We propose, and provide corpus-based support for, a usage-based explanation for cross-linguistic trends in the coding of causal–noncausal verb pairs, such as raise/rise, break (tr.)/break (intr.). While English mostly uses the same verb form both for the causal and the noncausal sense (labile coding), most languages have extra coding for the causal verb (causative coding) and/or for the noncausal verb (anticausative coding). Causative and anticausative coding is not randomly distributed (Haspelmath 1993): Some verb meanings, such as ‘freeze’, ‘dry’ and ‘melt’, tend to be coded as causatives, while others, such as ‘break’, ‘open’ and ‘split’, tend to be coded as anticausatives. We propose an explanation of these coding tendencies on the basis of the form–frequency correspondence principle, which is a general efficiency principle that is responsible for many grammatical asymmetries, ultimately grounded in predictability of frequently expressed meanings. In corpus data from seven languages, we find that verb pairs for which the noncausal member is more frequent tend to be coded as anticausatives, while verb pairs for which the causal member is more frequent tend to be coded as causatives. Our approach implies that linguists should not rely on form–meaning parallelism when trying to explain cross-linguistic or language-particular patterns in this domain.

No abstract

No abstract

This paper has two goals. The first is to develop a cross-linguistically valid model of modality and mood that captures the most important dimensions along which modal expressions vary. I posit a model with two such dimensions, one of volitivity, and one of event-orientation vs. speaker-orientation, mood being placed at the speaker-oriented end relative to modality proper. The second goal is to provide a new perspective on semantic change of modal expressions on the basis of the proposed model. I argue that unidirectional change along the event-oriented / speaker-oriented dimension is the one overarching tendency of semantic change in modals. This stands in contrast to the widespread perception that change from deontic to epistemic is the dominant tendency. The directionality suggested in this new model is also more comprehensive than previously proposed tendencies of change, such as ‘‘from agent-oriented to epistemic’’, ‘‘from agent-oriented to speaker-oriented’’, and ‘‘from participant-internal to participant-external’’, as it better accounts for various kinds of change that have been previously neglected, including change from epistemic to deontic.

Modality, Subjectivity, and Semantic Change: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective (Oxford Linguistics) Heiko Narrog This book is a cross-linguistic exploration of semantic and functional change in modal markers. Its approach is broadly functional typological but makes frequent reference to work in formal semantics by scholars such as Angelika Kratzer and Paul Portner. The author starts by considering what modality is and how it relates to and differs from subjectivity. He argues that modality cannot be defined in terms of subjectivity: both concepts are independent of each other, the first exhibiting different degrees of subjectivity, and the second being operative in a much wider range of grammatical and lexical categories. Subjectivity, he suggests, should not be defined solely in terms of performativity, evidentiality, or construal, but rather from the interplay of multiple semantic and pragmatic factors. He then presents a two-dimensional model for the descriptive representation of modality, based on the notion that among the many aspects of modal meaning, volitivity and speech-act-orientation versus event-orientation are two of its most salient parameters. He shows that it is especially the dimension of speech-act orientation versus event-orientation, parallel to category climbing in syntax, that is operative in diachronic change. Numerous examples of diachronic change within modality and between modality and other categories are then examined with respect to their directionality. With a focus on Japanese and to a lesser extent Chinese the book is a countercheck to hypotheses built on the Indo-European languages. It also contains numerous illustrations from other languages.