Cable (2017): The Expression of Modality in Tlingit: A Paucity of Grammatical Devices

Cable examines how Tlingit expresses epistemic, deontic and circumstantial modality of each force. Only three kinds of expression have a dedicated modal meaning, each with one force and one flavor: the dubitative particles express epistemic possibility, the potential mode circumstantial possibility and the future mode circumstantial necessity. No expression encodes epistemic necessity, deontic possibility or deontic necessity; speakers convey these indirectly.

Speakers translate an English epistemic necessity claim with a dubitative, but never a circumstantial necessity claim with the potential mode. Cable explains the contrast with Deal's account of Nez Perce o'qa: a possibility modal serves for necessity in an upward-entailing context when no stronger modal shares its flavor, and the future mode is the potential mode's scalemate while the dubitatives have none. The dubitatives thus side with o'qa, inherently weak modals without a strong counterpart, and not with St'át'imcets k'a or Washo -eʔ, whose meanings vary in force. The same account makes the past potential weak in the restriction of a universal: ldakát ḵwax̱aayi át is 'everything I could have eaten', never 'everything I would have eaten'.

Main statements

• expressed_iff: Tlingit encodes epistemic possibility and circumstantial possibility and necessity, and nothing else.
• servesFor_necessity: a dubitative serves for epistemic necessity, the potential mode not for circumstantial necessity.
• dubitatives_fixed_force: the dubitatives serve for both forces with one force in their meaning, where k'a and -eʔ have two.

Implementation notes

• Cable's deontic flavor includes the teleological and bouletic ones, and his circumstantial flavor, the metaphysical one, is the library's circumstantial; no Tlingit modal is affected.
• A modal's lexical force is necessity if its meaning has necessity and possibility otherwise.
• The past potential has the potential mode's force, and the restriction of ldakát 'all' is downward-entailing, as the restriction of a universal is in Deal's account.

References

• [Cab17]
• [Dea11]
• [RMD08]
• [Boc15c]

def Cable2017.dubitatives : List Modality.ModalItem

The dubitative particles.

Equations

• Cable2017.dubitatives = [Tlingit.gwál, Tlingit.gíwé, Tlingit.shákdé]

The expressed categories

theorem Cable2017.expressed_iff (ff : Modality.ForceFlavor) : (∃ m ∈ Tlingit.modals, ff ∈ m.meaning) ↔ ff ∈ {(Modality.ModalForce.possibility, Modality.ModalFlavor.epistemic), (Modality.ModalForce.possibility, Modality.ModalFlavor.circumstantial), (Modality.ModalForce.necessity, Modality.ModalFlavor.circumstantial)}

§6, Table 1: a force-flavor pair is encoded by some Tlingit modal exactly when it is epistemic possibility, circumstantial possibility or circumstantial necessity. No modal encodes epistemic necessity or deontic modality of either force.

def Cable2017.lexicalForce (m : Modality.ModalItem) : Modality.ModalForce

A modal's lexical force: necessity if its meaning has necessity, possibility otherwise.

Equations

• Cable2017.lexicalForce m = if Modality.ModalForce.necessity ∈ m.forces then Modality.ModalForce.necessity else Modality.ModalForce.possibility

theorem Cable2017.forces_eq (m : Modality.ModalItem) : m ∈ Tlingit.modals → m.forces = {lexicalForce m} ∧ m.flavors.card = 1

Table 2: each Tlingit modal has one force, its lexical force, and one flavor.

Scales

theorem Cable2017.scalemates : Deal2011.Scalemates lexicalForce Tlingit.potentialMode Tlingit.futureMode ∧ ∀ m ∈ dubitatives, ¬Deal2011.HasScalemate lexicalForce Tlingit.modals m

The future mode is the potential mode's scalemate, sharing its circumstantial flavor, and no Tlingit modal is a dubitative's: the language has no strong epistemic modal.

theorem Cable2017.servesFor_necessity : (∀ m ∈ dubitatives, Deal2011.ServesIn lexicalForce Tlingit.modals Polarity.positive m Modality.ModalForce.necessity) ∧ ¬Deal2011.ServesIn lexicalForce Tlingit.modals Polarity.positive Tlingit.potentialMode Modality.ModalForce.necessity ∧ ¬Deal2011.ServesIn lexicalForce Tlingit.modals Polarity.positive Tlingit.futureMode Modality.ModalForce.possibility

(21)–(24) against (48)–(49): in an upward-entailing context a dubitative serves for epistemic necessity, a weak epistemic claim being the strongest Tlingit can make, while the potential mode does not serve for circumstantial necessity, the future mode making the stronger claim. Nor does the future mode serve for possibility (41).

theorem Cable2017.dubitatives_fixed_force : (∀ m ∈ dubitatives, (∀ (g : Modality.ModalForce), Deal2011.ServesIn lexicalForce Tlingit.modals Polarity.positive m g) ∧ ¬m.VariesForce) ∧ Statimcets.kaInfer.VariesForce ∧ Washo.modalEq.VariesForce

§6: like St'át'imcets k'a and Washo -eʔ, the dubitatives serve for both forces in an upward-entailing context, but their meaning has one force where the meanings of k'a and -eʔ have two. They are possibility modals without a scalemate, as Nez Perce o'qa is (Deal2011.oqa_flexible).

theorem Cable2017.potential_universal_restriction : Deal2011.ServesIn lexicalForce Tlingit.modals Polarity.negative Tlingit.potentialMode Modality.ModalForce.possibility ∧ ¬Deal2011.ServesIn lexicalForce Tlingit.modals Polarity.negative Tlingit.potentialMode Modality.ModalForce.necessity

(54) and (55): in the restriction of ldakát 'all', a downward-entailing context, the past potential serves for possibility and not for necessity. Ldakát ḵwax̱aayi át yax̱ yaysix̱áa is 'you ate up everything that I could have eaten', accepted where the addressee ate every food the speaker could have eaten and rejected where they ate only those the speaker would have eaten, a subset of those the speaker could have.