@cite{matthewson-2013} — Gitksan Modals #
Lisa Matthewson. "Gitksan Modals." International Journal of American Linguistics 79(3): 349–394. DOI: 10.1086/670751.
Primary source for the Gitksan modal analysis. Three core contributions are formalized here against the existing infrastructure:
Mixed-system thesis (Fig. 1): Gitksan encodes modal STRENGTH in the circumstantial domain (
daakhlxwvs.sgi) but not the epistemic domain (imaa/gatare variable-force).No inherent future orientation (§3.3, §5.3): Gitksan modals are not lexically future-oriented. Future orientation comes from
dim, obligatory with circumstantial modals and optional (only for future orientation) with epistemics. This contradicts @cite{condoravdi-2002}'s English analysis, where prospectivity is baked intomay. Structurally: Gitksan imaa would be modeled withCondoravdi2002.mayCore(point evaluation), English might withCondoravdi2002.may(forward expansion). The relationship between them isCondoravdi2002.may_of_mayCore_dynamic. We do not introduce alias defs for the Gitksan/English projection here — that is a downstream choice that should land in a typed compositionaldimoperator (planned, seeProspectiveMarkerPolicydiscussion in the integration audit).No actuality entailments for da'akhlxw (§4.1, fn 32): @cite{hacquard-2006} predicts AEs for the perfective + root-modal configuration. da'akhlxw's obligatory co-occurrence with
dimblocks that configuration empirically. The explanation is given in @cite{matthewson-2012}.
Supporting comparisons: Peterson 2010's variable-force analysis of imaa contrasts with @cite{deal-2011}'s strengthened-possibility analysis of Nez Perce o'qa (§3.1, ex. 30 negation diagnostic). The diagnostic content (which scope ¬ takes relative to the modal) is not yet formalized here — currently only the labels.
The modal inventory is in Fragments/Gitksan/Modals.lean. The handbook
chapter @cite{matthewson-2016} (Studies/Matthewson2016.lean) restates
the survey-level claims; this file holds the primary-source theorems
the chapter cites.
@cite{matthewson-2013} Fig. 1: daakhlxw is fixed possibility.
@cite{matthewson-2013} Fig. 1, §4.3: sgi is fixed weak necessity.
@cite{matthewson-2013} Fig. 1, §3.1: imaa is variable-force
(Peterson 2010 analysis).
@cite{matthewson-2013} Fig. 1, §3.2: gat is variable-force
(reportative).
The mixed-system signature: circumstantial modals contrast in force, epistemic modals do not. The asymmetric encoding pattern is the paper's central typological observation (Fig. 1).
The flavor-keyed dim asymmetry from §3-4 lives in
Fragments/Gitksan/Modals.lean (requiresDim_imaa_*,
requiresDim_gat_*, requiresDim_circumstantial,
dim_flavor_asymmetry). The deeper structural claim — that
Gitksan modals project to Condoravdi2002.mayCore rather than
Condoravdi2002.may — is currently expressed in the module
docstring above; making it a typed compositional theorem requires
promoting dim to a Theories-level operator.
@cite{hacquard-2006} predicts AEs in the configuration
belowAsp + perfective. @cite{matthewson-2013} reports da'akhlxw
lacks AEs. Per @cite{matthewson-2012}: da'akhlxw obligatorily
co-occurs with prospective dim, blocking the perfective
configuration empirically.
@cite{hacquard-2006}'s AE prediction for the root + perfective cell.
@cite{hacquard-2006}'s AE prediction for the root + imperfective cell.
@cite{hacquard-2006}'s AE prediction for the epistemic + perfective cell.
The §4.1 fn 32 explanation, schematically: da'akhlxw's obligatory
dim co-occurrence (via requiresDim_circumstantial in
Fragments/Gitksan/Modals.lean) means the perfective configuration
that drives Hacquard's AE prediction is empirically inaccessible
for this modal. The full structural realization — dim as a typed
combinator that blocks the perfective configuration — requires
the planned dim-as-operator refactor; currently this is asserted
via the requiresDim policy, not derived.
@cite{matthewson-2013} §3.1 follows Peterson 2010 in analyzing imaa as variable-force. @cite{deal-2011} analyzes Nez Perce o'qa as strengthened possibility. The two analyses agree both modals admit necessity readings but disagree on the mechanism. The downward- entailing diagnostic (paper ex. 30) is consistent with Peterson's analysis for imaa: negated imaa yields "possibly not", i.e., the modal scopes above negation.
Peterson 2010: imaa is variable-force.
Deal 2011: Nez Perce o'qa is strengthened possibility.
imaa admits necessity readings (variable force).
o'qa admits necessity readings (pragmatically strengthened).
@cite{matthewson-2013} Fig. 4 (p. 369) cross-tabulates temporal
perspective (past/present) with temporal orientation (past/present/
future) for the two epistemic modals. The two axes are the
canonical Core.Modality.TemporalPerspective and
Core.Modality.TemporalOrientation opened above.
A Figure 4 cell: a temporal perspective × orientation pair, with
the paper's example number for grounding. The dim-requirement is
NOT stored — it is derived from the orientation via the flavor-keyed
requiresDim policy.
- perspective : Core.Modality.TemporalPerspective
- orientation : Core.Modality.TemporalOrientation
- exampleNum : ℕ
Example number in @cite{matthewson-2013} Fig. 4.
Instances For
Equations
- Matthewson2013.instReprFig4Cell = { reprPrec := Matthewson2013.instReprFig4Cell.repr }
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Whether dim is required at this Fig. 4 cell, derived from the
flavor-keyed policy on imaa (epistemic → required iff future).
Equations
Instances For
The six cells of Figure 4 for imaa, with example numbers verified
against the actual figure on p. 369. The figure also shows gat
entries in the past-temporal-perspective row (47, 47, dim gat 48);
those are not encoded here — this list is imaa-specific. The
future-orientation cells (44, 42) are notated "ima('a) dim" in the
figure, encoding the obligatory co-occurrence with prospective
dim (which Fig4Cell.dimRequired recovers from requiresDim).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.