.

Hacquard, Valentine. 2010. On the event relativity of modal auxiliaries. Natural Language Semantics 18(1). 79–114. doi:10.1007/s11050-010-9056-4.

Harves, Stephanie. 2008. Intensional transitives and silent HAVE: Distinguishing between WANT and NEED. In N. Abner & J. Bishop (eds.), West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 27, 211–219.

Heim, Irene. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9(3). 183–221.

Heim, Irene & Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In H.J. Eikmeyer & H. Rieser (eds.), Words, Worlds, and Contexts: New Approaches in Word Semantics, 38–74. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, 639–50. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Kratzer, Angelika. 2013. Modality for the 21st century. In Moeschler J. Anderson, S. & F. Reboul (eds.), The Language-Cognition Interface. 19th International Congress of Linguists, 181–201.

Krifka, Manfred. 2001. Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9(1). 1–40. doi:10.1023/A:1017903702063.

Lasersohn, Peter. 2005. Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 28(6). 643–686. doi:10.1007/s10988-005-0596-x.

Lauer, Sven. 2015. Speech-act operators vs. extra-compositional conventions of use. Slides from presentation at Speech Act Workshop, ZAS Berlin.

Lewis, David. 1973. Counterfactuals. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Lewis, David. 1979. Attitudes de dicto and de se. The Philosophical Review 88(4). 513–543.

Lewis, David. 1997. Finkish dispositions. The Philosophical Quarterly 47(187). 143–158.

Pearson, Hazel. 2013a. A judge-free semantics for predicates of personal taste. Journal of Semantics 30(1). 103–154.

Pearson, Hazel. 2013b. The Sense of Self: Topics in the Semantics of De Se Expressions: Harvard University PhD dissertation.

Percus, Orin. 2000. Constraints on some other variables in syntax. Natural Language Semantics 8(3). 173–229. doi:10.1023/A:1011298526791.

Roberts, Ian G. 1985. Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3(1). 21–58.

Ross, John Robert. 1969. Auxiliaries as main verbs. In W. Todd (ed.), Studies in Philosophical Linguistics, 77–102. Evanstown, IL: Great Expectations.

Rubinstein, Aynat. 2012. Roots of Modality: UMass Amherst PhD dissertation.

Sauerland, Uli & Kazuko Yatsushiro. 2015. Remind-me presuppositions and speech act decomposition: Japanese -kke and German wieder. Manuscript.

Schachter, Paul & Fe T. Otanes. 1972. Tagalog Reference Grammar. University of California Press.

Stephenson, Tamina. 2007. Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(4). 487–525. doi:10.1007/s10988-008-9023-4.

Wurmbrand, Susi. 1999. Modal verbs must be raising verbs. In J. D. Haugen, S. Bird, A. Carnie & P. Nordquest (eds.), West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 18, 599–612. Citeseer.

Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1982. On the Relationship of the Lexicon to Syntax: MIT PhD dissertation.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/salt.v26i0.3810

Copyright (c) 2016 Maayan Abenina-Adar, Nikos Angelopoulos