No abstract

<p>This paper provides evidence for the claim that in certain languages epistemic modality can have both a past and a present modal anchor time (in the case of CV), while in other languages epistemic modality must have a present modal anchor time (in the case of SM). Additionally, in his Language Bioprogram Hypothesis, Bickerton (1981, 1984) claims that tense, aspect and modality is similar across creoles. We will demonstrate that this claim is only partially correct. The modality system of these two creoles is very similar: Both have a necessity modal which conveys obligation and epistemic readings, and a possibility modal which conveys ability, permissive and epistemic readings. Furthermore, both have a past marker. A difference occur s when the past marker co-occurs with the modals; in CV both the circumstantial and epistemic reading of the two modals surfaces, whereas in SM only the circumstantial reading surfaces, the epistemic reading is infelicitous. The present paper accounts for this on the grounds of some important distinct features between these languages functional morphemes, which reflects in their respective functional structures.</p>

This paper is part of Peter Svenonius’ Adposition Seminar at the University of Tromsø which was taught in 2005-2006. The main focus was the distinction between locative path and locative place constructions. The aim of this paper is descriptive in nature and focuses on the complete prepositional system of Krio, an English-based Creole language spoken in Sierra Leone. The paper starts with a general introduction to prepositions in Krio. Three different categories are distinguished. This is followed by a description of each preposition individually and a discussion of intransitive prepositions and verb-particle constructions.