Gitksan Modal Inventory #
Gitksan (Tsimshianic, ISO 639-3 git) modal system, spoken in northern
British Columbia. The system shows two key typological properties:
- Absolute epistemic/circumstantial split: epistemic modals cannot be used circumstantially and vice versa ([Mat16] Table 18.1).
- Variable-force epistemic modals: ima('a) and gat are compatible with both necessity and possibility contexts, contrasting only in information source — not in force ([Pet10]).
- Prospective aspect
dim: obligatorily marks future temporal orientation for modals; without it, epistemic ima('a) cannot be future-oriented ([Mat16] §18.4.3, examples 60–63).
[Mat13] Figure 1: Gitksan modal system #
| Possibility | (Weak) Necessity | |
|---|---|---|
| Circumstantial | ||
| Plain | da'akhlxw | sgi |
| Deontic | anook(xw) | sgi |
| Epistemic | ||
| Plain | ima('a) | ima('a) |
| Reportative | gat | gat |
The (WEAK) annotation in the column header is load-bearing: Gitksan has no STRONG circumstantial necessity modal — pure-necessity cases like "I have to sneeze" use a plain future, not sgi ([Mat13] ex. 95–98). This asymmetry is the crux of Matthewson's "mixed system" typological claim: strength is encoded in the circumstantial domain, but only weakly.
Modal expressions #
Variable-force plain epistemic modal. [Pet10]: analysed as a possibility modal strengthened via ordering source, compatible with both necessity and possibility contexts. [Mat16] §18.3.2: not specialized for a particular force.
Equations
- Gitksan.Modals.imaa = { form := "ima('a)", meaning := [Gitksan.Modals.pe✝, Gitksan.Modals.ne✝] }
Instances For
Variable-force reportative epistemic modal. Distinguished from ima('a) by information source: gat requires reportative evidence. Under [Kra12]'s reclassification, gat is content-evidential (the speaker can disbelieve the report), while ima('a) is factual-evidential.
Equations
- Gitksan.Modals.gat = { form := "gat", meaning := [Gitksan.Modals.pe✝, Gitksan.Modals.ne✝] }
Instances For
General circumstantial possibility: pure circumstantial, ability,
bouletic, teleological, and (in competition with anookxw) deontic
permission. [Mat13] §4.1, ex. 63–65: da'akhlxw allows
bouletic interpretations ('You could eat less cake'), teleological
interpretations (subsumed under circumstantial in linglib's flavor
inventory), and deontic permission ('My mother told me I could play').
Listed flavors: circumstantial (covering pure circumstantial, ability,
teleological), deontic (permission overlap with anookxw), bouletic.
Equations
- Gitksan.Modals.daakhlxw = { form := "da'akhlxw", meaning := [Gitksan.Modals.pc✝, Gitksan.Modals.pd✝, Gitksan.Modals.pb✝] }
Instances For
Specialized deontic possibility ('allowed to'). [Mat13] §4.2: anook competes with da'akhlxw in permission contexts but is strictly deontic — infelicitous in pure circumstantial situations (ex. 79).
Equations
- Gitksan.Modals.anookxw = { form := "anook(xw)", meaning := [Gitksan.Modals.pd✝] }
Instances For
Circumstantial weak necessity. [Mat13] §4.3 (and Figure 1: column header is "(WEAK) NECESSITY"): sgi expresses obligation, deontic 'should', and weak circumstantial necessity. The preferred English translation is 'should', a weak necessity modal.
Caveat: Matthewson herself hedges. sgi is INFELICITOUS in some pure strong-necessity contexts (sneeze case, ex. 96–98), but IS felicitous in others (ex. 100, "k'ap sgi dim gwalga daxw-'m" 'We must all die'). The §4.3 conclusion (p. 384) suggests the infelicity may be a modality-TYPE issue (perhaps sgi requires a non-empty priority ordering source) rather than a strict weak-necessity restriction. The Fig. 1 parenthesization of "(WEAK)" reflects this uncertainty.
Equations
- Gitksan.Modals.sgi = { form := "sgi", meaning := [Gitksan.Modals.wnd✝, Gitksan.Modals.wnc✝] }
Instances For
Force analysis #
The Gitksan epistemic modals are variable-force: they do not lexically specify necessity or possibility, but are compatible with both. The circumstantial modals have fixed force.
Force analysis for each Gitksan modal.
Equations
- Gitksan.Modals.forceAnalysis { form := "ima('a)", meaning := meaning } = Semantics.Modality.ForceAnalysis.variableForce
- Gitksan.Modals.forceAnalysis { form := "gat", meaning := meaning } = Semantics.Modality.ForceAnalysis.variableForce
- Gitksan.Modals.forceAnalysis { form := "da'akhlxw", meaning := meaning } = Semantics.Modality.ForceAnalysis.fixed Semantics.Modality.ModalForce.possibility
- Gitksan.Modals.forceAnalysis { form := "anook(xw)", meaning := meaning } = Semantics.Modality.ForceAnalysis.fixed Semantics.Modality.ModalForce.possibility
- Gitksan.Modals.forceAnalysis { form := "sgi", meaning := meaning } = Semantics.Modality.ForceAnalysis.fixed Semantics.Modality.ModalForce.weakNecessity
- Gitksan.Modals.forceAnalysis x✝ = Semantics.Modality.ForceAnalysis.fixed Semantics.Modality.ModalForce.possibility
Instances For
Three-way background classification ([Mat16] Table 18.3) #
Gitksan lexicalizes all three background classes:
- factual-circumstantial: da'akhlxw, anookxw, sgi
- factual-evidential: ima('a) (inferential, speaker cannot disbelieve)
- content-evidential: gat (reportative, speaker can disbelieve)
Equations
- Gitksan.Modals.backgroundClass { form := "ima('a)", meaning := meaning } = Semantics.Modality.BackgroundClass.factualEvidential
- Gitksan.Modals.backgroundClass { form := "gat", meaning := meaning } = Semantics.Modality.BackgroundClass.contentEvidential
- Gitksan.Modals.backgroundClass x✝ = Semantics.Modality.BackgroundClass.factualCircumstantial
Instances For
Absolute epistemic/circumstantial split #
The epistemic and circumstantial domains are strictly separated: epistemic modals cannot be used circumstantially and vice versa. [Mat16] §18.2.3, example 20.
Epistemic modals.
Instances For
Circumstantial modals.
Equations
Instances For
No epistemic modal has a circumstantial reading.
No circumstantial modal has an epistemic reading.
Prospective aspect marker dim #
[Mat13] §3–4: prospective aspect marking with dim is
required asymmetrically. Circumstantial modals (da'akhlxw, anookxw,
sgi) require dim regardless of temporal orientation — past, present,
or future, dim must always co-occur (§4.1 ex. 51–58, §4.2 ex. 73–78,
§4.3 ex. 82–88). Epistemic modals (imaa, gat) require dim only
when the temporal orientation is future (§3.3 ex. 38–42); past and
present orientations are felicitous without dim.
The contrast with English is the central typological mirror [Mat13] §3.3 draws: English obligatorily marks past orientation (via have), Gitksan obligatorily marks future orientation (via dim) — but for Gitksan epistemics only. Circumstantials uniformly demand the marker.
Whether prospective dim is required, given a modal expression and
the temporal orientation of its prejacent. The asymmetry follows
the modal's flavor: circumstantials always require dim; epistemics
only require dim when oriented to the future.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Per-modal dim requirements #
[Mat13] §3.3 ex. 38–42 (imaa), §3.3 (gat):
epistemic modals are felicitous without dim for past/present
orientations and require dim for future.
Circumstantial modals require dim for any orientation
(§4.1 ex. 51–58, §4.2 ex. 73–78, §4.3 ex. 82–88).
Epistemic modals do not uniformly require dim: at least one
epistemic / past-or-present pair is felicitous without it.