Documentation

Linglib.Fragments.NezPerce.Modals

Nez Perce Modal Inventory #

@cite{deal-2011} @cite{matthewson-2016}

Nez Perce (Sahaptian, ISO 639-3 nez) circumstantial modal system. Nez Perce is a key example of a language with modals without duals (@cite{matthewson-2016} §18.3.2): the circumstantial modal o'qa is a possibility modal that appears to have both possibility and necessity readings, but @cite{deal-2011} argues it is semantically a pure possibility modal whose apparent necessity readings arise from the absence of a contrasting necessity modal.

Key data (@cite{deal-2011} pp. 574) #

(39) hi-wqii-cix-∅ 'iléxni hipt ke yox hi-pá-ap-o'qa 'They are throwing away a lot of food that they could eat.' / 'They are throwing away a lot of food that they should eat.'

(40) hi-wqii-cix-∅ 'óykala hipt ke yox hi-pá-ap-o'qa 'They are throwing away all the food that they could eat.' (i) ✓ 'They are throwing away all their food. They are eating all their food.' (ii) # 'They are throwing away all the food they should eat (but keeping some junk food).'

In downward-entailing environments (40), o'qa behaves only as a possibility modal — the negated-necessity reading is unavailable. This parallels how English some fails to implicate not all under downward-entailing operators.

Analysis #

@cite{deal-2011}: o'qa is a possibility modal acceptable in non-downward-entailing necessity contexts because there is no contrasting necessity modal to induce a scalar implicature. The system parallels what English nominal quantification would look like with some but no all or every.

source
def Fragments.NezPerce.Modals.oqa :
Semantics.Modality.Typology.ModalExpression

Circumstantial possibility modal, pragmatically strengthened in non-downward-entailing contexts due to absence of a necessity dual. @cite{deal-2011}: pure possibility semantics (∃-quantifier over circumstantially accessible worlds). Apparent necessity readings are scalar: no ∀-competitor triggers the 'not all' implicature.

Equations
Instances For
    source
    def Fragments.NezPerce.Modals.allExpressions :
    List Semantics.Modality.Typology.ModalExpression
    Equations
    Instances For

      Force analysis #

      source
      def Fragments.NezPerce.Modals.forceAnalysis :
      Semantics.Modality.Typology.ModalExpression → Core.Modality.ForceAnalysis

      Force analysis: o'qa is a strengthened possibility modal — base semantics is ◇, but absence of a dual ∀-modal allows pragmatic necessity readings in non-downward-entailing contexts. @cite{matthewson-2016} §18.3.2.

      Equations
      Instances For
        source
        theorem Fragments.NezPerce.Modals.oqa_no_dual :
        ¬(forceAnalysis oqa).HasDual

        o'qa has no lexical dual.

        source
        theorem Fragments.NezPerce.Modals.oqa_admits_necessity :
        (forceAnalysis oqa).AdmitsNecessity

        o'qa admits necessity readings (via strengthening).

        source
        theorem Fragments.NezPerce.Modals.oqa_admits_possibility :
        (forceAnalysis oqa).AdmitsPossibility

        o'qa admits possibility readings (base semantics).

        Background classification #

        source
        def Fragments.NezPerce.Modals.backgroundClass :
        Semantics.Modality.Typology.ModalExpression → Core.Modality.BackgroundClass

        o'qa is factual-circumstantial: the modal base provides facts about the actual world (circumstances), not evidence or information.

        Equations
        Instances For

          Typological properties #

          source
          theorem Fragments.NezPerce.Modals.oqa_satisfies_iff :
          Semantics.Modality.Typology.satisfiesIFF oqa.meaning = true

          o'qa satisfies IFF (singleton meaning).

          source
          theorem Fragments.NezPerce.Modals.oqa_satisfies_sav :
          Semantics.Modality.Typology.satisfiesSAV oqa.meaning = true

          The semantic meaning of o'qa (pure possibility) is a singleton, so its SAV status reflects the base semantics, not the pragmatically enriched interpretation.