Abstract
In this paper I focus on scope phenomena connected with semimodal (and modal) verbs and mainly on the syntactic behaviour of these groups of verbs. One important question is: why can semimodal verbs (and modal verbs in epistemic use) not have perfect and future tense forms? Taking among other things Reichenbach's tense system as a starting point I try to point out that the interpretation of a semimodal or a modal in epistemic use is problematic 1. if there is more than one reference time/if the reference time is indefinite or 2. if the verb in question stands together with an auxiliary of future which has a certain modal meaning itself. The comparison of the treatment of these phenomena in the framework of the Semantic Syntax with a non transformational approach (fragment of a categorial grammar) shows, that some important transformational rules and principles easily and economically can be represented in a non transformational grammar. The transformational approach needs rules like RAISING and LOWERING (or at least one of the two, and in addition to this a rather extended set of rules) for the generation of sentences, while in the categorial system we need only two reduction laws. It has to be investigated whether and to what extent the formation and transformation rules in a transformational grammar on the one hand and the dominance / linear precedence rules together with the lexical entries on the other hand are equivalent.
Highlights
Modal verbs and semimodal verbs exhibit a similar syntactic behaviour: they form a so-called verbal complex (Verbalkomplex) which is characteristic of a coherent structure (Bech 1955/57)
From a tense logical point of view I try to point out the differences between modal and semimodal verbs and I draw the conclusion that the interpretation of a semimodal or a modal verb in epistemic use is problematic 1. if there is more than one reference time and if the event time is not definite, i.e. if it does not equal the reference time or 2. if a semimodal stands together with an auxiliary of future, which has a certain modal meaning itself
To sum up: the interpretation of a or a modal in epistemic use is problematic 1. if there is more than one reference time/if the reference time is indefinite or 2. if the verb in question stands together with an auxiliary of future, which has a certain modal meaning itself
Summary
Modal verbs and semimodal verbs (e.g. scheinen, drohen, pflegen, versprechen) exhibit a similar syntactic behaviour: they form a so-called verbal complex (Verbalkomplex) which is characteristic of a coherent structure (Bech 1955/57). Both groups of verbs differ in their inflectional paradigms: modal verbs can have future-, present-/past-perfect- and subjunctive-. No proposal is made for the treatment of finite embeddings under scheinen and drohen and for a semantic analysis of the semimodal and modal verbs. Just like the modal verbs, the semimodal verbs (with the exception of finite embeddings governed by drohen and scheinen as matrix verbs) obligatorily form a coherent verbal complex. The uniform left branching structure 1a corresponds to the default word order in German subordinate clauses as in ..., weil sie lachen muß and hybrid branching 1b to sentences with "Oberfeldumstellung" as in ..., weil sie hat lachen müssen
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
