Abstract

This paper has two major goals. First, it provides a detailed empirical description of how the epistemic and metaphysical readings of the “non-root modal + Perf(ect) have” construction in English (e.g., John might have won the game yesterday) are expressed in Mandarin Chinese. The two readings both involve non-root modals for the past, i.e., non-root modals with either a past temporal perspective or a past temporal orientation. Certain languages express the two readings via manipulating the scope relation between the modal and the perfect aspect. In this paper, I show that Mandarin Chinese, by contrast, resorts to the presence/absence of such aspectual adverbs as 仍 reng ‘still’ and 还 hai ‘still’, to determine the reading of non-root modals for the past. Second, I propose that aspectual adverbs like reng and hai are operators that can back-shift the temporal perspective of a non-root modal from the speaker’s utterance time to a past time. The back-shifting gives rise to a metaphysical reading of the non-root modal. In spite of surface differences, English and Mandarin Chinese actually employ similar strategies in expressing metaphysical modality with a past temporal perspective.

Highlights

  • It is well-known that certain “non-root modal + Perf(ect) have” sentences in English are ambiguous between an epistemic reading and a metaphysical reading (Mondadori 1978, Condoravdi 2002)

  • Does the same epistemic/metaphysical ambiguity for non-root modals for the past exist in Mandarin Chinese? If so, what construction(s) encode(s) that ambiguity? Or, how is the construction that expresses the epistemic reading related to, and/or distinguished from, the construction that expresses the metaphysical reading? On a more theoretical level, for the metaphysical reading, what element, if any, assumes the function of the perfect aspectual particle have in English, to back-shift the temporal perspective of the non-root modal to a past time relative to the speaker’s utterance time? Do English-type languages and Mandarin Chinese appeal to the same underlying compositional principles to express non-root modality for the past? How exactly is the semantics of non-root modality for the past derived in Mandarin Chinese?

  • 2.1 Default temporal perspectives of non-root modals in Mandarin Chinese This paper focuses on the epistemic and metaphysical readings of the existential nonroot modal keneng

Read more

Summary

Introduction

It is well-known that certain “non-root modal + Perf(ect) have” sentences in English are ambiguous between an epistemic reading and a metaphysical reading (Mondadori 1978, Condoravdi 2002). On a more theoretical level, for the metaphysical reading, what element, if any, assumes the function of the perfect aspectual particle have in English, to back-shift the temporal perspective of the non-root modal to a past time relative to the speaker’s utterance time? According to Xie (2012), when an abilitative de sentence contains a past-denoting temporal phrase, aspectual adverbs like reng and hai can shift the temporal perspective of de from the default, speaker’s utterance time to (a sub-interval of) the topic time.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call