Emotivity matters for mood licensing
Experimental evidence from French
Abstract
French distinguishes between indicative vs. subjunctive markings morphologically, by showing mood on the embedded verb. Embedded subjunctive appears with specific (classes of) matrix predicates, like vouloir (want), while the indicative mood is found with others, such as dire (say). This suggests that the subjunctive is licensed lexically by specific classes of predicates. However, the existence of verbs like rêver (dream), which seem to accept both moods, poses a challenge to this idea and raises the question of the source of optional mood selection. A recent approach sheds light on the importance of emotive contexts in the selection of subjunctive mood cross-linguistically (Baunaz & Pusks 2022, Baunaz & Lander 2024). Our hypothesis is that in cases where mood selection is optional (i.e., with alternating verbs), the subjunctive mood is licensed by the presence of the [Emo] feature, which is activated in emotive contexts. Consequently, we predict for alternating verbs, that the emotive contexts will favor the subjunctive mood, whereas the non-emotive contexts will favor the indicative mood. In contrast, the context manipulation will not affect the mood selection patterns of verbs that exclusively select either the indicative or subjunctive mood. We provide an experimental confirmation of this claim.
Keywords
subjunctive, French, alternating predicates, emotive, elicitation experimentReferences
Amsili, Pascal & Florian Guida. 2014. Vers une analyse factorielle de l’alternance indicatif/subjonctif. In Actes du 4e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française. Vol. 8. 2313-2331. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20140801249
Anand, Pranav & Valentine Hacquard. 2013. Epistemics and attitudes. Semantics and Pragmatics 6, 1–59. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.6.8
Baunaz, Lena. 2015. On the Various Sizes of Complementizers. Probus 27(2), 193-
doi.org/10.1515/probus-2014-0001
Baunaz, Lena. 2016. Deconstructing Complementizers in Serbo-Croatian, Modern Greek and Bulgarian. In C. Hammerly & B. Prickett (eds.), NELS 46: Proceedings of the Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, October 16–18, 2015, Concordia University, Volume One, 69–77. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistics Student Association.
Baunaz, Lena. 2017. Embedding Verbs and Subjunctive Mood: The Emotive Factor. In S. Perpiñán, D. Heap, I. Moreno-Villamar & A. Soto-Corominas Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 11: Selected Papers from the 44th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), London, Ontario. 9–31. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.11.01bau
Baunaz, Lena. 2018. Decomposing Complementizers: The Functional Sequence of French, Modern Greek, Serbo-Croatian, and Bulgarian Complementizers. In L. Baunaz, K. De Clercq, L. Haegeman & E. Lander (eds.), Exploring Nanosyntax. 149–179. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190876746.003.0006
Baunaz, Lena & Eric Lander. 2018. Nanosyntax: the basics. In L.Baunaz, K. De Clercq, L. Haegeman & E. Lander (eds.). Exploring Nanosyntax. 3-56. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-167406
Baunaz, Lena, & Eric Lander. 2019. Subjunctive Selection in French vs. Balkan.” In
M. Bağrıaçık, A. Breitbarth & K. De Clercq (eds.), Mapping Linguistic Data: Essays
in Honour of Liliane Haegeman. 35–49. www.haegeman.ugent.be.
Baunaz, Lena, & Eric Lander. 2021. Factive Islands in Nanosyntax. In A. Farinella & A. Hill NELS 51: Proceedings of the Fifty-First Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, November 6–8, 2020, Université du Québec à Montréal, Volume One. 37–50. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistics Student Association.
Baunaz, Lena, & Eric Lander. 2024. Same Syntax, Different Lexical Entries: Mood Selection in Romance and Balkan. In R. Pinsonneault & Yoann Léveillé (eds.), Actes du colloque 50 ans de linguistique à l’UQAM: Regards croisés sur les enjeux de la linguistique. 20-32. Montréal. http://archipel.uqam.ca/id/eprint/17529
Baunaz, Lena & Puskás, Genoveva. 2014. On subjunctives and islandhood. M.-H. Côté & E. Mathieu. Variation within and across Romance languages. Selected papers from the 41st Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Ottawa, 5–7 May 2011, [CILT 333], 233–253. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. http://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.333.16bau
Baunaz, Lena & Puskás, Genoveva. 2022. A Cross-linguistic Approach to the Syntax of subjunctive Mood. Cham: Springer Nature. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04540-0
Blochowiak, Joanna. 2014. A Theoretical Approach to the Quest for Understanding:
Semantics and Pragmatics of Whys and Becauses. PhD dissertation, University of Geneva.
Blochowiak, Joanna. 2015. Why-questions and island effects. Semantics-Syntax Interface 2(1): 58–91.
Grisot, Cristina, Blochowiak, Joanna & Genoveva Puskás. 2022. Predicting verbal mood in complement clauses: the role of the semantic category, the tense and the grammatical aspect of the matrix verb, Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 7(1). https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5798
Grisot, Cristina. 2017. A quantitative approach to conceptual, procedural and pragmatic meaning: Evidence from inter-annotator agreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 117, 245-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.020
Caha, Pavel. 2009. The nanosyntax of case (Doctoral dissertation). University of Tromsø.
Caha & De Clercq & Starke & Wyngaerd, under review. Nanosyntax: state of the art and recent developments.
Christidis, Anastasios Phoevos. 1982. ότι/πως-που: επιλογή δεικτών συμπληρωμάτων στα νέα ελληνικά [Oti/pos-pu: Complementizer choice in Modern Greek]. Studies in Greek Linguistics 2: 113–177
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.23
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2009. The dependency of the subjunctive revisited: Temporal semantics and polarity. Lingua 119(12): 1883–1908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.11.007
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2013. The subjunctive as evaluation— Nonveridicality, epistemic subjunctive, and emotive-as-expressive. Ms. University of Illinois at Chicago.
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2016. The subjunctive as evaluation and nonveridicality . In J. Blaszczak, A. Giannakidou, D. Klimek-Jankowska, K. Migdalski. (eds), Mood, Aspect and Modality Revisited: New Answers to Old Questions. 177-217. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Giannakidou, Anastasia & Alda Mari. 2021. Truth and Veridicality in Grammar and
Thought: Mood, modality, and propositional attitudes. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. http://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226763484.001.0001
Giorgi, Alessandra & Fabio Pianesi. 1997. Tense and aspect: From semantics to Morphosyntax. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.24.1.11gel
Gudmestad, Aarnes, & Edmonds, Amanda. 2015. Categorical and variable mood distinction in Hexagonal French: Factors characterising use for native and non-native speakers. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 18(1). 107–131.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 1999. L’énonciation : de la subjectivité dans le langage. 4e édition. Paris: Armand Colin.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. ‘Elsewhere’ in phonology. In Stephen Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle. 93–106. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kiparsky, Paul & Carol Kiparsky. 1970. Fact. In Manfred Bierwish & Karl Erich Heidolph (eds.), Progress in linguistics: a collection of papers. 143–173. The Hague: Mouton.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111350219.143
Marques, Rui. 2024. Explaining the Subjunctive in factive contexts. RLLT 21, eds. Grant Armstrong, Roberta D’Alessandro & M.Carmen Parafita Couto. Special Issue of Isogloss. Open Journal of Romance Linguistics 10(2)/8, 1-27.
https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/isogloss.273
Portner, Paul & Aynat Rubinstein. 2012. Mood and contextual commitment. In A. Chereches (Ed.), The proceedings of SALT 22. 461–487. CLC Publications.
https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v22i0.2642
Quer, Josep. 2009. Twists of mood: The distribution and interpretation of indicative and subjunctive. Lingua 119(12). 1779–87.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.12.003
Roussou, Anna. 2000. On the left periphery: Modal particles and complementisers.
Journal of Greek Linguistics 1(1): 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1075/jgl.1.05rou
Roussou, Anna. 2009. In the mood for control. Lingua 119(12): 1811–1836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.11.010
Roussou, Anna. 2010. Selecting complementizers. Lingua 120(3): 582–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.08.006
Sočanać, Tomislav. 2017. Subjunctive Complements in Slavic Languages: A Syntax-
Semantics Interface Approach. Ph.D. thesis, University of Geneva.
Spooren, Wilbert & Liesbeth Degand. 2010. Coding coherence relations: reliability and validity. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6(2). 241–266. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2010.009
Starke, Michal. 2009. Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language.
Nordlyd 36(1):1– 6.
https://doi.org/10.7557/12.213
Starke, Michal. 2011. Towards an elegant solution to language variation: Variation
reduces to the size of lexically stored trees. Ms., University of Tromsø.
LingBuzz/001183.
Starke, Michal. 2014. Cleaning up the Lexicon. Linguistic Analysis 39: 245– 256.
Published
How to Cite
Downloads
Copyright (c) 2024 Lena Baunaz, Joanna Blochowiak, Cristina Grisot
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
