Call for papers

The cross-linguistic evolution of modal expressions is described as chain-like grammaticalization structures where items of different degrees of semanticity follow one another in a predetermined order. Lexical or otherwise semantically more concrete elements develop into different types of expressions of possibility and necessity until they eventually bleach into semantically less and less specific, abstract markers (e. g. Lehmann 2015). Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca (1994) identified paths of development across a set of unrelated languages for different types of modalities. According to the authors, all these tracks present an evolution from agent-oriented source meanings through speaker-oriented and epistemic modalities to subordinate uses.

In van der Auwera & Plungian (1998), these paths were put together and elaborated into maps consisting of three domains. Premodal domain brings together lexical source expressions that enter the modal domain, sometimes through auxiliarization or other changes in grammatical shape. At the other end, postmodal sphere involves a rather heterogeneous set of desemanticized elements that no longer carry modal meaning. A famous example are the Romance future tenses stemming from the latin modal periphrasis habere + INF (cantare habeo ‘I can/must sing’) which ceased to convey possibility and necessity when grammaticalizing into a verbal tense (chanterai ‘I will sing’). Another case in point is the English modal auxiliary should when used for marking that the state of affairs deviates from the speaker’s expectations: – Can I get you some coffee? – Strange that you should ask (see Celle 2018: 39). At the interface between modal and postmodal domains, the grammaticalization paths cross, as both possibility and necessity tracks may lead to certain postmodal meanings. This was one of van der Auwera & Plungian’s (1998) main arguments for unifying the different paths into a map. The evolutions described by the map result from semantic processes of different types: specialization, generalization and extension (metaphor and metonymy).

These models have ever since inspired further studies, both in typological perspective and in individual languages. Modality’s semantic map has been finetuned, elaborated and discussed (e. g. van der Auwera, Kehayov & Vittrant 2009; van der Auwera 2013; Traugott 2016; Georgakopoulos & Polis 2018). Attention has been drawn to the evolution of non-verbal modal categories, the areal restriction in certain grammaticalization paths and the crosslinguistic variation as to the presence and evolution of particular subcategories of modality (e. g. Traugott 2011; Narrog 2012; Becker 2014). Constructional approaches have recently undertaken to research the evolution of modal meanings in patterns where both grammaticalization and lexicalization processes come into play and as part of developments within networks of constructions, beyond individual units (e. g. Hilpert 2016; Cappelle & Depraetere 2016; Hilpert, Cappelle & Depraetere 2021; see also Schulze & Hohaus 2020).

With this conference, we aim to shed light on the late stages in the evolution of modal items, namely the transition from modal to postmodal domain, the internal structure of the postmodal category and the possible remodalization cycles. We call for contributions from different theoretical and methodological approaches and concerning any language. The conference focusses on, but is not restricted to, the following topics and questions:

• Various semantic-functional notions have been identified at the border separating modal and postmodal spheres, such as concession, condition, complementation, optative, future-time, quotative and consecution. How to operate with this rich array of concepts within a language and cross-linguistically? What do these meanings and functions have in common, when looking at the individual desemantization paths taken by the different postmodal items that we already know of? How does demodalization interact with negation, aspect (see Caudal 2018) or tense?  Are there new items we could add to the list of postmodal elements from studies on different languages?
• Which semantic mechanisms and internal and external parameters of change can be found across languages? Which are the contexts triggering the far-reaching grammaticalization process? Le Querler (2001) argues that the demodalized meaning of the French pouvoir stems from the utterance as a whole. To what extent are phrasal or discursive structures carrying postmodal meaning conventionalized as constructions (Goldberg 2010) and, thus, form linguistic units of their own? 
• The limits separating the categories that form Modality’s semantic map are not sharp but rather gradual, or even fuzzy (see van der Auwera & Plungian 1998: 88). How are clines of change manifest in the modal-postmodal interval? Through which semantic processes do the modal origins determine the emerging postmodal meanings? Is it necessarily about the modal meaning becoming weaker or lower, or rather a shift or a redistribution of meaning and pragmatic reinforcement, as in the early stages of grammaticalization (Heine, Claudi & Hünnemeyer 1991, Hopper & Traugott 1993)? Or should we talk about different layers of modality and more elusive modal meaning, as suggested by Celle (2018) when investigating the English would and should in factual but affective utterances?
• The decrease in semantic integrity proceeds unevenly: certain semantic components pertain, others are lost underway (e. g. Lehmann 2015: 136–137). How can we describe the desemantization process in cognitive semantic terms? Which conceptual structures remain in the transition from modal to postmodal? How can we account for the emergence of postmodal meanings, e. g. in terms of profiling (e. g. Langacker 2015: 211–212) or Force Dynamics (Talmy 1988; Kehayov 2017: 39)?
• Grammaticalization intersects with (inter)subjectification of meaning (Traugott 2010). For example, the Swedish auxiliaries må ‘may, should’ and måtte ‘may, must’ display high degrees of intersubjectification as postmodal markers (Beijering 2017). In French, Le Querler (2001) has referred to discursive functions of demodalized pouvoir ‘can’. Even the subjunctive mood, postmodal category par excellence, can be considered as means for marking cohesion in discourse. The temporal and modal space within which the event expressed by the subjunctive clause takes place is construed elsewhere. In a complement construction, the matrix provides the necessary anchoring for the subordinate subjunctive clause, while subjunctive main clauses rely on the enunciative grounding (see Gosselin 2005: 95). Is the semantic potential (or openness) left by the lost meaning components somehow put at the service of interaction, discourse and text? Through what mechanisms does this happen?
• Not all modal categories are verbal (see Gosselin 2010 for examples). In what ways does postmodality involve other syntactic categories (nouns, adjectives, adverbs)? Are the paths of evolution the same as those identified in the verbal domain?
• The cyclical nature of linguistic change is observed in various syntactic and semantic categories (see van Gelderen 2009). In the literature concerning the grammaticalization of modal elements, there are some examples of items displaying “full cycles” in their evolution. For example, the future tense can be the result of demodalization, on the one hand, and the remodalized source for new modal meanings, on the other (van der Auwera & Plungian 1998: 97). How to describe the relationships between “generations” of modal elements? What risks are associated with conveying analogies between evolution in biological organisms and linguistic change (Dahl 2001)?

Abstract submission

Anonymous abstracts of no more than 500 words, excluding references, are to be submitted by December 15, 2021 via Sciencesconf platform: https://postmodality.sciencesconf.org. Each abstract will be reviewed by (at least) two members of the Scientific committee. Notifications of acceptance will be sent in February 2022. The talks will be 20 minutes long, followed by 10 minutes for discussion. The working languages are English and French.

References

Becker, Martin. 2014. Welten in Sprache. Zur Entwicklung der Kategorie «Modus» in romanischen Sprachen (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 386), Berlin, Boston: Walter de Gruyter.

Beijering, Karin. 2017. Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification: The case of the Swedish modals må and måtte. In Van Olmen, Daniel & Cuyckens, Hubert & Ghesquière, Lobke (eds.), Aspects of Grammaticalization: (Inter)Subjectification and Directionality, 47–80. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Bybee, Joan & Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Cappelle, Bert & Depraetere, Ilse. 2016. Short-circuited interpretations of modal verb constructions: Some evidence from The Simpsons. In Cappelle, Bert & Depraetere, Ilse (eds.), Modal Meaning in Construction Grammar, 7–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Caudal, Patrick. 2018. De la théorie du sens, à celle des appariements formes/sens: synthèse de quinze ans de recherche sur le TAM(E). Mémoire d’habilitation à diriger les recherches. Université Paris-Diderot.https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01973346, accessed March 24, 2021.

Celle, Agnès. 2018. Epistemic evaluation in factual contexts in English. In Guentchéva, Zlatka (ed.), Epistemic Modality and Evidentiality in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, 22–51. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Dahl, Östen. 2001. Grammaticalization and the life cycles of constructions. RASK – Internationalt tidsskrift for sprog og kommunikation 14, 91–134.

Georgakopoulos, Thanasis & Polis, Stéphane. 2018. The semantic map model: State of the art and future avenues for linguistic research. Language and Linguistics Compass 12.

Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language, Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Gosselin, Laurent. 2005. Temporalité et modalité. Bruxelles: De Boeck Duculot.

Gosselin, Laurent.  2010. Les modalités en français. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Heine, Вernd & Claudi Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization. A Conceptual Framework. Chicago:  The University of Chicago Press.

Hilpert, Martin. 2016. Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collocates of may. In Cappelle, Bert & Depraetere, Ilse (eds.), Modal Meaning in Construction Grammar, 66–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hilpert, Martin & Cappelle, Bert & Depraetere, Ilse (eds.). 2021. Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hopper, Paul & Traugott, Elizabeth. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kehayov, Petar. 2017. The Fate of Mood and Modality in Language Death. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Langacker, Ronald W. 2015. Descriptive and discursive organization in cognitive grammar. In Daems, Jocelyne & Zenner, Eline & Heylen, Kris & Speelman, Dirk & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), Change of Paradigms – New Paradoxes, 205–218. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Lehmann, Christian. 2015. Thoughts on grammaticalization. 3rd ed. Berlin: Language Science Press.

Le Querler, Nicole. 2001. La place du verbe modal pouvoir dans une typologie des modalités. In Dendale, Patrick & van der Auwera, Johan (eds.), Les verbes modaux, 17–32. Cahiers Chronos 8. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Narrog, Heiko. 2012. Modality, subjectivity, and semantic change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schulze, Rainer & Hohaus, Pascal. 2020. Modalising expressions and modality: An overview of trends and challenges. In Hohaus, Pascal & Schulze, Rainer (eds.), Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions: Categories, co-text, and context, 1–15. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force Dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12, 49–100.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Davidse, Kristin & Vandelanotte, Lieven & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, 29–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2011. Modality from a historical perspective. Language and Linguistics Compass 5, 381–396.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2016. Do semantic modal maps have a role in a constructionalization approach to modals? Constructions and Frames 8, 97–124.

van der Auwera, Johan. 2013. Semantic maps, for synchronic and diachronic typology. In Giacalone Ramat, Anna & Mauri, Caterina & Molinelli, Piera (eds.), Synchrony and Diachrony: A Dynamic Interface, 153–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

van der Auwera, Johan & Plungian, Vladimir A. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2, 79–124.

van der Auwera, Johan & Kehayov, Petar & Vittrant, Alice. 2009. Acquisitive modals. In Hogeweg, Lotte & de Hoop, Helen & Malchukov, Andrej (eds.), Cross-linguistics Semantics of Tense, Aspect, and Modality, 271–302. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

van Gelderen, Elly. 2009. Cyclical change, an introduction. In van Gelderen, Elly (ed.), Cyclical Change, 1–12. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ziegeler, Debra. 2003. Redefining unidirectionality: Insights from demodalisation?, Folia Linguistica Historica 24: 1–2, 225–266.

Ziegeler, Debra. 2004. Redefining unidirectionality: Is there life after modality? In Fischer, Olga & Norde, Muriel & Perridon, Harry (eds.), Up and Down the Cline, 115–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.