The Relation between Grammaticalization and Intersubjectification in Designating the Genesis of Modal Auxiliaries

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Joint Ph.D. Student of Linguistics, Tarbiat Modares University and University of Antwerp

2 Professor of Linguistics, University of Antwerp, Belgium

3 Associated Professor of Linguistics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

This paper considers role of grammaticalization and intersubjectification in determining the origin of some modal auxiliaries in Iranian languages. These auxiliaries, based on Nuyts (2005 and further) express deontic necessity, epistemic possibility, participant-inherent necessity, participant-imposed necessity, and situational necessity, which for the ease of access are considered as equivalences to ‘bAjest{n’ (must). Based on the traditional definition of grammaticalization, one might expect these auxiliaries, the same as other auxiliaries to be developed from lexical verbs. However, following this path might violate what Traugott and Dasher (2002), Traugott (1989, 1995 and 2010) and also Byloo and Nuyts (2014) have in mind by (inter) subjectification, where volitional verbs are evolved from modal notions and the related concepts. Both traditional definition of grammaticalization and this reading of intersubjectification are unidirectional and predominantly verify the diachronic path of evolving such modal from volitional verbs. Even though, data from four languages, including Kahangi, Vafsi, Tati, and Semnani, where the modals meaning ‘must’ have the same roots with the volitional verbs meaning ‘want’, being limited to grammaticalization might violate intersubjectification and vice versa, following intersubjectification might exclude grammaticalization. Therefore, here we suggest that these auxiliaries are not developed from the volitional verbs in these; yet, both groups have been simultaneously evolved from a third element in Old Iranian.
 

Keywords

References

اخلاقی، فریار (1386). بایستن، شدن، توانستن: سه فعل وجهی در فارسی امروز. ویژه­نامۀ نامۀ فرهنگستان (دستور). (3)، 82-132.
حسن‌دوست، محمد (1393). فرهنگ ریشه‌شناختی زبان فارسی. تهران: فرهنگستان زبان و ادب فارسی.
داوری، شادی و مهرداد نغزگوی کهن (1396). افعال معین در زبان فارسی: رویکردی دستوری‌شدگی. تهران: نشر نویسه پارسی.
رضایی باغ‌بیدی، حسن (1388). تاریخ زبان‌های ایرانی. تهران: مرکز دایرة المعارف بزرگ اسلامی.
زرشناس، زهره و آناهیتا پرتوی (1389). قصّه‌هایی از سغد. تهران:پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
کوه‌کن، سپیده (1398). رده‌شناسی وجه‌نمایی در زبان‌های ایرانی غربی نو. رسالۀ دکتری زبان‌شناسی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس و دانشگاه آنتورپ.
کیا، صادق (1392). واژه‌نامۀ شصت و هفت گویش ایرانی. تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
مفیدی، روح­الله (1395). شکل‌گیری ساخت‌واژۀ نمود و وجه در فارسی نو. ویژۀ‌نامۀ نامۀ فرهنگستان (دستور)، (12)، 3-68.
نقی‌زاده، محمود؛ منوچهر توانگر و محمد عموزاده (1390). بررسی مفهوم ذهنیت در افعال وجهی در زبان فارسی. پژوهش‌های زبان­شناسی، 3 (1)، 1-20.
References
Bartholomae, C. (1961). Altiranisches Wötrerbuch. Berlin: W. De Gruyter.
Bybee, J. L., R. Perkins & W. Pagliuca (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-------------- (2002). Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure, in Talmy Givón and Bertram F.Malle (eds), The Evolution of Language out of Pre‐language. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 109–34.
Byloo, P. & J. Nuyts (2014). Meaning Change in the Dutch Core Modals: (Inter) Subjectification in a Grammatical Paradigm. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia. 46 (1), 85-116.
Cheung, J. (2007). Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verbs. Leiden and Boston. Brill.
Heine, B. (1993). Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. Oxford University Press. New York and Oxford.
------------ & T. Kuteva (2007).The Genesis of Grammar: A Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hopper, P. J. & E. C. Traugott (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Humbach, H. (1974). Methodologische Variationen zur arischen Religionsgeschichte. Gs Guntert, 193-200.
Kent, R. (1953). Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon. New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society.
Nuyts, J. (2005). The Modal Confusion: On terminology and the concepts behind it. In: A. Klinge & H. H. Muller (Eds.), Modality: Studies in form and function, (pp, 5-38). London: Equinox.
----------  (2016). Analyses of the Modal Meanings. In: Nuyts. J & J. Van der Auwera (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood, (pp. 31-49). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
----------  (in prep). Modality in Mind.
Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Portner, P. (2009). Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Traugott, E. C. (1989). On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English. Language, (65), 31-55.
------------------ (1995). Subjectification in Grammaticalization. In: D. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectification, (pp, 31-54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
------------------ & R. Dasher. (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Taleghani, A. H. (2008). Modality, Aspect and Negation in Persian. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Van der Auwera, J. & V. A. Plungian (1998). Modality’s Semantic Map. Linguistic Typology 2, 79-124.
Velupillai, V. (2012). An Introduction to Linguistic Typology. John Benjamin Publishing Company: Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics