5 6167846510508638255

Norwegian Modais
W
DE
G
Studies in Generative Grammar 74
Editors
Henlc van Riemsdijlc
Harry van der Hulst
Jan Köster
Mouton de Gruyter
Berlin · New York
Norwegian Modais
by
Kristin Melum Eide
Mouton de Gruyter
Berlin · New York
Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague)
is a Division of Walter de Gruyter G m b H & Co. KG, Berlin.
The series Studies in Generative Grammar was formerly published by

Foris Publications Holland.
© Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines

of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Eide, Kristin M„ 1965 —

Norwegian modals / by Kristin Melum Eide.
p. cm. — (Studies in generative grammar ; 74)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 3-11-017996-2 (cloth : alk. paper)
1. Norwegian language - Verb. 2. Norwegian language - Modal-
ity. 3. Germanic languages — Modality. I. Title. II. Series.
PD2661.E33 2005
439.8'256-dc22
2005011454
ISBN-13: 978-3-11-017996-5
ISBN-10: 3-11-017996-2
Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek

Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at <http://dnb.ddb.de>.
© Copyright 2005 by Walter de Gruyter G m b H & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin.

All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this
book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission
in writing from the publisher.
Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin.
Printed in Germany.
Acknowledgements
There are numerous w a y s to separate one group o f linguists from another.

W e distinguish between formalists and functionalists, between descriptiv-
ists and theoreticians, between semanticists and syntacticians. A distinction
much more important for my motivation to work as a researcher in linguis-
tics is the difference between linguists w h o exploit the field to advance
themselves and linguists w h o exploit themselves to advance the field o f
linguistics. I am fortunate to know many o f the latter kind, people eager to
help advance any linguistic project they believe can bring n e w insights,
regardless o f specifics such as framework, premises, or general approach
(with w h i c h they may disagree completely).
These people are much more important to the field than they are given
credit for. M o s t linguists I know are severely underpaid and severely over-
worked, and many o f us are working on projects dependent on continuous
funding, so there is no telling when w e might be out o f a job. One could not
keep this up for many years if there were nothing to provide a sense o f call-
ing, a sense o f mission, a sense o f common enterprise.
This is provided by the linguists w h o exploit themselves to advance the
field. B y generously sharing their knowledge, their motivation, and their
fascination with the field, they provide the rest o f us with a sense o f greater
cause, which in my experience is crucial for one's motivation to put in an-
other six hours on another Saturday night.
Thus, I want to thank Elly van Gelderen for her help and motivation
during a crucial phase o f my work on this book, for reading my dissertation
and making a range o f valuable comments, and for helping me find an edi-
tor. I also thank Jan Terje Faarlund for making Elly aware o f my disserta-
tion, thus being instrumental in this process.
M y gratitude also goes to Tor A . Äfarli, Inghild Flaate, Heidi Broseth,
and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson for reading parts o f the present manu-
script and making valuable comments.
There are a number o f (tense and) modality researchers in the Scandina-
vian countries w h o provided valuable reading material, interesting data, and
fruitful discussions. I want to mention in particular Kasper B o y e , S0ren
Brandt, Helge D y v i k , Jin Fufen, Marit Julien, Helge Lodrup, Halldor
vi Acknowledgements
Ärmann Sigurdsson, Sten Vikner, and Olaf Jansen Westvik. Also, I need to
thank Virginia Brennan for lending me not one, but two versions of the
manuscript of her book Modalities (the 1997 and 2004 versions). I am
really looking forward to its publication!
Thanks to the countless linguists (and non-linguists) w h o inquired about
the book project (and, previously, about my dissertation) and expressed
interest in reading the finished product. This remained a great motivation to
finish the book.
I also want to thank my editor Viktorija Todorovska, who has done an
outstanding j o b editing the chapters of this book, and the publisher's agent
Ursula Kleinhenz for her support throughout the process. M y gratitude also
goes to the publisher's reviewer, whose extensive comments and sugges-
tions made m e rethink and rewrite substantial parts of this book. These
comments are hence partly responsible for the tardy appearance of the
book; on the other hand, the finished product is certainly much better be-
cause of them.
Furthermore, I need to thank Tor A. Äfarli, Inghild Flaate, and Hilde
Sollid for countless lunches and telephone conversations and in particular
for their continuing encouragement.
M y boss Wim van Dommelen and the students I am supervising, Guro
Busterud in Trondheim and Anna Wärnsby in Lund, deserve my gratitude
for their patience while I was desperately working on this book. My former
supervisor Torbjorn Nordgärd has also been encouraging throughout the
entire project.
1 also want to thank all informants who shared their intuitions about
their native languages: some of you are mentioned in footnotes throughout
the text. Also, thanks to all informants who took part in the two larger in-
formant tests, one on ville and one on non-specific subjects and tags.
I would also like to thank the local community theatre where I live,
M0lna Teaterlag, who strangely enough elected (and re-elected) me their
leader. A special thanks to the board as well as to all the members for pro-
viding lots of laughter and a spirit of community, which helped me main-
tain my sanity this past year.
Most of all, however, I thank Hans, my husband of 21 years: you remain
the light of my life, your love and friendship continue to be the most impor-
tant influence of my day. To our three sons, Jon Gunnar, Thomas, and
Einar: thanks for your mere existence, allowing me to follow your devel-
opment and reminding me of what is truly important in this world. More
A cknowledgements ν ii
prosaically, thanks to all three of you for providing technical and computer
support, all types of support.
If there are still people who feel they deserve my gratitude and yet re-
ceived no mention in this list, I ask for forgiveness. Thanks to all I might
have forgotten to mention. You know who you are.
Kristin
List of abbreviations
DEF definite article (suffix)

INF infinitive
INFL Inflection-projection (I)
IPP Infinitive pro perfect
PART particle
PASS passive
PERF perfect participle
PLUR plural
PRES present
PRET preterite
PROG progressive
REFL reflexive particle
SUBJ2 past subjunctive (Konjunktiv zwei)
Table of contents
Chapter 1: Introduction
1. Norwegian modals: main verbs and auxiliaries 1

2. The central subjects of this investigation 3
3. The root-epistemic distinction 4
4. The framework 10
5. The data 13
Chapter 2: Norwegian Modals: the Facts
1. Introduction 15
2. Morphological characteristics 17
3. Semantic characteristics 24
3.1. A brief overview of some central modality terms 25
3.2. Two seminal formal semantic descriptions of modals 28
3.3. A semantic field of modality 33
3.4. The semantic properties ofNorwegain modals 39
3.5. Modals, readings and η-place relations 47
4. Syntactic characteristics 53
4.1. Complements of Norwegian modals 56
4.2. Modals, ellipsis, and tags 63
4.3. Summary of findings 72
5. Summary and preliminary inventory 73
5.1. Examining our results 73
6. Three potential candidates 75
7. Final inventory and inventories of seven other languages 82
7.1. Norwegian modals: final inventory 82
7.2. Inventories of modals in seven other languages 83
Chapter 3: Analyzing Modals: a Survey of Recent Proposals
1. Two central notions 92

1.1. Theta-roles 92
1.2. Functional projections 97
2. Some earlier proposals 102
χ Table of contents
2.1. Roberts (1985) 103

2.2. Roberts (1993) 108
2.3. Roberts and Roussou (2002, 2003) 111
2.4. Cinque (1999) 115
2.5. Vikner (1988) 121
2.6. Thräinsson and Vikner (1995) 124
2.7. Barbiers (1995, 2002) 132
2.8. Ledrup (1996a) 143
2.9. Dyvik (1999) 147
2.10. Wurmbrand (1999, 2001) 151
2.11. Butler (2003) 156
2.12.vanGelderen (2003, 2004) 161
2.13.Picallo (1990) 164
3. Modals and theta-roles 167
4. Insertion or merger point of root and non-root modals 170
Chapter 4: Norwegian Modals: Argument Structure
1. Introduction 171
2. The control versus raising analysis 172
3. Modals in pseudoclefts 192
3.1. The relevant generalization: ± proposition scope 197
3.2. The pseudocleft construction 201
3.3. Modals and subject scope 205
3.4. Competing for subject positions: Theta relations vs. subject scope 217
3.4.1. The argument from nobody/somebody 217
3.4.2. The argument from some/every 218
3.4.3. The argument from the ambiguity of indefinites 220
3.5. Subject-orientedness and subject positions 228
3.6. Reanalysis verbs 236
3.7. Raising verbs and pseudoclefts 240
3.7.1. The Case solution 241
3.7.2. The "op" solution 242
3.7.3. The ungoverned trace 242
3.7.4. Access to subject positions 244
3.7.5. Controllability 245
3.7.6. ± Theta-role 246
4. Explaining subject-orientedness 248
4.1. It is not a real Theta-role 249
Table of contents xi
4.2. Occational redefinition of argument structure 252

4.3. Double entries 253
4.4. Optional Theta-assignment 255
4.4.1. Hornstein (1998, 1999, 2000) 255
4.4.2. Optional versus obligatory Theta-assigners 260
4.5. Evaluating the alternatives 264
5. The source of modality: Two semantic levels 268
6. Summary 284
Chapter 5: Norwegian Modals, Aspect and Tense
1. Introduction 286
2. Tense and aspect 287
2.1. Tense 288
2.2. Aspect 290
3. Aspect and tense of complements 294
3.1. Directional small clauses 299
3.2. The perfect 301
3.3. The progressive 305
3.4. The iterative 306
4. Modality, tense, and aspect: Scope, readings, and universality 309
4.1. Creole TMA systems and universalist hyotheses 312
4.1.1. A digression on mood and modality 318
4.2. TMA markers in Norwegian 319
4.3. Modal-aspectual sequences in other languages 324
4.4. Universalist approaches and the modal-tense-aspectual data 329
4.4.1. Modals and the perfect 331
4.4.2. Modals and tense 324
4.4.3. The positions of modals 337
5. A compositional tense system for Norwegian 342
5.1. Julien (2000a, 2001) 342
5.2. A different approach 347
5.2.1. Tense chains and temporal relations 352
5.2.2. The preterite 353
5.2.3. The present 354
5.2.4. The infinitive 355
5.2.5. The past participle and the perfect 359
5.3. The function of ha 'have' 367
6. The properties of the complement: tense and aspect 376
xii Table of contents
6.1.Default and overrride 376

6.2.Truth values and tenses, verbs and directionals 384
7. Thetense properties of root and non-root modals 390
7.1.The tense of root modals 391
7.2.The tense of non-root modals 392
7.2.1. Non-root modals and finiteness 392
7.2.2. Non-root modals for the past and future 395
7.2.3. Sequence of tenses, non-root modals, and generics 399
8. Summing up 407
Chapter 6: Summing up
1. Introduction 410
2. The facts 411
3. Earlier proposals 414
4. Argument structure 416
5. Modals, aspect, and tense 421
6. Concluding remarks 427
References 428
Index 453
Chapter 1
Introduction
1. Norwegian modals: main verbs and auxiliaries
The subject of this book are those linguistic elements in Norwegian the
literature refers to as modal verbs, modal auxiliaries, or modals. For the
most part, I will employ the term modal, as it is more neutral than the other
two with regard to the categorial status of these linguistic elements.
The list of Norwegian modals serving as my (pre-theoretical) point of
departure is determined by tradition. For every well-studied Germanic lan-
guage, there is a canonical list of "proper modals," determined by a long
tradition going back to descriptive grammars. According to this tradition,
the syntactically distinguishing trait of modals is their ability to take bare
infinitival complements. However, an element is typically considered no
less of a modal if it also takes all other kinds of complements, such as finite
clauses or DP direct objects. Thus, according to this descriptive tradition,
the class of modals includes elements with different properties, semanti-
cally and syntactically.
The confusion and lack of consensus surrounding the properties of mo-
dals stem from the failure to distinguish between modal auxiliaries and
what I have dubbed modal main verbs. Modal auxiliaries take bare infiniti-
val complements only. When a modal takes a DP direct object or a finite
clause as its complement, it is no longer an auxiliary (a natural assumption,
given wide-spread definitions of auxiliaries as dependent on the presence of
a main verb complement). 1 It follows that the properties of modal main
verbs should not be used to analyze the properties of modal auxiliaries or
modals in general. In my view, any sound analysis of modal auxiliaries
hinges on the distinction between modal main verbs and auxiliaries.
1
There is an exception to this generalization: when a modal auxiliary takes as its
complement a proform that semantically equals a verb phrase (a VP or IP), it is
still an auxiliary, even though its complement is categorially a noun phrase (a DP).
In a construction like Jeg mä dette Ί must (do) this', the modal behaves like an
auxiliary with respect to ifo-replacement in tag questions and ellipsis.
2 Introduction
Figure 1
Modals
Modals with DP/finite clausal Modals with bare

complements infinitival complements
= Main verbs = Auxiliaries
When discussing modals, most authors aim to describe modal auxiliaries.

However, the inventories of modals, typically inherited from traditional
descriptive works, often include modal main verbs as some sort of stow-
away, since modal main verbs have the same forms as modal auxiliaries. 2
Consequently, problems and confusion arise when the properties of modal
main verbs are ascribed to modal auxiliaries. Distinguishing modal main
verbs from modal auxiliaries hence brings a great deal of clarity to the pic-
ture.
My findings suggest that modal main verbs differ substantially from
modal auxiliaries with regard to semantic and especially syntactic proper-
ties. Modal auxiliaries take bare infinitival complements and behave like
raising verbs in most (though not all) respects. Modal main verbs take
proper arguments (DPs and finite clauses) as direct objects and pattern with
transitive lexical verbs with respect to c/o-replacement and passive forma-
tion. What they do have in common with modal auxiliaries is an overlap-
ping lexical semantics. The main reasons for including modal main verbs in
any investigation of modals are the fact that they are the lexical Doppel-
gänger of modal auxiliaries and the pressure of the descriptive tradition. 3
My decision to include modal main verbs in the present investigation is
only indirectly determined by tradition. The fact that modal main verbs
have traditionally been considered modals is not reason enough to include
them, if that leads to a confusion of terms. However, many authors have
used the properties of modal main verbs to support analyses of modal auxil-
iaries, failing to distinguish between the two. An adequate response to such
2
This is not a problem for works exclusively concerned with Modern English
modals, which take no complement besides bare infinitivals.
3
Although there are also recent, more theoretically based works that seek a unified
account for (what I call) modal main verbs and modal auxiliaries, e.g. the analysis
of Dutch modals proposed in Barbiers (1995, 2002).
Central subjects of investigation 3
analyses thus requires a careful m a p of the entire landscape of modals; be-

cause of this, it becomes important to k n o w the properties of modal main
verbs and their position in this landscape.
Hence, in keeping with descriptive tradition, I have granted modal main
verbs status as modals and allowed t h e m into the revised inventory of N o r -
wegian modals in Chapter 2, section 7. However, I emphasize that the
properties of modal main verbs m a k e t h e m atypical representatives of the
class of modals.
2. The central subjects of this investigation
T h e literature on modals in Germanic languages is comprehensive: it covers

a vast array of topics associated with these verbs and the debate never
seems to fade. S o m e of the topics in this debate have been around for cen-
turies (cf. Öhlschläger 1989: 19 f f ) , reinvented and rephrased by n e w gen-
erations of linguists and philosophers. Thus, no contemporary w o r k on
Germanic modals can claim with any credibility to cover all aspects of this
debate; at best, one can strive to shed some light on select aspects of the
discussion.
The t w o main topics of this book, constituting the t w o m a j o r chapters,
are the argument structure of N o r w e g i a n modals (Chapter 4) and their in-
teraction with aspect and tense (Chapter 5). Chapters 2 and 3 present the
preliminaries to the discussion in Chapters 4 and 5. Chapter 2 examines the
morphological, semantic, and syntactic properties of N o r w e g i a n modals
and offers a revised inventory of Norwegian modals, including an overview
of their main readings. For comparison, I provide the inventories of modals
in s o m e closely related languages. Chapter 3 reviews 13 recent analyses of
modals, starting with Roberts (1985) and Vikner (1988) as the earliest of
these proposals and going all the w a y to van Gelderen (2003, 2004) as the
most recent. With the exception of Picallo's (1990) paper, w h i c h deals with
R o m a n c e modals, the proposals surveyed focus on modals in Germanic
languages. In my review, I focus on what these proposals have to say about
the t w o issues central to this investigation: the argument structure of mo-
dals and their possible insertion or merger point in a syntactic structure.
T h e latter is a syntactico-centric take on how modals interact with major
syntactico-semantic categories such as aspect and tense.
4 Introduction
Chapter 6 offers a brief summary of what I consider the major achieve-

ments of the present work: it sums up the important empirical findings,
generalizations, and theoretical innovations of this investigation.
3. The root-epistemic distinction
Almost every work on modals is, to some extent, concerned with the mo-
dal's ability to have two different readings. The epistemic reading qualifies
the truth value of the proposition. The root reading denotes obligation,
permission, or volition on behalf of a responsible agent. See (1), where the
root reading is paraphrased in I, the epistemic in II.
(1) a. Jon mä vcere pä kontoret.

Jon must be in office-DEF
'Jon must be in his office.'
(I) 'Jon is obligated to be in his office.'

(II) 'It must be the case that Jon is in his office.'
Cross-linguistically, modals and similar elements often display these two

readings, and their ability to do so is considered a crucial and, in some
works, defining property of modals. Thus, the root vs. epistemic distinc-
tion, established as the main opposition between modals by Hofmann
(1976), has been an important topic in the modal literature.
In section 1, I stated that sometimes modals behave like transitive main
verbs, notably when they take finite clauses or DPs as complements. A
modal with a bare infinitival complement, I argue, is always an auxiliary
(even if it takes DP or finite clausal complements in other cases); this as-
sumption was illustrated in Figure 1, repeated here as Figure 2.
Figure 2
Modals

The root-epistemic distinction 5
A recurring question in the literature on Germanic modals, however, has

been whether (some or all) modals with a bare infinitival complement
should be viewed as main verbs. More specifically, the discussion has re-
volved around the hypothesis that the set of modals that seem quite uniform
in taking bare infinitival complements may still syntactically be two differ-
ent categories—main verbs and auxiliaries. The aforementioned root vs.
epistemic distinction is often considered the demarcation line, not only
between the two types of readings, but also between two categorial syntac-
tic types of modals.
Figure 3
Modals

= Main verbs? = Auxiliaries?
The two readings, root and epistemic, have often been claimed to covary
with specific structural traits and, crucially, to differ with respect to a range
of formal properties. These claims have given rise to a whole tradition of
analyses, starting with Ross (1969). In this tradition, root modals are ana-
lyzed as some kind of control verbs (i.e. main verbs) and epistemic modals
as raising verbs (e.g. auxiliaries). Accordingly, these analyses are known as
"control versus raising" analyses.
I will examine and later reject the type of analysis suggested by Figure
3. According to my findings, both root and epistemic modals are modal
auxiliaries, which is evident, for instance, from their behavior with respect
to ifo-replacement in tag questions and ellipsis.
What has been called the epistemic readings of Germanic modals in-
cludes evidential and metaphysical readings (cf. below for a brief discus-
sion of the terms). Thus, I will use the opposition root vs. non-root instead
of the more familiar root vs. epistemic. Crucially, 1 use the term non-root
for modals that "qualify the truth-value of a proposition;" these modals are
6 Introduction
referred to as epistemic in many works. 4 Hence, my version of Figure 3 is

presented in Figure 4.
Figure 4
Modals

Root modals: Non-root modals:

Deontic Epistemic
Dynamic Evidential
Metaphysical
M o s t syntactic works on modals use the opposition root vs. epistemic. De-
viating from this practice thus deserves some justification. Although meta-
physical modality (modality about the possible futures of a given situation)
could easily be argued to be a variant of epistemic modality, one important
reason to chose the cover term non-root for epistemic, metaphysical, and
evidential readings is that m a n y Germanic languages include at least one
non-root modal with an evidential reading. As emphasized in many seman-
tically based works on modals, epistemic modality is concerned with rea-
soning based on the speaker's (present) knowledge. Evidential modality, on
the other hand, is concerned with the (speaker-external) evidence a speaker
has for the truth of a given proposition (cf. Chapter 2, section 3 for a more
detailed discussion of the terms). The relevant f o r m of evidentiality in our
case is hear-say or quotative evidentiality, which means that the speaker
conveys a statement made by another party. This type of modality is actu-
ally not subsumed by the term epistemic. O n e important reason w h y au-
thors ignore this fact is that none of the proper English modals have an
evidential reading, and they have been center stage in modality research for
4
In principle, even the modal main verbs on the left-most branch could be consid-
ered non-root, but I use the term non-root modal to exclude the modal main verbs.
many decades. However, the English compound be supposed to has an

evidential reading in its non-root version; John is supposed to be an archi-
tect can mean that the speaker is reporting a claim, made by someone else,
that John is an architect. This is exactly the reading w e find with the Ger-
man proper modal sollen and its Norwegian counterpart skulle.
In my analysis, modals include main verbs and auxiliaries. Modal auxil-
iaries include non-root modals—subsuming epistemic, metaphysical, and
evidential modals—and root modals, subsuming deontic and dynamic mo-
dals. Each subtype of modal auxiliaries has particular syntactic and seman-
tic properties. However, there is no convincing evidence that these subtypes
belong to different categories syntactically; instead, I will argue that the
differences can be explained on semantic grounds.
In this work, the question of the possibly different syntactic categorial
status of root and non-root modals is rarely addressed explicitly. Neverthe-
less, it underlies the entire discussion. For instance, this question is relevant
in addressing the alleged formal differences between root and non-root
modals.
My findings suggest that most of the differences do not amount to sound
generalizations. For instance, there are a variety of claims regarding the
argument-taking properties of root and non-root modals; as mentioned
above, these differences constitute the basis of many analyses in the Ross
(1969) tradition. I address-and reject-these claims in Chapter 4. Root mo-
dals, just like non-root modals, can be construed as one-place ('intransi-
tive', in Ross' terms) predicates. Root modals differ from non-root ones in
that they also allow a two-place construal; it is on this reading that root
modals behave somewhat differently from non-root modals.
Furthermore, the claim that there is a finiteness requirement pertaining
to non-root (or epistemic) modals but not to root ones is wide-spread. In
Norwegian, even non-root modals may occur in non-finite forms (the in-
finitive and the perfect participle); 5 thus, this cannot be a universal con-
straint on non-root modals. There are also claims about the m o d a l ' s ability
to interact with tense and aspect, depending on its reading as root or non-
root. M y findings show that the picture is a lot less clear than many authors,
particularly within universalist approaches, have assumed. It is true that
non-root modals are much less susceptible to tense alternations than their
root counterparts, but contexts where such alternations are possible do ex-
3
The latter is not found in written standard dialects, but in northern and western
dialects and in many other Germanic and Romance languages (cf. Chapter 5).
8 Introduction
ist. However, different types of non-root modals (epistemic, evidential, and

metaphysical) behave differently with regard to tense alternation.
It has also been widely claimed that root and non-root modals select for
different aspect feature matrices of their complements: root modals alleg-
edly select for dynamic (eventive) predicates only and non-root modals for
stative predicates only (this is discussed in detail in Chapter 5). This claim
is often supported with the assumption that root readings are impossible
with progressive and perfect complements (which are in a sense stative
aspectually). In (2a) the stative predicate gives rise to a non-root (epis-
temic) reading of the modal, in (2b) and (2c) the perfect and progressive
complements, respectively, seem to yield no reading beside the non-root
one (again, epistemic). However, note that when w e add a purpose clause
or a particular type of temporal adverbial, as in (2d), (2e), and (2f), the non-
root reading becomes unnatural and the reading is root.
(2) a. Jon mä virkelig like pannekaker.

Jon must really like pancakes
'Jon must really like pancakes.'
b. Jon mä ha spist.
Jon must have eaten
'Jon must have eaten.'
c. The water must be boiling.
d. Jon mä virkelig like pannekaker

for at svigermora skal like ham.
for that mother-in-lawDEF shall like him.
'Jon must really like pancakes

for his mother-in-law to like him.'
e. Jon mä ha spist fer han kommer.

Jon must have eaten before he arrives
'Jon must have eaten before he arrives.'
f. The water must be boiling

when you pour it over the tomatoes.
The analysis exploiting an 'opposite selectional requirements' approach can

usually account for data like (2a), (2b), and (2c), but fails to account for
data like (2d), (2e), and (2f). An analysis based on a universal ordering of
syntactic heads, where the non-root (epistemic) modal has one fixed posi-
tion above (i.e. preceding) the aspectual, and the root modal follows (and
scopes under) the aspectual, faces the same issue. The data in (2) suggest
instead that there is some kind of default-and-override system, where the
stative, progressive, or perfect complement gives rise to a non-root reading
of the modal by default. A root reading of the modal ensues when a pur-
pose clause or a (future-denoting) temporal adverbial triggers an override
effect on the semantic construal. It is hard to account for this 'default-and-
override' pattern in a garden variety universalist approach; what we need is
a more flexible system and in Chapter 5, I propose a compositional tense
system for Norwegian.
There have also been recurring claims about the possible combinations
of modals and other modals. This question has become particularly popular
since the seminal work of Cinque (1999), who predicts that certain combi-
nations and sequences ought to be possible and others not (but cf. also
Thräinsson and Vikner 1995). My findings suggest that the range of possi-
ble combinations is in fact wider than predicted by Cinque; once again, the
constraints seem to be semantically determined.
Only a few of the semantic and formal differences claimed to exist be-
tween root and non-root modals amount to sound generalizations for Nor-
wegian modals, according to my investigations.
(3) a. Only root modals take directional complements.

b. Only root modals take a pseudoclefted complement.
c. Only root modals take the definite VP-proform dette 'this'
as a complement.
d. A non-root modal will always scope over a root modal,
if they occur in the same clause.
I argue in Chapter 5, section 6.2, that (3a) is explained on the assumption

that directionals lack a potential truth value. Non-root modals target truth
values and qualify them, but in a directional complement there is no tense
element, hence no truth value to qualify.
(3b) and (3c) also concern the complement-taking properties of modals,
in this case, the theta-properties of the modal. The correlate det 'what' of a
pseudocleft complement and a definite VP-proform dette 'this' each occu-
10 Introduction
pies one argument role; in the constructions under consideration (4), the
subject of the sentence (Jeg Τ and du ' y o u ' ) also depends on the modal for
the assignment of a subject-role.
(4) a. Jeg mä dette.

I must this
Ί must do this/
b. Det du skal, er a sove.

it you shall, is to sleep.
' W h a t you must do, is to sleep.'
However, non-root modals can never be construed as two-place predicates

(that is, not in a semantic level close to syntax); instead, they take the
proposition, including the subject, as their one argument. Hence, they have
no semantic role to assign to the subject. Root modals may be construed as
two-place or one-place predicates, and only on their two-place reading may
they take a pseudoclefted or a definite complement. It is plausible, then,
that their complement-taking properties in some way depend on their abil-
ity to assign a semantic role to the subject. This could be argued to be a
consequence of the semantic properties of root and non-root modals, not
their categorial or syntactic status.
I have no satisfactory explanation for (3d). I have found no counterevi-
dence to this generalization in any language included in this investigation.
Neither have I found any convincing explanation for it (although an expla-
nation rooted in the argument-taking properties of modals, such as the one
in Thräinsson and Vikner (1995), takes us part of the way). It seems that we
have to stipulate a universal relative order between non-root and root mo-
dals, along the lines of many (recent) universalist approaches. This subject
is discussed in detail in Chapter 5.
4. The framework
The general framework of this book is the (Chomskyan, generativist, struc-

turalist) Principles and Parameters Theory, as outlined in Chomsky (1981,
1986a, 1986b, 1995a, 2000, 2001). No review of the general Principles and
Parameters Theory (the P&P framework) is provided here. Readers unfa-
The framework 11
miliar with this theory may consult one or more introductory w o r k s such as
H a e g e m a n (1994), R a d f o r d (1997), or Adger (2003). Specific theoretical
assumptions will be defined and discussed at relevant points in the discus-
sion.
A fundamental assumption of the P & P research program is that the lan-
guage capacity constitutes an autonomous component of the h u m a n brain,
specific to all and only humans and part of the human genetic endowment.
This designated component is often referred to as "Universal G r a m m a r , "
described in C h o m s k y (1980: 187) as follows:
What many linguists call "universal grammar" may be regarded as a theory
of innate mechanisms, an underlying biological matrix that provides a
framework within which the growth of language proceeds.... Proposed prin-
ciples of universal grammar may be regarded as an abstract partial specifi-
cation of the genetic program that enables the child to interpret certain
events as linguistic experience and to construct a system of rules and prin-
ciples on the basis of this experience.
H o w e v e r , the principles and generalizations proposed in this book are not

formulated to refer to this "biological matrix" of language learning, though
they should be translatable in principle into a language that refers directly
to such biological phenomena. Moreover, the hypothesis of innateness has
not played any part in the formulation of the principles and generalizations
presented here; cf. N e w m e y e r (1998: 89).
To read the critical literature, one would think that there is some logical
connection between the generativist research program and the need to posit
a set of purely syntactic innate universale - a distasteful conclusion for so
many. But innateness is a conclusion, not an assumption, and plays no role
in the formulation of the principles. In other words, the question of the ade-
quacy of such principles is independent of the question of where they 'come
from'. If somebody were able to show that they could be learned induc-
tively, then well and good. The generative research program would not
have to budge one centimeter.
It is also not a goal of this book to employ an extensive formalism to ex-

press generalizations that can be formulated accurately without any formal-
ism at all. This is a conscious choice, as I agree with Jackendoff (1997: 4)
that
an excessive preoccupation with formal technology can overwhelm the

search for genuine insight into language; and a theory's choice of formal-
12 Introduction
ism can set up... barriers to communication with researchers in other

frameworks.... [On the other hand,] at a more methodological level, formal-
ization permits one to be more abstract, rigorous, and compact in stating
and examining one's claims and assumptions. And, as Chomsky stressed in
a much-quoted passage from Syntactic Structures, a formalization uncovers
consequences, good or bad, that one might not otherwise have noticed.
There is a tendency within the P & P f r a m e w o r k for what J a c k e n d o f f consid-

ers an excessive preoccupation with formal technology and theoretical on-
tology. Sometimes, it is obvious to the reader that for certain authors, tak-
ing part in molding the emerging theory is more important than explaining
and accounting for the linguistic data. Harris (1993: 11) states that
Noam Chomsky, in particular, says flatly and often that he has very little
concern for language in and of itself; never has, never will. His driving con-
cern is with mental structure, and language is the most revealing tool he has
for getting at the mind. Most linguists these days follow Chomsky's lead
here.
This is not the case in this proposal. I readily confess that I harbor a fasci-
nation for language and linguistic data, and I have selected parts of the P & P
Theory with the explicit aim to account for and explain these data (a com-
m o n tactic for linguists within our f r a m e w o r k , one which gives rise to w h a t
one might be inclined to dub 'shopping linguistics'). Of course, this does
not amount to rejecting the hypothesis that language reflects mental struc-
tures and cognitive capacities. Instead, I find this hypothesis to be most
credible; it constitutes the context within which I conduct my linguistic
investigations.
N e w m e y e r (1998:7) describes the field of linguistics as follows:
There are... two broad orientations in the field.... One orientation sees as a
central task for linguists characterizing the formal relationships among
grammatical elements independently of any characterization of the semantic
and pragmatic properties of those elements. The other orientation rejects
that task on the grounds that the function of conveying meaning (in its
broadest sense) has so affected grammatical form that it is senseless to com-
partmentalize it. It is the former orientation, of course, that I have been re-
ferring to as 'formalist' and the latter as 'functionalist'.
I quote a number of functionalist works in this book. O n e important reason

for this is that the literature on modals within this orientation is comprehen-
sive. This is not surprising, as modals constitute a class of linguistic ele-
ments argued to illustrate the fundamental functionalist assumption: their
The data 1 3
formal properties cannot be characterized independently of their semantic

(and, in part, pragmatic) properties, independently of their root vs. non-root
reading. Another important reason for my quoting a number of functionalist
proposals is that there are many interesting observations and close-to-data
generalizations in these works. To me, however, data are interesting and
fascinating only in so far as they support or contradict specific syntactic
hypotheses or trigger a line of thought leading to the formulation of new
syntactic hypotheses and generalizations.
M y choice of framework signals that my perspective in this book will be
a comparative one. A large number of the works quoted discuss research
conducted on languages other than Norwegian. Thus, modal auxiliaries,
modal particles, and inflectional mood from various languages constitute
important evidence and the background against which I study Norwegian
modals. However, this book does not formulate specific parameters in Ger-
manic languages relevant to the behavior of modals in these and other
languages. This does not mean, for instance, that the theory of tense chains
in Chapter 5 does not carry over to other Germanic languages. It is simply
not tested on other Germanic languages. Thus, this is, first and foremost, an
investigation of Norwegian modals.
5. The data
The data in this book come from a number of sources: books, newspapers,
TV, radio, and my shameless eavesdropping on other people's conversa-
tions on the bus and in other contexts. After observing a piece of data, my
next step is to test my judgments against those of a number of informants.
Normally, any set of data would be presented to at least six or seven infor-
mants. Where grammaticality judgments differ significantly, I ask more
informants. On two occasions, I distributed informant tests to a larger num-
ber of people; in one case (where the question regarded the modal proper-
ties of the non-root modal ville 'will'), 35 informants participated in the
test. The informants range from linguists and highly educated individuals
such as teachers and journalists to people with no linguistic training.
M y claims about the English, German, Dutch, Faroese, Swedish, Dan-
ish, and Icelandic data are made on the basis of the existing literature as
well as the grammaticality judgments and intuitions of native speakers of
those languages. In some cases, I have tested specific hypotheses by pre-
senting native speakers with a number of sentences illustrating a phenome-
14 Introduction
non. These sentences were usually not provided in context, nor did I try to
hide in any way what I was looking for.
In addition to consulting informants to test specific hypotheses, I have
used the language resources on the internet. To test hypotheses on co-
occurrence facts of Norwegian modals, I used S0k i norske tekster med IMS
CWB at the University of Bergen, a corpus containing approximately 14
million Norwegian words, mainly texts from newspapers.
My own intuitions and grammaticality judgments play a significant role
in this book, especially when I translated sentences from other languages
into Norwegian to investigate whether or not a certain generalization holds
for Norwegian. However, even in many other cases, my own grammatical-
ity judgments constitute the basis for specific hypotheses. Nowhere in the
book do I present hypotheses that rest solely on my own grammaticality
judgments, however. Thus, this book draws on a number of empirical
sources beyond my own intuitions about Norwegian.
Chapter 2
Norwegian Modals: the Facts
1. Introduction
Within the tradition going at least as far back as Chomsky (1965), linguistic
theory has faced two levels of adequacy. First, our theory (or grammar) of a
given language should be descriptively adequate, i.e. generate all and only
the grammatical sentences of the language and provide a principled account
for native speakers' intuitions about the structure of these sentences. Sec-
ondly, our theory should be explanatorily adequate, i.e. account for a
child's acquisition of the language. However, as pointed out by Davies and
Dubinsky (2004: 154), linguists have come to recognize a third level of
adequacy, observational adequacy.
[...OJbservational adequacy involves the not always trivial task of determin-
ing which are the well-formed expressions in a language, and which are not
(and presumably being able to state whether the ill-formedness, where it
occurs, is syntactic, semantic, or pragmatic).
It is truly no trivial task to describe the properties of modals in any lan-
guage in an observationally adequate manner, in part because of diverging
intuitions about the facts. In addition, a good description should include all
and only the relevant data. A broader picture, on the other hand, serves to
acquaint the reader with the domain of investigation, provides an overview,
and a body of data for further explorations.
In this chapter, I will describe the broad landscape of Norwegian mo-
dals, including their morphological, semantic, and syntactic properties, in a
theory-neutral way. Of course, any non-trivial description of linguistic ele-
ments inevitably employs terms and basic premises related to a set of theo-
retical assumptions; however, in the present chapter, I will try to avoid any
commitment to a specific formalism or framework that would impede the
accessibility of the insights I present.
As a first approximation, I define the class of Norwegian modals as be-
ing composed of five members (Faarlund et al. 1997: 527):
16 Norwegian modals: the facts
(1) burde 'should' skulle 'will'

kunne 'can' ville 'want to/will' 1
mätte 'must'
These modals have root and epistemic (non-root) readings. I discuss the
terms root and epistemic in detail in sections 3.1 through 3.5. For now, the
preliminary definition provided by Platzack (1979: 44) will suffice:
The epistemic sense...qualifies the truth value of the sentence containing
the modal; the root sense...expresses necessity, obligation, permission,
volition, or ability on behalf of an agent which usually, but not necessarily,
is expressed by the... subject of the sentence.
The sentence in (2), for example, is ambiguous between a root reading—
here an obligation reading, paraphrased in I—and an epistemic reading,
where the modal qualifies the truth value of the sentence, paraphrased in II:
(2) Jon mä vcere pä kontoret.

I. Jon is obligated to be in his office, (root reading)
II. It must be the case that Jon is in his office, (epistemic reading)
In sections 2 through 4 , 1 consider the morphological, semantic, and syntac-

tic properties of Norwegian modals. When possible, I postpone the theo-
retical discussion and focus on the empirical findings. However, in section
3, a discussion of semantic modality terms is provided to aid the under-
standing of the remainder of the chapter. My findings are summarized at
the end of each section. In section 5, I summarize the observations and
examine what characterizes Norwegian modals according to these findings.
In section 6, I consider three potential new candidates for the class of mo-
dals and, as a result, I revise my inventory of Norwegian modals in section
7. The chapter concludes with a table of Norwegian modals and their proto-
typical readings and, finally, a brief inventoiy of the modals in other Scan-
dinavian and Germanic languages.
1
The former is the root reading, the latter is the epistemic reading.
Morphological characteristics 17
2. Morphological characteristics
In English grammars, modals are characterized as morphologically distinct

from other verbs because they have no -s form for the 3rd person singular
present tense (Palmer 1986: 33). Their German counterparts behave in
much the same way: the lack of explicit agreement marking in 1st and 3rd
person singular present tense indicative 2 is typically one morphological
feature of Germanic modals (Öhlschläger 1989: 4). 3 As expected, Norwe-
gian modals lack agreement marking too, but since Norwegian has no sub-
ject-verb agreement with any type of verb, 4 lack of agreement is not spe-
cific to modals. Thus, the single morphological property that separates
modals from almost any other verb in Norwegian is their status as preterite-
present verbs (Faarlund et al. 1997: 526). 5
Preterite-present is the term used to describe a group of Germanic verbs
of which modals constitute the major part. The term alludes to the fact that
their "present forms...are traceable to strong preterites 6 even though their
meaning is clearly present" (Bybee et al. 1994: 77). Although this is a dia-
chronic language development, not likely to have any bearing on the way
synchronic internalized language is organized in a language user, 7 one
2
Modern Norwegian does not productively employ a system of morphologically
expressed mood oppositions such as indicative-subjunctive, though it does have a
designated imperative form. Interestingly, the modals skulle and matte produc-
tively take on a subjunctive-like function in certain constructions (see fn. 30).
3
Two other morphological features of German modals (neither of which applies to
Norwegian) mentioned by Öhlschläger (1989: 4) are that
i) the stem vowel changes from indicative present sg. to indicative present pi.
ii) the stem vowel changes from infinitive to indicative preterite.
4
In Nynorsk and some dialects, the passive participle may have agreement
displaying a gender (neuter [N] vs. non-neuter [NN]) and number distinction:
(i) Ho/Han vart skoten /Dyret vart skote/Dyra vart skotne
S/he was shot-NN/The animal-N was shot-N/The animals were shot-PLURAL
3
There is, however, an inconsistency in this work concerning the verb burde
'ought to': first, burde is listed as a weak verb (Faarlund et al. 1997: 485), class
2b, whereas later burde is a preterite-presentic verb (526).
6
For the claim that the present form of these verbs is in fact the original preterite
form, see Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994: 77-78), Faarlund (1991: 63), Faar-
lund, Lie, and Vannebo (1997: 491), and Öhlschläger (1989: 4, fn.7).
7
Andrew Carnie's review of Newmeyer's (1998) Language Form and Language
Function posted on Linguist List on January 15, 2000, launched a long and heated
debate between formalists and functionalists on this question. The trigger for this
might quite justifiably claim that the m o r e tangible consequences of this

diachronic shift in the paradigm of preterite-presents, and thus modals,
synchronically set them apart 8 f r o m other verbs (particularly strong verbs 9 )
in the speaker's internalised vocabulary. In Norwegian, some of the conse-
quences are the following:
debate was the following statement: "Perhaps it is my MIT training showing

through and blinding me to the obvious, but I simply fail to see how it is at all
possible that a two-year old child has direct access to diachronic influences like
OE word order or the great vowel shift. As far as I can tell, without time-machines
or university degrees, infants only have access to what they hear spoken around
them, which makes this approach psychologically incoherent." On January 21,
Pavel Oratro objected to this post: "No functionalist makes the absurd claim that
children practice a form of mental time-travel (though didn't Chomsky and Halle
sort of say this in Sound Pattern of English ?). What they do say is that language
isn't fixed at the age of two. It keeps on changing. That means that the processes
that cause language change are also functional in the language facilities of individ-
ual speakers. So the grammar of a speaker of a language exhibits diachronic
change through his life." On January 23, Debra Ziegeler wrote: "While a Child's
acquisitional paths of grammatical development may not coincide with complete
accuracy with the paths of diachronic development of a grammatical item, the
motivation for the development in either case may be similarly built on the prag-
matic forces which mechanise the process of grammaticalisation, and create latent
grammatical material out of existing lexical items. There is no question of the
individual 'accessing' the diachronic developments.... The coincide of ontogenic
grammaticalisation with diachronic grammaticalisation is not a factor of individual
awareness; the parallels exist merely because the processes are similar, and the
similarity appears to be created by similar levels of pragmatic inferencing with
different contexts."
8
Lightfoot (1974: 237; 1979) argues that the prerequisite for the categorical shift
of pre-modals [category: verbs] into modals [category: aux] is the fact that these
verbs were a morphologically identifiable class: "One can only assume that it was
an accident that in this inflexional class [i.e. preterite-presents] only the pre-modals
survived.... On the other hand, it does not seem possible to define a class of modals
(and therefore of preterite-presents) on semantic grounds, and furthermore preter-
ite-presents in different languages encompass a very wide range of verbs semanti-
cally ('hate', 'know', 'grant', 'be able', 'think', 'need', etc.). However, the crucial
effect of the loss of the non-pre-modal present-preterites was that the pre-modals...
became an identifiable class of verbs, with the unique characteristic that they did
not have a fricative suffix for the 3rd person singular."
9
Modals do morphologically differ from weak verbs, as the latter have no vowel
shift from present to preterite while most modals (like strong verbs) do.
(3) a. These verbs lack the ending -er/-r in the present tense.
b. The stem vowel changes from infinitive to present tense.
c. No change in stem vowel from infinitive to past tense.
This produces the paradigm in Table 1 for Norwegian modals. I have pro-
vided the ordinary strong verb drikke for comparison:
Table 1
Infinitive Present Preterite Perfect

burde ber burde burdet 'should'
kunne kan kunne kunnet 'can'
mätte mä mätte mattet 'must'
skulle skal skulle skullet 'will'
ville vil ville villet 'want/will'
drikke drikker drakk drukket 'drink'
As can be readily observed, (3 a) does not apply to burde, but here the -r
belongs to the stem and is not an inflectional suffix. Furthermore, (3b) does
not apply to mätte 'must' and ville 'want to'. With these exceptions, the
properties in (3) are characteristics of modals in modern Norwegian. How-
ever, modals are not the only preterite-present verbs in Norwegian; the
preterite-present verb vite 'know', for example, is not a modal, judging
from its semantic and syntactic properties (Faarlund et al. 1997: 491). 10
In contrast to the incomplete paradigm of modern English modals, Nor-
wegian modals have an almost full formal paradigm of finite and non-finite
forms. There are, admittedly, three striking gaps in this paradigm: all Nor-
wegian modals lack present participles and almost all lack imperatives and
passives. While these features are sometimes considered morphological
properties of modals (Öhlschläger 1989: 59 fn 10; Palmer 1986: 33), there
is some evidence that the gaps in the formal paradigm could, and should, be
given a syntactic or semantic explanation. However, since we are at present
concerned with the range of forms available to a Norwegian modal, these
gaps deserve a place in a discussion of morphological properties of Norwe-
10
Note however: Han vet α komme seg fram 'He knows (how) to advance him-
self. Also, ville 'want to' is historically not a present-preterite verb.
gian modals, even if the explanations for them are semantic, syntactic, or
pragmatic.
Lodrup (1996a: fn. 5) notes that
[modals]11 lack present participles. In Norwegian, present participles are ad-
jectives. The conditions for deriving them are not absolutely clear. How-
ever, the main rule seems to be that they can only be derived from verbs
that take one syntactic argument" (Sveen 1990: IV.3).
If this is correct, it is reasonable to consider the lack of present participles a
syntactic property of modals. As implied by the quote above, modals are
part of a large group of verbs lacking present participles in Norwegian; this
group also contains weather verbs, transitive verbs, and others.
Although modals do not generally passivize, two modals marginally un-
dergo the s-passive 12 in Norwegian, kunne 'can' and ville 'want to' (data
from L0drup 1996a).
(4) a. Leksen mä kunnes i morgen.

The lesson must can-PASSIVE tomorrow
'You should know your lesson by tomorrow.'
b. Dette mä ikke bare onskes, det mä villes.

This must not only wish-PASSIVE, it must will-PASSIVE
'You must not only wish this, you must want it.'
The lack of an imperative form in modals is sometimes ascribed to a

semantic (Faarlund et al. 1997: 590; Öhlshcläger 1989: 59) or a pragmatic
constraint; it is seen as belonging to the language user's knowledge of the
world and stemming from an incompatibility between the lexical meaning
of a modal and the task performed by an imperative form. For instance, the
use of an imperative normally requires some amount of real-world control
on the pail of the addressee over the situation described by the verb. Mo-
dals, on the other hand, typically denote relations beyond the subject's con-
11
Lodrup talks about root modals, but non-root modals have the same property.
12
The s-passive, unique to Scandinavian languages, is a morphological passive.
Diachronically, it stems from a reflexive (or middle-like) form, where the -Λ- at
some point was a full-fledged argument. In addition, there are periphrastic pas-
sives, with an auxiliary bli 'become' preceding a perfect (passive) participle. Äfarli
(1992) provides a detailed discussion of Norwegian passives. The periphrastic
passive is impossible with modals, even with the two modals in (4).
trol (see Chapter 4, section 6, for a full description). This yields a semantic-
pragmatic incompatibility between the lexical content of the modal and the
communicative function of the imperative.
However, one modal, kunne ' k n o w ' , seems to be more compatible with
the meaning expressed by the imperative form and does occur in the im-
perative, as shown in (5):
(5) Kunn dette diktet til i morgen!

know this poem by to-morrow
' K n o w this poem by tomorrow!'
Although the semantics of the modal kunne on a root reading allows the
modal to occur in the imperative, no context, however farfetched, allows
for an imperative that simultaneously yields an epistemic (i.e. non-root)
reading of kunne, as shown in (6). This lends support to the hypothesis that
controllability is a key ingredient in the felicitous use of an imperative. An
epistemic reading denotes a particular propositional attitude on behalf of
the speaker and is not under the control of the imperative's addressee.
Thus, the lack of controllability is absolute in this case.
(6) a. Jeg vil ikke akseptere konklusjonen,

Ί will not accept this conclusion,
med mindre det viser seg at Jon kan vcere tyven.
unless it turns out that Jon may be the thief.'
b. #Kunn vcere tyven da, Jon!

# ' M a y be the thief then, Jon!'
I mentioned earlier that Norwegian modals display an almost full paradigm

of non-finite and finite forms. While this is typically the case for root mo-
dals in Germanic languages, it is much more controversial to ascribe the
same property to epistemic modals. It has often been claimed (Plank 1984)
that epistemic modals in Germanic languages occur in finite forms only,
whereas no fmiteness requirement applies to root modals. However, epis-
temic modals, as well as modals with other truth-qualifying readings such
as evidential and metaphysical (see section 3.2 for discussion), most cer-
tainly occur in the infinitival form in Norwegian, as the data in (7) show.
(7) a. Neveen pästäs ä skulle vcere morderen.

n e p h e w D E F claim-PASS to shall be the killer
' T h e nephew is claimed supposedly 1 3 to be the killer.'
b. Dette antas ä mätte vcere en misforstäelse .

this supposePASS to must be a misconception
O n e supposes that this certainly is a misconception.'
c. Denne tabben fryktes ä kunne ha kostet dem oppdraget.

this mistake fearPASS to m a y have costed them the j o b
O n e fears that this mistake possibly m a d e them loose the
job.'
d. Dette arises ä burde vcere et tilbakelagt stadium.

this regardPASS to ought-to be an endured stage
'This is regarded as most likely a thing of the past.'
e. For andringen forventes ä ville oke salget.

c h a n g e D E F expectPASS to willINF increase saleDEF
' T h e changes are expected to increase the sales
(in the future).'
Tn the same vein, Dyvik (1999) claims that the perfect (or past) participle is
reserved for root modals (although he does note that epistemic modals oc-
cur as infinitives):
In the previous examples epistemic modals are never complements. Exam-

ples where they are seem possible, but then only as a complement of an-
other epistemic modal.... From these syntactic facts it follows that epis-
temic modals only occur in finite forms (present and past tense) and the
infinitive, while the past participle is reserved for the root modals.
A t first glance, this seems to be a sound generalization for the standard

dialects of N o r w e g i a n (Bokmäl and Nynorsk); however, in the northern and
13
Stacking of these verbs sounds less idiomatic in the English translation, thus I
have chosen to translate the Norwegian infinitival modal as an adverbial with a
similar modal meaning. This should not be taken to mean that the modal in these
examples has an adverbial-like or "less auxiliary-like" flavour in Norwegian.
western dialects, 14 there is no restriction ruling out the epistemic reading of

a modal past participle, as shown in (8).
(8) a. Han har mätta arbeidd med det i heile natt.

He has mustPERF workPERF on it all night
'He must have worked on it all night.'
b. Hu har kunna vorre her ogforre igjen.

She has canPERF bePERF here and leavePERF again
'She might have been here and left again.'
It is tempting to dismiss this type of data as a minor quirk of some obscure

Norwegian dialects. However, I will return to these data in Chapter 5, sec-
tion 2, and show that although data like these have received almost no at-
tention in the literature, many languages in fact allow for epistemic read-
ings of a perfect participle modal.
Norwegian modals also occur in counterfactuals. One typically uses a
preterite form of the modal here, but a pluperfect construction with a preter-
ite auxiliary hadde 'had' preceding the modal is also possible; in this case,
the modal is a perfect participle. Crucially, the modal may very well get an
epistemic reading under these circumstances. 15 Epistemic modals may oc-
cur in the apodosis, (9a), or the protasis, (9b).
(9) a. Dersom tyngdekraften ikke fantes,

if gravityDEF not existed,
'If gravity had not existed,
hadde det mattet vcere vanskelig ä holde beina pä jorda!

had it mustPERF be hard to keep legsDEF on groundDEF
it would have to be difficult to stay grounded!'
14
Some speakers of dialects closer to bokmäl report that this restriction is lacking
in their dialects as well. Vikner (1988: 7) presents the same type of data from Dan-
ish: Der har mäske nok kunnet vcere tale om en fejl- there has maybe PART could-
PERF be talk about a mistake, 'There might have been a mistake'. See chapter 5,
sections 4.3 and 4.4.1, for more data, scope possibilities, and readings.
15
Teleman et al. (1999: 292) offer data from Swedish, where a perfect participle
modal gets an epistemic reading in an irrealis construction with this form.
b. Hvis jeg hadde kunnet vcere morderen, herr Holmes,

if I had can-PERF be killer-DEF, mr.Holmes,
'If it were possible that I was the killer, Mr. Holmes,
hadde politiet arrestert meg for lenge siden.

had police-DEF arrested me for long since
had the police arrested me long ago.'
To sum up, the morphological characteristics of Norwegian modals derive

from their status as preterite-present verbs; this means that they lack the
ending -er/-r in the present tense, their stem vowel (normally) changes
from infinitive to present tense, and their stem vowel does not change from
infinitive to past tense. These properties separate modals from almost all
other verbs (the non-modal vite 'know' is a preterite-present).
Modals lack present participles, but so do some other verbs such as
weather and transitive verbs. Certain modals marginally occur in the s-
passive (kunne 'know' and ville 'want to') and the imperative (kunne
'know'). Neither of these properties thus separates all modals from all other
verbs. However, it is important to note that the modal kunne 'can' is the
only modal compatible with the imperative and that only two modals,
kunne 'can' and ville 'want to', may undergo passivization. These idiosyn-
crasies of the modals kunne and ville will be important to our investigation
later on.
The finiteness requirement for epistemic modals, claimed by Plank
(1984) to pertain to "probably all" Germanic languages, does not hold for
Norwegian, as shown in (7). Finally, the generalization in Dyvik (1999)
that epistemic modals do not employ a perfect participle does not hold for a
number of non-standard Norwegian dialects, as the examples in (8) show,
and even standard dialects allow for an epistemic (metaphysical) reading of
the perfect participle modal in pluperfect counterfactuals, as shown in (9).
3. Semantic characteristics
In this section, I examine the semantic properties of Norwegian modals. To

lay the groundwork for such an investigation, section 3.1 provides an over-
view of some central modality terms. Sections 3.2 and 3.3 address some
lines of work I consider central to the debate concerning the semantic prop-
Semantic characteristics 25
erties of modals in Germanic languages. Section 3.4 contains a list of proto-

typical readings of the individual Norwegian modals, and section 3.5 dis-
cusses some crucial semantic features of these modals.
3.1. A brief overview of some central modality terms
In section 1, I provided Platzack's (1979: 44) preliminary definition of the

terms epistemic and roof. "[t]he epistemic sense.. .qualifies the truth value
of the sentence containing the modal; the root sense...expresses necessity,
obligation, permission, volition, or ability on behalf of an agent which usu-
ally, but not necessarily, is expressed by the.. .subject of the sentence."
Since Hofmann (1976) coined the term root—as opposed to epistemic—
modality, this dichotomy has been used to make generalizations about these
two main groups of modals (or modal meanings/senses, uses, or readings,
depending on the perspective). Hofmann himself argued that these "two
senses in which modals may be used" (93) covary with specific structural
properties, a standard assumption in subsequent generativist (and numerous
other) studies on modals.
Many works focusing on the syntax of modals thus consider the dichot-
omy epistemic-root the major and syntactically most interesting division,
and most authors in this vein make use of the dichotomy, possibly with
certain subdivisions within each group (Dyvik 1999; Faarlund, Lie, and
Vannebo 1997; Lodrup 1996a; Thräinsson et al. 2004; Thräinsson and
Vikner 1995; Vikner 1988, to mention but a few studies on Scandinavian
modals).
However, within the realm of philosophy and modal logic, modal ex-
pressions are given a much more fine-grained and sophisticated semantic
description. Brennan's (2004: 3) excellent overview, for instance, lists a
number of modality terms central to these fields:
These Greek terms [epistemic, deontic, and bouletic] re-entered philosophi-

cal and linguistic discourse in the twentieth century, and are used both by
philosophers and linguists to describe the reasoning that lies behind the
modal claim. 'Epistemic', from Greek episteme 'knowledge', means that
the reasoning is based on knowledge; it is generally the case that the rele-
vant knowledge is the speaker's knowledge. 'Deontic', from Greek dei 'it is
right', means that the reasoning is based on some normative system. (The
term 'deontic' is used by Mally 1926; von Wright 1951b led to its wide-
spread use in philosophy.) 'Bouletic' means that the reasoning is relative to
desire, and in fact bouletic modal sentences always relate to the speaker's
(purported) desires. 'Doxastic', from Greek doxa 'opinion, expectation, re-
pute, glory', means that the modal reasoning is based on the speaker's be-
liefs. 'Alethic', [? from Greek a- 'not' + lethe 'forgetfulness, oblivion'],
means that the modal reasoning is based strictly on logic. 'Dynamic', a term
first introduced for referring to interpretations of modal sentences by von
Wright 1951 (who attributes it to Peter Geach), means that the modal ex-
pression concerns an individual's actions or disposition.
It is possible to ascribe all these partly overlapping senses to one and the
same modal, as shown in ( 1 0 a - f). We could even argue that there is an
evidential reading of this modal, where the reasoning is based of what evi-
dence the speaker has for his or her claim, as in (10g):
(10) John must be in his office now.
a. Epistemic: The speaker reasons, based on knowledge ac-

cessible to him, that John is in his office now.
b. Deontic: It is required, e.g. by society, that John be in his
office now.
c. Bouletic: The speaker has a strong desire that John be in his
office now.
d. Doxastic: The speaker strongly believes that John is in his
office now.
e. Alethic: The only logical possibility is that John is in his
office now.
f. Dynamic: John has an inner compulsion to be in his office
now.
g. Evidential: The speaker concludes, based on e.g. observ-
able evidence (the lights are on in John's office /his brief-
case is visible from outside) that John is in his office now.
Another term borrowed from the philosophico-logical vocabulary in the

literature on modals is metaphysical modality. latridou (1990b) and Con-
doravdi (2002), for instance, distinguish metaphysical modality from epis-
temic modality. latridou states that "metaphysical predicates express the
knowledge-independent state of the world" (e.g. possible, probable),
whereas "epistemic predicates express the knowledge and belief of indi-
viduals and are thus time-sensitive just as states of knowledge" (e.g. evi-
dent, obvious; it was evident to χ at time t that p)16 (Iatridou 1990b: 125).
Condoravdi (2002: 61-2) agrees that "epistemic modality has to do with
knowledge or information of agents," whereas "metaphysical modality [e.g.
counterfactual modality] has to do with how the world may turn out, or
might have turned out, to be." Note the two readings of (11).
(11) He might have won the game.

I. He might have (already) won the game (# but he didn't). 17
II. At that point he might (still) have won the game
(but he didn't in the end).
Brennan (1996) analyzes the "quantificational modal construction." The

term was coined by Carlson (1977), but the phenomenon, illustrated in
(12), is mentioned at least as early as von Wright (1951a).
(12) Lions can be dangerous. (Leech 1969: 223)
This modal construction is sometimes called quantificational because it can

be paraphrased as "some lions are dangerous," or "sometimes, lions are
dangerous." According to Palmer (1986), von Wright would probably refer
to this type of modality as existential, but terms such as weak epistemic,
potential, and theoretical possibility are also evoked for this type of reading
(Wärnsby, forthcoming, provides a discussion of this modality).
However, as far as many logicians are concerned, all modality is quanti-
ficational. Brennan (2004: 13) notes that
Since Aristotle, logicians have analyzed necessity and possibility as QUAN-
TIFICATIONAL, necessity being a UNIVERSAL QUANTIFIER and possibility an
EXISTENTIAL OPERATOR. Aristotle, like many others after him, held that
modals quantified over times. Thus, 'Socrates is necessarily mortal' means
that Socrates is mortal at all times, whereas 'Possibly, Socrates is sitting'
means that at some time, Socrates is sitting. Not everyone takes the domain
of quantification to be times; others have held that modal operators quantify
over alternative histories (Gilbert of Poitiers, Duns Scotus), state descrip-
tions (Carnap), possible worlds (Leibniz, Kripke, Montague), models
(Kanger), model sets (Hintikka), indices (Montague), according to their
16
See also section 3.2 for the terms objective and subjective epistemic modality.
17
Condoravdi's original example illustrates the fact that may is also possible on
the first reading, but impossible on the second one.
view of the semantics of propositions. In general, the domain of quantifica-

tion is taken to be whatever propositions are true of.
Οφ = 3 γ suchthat φ ( γ )
Π φ = Vy, φ ( γ )
where φ is a property of objects of the type of γ
(for example, φ is a proposition and γ is a world).
Οφ encodes possibility and is expressed by linguistic elements such as may

p, be possible for e to v, there exists the possibility that p, e is v-able
(where ρ is a proposition, e is an entity, and ν is a predicate). Likewise, φ
encodes necessity and is expressed by linguistic elements such as must p,
necessary for e to v, there is a necessity that p, etc.
3.2. T w o seminal formal semantic descriptions of modals
Lewis (1973: 4) is one of the authors holding that modals qua operators of
necessity and possibility quantify over worlds; he claims that
A necessity operator, in general, is an operator that acts like a restricted
universal quantifier over possible worlds. Necessity of a certain sort is truth
at all possible worlds that satisfy a certain condition. We call these worlds
accessible, meaning thereby simply that they satisfy the restriction associ-
ated with the sort of necessity under consideration. Necessity is truth at all
accessible worlds, and different sorts of necessity correspond to different
accessibility restrictions. A possibility operator, likewise, is an operator that
acts like a restricted existential quantifier over worlds. Possibility is truth at
some accessible world, and the accessibility restriction imposed depends on
the sort of possibility under consideration. If a necessity operator and a pos-
sibility operator correspond to the same accessibility restriction on the
worlds quantified over, then they will be a dual, interdefinable pair.
K r a t z e r ' s (1981, 1991, 2002) seminal w o r k follows a similar approach.

Formalizing the role of the context in fixing the interpretation of modal
expressions, her w o r k is described as "a watershed for linguistic treatments
of m o d a l i t y " (Brennan 2004: 51), and as an unavoidable point of reference
in any semantic description of modals.
Take, for example, the utterances of the sentences in (13), from Kratzer
(2002): (13a) could be a felicitous (and true) claim at some point in time,
but infelicitous (and false) at some later point in time because the speaker
has gained new evidence in the meantime, making (13b) a more correct
description of the situation. This, says Kratzer, shows that at least two fea-
tures are needed to interpret a modal: a conversational background, which
contributes the premises from which the conclusions are drawn, and a mo-
dal relation, which determines the force of the conclusion.
(13) a. Der Kastenjakl kann der Mörder sein.

the Kastenjakl can the murderer be
'Kastenjakl may be the murderer.'
b. Der Gausner-Michl muss der Mörder sein.

the Gausner-Michl must the murderer be
'Gausner-Michl must be the murderer.'
Conversational backgrounds are important in this framework because an

epistemic conversational background leads to an epistemic interpretation of
modal expressions, whereas a deontic conversational background leads to a
deontic interpretation of modal expressions. 18
18
Kratzer (1991: 641): "A conversational background is the sort of entity denoted
by phrases like what the law provides, what we know, etc. Take the phrase what
the law provides. What the law provides is different from one possible world to
another. And what the law provides in a particular world is a set of propositions.
Likewise, what we know differs from world to world. And what we know in a
particular world is a set of propositions. The denotation of what the law provides
will then be that function which assigns to every possible world the set of proposi-
tions ρ such that the law provides that ρ in that world. And the denotation of what
we know is that function which assigns to every possible world the set of proposi-
tions we know in that world. Quite generally, conversational backgrounds are
functions which assign to every member of W a subset of the power set of W."
Two important kinds of conversational backgrounds are defined as follows in
Kratzer (2002: 295-6): "Epistemic Conversational Backgrounds: In view of what
is known... An epistemic conversational background is a function f which assigns
sets of propositions to members of W [the set of all possible worlds] such that for
any w e W [any world which is a possible world]: f(w) [the conversational back-
ground] contains all those propositions which are established knowledge in w—for
a group of people, a community etc. Deontic Conversational Backgrounds: In
view of what is commanded... A deontic conversational background is a function f
which assigns sets of propositions to members of W such that for any w e W: f(w)
contains all those propositions ρ such that it is commanded in w that p-by some-
one, by the Law etc."
At any time, the evidence we have is compatible with a set of worlds

each of which could be the real world. For instance, in (13a) we do not
know who the murderer is (and so we do not know which world is the real
world); if the only people on the planet are John, Mary, the butler, Gausner-
Michl and Kastenjakl, as we start our investigation, there are at least five
possible worlds, each with a different killer. These five worlds are episte-
mically accessible worlds. However, some of these worlds turn out to be
more far-fetched than others, so Mary is a less likely killer than the butler,
for instance, because Mary had an alibi. Kratzer introduces an ordering of
the set of accessible worlds, an ordering provided by a stereotypical back-
ground, 'in view of the normal course of events'. According to this order-
ing, the worlds closest to the ideal world are those that behave according to
the normal course of events (for example, where a person cannot be in two
places at once). 19 A sentence such as Kastnjakl may be the killer, containing
the possibility modal may, which is taken to denote the existential quanti-
fier, may thus be given an interpretation where at least one accessible world
(which is as close as possible to the ideal world) is a world where Kasten-
jakl is the killer. The sentence Gausner-Michl must be the killer, containing
the modal must, is given an interpretation where Gausner-Michl is the killer
in all accessible worlds close to the ideal world.
The conversational background, which in this case is epistemic, deter-
mines for every world the set of worlds which are accessible from it; the
given conversational background forms the modal base. The interpretation
of modals, according to Kratzer (2002: 300), "depends on a modal base and
an ordering source where either parameter may be filled by the empty con-
versational background." Say we have an epistemic conversational back-
ground, an empty ordering source and a modal relation 'necessary that p'.
What we have is a "pure epistemic" interpretation: in all accessible worlds
(with no ordering imposed on them), U (necessary that) p.
Kratzer's analyses of modals have been very influential, and a range of
Kratzer-style analyses of modals exist for various languages. On the other
hand, many works on modals question the relevance of the logic concepts
of modality for the corresponding linguistic ones. Brandt (1999: 28) ex-
presses the view of numerous authors:
Many linguistic studies of modality include an introductory section discuss-
ing the notions of modality developed by philosophers or logicians and then
19
There are various kinds of ordering sources: sources of information that may be
dubious or less reliable, but nevertheless form ordering sources for modal bases.
try to relate linguistic modality to logico-philosophical modality.... This

approach we find to be essentially wrong or at best irrelevant.... [TJhere is
no a priori reason to expect that concepts relevant to philosophy and logic
are relevant to linguistics and that their linguistic relationships reflect the
logical ones.20
These authors often express their criticism through what Brandt dubs the
philosophical fallacy. According to strict logic, (14a) should be a stronger
statement than (14b) since the latter holds only for the actual world,
whereas the former presumably holds for all accessible worlds. This does
not correspond to our intuitions about the utterances, however (Lyons
1977: 808-9). In natural language, the non-modalized assertion in (14b)
constitutes a stronger claim than the modalized assertion (14a) since in
(14a) the speaker implicitly leaves open the possibility that he or she could
be wrong, unlike in (14b).
(14) a. His father must be a carpenter.

b. His father is a carpenter.
Kratzer (2002: 306) explicitly addresses this type of data. Her response to
the natural-language intuitions about the relative strength of the assertions
in (14) is that must in (14a) does not express "pure epistemic necessity"; the
ordering source is not empty. In this case, the speaker signals that he or she
is not reasoning from established facts alone, but also from less reliable
sources that function as an ordering source. The result is a slight 'contami-
nation' of the pure epistemic reasoning based on facts.
It is by no means unprecedented in the literature on modals to evoke dif-
ferent grades or degrees of epistemic modality. Lyons (1977: 797-8), for
instance, argues that
In principle, two kinds of epistemic modality can be distinguished: objec-
tive and subjective. This is not a distinction that can be drawn sharply in the
everyday use of language; and its epistemological justification is, to say the
least, uncertain.... It is nonetheless of some theoretical interest to draw the
distinction between objective and subjective epistemic modality.
20
Bouchard (1995; chapter 1) and Chomsky (1975: 84) offer the more general
version of this view: in spite of the fact that much work in logic has led to impor-
tant insights into the use of language, it cannot "be argued that the study of formal
(or semantic) properties of natural languages should model itself on the study of
the formal (or semantic) properties of logic and artificial languages."
Kratzer (2002) suggests that we have subjective (as opposed to objective)

epistemic modality when the speaker cannot defend his claims on objective
grounds, but where the reasoning is rooted in superstition, for example.
Again, many authors refuse to accept the relevance of the distinction be-
tween subjective and objective epistemic modality for natural language.
Palmer (1979: 7) maintains that
Epistemic modality in language is usually, perhaps always, what Lyons
(1977: 792) calls 'subjective'... it relates to an inference by the speaker, and
is not simply concerned with 'objective' verifiability in the light of knowl-
edge. Epistemic necessity, indicated by MUST is thus not to be paraphrased
as 'In the light of what is known it is necessarily the case that...', but by
something like 'From what I know the only conclusion I can draw is...'
In the same vein, Drubig (2001), quoting Westmoreland (1998: 2), argues
that all modals normally referred to as epistemic are in fact evidential
markers—such as the non-root version of must—and that this modal
must be analyzed as an evidential marker labelling the proposition in its
scope as a deduction. It relates a proposition φ to some other information
that serves as evidence for φ.... [A]n expression such as might φ is used to
mean that the context contains causal factors that make φ plausible. In gen-
eral we may say: just as a question marker takes a proposition and derives a
question, an epistemic modal takes a proposition and derives an evidentially
labelled proposition.
Though evidentiality is typically thought not to exist as a full-fledged sys-
tem of modality in Germanic, many authors have claimed that German
employs two modals with evidential meaning (Palmer 1986: 71-2; 2001: 9),
sollen and wollen. Both translate into the English 'be supposed to' (which
in my view is also evidential), but wollen signals that the proposition is the
animate subject's own claim, whereas sollen implies that the claim is nei-
ther the speaker's nor the subject's, but a claim made by a third party,
yielding the reading 'hear-say':
(15) a. Er soll steinreich sein.

he shall stone rich be
'He is supposed to be filthy rich (so I've heard).'
b. Er will Schauspieler gewesen sein.

he will actor been be
'He is supposed to have been an actor (so he claims).'
Evidentiality, then, does exist as a subdomain in Germanic modal systems.

What is new about Drubig's (and Westmoreland's) approach is the claim
that all "epistemic" modals (in English) are better analysed as evidentials.
What authors want to express by distinguishing between such non-root,
or deictic (Diewald 1999), modal readings as alethic, metaphysical,
(subjective and objective) epistemic and evidential, I believe, is the degree
of speaker involvement in a judgement or qualification of a truth value.
Thus, it is possible to place these terms on a spectrum, where alethic is the
most reliable, least subjective, and least speaker-involved point. The oppo-
site end of the spectrum is evidentiality, where the speaker signals what
kind of evidence he or she has for the truth of the proposition; for example,
the evidential/hear-say reading in (15) signals that ρ is something the
speaker has heard from someone else, so not even the speaker is responsi-
ble for granting the truth of the proposition p.
Table 2
Reading: alethic quantificational; (subjective) evidential

metaphysical; epistemic
objective-
epistemic
What grants logical abstracted speaker's speaker's
the truth of p? knowledge empirical knowledge evidence
knowledge
This table is simply intended as an aid for the reader and should not be
taken to signal any commitment on behalf of the present work. The poten-
tial viability of this classification will be discussed in section 3.4.
3.3. A semantic field of modality
Considering how difficult it seems to be to isolate 'an area of meaning'

encompassing all modals, the core inventory of modals in different lan-
guages is surprisingly similar from a semantic point of view. 21 This is also
true of so-called semi-modals (Picallo 1990) and quasi-modals22 (Hopper
21
See section 7 for inventories of modals in some other Germanic languages.
22
These terms are typically used for compounds that have some but not all of the
properties of'proper modals'; for example, have to is an English 'quasi-modal'.
and Traugott 1993: 48; Plank 1984: 320) in various languages; their seman-
tic and conceptual similarity to verbs traditionally considered modal is usu-
ally an author's main argument for employing these and related terms.
Even so, a "semantic field of modality" is typically extremely hard to for-
mulate. O n e reason for this is that necessity, possibility, obligation, permis-
sion, volition, ability and speaker's j u d g m e n t of the truth or likelihood of a
proposition (Platzack 1979: 44) hardly constitute what is intuitively con-
ceived of as a coherent conceptual-semantic field. T h e challenge, in By-
b e e ' s (1985: 191) words, is to "define the general conceptual domain cov-
ered by the category" of modals. Lightfoot (1974: 237) seems highly
pessimistic with regard to the potential success of such a mission: "it does
not seem possible to define a class of modals... on semantic grounds."
Nevertheless, several attempts have been made to find a conceptual do-
main c o m m o n to both root and epistemic (or non-root) modals. In particu-
lar, this endeavour has been undertaken within the f r a m e w o r k of force-
dynamic analyses, i.e. in terms of (potential) forces and barriers (Boye
2005; Sweetser 1990; Talmy 1981, 1988). Thus, Sweetser (1990: 59)
analyses the c o m m o n traits of the English modal may as follows:
May is an absent potential barrier in the sociophysical world, and the epis-
temic may is the force-dynamically parallel in the world of reasoning. The
meaning of epistemic may would thus be that there is no barrier to the
speaker's process of reasoning from the available premises to the conclu-
sion expressed in the sentence qualified by may. My claim, then, is that an
epistemic modality is metaphorically viewed as that real-world modality
which is its closest parallel in force-dynamic structure.
A method often chosen by authors in the quest for a single, coherent

semantic field of modality is to focus on some (prototypical) subset of mo-
dals, a subset argued to share a conceptual domain. Particularly susceptible
to this are modals denoting a point on a scale f r o m necessity/obligation
{must) to possibility/permission (may). Thus, investigating Danish modals,
B o y e (2005: 41) states that
Without claiming a one to one relationship between linguistic and philoso-

phical-logical modality..., we may definitely observe a linguistic correlate
to the latter. First, we find a range of linguistic items that share two charac-
teristics central to philosophical-logical modality. 1) The meanings of these
items may be paraphrased by terms such as necessity and possibility. 2) The
meanings of these items often exist in a number of variants that correspond
to the epistemic and non-epistemic (deontic and dynamic) meaning variants
in modal logic.... Second, we find that these linguistic items are often
grouped together in formally delimited paradigms. Such paradigms, then,

actually code the above-mentioned meanings as a semantic field.
Evidently, it is easier to establish a common semantic domain for deontic
modals and their epistemic counterparts than for dynamic modals and their
epistemic counterparts. Here deontic is taken to denote 'modality of neces-
sity or possibility of acts performed by morally responsible agents' (Lyons
1977: 823; von Wright 1951); epistemic denotes necessity or possibility of
situations in the real world, according to the speaker's knowledge (Chung
and Timberlake 1985: 246):
There is considerable parallelism between the epistemic and deontic modes.

Both can be described in terms of alternative worlds.... As a morphosyntac-
tic realization of this parallelism, modal auxiliaries in many languages, no-
tably English, often have both epistemic and deontic senses.... The crucial
difference between the two, then, is that the epistemic mode deals with a set
of alternative worlds at a given time [the alternative worlds are those that
could exist instead of the given world], while the deontic mode deals with a
set of alternative worlds that develop out of a given world and time [alter-
native futures of a given world].
Boye (2005) also suggest that the semantic field of modality should be
defined conceptually with reference to force-dynamic potential. This con-
cept could be seen as designating a complex physical situation that may be
split up into three causally related subsituations: a source S produces a
force to affect an agonist A (subsituation 1), who is driven, but not com-
pelled, towards a goal G, which gives the potential (subsituation 2) for the
result where the agonist reaches the goal (subsituation 3; my figure,
adapted from Boye 2005).
Figure 1
> A • G
force
Initial situation potential result
Diewald (1999) rejects the force-dynamic framework's assumption that a

barrier is necessarily a part of the semantic description of modals although
the concept of barriers and forces may be a conversational implicature of
modals in certain situations. However, she does use a feature [+/- reactive]
to capture a semantic difference between various modals in German, where

[+reactive] encodes that a certain intention or wish is dependent for its re-
alization on some other party's intentions, whereas [-reactive] encodes the
independence of some other party's intentions.
Table 3
Sollen dürfen wollen möchte müssen können

'be 'be 'want to' 'would 'must' 'can'
supposed to' allowed to' like to'
- reactive + reactive - reactive + reactive - reactive + reactive
Surely, this feature resembles the concept of forces and barriers in force-
dynamic approaches. Diewald also crafts her description of modals in terms
of directed relations, similar to B o y e ' s description above (Figure 1).
Diewald considers the semantics of a deontic modal to be the result (the
passive correspondent, so to speak) of a source (usually not represented)
imposing a directive on a subject, who thus gets an experiencer role in this
relation. But the subject also receives a second role, the agent role of the
main verb relation.
Figure 2: Description of relations in We must/can wait.
Experience^ <—> (modal —> Inner goal (= source; —> goal))

We (must/can ( we wait))
Diewald supports her analysis 23 with the fact that all German modals diach-
ronically develop out of more simple experiencer verbs. 24 Within the func-
tionalist 25 literature, the common domain of meaning for deontic and epis-
23
The arrow pointing both ways between the modal and the experiencer signals
that the relation does not have one particular direction, i.e. it does not originate in
the subject with direction towards the modal, or vice versa.
24
Roberts (1993: 315) claims that (pre-)modals in Middle English assign an ex-
periencer role to their subjects.
25
Newmeyer (1998: 7) states that "[tjhere are...two broad orientations in the
field.... One orientation sees as a central task for linguists characterizing the formal
relationships among grammatical elements independently of any characterization
of the semantic and pragmatic properties of those elements. The other orientation
rejects that task on the grounds that the function of conveying meaning (in its
broadest sense) has so affected grammatical form that it is senseless to compart-
temic modals is often believed to hinge on the fact that epistemic uses of
modals derive diachronically from the use of their deontic counterparts (a
second step in the development). Bybee et al. (1994: 195) argue that
It is clear that the epistemic senses develop later than, and out of, the agent-
oriented senses. In fact, for the English modals, where the case is best
documented, the epistemic uses do not become common until quite late.
Horn 1972, Steele 1975, and Coates 1983 all point out that the force of the
epistemic sense expressed by a modal is directly related to the force of the
agent-oriented sense from which it derives. Horn further points out that the
strength of the modal meaning in both domains is scalar:
agent-oriented: epistemic:
strong obligation gives inferred certainty {must)
weak obligation gives probability (should)
ability gives possibility (may)
Note that, once again, a subset is picked out, a subset of root modals and
their epistemic counterparts that in some sense belong to the same concep-
tual domain, ranging from necessity to possibility.
A m o n g those authors who opt for semantic criteria to define the entire
class of modals, Thräinsson and Vikner (1995: 53) propose "the following
tentative 'definition' of modal verbs: Modal verbs are verbs that can have
both an epistemic and a root modal sense." Note that in order to maintain
even this rather basic description, 26 the authors have to use the term epis-
temic in a broad sense to encompass all of the non-root readings of Scandi-
navian modals. At least some of the verbs listed as Icelandic and Danish
modals have readings comparable to the evidential modal sollen in German
(Danish skulle, Icelandic munu). Whereas epistemic is traditionally re-
served for the type of modality where the reasoning is rooted in the
speaker's knowledge and beliefs, evidential modality deals with what kind
of evidence the speaker has for assuming the truth of the proposition. As
mentioned above, it is not uncommon, within the syntactically oriented
literature on modals, to extend the term epistemic to encompass evidential-
l y and other non-root modalities.
mentalize it. It is the former orientation, of course, that I have been referring to as
'formalist' and the latter as 'functionalist'."
26
This is not always used as a defining property of modals; Picallo (1990) lists as
modals several verbs that have only one of these readings.
The fact that the same linguistic form may be used for deontic/dynamic
and epistemic/evidential modality suggests the existence of a semantic-
conceptual field of modality or possibly two conceptually adjacent fields,
where elements keep leaking from one into the other. 27 But it is very hard to
identify the relevant level of abstraction, and the features conceptually con-
necting the two, that make the transition from one field into the other easy
(but cf. Butler 2003 for an attempt). As Palmer (1986: 96) points out
There are two features that they share: subjectivity..., i.e. the involvement of
the speaker, and non-factuality. Yet it must be admitted that the chief rea-
son for treating them as a single category lies in the fact that in English, and
many other languages, the same forms (e.g. modal verbs) are used for both.
There are possibly some deeper reasons.
It is not inconceivable that the perceived forces of society are extended

(metaphorically?) by the language user to the perceived forces of the uni-
verse (Sweetser 1990), but I will assume the existence of a more 'mechani-
cal' explanation. The syntactic and semantic features of root modals and
their complements evidently conspire to facilitate a reanalysis as an eviden-
tial or epistemic marker. Children acquire root modality before epistemic
modality (Stephany 1986; Wells 1985) and, diachronically, epistemic mo-
dal elements develop out of root modal elements (Bybee et al. 1994: 195).
Thus, it seems that root modality is in some sense more fundamental. It is a
cross-linguistic fact that verbal elements taking (infinitival) complements
denoting unrealised but potential situations may gradually take on a reading
where the complement denotes a temporally anchored proposition and the
verbal element changes into an evidential or epistemic marker. This is true
even for elements normally not considered modal.
(16) a. He insists that I leave him.

b. He insists that I left him.
c. John is supposed to become an architect.
d. John is supposed to be an architect.
In (16a) and (16c), the complement sentences that I leave him and to beco-
me an architect are reported directives, denoting potential, but as yet unrea-
lized situations. The complement sentences in (16b) and (16d), on the other
hand, are reported claims about a situation perceived as real (by someone
other than the speaker).
27
Roberts and Roussou (2002) provide a minimalist analysis of this phenomenon.
I leave the question of one single semantic field of modality for now.
However, I will return to these questions in Chapter 4.
3.4. The semantic properties of Norwegian modals
Considering the subject of the present investigation—the semantic proper-

ties of Norwegian modals—the dichotomy epistemic~root is too coarse-
grained. On the other hand, I have no need for a classification as fine-
grained as that in Table 2, repeated here for convenience as Table 4. More-
over, note that these are only the non-root readings, the readings dealing
with the truth-value of the proposition qualified by the modal, not modality
concerned with required or possible actions. I will return to the various root
readings (or 'event modality' readings; Palmer 2001) below.
Table 4
Reading: alethic quantificational; (subjective) eviden-

metaphysical; epistemic tial
objective-
epistemic
What grants logical abstracted speaker's speaker's
the truth o f p ? knowledge empirical knowledge evidence
knowledge
I agree with authors, such as Palmer (1979), who claim that modality in
natural language is always subjective in nature; this leaves no place in my
description for the modality dubbed alethic. Grammar, I believe, is funda-
mentally a mental construct internal to speakers, constantly modifying an-
other mental construct, our model of the world. I cannot convince myself
that the internalized grammars of speakers make use of a category such as
alethic or, for that matter, objective-epistemic modality. Recall that Kratzer
(2002) claims we have objective epistemic modality only when w e can
defend our claims on objective grounds, when our claim is not, for instance,
rooted in superstition; this is even more so in the case of aletic modality.
However, superstition is never perceived as such by the speaker. If you
have a firm belief that a string of wool worn around your leg for seven sub-
sequent nights could cure arthritis, then this is a state of affairs stored as a
(possible) fact in your model of the world, not as superstition. Therefore,
when you start getting better, you could say The string must have worked,
firmly believing in a causal relationship between the string and the im-
provement in your health, perceiving no difference between this must and
that of a sentence such as Two plus two must be four. Alethic and objective-
epistemic modality, I believe, are artificial constructs appropriate for artifi-
cial languages, not notions that can be expected to shed light on the uses
and senses of modals in natural languages.
I also question the application of the concept metaphysical modality to
natural language. I believe the distinction latridou (1990b) makes is one
between evidential modality (her epistemic) and epistemic modality (her
metaphysical). Her prototypical epistemic predicates are evident and obvi-
ous, suggesting a reading along the lines of 'it is suggested to χ by evidence
visible to χ that'. Iatridou's metaphysical predicates are probable and pos-
sible, modalities otherwise categorized as prototypical epistemic predicates,
latridou states that probable and possible are knowledge-independent states
of the world. Again, I disagree that properties such as probability and pos-
sibility could be ascribed to the world. Instead, the modalities expressed by
these predicates are properties of modalized propositions, encoding bits of
information in our mental model of the world. The information making up
this model can be more or less reliable, but in fact, we don't know what the
world is like. All we have is our concept of it and, in most cases, we rely on
others to tell us their view and use this as our own 'knowledge'. A lan-
guage is an internalized, symbolic system manipulating mental, symbolic
elements. Non-root modals do not refer to states in the world, but to ele-
ments of this symbolic system, propositions in our model of the world.
Thus, ρ is always possible or probable to someone; if no-one accepted the
model these terms refer to, these notions would simply not exist.
These considerations suggest that my view on non-root modalities is
more in the line with Drubig (2001) and Westmoreland (1998), mentioned
above. Non-root modalities are all speaker-oriented in the sense that they
are the speaker's way of encoding his or her graded commitment to the
truth or factuality of the proposition modified by the modal (Palmer 1979,
1986, 2001). Thus, non-root modals are semantically not very different
from speaker tags signalling graded commitment: I believe, I think, 1 guess,
They say, It seems, I've heard, and many others.
Condoravdi's (2002) notion of metaphysical modality rests on the as-
sumption that it must be impossible to have epistemic knowledge about the
future. We cannot verify statements about the future until it has become the
present. Hence, the future world, which will be verifiable only in the future,
could be any one of a list of metaphysically possible worlds.
The viability of this use of the term metaphysical thus depends entirely
on the definition of epistemic modality. If you believe that (17a) displays a
radically different modality than (17b)—since (17b) refers to a possible
future situation, whereas (17a) refers to a situation verifiable in the pre-
sent—then epistemic modality and metaphysical modality can be consid-
ered two ontologically different modalities. If you assume that the same
type of modality is encoded by may in both cases, although the situations
referred to in the propositions are temporally different, then metaphysical
modality is not a modality distinct from epistemic.
(17) a. The parcel may have arrived already.

b. The parcel may arrive tomorrow.
However, one could easily argue that metaphysical modality is a conven-

ient label for epistemic modal statements about the future, even if what we
are talking about is fundamentally the same modality, whether the proposi-
tion qualified describes a present or a future situation. This is exactly the
view I will adopt here.
All Norwegian modals can yield non-root (i.e. epistemic and evidential)
readings, where the proposition modified is 'future, with respect to the mo-
dal.' Thus, the modals in (18) may all yield non-root readings, qualifying
propositions referring to a possible future situation. 28
(18) Pakken ber/kan/mä/skal/vil ankomme imorgen.

Parcel-DEF should/may/must/is supposed to/will arrive tomorrow
'The parcel should/may/must/is supposed to/will arrive tomorrow.'
If the ability to have in its scope a future-denoting proposition is considered

a sufficient feature for a non-root modal to be a metaphysical modal, all
non-root modals in Norwegian are metaphysical modals. Moreover, in the
discussion of example (10) above the modal must was ascribed an eviden-
tial reading. However, although we could in principle ascribe this type of
reading to any modal in Norwegian, this is not to say that we are dealing
with an evidential modal. I agree with Anderson (1986: 274; here quoted
28
They also have root readings that are at least as prominent, but we leave that
aside here.
from Boye 2001: 83) that "[T]he term 'evidential'... does not simply in-
clude anything one might consider to have an evidential function..., eviden-
t i a l have the indication of evidence as their primary meaning, not only as a
pragmatic inference." I will argue that metaphysical modals have the same
type of restriction: to be classified as an evidential or metaphysical modal, a
modal should have evidentiality or metaphysical modality as its primary,
core meaning.
Quantificational modality, illustrated in (19), has sometimes been
dubbed weak epistemic modality. I will argue that this reading is subsumed
by the root dynamic modality, dealing with the abilities of individuals and
potentiality of situations, a view defended by numerous other authors (see
Wärnsby (forthcoming) for discussion).
(19) a. Biler kan vcere vanskelige.

cars can be difficult
'Cars can be difficult.'
b. Mar it kan vcere uforsiktig.

Marit can be careless
'Marit can be careless.'
Hence, I use the terms epistemic, evidential, and metaphysical to describe

the non-root readings of Norwegian modals. The root readings of Norwegi-
an modals display the two-way split between deontic modality, "modality
of necessity or possibility of acts performed by morally responsible agents"
(Lyons 1977: 823; von Wright 1951), and dynamic 29 modality, the modal-
ity of dispositions and abilities of individuals. Palmer (2001: 9) argues that
In the simplest terms, the difference between them is that with deontic mo-
dality the conditioning factors are external to the relevant individual,
whereas with dynamic modality they are internal. Thus deontic modality re-
lates to obligation or permission, emanating from an external source,
whereas dynamic modality relates to ability or willingness, which comes
from the individual concerned.
29
One also finds the term dispositional for this reading, a term ascribed to Klooster
(1986) by Barbiers (1995). Öhlschläger (1989: fn. 53) attributes the term disposi-
tionell to Wunderlich (1981: 116): "innere Dispositionen einer Person...als deren
Fähigkeiten gelten." This seems to be the same term as Klooster's. Following the
advice of an anonymous reviewer for Mouton de Gruyter, I will try to avoid this
term, since it has a range of different meanings in the literature.
In what follows, I will modify Palmer's statement, and assume that deontic
as well as dynamic modality encompasses impersonal readings, where the
potential of a state-of-affairs is not always inherent in an individual or
agent, but can sometimes be inherent in a preceding situation. I return to
this modification below. As already hinted at, the line between non-root
and root modalities can be very difficult to draw, and where an author
draws this line seems at times almost arbitrary. Thus, I will thoroughly
discuss the distinction I make towards the end of this subsection. However,
this discussion would benefit greatly from examples of the various readings
I claim for Norwegian modals.
Thus, I will offer a short description of all modals in Norwegian with
their prototypical readings. This description is primarily meant to provide
some useful points of reference for the discussion in this chapter and is not
an exhaustive discussion of each individual modal (a detailed discussion is
provided in Chapter 4, section 6). As is evident from the discussion above,
diachronic developments are sometimes used to argue for certain views on
modal meanings. Hence, I include a short etymological description of each
Norwegian modal although this etymology will not serve as an argument in
my present discussion of Norwegian modals and their meanings. The ety-
mological description is quoted from Falk and Torp ([1903- 06] 1992). In
addition, my short semantic description of Norwegian modals addresses
some of the more pressing potential objections to my descriptive decisions.
bürde Jon ber vcere pä kontoret.

'Jon should be in his office.'
It is likely that Jon is in his office, (epistemic)
Jon has a weak obligation to be in his office, (deontic)
Old Norse byrja was an impersonal verb denoting 'to belong, to become the
right or duty to, to lift up or carry'. In modern Norwegian, it has a reading
of preference: in its epistemic sense, the reading is 'it is more likely that ρ
than not-p'. Likewise, in its root sense, it has the reading 'it is preferred
that p'; here, 'it is preferred that Jon is in his office'.
kunne Jon kan vcere pä kontoret.

'Jon may be in his office.'
It is possible that Jon is in his office, (epistemic)
Jon is allowed to be in his office, (deontic)
Jon is capable of being in his office, (dynamic)
Old Norse kunna meant 'to know (how to), to understand, to be capable o f .
The contemporary modal kunne has one epistemic reading—'it is possible
that p ' — a n d two prominent root readings, one deontic and one dynamic. It
is suggested in the literature that the dynamic reading and the ability read-
ing of kunne's cognate can are specifications of a common, more overall
meaning of potentiality (Papafragou 1998). This is not the argument I will
follow here. In my description, the deontic and dynamic readings of kunne
are kept separate.
mätte Jon mä vcere pä kontoret.

It must be the case that Jon is in his office, (epistemic)
Jon is obligated to be in his office, (deontic)
Old Norse mega meant 'to manage, have access to, have a possibility to,
have permission to'. The necessity reading is a later development, accord-
ing to Falk and Torp, and the reading of an existing possibility (mä vera
similar to English may be) is lost. However, I believe this meaning is pre-
served in one specific, still productive construction, where matte takes on
the function of a subjunctive: De situasjoner som mätte oppstä 'those situa-
tions that might occur'.
skulle Jon skal vcere pä kontoret.

'Jon is supposed to be in his office.'
Somebody claims that Jon is in his office, (evidential)
Jon is required (by someone) to be in his office, (deontic)
The most prominent meaning in all Old Germanic languages of Old Norse
skulu was 'to owe, to be indebted'. The non-root reading of this modal is
evidential (specifically, 'hear-say, report') and its root reading is deontic
(specifically, 'intention of x, where χ is typically some authority, that p').
Like mätte, skulle has a subjunctive reading in specific constructions: Skulle
en sliksituasjon oppstä 'should such a situation occur'. 3 0
30
Interestingly, skulle and mätte seemingly have complementary distribution.
Skulle occurs in conditional clauses and mätte occurs in relative constructions:
i. Skulle/*mätte en slik situasjon oppstä...
'should /might such a situation occur,'
ii. De situasjoner som mätte/*skulle oppstä...
'Those situations that might/should occur'
ville Jon vil ν a.· re pä kontoret.

'Jon will/wants to be in his office.'
It will be the case that Jon is in his office, (metaphysical)
Jon wants to be in his office, (dynamic)
Old Norse vilja meant 'to wish, to want, to desire, to covet, to choose'.
According to Falk and Torp ([1903- 06] 1992: 934), this verb almost al-
ways had an animate subject in Old Norse, "unlike in German, where an
impersonal subject is possible."
Many authors exclude ville and its English cognate will from the inven-
tory of proper modals, insisting that this linguistic element is a pure tense
element. Having repeatedly encountered this claim in the literature, I de-
cided to consult the intuitions of Norwegian informants on this question.
My own intuition as a native speaker of Norwegian suggested that ville
always includes some degree of prediction (or in the present terms, meta-
physical possibility). If so, it has the semantic characteristics of a modal,
not a tense element. As is well-known, future tense is very often expressed
by means of the present in European languages. Therefore, I designed a
simple test to investigate whether ville or the present form is used when the
speaker wants to express firm confidence in some future situation, not sim-
ply a less committed prediction about the future. This test was presented to
the informants as shown in Figure 3; the results are summed up in Figure 4.
Thirty-five native speakers of Norwegian participated in the test.
Twenty-four of them found option a, without ville, to be more natural in
this context. For the purpose of expressing a firm belief in a future situa-
tion, the present tense of the verb felt more suitable than the modal ville.
Eight speakers found the sentence to be equally natural with and without
ville, and three speakers prefer ville in this context.
Figure 3
Informant test: ville
Question: What is the more natural complement of this sentence?

Alternatives: a is more natural, b is more natural, both are equally natural.
Jeg vedder tusen kroner pä ...

Ί bet you a thousand kroner...'
a. ...at renta gär opp for forste januar.

'.. .that the interest rate increases before January 1st.'
b. ...at renta vil gä opp for forste januar.

'.. .that the interest rate will increase before January 1st.'
46 Nonvegian modals: the facts
Figure 4
Β a more
natural
Β b more
natural
• equally
natural
Several of the informants volunteered the additional information that ville +

infinitive sounds forced, bookish, and less confident than the present tense
in this context. If it is correct that ville sounds bookish, this may indicate
that many speakers perceive ville + infinitive as a high standard norm but
still less natural than a simple present to express pure future. Thus, I take
the results of this test to indicate that the element of prediction is present in
the lexical representation of the modal ville for most informants and is not
perceived simply as a tense marker. Figure 5 presents the readings of Nor-
wegian modals in a tree structure summing up our current assumptions (to
be revised in section 7.1).
Figure 5
Norwegian modals (to be revised)
Root Non-root
Deontic Dynamic Evidential Epistemic

Burde 'should' Kunne 'can/know' Skulle 'be suppose '
Matte ίmust' Ville 'want to'
Kunne 'may'
Skulle 'be required to' Epistemic Metaphysical
Burde 'should' Ville 'will'
Matte 'must'
Kunne 'may'
In summary, deontic modality deals with "the necessity or possibility of

acts performed by morally responsible agents" (Lyons 1977: 823). Dy-
namic refers to the specific abilities, capacities or tendencies of a subject
(von Wright 1951) or the inherent potential of a situation. Evidential refers
to modalities where the speaker indicates what kind of evidence he or she
has for assuming the truth of a proposition (Boye 2001; Palmer 1986,
2001); in the case of skulle, the type of evidence is 'hear-say'. Finally, epis-
temic is used in a broad and a narrow sense, the broad sense encompassing
metaphysical modality (Condoravdi 2002), regarding the possibility and
probability of future situations; the narrow sense includes only 'proper'
epistemic senses related to the speaker's knowledge and beliefs about pre-
sent situations.
The modal kunne is listed with two different root senses—one deontic
(denoting permission) and one dynamic (denoting the subject's mental and
physical abilities). This will be an important point later on.
3.5. Modals, readings and η-place relations
It has often been assumed in the literature on modals that the root senses
denote two-place semantic relations, whereas the epistemic (or more gener-
ally, non-root) senses denote one-place relations. Thus, on the root reading
of must "there is such a role as someone who must something" (Vikner
1988: 14); there seems to be a predication between the subject referent and
the modal, unlike on the epistemic (non-root) reading, where no such rela-
tion between the two exists. Dyvik (1999: 4) argues that
Every modal can be interpreted either as a one-place epistemic modal or as
a two-place root modal. Under the epistemic interpretations the subject ref-
erent is not an argument of the modal, which only takes the entire proposi-
tion as an argument.... Under the root interpretation the subject referent is
an argument of the modal.
While this generalization holds to some extent for non-root vs. dynamic
root modals, it certainly does not hold for the deontic root senses. As
pointed out by numerous authors (Brennan 1993; Eide 2002a; Huddleston
1974;31 Newmeyer 1975; Pullum and Wilson 1977; Wurmbrand 1999),
31
Huddleston claims that only two English modals lack a proposition-scope read-
ing, dare and volitional will; Pullum and Wilson (1977) show that even dare is
used 'intransitively': Inflation is a problem which dare not be neglected.
deontic root modals may very well yield so-called proposition-scope read-
ings; thus even root modals seem capable of taking the entire proposition as
an argument. Feldman (1986: 179) notes that
Sometimes, instead of saying that a certain person ought to do a certain
thing, we may say that a certain state of affairs ought to be, or ought to oc-
cur .... The ought-to-do involves a relation between an agent and a state of
affairs. The ought-to-be involves a property of a state of affairs.
The latter sense, 'ought to be', is sometimes referred to as the non-directed
root reading (Barbiers 1995), since the obligation or permission is not di-
rected towards the subject referent. Thus, it is not the subject who has an
obligation or permission to do something. I will adopt the term non-
directed deontic here for the readings in (20).
(20) a. Jon skal do.

Jon shall die
'Jon must die.' (# Jon has an obligation to die)
b. Skilpadden bßr vcere i badekaret.

turtle-DEF ought-to be in bath tub-DEF
'The turtle should stay in the bath tub.'
(#The turtle has an obligation)
c. Det mä komme minst femti personer.

there must come at-least fifty people
'At least fifty people must show up.'
(# There are fifty people & each has an obligation to come)
d. Det kan komme ti gjester ifedselsdagen din.

there can come ten guests in birthday-DEF yours
'There may come ten guests to your birthday (party).'
(# There are ten guests & each has the permission to come)
These proposition-scope, or non-directed, readings of deontic modals con-

trast with the directed deontic readings, which may easily be construed as
two-place relations. On this reading, it is the subject referent who has an
obligation or permission; thus, a language user will typically perceive a
predication relation between the modal and the animate subject referent.
This reading, often treated as the prototypical reading of deontic modals
(Diewald 1999), is illustrated in (21) below.
(21) a. Jeg mä vcere pä kontoret i hele dag.

Τ must be on office-DEF in whole day
Ί must stay in my office all day.'
(I have an obligation to stay in my office all day)
b. Du skal rydde pä rommet ditt.

you shall tidy on room-DEF yours
'You must clean your room.'
(You have an obligation to clean your room.)
c. Hun her gjßre leksene fer hun gär.

she ought-to do homework-DEF before she goes
'She should do her homework before going.'
(She has an obligation to do her homework before going.)
This reading is also frequently referred to as the subject-oriented reading.

The distinction between directed and non-directed is a feature of deontic
modality, whereas subject-oriented vs. non-subject-oriented is a more gen-
eral feature, possibly pertaining to all root modals, including dynamic ones.
However, if dynamic root modals are taken to denote the capabilities, dis-
positions and potential of individuals, one would expect them always to
yield a subject-oriented reading, and accordingly, always to denote two-
place relations. This is typically the case, as the data in (22) show. Notice
that while (20d) is perfectly acceptable on the deontic (permissive) reading,
it cannot be forced into a proposition-scope reading in the dynamic (ability)
sense in (22d). Likewise, (22c) does not yield a 'volition' reading, only a
non-root 'prediction' reading, due to its expletive subject. A volition read-
ing, one would expect, requires the presence of an animate subject.
(22) a. Marit vil reise til Venezia.

Marit will travel to Venice
'Marit wants to go to Venice.'
b. Jon kan sykle.

Jon can ride-a-bike
'Jon can ride a bike.'
c. Det vil komme en mann hit i morgen.

there will come a man here to-morrow
'#There wants to come a man here tomorrow.' # dynamic
d. Det kan komme ti gjester i fodselsdagen din.

there can come ten guests to your party.
'# There are able to come ten guests.' #dynamic
However, there are data where the reading of ville certainly resembles a
dynamic 'volition' reading even with an expletive, as in (23a), and with a
weather-zY subject, as in (23b).
(23) a. Han arbeider hardt, men det vil bare ikke lykkes for ham.
he works hard, but it will simply not succeed for him
'He works hard, but he simply won't succeed.'
b. Det ville ikke slutte ä regne denne dagen.

it would not stop to rain this day
'It wouldn't stop raining that day.'
The readings in (23a) and (23b) do not seem to be instances of animation or

metaphor; they are rather impersonal uses of a volitional modal, although it
is a widespread assumption that this combination of features is impossible.
I also believe that this is a productive construction and not a relic or limited
to idioms. In any case, this is certainly not a 'future' or 'prediction' read-
ing; it is not a non-root reading. 32
I also believe, like Coates (1995) and numerous other authors, that what
has been dubbed the quantificational reading of can, sometimes also classi-
fied as weak epistemic possibility (Hermeren 1978; Wärnsby 2004), could
be argued to be the impersonal (non-subject-oriented) version of dynamic
can and its Norwegian cognate kunne. The personal or subject-oriented
ability-reading could be paraphrased as 'the physical or mental properties
of the subject cause the potential for p', as in (22b), where Jon's properties
cause Jon to have the potential to ride a bike. Correspondingly, one could
easily argue that certain physical properties of the world or certain situa-
tions cause the potential for heavy rain in Bergen, Marit's carelessness, or
cause the wrong person to become the suspect, as in (24). This reading is
32
Section 7.2 discusses the 'tendency to' reading of Icelandic vilja.
paraphrased as 'it does happen sometimes that', rather than 'it may be true
that' and, in my opinion, this is root or event modality (Palmer 2001), mo-
dality concerned with potential states-of-affairs, not modality qualifying the
truth of a proposition.
(24) a. Det kan regne ganske kraftig i Bergen.

there can rain quite heavily in Bergen
'It sometimes rains quite heavily in Bergen.'
b. Mar it kan vcere litt uforsiktig.

Marit can be a-little careless
'Marit can be a little careless.'
c. Feil person kan bli mistenkt for handlingen.

wrong person can become suspected for action-DEF
'The wrong person is sometimes suspected for the action.'
As mentioned above, it is sometimes very difficult to draw the line between

non-root and root modalities. In the present work, this line may seem par-
ticularly blurred between what I call metaphysical modality and the imper-
sonal use of dynamic modality illustrated in (23) and (24). Metaphysical
modality consists of epistemic statements about the future and amounts to
the speaker making a prediction about what will be true at some future
point in time. Impersonal dynamic modal statements, on the other hand, are
statements about tendencies, strong tendencies, as in (23), or weaker ones,
as in (24). A perceived tendency arises when one induces from observing
several (ville) or some (kunne) instances of a situation that this situation
will occur again. Thus, it is a statement about recurring situations, not a
statement about the truth of some proposition. The degree of speaker in-
volvement is also different in the two cases. Impersonal dynamic modalities
may be paraphrased by means of adverbs such as sometimes, at times or
often, usually (this modality is often dubbed quantificational). Metaphysical
modality, in contrast, is translatable into adverbs denoting graded commit-
ment to the truth of p. Thus, (25) is ambiguous between a metaphysical
reading, or 'prediction', and an impersonal dynamic reading.
(25) a. Dette vil bli et problem for salgsavdelingen.

this will become a problem for sales-departmentDEF
'This will be a problem for the sales department.'
However, if we add the adverb garantert 'certainly' after the modal, the
reading becomes metaphysical, resulting in a prediction about the future.
On the other hand, adding the adverbial vanligvis 'usually' in the same slot
gives an impersonal dynamic reading of the modal, indicating a strong ten-
dency of a (recurring) situation. The latter reading, I claim, is a root read-
ing; it is a statement about recurring states of affairs in the world. The for-
mer reading is a non-root reading, a speaker's commitment to the truth of a
future situation, in accordance with and referring to propositions in the
speaker's model of the world. On the other hand, both readings are imper-
sonal, proposition-scope readings, where the modal takes the entire
proposition as an argument, and neither denotes a relation between an agent
and an action.
Although the one-place vs. two-place relation cannot be maintained as a
dichotomy between root and non-root modals, non-root modals can never
be construed as a relation between the subject and the embedded proposi-
tion, whereas root modals typically favour exactly such a relation. How-
ever, deontic root modals are nearly always ambiguous between two possi-
ble readings—an 'ought to do' and an 'ought to be' reading. Dynamic
modals typically display two-place, subject-oriented readings, but they also
occur in proposition-scope constructions. This is summed up in Table 5.
Table 5
Readings available for Norwegian modals:
Dyadic: subject-oriented
Root: Dynamic:
Monadic: non- subject-oriented
Mo-
dals
Dyadic: directed deontic
Deontic:
Monadic: non-directed deontic
Non-root: Monadic (proposition-scope)
Hence, my findings suggest that non-root modals are always one-place

(monadic) predicates, dynamic root modals are mostly two-place (dyadic)
predicates, and deontic root modals are notoriously ambiguous between a
monadic and a dyadic construal (Barbiers 1995; Brennan 1993).
Syntactic characteristics 53
4. Syntactic characteristics
A much debated question in the literature on the semantic and syntactic

status of Germanic modals has been whether modals should be considered
main verbs or auxiliaries. According to Öhlschläger (1989: 19), this is a
question which—at least for German modals—goes back to the seventeenth
century (Bödiker 1690: 82, 109). One line of argument in this debate raises
the question of whether modals contribute any lexical meaning at all, or
whether their contribution is exclusively grammatical. Öhlschläger (1989:
56) comments on this view,
die Auffassung, nach der sich Hilfsverben - bzw. allgemeiner: Nichtvoll-

verben - dadurch von Vollverben unterscheiden, dass sie keine lexikalische,
sonern nur grammatische Bedeutung besässen, dass sie keinen seman-
tischen Eigenwert hätten. Bezogen auf die Modalverben äussert sich diese
Auffassung meist darin, dass es als ihre semantishe Funktion angesehen
wird, dass sie "den Inhalt eines anderen Verbs modifizieren" (Duden-
Grammatik 1959; 1984: 94).
[the view, that auxiliaries—or more general, non-main verbs—unlike main

verbs, supposedly have no lexical meaning, only grammatical meaning; that
they have no independent semantic value of their own. Applied to modals,
this view is expressed as the idea that the semantic function of modals is
conceived to be "the modification of the content of another verb".]
Öhlschläger himself rejects the idea that modals as a class lack lexical se-
mantic content and I agree with his argument. However, numerous authors
have claimed that there exists a semantic continuum ranging from epistemic
modals, expressing the speaker's commitment to the truth of the embedded
proposition (Palmer 1986: 51) and displaying the least "lexical content," to
dynamic modals, which are often thought to have the richest lexical content
among modals. Öhlschläger (1989: 50) discusses Plank's (1981: 59) claim
that
...es bei den Modalverben eine Hierarchie von Modalitätstypen" gebe "die
ihre Entfernung von autonomen lexikalischen Vollverben" abbilde, wobei
die "epistemische Modalität die stärkste Auxiliarisierungstendenz" auf-
weise, während die dynamische Modalität noch am ehesten an der "lexi-
kalischen Autonomie" teilhabe.
[among modals there exists a hierarchy of modality types that display their
distance from autonomous lexical main verbs, where epistemic modality
show the strongest tendency towards auxiliary status, while dynamic mo-
dality possess more of a lexical autonomy.]
The question of the possible auxiliary status of modals (or at least some
modals) will be examined in sections 4.2 and 5.1. For the moment, I argue
that the status of a linguistic element as auxiliary or main verb should be
determined not by the linguist's intuitions about degree of lexical semantic
content, but by testable distributional and formal criteria—the linguistic
element's syntactic properties.
While Norwegian modals, like their counterparts in other Scandinavian
languages, German, and Middle English, 33 share many of the properties of
lexical verbs, modals in contemporary English have a range of syntactic
properties characteristic of their category. Thus, Jackendoff (1972: 100)
observes the following for contemporary English modals:
Consider the differences. Modals do not undergo number agreement,
though all verbs do. Modals do not occur together, and they do not appear
in gerunds and infinitives.... Modals also differ from all main verbs but be
and some uses of have in that they undergo subject-aux inversion, precede
not, and block do-support.... Thus we can treat modals as verbs only if we
are willing to concede that they represent a remarkable coincidence of a
large number of purely syntactic aberrations.
Jackendoff (1972) thus proposes that English modals do not belong to the
category of lexical verbs. Instead, he suggests that modals are auxiliaries in
modern English.
However, even the advocates of this view (Jackendoff 1972; Lightfoot
1974) admit that although modals in contemporary English should be con-
sidered auxiliaries and not lexical verbs, this issue is a lot less settled for
modals in Old and Middle English and contemporary German (Jackendoff
1972: 100). Some propose that modals are auxiliaries in contemporary Eng-
lish only, while in Old and Middle English and German they are to be con-
sidered main verbs (Jackendoff 1972; Lightfoot 1974; Roberts 1985). Since
Norwegian and other Scandinavian modals resemble their German and
33
For the claim that Middle English modals were a lot like contemporary German
and Norwegian ones, see Lightfoot (1974: 241): "[There was] a whole series of
changes taking place in the sixteenth century.... (a) The old pre-modals could no
longer appear in infinitive constructions... (b) The old pre-modals could no longer
occur with -ing affixes.... (c) As from the mid-sixth century there could only be
one modal in any clause.... (d) The old pre-modals could no longer occur with have
and an -en affix." Denison (1993: chapter 11) also discusses this issue.
Old/Middle English counterparts, these authors would presumably consider

Scandinavian modals main verbs, not auxiliaries.
There are observable syntactic differences between modals in modern
English and Norwegian: for example, the contemporary Standard English 3 4
ban against co-occurrence of modals does not hold for Scandinavian (as
shown in (26a)) or German although there are certain restrictions on co-
occurrence even in these languages (Thrainsson and Vikner 1995). Fur-
thermore, in English, provided a modal is at all present, it will always be
the leftmost verb in any verbal sequence, since English modals do not occur
in non-finite forms. Mainland Scandinavian modals, although frequently
found in this leftmost position, may also occur as complements of aspectual
auxiliaries (26b) or embedded under lexical verbs (26c).
(26) a. Det ma kunne finnes en l0sning.

there must canINF findPASS a solution
'It must be possible to find a solution.'
b. Ofrene hadde mattetflykte.

victimsDEF had mustPERF flee
'The victims had had to flee.'
c. Jon antas ä mätte vcere morderen.

Jon presumePASS to mustINF be killerDEF
'Jon is presumed to have to be the killer.'
These differences between English and other Germanic languages indicate

that the distribution of English modals is much more restricted than that of
their counterparts in other Germanic languages. A modern English sentence
may contain at most one proper modal, 35 and the modal is always the left-
most verb. A Norwegian, German, or Dutch sentence may contain pairs or
34
There are English dialects where co-occurrence is allowed (Denison 1993: 294)
but only for a limited set of constructions and only for specific combinations of
modals. Thrainsson and Vikner (1995: 72) also discuss some differences between
double modal constructions in English dialects and those found in Scandinavian.
35
Obviously, English sentences may express the same content as their Norwegian
and German counterparts by means of lexical combinations semantically corre-
sponding to modals, such as have to, be to, be able to, etc. Such combinations are
considered (quasi-)modals by many authors (Hopper and Traugott 1993: 143).
clusters of proper modals, 3 6 and a modal may or may not be the leftmost
verb.
There are, however, certain syntactic differences between modals and
most other verbs even in Norwegian, which we will consider below. Sec-
tion 4.1 deals with the complement-taking properties of Norwegian modals.
Section 4.2 examines the behaviour of modals in ellipsis and tags and sec-
tion 4.3 sums up the findings on the syntactic characteristics of Norwegian
modals.
4.1. Complements of Norwegian modals
Norwegian modals take as their complements bare infmitivals, perfect par-

ticiples, directional adverbials, and pseudoclefts. The last two cases apply
to root modals only. In addition, the two dynamic root modals seemingly
take CP or DP complements. Specifically, the modal kunne 'can' takes DP
complements, whereas ville 'want to' takes CP complements, finite clauses
headed by the complementizer at 'that'. We will address the latter property
of these two modals in section 4.2. Here, we consider the remainder of the
properties listed above.
As mentioned earlier, Norwegian modals take bare infinitival comple-
ments, whereas most other verbs taking infinitival complements require the
presence of the infinitival marker ä 'to'. 3 7 In many descriptions of Ger-
36
Some extreme examples follow. Thanks to Herbert Pütz for the German example
in (i). The Dutch example in (ii). is from van Gelderen (2004: 165).
(i) Wer können soll muss wollen dürfen.
who canINF shall must wantINF mayINF
'He who is expected to be able, must be allowed to have a will'
(ii) Je zou hier eigenlijk moeten kunnen mögen kamperen
you should here really must can may camp
'You should really be able to be allowed to camp here.'
37
According to Thräinsson and Vikner (1995: 67), this is true for Danish modals
as well, but not for all Icelandic modals: "some of the Icelandic modals take com-
plements with the infinitival ad whereas Danish modals take bare infinitives."
German modals take bare infmitivals (without the infinitival marker zu), according
to Öhlschläger (1989: 4). These apparent differences between Norwegian, Danish
and German on one hand and Icelandic on the other may very well be a question of
definition. Although based on semantic properties and communicative function
there are other modal candidates (vcere nodt til ä 'be obligated to', ha a 'have to'),
manic modals, the ability to take bare infinitivals is considered their most
distinctive syntactic property, and this property is often used to distinguish
proper modals from non-modals (Lodrup 1996a). 3 8
(27) a. Jon bor (*ä) vcere pä kontoret.

Jon ought-to to be in his office
'Jon should be in his office.'
b. Marit kan (*ά) sv0mme.

Marit can to swim
'Marit can/may swim/be swimming.'
c. Pasienten mä (*ä) behandles forsiktig.

patient-DEF must to treated-PASS carefully
' T h e patient must be treated carefully.'
d. Begge skal (*ä) reise i morgen.

both shall to travel to-morrow
'Both of them are supposed to leave tomorrow.'
e. Myndighetene vil (*a) rive huset.

authorities-DEF will to demolish house-DEF
' T h e authorities want to/will demolish the house.'
these candidates are not considered proper modals precisely because they fail to
take bare infinitival complements; please consult the tables 8 - 13 in section 7.2.
38
The presence of the infinitive marker is allowed in some Norwegian non-
standard dialects for certain constructions such as the modal kunne in the 'ability'
sense. For these dialects (and Faroese; Thräinsson et al 2004: 308), the presence or
absence of the infinitival marker ä disambiguates the modal kunne; + a gives the
modal an unambiguous reading of 'ability', while the absence of this marker re-
sults in a 'permission' reading. In my dialect (Trondersk) as well as northern dia-
lects, skulle is also found with infinitivals + ä :
(i) Skull dokker ä fesk? (ii) Skull dokker fesk?
shallPRET youPLUR to fish shallPRET youPLUR fish
'Were you going fishing?' 'Were you going to fish?'
Again, the presence or absence of the infinitival marker ä disambiguates the mean-
ing not of the modal itself but of its complement: the presence of a gives the com-
plement a progressive reading and the absence indicates lack of progressive aspect.
The ability to take bare infinitival complements thus sets modals apart from
almost any other lexical verb in Norwegian. 3 9 Moreover, since taking bare
verbal complements is a property modals share with perfect auxiliaries, this
is frequently invoked as an argument in favour of the hypothesis that mo-
dals are auxiliaries even in Norwegian. The data in (27) are all ambiguous
between a root reading and a non-root reading, although in most cases the
root reading is more natural out of context.
Norwegian modals, like their Faroese counterparts (Thräinsson et al.
2004: 309), also take verbal complements in the form of perfect participles,
provided the modal has a preterite form, as the data in (28) demonstrate.
(28) a. Jon bürde (ha) vcertpa kontoret.

Jon ought-to have been on office-DEF
'Jon ought to have been in his office.'
b. Marit kunne (ha) sv0mt.

Marit could have swum
'Marit could have swum.'
c. Pasienten mätte (ha) blitt behandlet straks.

patient-DEF must-PRET have become treated immediately
' T h e patient had to have been treated immidiately.'
d. Begge skulle (ha) reist i morgen.

both should have left in morning
'Both of them were supposed to have left tomorrow.'
e. Myndighetene ville (ha) revet huset.

authorities-DEF would have torn-down house-DEF
' T h e authorities would have demolished the house.'
39
But according to Johannessen (1998: 87, 2003) various other Norwegian verbs
may take bare infinitival complements when they occur with the negation ikke
'not'. Johannessen argues that these NPI (Negative Polarity Item) verbs are on
their way to full modalityhood, displaying several, but not all of the hallmarks of
proper modals, as these hallmarks are described in Eide (2002a). Also, perception
verbs, la 'let' and be 'ask' may take ACI small clause complements without the
infinitival marker, but with a visible small clause subject different from the matrix
subject (or a reflexive): Marit sä Jon/seg selv bade 'Marit saw Jon/herself take a
bath'.
In each of the sentences in (28), a perfective verb ha 'have' may be inserted

between the modal and the perfect participle; therefore, numerous authors
have considered this phenomenon to be best described as the workings of a
phonological reduction, a phenomenon known as ha-stryking, '/za-deletion/
/za-omission' (Nordgärd and Äfarli 1990: 100).
One reason to assume that there is an underlying, phonologically omit-
ted (infinitival) perfective verb ha in these instances is the fact that modals
normally take infinitival complements, while the perfect participle ought to
be licensed by a perfective auxiliary. Moreover, some authors have claimed
that the reading of the sentence remains the same with or without ha (Faar-
lund et al. 1997: 526). 40 However, Taraldsen (1984) claims that this is not
correct (cf. also Julien 2000b). Recall that the modal needs to have a preter-
ite form in order to take a perfect participle complement; a present form of
the modal rejects a participle complement. Taraldsen observes that ha-
omission is only licit on a counterfactual reading of the modal; whenever
the preterite marking signals 'past', not counterfactuality, 41 Aa-omission is
illicit, as shown in (29):
(29) Han krevde at vi skulle *(ha) gjort det innen mandag.

he demanded that we should have done it by Monday
'He demanded that we should have done it by Monday.'
Thus, the reading of a modal with a perfect participle complement is always

counterfactual in Norwegian; this is also the case in Faroese, as pointed out
by Thräinsson et al (2004: 309). Furthermore, the readings in (28) are coun-
40
Wiklund (1998) advocates a different view. In Swedish, the phenomenon ha-
deletion affects a wider range of constructions than in Norwegian; Wiklund (1998:
14) maintains that "A tensed auxiliary ha can always be omitted in subordinate
clauses in Swedish, whereas an untensed ha can be omitted if preceded by a modal
verb in past tense.... Footnote 10: Tensed ha can never be omitted in Norwegian
(see Taraldsen 1984). In Swedish it may also occasionally be omitted in raising
contexts (see Hedlund 1992)." Julien (2000b) argues that finite ha cannot always
be omitted in subordinate clauses in Swedish, only when "some other element can
identify the +finite feature of the clause". She also shows that there is individual
variation among speakers of Swedish as to where an infinitival ha can be left out.
41
Faarlund et al. (1997: 575, 587) discuss the 'modal' uses of preterite in Norwe-
gian, which is particularly frequent with modals. Fretheim (1977) discusses the
'modal' use of plus perfect in Norwegian.
terfactual readings of root modals with the exception of (28e), which may
have a metaphysical reading. We return to these constructions in Chapter 5.
Unlike their contemporary English (and Icelandic 42 ) counterparts 43 and
similar to their German and Dutch counterparts, 44 Norwegian modals take
adverbial complements, particularly adverbs or preposition phrases denot-
ing directional locatives and resultatives, as (30) demonstrates. Notice that
this property applies to root modals only, as non-root readings are defi-
nitely unavailable in these constructions (in Chapter 5, section 5.4.3 I offer
an explanation).
(30) a. Mar it bor hj em.

Marit ought-to home
'Marit should go home.'
b. Jon mä pä skolen.
Jon must to school
'Jon must go to school.'
c. Greina skal av.

The branch will off
'The branch will be cut off/in two.'
d. Alle vil tilbake tidlig.

All want-to back early
'Everyone wants to get back early.'
e. Jeg kan ikke pä kino likevel.

I can not to cinema anyway
Ί cannot go to the cinema anyway.'
42
According to Höskuldur Thräinsson, p.c..
43
Denison (1993: 305) claims that "modal+directional adverbial is often used in
Germanic languages as if a verb of motion is to be understood. The usage is virtu-
ally dead in Present-day English... but was common in earlier periods."
44
Dutch allows for a greater range of small clause complements than German and
Norwegian. See section 7.2. Barbiers (2002) says: "I discuss Dutch data only. The
construction also exists in German and Afrikaans, but with more restrictions on the
complement of the modal: these languages allow only a subset of the complements
that can occur with a modal in Dutch."
According to my own intuitions, directionals are acceptable with all mo-

dals; however, not all speakers allow all modals in these constructions. All
speakers allow matte, skulle or ville, but some speakers do not allow burde,
and some do not allow kunne. Non-standard dialects (especially in the
western and northern parts of Norway) tend to be more liberal than stan-
dard dialects in this respect. However, the restriction on burde seems to
work in the opposite direction, as burde + directional is rejected by speak-
ers of non-standard dialects but not by speakers of standard dialects (one
explanation might be that burde itself does not belong to the active vocabu-
lary of many non-standard dialects).
It is debatable whether the constructions in (30) contain a phonologi-
cally empty motion verb or not. If there is an invisible or PF-deleted motion
verb between the modal and the directional, this is tantamount to saying
that these constructions are in fact not instances of modals with non-verbal
complements after all. Thus, whereas van den Wyngaerd (1994) proposes
that there is a PF-deleted motion verb (also Faarlund et al. 1997: 527, 582),
Barbiers (1995) argues that there was no verb there in the first place. A
third hypothesis, put forth in van Riemsdijk (2002a, 2002b), is that there is
a "super-light motion verb [e] G o" in most Germanic languages, a verb with
semantic, but no phonological features.
Certain data from the Norwegian dialect Trondersk offer support for van
Riemsdijk's (or generally, the invisible verb) analysis. As discussed above,
Norwegian modals take bare infinitival complements in addition to direc-
tional complements. However, there are other verbs denoting propositional
attitudes (verbs semantically similar to modals) that take directionals and
infinitival complements, but not bare infinitival complements; they require
the presence of the infinitival marker. These verbs require the presence of
the infinitival marker even with directionals in this dialect, which strongly
suggests that there is a (phonetically empty) verb here, as shown by the two
minimal pairs: (31a) and (31c) with the modal villa 'want to' and (31 b) and
(3 Id) with the non-modal construction ha lost te 'want to'.
(31) a. Han villa itj fcerrα heim.

he wanted not go home
'He didn't want to go home.'
b. Han hadd itj lost te äfcerra heim.

he had not will for to go home
c. Han villa itj 0 heim.

he wanted not home
d. Han hadd itj lest te ä 0 heim.

he had not will for to home
Section 4.2 also offers data showing that the modal behaves like an auxil-
iary, not a main verb, in these constructions with regards to tags and elliptic
constructions. This would be hard to explain if there were no phonetically
null verb between the modal and the directional since, in that case, we
would have an instance of an auxiliary (i.e. the modal) not needing a main
verb, a highly unlikely scenario.
Finally, Thrainsson and Vikner (1995) claim that pseudocleft construc-
tions serve to distinguish root modals from epistemic modals in Scandina-
vian languages, as root modals allow their complement to be pseudoclefted,
whereas epistemic modals do not, as (32) shows.
(32) a. Det eneste du skal, er ä legge deg.

the only you shall is to lay you
'The only thing you will do, is to get to bed.'
(root reading only)
b. *Det eneste Jon skal, er ä ha stjälet en bil.

the only Jon shall is to have stolen a car
Intended: 'The only thing Jon is supposed to have done,
is stolen a car.' (*non-root reading)
c. Det Jon mä, er ä vcere hyggelig.

it Jon must is to be nice
'What Jon must be, is nice.' (root reading only)
d. *Det Jon mä, er ä vcere morderen.

it Jon must is to be killer-DEF
'What Jon must be, is the killer.' (*non-root reading)
Thrainsson and Vikner's (1995) generalization is not wrong, but it is some-

what inaccurate. The more accurate generalization is that root modals ac-
cept a pseudoclefted complement provided they have a 'two-place' (or
subject-oriented) reading (described in section 2). In constructions where a

proposition-scope reading of the root modal is the natural reading, root
modals reject a pseudoclefted complement, just like non-root modals:
(33) a. *Det en kvinne b0r, er ä bli vär neste statsminister.

it a woman should, is to be our next prime minister.
(Intended: 'What should happen is that a woman becomes
our next prime minister.')
b. *Det apene ikke mä, er ä mates αν besekende.

it the monkeys not must, is to feed-PASSIVE by visitors
(Intended: 'What must not take place is that the monkeys
are fed by visitors.')
These facts are analysed in chapter 4.
4.2. Modals, ellipsis, and tags

English modals are characterized by what Huddleston (1976: 333) dubbed
the N I C E properties, alluding to the fact that modals take part in syntactic
processes where an ordinary lexical verb would require the assistance of a
semantically devoid do, a phenomenon known as do-support. These
properties, quoted from Palmer (1986: 90-91), are illustrated in Table 6.
Table 6
Negative: I can't go vs. He doesn't go

Inversion: Must I come? vs. Does he go?
Code: He can swim vs. He goes
and so can she and so does she
Emphatic affirmation: He will be there vs. He does go
It has sometimes been claimed in the literature on English modals that these
N I C E properties do not apply equally to root and non-root modals. Specifi-
cally, it has been claimed that non-root modals are unavailable in interroga-
tive sentences and focalized constructions, both of which require subject-
auxiliary inversion in English, as (34), taken from Brennan (2004), shows.
However, as noted by Jackendoff (1972), although non-root modals typi-

cally resist subject-auxiliary inversion, this is not an absolute constraint, as
(35a), also from Brennan (2004), and (35b) demonstrate. Therefore,
Jackendoff claims, this should be considered a semantic, not a syntactic
constraint.
(34) a. Must Carrie leave?

b. Only three people may Mary see.
(35) a. Few people must your father have seen,

and fewer saw him.
b. OK, so John is a thief. Must he therefore be a murderer?
Norwegian modals behave like other verbs with regard to subject-verb in-
version, as shown in (36a) and (36b), but the availability of non-root read-
ings in interrogative or focalized constructions is subject to the same se-
mantic restrictions in Norwegian as in English: non-root readings are
marginal in such constructions, but not ruled out, as (36c) and (36d) prove.
(36) a. Kommer Mar it οgsä?

comes Marit too
'Will Marit come, too?'
b. Kan Marit ogsä komme?

can Marit too come
'Can Marit come, too?'
c. Mä Jon vcere morderen, ettersom han er en tyv?

must Jon be killerDEF, since he is a thief
'Does Jon have to be the killer, since he is a thief?'
d. Sjokoladen din mä Marit ha spist.

chocolateDEF yours must Marit have eaten
'Marit must have eaten your chocolate.'
e. Uansett kommer ikke Jon i kveld.

in-any-case comes not Jon to-night
'In any case, Jon won't come tonight.'
f. Uansett kan ikke Jon komme i kveld.

in-any-case can not Jon come to-night
'In any case, Jon cannot come tonight.'
g. Jon sover vel?

Jon sleeps particle
' J o h n does sleep, right?'
h. Jon skal vel sove?

Jon shall particle sleep
'Jon should be sleeping, right?'
In fact, N o r w e g i a n modals behave no differently than other verbs with re-

gard to negation, as shown in (36e) and (36f); inversion, (36a) and (36b); or
emphatic affirmation, as in (36g) and (36h). Thus, a m o n g the N I C E proper-
ties, only " c o d e " is relevant in distinguishing N o r w e g i a n modals f r o m lexi-
cal verbs. Lexical verbs are replaced by the light verb gjore ' d o ' in ellipti-
cal constructions, as in (37a), while modals are repeated, as in (37b). In this
respect, Norwegian modals follow the English pattern.
(37) a. Marit svommer og det *svommer/gj0r Jon ogsä.

Marit swims and that swims/does Jon too
'Marit swims and so does J o n . ' 4 5
43
The pro-form det must pertain to the whole VP, including the verb, for the pro-
verb gjere 'do' to be required here (Lodrup 1994). If the pro-form pertains to the
direct object only, for instance, one may repeat the lexical verb, (i). In this case,
the lexical verb may just as well be replaced by another lexical verb, (ii).
(i) Marit spiser pannekaker og det gjor/spiser Jon ogsä.
Marit eats pancakes an that does/eats Jon too
'Marit eats pancakes and so does Jon.'
(ii) Marit spiser pannekaker og det liker Jon ogsä.
Marit eats pancakes and that likes Jon too
'Marit eats pancakes and Jon likes them, too.'
The important thing to notice here is that in one case det 'that' refers to the whole
VP [eats pancakes] while in the other case, it refers to the direct object [pancakes]
only. Likewise, in (37c), the sentence Marit har svomt og det gjor Jon ogsä 'Marit
has swum as so does Jon.' is possible if the intention is that Jon is presently en-
gaged in the activity of swimming, whereas Marit was formerly engaged in this
activity. However, the relevant meaning here is that 'Marit has swum and Jon has
swum'. On this reading, the aspectual ha cannot be replaced by gjßre.
b. Marit skal sv0mme og det skal/*gj0r Jon ogsä.

Marit shall swim and that shall/does Jon too
'Marit is going to swim and so is Jon.'
c. Marit har svomt og det har/*gj0r Jon ogsä.

Marit has swum and that has/does Jon too
'Marit has swum and so has Jon.'
In ellipsis, Norwegian modals behave like aspectual auxiliaries—ha 'have'

and vcere 'be'—which are also repeated, as (37c) shows.
Closely related to code are tag questions; hence, it is not surprising that
modals differ from lexical verbs in these constructions as well, as (38)
demonstrates. Note that, once again, modals pattern with aspectuals.
(38) a. Jon gär i butikken, *gär/gj0r han ikke det?

Jon goes in store-DEF, goes/does he not that
'Jon goes to the store, doesn't he?'
b. Jon mä gä i butikken, mä/*gj0r han ikke det?

Jon must go in store-DEF, must/does he not that
'John must go to the market, mustn't he?'
c. Jon har gätt i butikken, har/*gjor han ikke det?

Jon has gone in store-DEF, has/does he not that
'John has gone to the market, hasn't he?'
Again, in the tag question, the lexical verb occurring in the matrix clause
cannot be repeated; it must be replaced by the pro-verb gjore, as in (38a).
Modals and aspectuals, on the other hand, must be repeated in the tag; they
cannot be replaced by gj0re, as shown in (38b) and (38c).
The German counterpart of do-so-ellipsis, VP-pronominalization, and
its unavailability for epistemic modals was one of Ross' (1969) main argu-
ments for postulating two different argument structures for root and non-
root modals (Ross referred to this phenomenon as S-deletion). Although
this may be correct for German (see Öhlschläger 1989: 47), in Norwegian
this kind of ellipsis is typically available for both root and non-root modals.
VP-pronominalization of the complement of root and non-root modals in
Norwegian is examined and discussed in Lodrup (1994) 46 where the data in
46
See also Vikner (1988: 10-11) and Thrainsson and Vikner (1995: 61): "it is
(39a) and (39b) come from. Note also that aspectuals allow for this type of
ellipsis, as in (39c).
(39) a. Kan du strikke ? Ja, jeg kan det.

can you knit? Yes, I can that
'Do you know how to knit? Yes, I do.'
b. Kan bussen ha kommet nä? Nei, den kan ikke det.

can the bus have come now? No it can not that
'May the bus have arrived already? No, it may not.'
c. Har bussen kommet nä? Nei, den har ikke det.

has the bus come now? No it has not that
'Has the bus arrived already? No, it hasn't.'
Likewise, in tag questions, there seems to be little or no difference between

root modals and non-root modals: tag questions are available and felicitous
with both types of modals and the restriction on gjore 'do'-replacement
holds for non-root as well as root modals— unlike lexical verbs, the modal
is not replaced by gore in tags. Instead, the modal is repeated in the tag in
both root (40cd) and non-root (40ab) modals.
(40) a. Han skal vcere en hyggeligfyr, skal han ikke det?

he shall be a nice chap, shall he not that
'He is supposed to be a nice chap, isn't he?'
b. Marit ma vcere kommet hjem nä, mä hun ikke det?

Marit must be come home now, must she not that
'Marit must have come home by now, mustn't she?'
c. Du b0r vel dra nä, b0r du ikke det?

you should well go now, should you not that
'You should probably leave now, shouldn't you?'
usually possible in Danish to get a topicalized object-like det 'it, that' with epis-
temic modal verbs, although it is much worse when it is not topicalized:
(i) Han vil vcere hjemme hele dagen. Det vil hun desuden ogsä.
he will be home all day. that will she actually too
'He will stay home all day. So will she, actually'."
d. Hun kan gäpä kino, kan hun ikke det?

she can go to movie can she not that
'She may go to the movies, may she not?'
However, there are two N o r w e g i a n root modals that allow for replacement
by gjere ' d o ' in tags. These are the two root modals listed as dynamic in
Figure 5 above, ville 'want to' and kunne 'can/know', 4 7 the latter on the
'mental ability' reading.
(41) a. Du vil at han skal komme, vil/gjßr du ikke det?

y o u will that he comes, will/do y o u not that
' Y o u want him to come, don't y o u ? '
b. Du kan fransk, kan/gj0r du ikke det?

y o u can French, can/do y o u not that
' Y o u speak French, don't y o u ? '
c. Du kan nasjonalsangen, kan/gjßr du ikke det?

y o u can the national anthem, can/do y o u not that
' Y o u know the national anthem, don't y o u ? '
These two modals are special in other respects as well. For instance, they
are the only two Norwegian modals that may take "proper" arguments ( D P
or C P ) as complements, as seen in (41) above. Crucially, the proper argu-
ment complement is a prerequisite for ^/ore-replacement to be licit. Note
that when these modals take infinitival complements, g/ore-replacement is
impossible and the modal must once again be repeated:
(42) a. Du vil komme, vil/*gj0r du ikke det?

y o u want come, want/do y o u not that
' Y o u want to come, don't y o u ? '
b. Du kan snakke Fransk, kan/*gjßr du ikke?

y o u can speak French, can/do y o u not
' Y o u can speak French, can't y o u ? '
47 Not all speakers of Norwegian accept this replacement; typically, speakers of

non-standard dialects are more liberal than speakers of standard dialects, and cer-
tain speakers accept g/0re-replacement with ville, but not with kunne.
Recall also that these are the only two modals, root or non-root, that passiv-
ize in Norwegian, albeit marginally. The data (originally from Lodrup
1996a) are repeated here for convenience as (43):

The lesson must can-PASS tomorrow
b. Dette mä ikke bare 0nskes, det mä villes.4H

This must not only wish-PASS, it must will-PASS
Importantly, only in those cases where these two modals behave in a man-
ner reminiscent of ordinary transitive verbs, with an agentive subject and a
nominal or clausal direct object, may they undergo passivization (Öhl-
schläger 1989: 59, footnote 12 makes a similar remark about German mo-
dals). With a bare infinitival complement, passivization is unacceptable.
Adding the infinitival marker ä makes the construction slightly better, but it
is still dramatically worse than the sentences in (43), as shown in (44).
(44) a. *(??A) sykle mä kunnes i morgen.

to ride a bike must can-PASSIVE tomorrow
O n e must know how to ride a bike tomorrow.'
b. *(??Ä) bli danser mä ikke bare onskes, det mä villes.

to be dancer must not only wish-PASS., it must will-PASS.
O n e must not only wish to be a dancer, one must want it.'
Furthermore, recall that the modal kunne 'can' may occur in the imperative,
but only when it takes a DP complement, as in (45a). When it takes an in-
finitival complement, the imperative becomes impossible, as (45b) shows
(though adding ä helps a lot for speakers of non-standard dialects):
(45) a. Kunn dette diktet til imorgen!

know this poem by tomorrow
'(You must) Know this poem by tomorrow!'
48
The passive participle of ville occurs in this particular construction: Dette er en
villet ntvikling 'This is an intended development'.
b. Kunn *(? ä) sykle til imorgen!

know ride-a-bicycle by tomorrow
'(You must) Know how to ride a bicycle by tomorrow!'
Thus, like lexical verbs, kunne and ville accept g^re-replacement exactly
when they take proper arguments (DP/CP) as complements. They passivize,
like lexical verbs, only when they take CP/DP complements. The modal
kunne occurs in the imperative precisely when it takes a proper argument
DP as a complement. Crucially, when these verbs take (bare) infinitival
complements, they pattern with modals, not with main verbs, in all these
respects.
Thus, at this point, there are two possibilities. We might be dealing with
two pairs of homonyms of kunne 'can' and ville 'want to': one is transitive,
accepts gjare-vtplacement, passivizes, and occurs in the imperative, while
the other is akin to modals and perfect auxiliaries. Alternatively, we are
dealing with two modals that display radically different behaviours depend-
ing on the complement. I find the latter possibility unlikely and I discard it
here. We are left with the assumption that the root modals kunne and ville
have main verb versions. This is exactly what I will propose.
Roberts and Roussou (2002) state that "Scur (1968) (cited in Plank
1984) points out dialectal examples in English where can and will survive
as lexical verbs." Evidently, this is the case in Norwegian as well. The
Norwegian cognates of can and will—kunne and ville—display the behav-
iour of main verbs when they take a proper argument, that is, when they
function like ordinary transitive verbs. The reason for this, I argue, is that
they are in fact ordinary transitive verbs. Thus, kunne and ville have main
verb versions, which accept ^/^re-replacement and passivize, and one of
them, kunne, also occurs in the imperative. This also implies that I consider
the second version of kunne and ville, which takes infinitival complements
and patterns with other modals and aspectuals, modal auxiliaries.
Since the tag test proved useful for separating a main verb version of
kunne and ville from an auxiliary version, I propose that this test be utilized
to support the analysis of modals with directional complements as auxilia-
ries. Recall from the previous subsection that there has been some debate
about whether there is an invisible motion verb between the modal and the
directional or whether the modal in these constructions must be a main verb
since there is no other verb of which the modal may be an auxiliary. The
gj0re-replacement test shows that the modal in these constructions is in-
deed an auxiliary:
(46) a. Jon mä hjem, mä/*gj0r han ikke det?

Jon must home, must/does he not that
'Jon must go home, mustn't he?'
b. Marit vilpa kino, vil/*gj0r hun ikke det?

Marit wants to movie, wants she not that
'Marit wants to go to the movies, doesn't she?'
Furthermore, directional complements of modals behave as VPs as regards

VP-pronominalization, not as adverbials. This is illustrated in (47). An
adverbial modifying an ordinary lexical verb (or its VP) cannot be replaced
by the proform det. VP-pronominalization is completely grammatical,
however, with the adverbial complement of a root modal.
(47) a. A: Jon gär/kommer hjem. B: * Gär/kommer han dit?

Jon goes/comes home goes/comes he that
'Jon is going/coming home.' (Intended: 'Is he? ')
b. A. Jon skal/vil/ma hjem. B: Skal/vil/mä han det?

Jon shall/will/must home shall/will/must he that
'Jon should/will/must go home.' 'Should/will/must he?'
The examples in (46) and (47) thus support our conclusion from the previ-
ous subsection that modals with directional complements are auxiliaries,
even though there is no visible main verb to which they could be an auxil-
iary. Our findings suggest that some version of "the invisible light-verb
hypothesis" (van Riemsdijk 2002a, 2002b) applies to Norwegian.
The tag test, supported by the passive and imperative data, also shows
that there are modal main verbs in addition to modal auxiliaries. Whenever
a modal kunne or ville occurs with a DP/CP complement, Norwegian
grammar recognizes the modal as a transitive main verb instead of a modal
auxiliary. A note of caution is in order, however. With ordinary lexical
verbs, g7'0re-replacement is obligatory. This is not the case with the main
verb versions of kunne and ville. I have no explanation for this fact. Never-
theless, the passive and imperative data lend strong support to the hypothe-
sis that there are modal main verbs in Norwegian.
4.3. Summary of findings
The syntactic properties of Norwegian modals examined in this section can

be grouped in three bundles. There are properties, such as the ability to take
bare infinitival complements, that apply to all modals but not to most other
verbs. There are properties regarding the range of possible complements,
such as pseudoclefts and directionals, that apply to root modals only and
properties such as passivization and do-replacement that apply to the modal
main verbs kunne 'can' and ville 'want to' only.
Syntactic properties of Norwegian modals:

All modals:
• Lack present participles
• Resist replacement by the light verb gjore in elliptical constructions such
as "do so" and tag-questions (except: main verb modals kunne and ville)
• Take bare infinitival complements (lacking the infinitival marker a)
• Accept VP-pronominalization of their infinitival complement
• Modals with preterite morphology take perfect complements on a coun-
terfactual reading
Root modals:
• Take directionals as complements (and these may undergo VP-
pronominalization)
• Take pseudoclefted complements on a subject-oriented reading
Modal main verbs kunne, ville·.

• Accept replacement of gjore 'do' in ellipsis and tags
• Take proper arguments as complements {kunne:DP; ville\C?)
• Marginally passivize (and kunne occurs in the imperative)
Summary and inventory 73
5. S u m m a r y and preliminary inventory
5.1. Examining our results
Although Norwegian and other Scandinavian modals are not as different

from lexical verbs as their English counterparts, certain properties apply to
modals but not to most other Norwegian verbs. What serves to morphologi-
cally distinguish modals from most other verbs in Norwegian is that modals
are preterite-present verbs. Only one (main verb) modal employs an im-
perative form. Root modals are more comfortable with nonfinite forms than
non-root modals, although non-root infinitivals as well as non-root perfect
participle modals exist (especially in conditionals). All Norwegian modals
on our list so far have root readings and non-root readings. With regard to
other semantic and syntactic properties, w e have seen that several proper-
ties apply to some Norwegian modals but not to others. This is significant.
Table 7
Semantics ^ Dyadic only Dyadic & monadic Monadic only
Syntax:
Imperative; • kunnemain
Accepts
do-replacement;
Takes proper argu- villeMMK
ments;
kunne main
Passivizes
Takes directional Dynamic Deontic
complements; root: root:
Accepts pseudo-cleft
complements;
Takes bare infiniti- kunne hurde Non-root:
val complements; ville kunne
ModalPRET takes matte hunk·
perfect complement; skulle hnuh'
Lacks present parti- llhlftC
ciple; skullt·
vi IL-
Without an accurate semantic and syntactic description, the important

premises for our analysis would be merely conjectures. Several works on
modals are flawed by the author's tendency to support his or her analysis
by invoking properties found only in some modals, implicitly or explicitly
assuming that those properties c a n y over to all modals. For instance, it has
often been assumed that root modals denote two-place relations whereas
epistemic modals denote one-place predicates. W e have seen that this is not
correct. Although non-root modals always have one-place predicate read-
ings and dynamic modals are mostly two-place relations, a root modal may
be construed as either a one-place or a two-place predicate. Likewise, there
are several syntactic properties that apply to some modals only. 49
At this point, another review of Norwegian modals is in order. So far,
w e have reached the conclusion that there are main verb modals and modal
auxiliaries. Furthermore, among modal auxiliaries, there are non-root mo-
dals (encompassing epistemic, i.e. "proper epistemic" and metaphysical, as
well as evidential) and root modals, encompassing deontic and dynamic
modals. This is represented in Figure 6 below.
Figure 6
Norwegian modals (to be revised)
Modal main verbs Modal auxiliaries

Kunne 'know'
Ville 'want-to'
Root Non-root
Deontic ]Dynamic Evidential Epistemic

Burde 'should' ιKunne 'can/know' Skulle 'be suppc
Matte 'must' IVille 'want to'
Kunne 'may' Epistemic Metaphysical
Skulle 'be required to' Burde 'should' Ville 'will'
Matte 'must'
Kunne 'may'
49
Note that main verb modals have no present participle either, although this is
suggested by the table above.
Three potential candidates 75
6. Three potential candidates
Three verbs are possible modal candidates in my investigation of Norwe-

gian modals:/ä 'get', behove 'need', and trenge 'need'. I will consider each
of these candidates. Note that the last two have very similar properties.
Fä is mentioned in Faarlund et al. (1997: 528) as a verb with "clearly a
modal meaning" (also L0drup, 1996b: fn. 2). It is semantically akin to the
deontic modals (van der Auwera 1999 discusses the Swedish modal fä) in
that it frequently expresses permission; fä is normally interchangeable with
permissive kunne 'can'. Like modals, it lacks a present participle (*fäende),
it takes bare infinitival complements, as shown in (48a), and it may take a
perfect participle complement, as in (48b).50 Like root modals, it accepts
pseudoclefted complements, as in (48c), and takes directional comple-
ments, as in (48d). It has the core properties of main verb modals: it passiv-
izes (48e); takes proper arguments (48f); and accepts cfo-replacement, do-
ing so most readily when it has a proper argument complement, like main
verb modals. It allows for a two-place predicate reading, as in (48a), and a
one-place predicate reading, as in (48g), like deontic modals. Finally, it
occurs in the imperative, as (48h) shows. In short, it seems to have nearly
all the properties of main verb modals and modal auxiliaries.
(48) a. Fikk du gäpä kino?

got you go to cinema
'Did you get to go to the movies?'
b. Jeg fikk skiftet olje pä bilen.

I got changed oil on car-DEF
Ί had an oil change on my car.'
c. Det eneste Jon fär, er ä gjßre lekser.

the only-thing Jon gets, is to do homework
'The only thing Jon gets to do, is his homework.'
50
I believe this is not mentioned in Faarlund et al. (1997), but fä is different from
modals in this particular respect. Modals need the preterite morphology to take a
perfect participle as a complement. Not so for fa, as shown in (i), where fä has
present morphology and still takes a perfect participle complement,
(i) Jeg fär skiftet olje pä bilen.
Ί am getting an oil change on my car.'
d. Hanfikk ut i verdenfor ä leere, (from Faarlund et al. 1997)

he got out in world-DEF to learn
'He got to travel around the world to learn.'
e. Billetter fäs ved inngangen.

tickets get-PASSIVE at the entrance
O n e can get tickets at the entrance.'
f. Marit fär ikke kake/kjore, fär/gjor hun ?

Marit get not cake/drive, get/does she
'Marit doesn't get cake/to drive, does she?'
g. Detfär komme ti gjester ifodselsdagen din.

there get come ten guests in birthdayDEF your
'There may come ten guests to your birthday.'
h. Fä deg en jobb!
get you a job
'Get yourself a job!'
However, it is a well-known fact among Norwegian linguists that fä has so

many meanings that it would be surprising if at least one of the uses did not
turn up with the 'right' property in each case; this amounts to saying that
the data in (48) are best described as several different, homonymous verbs
with varying properties. Thus, there is an ordinary transitive verb fä mean-
ing 'to receive', as in (48e) and the first reading of (48f); an 'active' verb
fä meaning roughly 'to achieve, manage to', one possible reading of (48b)
and also (48h); a non-active verb fä, as in (48b) and (48d), meaning that the
event denoted by the complement VP takes place to the advantage or dis-
advantage of the subject (Lodrup 1996b); fa that resembles the deontic
modal kunne, meaning 'to be allowed', as in (48a), (48c), (48g), and the
second reading of (48f).
Obviously, neither the fact that the form fä corresponds to a range of
different verbs, nor the fact that it has an inflection for present -r—unlike
proper modals—is in and of itself enough to dismiss it from the class of
modals. However, there is another important factor jeopardizing the candi-
dacy o f / a as a modal—it seems impossible to get a non-root reading with
this verb. Since we have listed this as an important semantic feature of mo-
dals, a property distinguishing modals from other verbs, I am reluctant to
count fä among proper modals and also reluctant to bestow on fä m e m b e r -

ship in the class of Norwegian m o d a l s . 5 1 5 2
T h e next t w o candidates to be examined are beh0ve and trenge, both
meaning ' n e e d ' (mentioned in Faarlund et al. 1997: 600; Thrainsson and
Vikner 1995: 54 mention Danish behßve-, van der A u w e r a 1999: 11 m e n -
tions Danish behave, Dutch hoeven and G e r m a n brauchen). These t w o
verbs have some interesting properties. Firstly, they too are inflected for
present tense with - r , unlike proper modals. Secondly, they have different
properties, depending on whether or not they are used in combination with
negation ikke ' n o t ' . T h e non-negated uses have less auxiliary-like or mo-
dal-like properties. This is very striking w h e n it comes to possible one-
place or two-place readings, as the negated version m a y have one-place
(non-directed deontic) as well as two-place (directed deontic) readings,
while the non-negated version has only the latter, as (49) shows.
(49) a. Du trenger/behover ikke (ä) pakke den inn.

y o u need not pack it in
' Y o u need not wrap it/There is no need to w r a p it.'
51
Something resembling a non-root reading is found in (i):
(i) Det far bli deg som blir vär neste statsminister.
It get become you who become our next prime minister
Ί guess you should be our next prime minister.'
However, my intuition is that this is still a permissive reading. Brandt (1999: 181)
lists a purported epistemic reading offä in Danish, hvis kortets alder stemmer, og
det far man tro 'if the map's age is correct, and so one must assume', but even this
reading seems to me to be a root reading (but I am not a native speaker of Danish).
52
Elly van Gelderen (p.c.) suggests that this may be too harsh: "The main argu-
ment (that it is not used epistemically) is weak if you look at modals in English.
For instance, can has basically become only deontic and that's how they started
out. It may be that fä is just a late starter." I agree that this is conceivable. There-
fore, my exclusion offä as a proper modal may seem arbitrary. However, there are
a lot of elements and phrases that display some of the properties of proper mo-
dals—such as semi-modals that do have non-root as well as root readings—but are
not considered modals in the present work. Likewise, there is a long list of verbs
that belong to the same in-between category as fä (Johannessen 1998, 2003) in
having the syntactic properties of modals, but lacking the non-root readings. If fä
is included, these verbs should be included as well. This is, of course, possible;
however, this is not the path I have chosen here.
b. Du trenger/behßver * (ä) pakke den inn.

you need to pack it in
'You need to wrap it/ #It is necessary to wrap it.'
The difference between the negated and non-negated versions of be-

hßve/trenge is also striking when it comes to their ability to take bare
infinitival complements. The negated version optionally takes bare infiniti-
vals or infinitivals with the infinitival marker a, while the non-negated
version takes only the latter, as (49) shows (also Johannessen, 1998: 87).
Perfect participle complements are dubious with negated and non-negated
versions alike, and directional complements are marginal in standard dia-
lects, but acceptable in some non-standard dialects. There is yet another
difference: though directional complements are unacceptable for the ne-
gated and the non-negated versions in standard Norwegian, the differences
in the degree of acceptability are striking, as (50a) and (50b) demonstrate.
Again, the negated version is more acceptable than the non-negated ver-
sion; the negated version is more modal-like. Both versions accept do-
replacement, unlike modal auxiliaries, but the negated version more readily
allows for repetition in tags, as evident in (50c) and (50d). Both versions
take proper arguments as complements (50e) and accept pseudoclefted
complements (50f); both versions also marginally passivize (50g). In all
these uses, non-negated beh0ve sounds more archaic than trenge for many
Norwegian speakers. Both negated and non-negated versions are equally
acceptable as present participles, since trenge does employ a(n archaic)
present participle, whereas behßve does not (trengende, *behßvende).
(50) a. IDu beh0ver/trenger ikke pä skolen i dag.

you need not to school today
'You need not go to school today.'
b. *Du behßver/trenger pä skolen i dag.

you need to school today
'You need to go to school today.'
c. Jon trenger/behßver ikke (ä) spise jbrst,

Jon need not (to) eat first,
gjor/tr enger/behover han vel?
does/need he particle
'Jon need not eat first, does he?'
d. Jon trenger/behßver ä spise ferst,

Jon needs to eat first,
g]0r/trenger/??beh0ver han ikke?
does needs he not
'Jon needs to eat first, doesn't he?'
e. Du trenger/behßver (ikke) denne spreyten.

y o u need (not) this injection
' Y o u (don't) need this injection.'
f. Det eneste Jon (ikke) trenger/behßver, er denne spreyten.

the only Jon (not) need is this injection
'The only thing Jon (doesn't) need(s) is this injection.'
g. Det trengs/?beh0ves (ikke) mer lys her.

there n e e d - P A S S I V E more light here
' W e need more light here.'
In short, the negated versions o f trenge/behove show more modal-like be-

haviour than their non-negated counterparts, although they lack some syn-
tactic properties that modals have. The final and perhaps crucial reason to
dismiss non-negated trenge/beheve as possible modals is that they do not
have a non-root reading, unlike their negated versions, as (51) shows.
(51) a. Jon trenger/behover ikke (ä) vcere morderen.

Jon needs not to be killerDEF
'Jon need not be the killer.' (non-root reading acceptable)
b. Jon trenger/behover ä vcere morderen.

Jon needs to be killerDEF
'Jon needs to be the killer.' (root reading only)
In summary, there are two good reasons in the semantic domain to support
the hypothesis that trenger ikke/behover ikke 'need not' are modals. Firstly,
they have both root readings and non-root readings, and secondly, they
have one-place (proposition-scope) and two-place (subject-oriented) read-
ings. The syntactic property that most strongly supports the candidacy o f
these two verbs as modals is their ability to take bare infinitivals. The
g^re-replacement facts and the ability to take directional complements
seem less clear-cut, but as we have seen, the case for negated trenge/behßve
is much stronger than that for their non-negated counterparts. 53
As mentioned above, negated trenge/behßve take proper arguments,
passivize, and accept <io-replacement, like their non-negated versions. As
mentioned earlier, these properties are normally associated with transitive
verbs; therefore, modals taking proper arguments as complements should
be considered transitive lexical verbs. Does that mean that negated
trenge/behßve should be considered transitive lexical verbs as well? Not
exclusively. Remember that non-negated trenge/behßve have all the proper-
ties of lexical transitive verbs. There is, of course, no reason to believe that
there is a ban on negating these two transitive verbs, and that the transitive
verb properties should not carry over to the negated version. Thus, the main
verb version of negated trenge/behßve obligatorily has the two-place read-
ing; when negated trenge/behßve take proper arguments as complements,
the two-place reading is the only possible reading. In addition, the negated
versions of trenge/behßve have acquired certain modal-like, or auxiliary-
like, properties such as the non-root reading, which is unavailable in those
instances where negated trenge/behßve function as transitive verbs (in the
passive or when taking proper arguments).
There is yet another, more global, reason to count the auxiliary-like ver-
sion of trenger ikke/behßver ikke as a modal—many languages (Germanic,
Romance, and other Indo-European as well as non-Indo-European lan-
guages) employ a similar negated modal. Öhlschläger (1989: 3) provides a
list of authors who have treated (nicht) brauchen as a modal in German,
and Roberts and Roussou (2002) claim in fn. 4 that "[M]odal need is a
negative polarity item in present-day English." 54
Furthermore, van der Wouden (1996) examines the properties of the
"Negative Polarity Items" German brauchen, Dutch hoeven and English
need, while van der Auwera (1999) studies "negative modals" across a
53
Faarlund et al. (1997) and Thrainnson and Vikner (1995) fail to observe that
there are important differences between the negated and the non-negated version
of behove (trenge); although all of their examples employ negated version. Faar-
lund et al. (1997) are sharply criticized by Johannessen (1998) for not observing
that negation is what triggers the possibility to omit the infinitival marker ά.
54
According to an anonymous reviewer for Mouton de Gruyter, German brauchen
is a negative polarity item, but English need is just a polarity item, "one which
besides negation can also occur e.g. in questions. " I believe that even Norwegian
trenge and behove marginally could occur in questions, ...trenger han derfor vcere
elskeren hennes? '...(lit.) need he therefore be her lover?'
wide range of languages. Van der Wouden (1996), in particular, investi-

gates the striking fact that in many languages, "negative modals" display a
range of semantic and syntactic properties different from their non-negated
counterparts, such as lack of agreement, the ability to take bare infinitival
complements, and/or specific readings.
The functionalist and the formal semantic explanation for the develop-
ment of such negative modals is that there is in some sense a gap in the
paradigm for deontic modals. The reason for this is that the combination of
matte ' m u s t ' and other 'necessity' modals with negation renders the scopal
relation between the modal and the negation ambiguous:
(52) Marit mä ikke gä ut.

'Marit must not go outside.'
I. What Marit must do is [not [ go out]]]. -p

II. It is not the case that Marit [must [go out]]. -Ήρ
In many languages, the latter sense may be expressed by a specialized

negative polarity item denoting something like need.
In my opinion, the candidacy of trenger ikke/behßver ikke for modal
status is much stronger than that of fa. This is so in spite of the fact that fä
seems to have nearly all the syntactic properties associated with root mo-
dals. Its major shortcoming, however, is that it does not allow for a non-
root reading, unlike trenger ikke/beh0ver ikke. Therefore, I argue that
trenger ikke/beh0ver ikke should be considered true modals in Norwegian,
although they lack certain properties normally associated with modals.
They are in the category of deontic modals on their root reading, and their
non-root reading is, informally: It is not the case that [it must be true that
[p]]. (cf. Chapter 4 for a more detailed description of the semantics of these
modals). In addition, these two modals have 'lexical doublets', the negated
transitive verbs trenge and behove. This complicates the picture a great
deal, but for the purpose of accuracy, we include the lexical doublets of
trenger ikke/behßver ikke in our investigation as well.
7. Final inventory and inventories of seven other languages
I conclude this chapter by presenting the final inventory of Norwegian mo-

dals (section 7.1) as well as inventories from some closely related lan-
guages (section 7.2). These inventories serve to describe the broader land-
scape of Germanic modals and are primarily intended to aid the reader's
understanding; they do not play a major role in any line of argument in the
present work. I provide brief commentary on the inventories in section 7.2,
especially to contrast them with their Norwegian counterpart.
7.1. Norwegian modals: final inventory
At this point, we revise our inventory to include the two new members of
the class of Norwegian modals. Figure 7 below is identical to Figure 6 in all
relevant respects, except that it contains the two new members, trenger ikke
and behever ikke, in the deontic and the epistemic domains.
Figure 7
Norwegian modals

Kunne 'know'
Ville 'want to'
Trenger ikke 'need not
Behover ikke 'need not
Root Non-root

Burde 'should' Kunne 'can/know Skulle 'be suppos
Matte 'must' Ville 'want to'
Trenger ikke 'need not' Mätte 'must'
Behover ikke 'need not' Kunne 'may'
Trenger ikke 'need not'
Be hover ikke 'need not'
Final inventory and inventories of seven other languages 83
For the sake of clarity, we have also added the lexical Doppelgänger of
ikke trenge, ikke behove in the set of main verb modals. The only reason to
count trenge and behove as 'modal main verbs' is the existence of their
modal auxiliary versions. This situation parallels that of the other modal
main verbs, whose only merit in the modal category is having a modal aux-
iliary Doppelgänger. One might quite justifiably claim that the main verb
modals should be left out of the remainder of the investigation since they
are not modal auxiliaries. However, so many authors have argued for spe-
cific analyses based on the properties of two of these modals, notably
kunne and ville, that it is important to be aware of their position in the over-
all picture.
7.2. Inventories of modals in seven other languages
Finally, I present the inventory of modals in some languages closely related

to Norwegian. As I am not a native speaker of any of these languages, I rely
on the judgments of other authors, although my interpretations of the data
in the various works and the glosses of these data are important. Needless
to say, these tables represent oversimplified and condensed versions of
those found in the quoted works and are used only for comparison with the
Norwegian inventory.
Teleman et al. (1999) outline a system of four different modalities: epis-
temic, deontic, potential, and intentional. Their epistemic modality encom-
passes evidential readings and the dynamic category of the present work is
split into potential and volitional.
Table 8
Teleman et al (1999): Swedish
Modal gloss root sense non-root sense
behöva 'need' deontic, dynamic epistemic
böra 'ought to' deontic epistemic
ß 'get' deontic 0
kunna 'can/may' deontic, dynamic epistemic (potential)
lär 'seems-to' 0 evidential
mä, mätte 'may, should' deontic, permissive concessive (archaic)
mäste 'must' deontic epistemic
skola 'should' deontic evidential/intention
84 Nonvegian modals: the facts
The examples given in the work suggest that behöva even in its non-
negated version behaves like a true modal in Swedish, unlike its Norwegian
counterpart. Fä is categorized as a modal here, although it does not seem to
have an epistemic reading even in Swedish. Note also that Swedish em-
ploys lar, which does not seem to have a root reading, only an evidential
reading (in my terms), and that Swedish has one mätte meaning 'may' and
one modal mäste meaning 'must'. This resembles the situation in Danish,
where we find two versions of matte, as shown in Table 9.
Table 9
Thrainsson and Vikner (1995), Brandt (1999) Danish

behove 'need' deontic epistemic
burde 'ought to' deontic epistemic
gide 'be bothered' dynamic ?
kunne 'can/may' deontic, dynamic epistemic
mätte 'may' deontic, permiss. 0
mätte 'must' deontic epistemic
skulle 'should' deontic evidential
turde 'dare'(archaic) dynamic epistemic
This in not what we find in Norwegian. As mentioned in section 3.4, Nor-

wegian employs a potential version of matte in relative clauses only, where
it takes on a subjunctive-like function. Otherwise, the modal mätte only has
the reading 'must' in Norwegian. Although mätte has two versions in Da-
nish, only the necessity (not the possibility) version has a non-root reading.
It is questionable whether gide has a non-root reading, perhaps in the idiom
Jeggad vite 'I'd like to know', but even here I am not convinced that this is
a non-root reading. In any case, it is not productive on any non-root read-
ing. Turde is no longer a modal in Norwegian (Lodrup 1996a), since it has
lost its non-root reading. Accompanying this development, we find a ten-
dency of the root version of turde to appear with the infinitival marker a,
instead of selecting a bare infinitive. This is a development found even in
Danish for the modal turde (Hansen 1977).
It should be noted that the list of Icelandic modals is somewhat long
compared to those of the other languages presented here. This could be
partly due to the fact that this list includes some modals selecting for infini-
tival complements with the infinitival marker aö. In addition, there are
some modals that yield only a root reading or only a non-root reading.
Table 10
Thiainsson and Vikner (1995), Sigurdsson (2004): Icelandic
Modal gloss root sense Non-root sense
eiga ad 'ought to' deontic epistemic
geta 'can' dynamic epistemic
/« 'be allowed to' deontic ?
kunna ad 'can/may' dynamic, deontic epistemic

hljota 'must' deontic epistemic
munu 'will' ? epistemic (future?)
mega 'may' deontic epistemic
skulu 'shall' deontic evidential
vilja 'will' dynamic tendency
frnrfa 'need' dynamic ?
cetla 'intend' dynamic evidential?
verda ad 'must' deontic evidential, epistemic
Note in particular the entry for vilja. According to an anonymous reviewer

for Mouton de Gruyter, this modal has no reading beyond 'volition' for
many Icelandic speakers. That may be the case, but at least for some Ice-
landic speakers, the 'tendency to' reading is natural with this modal. On the
other hand, it seems that this modal can only give a 'tendency' reading
when it selects for a process-type verb (corresponding to an unaccusative
VP, on some analyses), as the data in (53) illustrate (Halldor Armann
Sigurdsson, p.c.):
(53) a. Mer vill ekki batna.

MeDATivE will not recover
Ί cannot seem to get well.'
b. pad vill rigna ί ägüst.

there will rain in August
'There tends to rain in August.'
c. Stüdentunum vill ekkifjölga.

Students-DEF DATIV E will not be-many
'There tends to be no increase in the number of students.'
On the other hand, this still seems to be the reading called the impersonal
dynamic reading in the present work (section 3.5); thus I would categorize
this as a root reading, not an epistemic reading. Note also the modal hjlota,
the cognate of the modal lyte, Ijote found in Nynorsk (one of the Norwe-
gian standards), but not in Bokmäl (the standard treated in the present
work); see also Faarlund, Lie, and Vannebo (1997: 526, 621-3). In
Nynorsk, this modal has the same readings as those listed for Icelandic.
Table 11
Thrainsson et al (2004): Faroese
eiga at 'ought to' deontic epistemic
kunna 'can' dynamic, deontic epistemic
munna 'will' ? epistemic
mega 'must' deontic epistemic
skula 'shall' dynamic evidential
vilja 'will' dynamic tendency
verda at 'must' deontic epistemic
Note that even in the list of Faroese modals, there are modals that require
the presence of an infinitival marker with complements. Thrainsson et al
state that only non-root modals allow for expletive subjects and weather-it
in Faroese; root modals require their subjects to be human or at least ani-
mate (306). This is a generalization claimed to hold for modals many dif-
ferent languages. I discuss this (actually false) claim thoroughly in Chapter
4. Judging from the glosses, the reading of vilja is the same as that in Ice-
landic and thus would not count as a non-root reading in the present work.
One detail worth noticing is that Faroese kunna, unlike its Icelandic coun-
terpart, requires the infinitival marker on its complement only on one of its
readings, the dynamic reading (Thrainsson et al 2004: 306 - 8). This is
reminiscent of many Norwegian dialects (see footnote 38, section 4.1).
So much has been written about English modals that it is difficult to do
justice to this topic by means of a modest table. However, I would like to
mention that many authors advocate the view that the past forms would,
should, might, could are in fact a distinct category of modals, not behaving
as the past versions of will, shall, may, and can (Bybee 1985: 197).
Table 12
Palmer (1986), Denison (1993): English
Modal root sense non-root sense
will dynamic (archaic) epistemic, tendency, future
shall deontic (archaic) prediction/future
may deontic epistemic
can dynamic tendency (?)
must deontic epistemic
ought to deontic epistemic
dare dynamic epistemic
need (not) dynamic epistemic
Note also that the three readings listed as non-root versions of will amount
to the quantificational reading (Brennan 1996; Carlson 1977): the tendency
reading (A tree will have leaves), the future reading (It will definitely rain
tomorrow) and what has become known as the proper epistemic reading
(That will be the mailman). According to Sweetser (1990: 55), the last two
are in fact quite similar, "but the epistemic use of will is an extension from
the will of actual futurity to purely epistemic futurity: the actual event is not
in the future, but only its verification."
Like their English counterparts, German modals have been studied for
centuries. Thus, most readers will note important information missing from
the table below. I ask the more interested reader to consult one or more of
the works cited here for more accurate and detailed information.
Table 13
Diewald (1999) Heibig und Buscha (1993), Öhlschläger (1986) German
dürfen 'dare, may' deontic epistemic (dürfte)
können 'can' dynamic, deontic epistemic
mögen 'would like to' dynamic concessive, epistemic
müssen 'must' deontic epistemic
sollen 'be supposed to' deontic evidential
wollen 'will' dynamic evidential
(nicht) ' (not) need' dynamic epistemic
brauchen
I would like to mention that there are important differences between modals
in Norwegian and German; even when a modal has cognates in both lan-
guages there are semantic differences. For instance, in German the modal
sollen expresses that someone plans or intends for ρ to take place. How-
ever, "the one who does so [i.e. the planner] cannot be identical with the
individual referred to by the subject of the sentence in which sollen oc-
curs," according to Kratzer (2002: 313). In this respect, Norwegian differs
from German. Thus, compare (54a) and (54b) below: the former is not fe-
licitous, as Kratzer says, "if it is mine but no-one else's wish that I become
a baker." The Norwegian sentence in (54b) is fully felicitous even though
becoming a baker is my own idea, supported by no other being in the uni-
verse. 35
(54) a. Ich soll ein Bäcker werden. (German)

I shall a baker become
Ί am supposed to become a baker.'
b. Jeg skal bli baker. (Norwegian)

I shall become baker
Ί am going to be a baker.'
Likewise, in German the modal wollen has an evidential reading, 'the sub-
ject claims that p'. Norwegian does not have this reading for wollen's cog-
nate ville, at least not productively. However, there are certain idiom-like
collocations where this reading occurs, such as (55a); archaic occurrences
in the literature, such as (55b); and certain instances where it seems that
this reading is intended, as in (55c) (taken from a web version of the news-
paper VG, the context favours the reading given in the translation):
55
Note also the following translation problem: the Norwegian sentence in (i) can-
not be translated into German by means of sollen; the Norwegian sentence implies
that the intention is that of the subject (at least there is no necessity that the inten-
tion of any other party is involved). Instead, the modal wollen must be used, to
denote the subject's own intention. Thanks to Herbert Pütz for this example.
(i) Hvis du skal synge i kirka, mä du ha pene klcer.
if you shall sing in church-DEF, must you have nice clothes
(ii) Wer in der Kirche singen will, muss schöne Klamotten anzeigen.
who in the church sing wants, must nice clothes on-put
'If you are going to sing in the church, you need to wear nice clothes.'
(55) a. Det viljeg bare ha sagt, at...

that will I only have said that
Ί claim that...,'/ 'Let the records show that...'
b. Der sitter den skarve kopist og vil forstä segpä vin!

there sits that wretched copyist and will understand REFL
on wine
'This wretched copyist sits there and pretends to know

something about wine!'
c. George Clooney vil vcere ung.

George Clooney will be young
'George Clooney likes to think he is young.'
Note that this modal selects for a human or animate subject in German.
Thus, this modal in particular would pose a problem for analyses of eviden-
tials as raising verbs (Chapter 4), since raising verbs are typically believed
to impose no selectional requirements onto their syntactic subjects.
Table 14
Barbiers (1995), De Schutter (1994): Dutch
Modal Gloss root sense non-root sense
moeten 'must' deontic, dynamic epistemic
zullen 'will' deontic, dynamic epistemic
willen 'want' deontic, dynamic epistemic
mögen 'likes' deontic, dynamic epistemic
kunnen 'can' deontic, dynamic epistemic
(nicht) hoven '(not) need' deontic, dynamic epistemic
(be)horen 'be supposed to' deontic, dynamic epistemic
De Scutter, in König and Van der Auwera (1994: 472), claims that there are
at least three categories of modality in Dutch: epistemic, deontic, and fac-
tive (the last is referred to as dispositional in Barbiers 1995, I believe), but
"on the whole each type makes use of the same set of auxiliaries." Barbiers
(1995) makes essentially the same claim—that these readings are found
with (almost) all modals in Dutch.
Another thing to note about Dutch modals, as compared to their Scandi-
navian and German counterparts, is that they seem to allow for a wider
range of non-verbal complements than modals in the other languages. For

instance, Dutch modals allow for adjectival complements in addition to
directionals. This is impossible in Norwegian, contrary to the claim in Bar-
biers (2002: fn.l) that these constructions in Dutch and Norwegian are sub-
ject to the same restrictions.
(56) a. Dezeflez moet vol. (Dutch)

this bottle must full
'This bottle must be full.'
b. Denne flaska mä/ber/skal *(vcere) full. (Norwegian)

this bottle must/should/shall * (be) full
'This bottle should be full.'
This concludes my survey of the inventory of modals in some other Ger-

manic languages. As mentioned above, I hope that these inventories may
augment the reader's understanding of Norwegian modals. The inventories
are also surprisingly similar from a semantic point of view. An aspiring
modal typically denotes (or used to denote) a complex relation between
some inner state of an experiencer subject (physical or mental ability, obli-
gation, disposition, urge, need) and some potential, but as yet unrealized,
action wanted, demanded or refused by some representative for society
(owing, granting, promising). Thus the prototypical argument frame of an
aspiring modal is something like the following:
(57) Promise, grant, owe, allow, require,... etc. (x, y, (to v)).
(for instance, χ promises y to v.)
The source of modality (the authority giving the permission, for instance)
could be the χ argument or the y argument, and the goal of modality (the
agent completing the action) could be the χ or the y argument. At some
point, the source argument typically becomes optional or demoted, and we
are left with a 'control verb' argument frame with a subject and an infiniti-
val complement. At an even later stage, the proposition-scope reading be-
comes possible, and there are no longer any selectional restrictions between
the verb and the subject. This eventually results in the non-root reading.
Diewald (1999) provides a detailed diachronic analysis of German modals
along these lines.
Thus, there is a certain prediction here, that verbs like promise are good
candidates to become modals at some point in the future. In fact, in Ger-
man, we find examples where versprechen 'promise' is already used in
impersonal constructions, becoming a so-called reanalysis verb (Arad
1998, Johnson 1985); cf. also Abraham (2002).
(58) Es versprach zu regnen.

it promised to rain
'It seemed that it was going to rain.'
The argument structure of Norwegian modals is discussed at length in

Chapter 4. That chapter also contains a discussion on reanalysis verbs, as
these verbs resemble modals in many respects.
Chapter 3
Analyzing Modals: a Survey of Recent Proposals
1. Two central notions
The existing studies of modals address a wide range of topics and different
authors focus on different issues. Ideally, a survey such as the one pre-
sented in this chapter should touch upon most issues relevant to the analysis
and interpretation of modals. On the other hand, a useful comparison of
proposals belonging to different frameworks, or even different varieties of
the same framework, requires that the author severely narrow the scope of
theoretical constructs being compared and direct attention towards specific
phenomena. In this survey of recent proposals, I will focus on two ques-
tions: whether or not the author of the work being discussed suggests that
modals assign a semantic role to their subjects and whether or not the au-
thor proposes for the modal a specific base-generated or derived insertion
site in a syntactic structure, a notion replaced by external and internal
merge in the current versions of the Principles and Parameters Theory (the
P&P framework). 1 To establish the terminology fundamental to this discus-
sion, I will first discuss the notions theta-role (θ-role) and functional pro-
jection, two theoretical constructs of P&P Theory of particular interest in
the modals literature.
1.1. Theta-roles
There has been much debate about the argument structure and theta-
properties of modals and specifically about whether modals assign theta-
1
In what follows, both the terms insertion and {external) merge will be used al-
though there is a discrepancy between them. Insertion indicates that some element
is placed into a pre-existing slot in a phrase marker. In contrast, the operation
Merge takes a pair of syntactic objects (SOi and SO2) and replaces them with a
new combined syntactic object SOi_2, as discussed in Chomsky (1995a: 226).
Two central notions 93
roles. An important issue is the definition of the term theta-role (θ-role),

which determines how these questions are answered.
The vast majority of authors investigating the possible θ-properties or
argument-taking properties of modals do not address the specific nature of
the semantic roles potentially associated with a given modal construction.
In an attempt to fill this gap, I will briefly discuss some widely held as-
sumptions and seminal works in the recent literature on modals. Most
works examined in this survey are grounded in variants of P&P or other
generative frameworks—such as Lexical-Functional Grammar (Bresnan
2001)—frameworks that typically use the term theta-role.
For linguists studying the relationship between verbs and their argu-
ments, a crucial question has always been whether it is possible to make
semantic generalizations about (NP/DP) arguments occurring in 'the same'
or corresponding positions of different verbs, whether there are prototypical
subjects (e.g. agent) or objects (e.g. patient) displaying properties that can
be attributed to the subject- and the object-position respectively. A much
quoted hypothesis on this topic within the P&P framework is Baker's
(1988) Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH), proposing a
one-to-one relationship between syntactic configurations and semantic
roles. 2 A more recent non-Chomskyan approach, known as Construction
Grammar (Goldberg 1995)3, represents one extreme on the continuum of
views. It argues that the proto-properties of specific argument positions
stem from the argument structure constructions i.e. "form-meaning corre-
spondences that exist independently of particular verbs. That is,
...[constructions themselves carry meaning, independently of the words in
the sentence" (Goldberg 1995: 1). In this approach, the verb is seen as an
element that might enrich the construction, but is not primarily responsible
for the thematic properties of the argument positions in it. Instead, the se-
mantic properties of any position in a given construction are to a large ex-
2
Another influential paper is Hale and Keyser (1993: 53) in which the authors
argue that the predicate argument structure of lexical elements is part of their
strictly lexical specification, giving rise to a syntactic representation of "an unam-
biguous system of structural relations," holding within a projection of lexical ar-
gument structures or lexical relational structures (LRSs).
3
Goldberg (1995: 6): "Construction Grammar has grown largely out of work on
frame semantics; Fillmore (1975, 1977, 1982, 1985)"; the basic tenet of Construc-
tion Grammar is developed in Fillmore and Kay (1993), Fillmore, Kay and O'Con-
nor (1988), Lakoff (1987), Brugman (1988), and Lambrecht (1994).
94 A survey of recent proposals
tent predetermined. Borer (2003) and Äfarli (2004) offer other recent exo-
skeletal proposals on argument structure within the P & P f r a m e w o r k .
At the other extreme of the continuum are works such as Marantz
(1984), arguing for Individual Thematic Roles (the term is due to D o w t y
1991) w h e r e the thematic (semantic) role(s) assigned by a specific verb is
unique to that particular verb. Marantz (1984: 31) argues that
[E]ach semantic role assigner may, in principle, assign a unique role or a

unique set of roles. For example, although their logical objects are both
things acted upon so that they move, throw and push need not assign pre-
cisely the same semantic role; that is, the throwee and pushee roles may be
distinct. 4
A m o r e recent proposal on argument structure and thematic roles is A r a d ' s

(1998), including a survey of various theories on lexical specification of
thematic roles, w h e r e she states that
The term thematic relations is introduced by Gruber (1965) to refer to the

interpretation of NP arguments. These relations include, primarily, a theme,
that is the NP which is understood as going through some motion (hence
the term thematic relations), as well as agent, location, goal, source (among
others). Further developments of these relations are in Fillmore (1968) and
Jackendoff (1972). (21)
Arad herself chooses to deal with theta-roles in aspectual terms, which in

m y opinion places her theory between the two extremes mentioned ear-
lier—"almost everything is due to the construction," i.e. exo-skeletalism
versus "almost everything is due to the verb," endo-skeletalism (terms due
to Borer 2003). Arad (1998: 59) concludes that there are syntactically en-
4
Marantz does not entirely dismiss terms such as agent and theme·, he still sees
them as semantic role classes. However, these classes are not linked to positions
such as subject or direct object: "Nevertheless, although semantic role assigners
may assign their own unique roles, there are, apparently, linguistically significant
classes of semantic roles. I consider terms like 'agent' and 'theme' as naming such
classes. On this view there is no reason to exclude a given semantic role, say that
role assigned by swim down the river, from being both an agent and a theme, that
is, from belonging to more than one semantic class" (1984: 31). And he continues
in footnote 6: "Alternatively, these terms may be seen as naming features of se-
mantic roles. For example, the logical subject of run in Elmer ran away from the
rabid porcupine might be [+agent], since Elmer is an active participant of the run-
ning, and [+theme], since Elmer undergoes a change of state (from a position near
the rabid porcupine to a position farther away)."
coded theta-roles, but argues that they are more abstract than has often been
assumed:
Aspect, or event structure, is that part of a verb's meaning which is relevant
for its interface with syntax. Thematic roles are best characterized in aspec-
tual terms... I will take the proto-agent role to be an Originator of an event,
and the proto-patient to be a Measurer of an event. Some part of the mean-
ing of a verb, in particular, the part which is related to its event structure, is
given by the syntax in which the verb is projected. Syntactic positions
themselves are associated with some aspectual interpretation which is as-
signed to arguments by virtue of occupying that position. 5
Within the literature on modals in the generativist f r a m e w o r k s , authors

typically do not discuss the specific theta-role potentially assigned by a
modal. This practice is not restricted to works on modals; it is quite com-
m o n to invoke the term theta-role without ever going into the specific role
(agent, patient, experiencer, etc.) one has in mind. In fact, it is not necessar-
ily seen as part of θ-theory itself to address this type of question. Culicover
(1997: 21), for example, states that
The θ-roles assigned by a given lexical item form part of the lexical entry
of that item in the Lexicon.... The question of what these θ-roles are, how
they differ from one another, and what the possible θ-roles are is not gen-
erally taken to be the responsibility of θ-theory in a narrow sense. The
function of θ-theory is to explain the syntax of θ-roles, that is, to explain
how syntactic structure determines the assignment of θ-roles to particular
constituents of the sentence. For example, θ-theory seeks to show how the
object θ-role of a verb is assigned to the direct object, without accounting
for the fact that the object θ-role of one verb (say arrest) is different from
that of another verb (say resemble).
Central to the theta-theory of the G o v e r n m e n t and Binding ( G B ) variety of

the P & P f r a m e w o r k are the Projection Principle and the Theta-criterion
( C h o m s k y 1981: 29, 36). 6 Several of the proposals reviewed here are in the
5
Arad (1998: 261) also investigates the types of theta-roles relevant for syntactic
realization: "Experiencers have no relevance for syntactic realization.,..[A]ny ar-
gument can be interpreted as an experiencer under certain circumstances." She also
states that "[W]e did not come across any evidence which indicates that agents and
causers are in different structural positions" (124).
6
The Theta-criterion is retained in the Minimalist Program (the current version of
P&P). The Projection Principle (and the D-structure level) is by and large aban-
doned; cf. Chomsky (1995a: 188-189).
GB framework; thus I provide these two principles to facilitate a better

understanding of the analyses discussed later.
The Projection Principle: Representations at each syntactic level (LF and
D- and S-structure) are projected from the lexicon, in that they observe the
subcategorization properties of lexical items.
The Theta-criterion: Each argument bears one and only one θ-role, and
each θ-role is assigned to one and only one argument.
The Projection Principle states that (subcategorized) θ-roles cannot disap-

pear or be added in the course of a syntactic derivation. The Theta-criterion
(θ-criterion) specifies that there is a one-to-one relationship between argu-
ments and theta-roles. The Theta-criterion, in particular, has proven impor-
tant in the more recent literature on modals.
It is a widely held assumption that root modals, unlike non-root modals,
display a θ-relation to their subject. Specifically, a root modal is believed to
obligatorily assign a semantic role to its subject. In the sentence John must
stay in his office, for example, there is a 'mwsf-relation' between the com-
plement stay in his office and the subject John, such that John is the one
who must do something. Since the complement lexical verb or predicate
(here stay in his office) is also believed to assign a theta-role to this subject,
one has to propose some mechanism to prevent the argument John from
receiving two theta-roles in violation of the θ-criterion. One solution is to
analyze root modals as control verbs and non-root modals as raising verbs.
This analysis captures the intuition that root modals, like control verbs in
general, seemingly assign a semantic role to their subject, whereas non-root
modals, like raising verbs in general, do not (but see the discussion of root
modals as two-place predicates and non-root modals as one-place predi-
cates in section 3.5 of Chapter 2).
(1) θ
a.
Ψ
DPSUBJ MVROOT
1
i
[PRO
1
V...]
:
control verb
JON MÄ vcere pä kontoret
JON MUST be in office-DEF
'John must stay in his office.' (obligation)
b. e MVep [DPSUBJ V...] raising verb

Jon/ mä t] vcere pä kontoret
'John must be in his office.' (it must be the case that...)
In the control structure in (la), the base-generated subject of the modal

obligatorily controls (gives reference to) the PRO subject of the main verb.
In the raising structure in (lb), the base-generated subject of the main verb
raises to fill the subject position of the modal, but the relationship of the
modal and the subject is purely syntactic and does not signal an underlying
semantic (Θ-) relation.
Throughout this survey, I will underscore how the different authors po-
sition their analysis with respect to the control versus raising analysis of
root and epistemic (i.e. non-root) modals. I will also subject this analysis to
further scrutiny in Chapter 4.
1.2. Functional projections
One might quite rightfully claim that the central issue in P&P in the 1990s
was the possible inventory of functional projections in natural language.
Epstein et al. (1996: 11) claim that
A standard distinction exists in linguistic theory between contentful ele-
ments and functional elements. Word stems are contentful elements,
whereas inflectional morphemes are functional elements.... [I]n the Gov-
ernment and Binding framework, the distinction between contentful (or
lexical) elements gradually took the following shape. Functional elements
are generated as heads of independent phrasal projections.... The functional
heads ...consist of features associated with inflectional morphology.
The piece de resistance in the theory of functional projections has been the
widespread assumption that the inventory of functional categories and pro-
jections should be universal across all languages, possibly even across all
sentence types. Cinque (1999: 52) states that
If we ignore agreement and negation, the partial relative orders of func-

tional heads for which there is overt evidence 7 ...in different languages ap-
pear to be compatible with a single overall order. Thus, putting the partial
relative orders of functional heads found into a single, more comprehensive,
order seems to provide no contradiction, at least in a more careful examina-
tion. I take this to be significant, that is, nonaccidental. In the interpretation
I suggest, this is so because the partial orders found overtly in different lan-
guages are subsequences of a single universal sequence of functional heads,
present in all languages.
N u m e r o u s authors have found the 'universal hierarchy' hypothesis

unlikely. A n early protest is found in Iatridou (1990a: 552):
The question that arises at that point is more general: are data from one lan-
guage in favor of a functional projection sufficient for us to postulate that
the same functional category exists in all languages? If the null hypothesis
is that all languages are maximally alike, the answer is yes.... However, it
unavoidably leads to an explosion of functional categories.
Such an explosion of functional categories has indeed taken place. A s Cin-

que (1999: 106) admits, "[T]he functional structure of the clause that w e
arrive at...is very rich; at first sight, outrageously r i c h " : 8
The universal hierarchy of clausal functional projection (a second ap-
proximation)
[/rarcAfyMoodspeech act [/ortwttirfefyMoodevaiuative [ allegedly Moodevide,itai

[ probably Moodepistemic [ once T(Past) [ rtewT(Future) [ perhaps Mood irrealjs
[ necessarily ModneceSsity {possibly Modpossibiiity [usually Asphabituai
[ again Asprepetitive (I) [ often Aspfrequenlatlve a ) [ intentionally Modvoiitionai
[ quickly Aspceierative (i) [ already T( Anterior) [ no longer Aspterminative
[ still Asp continuatlve [ always Asppe[fe(;t (?) [ Aspretr0Spectjve [ SOOn Aspproximatjve
[ briefly Asp durative [ characteristically(l) Aspgeneric/Progressive [ almost A s p p r 0 S p e c t l v e
[ completetly AspSgcompietive (i) [ tutto AspPicomPietive [ well Voice [fast/early
Aspcelerative(II) [ again A s p j j
repet ( Π ) [ often Asp frequ( . ntative(II)
t ve [completetly
AspsgCompletive(II)
7
Cinque's overt evidence is of four kinds: the order of 'non-closing' (agglutinat-
ing) suffixes, the order of'closing' (inflectional) suffixes and auxiliaries, the order
of functional particles, and the order of various combinations of these elements.
8
This list still leaves out some important functional heads mentioned elsewhere:
"All in all, there is some evidence... justifying the postulation of three distinct root
modal projections, in the order:...>Mod vo i it j on >Mod o b | i g a t l o r l >Modabiijty/Permission"
(Cinque 1999: 90).
To maintain such a rich, hierarchically fixed inventory of underlying f u n c -

tional projections, authors have to account for the fact that no language
seems to overtly employ all functional heads on C i n q u e ' s list. Roberts and
Roussou (2002: 25) suggest the following:
Let us notate a functional feature F that requires a PF-realisation [i.e. a
phonological realisation] as F*. Parametrisation is seen as the random as-
signment of the diacritic * to features typically associated with functional
heads. Where the diacritic is assigned to a feature, that feature, F*, must
have a PF realisation. Again, * is assigned to F in the lexicon, following
Borer's (1984) idea that parametric variation is a facet of the lexicon. The
overall conception of the lexicon, then, is that it contains the following ele-
ments:
a. Lexical items, specified as +/-V, +/-N, with PF and LF properties

given.
b. Substantive universale encoded as interpretable features of functional

heads.
c. * assigned in a language-particular fashion to (b).
[N]otice that under this view of variation there is no selection among the
universal set of features. In other words, all languages have the same set of
functional features; what varies is whether and how these features are real-
ised in PF. This seems to be the null hypothesis and is in principle open to
falsification, although Cinque's (1999) results suggest that the null hy-
pothesis is correct. Thus there is no parametric variation in this respect [my
italics].
There are, however, various w a y s to implement the idea that "there is no

selection a m o n g the universal set of features." O n e might imagine that one
overt element (e.g. a verb) could realize more than one functional head by
m e a n s of external merge of the verb in one head position and subsequent
m o v e m e n t to another (Roberts and Roussou 2002). There is also the option
w h e r e two or more features could be spelled out by the same head without
any m o v e m e n t of that head, which is the case for the English T(ense) and
V(erb) features, according to Bouchard (1995: 388):
[T]ense in French is a strong morpheme, and so it licenses an independent

syntactic node. The complex of features V+T occupies two nodes in syntax,
one licensed by the features of T, one licensed by V.... Both the lower posi-
tion of the V+T complex (the verbal position) and the higher position of the
V+T complex (the Tense position) are licensed with respect to the semantic
representation.... In English, on the other hand, Tense is weak, so the V+T
complex licenses only one node in syntax.
This could be an example of parametrization selecting one of the two op-

tions, whether or not a certain Universal Feature F licenses a separate head
H . That is, either F is 'strong' and licenses the projection of a separate
functional head H, such as Tense in French, according to Bouchard, or F is
' w e a k ' and must resort to being hosted by a head Η licensed by s o m e other
F. This is the case for Tense in English, according to Bouchard: Tense must
be hosted by the head V licensed by the verb. In the latter case, F is a free-
loader with no projection of its own, but it is still a universal feature and
must be represented in the syntactic structure.
Furthermore, one might question the hypothesis that there is no selec-
tion a m o n g the universal set of features. Äfarli (1995: 140) claims that
There is a possibility that the functional structure of clauses is canonically

given, such that all languages employ the same set of functional seeds [i.e.
features], I find this possibility extremely unlikely and I leave it out of fur-
ther consideration. The alternative possibility is that the pool of possible
functional seeds is universal, but that languages and even different clause
types within a language actually employ a subset of seeds from this pool. In
that case it is an empirical question whether a given seed is employed in
some language or clause type. The empirical evidence for the number and
kinds of functional seeds employed in a clause is possibly quite complex.
Here, I will briefly discuss two simple criteria that may be relevant:
[a] A clause type exhibits a functional morpheme if that clause type em-
ploys a corresponding functional seed (& projection).
[b] A clause type exhibits a functional morpheme, if and only if that clause
type employs a corresponding functional seed (& projection).
[a] takes the presence of functional morphology as empirical evidence for

the existence of a functional seed and projection, but it does not exclude the
possibility that there exist functional seeds and projections without any
morphological correlate, (b) excludes the latter possibility, (b) thus amounts
to a kind of naive recoverability constraint to the effect that every func-
tional seed, and in particular every covert functional seed, must somehow
have a morphologically visible effect (which does not necessarily mean that
the seed itself is visible).
E v e n in an approach where each language selects f r o m a pool of universal

features, one may maintain something along the lines of a universal hierar-
chy. Thräinsson (1996: 254) 9 notes that
Clausal architecture is determined by UG in the sense that UG defines a set

of functional categories, {F,, F 2 , ... F n } that languages "select" from. For
any functional categories Fj and F,. the sequence will be uniform whenever
they occur, i.e. if L^ and L 2 each instantiate both F, and Fj and F, c-
commands Fj in L 1; then Fj c-commands Fj in L 2 .
O f course, it is possible that not every functional category or feature is sub-

j e c t to selection, as Epstein et al. (1996: fn. 9) point out:
One way to think of this is to assume that a small number of inflectional

features are present in all languages of the world, whereas a larger number
may be relevant to specific languages only. 10
T h e possible locus of parametrization of Functional Categories will vary

depending on w h i c h of these assumptions one accepts. To sum up, (2) lists
the assumptions discussed above:
(2) a. Functional Categories are not subject to selection. All languages

employ all Functional Categories in all sentence types.
a'. Functional Categories are subject to selection. Not all languages

employ all Functional Categories in all sentence types.
b. Each Functional Category licenses the projection of a separate

functional head Η in a syntactic structure.
b'. Some Functional Categories do not license the projection of a

separate functional head in a syntactic structure. Instead, they
are hosted by some other head H2.
9
This is Thräinsson's "weak version" of The Structural Uniformity Hypothesis,
(SUH). Thräinsson (1996: 257) presents another hypothesis, The Limited Diver-
sion Hypothesis, which allows for a) selection of only certain Functional Catego-
ries in each language; b) variation between clause types within one and the same
language with respect to which Functional Categories are employed; and c) varia-
tion from one language to another with respect to the dominance relations between
the functional projections hosting the Functional Categories.
10
The note continues: "What is syntactically universal, however, is the way the
presence of inflectional features determines movement and word order."
c. Not all Functional Categories are spelled out. Only those catego-
ries that are marked F* (+phonological realization) in the lexicon
of a given language must be given a phonological realization.
d. An F* (an F which requires a phonological realization) may be

satisfied in one of two ways. Either there exists a designated
morpheme (e.g. a Tense morpheme) which is merged directly
into this position, "satisfaction via Merge," or there does not ex-
ist a designated morpheme, and some other element raises to
spell out the feature F* (e.g. the verb in languages without desig-
nated Tense morphemes), "satisfaction via Move."
The present proposal will follow Äfarli (1995), Thräinsson (1996) and oth-
ers in assuming that some functional categories are subject to selection;
some functional features are universal to all languages, others are language
specific. I will also follow Äfarli (1995) in assuming that what counts as
evidence for the presence of a specific functional projection in a given
clause type is a visible effect—a functional morpheme, a morphological
effect, or change in word order.
As already hinted at in the brief mention of Cinque's universal hierarchy
of functional projections, authors have tried to account for the properties of
modals by suggesting specific functional projections that modals may oc-
cupy. Typically, the modal is seen as constituting or spelling out the head
of a designated functional projection, usually a Mod(ality)P(hrase) of some
kind. The various readings and properties of modals are then assumed to be
side effects of the specific slot occupied by the modal in a given structure.
Different authors embrace different views on the specific slot(s) where
modals may occur and whether or not these slots are narrowly designated
for specific modals and modality types. In the survey to follow, I will ex-
amine the different authors' views on this question.
2. Some earlier proposals
In this survey of proposals, I will focus in particular on the two questions

presented in the expository discussion: firstly, the author's view on the
possible θ-properties of modals and, by association, the author's implicit or
explicit adoption or rejection of the "control versus raising" analysis, and
Earlier proposals 103
secondly, the assumptions about the merger position/insertion site/

slot/functional projection occupied by the modal in the sentence structure.
Some of the proposals in this survey address the diachronic develop-
ment of English modal auxiliaries and one might very well wonder about
the relevance of these works for Norwegian modals. As already discussed
in Chapter 2, modals in Modern English exhibit a number of properties not
found in their Norwegian counterparts. However, modals in earlier stages
of English display a number of properties found in contemporary Norwe-
gian modals. Proposals investigating the diachronic development of Eng-
lish modals, highlighting the differences between Old/Middle English mo-
dals and Modern English modals, may thus indirectly provide insights into
the underlying differences between contemporary Norwegian and English
modals.
The proposals are not discussed in chronological order. I start out with
the oldest proposal (Roberts 1985) and then present the analyses building
on this proposal—Roberts (1993) and Roberts and Roussou (2002, 2003).
Cinque (1999) is discussed next, since this proposal shares many of the
assumptions of Roberts and Roussou (2002, 2003). Next, I look at another
relatively old paper, Vikner (1988), before examining Thräinsson and
Vikner (1995), who build (in part) on Vikner's (1988) proposal. In the re-
mainder of the chapter, chronological order is respected with certain excep-
tions: Barbiers (1995, 2002) precedes Lodrup (1996a), Dyvik (1999), and
Wurmbrand (1999, 2001). Butler (2003) and van Gelderen (2003, 2004)
come next, and Picallo (1990) is last as it deals with Romance, not Ger-
manic modals. It is included for comparison, to broaden our scope, and
because it is a much quoted paper in the literature.
2.1. Roberts (1985)
Roberts (1985) investigates the diachronic development of English modals

in a Government and Binding version of P&P. He argues that the differ-
ences between present-day English modals and their Middle English coun-
terparts can be traced back to the shifted value of one specific parameter:
Now imagine a parameter Ρ with the potential values [+F] and [-F], For
concreteness, take Ρ to be agreement systems and [+F] to be morphological
agreement, with [-F] therefore syntactic agreement. (56)
This shift w a s due to a number of (independent) changes. Roberts (1985:

46) argues that, perhaps most prominently,
[t]he frequent occurrence of periphrastic constructions involving modals
and do, combined with the impoverishment of agreement inflection led to a
change in the agreement system in the sixteenth century. The change was
from a morphological agreement system to a syntactic system. In other
words, V no longer moved into INFL in tensed clauses in order to be mor-
phologically governed by an agreement affix.... Instead, V [was] being syn-
tactically governed in its base position by some element in INFL, an auxil-
iary or abstract agreement features (AGR).
This shift is illustrated in Figure 1, adopted f r o m Roberts (1985: 46):

Figure I
a. Middle English: Af[a.n agreement affix] morphologically governs V

[V moves into INFL].
b. Modern English: [Abstract] AGR/Aux syntactically governs V

[V does not move into INFL].
NP INFL
AGR
I
Aux
This shift is considered important to the characteristics of present-day Eng-

lish m o d a l s — a s compared to lexical verbs—because, Roberts argues, mo-
dals in M i d d l e English were like all other verbs in that they were inserted in
V P with the subsequent m o v e m e n t to INFL. A f t e r the 16th century, h o w -
ever, modals were "reanalyzed as auxiliaries"" and came to be inserted

directly into INFL. This shift had a range of consequences for English mo-
dals. One important consequence was that modals lost their ability to assign
proper ('main') θ-roles because of a condition on θ - r o l e assignment (hold-
ing on S-structure) that Roberts (1985: 29) proposes:
V assigns θ-roles iff V is governed
Since INFL is an ungoverned position in present-day English, as a result of

the loss of morphological government, it follows that only modals, and not
main verbs, can appear in it. Main verbs assign θ-roles and thus have to be
inserted into the VP where they are governed by an auxiliary or an abstract
A G R present in INFL. Modals, on the other hand, lose the ability to assign
(main) θ-roles because they are banned from the VP. This proposal is not
as circular as it may appear from this summary since Roberts supports it
with a range of empirical evidence: the apparent ability of (at least some)
modals to assign θ-roles in earlier stages of English; the fact that Modern
English modals, unlike their ancestors, lack nonfmite forms; and the obser-
vation that Modern English modals, unlike main verbs, precede negation,
"assuming that negation and inversion are operations on INFL" (Roberts
1985: 47).
Roberts introduces Zubizarreta's (1982) term adjunct θ-role to account
for the "nature of the root/epistemic distinction in present-day English"
(Roberts 1985: 50). Zubizarreta treats root modals essentially as modifiers,
analogous to Jackendoff s (1972) agent-oriented adverbs. According to this
account, both root modals and agent-oriented adverbs require an agent, i.e.
they have a semantic argument.
However, this argument is always the argument of some other predicate.
So, given the θ-criterion, we are led to suppose that root modals and agent-
oriented adverbs do not assign θ-roles to their arguments. However, there
is a modification relation between the root modal and the argument.... Zubi-
11
Actually, Roberts (1985: 21) argues that modals are ordinary verbs: "The motive
for proposing that modals are members of a separate category of auxiliaries, or are
verbs marked [+Aux] is precisely the exceptional properties of modals compared
to main verbs." He argues that these properties derive from the condition on mo-
dals to occur only in INFL, which allows us to continue to regard modals as verbs.
Nevertheless, Roberts states several times that modals were reanalyzed as auxilia-
ries. One should possibly take this formulation to be a metaphor alluding to the
reanalysis of modals as base-generated in INFL.
zarreta captures this by proposing a different class of thematic relations: ad-

junct θ-roles. Adjunct θ-roles differ from 'main' θ-roles...in that they are
not subject to the θ-criterion. So adjunct θ-roles can be assigned to some
argument already bearing a θ-role. Also adjunct θ-role assignment is op-
tional.... So root modals appear in ungoverned positions in present-day
English and assign adjunct θ-roles to the agent argument in the clause in
which they appear. (Roberts 1985: 51)
Although Roberts is somewhat vague regarding this point, he implies that
epistemic modals do not assign such adjunct θ - r o l e s and this is what con-
stitutes the root/epistemic distinction. Roberts also assumes that Middle
English (ME) modals did assign 'main' θ-roles to their subjects at least in
some cases, unlike their Modern English counterparts.
With respect to the control versus raising analysis, Roberts suggests that
modals were raising verbs in Middle English and argues that
[fjurther plausibility is added to this idea by the fact that the equivalents of
modals in a number of languages are raising verbs (e.g. most Germanic and
Romance languages). (37)
However, he also provides examples that may be problematic for such an

analysis, notably sentences with what have become known as quirky sub-
jects, "oblique Case-marked NPs associated with the subject of the com-
plement clause" (38). On the assumption that oblique Case is inherent, and
that raising is motivated by the Case filter, there would be no need for the
oblique N P to raise. Thus, Roberts argues, oblique Case-marked NPs are
probably not raised, but base-generated as the subject of the modal, "con-
trolling] the P R O subject of the complement." 1 2 Hence, there is "the possi-
bility that M E modals were raising verbs", but "crucial evidence is lacking"
(39). 13
12
The exact same data utilized by Roberts to argue that some Middle English mo-
dals were control verbs (i.e. modals with quirky subjects) are used by Wurmbrand
(1999) to argue that modals are raising verbs. This is a matter of theoretical devel-
opment: the assumptions regarding the possible driving force of DP movement
were quite different in Government and Binding Theory than in The Minimalist
Program. (Cf. also fn. 10 in section 2, chapter 4.)
13
Roberts (1985: 34) relates θ-properties of modals to their increasing epistemic
use: "The use of modals as functional substitutes for the moribund system of sub-
junctive inflections...meant that modals were interpreted as clausal operators speci-
fying the mood of the clause, exactly like subjunctive inflections. Clausal operators
do not assign θ-roles, and so modals could be construed as not assigning θ-roles."
Earlier proposals 1 07
What Roberts does not address, however, is why the oblique case mark-
ing of the subject co-varies with the case-requirements of the embedded
predicate instead of the modal (which is the case at least in Modern Ice-
landic). It is possible, of course, to find a theoretical explanation for this.
One might argue that the embedded subject, PRO, needs to be controlled by
an argument bearing a case marking compatible with the case assigned by
the embedded predicate. This might very well be the case in spite of the
crucial assumption that PRO itself is not overtly assigned Case, an assump-
tion which has been questioned more recently by Sigurösson (1991). How-
ever, Roberts (1985) does not address this question (the question is not
addressed in Roberts 1993 either).
In addition, there are certain theoretical problems with this account and
some of its predictions are not borne out. One such issue is pointed out by
Roberts (1985: 31) himself:
Since [the stipulation that V assigns θ-roles iff V is governed] prevents
auxiliaries from appearing in governed positions, we predict auxiliaries to
be incompatible with agreement. This prediction is correct for modals, but
incorrect for the aspectuals have and be.... For the purposes of this paper,
we make the simplifying assumption that aspectuals show inherent agree-
ment, and so are in fact not governed by AGR.
This is not the only problem with this proposal; even if one makes the as-
sumption above, aspectual auxiliaries constitute a problem. They may ap-
pear in INFL because they assign no θ-roles (Roberts' fn. 8); however,
Roberts (1985: 47) also assumes that "INFL, like any other node, contains
only one position." Like Norwegian, English has sentences with modals
preceding a perfect auxiliary (an aspectual): John must have passed his
exam (before going abroad). The obvious question is: what is the position
of the aspectual in this scenario? To clarify, we will examine Roberts' pro-
posed structure for Modern English once more:
Figure 2
NP INFL VP
AGR \
Aux
In the string John must have passed his exam, the modal must occupies
INFL. Either the aspectual must be part of INFL, which is impossible since
INFL contains only one position occupied by the modal, or the aspectual is
part of the VP. In this case, it is not obvious that the aspectual would not be
governed by the modal, and as such constitutes a counterexample to the
generalization that only verbs assigning θ-roles may be governed; recall
that V assigns θ-roles i f f V is governed.
Another problem is the possible universality of this approach. Roberts
(1985: 32) proposes that "languages with 'rich' agreement systems in fact
lack A G R " and thus cannot employ "syntactic agreement"; this means that
obligatory V-to-INFL movement of main verbs should apply to languages
with 'rich' agreement systems only.
However, it seems counterintuitive to describe the Mainland Scandina-
vian languages, such as Norwegian, as languages with rich agreement sys-
tems. As mentioned in Chapter 2, Norwegian lacks subject-verb agreement;
in fact, it has even less agreement than English. And yet, Norwegian has
V2, i.e. obligatory movement of the verb into INFL (V-to-INFL) in the
scenario presented here. 14 Furthermore, Norwegian modals have none of
the effects that Roberts (1985) attributes to the obligatory insertion of mo-
dals into INFL such as the loss of nonfinite forms. According to Roberts
(1985), the insertion of the modal into INFL should take place obligatorily
in languages with 'poor' agreement systems. However, Norwegian modals
show no signs of being inserted directly into INFL, in spite of the 'poor'
agreement system in Norwegian. Thus, Norwegian exhibits the properties
Roberts (1985) ascribes to languages with 'rich' agreement systems al-
though it seems counterintuitive at best to describe Norwegian as such a
language.
14
In a more recent theoretical scenario, employing a more elaborate sentence struc-
ture, authors typically distinguish between V-to-INFL movement and V2 move-
ment. For instance, Vikner (1995: 29) claims that "in Danish, movement to I0...is
even more restricted...; no verbs actually occur in 1°, but all verbs on the other
hand may move through 1° on their way to C°." Movement to C, not movement to
I(nfl) is what constitutes V2 in this picture, cf. also Bobaljik and Thräinsson
(1998).
2.2. Roberts (1993)
This proposal is similar to Roberts (1985) in important respects, but it also

contains a comparison between N E (Modern English), M E (Middle Eng-
lish) and M S c (Mainland Scandinavian: Danish, Swedish and Norwegian)
modals. Furthermore, the clausal architecture Roberts proposes here is
much more complex than that in the earlier account, as figure 3 (Roberts
1993: 280) demonstrates:
Figure 3
C
The V P is still the domain where (main) theta-roles are assigned, and there
are some important differences between M S c / M E modals on one hand and
N E modals on the other:
MSc modals are lexically inserted in V rather than in T. This analysis cap-
tures the similarity between MSc and ME, and the differences between both
of these systems and NE. (Robert 1993: 320)
Underlying this difference, Roberts claims, is a Diachronic Reanalysis that

took place in the early 16th century (Roberts' (96)):
NP; [ T ° do/Mj Γ 1 ] tj [t, VP] => N P [T° did/M] VP 1 5
According to this reanalysis, English modals came to be inserted directly

into T, while earlier they were inserted into V. The T"1 in the first square
15
I presume that did signals that do is inserted directly into T(ense), whereas ear-
lier do was inserted into V and raised to T. Thus, the element inserted into Τ is
necessarily tensed, whereas the element inserted in V could be construed as non-
inflected, subsequently picking up the inflection residing in T.
brackets is a functional head parasitic on the T-head in ME and MSc, spell-

ing out an affix and forcing the verb to move to T. The reason MSc has
retained this head, while NE lost it in the course of diachronic develop-
ment, is that MSc languages never lost their infinitival endings and English
did:
This reanalysis [in English] was triggered by the loss of the infinitival affix,
making T° a possible site of lexical insertion of X° -elements. In MSc, we
find that an infinitival affix has been preserved, as the ending -e/-a e.g. Da.
kob-e Nor. kjop-e, Sw. köp-a ('buy'). That this is the infinitive ending can
be seen by comparing the imperative forms, which are just the bare stems
kob, kjop, köp with the infinitive forms. So we take [the infinitival affix] -e
/-a to be a realization of T"1 in MSc. (Roberts 1993: 320)
The problem of deriving the behaviour of modals from loss of agreement,

present in Roberts (1985), is handled in Roberts (1993: 320):
Given that...MSc has undergone a development parallel to English in losing
its agreement system and in losing V-to-Agr, this in turn means that the
Dfiachronic] R[eanalysis]...must be independent of the loss of the agree-
ment system and the loss of V-to-Agr. This conclusion is consistent with
what we have said in this chapter, but inconsistent with the claims in Rob-
erts (1985).... So we arrive at the following comparative picture of the de-
velopment of English and of MSc:
a. loss of agreement = loss of Agr-1.

b. Development of modals/do = loss of T - l .
16
(a) holds for both English and MSc. (b) holds only for English.
The other problem in Roberts (1985), the status of aspectuals, is also ad-
dressed in Roberts (1993: 312): "they are best treated as base-generated as
heads of their own VPs." Since theta-assignment is no longer explained in
terms of government, the more serious problems with aspectuals seem to
disappear in this account. However, the status of aspectuals remains some-
what unclear. If aspectuals constitute the head of their own VP, they must
constitute a peculiar type of Vs, since they are the only V-heads that may
move to Agr, just like modals: "as is well known, the N E aspectual auxilia-
16
"There are thus no grounds in MSc for assigning modals to a special syntactic
position, in the way that there are in N E " (Roberts 1993: 319).
ries have and be raise to A g r " (312). Still, they constitute an exceptional
class of V s since they do not assign theta-roles like ordinary verbs.
Roberts (1993: 315) also addresses the possible syntactic differences be-
t w e e n root and epistemic modals in M E , by means of the control versus
raising analysis ( M E modals are dubbed premodals, a term adopted f r o m
Lightfoot 1974, 1979):
Many cases of premodals are formally ambiguous between raising and con-
trol interpretations. It is plausible to identify root readings (ability, volition,
obligation) with control and epistemic readings (necessity and possibility)
with raising since in root readings the subject receives a theta-role (roughly
experiencer) from the premodal, while in the epistemic reading it does not.
T h e possible assignment of theta-roles still differentiates root f r o m epis-

temic modals in that root modals assign adjunct theta-roles, whereas epis-
temic modals do not:
[EJpistemic17 modality can be syntactically expressed either through assign-
ing a theta-role or not. Since epistemic modality is an operator, where the
theta-assignment option is not taken, the modal will occupy an operator po-
sition in syntax, typically T°. The former choice gives rise to a raising verb;
the latter to a modal auxiliary. (Roberts 1993: 325)
Still, the reader is left with the impression that Roberts (1993) offers at best
a rudimentary account of the possible differences between root and epis-
temic modals in M o d e r n English. H e does not go into the specific readings
he would classify as root or epistemic and the descriptions of these catego-
ries remain vague and unsatisfactory.
2.3. Roberts and Roussou (2002, 2003)
Roberts and R o u s s o u (2002, 2003 l 8 ); henceforth R & R , present an analysis

of English modals that is a variation on the theme discussed above. It is cast
in a f r a m e w o r k adopting C i n q u e ' s (1999) universal hierarchy of functional
projections, utilizing the universal hierarchy to yield n e w insights into what
17
As it stands, this quote seems to me to be somewhat contradictory. I suspect that
the first epistemic in this quote should be omitted; alternatively, the second sen-
tence "Since epistemic modality..." should maybe continue "in English."
18
The 2002 paper constitutes a chapter of Roberts and Roussou's (2003) book on
grammaticalization. I will refer to the 2002 paper in what follows.
is in fact "well-trodden ground" (2002: 5).19 Pre-16th-century examples

containing a modal and a bare infinitive complement "must have had a
biclausal structure [given that] infinitival complements contain Τ and main
clauses feature V-to-T movement" (R&R 2002: 8):
[TP Sone [TP hit masi [VP t ^ [TP Τ [Vp ilimpen]]]]] soon it may happen
Again, the infinitival endings {-en) play an important role in this analysis,
now as "clear evidence for the lower T" (2002: 11). The loss of these end-
ings makes language acquirers reanalyze the biclausal structure as mono-
clausal and the modals become grammaticalized as T-elements:
[TP Sone [TP hit maei [VP ilimpen]]] soon it may happen
R&R (2002: 12) then "take into account...the possibility of a richer func-
tional structure," notably Cinque's universal hierarchy. The relevant sub-
structure of this hierarchy is as follows:
Modeplstemlc Τ (past) Τ (future) Moodirrea,,s ModNecesslty ModPossiblilty ModRoot 20
They take the basic difference between lexical verbs and verbal functional
heads to be the presence of argument structure, i.e. "merger directly into the
functional system correlates with the absence of argument structure" (2002:
13), an important assumption retained from Roberts (1985, 1993) and ex-
pressed in new terminology. However, the "adjunct theta-role" from Rob-
erts (1985, 1993) might be expressed by "scopal properties of functional
heads," according to R&R (2002: 13). In ME, modals were inserted in one
of the Mood/Mod positions below T, with subsequent movement to the
highest T. After the reanalysis, they were merged higher in the structure,
which "economises on movement steps, and so is preferred by the learner"
(14). This explains the absence of participle and infinitival forms with mo-
dals:
Merging these modals directly rather "high" in the functional structure
meant that certain properties that had to be licensed (or checked) by lower
functional heads could not be licensed. In particular, below the lowest mo-
dal head are a series of aspectual heads.... It is plausible to suppose that par-
ticiple morphology is licensed there.... We must also assume...that infiniti-
19
The page numbers refer to a pre-edited version of the paper, hence the discrep-
ancies between these numbers and the page numbers of the article and the book.
20
But see section 2.4 of this chapter where it is described how Cinque also argues
for three more Mod heads; Mod v o i i t i o n > Mod obligation > Mod ability/permission-
R&R choose to conflate these as ModRooT·
val morphology is checked lower in the structure than the modal heads.
(R&R2002: 14)
According to Warner (1993), epistemic interpretations of pre-modals
emerge in ME. R&R interpret this as a further reanalysis of (some) pre-
modals as being merged in the MoodEpisiemic position: "if reanalysis is local
..., this might imply that a (pre)modal must have a root interpretation before
it develops an epistemic interpretation (after which point the earlier root
interpretation may be lost)." This high merger of modals implies that epis-
temic modals are "opaque to the usual past/non-past relation" (R&R 2002:
14), as they are directly merged higher than T(past). In ME, this direct
merger of modals was an option or a tendency, but after the loss of relevant
infinitival morphology, it became categorical. The full syntactic effects of
the reanalysis of modals were not apparent until after the loss of V-
movement into the functional system, which made the modals stand out as
a category distinct from lexical verbs.
R&R (2002: 15) also mention MSc modals in their account:
What we observe in many languages is evidence for grammaticalization
[direct merger into a functional head F instead of movement from the lexi-
cal domain into the same head F] of individual modals, although the exis-
tence of a morpho-syntactically distinct class of the NE type is not attested
elsewhere in Germanic or Romance. The reason for this...is that all the
Germanic and Romance languages have infinitival morphology and so the
reanalysis [from biclausal to monoclausal structure] was not possible.
R&R also point out that according to Vikner (1988), epistemic modals can-
not be non-finite in Danish and that van Kemenade (1985) claims the same
to hold for their Dutch counterparts. R&R take this as instances of the
grammaticalization of certain modals on certain interpretations. To main-
tain the assumption that epistemic modals are merged very late or high in
the structure in MSc languages, R&R (2002: f n . l l ) need some kind of
technical device, since MSc epistemic modals do not in fact overtly surface
in this high position in embedded clauses:
It may seem strange to propose that epistemic modals in Danish occupy a

very high functional position like M o d p i
E when the evidence is that all
Stemic
verbs, including modals, occupy just two positions in this language: The V2
position (presumably C) and what appears to [be] the base V-Position (see
Vikner 1995 and the references given there). The problem really concerns
associating the epistemic interpretation with the low position. This problem
is just an instance of the general problem that arises in Mainland Scandina-
vian languages...of associating functional information (at the very least
Tense) with the in-situ verb, and as such is not created by assuming the
Cinque hierarchy. Whatever technical device we postulate to associate tense
with the in-situ verb (affix-hopping, chain-formation, LF-movement, etc.)
can be exploited to associate an epistemic modal with its functional posi-
tion.
In my opinion, this is a more serious problem for modals than for other
functional heads. For a high T-head to be associated with a low V-head,
there are maybe two relevant T-heads to consider (in the Cinque hierarchy),
and the tense morphology and features associated with and checked by
those two heads will be overtly different. This means that there will be no
choice for the verb as to the relevant functional head for checking its tense
features. N o t so for modals. In the Cinque hierarchy, what is formally one
and the same modal may give rise to a wide range of readings, depending
on which functional head checks its features. A modal like kunne could in
principle denote permission, ability, alethic possibility, or epistemic possi-
bility, for instance. If this modal surfaces in a ' l o w ' position, but must be
associated with a high epistemic modal projection, what would prevent the
modal from being associated with any of the other relevant intermediate
Mod-positions? This would lead to ambiguity in each sentence where a
modal occurs. With the modal in situ, possibly in VP, any one of the inter-
mediate M o d heads could associate their features with the modal. One
would have to stipulate for each sentence how the in situ modal checks its
features in the correct M o d P only. Moreover, one would still need auxiliary
hypotheses to explain why one never gets non-root readings from modals
with directional complements, for example.
In my view, the most attractive feature of this account—as compared to
Roberts (1993)—is the attempt to show that
grammaticalisation-type changes follow a 'path'..., structurally defined,
broadly following the Cinque (1999) hierarchy of functional categories.
(R&R 2002: 40)
Such 'paths' have been assumed for decades to have some significance
within the grammaticalisation literature; Bybee et al. (1994:10) claim that
there are
great similarities in grammaticalization paths across genetically and areally
unrelated languages.
An account along these lines also allows for a gradual 'leakage' of modals
into the functional domain, where at certain stages some modals are associ-
ated with more 'functional' properties than others. In short, this account
allows for an individual history of each modal, where it is not (necessarily)

expected that all changes happen to all modals at once, a picture that seems
to be in accordance with the observable facts (Plank 1984; Warner 1993).
My main objection to R&R's (2002) article is that the treatment of mo-
dals comes across as sketchy and superficial, at some points straightfor-
wardly confusing. For instance, I would have liked to see the history of one
specific modal (say may) with a full description of the exact merger site(s)
previous to any reanalysis or grammaticalization. Furthermore, I would like
to see an outline of the possible diachronically intermediary positions pro-
posed, and finally, the possible merger sites of this modal (e.g. in Mod epis .
temic and others) after the grammaticalization path has been completed. Un-
fortunately, there is no discussion of the possible diachronic development
of one specific modal, which would have clarified matters considerably.
Also, the proposal is as vague concerning the terms epistemic and root
as Roberts (1985, 1993) since what counts as an epistemic or a root reading
of a modal is never explicitly addressed.
2.4. Cinque (1999)
As previously mentioned, Cinque (1999: 52) argues that

the partial orders found overtly in different languages are subsequences of a
single universal sequence of functional heads, present in all languages.
Not only is this universal sequence of functional heads present in all lan-
guages, it is also present in all clause types of all languages:
Universal Grammar is often still assumed to allow a wide variation among
languages in the number and type of functional projections that they admit
and/or their relative order. Moreover, it is often assumed that in a single
language, different clause types may instantiate different sets of functional
projections. Here I try to construct a plausibility argument against these as-
sumptions, suggesting that no such variation is allowed by UG and that the
same number, type and order (hierarchy) of functional projections holds
across languages and clause types, despite apparent counterevidence. (v)
The functional projections assumed to be accessible to modals are of par-

ticular interest to us here. They constitute a subset of the projections headed
by mood or modality heads. 21 Other relevant clausal heads are tense and
21
Cinque (1999: 78) does distinguish between mood and modality, although the
certain aspectual projections, specifically perfect aspect (since the Norwe-

gian perfect constructions presumably belong to this type).
Considering the order of suffixes in Korean complex verbal forms and
invoking Baker's (1985) Mirror Principle, Cinque proposes separate func-
tional heads for evidential and epistemic modality. Moreover, taking Ger-
manic double modal constructions as evidence, he proposes separate pro-
jections for epistemic and root modality:
Although this traditional semantic difference [root vs. epistemic] is gener-
ally not related to a difference in structure, some evidence exists that the
two modals do not occupy the same position and that epistemic modals are
higher than root modals. In double modal varieties of English, like Scots
English...and in various American varieties..., the first modal has an epis-
temic, and the second a root sense. (Cinque 1999: 54)
After examining a range of typological studies dealing with tense, modality
and aspect, Cinque proposes the following order, 22 still with "certain inde-
terminacies and arbitrary choices" (76). Note that ">" is employed by Cin-
que to encode precedence and scope: Τ (Past) > Τ (Future) means that Τ
(Past) precedes and scopes over Τ (Future).
Moodevidentiai > Modeplstem]C > Τ (Past) > Τ (Future) > Moodirrea|is > Aspperfect>
Modroot > A s p c o m p i e t l v e
But Cinque soon finds reason to refine this hierarchy. Firstly, because "root
modals...comprise different semantic subclasses (volition, obligation, abil-
ity, permission)" (78), and secondly, because it might be possible to sepa-
rate epistemic modality from alethic modality:
In logic, epistemic modality is sometimes contrasted with alethic modal-
ity.... The former is concerned with the speaker's deductions or opinions,
the latter with necessary truths (i.e. propositions that are true in all possible
worlds) and with possible truths (i.e. propositions that are not necessarily
false, being true in at least one possible world). (78)
Cinque recognizes that although one can distinguish epistemic from alethic
modality from a logic point of view, there is no reason to assume that these
difference is in many cases virtually non-significant: "the same category may be

expressed via mood in one language and with a modal in another, thus suggesting
a close link between the two. 'Mood' is traditionally restricted to modal categories
...which are expressed in verbal morphology [Cinque's italics]. Modals instead are
typically independent words (verbs, auxiliaries, or particles)."
22
1 consider only the relevant subsequence of Cinque's hierarchy here.
two modalities should differ structurally; he quotes Palmer (1986: 1 1) who

says that there is no formal grammatical distinction between the two in
English "and perhaps, in no other language either." However, Cinque in-
vokes some facts from English multiple modal varieties (discussed by
Brown 1992: 75; Cinque 1999: 79), where will is taken to mark future and
might denotes 'pure possibility,' i.e. 'alethic possibility'. Since epistemic
modality is proposed to be higher in the clausal structure than future (as in
the sequence above), 23 modality occupying a position lower than future
could not be epistemic; thus, the theory forces us to conclude that alethic
modality cannot be subsumed by epistemic modality.
(3) He ΊI might could do it for you

(= 'he might be able in the future to do it for y o u ' )
Cinque also finds relevant support for this hypothesis in Danish (Cinque's
(3 a)), where the alethic modal kunne, but not the epistemic/evidential mo-
dal skulle, can be found following the modal vil marking future:
(4) a. Der vil let kunne gä noget gait.

there will easily canINF go something wrong
'It will easily be possible that something goes wrong.'
b. *Han vil skulle have lasst bogen,

he will shall have read bookDEF
' H e will be said to (must) have read the book.'
Furthermore, Cinque (1999: 79) claims that in view of Italian data

there is evidence for distinguishing a head of alethic possibility from a head
of alethic necessity. The two can co-occur in the order "necessity" > "pos-
sibility" (though not the converse).
Cinque then considers root modals, of which he claims that they are, in
contrast to epistemic and alethic modalities, strictly subject-oriented as
volition, obligation, ability and permission are properly attributed only to
a(n animate) subject. 24 Although English does not provide a clear answer to
23
Cinque (1999: 78): "Epistemic modals are located higher in clausal structure
than root modals, in fact higher than T(Past)/T(Future) (and negation), appar-
ently."
24
In fact, this is not universally the case, as discussed in Chapter 2 of the present
the question of possible separate structural heads for each subclass of root
modals, Italian data seem to suggest that these subclasses enter into a fixed
relative scope with each other. Although it is difficult to decide in some
cases, Cinque (1999: 81) opts for the following strict (scope) hierarchy of
modalities:
Modepistemic > Modnecesslty > Modpossjbiiity > Modvoiition > Modob, igation
Modability/permission
Ability and permission are taken to be two different values of the same
head even though "eventually this might prove simplistic" (81). Cinque
also admits that the evidence provided may, by itself, be insufficient to
motivate five distinct modal heads in addition to an epistemic one:
However, the existence of different classes of AdvPs corresponding to the
different modalities, and ordered in a similar fashion..., can be taken as ad-
ditional evidence for the hierarchy of modal heads in (12). (81)
One should also notice that there are at least one more modality head and
one tense head relevant to Germanic modals in addition to the ones men-
tioned above. The author suggests that the head ModCVI(ll.llllai may be occu-
pied by the Danish modal skulle and the German modal sollen and, by as-
sociation, the Norwegian modal skulle, all denoting 'hear-say' or in
Cinque's terms, "quotative evidentiality" (1999: 85). In addition, as seen
above, Cinque assumes that the T(future) head is able to host the English
modal will and the Danish modal vil. Thus, there are eight or possibly nine
functional heads (if permission and ability do in fact belong to separate
heads) that may be occupied by Germanic modals in Cinque's account.
Cinque's universal hierarchy has been widely criticized. Here I will
briefly mention one of the critics, Costa (1999). Costa argues against two of
Cinque's most important claims: that adverbs are specifiers and that there is
a universal hierarchy of Functional Projections that is always projected.
Using evidence from European Portuguese, Costa shows that adverbs be-
have unlike specifiers and like adjuncts with respect to a range of construc-
tions such as cleft constructions. Furthermore, the adjunction of adverbs
work. Although volition and ability are typically attributed to animate subjects
(though there are robust exceptions), obligation and permission easily get proposi-
tion-scope readings with inanimate and even expletive subjects: Denne dora skal
alltidvcere last 'This door must always stay closed'; Heisen kan ta opptil ti passas-
jerer 'The elevator may/is able to take up to ten passangers'; Det mä komme minst
femtipersoner 'There must come at least fifty people'.
seems to be highly dependent on the overt presence of a lexical head (cf.

also Costa 1998): the more verbs and auxiliaries overtly occur in a given
sentence, the higher the number of adverbs possible in this sentence. This is
unexpected if there is an underlying universal hierarchy of Functional Pro-
jections which is always projected. Cinque (1999: 106) claims that the
specifiers are available for insertion of an adverbial irrespective of the mor-
phological realization of the functional head:
[I]f each adverb class indeed corresponds to a different functional head,
then, we have evidence that the entire array of functional heads (and projec-
tions) is available where there is no overt morphology corresponding to the
heads, as the respective specifiers are available.
Moreover, as Costa (1999) notes, if adverbs are inserted in specifier posi-
tions, the number of adverbs should not be dependent on the number of
auxiliaries available. After all, subjects are inserted in specifier positions
too, but a sentence cannot normally have multiple subjects simply because
it has multiple auxiliaries. There can, however, be multiple adverbs if there
are multiple auxiliaries. Thus, adverbs are subject to a restriction that does
not hold for (other) specifiers such as subjects.
Another problem for Cinque's hierarchy is that adverbs display a mir-
ror-effect in extraposition, as shown by Äfarli (1997) and Bowers (1993).
Figure 4
John (probably) will (quickly) learn French perfectly, (quickly), (probably).
AdvP
John probably will e quickly learn French perfectly e
25
Bowers claims that Direct Objects are in <Spec, VP>, subjects in <Spec, PrP>.
This mirror-effect is expected in an account where adverbs are adjoined to

an X'-level of syntactic projections since the scope relations are preserved
even when the adverb is extraposed, as in figure 4 from Bowers (1993).
However, in Cinque's account, this mirror-effect is unexpected and hard to
explain. Moreover, if the universal hierarchy is always projected irrespec-
tive of clause type, it seems quite remarkable that small clauses, for exam-
ple, cross-linguistically seem to lack any phonetic realization of (most)
functional heads typically associated with full clauses; Starke (1995: 257)
mentions as one difference between full clauses and small clauses
[their] relative lack of morphology (functional heads are not realized in
Small Clauses, except for C°)
Furthermore, Cinque's universal hierarchy seems to have no way of ac-
counting for the (dialectal) Norwegian data from Chapter 2, with epistemic
readings of a modal following what arguably is an aspectual head:

' H e must have worked on it all night.'
b. Hu har kunna vorre her ogforre igjen.

She has canPERF bePERF here and leavePERF again
'She might have been here and left again.'
If we want to claim that these are alethic readings and not epistemic read-
ings—which seems counterintuitive, at least for (5a)—there is no aspectual
head scoping over the projections of alethic modality. Even if we allow for
the aspectual ha 'have' to occupy the T(past) head, there is a problem, since
there are also similar data with the modal skulle, as in (6), which Cinque
classifies as evidential.
(6) a. Han har skulla vorre en sjarmor i sine yngre daga,

He has shallPERF bePERF a charmeur in his younger days,
' H e is supposed to have been a prince charming
har ce hort.
have I heard
in his youth, so I've heard.'
According to Cinque himself, evidential modality, like epistemic modality,

scopes over all tense (and aspectual) heads in the universal hierarchy. This
seems to imply that even the vast number of designated projections sug-
gested by Cinque (1999) is insufficient to account for data such as (5), and
especially (6), and that either more projections or a restructuring operation
of some sort would have to be invoked to provide explanations for such
word orders.
2.5. Vikner (1988)
V i k n e r ' s analysis of modals emerges from an attempt to explain some pe-

culiar restrictions on the co-occurrence of root modals such as ville 'want
to' with "event-verbs" such as fä 'get' and blive ' b e c o m e ' .
(7) a. Hun vil ha/*fä tre biler i 1990.

s h e w i l l h a v e / g e t t h r e e c a r s in 1 9 9 0
' S h e wants to get three cars in 1990.'
b. Hun vil vcere/*blive klog.

she will be/become wise
' S h e wants to become wise.'
After quoting Platzack (1979) on the distinction between root and epistemic
modals and listing some of the possible readings that should be considered
root and epistemic respectively, Vikner proposes further distinctions among
root modals. Most crucial to his analysis is the distinction between deontic
obligation modals—ville, skulle, mätte (obligation), hur de—and all other
modals: matte (permission), kunne (permission), kunne (ability), turde,
gide. Since the event-verbs fä and blive may appear with the latter group,
but not with the deontic obligation modals, Vikner proposes that obligation
root modals assign an additional theta-role to their subjects. The term addi-
tional theta-role is reminiscent of Zubizarreta's (1982) term adjunct theta-
role (mentioned in the discussion of Roberts). However, Vikner (1988: 12)
emphasizes that there are differences between Zubizarreta's notion of ad-
junct theta-role and his additional theta-role:
This additional theta-role may be assigned to an argument that already has a

theta-role, cf. the idea in Zubizarreta (1982: 41, 123) that theta-roles exist
that are invisible for the theta-criterion. However, as opposed to Zubizar-

reta, I want to suggest that one additional theta-role may be assigned to
each argument, BUT NOT TWO. The intuition is that two additional theta
roles would give the argument too much "theta-burden," much like an ar-
gument cannot receive more than one normal theta-role, which again sug-
gests that additional theta roles are not completely invisible to the theta-
criterion. Thus one half of the theta-criterion seems to hold completely for
additional theta-roles as they must be assigned to one and only one argu-
ment. The other half of the theta-criterion only holds halfway, as an argu-
ment may not receive more than one additional theta-role (in addition to a
normal theta-role), but it may receive less than one additional theta-role.
The restriction that only one, not two, additional theta-roles may be as-
signed to one and the same argument is crucial to Vikner's explanation of
the co-occurrence restrictions on root modals and the event-verbs fä 'get'
and blive 'become'. His entire analysis rests on the assumption that obliga-
tion root modals, just like event-verbs, each assign one additional theta-
role. Thus, the co-occurrence of obligation root modals and event-verbs is
banned since the subject would end up with two additional theta-roles, one
too many.
Following Zubizarreta's (1982) suggestion for French, Vikner (1988:
13) analyzes all modals as raising verbs, or rather claims they are like rais-
ing verbs, since
It should be noted that raising verbs and modals are different in important
ways, e.g. in that raising verbs allow expletive subjects, and modals do not.
The obligation root modals are, however, also somewhat like control verbs
in assigning a theta-role to their subjects, albeit an 'additional theta-role'.
Vikner also lists a range of differences between root modals (in general)
and non-root ("epistemic") modals. Non-root modals do not occur in the
perfect tense (examples where they do are analyzed by Vikner as "mis-
placed tense" that really belongs to the main verb) whereas root modals do;
non-root modals cannot have PRO subjects whereas root modals can;26 non-
26
Vikner illustrates this claim by a range of sentences with infinitival markers and
infinitive verbs, where the non-root reading of the modal leads to ungrammatical-
ity. However, it is quite straightforward to have infinitival non-root modals, for
instance embedded under intensional predicates in Norwegian:
(i) De beskylder ham for ä skulle ha hatt befatning med saken.
they accuse him for to shallINF have had dealings with caseDEF
'Thay accuse him for supposedly having had to do with the case.'
root modals do not occur in pseudoclefts while root modals do; and non-
root modals cannot be embedded under root modals while the opposite is
possible. Two non-root modals or two root modals are both possible, but
only if the second modal is kunne 'can/may'. 2 7
Vikner (1988: 14) admits that his analysis "is not based on strong inde-
pendent evidence." I agree that this is a problem. Furthermore, his analysis
employing additional theta-roles does not explain even his core problem
(the co-occurrence facts) very well, since Vikner needs a number of auxil-
iary assumptions and ad hoc hypotheses to make this work. For instance, s-
passives embedded under a modal do not follow the distinctions that Vikner
makes, as pointed out by Vikner himself.
My major objection to this analysis is that the distinction between obli-
gation root and all other modals seems arbitrary and somewhat unfounded
although other authors make formal and syntactic distinctions between
obligation and permission modals as well (Butler 2003, Cinque 1999).
However, Vikner's classification of a certain modal as root obligation or
(ii) Man mistenker Jon for ä matte ha visst om rapporten.

one suspects Jon for to mustINF have known about reportDEF
O n e suspects that Jon necessarily knew about the report.'
(iii) Vi ansa rapporten for ä kunne bli et problem.
we considered reportDEF for to canINF become a problem
'We considered that the report might potentially become a problem.'
Vikner claims that non-root ("epistemic") modals accept neither arbitrary nor non-
arbitrary PRO. Although epistemic modals in Norwegian may accept non-arbitrary
PRO (cf. i-iii), they do not usually accept arbitrary PRO.
(iv) Det er tragisk ä ville fä slike folger (root reading only).
'It is tragic to will/want to get such consequences.'
Evidential skulle, on the other hand, could marginally have an arbitrary PRO, I
believe (cf. v):
(v) Det er belastende ä gä omkring og skulle vcEre sin fars morder.
'It is straining to walk around and supposedly be one's father's murder.'
27
Kunne is not among those root modals that assigns an additional theta-role, ac-
cording to Vikner's analysis, so the combination [obligation root modal+ kunne] is
expected to be allowed. However, this does not explain why kunne could not be
the first of two root modals or why turde/gide (the other two non-obligation root
modals) should be banned as the second modal in these constructions. Further-
more, Vikner mentions that Jane Grimshaw has pointed out to him that his analysis
does not explain the co-occurrence restrictions on epistemic (i.e. non-root) modals,
which according to Vikner seem to be the subject to exactly the same restrictions
as root modals with respect to combination possibilities.
'other' does not correspond to a semantic notion "obligation root modal."

For instance, it is not obvious why ville 'want to' belongs with the obliga-
tion root modals, since it denotes volition and not obligation even in Dan-
ish. Furthermore, to ascribe a theta-assigning property (albeit an additional
theta-role) to matte 'must' and not to ability kunne 'can' seems arbitrary, if
not straightforwardly counterintuitive, especially considering that ability
kunne is one of the (two) modals that have the most lexical-verb-like be-
havior cross-linguistically, at least within Germanic languages. In fact, this
distinction is introduced specifically to explain the co-occurrence facts of
event verbs fä/blive with some root modals. Thus, one might quite right-
fully claim that Vikner's analysis amounts to restating these facts in new
terminology, the term additional theta-role being a paraphrase for *co-
occurrence. The term theta-role usually captures what is rooted in the se-
mantic relationships between theta-assigners and arguments even when it is
syntactically encoded. An additional theta-role, the way it is employed
here, does not seem to have any such connotation.
2.6. Thräinsson and Vikner (1995)
Thräinsson and Vikner (1995), according to the authors themselves, is

based in part on Thräinsson (1986) and Vikner (1988). The work starts out
by listing the properties of modals in English and Scandinavian and con-
cludes that most of these properties are language-specific, with the excep-
tion of the fact that modals in both English and Scandinavian are character-
ized by the semantic property of having "modal meanings" of two kinds,
notably (at least) one root and one "epistemic", i.e. non-root sense. The
authors go on to list what they consider modals in Danish (Da) and Ice-
landic (Ic), not claiming that the list is exhaustive (Thräinsson and Vikner's
(Π)):
Danish modal verbs: ville 'will', skulle 'shall', matte 'must', kunne 'can',
burde 'ought (to)', turde 'dare', beh0ve 'need'
Icelandic modal verbs: munu 'will', skulu 'shall', mega 'may', vilja 'will',
eiga 'ought (to)', hljota 'must', kunna 'can', veröa 'must', t>urfa 'need',
astla 'intend', geta 'can'
After providing examples of various root and non-root readings, Thräinsson

and Vikner (T&V) consider some syntactic differences between non-root
and root modals. These syntactic differences can be traced back to the as-
sumption (attributed to Kiparsky 1970; Perlmutter 1970; Ross 1969) that

root modals assign a theta-role to their subject, whereas non-root modals do
not, i.e. that non-root modals pattern with raising verbs, while root modals
pattern with control verbs. The syntactic consequences of this difference
may be summed up as in Table 1 (T&V's claims; my table):
Table I
Non-root modals Root modals

Take expletive subjects Yes No
Take weather-det/Ραδ 'it' Yes No
Take idiom-chunk subjects Yes No
Allow quirky subjects (Ic. only) Yes No
Allow pseudo-clefted complement No Yes
The first three properties in this table are expected on the hypothesis that
root modals assign a theta-role to their subject and non-root modals do not.
Since expletives, weather it, and idiom-chunk subjects are considered non-
arguments, they would be expected with non-root modals and raising verbs,
but not with root modals and control verbs.
Quirky subjects (non-nominative case-marked subjects) have their case
determined by the downstairs or embedded verb, which also assigns a the-
matic role. The raising verb thus has no influence on the case marking of a
quirky subject appearing in its subject position. This suggests that non-root
modals are raising verbs in Icelandic since they accept quirky subjects; in
(8a), for example, the embedded verb vanta 'lack' takes an accusative sub-
ject. This quirky case is retained when the subject is raised. On the other
hand, whenever verbs that take quirky subjects are embedded under a con-
trol verb, the case of the subject is nominative, as determined by the control
verb. In (8b), the matrix verb is a control verb vonast 'hope', and the em-
bedded verb vanta 'lack' takes an accusative subject. In this structure, the
quirky case cannot be retained (T&V's data):
(8) a. Harald vill oft vantapeninga.

Harold (Acc) will frequently lack money
'Harold frequently tends to lack money.' (epistemic only)
b. Haraldur/*Harald vonast til ad vanta ekki peninga.

Harold (Norn/* Acc) hopes for to not lack money
'Harold hopes not to lack money.'
According to T & V , it does not seem possible to get the root sense at all
w h e n a verb that takes a quirky subject is embedded under a modal, but
non-root modals are fine with quirky subjects, as in (8a). 28
To explain the ability of modals to take pseudoclefted complements,
T & V utilize B u r z i o ' s generalization (Burzio 1986: 178-179), w h i c h says
that verbs that do not assign a thematic role to their subjects are unable to
assign structural accusative Case. T & V propose the structure in (9a) for
pseudo-cleft sentences like the ones in (9b) (Da) and (9c) (Ic):
(9) a. Xi[Cp(OP,) (that) . . . t , . . . ] was Y
b. Det enestej [cp (som) Marie kebte tt ] var klipfisk

the only (that) M a r y bought was dried-fish
' T h e only thing M a r y bought was dried fish.'
c. Padj [cp sem Maria keypti t, J var hardfiskur.

it that M a r y bought was dried-fish
' W h a t M a r y bought was dried fish.'
U n d e r the assumption that the trace t, is a wh-trace that needs Case, T & V
can explain w h y root modals, but not non-root ones, occur in pseudocleft
constructions. Since root modals assign a theta-role to their subject, they
also assign structural accusative Case (according to B u r z i o ' s generaliza-
tion) to their complement, here the wh-trace t,. Non-root modals do not
assign a theta-role to their subject and hence do not assign structural Case,
which is w h y they are banned f r o m pseudocleft constructions.
O n e might be led to think that the evidence presented so far w o u l d
prompt the authors to analyze all Scandinavian modals in a control versus
raising model, since root modals seem to pattern with control verbs and
non-root modals with raising verbs. This is indeed the case in Icelandic.
However, V i k n e r ' s (1988) analysis of all Danish modals as raising verbs is
maintained in this account for the same reason it w a s presented in Vikner
( 1 9 8 8 ) — t o explain the co-occurrence restrictions on some root modals in
Danish with the event-verbs fä/blive. T h e authors maintain that at least
some root modals assign a thematic role to their subject, notably an addi-
28
According to a reviewer for Mouton deGruyter, for some Icelandic informants
the modal vilja has no reading besides the volition reading. See also Chapter 2,
section 7.2 for a discussion of whether this is in fact a root or an non-root reading.
tional theta-role as in Vikner (1988). The crucial properties of additional

thematic roles are as follows (T&V's (45)):
(10) a. No argument may have more than one additional theta-role.

b. Each additional theta-role must be assigned to one and only one
argument.
c. An additional theta-role may be assigned to an argument that al-
ready has a Theta-role.
The first property supports the explanation of the Danish co-occurrence

data (modals/event verbs), while the third property ensures that Danish root
modals cannot occur with non-thematic subjects (expletives, idiom-chunk
subjects, weather it).
The different analyses of Icelandic and Danish modals support the ex-
planation for the co-occurrence of certain root modals and fä/blive in Dan-
ish, an issue not relevant in Icelandic. What is lost, however, is the possible
generalization that all Scandinavian root modals seem to be control verbs,
whereas all Scandinavian non-root modals seem to be raising verbs.
T&V discuss the option of base-generating non-root modals in Danish
in I(nfl), as is "frequently assumed for English modal verbs" (1995: 73).
The problem with such an anlysis is that modal verbs are just like other fi-
nite verbs in Danish in that they follow adverbials like the negation in em-
bedded clauses, as illustrated in (77):
(77) ... at de ikke skal ville bygge et hus.
that they not shall want to build a house
'... that they shall not want to build a house.'
Under the assumption that negation is adjoined to VP in Danish and that

Danish has no V-to-I movement in embedded clauses, data such as T&V's
(77) indicate that non-root modals are base-generated under V like other
verbs. T&V choose not to go into the syntactic details of the insertion site
of Icelandic modals.
In the last part of the paper, T&V consider the restrictions on iterating
modals in Danish and Icelandic. They note that "double modal construc-
tions in Scandinavian are of a very different nature than those that can be
found dialectally in English" (1995: 72), as illustrated by the inversion data
in (11a) from Battistella (1992 [1995]) and T&V's own data in ( l i b ) and
(11c):
(11) a. You might could buy that at Bruno's.

* Might you could buy that at Bruno's?
Could you might buy that at Bruno's?
Might could you buy that at Bruno 's?
b. De skal ville bygge et hus. Danish

'They are said to want to build a house.'
Skal de ville bygge et hus?
'Are they said to want to build a house?'
* Ville de skal bygge et hus?
* Skal ville de bygge et hus?
c. Hann verdur ad kunna ad synda. Icelandic

he must to can to swim
'He has to be able to swim.'
Verdur hann ad kunna ad synda?
must he to can to swim
'Does he have to be able to swim?'
* Kunna hann verdur ad (ad) synda?
* Verdur ad kunna hann ad synda?
As the data in (11) illustrate, in Scandinavian only the first modal (and
always the finite one) may precede the subject in yes/no questions. Battis-
tella's data seem to indicate that the second modal, or both, but not only the
first, precedes the subject in yes/no questions in this English dialect. 29
Root modals embedded under root modals should be impossible in Dan-
ish on account of the restriction on additional theta-roles: no more than one
additional theta-role for each argument. According to T&V, this is by and
large the case, with the exception of the root modal kunne 'can', which
seems to be able to appear embedded under other root modals. 30 The au-
thors propose two possible explanations for this exception, neither of which
they consider satisfactory. One explanation is that the root modal kunne
29
According to Roberts (1993: 333), Battistella discusses double-modal construc-
tions in some detail. The discussion in Roberts refers to "some dialects of Ameri-
can English in the Southern States of the USA."
30
This does not hold for Norwegian. Cf. e.g. the following (authentic) example:
(i) Det er absurd at vi skal mätte gä til domstolene med dette.
it is absurd that we shall must go to courtsDEF with this
'It is absurd that we are supposed to have to go to the court with this.'
does not assign an additional theta-role, just like non-root modals, a solu-
tion proposed in Vikner (1988). This is problematic, since kunne patterns
with the other root modals with regard to pseudoclefts. Alternatively, kunne
could be analyzed as a control verb (like Icelandic root modals). This solu-
tion is problematic as well, since T&V present evidence in fn. 27 that (at
least) kunne is a raising verb.
In Icelandic, root modals combine much more freely although not all
combinations are allowed. This is not unexpected, since there are restric-
tions on 'regular' control verbs as well.
There is no syntactic reason to expect restrictions on the combination of
non-root modals with other non-root modals in Scandinavian in the account
developed here. However, such restrictions do exist. In Danish, non-root +
non-root combinations are good only if the second modal is kunne 'may'.
This is unexplained by this analysis, as the authors themselves admit. In
Icelandic there are fewer restrictions, but the modals munu 'will' and skulu
'shall' (in the non-root reading) can never follow any auxiliary, including
other modals. 31 The authors have no syntactic explanation for this either.
The combination non-root + root does not seem to be subject to particu-
lar restrictions in either Icelandic or Danish and the combination root +
non-root is always unacceptable (or so it seems). The latter is given a se-
mantic explanation:
Since epistemic [i.e. non-root] modals predicate of a whole proposition
whereas root modals predicate of one of the arguments (typically the sub-
ject) of a proposition, we would not expect root modals to be able to take
scope over [non-root] modals. (T&V 1995: 78)
Some of my objections to T & V ' s account are similar to my objections to
Vikner (1988); the problems with T & V ' s account, however, seem even
more serious. In my opinion, the benefits of analyzing Danish root modals
as raising verbs that assign additional theta-roles are not strong enough to
motivate the different analyses for Danish and Icelandic. Moreover, the ban
on the co-occurrence of certain root modals with event-verbs in Danish is
not explained in a satisfactory way in this account (cf. my objections to
Vikner in the previous section); thus, a different explanation should be
31
T&V (1995: 79) mention the possibility that the verbs munu and skulu devel-
oped epistemic sense earlier than other modals, on the basis of examples of double
modals in the Old Norse Sagas. Most of the examples of double modals in these
texts seem to be a root modal embedded under the epistemic modals munu and
skulu.
sought for the co-occurrence facts. This would allow the authors to main-
tain the generalization that in Scandinavian languages root modals are
(similar to) control verbs and non-root modals (to) raising verbs. In princi-
ple, there is nothing wrong with assuming two different structural types for
Danish and Icelandic root modals, if the data support such a hypothesis; in
my opinion, however, the data presented here are not convincing enough to
force the different analyses.
An even more serious objection to this analysis is that it makes a range
of predictions not borne out by the observable empirical facts, at least not
for Norwegian, and according to Vikner (p.c.), not for Danish either. This
concerns in particular the alleged theta-properties of the subject of root
modals.
The analysis proposes that root modals, being (similar to) control verbs,
assign a(n additional) theta-role to their subject, unlike non-root modals.
This implies that only non-root modals, and not root modals, should be able
to take non-argument subjects such as expletives, weather-arguments, and
idiom-chunk subjects. As shown in (12), this is not the case. Although dy-
namic root modals typically take theta-subjects (but see (12i)), deontic root
modals occur with all types of 'non-argument' subjects, contrary to T&V's
claims (cf. also Brennan 1993; Brennan 2004 for data illustrating the same
for English). Examples (12a) through (12d) show root modals with exple-
tive subjects, (12e) through (12g) are root modals with weather it, and
(12h) through (12i) are root modals with idiom-chunk subjects. Some of
these sentences are ambiguous between a root and a non-root reading.
However, the important thing is that all these sentences are grammatical on
a root reading as well.
(12) a. Det skal bestandig vcere minst to voksne til stede.

there shall always be at-least two adults at place
'There should always be at least two adults present.'
b. Det mä komme minstfemti personer.

there must come at least fifty people
c. Det bor bli forandringer pä denne praksisen.

there should occur changes in this (code of) practiceDEF
'This code of practice ought to change.'
d. Det kan vcere opptil fire patroner i hylsa pr. ladning.

there can be up-to four cartridges in caseDEF pr. load
'There can be up to four cartridges in the case in one load.'
e. Nä b0r det snart regne; gresset er sä tort.

now should it soon rain; grassDEF is so dry
'It ought to rain soon; the grass is so dry.'
f. Det kan ikke sno nä som vi er pä landtur!

it can not snow now that we are on picnic
'It cannot snow now that we are on a picnic!'
(negated permission)
g. Det mä blase sterkere for at draken skal lette.

it must blow harder for that kiteDEF shall raise
'It must be windier for the kite to fly.'
h. M.h.t. Jon, sä kan fanden ta ham (idiom: Fanden ta Jon!)

as for Jon, so can devilDEF take him
' A s for John, the devil may take him.' (permission)
i. N0d kan leere naken kvinne ä spinne.

(idiom: Nod leerer naken kvinne ä spinne)
need can teach naked w o m a n to spin
'Need can teach naked woman to spin.' (ability)
If we want to maintain that control verbs obligatorily assign a theta-role, it

follows that root modals cannot possibly be control verbs. The question
remains whether we want to make this claim. In either case, one cannot
maintain the analysis of T & V in face of the data presented in (12), showing
that root modals do in fact take non-argument subjects.
An observation that does seem to hold, however, is that some root mo-
dals occur with pseudo-clefted complements whereas non-root modals do
not. This seems to be a sound observation and a fact that requires an expla-
nation. This phenomenon is thoroughly investigated in sections 3 and 4 of
Chapter 4.
2.7. Barbiers (1995, 2002)
Barbiers (2002) is a shorter version of the analysis of modals presented in

Barbiers (1995). I will discuss these two works as a single analysis and, in
the course of this presentation, comment on the discrepancies between
them.
Barbiers' (1995: 142) point of departure are the four interpretations pos-
sible with Dutch modals:
(13) Jan moet scaatsen.

'John must skate.'
I. 'John definitely wants to skate.' dispositional

II. 'John has the obligation to skate.' directed deontic
III. 'It is required that John skate.' non-directed deontic
IV. 'It must be the case that John is skating' probability
The dispositional interpretation denotes some force, tendency or capacity

internal to a subject; the directed deontic interpretation denotes an obliga-
tion or permission with an external source directed towards a subject (re-
sulting in the subject's having this obligation or permission); the non-
directed deontic interpretation also denotes permission, obligation or re-
quirement, but one that is not directed to the subject of the sentence (i.e. the
situation is required or permitted, but independent of the subject's actions
or attitudes), 32 and the probability interpretation involves a qualification of
the truth value of the proposition or "an estimation of the degree of prob-
ability of a proposition" (Barbiers 1995: 145).
After arguing that these four interpretations are the result of real ambi-
guity and not merely vagueness, Barbiers (2002: 62) describes the interpre-
tations as being the result of "two parameters for modal interpretations," [±
subject-oriented] and [± (potential) 33 polarity transition], where the latter
refers to a negative and a positive stage of the event embedded under the
modal; the negative stage holds at the speech time and is required, possible,
desirable or permitted at some point in the future. According to Barbiers
(1995: 149), these two parameters yield the possibilities presented in Table
2.
32
Note that the modal willen 'want' has no non-directed deontic interpretation.
33
Both terms 'polarity transition' are modified by potential in the (2002) article.
Table 2
Classification of
modal interpretations [+ subject-oriented] [—ι subject-oriented]
Γ+polarity transition! Dispositional/directed deontic Non-directed deontic
[—ι polarity transition] Sympathy/Antipathy 34 Probability [non-root]
If these parameters are applied to the interpretations of (13) above, it is

clear that I and II involve subject-orientation, whereas III and IV do not,
and I, II and III involve a polarity transition, while IV does not. This is to
say that in interpretations I, II and III the embedded proposition John skate
is false at the time of utterance and required to be true at some time in the
future, whereas no such polarity transition is involved in the probability
interpretation: the speaker here expresses his belief that the embedded
proposition is in fact true at the time of utterance. Barbiers (1995: 148)
points out that
If the polarity interpretations involve a switch of truth value, we expect in-

dividual-level predicates to disambiguate modal sentences. Since an indi-
vidual-level predicate expresses a permanent property of an entity, it disal-
lows a switch of truth value: there are no stages in which the entity does not
have the property. The expectation is correct: the sentence in (10) only has
a probability interpretation.
(10) Jan moet eert native speaker van het Vlaams zijn.
'John must be a native speaker of Flemish.'
Whether or not a modal sentence is interpreted as involving a polarity tran-

sition is semantically and syntactically determined by the complement of
the modal. To illustrate this claim, Barbiers uses a property of Dutch mo-
dals, the property of taking non-verbal complements.
The range of possible non-verbal complements for Dutch modals seems
much wider than that for Norwegian and German modals. 35 A traditional
34
These terms (from the 2002 article) replace the terms like-dislike relation in the
(1995) analysis and refer to the 'like-dislike' denotation of certain Dutch modals,
e.g. moeten, mögen, e.g Marie moet die jongen niet 'Mary does not like that boy'.
35
Barbiers (2002: fii.l) mentions that German and Afrikaans have more restric-
tions on the complement of the modal than corresponding Dutch constructions
since these languages allow only a subset of the complements that can occur with a
way of accounting for these non-verbal complements of modals is to as-

sume that a 'silent infinitive' is present in all such cases. Barbiers (2002:
53-6) presents several arguments against this assumption: PF-deletion of
the infinitive should not reduce the ambiguity of the modal, since a PF-
deletion should not have any influence on the interpretation. However, a
modal with a non-verbal complement can never yield a non-root reading,
unlike a corresponding sentence where the infinitive is present:
(14) a. J an mag weggaan.

'John may go away.' root/epistemic both possible
b. Jan mag weg.

'John may (go) away.' root reading only
Furthermore, agreement facts seem to indicate that there is no PF-deletion

of the infinitive:
(15) a. Stiletto's mogen/*mag tegenwoordig niet meer

'Switchblades are/*is not allowed anymore nowadays.'
b. [Stiletto's hebben] mag/*mogen tegenwordig niet meer

'Having switchblades is/*are not allowed anymore
nowadays.'
The strongest argument, in Barbiers' view, is that only constituents that

denote a value on a scale from 0 to 1 can be the non-verbal complement of
a modal. For example, an adjective like vol 'full' may be the non-verbal
complement of a modal because it denotes a property which either does or
does not apply to an entity; there is no notion somewhat full. On the other
hand, there are properties that do not denote such values on a scale from 0
to 1; instead, they denote much more gradual values. For instance, it makes
less sense to say that a person is either intelligent or not intelligent; instead,
modal in Dutch. Barbiers goes on to claim that Norwegian has the same restric-
tions on the complement as Dutch, which is not true; Norwegian patterns with
German, not Dutch (cf. also Chapter 2 of the present work for the details). Barbiers
does not go into the restrictions he claims to be different in German and Afrikaans,
but I believe that one such restriction is the possible category of the complement.
Norwegian and German (at least to my knowledge) seem to disallow adjectival
small clauses as complements, while permitting PP/AdvP directional small clauses.
we can characterize a person as somewhat intelligent. Thus, according to

Barbiers, an adjective such as intelligent would not fit as a complement of a
modal since it does not denote a value on a bounded scale from 0 to 1.
If modals have semantic requirements regarding their non-verbal com-
plements, and if there is a silent infinitive between the modal and the non-
verbal complement, one would have to say that the modal imposes selec-
tional requirements on the complement (the non-verbal constituent) of its
complement (the silent infinitive).
Concluding that there is no silent infinitive in these constructions and
that these complements are indeed non-verbal, Barbiers uses them as an
argument against the control versus raising analysis. Using the uncontro-
versial diagnostic that small clause complements cannot be extraposed
(Hoekstra 1984), Barbiers shows the non-verbal predicative complements
of modals to be proper small clauses (not adjunct PPs), as in (16) (Barbiers
2002: 13):
(16) a. dat Jan morgen <naar Amsterdam>

'that John tomorrow to Amsterdam
moet < *naar Amsterdam>
must to Amsterdam.'
b. dat de brief morgen <in de prullenbak>

'that the letter tomorrow into the trash can
mag < *in de prullenbak>
may into the trash can.'
If the bracketed constituents are small clause complements, the DPs Jan
and de brief must be their subjects. Their subjects cannot be PRO, since a
small clause complement cannot have PRO as its subject, as shown in (17a)
and Barbiers (2002: 14a), so the subject must have raised from a position
inside the small clause, as in (17b):
(17) a. Jan drinkt [sc zieh/*PRO ziek],

'John drinks SE sick.'
b. Jant moet [PP t, naar Amsterdam],

'John must to Amsterdam.'
In the garden variety control versus raising analysis of modals, the raising
structure is the one yielding an non-root interpretation. However, modals
with small clause complements, in spite of their raising structure properties,
only have root interpretations, never non-root ones. Thus, the control ver-
sus raising analysis cannot be correct.
As mentioned above, Barbiers claims that the non-verbal complement of
a modal must denote a value on a scale from 0 to 1. If it does not, it is un-
grammatical.
(18) a. Dezefles moet vol

this bottle must full
'This bottle must be full.'
The value that the bottle has on the scale of empty to full is not 1 when the
sentence is uttered and should become 1 at some point in the future. These
are the two essential properties of all root interpretations. Barbiers (2002:
59) claims that
(i) the complement of the modal must denote a value on a bounded
scale, and (ii) this value is not the actual value at the moment Τ de-
noted by the modal.
This is why individual-level predicates are unacceptable as complements of
root modals (cf. the claim referred to above), since they denote a fixed
property of the subject. Furthermore, the subject must also have a constant
reference in order for the complement to count as an individual-level predi-
cate. 36 All non-verbal and verbal complements of Dutch root modals must
denote a variable property and a value on a bounded scale. The latter means
that many stage-level predicates cannot constitute the complement of a
modal either if they do not denote such a value on a bounded scale; ziek
'sick' is ruled out as the complement of a modal for this reason.
In the case of infinitival complements, the bounded scale is provided by
the infinitive itself in its denotation as an event: the scale is simply a nu-
merical scale from 0 to 1, counting the number of events. As a result, any
36
This is why a sentence like (ii) does not constitute counterevidence to the gener-
alization illustrated in (i) that an individual-level predicate gives rise to a non-root
reading:
(i) John must be a native speaker of German.
(ii) The applicant must be a native speaker of German.
verb can be the complement of a modal, since the infinitive always intro-
duces a bounded scale.
Barbiers (2002: 63) lists the following differences between non-root and
root interpretations:
Table 3
Differences between non-root and root interpretations
Non-root Root
Potential polarity transition No Yes
Scale of complement negative-affirmative 0-1 (number of events)

(or: no - yes)
Category of complement verbal only all categories
Definite complement Yes No
Root modals involve a polarity transition such that the event embedded
under the modal is false (0) at the moment of utterance and re-
quired/permitted/possible/desired (1) at some point in the future. Non-root
modals involve no such polarity transition. Moreover, recall that Barbiers
claims that any complement of any modal must denote a value on a
bounded scale or it is ungrammatical. The 'scale' of the complement in the
case of non-root modals ranges from negative to affirmative. The (verbal)
complement of a root modal introduces a numerical scale from 0 to 1,
counting the number of events (i.e. O N E event).
Barbiers claims that non-root modals take verbal complements only,
whereas root modals take complements of all categories. W e have seen
examples where root modals take non-verbal small clause complements
(APs and PPs). However, Barbiers' goal is to account for all types of com-
plement of all modals in his analysis; hence, he claims that modals taking
D P arguments as complements should be accounted for by the same means.
Thus, he lists examples where modals take D P arguments as complements
(2002: 65-6).
(19) a. Jan moet een /*het vriendinnetje.

Jan must a /the girl friend
'Jan wants (to find) a girlfriend.'
b. Jan moet het vriendinnetje niet/wel.

Jan must the girl friend not/well
'Jan does not like the girlfriend/
Jan likes the girlfriend very much.'
Note that while (19a) gives rise to a polarity-transition reading, i.e. it is an

ordinary root modal construction—Jan does not have a girlfriend at present
(0) but he wants to have one in the future (1)—(19b) exemplifies what Bar-
biers dubs the Sympathy/Antipathy interpretation presented in Table 2 and
repeated here for convenience.
Table 4
Classification of
modal interpretations [+ subject-oriented] [—τ subject-oriented]
[+polarity transition] Dispositional/directed deontic Non-directed deontic
[—ι polarity transition] Sympathy/Antipathy Probability [non-root]
There is no polarity transition in (19b) involving a transition from a present

situation to a future situation.
Barbiers envisions that the common property of the non-root interpreta-
tion and the sympathy/antipathy interpretation—that neither gives rise to a
polarity transition—should be accounted for by the same means. Crucially,
he points out the fact that whereas a definite noun phrase is unacceptable as
the complement of a root modal, it is acceptable in the sympathy/antipathy
construction. Thus, he proposes that the definiteness of the complement is
what rules out the polarity-transition interpretation in (19b).
The next step is to propose that the complements of non-root modals are
in some sense definite as well, since the definiteness of the complement
evidently is what rules out a polarity transition reading in the case of mo-
dals with nominal complements. Barbiers (2002: 66) argues "that the im-
possibility of a transition is related to the fact that definite constituents have
a fixed reference [my italics], while the possibility of a transition derives
from...the variable reference of indefinite constructions." He proposes that
definiteness and indefiniteness are properties that can be ascribed to verbal
as well as nominal constituents, encoded by functional projections that we
normally think of as belonging to the functional layer of nominal constitu-
ents.
Ear Iier proposals 139
That is, root modals take indefinite verbal (as well as non-verbal) com-
plements, IndPs, whereas non-root modals take definite verbal complement
DPs. Hence, the IndP ('Individuator Phrase') with the abstract head ONE is
the verbal counterpart of an indefinite noun phrase, whereas the DP com-
plement of an non-root modal is the verbal counterpart of a definite noun
phrase headed by an abstract head D.
This abstract head D makes the verbal complement definite. Only a non-
root modal may have a definite verbal complement (although modals en-
coding sympathy/antipathy may take definite nominal complements), hence
the presence of D in the modal's verbal complement inevitably gives the
modal an non-root interpretation. The reason for this, Barbiers claims, is
that when the complement is definite, a polarity transition is impossible.
Another important property of D is that this head is what establishes the
semantic relationship between subject and event, identifying the subject as
the source, starting point, agent, or possessor of the event. This head can
encode subject-orientedness of a modal as well in that the modal's base
position relative to this D head determines whether a semantic relation of
subject-orientedness will be established between the subject and modal; cf.
figure 5 adapted from Barbiers (2002: 66). Given that D establishes the
relation between the subject and the modal, it follows from the proposed
structure that non-root modals are never subject-oriented. Since non-root
modals are generated above the subject, and the D head is generated even
lower than the subject, the abstract head D is prevented from establishing a
relation between the non-root modal and the subject.
Figure 5
a. root b. non-root
DP ModP
Subji
Directed deontic interpretations and dispositional interpretations, on the

other hand, are subject-oriented, a relation established by the D head since
the subject in this case is generated above D and the modal is generated
below D. What about non-directed deontic interpretations? According to
Barbiers (2002: 67), these may arise in two ways: (i) D P is entirely absent
in these interpretations, or (ii) DP is present, but the subject reconstructs at
LF into a position within the scope of the modal (e.g. [Spec,VP]). The am-
biguity between a dispositional interpretation and a directed deontic inter-
pretation is ascribed to the ambiguity (or rather the abstractness) of D as D
may encode 'source' as well as 'possessor'. 3 7 When the subject is taken to
be the source of modality, w e get the dispositional reading; when the sub-
ject is taken to be the possessor of modality, we get the directed deontic
reading.
The assumption that the complement of root modals is indefinite,
whereas the complement of non-root modals is definite, is supported by a
other arguments in Barbiers (1995: 189). He argues, for instance, that the
complement of root modals behaves like indefinite NPs with respect to
focus movement and constructions with the quantifier wat 'what an X!',
whereas complements of non-root modals and definite noun phrases are
ungrammatical in these constructions (cf. (20); Barbiers 1995: 81):
(20) a. Een huis/*het huis dat Jan heeft!

a house/the house that John has
'John has an extraordinary house!'
b. Werken dat Jan kan!

work that John can
'John is able to/allowed to work very hard.'
# 'It is permitted that John is working very hard.'
# 'It is possible that John is working very hard.'
37
Barbiers (1995: 186): "The relations established by D are the other building
blocks: the possibility of the...event is determined and the subject is the deter-
miner. Since the notion of determiner is taken to subsume notions such as source,
possessor, origin and so on, the subject...can be interpreted as the source of the
possibility, which yields the ability interpretation, or as the possessor of the possi-
bility, which yields the permission reading. The ambiguity between a dispositional
and a directed deontic interpretation is thus ascribed to the ambiguity of, or rather
the abstractness of D, just as in the case of John's portrait, where the semantic
relations between John and portrait established by D can be interpreted as posses-
sor, artist, source and so on."
c. Wat heeft Jan een boeken/* de boeken!

what has John a books the books
'John has a whole lot of books.'
d. Wat kan Jan schaatsen!

what can John skate
'John is a very good skater.'
# 'It is possible that John is skating.'
Another piece of evidence for the structure in figure 5 is the nature of auxil-
iary selection in modal environments, according to Barbiers (1995: 197).
Following Kayne (1993), Barbiers considers selection of HAVE to involve
incorporation of D into BE (i.e. BE is the primitive auxiliary and HAVE is
a derivative). Assuming that BE and D must be adjacent, i.e. DP must be
the complement of BE for incorporation to be possible, the modal can be in
two positions (irrelevant material omitted):
Figure 6
a. BE D Mod Ind -> HAVE Mod Ind-> Root
b. Mod BE D Ind -> Mod HAVE Ind -> Non-root
This indicates, according to Barbiers, that the modal is generated below D

in the case of root modals, but above D in the case of non-root modals, just
as he proposes (cf. figure 5.) However, Barbiers (1995: fn 41) comments
that the correspondence of the position of the modal relative to HAVE and
the reading of the modal as root or non-root is not perfect, since the order
Mod AUX can also have the polarity interpretation, not only the non-root
interpretation.38
Barbiers (1995, 2002) thus assumes the same raising structure for all
modals and essentially the same argument structure. The various readings
are a result of the nature of the complement (denoting a value on a bounded
scale, a possible polarity transition or not, i.e. indefinite or definite), and
the base position of the modal, in particular relative to the abstract head D.
One obvious objection to a syntactico-centric approach such as this one
is that the underlying structures proposed for the different readings all po-
tentially give rise to exactly the same visible string or sentence. Thus, the
38
I my dialect of Norwegian (cf. examples in (5) and (6), section 2.4), it is even
possible to get non-root readings of a modal following a perfect auxiliary.
presence or absence of subject-orientation cannot be predicted on the basis

of word order facts or visible agreement; the subject obviously raises to
what seems to be the specifier position of an non-root modal, without ever
giving rise to any kind of subject-orientation (Barbiers would explain this
as the effect of the relative positions of the invisible D-head, the trace of the
subject and the base generated position of the modal). This raising obvi-
ously takes place for some other reason and the EPP is always a good can-
didate. Of course, this is essentially the problem we encounter when ac-
counting for the difference between raising verbs and control verbs in
general. However, the analytical apparatus requires a range of abstract
heads that never seem to have any morphological realization, and the au-
thor invokes a (somewhat cryptic) notion of a bounded scale, LF-
reconstructions and other covert movements to account for the interpreta-
tional facts (Barbiers 1995). Barbiers' attempt to account for modals with
all kinds of complements, including DP/noun phrase complements, leads to
the assumption that verbal constituents project functional heads that we
normally associate only with nominal categories. As pointed out by Harley
(1998: 6) the latter speculations are "perhaps less successful."
For one thing, it remains unexplained why the verb moeten 'must' de-
notes like/dislike with definite DPs rather than 'want/need', as it seems to
do with indefinites and verbal complements. One natural assumption is that
we are dealing with two different but homonymous modals in these cases.
For further counterarguments along these lines, see Harley (1998).
Another problem are Barbiers' two essential claims about root interpre-
tations, repeated here for convenience:
(i) the complement of the modal must denote a value on a bounded
scale, and (ii) this value is not the actual value at the moment Τ de-
noted by the modal.
Although the latter seems to be accurate for non-verbal complements of
root modals (even for their Norwegian counterparts), it is obviously not
correct for verbal complements, as shown in (21).

'Jon must reside in his office.'
Barbiers claims that the embedded proposition Jon vcere pä kontoret 'Jon
reside in his office' should be false at the time of utterance and required to
be true at some point in the future. It seems obvious, however, that (21)
may be uttered in a situation where Jon is already in his office, i.e. where
the value 1 already pertains to the event. So there has to be some temporal
or other semantic differences between verbal and non-verbal complements
(cf. Chapter 4 of the present work for an account).
Whatever one's objections, Barbiers' approach offers an innovative per-
spective on modals and their various interpretations although substantial
parts of this analysis remain highly speculative and important issues are left
for future research.
2.8. L0drup (1996a)
L0drup (1996a) discusses almost solely Norwegian data, whereof modals

constitute a significant part. This work aims to shed some light on the de-
bate surrounding the categorical status of modals, i.e. whether they should
be considered auxiliaries or not.
Lodrup's point of departure are two sets of syntactic criteria typically
used to define auxiliaries—language-specific and language-independent
criteria. Language-specific criteria include word-order facts as well as pos-
sible governors and governees of the auxiliary. Language-independent cri-
teria include the requirement that an auxiliary occur with a main verb and
the requirement that an auxiliary not impose any semantic restrictions on its
subject; the latter is a consequence of the fact that auxiliaries have no inde-
pendent subject position. This amounts to saying that all auxiliaries are
raising verbs (but not vice versa). The issue Lodrup focuses on is the fact
that in many languages, such as Norwegian, the two sets of criteria, lan-
guage-specific and language-independent, select different groups of verbs.
Modals are of particular interest here, L0drup says, since root modals are
selected by language-specific criteria, but fail to meet language-
independent criteria, while non-root modals meet both sets of criteria. Thus,
non-root modals are indeed raising verbs, but root modals are control verbs,
according to this analysis, in the Ross (1969) tradition.
As evidence for the appropriateness of this analysis for Norwegian mo-
dals, Lodrup presents data illustrating the difference in behaviour between
root and non-root modals in passive and impersonal constructions. Root
modals have an independent subject position, Lodrup says, so the 'well-
known fact' that non-root modals and root modals pattern differently with
144 A sumey of recent proposals
respect to passive and impersonal constructions is expected. The following

data are presented to support this claim (L0drup's (5) and (6)):
(22) a. Maten vil bli servert snart.

food-DEF will become served soon
'The food will be served soon.'
b. Det vil komme noen.

there will come someone
'Someone will come.'
The only natural reading of the modal in these two sentences is the non-
root reading (future/prediction); the root reading (volition) is not available
(unless we ascribe a human-like quality to the food). This, says Ledrup, is
indicative of a pattern where the root modal, being a control verb, has an
independent subject position and therefore imposes specific selection re-
quirements onto the subject, e.g. that a potential subject must denote a hu-
man or at least animate being. The non-root modal, lacking an independent
subject position, is unable to impose such selection requirements onto its
subject, as expected from a true raising verb.
Lodrup's data demonstrate another interesting difference between root
and non-root modals. Root modals, unlike non-root modals, are able to take
"ordinary NP objects," i.e. definite pro-forms substituting for the VP com-
plement. 39 The modals in (23a) all have root readings only. Moreover, root
modals, unlike epistemic modals, take adverbial complements; in (23b), the
modals yield only root readings.
(23) a. Dette kan/vil/skal/mä/bßr jeg ikke.

this can/will/shall/must/ought I not
Ί can't/won't/shouldn't/mustn't/ought not to do this.'
b. Jeg vil/skal ut.

I will/shall out
Ί want to go out/I am going out.'
39
Lentrup himself claims that these are not elliptical constructions, but modals
lacking any VP complement.
L0drup mentions the fact that root modals, with the marginal exception of
kunne and ville, do not passivize as a problem for his analysis of root mo-
dals as control verbs:

The lesson must can-PASS tomorrow
b. Dette mä ikke bare 0nskes, det mä villes.

This must not only wish-PASSIVE, it must will-PASS
In an effort to explain the general ban against passivized root modals,

L0drup claims that most root modals take benefactive subjects and that
other Norwegian verbs with benefactive subjects seem marginal as passives
too (for example, ha 'have' and fa 'get').
Ledrup explores the differences between auxiliaries and other raising
verbs (as not all raising verbs are auxiliaries) and lists two such differences.
Auxiliaries (thus non-root modals) allow for their VP complement to un-
dergo topicalization and pronominalization, as in (25ac), while non-
auxiliary raising verbs (illustrated by the raising verb forekomme 'seem')
do not, as illustrated in (25bd) (L0drup's (13), (15), (17) and (19)).
(25) a. Regne kan det ikke.

rain can it not
'It couldn't be raining.'
b. *Ä spille golf forekommer han meg.

to play golf seems he to me
'He seems to me to play golf.'
c. (Kan det regne?) Det kan det.

(can it rain?) It can that
'Might it be raining? So it might.'
d. (Kan Per sies a vcere lur?) *Han forekommer meg det.

(can per sayPASS to be smart?) he seems to me that
'(Could one say that Per is smart?) He seems so to me.'
If the possibility for VP-topicalization and VP-pronominalization is consid-

ered a criterion for auxiliaries, Lodrup says, we get some new auxiliaries
such as pleie 'use to', beheve 'need', trenge 'need'. These differ from the
traditional auxiliaries in allowing the infinitival marker 40 and allowing the
pro-form g]0re in tags.
Finally, Lodrup derives the auxiliary-like properties of root modals (the
ability to take bare infinitivals, for instance) from the fact that they have
non-root counterparts. This is because 'aux-properties' of root modals are
parasitic on non-root modals. Lodrup supports his claim with facts about
the Danish modal turde 'dare', where the non-root reading has become
archaic, and as a result, the root version now accepts infinitivals with the
infinitival marker. As Lodrup (1996a: 11) says, "The parasite has lost its
host." Likewise, in English, the main verb have seems to have certain auxil-
iary properties that must be 'parasitic', according to McCawley (1988:
246).
This work offers some interesting observations. In particular, I find it in-
teresting that behßve/trenge 'need' seem to pattern with non-root modals
with respect to topicalization and pronominalization of their VP comple-
ments, and that root modals may take definite VP pro-forms (dette, 'this'),
unlike non-root modals. However, this account also has serious shortcom-
ings. The analysis is especially flawed in that many crucial (alleged) prop-
erties of root modals are illustrated by kunne 'can' and ville 'want-to' only.
As discussed in Chapter 2, these two root modals have a range of properties
that make them non-typical root modals. For instance, to illustrate his cru-
cial claim that root modals are control verbs in Norwegian, Lodrup pro-
vides data with the root modal vil 'want to' in passive and impersonal con-
structions, as in (22) above, repeated here:

f o o d - D E F will b e c o m e served soon
'The food will be served soon.'
b. Dei vil komme noen.

there will come someone
'Someone will come.'
40
Trenge/behove both allow for the infinitival marker ä to be omitted only in their
negated forms, cf. Chapter 2; cf. also Johannessen (1998, 2003) for similar verbs.
Lodrup correctly claims that root readings are unavailable or unnatural in

these sentences. What he fails to notice, however, is that root readings are
fine with all other modals in these constructions; volitional ville is in fact
the only modal that behaves in this way, as (27) shows:
(27) a. Maten mä/ skal/ kan/ bor bli servert snart.

Maten ma/skal/kan/b0r serveres snart
'The food must/ will/ may/ should be served soon.'
(non-root and root both OK)
b. Det mä/skal/ kan/ bor komme noen.

there must/ will/ may/ should come someone
'Someone must/ will/ may/ should come.'
(non-root and root both OK)
Note that these sentences are ambiguous between a non-root reading, which
signals the degree of likelihood of the embedded proposition, and a root
reading, which signals the necessity/intention/permission of the occurrence
of the event described by the embedded proposition. Crucially, a root read-
ing is indeed possible with inanimate and expletive subjects.
Thus, a substantial part of L0drup's argument for Norwegian root mo-
dals as control verbs with independent subject positions is based on a sin-
gle, and very atypical, root modal, ville. As seen in (27) above, his very
own tests applied to all other root modals indicate that root modals must be
raising verbs, too.
However, this does not diminish the importance of some of Lodrup's
other observations—that behßve/trenge 'need' seem to pattern with non-
root modals with respect to topicalization and pronominalization of their
VP complements, and that root modals may take definite VP pro-forms
(dette 'this'), unlike non-root modals.
2.9. Dyvik (1999)
According to the author himself (p.c.), Dyvik (1999) is first and foremost
an argument against the analysis of auxiliaries presented in Butt, Nino and
Segond (1996) which suggests that AUX categories should be analyzed as
functional categories contributing only tense and aspect features to the sen-
tence. Traditional analyses within HPSG and LFG, on the other hand, treat
auxiliaries as elements similar to main verbs. Dyvik (1999) argues that the
traditional analysis is more effective at capturing the linguistic facts about
Norwegian modals and perfect auxiliaries since Norwegian auxiliaries in-
deed seem to have the properties of complement-taking verbs, as suggested
by traditional LFG/HPSG analyses. He supports his claim with a range of
data, observations, and generalizations concerning Norwegian modals and
(other) auxiliaries.
Dyvik (1999: 4) points out that although the semantic range of Norwe-
gian modals is similar to those in English, French, and German, there is a
notable systematicity of alternatives in Norwegian:
Every modal can be interpreted either as a one-place epistemic [i.e. non-
root] modal or as a two-place root modal. Under the [non-root] interpreta-
tions the subject referent is not an argument of the modal, which only takes
the entire proposition as an argument.... Under the root interpretation the
subject referent is an argument of the modal.
Under the non-root interpretation, modals meet the universal criterion for
auxiliaries in that they impose no semantic restrictions on the subject; thus,
if modals occur with formal (or expletive) subjects, only the non-root read-
ing is possible, Dyvik claims. He also points out that when a modal takes
the perfect auxiliary as a complement, the reading of the modal is always
non-root (Dyvik's (10)).
(28) a. Han vil/kan/mä/skal ha dreiet händtaket.

he will may must shall have turned leverDEF
'He will/may/must/is said to have turned the lever.'
Norwegian modals can also be complements of the perfect auxiliary, but

not in the non-root sense, he claims.
(29) a. Han har villet/kunnet/mättet/skullet dreie händtaket.

he has [want-to/can/must/shall]PERF turn the-lever
'He has wanted/been able/ been obliged/had a duty
to turn the lever.'
It seems possible to construct examples where non-root modals are com-

plements of other non-root modals, mostly before the perfect auxiliary ha:
(30) Han vil kunne ha reist i morgen.

he will mayINF have travelled tomorrow
'Tomorrow it will be the case
that he may have gone away.'
Based on these syntactic facts, Dyvik concludes that non-root modals can
only occur in finite forms (present and past tense) and the infinitive, while
the past participle is reserved for root modals.
Dyvik refers to some points from L0drup (1996a). Since Ledrup argues
that non-root modals should be considered raising verbs and root modals
control verbs, it seems natural to assume that L0drup also considers the
non-root and root varieties of Norwegian modals distinct lexemes (al-
though, as Dyvik points out, L0drup (1996a) is not explicit about this). This
is an assumption that Dyvik (1999: 6) is unwilling to adopt:
the analysis of [non-root] and root modals as distinct lexemes would give
rise to a puzzlingly systematic homonymy linking pairs of [non-root] and
root modals in Norwegian, a systematicity which would then be unac-
counted for. The formal identity of all morphosyntactic forms which they
both have, along with their obvious semantic relatedness, would appear ac-
cidental.
Dyvik suggests bringing the non-root and root meanings together by deriv-
ing the non-root varieties from the root varieties by lexical rules operating
on semantic forms and X C O M P (complement-taking) constraints. For in-
stance, one needs to state that the complements of root modals and the per-
fect auxiliary ha can only be root modals or main verbs and not non-root
modals or the auxiliary ha itself, while non-root modals can take all kinds
of complements. Each modal verb would have pairs of entries where the
non-root entry is derived, or at least derivable, from the corresponding root
entry.
Since D y v i k ' s solution has X C O M P constraints as a crucial ingredient,
it follows that Dyvik is less eager to do away with XCOMP-properties as
possible constraints on modals and other auxiliaries, as proposed by Butt et
al. (1996). Although, Dyvik says, it would no doubt be technically possible
to provide an alternative analysis of the Norwegian constructions along the
lines suggested by Butt et al.
D y v i k ' s article contains observations and generalizations rarely found in
works on modals, and his arguments against a 'two distinct lexemes' hy-
pothesis seem appealing. Several of the generalizations in this work, how-
ever, simply do not hold up under close scrutiny. A m o n g these generaliza-
tions is the claim that root modals are always two-place predicates (cf.
quote above), a widespread assumption that we have already addressed and
rejected in section 3.9 of Chapter 2. The claim that only non-root modals
take expletive subjects is not a sound generalization either; cf. section 2.6
for evidence to the contrary.
An interesting observation is that the reading of the modal is non-root
when preceding a perfect auxiliary and root when following it (a similar
generalization is sometimes found throughout the European modal litera-
ture). While the latter observation usually holds for the standard dialects of
Norwegian, Bokmäl and Nynorsk,4i (although not for non-standard dia-
lects), the former does not. It is true that the default reading of a modal
preceding a perfect auxiliary is non-root, all things being equal. However, it
is rather easy to force a root reading on any modal in such surroundings, if
we provide the sentence with a purpose-clause or a temporal-adverbial
clause denoting a point in the future, as in (31).
(31) a. Pasienten skal ha blitt beviselig feilbehandlet

patientDEF shall have become provably wrong-treated
for ä ha krav pä er staining.
for to have claim on compensation
'The patient must provably have been subject to

malpractice in order to be entitled to a compensation.'
b. Du b0r ha gjort ferdig leksene dine fßr du gär pä kino.

you should have done finished homeworkDEF yours
before you go to cinema
'You ought to have finished your homework before going

to the movies.'
c. En student mä ha ridd mye for ä bli opptatt i rideklubben.

a student must have ridden much for to become
up-taken in rideclubDEF
Ά student must have ridden a lot in order to be admitted to

the jockey club.'
41
But cf. the bokmäl counterfactual-constructions in (9) of section 2, Chapter 2.
d. Jeg mä ha bestätt denne pr0venf0r neste semester.

I must have passed this test-DEF before next term
Ί must have passed this test by next term.'
The observation that Norwegian modals preceding a perfect auxiliary have

a default non-root reading—although this is not the only reading possible in
these surroundings—is nevertheless interesting and should be investigated
further. I will discuss this question thoroughly in Chapter 5.
To sum up, although Dyvik (1999) presents a range of generalizations
rarely made for Norwegian, several of his generalizations turn out to be
false. Thus, although his analysis may offer a better account of modals and
other auxiliaries than Butt, Nino and Segond (1996), it is based on several
dubious premises.
2.10. Wurmbrand (1999, 2001)
Wurmbrand (1999) is a subsection of a chapter in Wurmbrand's (2001)

book on infinitival constructions in German (and other Germanic lan-
guages). I will primarily quote from the former, with certain illustrations
and quotes from the latter. The analysis and the arguments are by and large
the same in both works. Wurmbrand's main objective is to challenge the
wide-spread control versus raising analysis of Germanic modals, as devel-
oped in several of the works discussed above. She concentrates primarily
on arguments provided by three empirical domains: a) evidence suggesting
that the subject is selected solely by the lower (infinitival verb) predicate;
b) scopal relations between the subject and the modal; and c) evidence sug-
gesting that root modals do not assign theta-roles.
Wurmbrand's first piece of evidence comes from there-insertion con-
texts allowing for root readings of the modal (Wurmbrand's (3a) and (3c)):
(32) a. There may be singing but no dancing on my premises.

b. There can be a party as long as it's not too loud.
c. There must be a solution to this problem on my desk,
tomorrow morning!
These examples strongly favor a raising analysis over a control one for root
modals (as well as for non-root ones) since only raising verbs take exple-
tive subjects. Wurmbrand goes on to provide examples from quirky case-
marked subjects in Icelandic. Her analysis at this point goes against the
generalizations made in Thräinsson and Vikner (1995) (cf. section 2.6
above) that only non-root modals, and not root modals, allow for quirky
subjects. Wurmbrand provides examples of root modals with quirky sub-
jects (Wurmbrand's (7)):
(33) a. Haraldi/*Haraldur verdur ad lika hamborgarar

Harold-DAT /Harold-NOM must to like hamburgers
'Harold must like hamburgers.'
(in order to be accepted by his new American in-laws)
b. Umscekjandann verdur ad vanta peninga.

The-applicant-ACC must to lack money
'The applicant must lack money.'
(in order to apply for this grant)
The verb lika assigns dative case to its subject, whereas the verb vanta as-
signs accusative case to its subject; this quirky case marking on the subject
is retained when these verbs are embedded under root modals, as shown in
(33). As argued by Thräinsson and Vikner (1995), only raising verbs allow
for quirky case subjects in Icelandic; 42 therefore, Wurmbrand argues, con-
structions such as these provide another piece of evidence that root modals
are raising verbs. Her arguments thus follow Thräinsson and Vikner's
(1995) arguments, but her conclusion is the exact opposite of theirs. This
disagreement stems from the different views on the potential availability of
root readings in constructions such as (33). Thräinsson and Vikner (1995:
59-60) reject the possibility of root readings in these constructions, whereas
Wurmbrand's Icelandic informants assure her that root readings are possi-
ble and that quirky case is essential for these constructions to be grammati-
cal.
Wurmbrand then turns to passive in modal constructions. First, she
notes that the generalization about passive in German is that passive is pos-
sible only if the predicate has an underlying external argument (since unac-
cusative predicates cannot be passivized). This generalization extends to
42
To be exact, Thräinsson and Vikner (1995: 60) claim that verbs that take quirky
subjects cannot very easily be embedded under control verbs at all, but whenever
that is possible, the case of the subject of the control verb must be nominative, as
determined by the control verb itself, and not quirky.
verbs that combine with infinitival complements; passive is possible in

control verbs (versuchen 'try', beschliessen 'decide'), but ungrammatical in
raising verbs. If one assumes that all modals are raising verbs, the ban on
the passivization of modals follows straightforwardly. The second lesson to
be learned from modals in passive constructions comes from modals with
passive complements. Control contexts in general block passivization of the
embedded infinitive, while raising verbs and essentially non-root and root
modals allow an embedded passive, as the data in (34) show (Wurmbrand's
(Π))·
(34) a. The biscuits seem to have been finished by Paul

b. *The bisquits tried/decided to be finished by Paul
c. The biscuits may be finished by Paul.
The explanation for the ungrammaticality of (34b) is that control verbs

such as try and decide require an agentive external argument with which
they establish a thematic relation and the inanimate subject fails to meet
this requirement. No such effect arises with raising verbs or, crucially, with
non-root or root modals. The similarity between root modals and (other)
raising verbs in this respect suggests that root modals, like non-root modals,
are raising, not control verbs.
Invoking May (1977, 1985), Wurmbrand states that control and raising
verbs differ with respect to scope properties vis-ä-vis their syntactic sub-
jects: raising constructions but not control constructions allow an interpre-
tation in which the subject takes narrow scope with respect to the matrix
verb; note the possible readings of the raising predicate construction in
(35a) vs. the single reading of the control predicate construction in (35b)
(Wurmbrand's (14)):
(35) a. Someone from New York is likely to win in the lottery

i) There is somebody from N.Y.
and he is likely to win in the lottery
ii) It is likely that somebody from N.Y.
will win in the lottery
b. Someone from NY tried/promised to win in the lottery

'There is somebody from N.Y. and he tried/promised
to win in the lottery.'
If modals (in particular root modals) are raising predicates, one would ex-
pect modal constructions to display the same scopal ambiguity as other
raising predicates, where the subject may have wide scope or narrow scope
with respect to the modal. Wurmbrand provides data suggesting that this is
the case:
(36) a. Somebody from New York must have won in the lottery
(non-root)
and he must have won in the lottery
ii) It must be the case that somebody from N.Y.
have won in the lottery
b. An Austrian must win the next race (in order for Austria to
have the most gold medals; root reading)
i) There is an Austrian for whom it is necessary
to win the next race
ii) It is necessary that an Austrian (whoever it is)
win the next race
Many authors (cf. references in Wurmbrand 1999) have argued that this
scopal ambiguity in raising constructions is due to the availability of two
subject positions in these constructions: the lower subject position of the
embedded predicate (corresponding to the narrow-scope reading) and the
upper subject position of the matrix predicate (corresponding to the wide-
scope reading). In raising constructions, the subject may be interpreted as
occupying either of these positions, unlike in control constructions, where
only one subject position is available. Whatever the theoretical assump-
tions, the similarity between modals-root as well as non-root -and (other)
raising predicates with respect to scopal ambiguity suggests that modals are
raising verbs.
Finally, Wurmbrand challenges the assumption that root modals are able
to assign theta-roles in any construction and suggests instead that the ap-
parent thematic relation between a root modal and the subject in certain
contexts is purely contextual. To support this claim, she provides a range of
data (some from works by other authors) that clearly do not involve a the-
matic relation between the subject and the root modal, as in (37):
(37) a. There can be a party as long as it is not too loud

b. The biscuits may be finished by Paul (Warner 1993)
c. An opening hand must contain 13 points (Newmeyer 1975)
d. Icicles may hang from the eavestroughs (McGinnis 1993)
e. The traitor must die
f. The old man must fall down the stairs
and it must look like an accident
Wurmbrand (1999: 13) concludes by stating that

All these properties are expected and straightforwardly accounted for if a
subject in a modal construction starts out as an argument of the lower predi-
cate - i.e. if a modal construction involves a raising structure rather than a
control structure.
I object to little in Wurmbrand's article as I find it thorough and convinc-

ing. However, not all of her arguments extend to all Norwegian, other
Mainland Scandinavian, or German modals, since there are modals that
behave in atypical ways, like the Norwegian main verbs and the dyadic
dynamic modals kunne 'can' and ville 'want to'. Wurmbrand's arguments
also do not apply to the German modals wollen 'want to' and mögen
'would like' (cf. Öhlschläger 1989: 129 ff., who analyzes these two root
modals as control verbs but all other modals as raising verbs).
Figure 6
AuxP
-,θ Aux'
epistemic
,θ Mod'
vP/aspP Mod0
root/deontic
θ v'/Asp1
VP v°/Asp°
dynamic
Wurmbrand (2001: 204) maintains that root modals are raising verbs that
do not assign a subject role, but discusses an exception in dynamic modals,
which probably should be analyzed as control verbs, as in figure 6 (from
Wurmbrand 2001: 183). Note that most modals can appear in any of the
three positions, according to Wurmbrand, and the different positions corre-
spond to different syntactic properties and different interpretations.
One problem for Wurmbrand's analysis—even the 2001 version—is the
German modal wollen 'will' in its non-root (evidential) reading. If this
modal is anything like other non-root (or epistemic) modals, it ought to be a
raising verb, displaying no specific semantic requirements towards the DP
in its subject position. However, it does in fact require a subject denoting a
human being (cf. section 7.2. of Chapter 2) and therefore has at least one
crucial property in common with control verbs.
Non-root readings of modals following a perfective auxiliary are pre-
dicted to be ungrammatical by Wurmbrand's analysis. Thus, the possibility
of such readings in these surroundings would pose a potential problem. I
argue in Chapter 5 that such readings actually do exist for a number of lan-
guages.
Wurmbrand's (2001) book as well as the (1999) article are clear and
well-written, her points are mostly well argued, her knowledge of the rele-
vant literature is impressive, and her generalizations come across as empiri-
cally sound. For anyone who works with modals and infinitival construc-
tions in Germanic languages, reading this book is time well spent.
2.11.Butler (2003)
According to the author himself, Butler (2003) is a blend of Kratzer's clas-

sic analysis of modals as propositional operators and current minimalist
ideas about the propositional nature of phases (Chomsky 1999). This gives
rise to two scope positions for modals: one associated with the vP phase
and one associated with the CP phase. The former scope position leads to
root readings of modals and the latter to epistemic readings. 43
43
Butler discusses only root and epistemic readings of modals. As mentioned pre-
viously, no English proper modal displays an evidential reading (although the
compound be supposed to does), and Butler specifically directs his analysis to-
wards the root-epistemic distinction. Thus, in this subsection (and the next, which
also analysis English modals) I refer to the root- epistemic distinction instead of
the the root-non-root distinction.
Butler requires a sound theory of modality to account for a) how the

epistemic/root distinction is derived; b) why cross-linguistically modals
have the same phonetic form for epistemic and root readings; and c) how
the scope properties of modals come about and how they interact with other
scope-bearing elements in the clause. Butler sets out to answer these ques-
tions. With regard to a), he concludes that the epistemic/root distinction
arises from the mapping from syntax to semantics: epistemic and root mo-
dals have a unitary lexical semantics as propositional operators, which al-
lows them to be merged in either of two syntactic positions, one associated
with the vP phase (the smallest propositional subtree of the clause, where
the verb is merged with all its arguments) and the other with the CP phase
(the biggest propositional phase). The answer to b) is therefore that modals
have the same form cross-linguistically for epistemic and root readings
because they are essentially the same lexical item simply interpreted in
different places. The answer to c) is that the scope properties of modals
arise from their quantificational nature (as universal or existential opera-
tors) coupled with their syntactic position at LF. Their LF position could be
something like in figure 7 for root and epistemic modals respectively (But-
ler's (28) and (30)).
(38) a. Everybody must get stoned.

(the host requires it; root reading)
(judging from the results from these meetings; epistemic)
Figure 7
a. root b. epistemic
XP YP
t, get stoned
There are a lot of potential but presently less relevant questions to ask
about these two tree structures; I will, however, urge the reader to focus on
the crucial assumption—that root modals merge with vP and keep this
scope position at LF whereas epistemic modals merge higher (T) and take
scope over everything else at LF.
Butler offers support for his analysis from a number of domains, in par-
ticular the scope interaction between modals and other quantificational
elements in the clause. I will focus on three of these empirical domains:
modals and symmetric predicates, modals and quantified subjects, and mo-
dals and negation.
Symmetric predicates are relations for which the following inference
pattern is valid: R(x,y) -> R(y,x). For instance, if χ shakes hands with y,
then y shakes hands with x. And if χ resembles y, then y resembles x.
Brennan (1997) 44 shows that if clauses with symmetric predicates also con-
tain modals, the inference R(x,y) -> R(y,x) only remains valid under epis-
temic readings for those modals, as in (39b), not under root readings, as in
(39c).
(39) a. Arthur looks like Susan -> Susan looks like Arthur
b. Arthur might look like Susan --> S. might look like Arthur
c. Arthur can look like Susan -|-> Susan can look like Arthur
If it is a possible assumption that Arthur looks like Susan, then it must also
be a possible assumption that Susan looks like Arthur. However, in (39c),
Arthur may have great impersonation skills that allow him to look like
Susan, whereas Susan may lack any such skills, preventing her from look-
ing anything like Arthur.
Butler (2003) takes this pattern as support for his analysis since epis-
temic modals combine with an already formed proposition (CP including
the subject) and are unable to affect the way an argument and the predicate
combine, whereas root modals combine with the vP, a subtree containing
the subject trace, but not the subject itself. Thus, the modal can mediate the
subject-predicate relation directly by its LF position (Butler 2003: 977).
44
Brennan also investigates this pattern in her (1993) dissertation and elaborates
on this in her book manuscript from 2004 (the 1997 reference is an earlier draft of
the 2004 manuscript.) Diewald (1999: 62) points out the same type of restriction
for the German dürfen.
This gives rise to a nice dichotomy, where root modals are predicate-
like in combining with subjects, whereas epistemic modals combine with
saturated propositions. Unfortunately, Brennan (1997) is somewhat misrep-
resented in Butler's article, since Brennan explicitly argues against the type
of dichotomy Butler wants to advocate. Brennan recognizes that epistemic
modals always have proposition-scope readings, but root modals, e.g. deon-
tic modals, may have narrow-scope (predicate-like) or wide-scope (proposi-
tion-scope) readings. The fact that only (what we have referred to as) sub-
ject-oriented readings of root modals fit into the proposed dichotomy is left
out of Butler's representation of Brennan (1997). Thus, in (40), if we grant
the modal a proposition-scope root reading, the root modal behaves just
like an epistemic modal with regard to the symmetric predicate.
(40) a. Arthur must/may look like Susan.

it is required/allowed that Arthur looks like Susan ->
it is required/allowed that Susan looks like Arthur.
According to Butler himself (2003: 980), it is an explicit prediction of his

proposal that epistemic modals invariably will take "scope over... 'canoni-
cal-scope subjects', (i.e. subjects scoping in [Spec, TP]), and root modals
will take scope below [these subjects]". There are certain types of subjects,
however, that scope lower than [Spec,TP]; existential subjects are associ-
ated instead with their Theta-position in [Spec, vP]. Thus, root modals
ought to scope lower than canonical subjects in [Spec, TP], but over exis-
tential subjects in [Spec, vP], since "the scope position associated with root
[modal]s is between the two scope positions associated with the subject"
(981). Butler claims that this prediction is borne out, cf. (41):
(41) a. Some philosophers must go to those seminars.

i. Epistemic: must > some philosophers
ii. Root: some philosophers > must

(Socrates and Carnap are required to go)
iii. Root: must > some philosophers

(it is required that some philosophers go, never mind who)
Once again, this seems convincing at first glance. However, we already

know that a root modal can yield a proposition-scope (wide-scope) reading
even when the subject is not an existential-type subject. For instance, a root
modal can just as easily scope over as under a proper name (independently
referential) subject, as pointed out by numerous authors as early as the
1960s. A very appropriate question is: what is the position of the (strong)
subject on this reading?
(42) a. John must disappear.

i. John has an obligation to disappear (John > must).
ii. It is required that John disappears (must > John).
Now, we move on to modals and negation. The relative scope possibilities

between modals and negation lead Butler to the conclusion that the LF
hierarchy for modals and negation is the following.
Figure 8
epistemic necessity > (negation) > epistemic possibility >
root necessity > (negation) > root possibility
Butler invokes the long debate on the proper characterization of negation—

whether sentential negation is a prepositional or a predicate operator—and
suggests that there are two negation positions in the sentence: one high
position scoping over epistemic possibility but under epistemic necessity
and one low position scoping over root possibility but under root necessity.
(43) a. The resgistrar mustn't have got my letter.

epistemic necessity > negation
b. The registrar can't have got my letter.
negation > epistemic possibility
c. The children mustn't do that in here.
root necessity > negation
d. The children can't do that in here.
negation > root possibility
Butler uses these data to support a more controversial and therefore more
interesting hypothesis—that there does in fact exist a functional layer im-
mediately dominating vP that is structurally very similar to the functional
layer of (Rizzi-style) CP; the "internal periphery," in Belletti's (2001) ter-
minology (cf. Figure 9 for the structure; Butler's (66)). Although this is an
interesting idea that I will discuss in Chapter 5 , 1 consider it a problem for
Butler's hypothesis that there exist data where negation scopes over epis-
temic modality (as Butler does in fact mention on page 985, although he
claims that this regards a very small fraction of speakers).
However, the more serious problem with Butler's proposal is the at-
tempt to force modals into a dichotomy reminiscent of the control versus
raising dichotomy, where root entails a semantic relation between the sub-
ject and the modal (except for existential subjects), and epistemic entails
the lack of such a relation. Although this, on a certain level of abstraction,
is a garden-variety way of analyzing modals, it still does not do justice to
the proposition-scope readings of root modals with 'strong' (presupposed
and independently referential) subjects. Under Butler's analysis, these read-
ings of root modals are simply not expected to exist.
Figure 9
UisrvV
;ι·Ί 1 ί>ι Ρ
μ..·. i ,ιιί'
stil»? Τ'
·,. -Ι·
!'. .it
ί II !
2.12.van Gelderen (2003, 2004)
Van Gelderen (2003) constitutes the major part of one chapter in her 2004
book. Her analysis of root and epistemic modals in English presented in
these two works can be summed up in the two tree structures in figures 10
and 11, showing the merger position of root modals and epistemic modals,
respectively.
Figure 10
Figure 11
According to this proposal, deontic modals in English originate in ASP,

whereas epistemic modals are in M(od) and select ASP phrases as their
complements. Van Gelderen uses various arguments to support this analy-
sis; I will discuss three of her arguments. Firstly, van Gelderen claims that
present tense deontic modals derive historically from perfective verb forms,
which "suggests an 'affinity' with aspect" (2003: 27). Secondly, she uses as
her "most compelling argument" (2003: 32) for deontic modals as ASP-
heads the fact that deontic predicates cannot take auxiliaries as their com-
plements, unlike epistemic predicates. This is accounted for if epistemics
select an ASPP(hrase), whereas deontics are in complementary distribution
with other aspectuals, competing for the same head position. Third, double
modal varieties of English typically have at most two modals with the epis-
temic preceding the deontic. This fits if one modal is in ASP and the other
higher in the structure.
Van Gelderen's first argument is that deontic modals derive from per-
fective verb forms and therefore in some sense still belong to the category
ASP. The obvious objection to this claim is that epistemic modals arguably
make use of the same forms as deontic modals. How come the aspectual
properties, giving rise to the 'affinity to aspect' of deontic modals, are not
retained in the epistemic verb forms? One possible answer would be to
claim that whereas deontic modals derive from perfective verbs, epistemic
modals derive from deontic ones; thus, they are in some sense historically,
and perhaps also in terms of feature composition, more distant from their
aspectual origin. However, this objection needs to be considered. 45
According to van Gelderen herself, the most compelling argument for
her analysis is the fact that deontic modals do not take perfect or progres-
sive auxiliaries as complements. 46 However, this is not quite correct. The
following data, taken from Brennan (2004: 45), show that at least deontic
must is quite comfortable with perfect and progressive complements, as
long as a temporal adverbial of the right type occurs in the sentence or con-
text.
45
Van Gelderen does say that elements climb higher up in the tree as they gram-
maticalize, as they change from lexical to grammatical elements (this mechanism,
"late merge" is in fact one of the two major mechanisms of grammaticalization
defended throughout the book (the other is "Head over Spec"). See also Roberts
and Roussou (2002, 2003) for a similar idea.
46
She also suggests that deontic modals take as complements eventive verbs,
whereas stative complements are ungrammatical if the modal is deontic (2003: 34):
(i) * An orange must/may be healthy.
However, this question was addressed already by Newmeyer (1969) (see also Horn
1972 and Brennan 2004), where it is shown that deontic modals certainly do take
stative complements.
(i) Post office employees can't smoke pot on the job,
but they may have long hair.
(ii) An opening hand must contain thirteen points.
(44) a. Students must have taken calculus

by the start of their senior year.
b. The water must be boiling

It is not obvious how these data can be accounted for in van Gelderen's
analysis, represented in the tree structure in figure 11, since this structure is
designed to force a complementary distribution of deontic modals and as-
pectuals.
Van Gelderen's third argument is that epistemic modals scope over and
precede deontic modals in English variants where double modals occur.
This generalization holds even for Norwegian and, to my knowledge, all
other languages where double modals are possible. However, even if this
fact suggests that epistemic modals are merged higher in the sentence struc-
ture than deontic modals, it does by no means force an analysis of deontic
modals as aspectual heads. In my opinion, the latter part of van Gelderen's
analysis is therefore not sufficiently corroborated even by data from stan-
dard modern English.
2.13.Picallo (1990)
As all the works mentioned in this survey have focused (most of them ex-
clusively) on Germanic modals, I will include a work concentrating on
Romance modals as the final work in this survey.
Picallo's (1990) main purpose is to argue against the traditional analysis
of modals as restructuring verbs (e.g. Rizzi 1978), where the structure Mo-
dal + V I N F is seen as a monosentential structure derived from an initial mul-
ticlausal structure (e.g. Burzio 1986). Picallo instead argues for an analysis
of modals where the construction Modal + ViNF is monosentential on every
level of representation. In Picallo's analysis, epistemic modals are constitu-
ents of INFL, whereas root modals are VP adjuncts. She specifically argues
against an analysis of epistemic modals as raising verbs and root modals as
control verbs, at least for Catalan.
Picallo's point of departure is the ambiguity of a sentence such as (45):
(45) a. El lladre pogue entrar per la finestra.

the thief could come in by the window
i. 'It is possible that the thief came in through the window.'
ii. 'The thief was able to come in through the window.'
The ambiguity, Picallo says, follows from the fact that this sentence may be
assigned two distinct D-structure configurations. The modal may be gener-
ated in INFL and receive an epistemic reading, (45ai), in which it has scope
over the entire clause, or it may be generated as an adjunct to VP and re-
ceive a root reading, (45aii), in which it is interpreted as a subject-oriented
secondary predicate. The two different structures are represented by Figure
12 a and b respectively.
Figure 12
a: Epistemic reading b: Root reading
IP IP
Picallo goes on to present evidence from various constructions to support

her claims. First, she invokes the assumption that derived subjects in Ro-
mance cannot bind anaphoric clitics (Kayne 1975; Rizzi 1986). This
amounts to saying that raising predicates disallow clitic climbing of ana-
phoric clitics. But sentences with epistemic modals and anaphoric clitics
that have undergone climbing are always fully grammatical in Catalan and
in Romance languages in general, which makes Picallo conclude that epis-
temic modals cannot be raising predicates. Instead, these facts provide evi-
dence for Picallo's own structure for epistemic modals (depicted in Figure
12a above), where the subject is base generated in [Spec,IP] as the external
argument of the infinitive predicate. Thus, the subject of a sentence con-
taining an epistemic modal is a non-derived subject and therefore able to
bind an anaphoric clitic.
Picallo finds further evidence for this structure in the fact that epistemic
modals cannot be preceded by auxiliaries. On the assumption that auxilia-
ries are VP constituents, this fact follows if epistemic modals are generated
in INFL. On the other hand, root modals are VP constituents themselves
(Figure 12b above) and nothing prevents them from being preceded by an
auxiliary. Thus, in (46a) the modal has only the epistemic reading, whereas
in (46b), the modal has only the root reading (Picallo's (23)):
(46) a. En Joan pot haver anat a Banyoles.

Joan can have gone to Banyoles
'Joan may have gone to Banyoles.'
b. En Joan ha pogut anar a Banyoles.

has could go
'Joan has been allowed to go to Banyoles.'
Furthermore, whenever two modals occur in the same sentence, the first
modal, but not both, may be interpreted as epistemic. This follows if epis-
temic modals are constituents of INFL (presumably because INFL has only
one position, as in Roberts (1985) above). Thus, the second modal in a two-
modal sequence has a root interpretation. Picallo also derives some tempo-
ral properties of epistemic modals from their base position in INFL. Epis-
temic modals are always finite because the modal in the head of an un-
tensed INFL is in a position to govern PRO, which must be ungoverned.
Although Picallo rejects the control versus raising analysis for Catalan
modals, she does assume that root modals assign theta-roles. So the theta-
difference between root and epistemic modals amounts to the property of
epistemic modals to project a subject position to which they do not assign a
theta-role, a property that make them unique among predicates (verbal or
adjectival), she says. In contrast, root modals (and semi-modals) impose
selectional requirements on the subject of the complex in which they ap-
pear; thus, they are theta-role assigners. This would be compatible with the
hypothesis that root modals are obligatory-control predicates, but this is not
the option chosen by Picallo. Obligatory control predicates constitute the
main predicate of their own sentence, with the infinitive as the main predi-
cate of an embedded sentence. But e«/»e-cliticization, which reveals the
thematic property of a predicate as ergative or non-ergative— since the
partitive clitic en is impossible with non-ergative verbs—depends on the
properties of the infinitive verb and is not influenced by the modal at all.
Thus, Picallo analyses MV+Infmitive complexes as complex VPs. Theta-

roles assigned by root modals are secondary theta-roles, only manifested by
selectional restrictions. The infinitive is the primary predicate and deter-
mines the possibility of e«/«e-cliticization and the availability of an arbi-
trary interpretation of pro (Picallo 1990: 302) and these phenomena are
unaffected by the modal.
However, Picallo also finds evidence that the (semi-)modal voler 'want-
to'—"and a few other verbs"—may function as a control main predicate in
some instances: they double as primary predicates (in a structure of obliga-
tory control) and as secondary predicates (as root modals). Again, clitic
climbing is used as an important diagnostic.
Picallo's article is interesting in that it attacks the control versus raising
analysis from a different angle compared to the works we have examined so
far. Likewise, it is intriguing that she reaches the exact opposite conclusion
of Wurmbrand (1999), for instance: whereas Wurmbrand concludes from
her examination that all (Germanic) modals are raising verbs, Picallo con-
cludes from her investigation that all (Romance) modals are non-raising
verbs. These generalizations would be exciting if they held up against ob-
servable facts, since modals seem to perform the same semantic tasks in
Germanic and Romance (e.g. in their non-root vs. root readings), and the
inventory of modals is surprisingly similar as well (e.g. poder 'may/can',
deure 'must', haver de 'have to', voler 'want to', gosar 'dare'). So why
should the syntactic facts be so radically different?
Picallo states, for instance, that root modals obligatorily assign a theta-
role and thus cannot take non-argument NPs as subjects. As we saw in
Chapter 2, this is not true for Germanic modals. This has been frequently
claimed for Germanic root modals, however (Dyvik 1999; Lodrup 1996a;
Thräinsson and Vikner 1995). So perhaps one should undertake a broader
investigation of Romance modals before celebrating the exciting differ-
ences.
3. Modals and theta-roles
In the last few decades, a significant part of the discussion about the syntac-
tic description of modals has revolved around the question of whether mo-
dals are theta-role assigners or not. This is not surprising as this question
sheds light on the structural properties of a modal-do modals pattern with
raising or control verbs? Furthermore, if the complement of a modal could

be considered a clausal argument, one might argue for a biclausal structure
w h e n modals are involved, whereas otherwise one might be inclined to
treat modals as some kind of auxiliary or functional operator.
The question of the complement's possible status as an argument seems
to be explicitly addressed much more rarely than the question of a m o d a l ' s
potential external theta-role, but it may be implicitly present in a number of
control versus raising analyses, in part because of the " P R O theorem"
(Chomsky 1981: 191). The P R O theorem states that P R O must be ungov-
erned, unlike a trace t, which, on the other hand, must be governed. This
means that a complement of a control verb, which does contain a P R O sub-
ject, must contain a barrier to government by the verb selecting this com-
plement. A raising verb, on the other hand, must crucially not contain such
a barrier to allow the trace of the moved subject to be governed by the verb.
One common way of encoding this difference within the GB version of
P & P is to assume that control verbs take CP complements whereas raising
verbs take VP or IP complements. If an author takes the modal to be an
auxiliary, she or he will typically represent the modal as a functional head
taking a VP/vP complement (cf. e.g. Roberts 1985, 1993). 47
These differences normally correlate with the author's assumptions
about the theta-assigning properties of the modal. The modal-as-control-
verb will be a main predicate, assigning an external theta-role to its subject
and an internal theta role to its CP complement; a modal-as-raising verb
will assign no external theta-role but may assign an internal theta-role to its
complement; the modal-as-auxiliary is considered a clausal operator with
no theta-properties (cf. e.g. Picallo 1990; Roberts 1993).
Regarding the possible external theta-role of a modal, there is consensus
that epistemic and other non-root modals never assign such theta-roles. As
for root modals, the views expressed may be grouped into three different
camps. Firstly, there are authors who advocate the straightforward version
of the control versus raising analysis of modals, who implicitly or explicitly
express the assumption that root modals assign an external theta-role to
47
Raising verbs are apparently able to take a range of complements. In ECM con-
structions they are in general assumed to take IP complements. In Norwegian,
there seem to also exist raising verbs (i.e. passive and unaccusative verbs) that take
small clauses as complements, e.g.
(i) Jon framsto [tJon som idiot], (ii) Jon ble betraktet [tJon som idiot],
Jon appeared as idiot Jon was considered as idiot
'Jon appeared to be an idiot.' 'Jon was considered an idiot.'
Modals and theta-roles 169
their subjects (e.g. Dyvik 1999; L0drup 1996a; Thräinsson and Vikner
1995 for Icelandic). Secondly, there are authors who, more or less inde-
pendently of an analysis of root modals as control or raising verbs, assume
root modals to assign a particular type of theta-role, one that is irrelevant or
invisible to the theta-criterion. This role is dubbed an adjunct theta-role
(Pollock 1989; Roberts 1985, 1993; Zubizarreta 1982), an additional theta-
role (Thräinsson and Vikner 1995 for Danish; Vikner 1988) or a secondary
theta-role (Picallo 1990). This adjunct/ additional/ secondary theta-role is
often claimed to manifest itself in that the root modal imposes selectional
requirements on its subject, unlike (other) raising verbs. 48 The third group
of authors reject the control versus raising analysis and argue that modals,
even root modals, are raising verbs that assign no theta-roles (Pullum and
Wilson 1977; Wurmbrand 1999, 2001). These authors ascribe the afore-
mentioned "selectional requirements" on the modal's subject not to the
semantic or syntactic specification of the root modal, but to pragmatics, i.e.
these effects are purely contextually determined (e.g. Wurmbrand 1999,
2001 ).49
I will examine the argument structure of Norwegian modals in Chapter
4. I argue that all three of the views mentioned above are insufficient to
account for the various argument structures of Norwegian modals. The
behaviour of modals in various constructions reveal that modals must
posess quite differing theta-properties, depending on the construction in
which they appear. Hence, it will be argued that the inventory of Norwe-
gian modals includes main verbs, which are ordinary transitive verbs, rais-
ing-type verbs (non-root modals) and, finally, raising verbs that are op-
tional theta-assigners (root modals). When the latter assign a subject role,
they behave as control verbs in certain respects, for instance in pseudocleft
constructions.
48
But note that the German evidential wollen, which is a raising verb in most
analyses, seems to manifest selectional requirements as well, as was mentioned in
section 2.10 above.
49
Barbiers (1995, 2002) does not fit into any of these three frames since, although
Barbiers considers all modals to be raising verbs, his parameter [± Subject orienta-
tion] is in part syntactically encoded by the abstract head D.
4. Insertion or merger point of root and non-root modals
As shown in the survey above, various authors have argued that root and
epistemic modals are inserted or merged in different positions. This is par-
ticularly elaborated on in Roberts and Roussou (2002) and Cinque (1999),
the former building on the latter. Recall that Cinque's hierarchy includes as
many as eight or possibly nine different positions that a modal may occupy
(the exact number of possible insertion positions is left undetermined in
Cinque's proposal). It is the nature of the merger slot of the modal (e.g. as
Modepistemic or Modvoiitionai) that determines the reading of the modal.
Barbiers (1995), Butler (2003), Picallo (1990), and van Gelderen (2003,
2004) also address the possible insertion slots for root and non-root modals.
Picallo argues that non-root modals are inserted in INFL while root modals
are adjoined to VP. Barbiers, on the other hand, argues that non-root mo-
dals are inserted above and root modals below an abstract head D taken to
encode subject-orientedness. Both authors support their findings with the
observation that a modal (typically) gets an non-root reading when preced-
ing a perfect auxiliary and a root reading when following a perfect auxil-
iary. This observation is also made in Dyvik (1999) for Norwegian. Butler
(2003) proposes instead that root modals are merged with vP (the smallest
phase containing the verb and all its arguments), whereas epistemic (i.e.
non-root) modals are merged in Τ and raised at LF to scope over the CP.
Van Gelderen (2003, 2004) argues that epistemic modals are merged in a
M(od)-head position, whereas aspectuals and root modals are in comple-
mentary distribution because they compete for the same aspectual head
position.
The possible insertion slots or merger positions of Norwegian modals
are addressed in Chapter 5, where I also investigate the interaction of root
and non-root modals with aktionsart, aspectuals and tense. My findings
suggest that although it is true that non-root modals always scope over root
modals, many of the other generalizations discussed in this survey in fact
do not hold up under close scrutiny.
Chapter 4
Norwegian Modals: Argument Structure
1. Introduction
In this chapter, I examine the argument structure of Norwegian modals.

First, in section 2, I review the arguments for the control versus raising
analysis—the family of analyses where root modals are analyzed as control
verbs and non-root modals as raising verbs—and show why these argu-
ments do not hold up under scrutiny. I argue that both non-root and root
modals—with the exception of the dyadic dynamic root modals kunne 'be
able to' and ville 'want to'—pattern with raising verbs in nearly all relevant
respects.1 On the other hand, root modals which indeed do pattern with
raising verbs with respect to selectional and scopal properties, display con-
trol verb behavior under certain circumstances; for instance, modals with
symmetric predicate complements (Brennan 1993) behave like control
verbs in some respects as do root modals with definite pro-form comple-
ments (Jeg mä dette Ί must this'). Moreover, the possible interpretations of
modals in pseudocleft constructions strongly suggest that even these root
modal raising verbs are construed as control verbs in certain environments.
Thus, the behavior of modals with a pseudoclefted complement constitutes
an important part of the discussion (cf. section 3, for the empirical data and
section 4 for the different approaches to the data).
The main problem in describing the argument structure of Norwegian
modals is that their Theta-properties seem to vary according to the type of
construction; in other words, they exhibit an intriguing thematic plasticity.
Modals are not the only verbs that behave in this manner; reanalysis verbs
such as promise and threaten (Arad 1998; Johnson 1985) seem to behave
similarly (section 3.6). Like modals, they have proposition-scope and sub-
ject-oriented readings; they also behave like raising verbs on certain read-
ings and like control verbs in pseudoclefts.
1
See also Wurmbrand's (1999, 2001) analysis for German.
172 Norwegian modals: Argument structure
In section 4, I examine the different approaches attempting to explain

the ability of modals (and reanalysis verbs) to simultaneously exhibit fea-
tures of raising and control verbs. Given our data, the two most promising
approaches are the double entries approach and the optional Theta-
assignment approach, the latter based on Hornstein (1998, 1999, 2000),
who aims to reduce raising and control phenomena to the phenomenon of
raising (cf. section 4.4.1). Thus, modals (and reanalysis verbs) are con-
strued as optional θ-assigners, predicates that optionally assign an external
θ-role (section 4.4.2) in the relevant specifier-head configuration. 2
In section 5, I suggest that we need a two-level semantics (in the spirit
of Bierwisch and Lang 1989) to account for important uses and readings of
modals. Though on one semantic level (Semantic Form) modals may be
construed as one-place predicates, taking the embedded proposition as their
argument, they are always two-place predicates on another semantic level
(Conceptual Structure). On this level, the source of modality (what has
sometimes been called the rule-giver) constitutes the first argument and the
embedded proposition the second.
In section 6, I sum up the most important findings. Norwegian modals
always take at least one argument—an internal propositional complement.
In addition, they may assign an external θ-role to their subject which is
always raised from the embedded clause since modals do not assign Case to
an embedded subject (cf. also Nordgärd and Äfarli 1990: 101).
2. The control versus raising analysis
In this section, I consider the main arguments for the control versus raising
(CvR) analysis, a family of analyses dating back to Ross (1969) and still
advocated by many (cf. Chapter 3). The number of authors who have advo-
cated some form of this analysis over the years is the main reason for de-
voting an entire section to it; even in the most recent minimalist literature
on the subject, one finds this analysis in new disguises (Butler 2003). In a
C v R analysis, epistemic (or more generally, non-root) modals are analyzed
2
Hornstein assumes that Theta-assignment takes place when the DP is merged
with the theta-assigning predicate. Thus, Theta-roles may be assigned in head-
complement configurations as well, but the most important thematic role in the
following discussion is the external Theta-role, which is assigned in a spec-head
configuration.
The control versus raising analysis 173
as raising verbs and root modals as control verbs. In the survey of earlier
proposals in Chapter 3, I argued against some of the arguments supporting
this analysis. Here I will examine a wider range of arguments typically
supporting CvR analyses and show that they do not hold up when empirical
facts are examined.
The crucial assumption of the CvR analysis is that root modals are tran-
sitive or two-place predicates and non-root modals are intransitive 3 or one-
place predicates. In this analysis, non-root and root modals give rise to two
different syntactic structures. In a GB-style framework, the two structures
can be depicted as in Figure 1.4
Figure 1
a. non-root: b. root:
3
In Ross (1969), the term intransitive did in fact mean that the modal took no
object. Instead, the proposition (which is treated as an embedded proposition IP
here) was taken to be the subject of the modal.
4
There are a number of open questions here such as why PRO and the subject-
trace occur in the same structural position. For the moment, I will gloss over these
obvious questions although I will mention that Stowell (1982) proposes that the
nature of the two I(NFL) heads is different. Tensed I(NFL) assigns null case,
unlike untensed I(NFL); hence, only tensed I(NFL) accepts a PRO subject. Fur-
thermore, assume that I(INFL)[+ Tense] is a barrier to government, whereas
I(NFL) [-Tense] is no barrier. Obviously, this is simply restating the facts; never-
theless, this is one possible analysis that allows us to keep things simple for now.
As shown by this figure, a non-root (epistemic) modal does not establish a

semantic relation with its syntactic subject, unlike a root modal, which is
assumed to assign a Theta-role to its syntactic subject. Hence, the syntactic
subject of a root modal is also its semantic subject, and the root modal al-
ways denotes a two-place (dyadic) predicate relation.
Section 3.5 of Chapter 2 presented the possible readings of Norwegian
modals. I repeat the table here for convenience; please consult the relevant
section for the full range of data to illustrate it. 5
Table 1
Readings available for Norwegian modals (elaborated):
Dyadic: ville·. volition; kunne: ability

Root: Dynamic:
Monadic: tendency (ville: strong; kunne: weaker)
Dyadic: directed obligation/permission

Deontic:
Monadic: non-directed obligation/permission
Non-root: Monadic: epistemic; metaphysical; evidential
Root modals are capable of proposition-scope (monadic) and subject-

oriented (dyadic) readings. The dyadic readings of dynamic modals are
volitional ville and the ability reading of kunne; their monadic readings are
the tendency readings, strong tendency in the case of ville and weaker ten-
dency for kunne. Deontic modals also have dyadic readings: directed (the
subject has an obligation or permission) and non-directed (the obligation or
permission is not directed at the subject referent). Non-root modals have
only monadic readings.
To analyze root modals as strictly two-place predicates requires ignor-
ing their monadic readings, unless an auxiliary device allowing monadic
readings of dyadic predicates is proposed. While ignoring the monadic
readings could be justified in the case of dynamic modals—since proposi-
tion-scope readings of these modals are less frequent and more recalci-
trant—proposition-scope readings of deontic modals are both frequent and
5
To facilitate the discussion in this section, I have augmented the table with the
prototypical readings of the various modals.
robust and should not be dismissed (as has been argued by numerous au-
thors since the 1960s). This, however, is required to maintain the classic
control versus raising analysis. The main tenet of this analysis is the as-
sumption that non-root modals are raising verbs, hence monadic predicates,
whereas root modals are control verbs or dyadic predicates.
Assuming this difference between root and non-root modals leads to a
range of predictions, in particular regarding the selectional requirements
imposed by the root modal onto a potential subject as well as relative scope
(ambiguity) between the subject and the modal. Some important predictions
are presented in Table 2 (a shorter version of this table was presented in
section 2.6. of Chapter 3).
Table 2

a. Take expletive subjects yes no
b. Take weather-i/e?//>ad 'it' yes no
c. Take idiom-chunk subjects yes no
d. Allow quirky subjects yes no
e. Allow passive complement with yes no
an inanimate subject
f. Subject-modal scope ambiguity yes no
g. Passivize no yes
h. Pseudoclefted complement no yes
Most of the predictions in Table 2 follow straightforwardly from the as-

sumption that root modals are control verbs that assign an external θ-role
and non-root modals are raising verbs that assign no external θ-role. Admit-
tedly, some of these predictions are based on auxiliary assumptions, but
these assumptions are in accordance with widely accepted hypotheses
within the P & P theory such as Burzio's Generalization (Burzio 1986) and
the assumption that raising structures, unlike control structures, give rise to
scopal ambiguities (May 1977, 1985). In what follows, I discuss each of
these predictions, consider what motivates them, mention some of their
advocates, and examine how they hold up against empirical facts.
Prediction a is expected on the assumption that expletive subjects are
semantically empty and therefore banned from θ-positions. Since the sub-
ject position of a root modal is considered a θ-position in the C v R analysis,
as the root modal obligatorily assigns an external θ-role like other control
verbs, it follows that expletive subjects ought not to occur with root modals
(Dyvik 1999; Thräinsson and Vikner 1995; 6 Vikner 1988 7 ). However, this
prediction is not borne out, as demonstrated by the data in (1). All five
cases are root readings of modals with expletive subjects.

there shall always be at-least two adults present
b. Det mä komme minst femtipersoner.

there must come at least fifty persons
c. Det bor bli forandringer m.h.t. dennepraksisen.

there should occur changes in this (code of) practice

there can be up-to four cartridges in caseDEF pr load
e. Det behover/trenger ikke vcere noen voksne til stede.

there need not be any adults at-placeDAT
'There need not be any adults present.'
The dyadic (volitional) version of the modal ville 'want to' behaves as pre-
dicted by the CvR analysis, typically rejecting expletive subjects, as in (2a).
Likewise, the modal kunne 'can' on its dyadic, or ability, reading behaves
like a control verb, as in (2b), even though the deontic (permissive) reading
of kunne 'may' patterns with all other modals in readily accepting expletive
subjects, as (Id) shows. As discussed above, there are also monadic root
readings of dynamic modals (the tendency or quantificational readings, of
6
As shown in section 2.6 of Chapter 3, Vikner (1988) and Thräinsson and Vikner
(1995) assume that Danish modals are raising verbs. However, since (some) root
modals are assumed to assign an 'additional theta-role' and this additional theta-
role assignment is taken to be subject to certain restrictions (Thräinsson and
Vikner 1995: 64), this analysis results in the same predictions as the mainstream
control versus raising analysis.
7
Vikner (1988: fn 6) actually claims that no modal takes an expletive subject.
Carlson 1977 and Brennan 1993, 1996 s ), and dynamic kunne and ville do
accept expletive subjects on this specific reading, as in (2c) and (2d); this is
also one possible reading of (Id).
(2) a. #Det vil komme en mann hit i morgen.

there will come a man here in morning
'There wants to come a man here tomorrow.' (^volitional)
b. #Det kan komme ti gjester i fßdselsdagen din.

there can come ten guests to your birthday party
'There are able to come ten guests.' (*ability)
c. Det kan vcere ganske mange her pä fredager.

there can be quite many here on Fridays
'There tend to be a lot of people here on Fridays.'
d. Det vil stadig oppstä krangier mellom dem.

there will constantly arise arguments between them
'There tend to occur arguments between them.'
As already mentioned, expletives are non-arguments and thus expected not

to occur in θ-positions. The same applies to other non-arguments such as
weather it and idiom-chunk subjects, according to Thräinsson and Vikner
(1995). Again, the expectation is borne out for ville 'want to' on its dyadic
volitional reading, as in (3 a), but not on the monadic tendency reading, as
in (3b) and (3c).
(3) a. Det vil sn0 snart.

it will/wants to snow soon
'It will/*wants to snow soon.' (metaphysical, *volitional)
b. Det vil gjerne sn0 en hel del her om vinteren.

it will typically snow a great deal here in winterDEF
'It tends to snow a great deal here in the winter.'
8
This reading of modals is often found with generic statements, e.g. a basketball
player can be short, paraphrased as 'there exist short basketball players' (Brennan
1993: 96). Brennan also lists related readings as "quantificational", e.g. Joan can
be silly, paraphrased as 'Joan has a tendency to behave in a silly manner'.
c. Nod vil loere naken kvinne ä spinne

(idiom: Nod leerer naken kvinne ä spinne).
*'Need wants to teach naked woman to spin.' (volitional)
'Need tends to teach naked woman to spin.' (tendency)
'Need will teach naked woman to spin.' (metaphysical)
The dynamic modal kunne 'can' accepts idiom-chunk (but not weather it)
subjects even on a dyadic ability reading, as in (4a) and (4b), and it readily
accepts both idiom-chunk and weather it subjects on the monadic tendency
reading which can be paraphrased as 'it (sometimes) happens that p'.
(4) a. Nod kan leere naken kvinne ä spinne.

(idiom: Nod leerer naken kvinne ä spinne)
'Need is able to teach a naked woman to spin.' (ability) 9
'Need can teach a naked woman to spin.' (quantificational)
'Need can teach naked woman to spin.' (epistemic)
b. Det kan sno mye mer enn dette.

*'Tt is able to snow much more than this.' (ability)
'It can snow much more than this.' (quantificational)
'It can snow much more than this.' (epistemic)
Deontic modals also readily accept weather it and idiom-chunk subjects,

contrary to predictions b and c in Table 2. Thus, no root modal in Norwe-
gian completely rejects a non-argument subject, defying the predictions of
the CvR analysis.
(5) a. Nä bor det snart regne; gresset er sä tort.

now should it soon rain; grassDEF is so dry
'It ought to rain soon; the grass is so dry.'
b. Det kan ikke sno nä som vi er pä landtur!

it can not snow that we are on picnic
'It cannot snow now that we are on a picnic!' (deontic)
9
Non-animate subjects, e.g. instruments, are generally possible on this reading:
Denne mkkelen kan äpne alle derer 'This key can (is able to) open any door'.
c. Det mä blase sterkere for at draken skal lette.

it must blow stronger for kiteDEF to fly
'It must be windier for the kite to fly.'
d. M.h.t. Jon, sä kan fanden ta ham.

(idiom: Fanden ta Jon\)
as regards Jon then devilDEF can take him
' A s for John, the devil may take him.' (deontic)
Prediction d in Table 2 states that only non-root modals allow for quirky
(non-nominative) subjects (Thräinsson 1986; Thräinsson and Vikner 1995).
T h e argument goes as follows: root modals do not select for quirky sub-
jects. Like other control predicates, they select for nominative subjects.
N o n - r o o t modals, on the other hand, are raising predicates and impose no
selectional requirements on their subjects. Thus, if a predicate that requires
a quirky subject is embedded under a non-root modal, the quirky subject
may be raised to the subject position of the non-root modal, retaining its
quirky case. N o such raising can take place with root modals, since root
modals are control structures, which implies that their subject position is
obligatorily occupied by a nominative subject. 1 0
10
It is somewhat curious and a matter of theoretical development that Roberts
(1985: 38, 1993: 314) takes exactly the existence of quirky subject + modal data as
evidence (or at least an indication) that modals were control structures in Middle
English. Thus, the same data that Wurmbrand (1999) uses to argue that modals are
raising verbs in modern Icelandic Roberts uses to argue that they are control verbs
in Middle English. Roberts' (1985) argument goes as follows: quirky subjects
possess inherent Case. Thus, there is no need, and in fact no way, for the subject to
raise; there is nothing to drive this movement. As the subject precedes the modal,
the explanation must be that the subject is base-generated as the subject of a mo-
dal, i.e. the modal must be a control verb. At that time, it was a widespread as-
sumption within the P&P Theory that the subject's need (and Greed·, Chomsky
1993) for Case was the only driving force behind NP/DP movement. Later this
assumption was modified, when the Extended Projection Principle (the EPP) was
introduced as another possible driving force for DP movement (cf. Chomsky 1993,
Lasnik 1995). Roberts' (1993) argument for considering these data as evidence for
control structures is that they "could not be treated in terms of raising, since raising
cannot place an NP in indirect object position (on the assumption that no operation
of 'quirky raising' creating dative subjects exists; we assume that it does not since
this would allow dative expletives, something we do not find)."
However, Wurmbrand (1999) provides some data where root readings

are possible although the subject is clearly quirky.
(6) a. Haraldi / *Haraldur verdur ad lika hamborgarar.

Harold-DAT /Harold-NOM must to like hamburgers
'Harold must like hamburgers
(in order to be accepted by his new American in-laws).'
b. Umscekjandann verdur ad vantapeninga.

The-applicant-ACC must to lack money
'The applicant must lack money
(in order to apply for this grant).'
Since root readings are acceptable in these sentences, as claimed by Wurm-

brand's Icelandic informants (and confirmed by mine), we have counter-
evidence for the prediction that quirky subjects are incompatible with root
readings of modals. Thus, if quirky subjects are indeed ungrammatical in
control structures, as claimed by Thräinsson and Vikner (1995)," this is yet
another indication that at least some root modals are not control verbs in
Icelandic and that some root modals pattern with raising verbs. Interest-
ingly, the Icelandic counterparts to the Norwegian dyadic dynamic root
modals kunne 'can' and ville 'want to', kunna and vilja, reject a root read-
ing when the subject is quirky. Thus, these two modals apparently pattern
with control, not raising, verbs (the embedded predicates in (7) make a root
reading rather dubious; thus only the quirky subjects are grammatical). 12
(7) a. Haraldi /*Haraldur vill leidast.

HaraldDAT/HaraldNOM will borePASS
'Harold has a tendency to be bored.'
b. Haraldi /*Haraldur kann ad leidast.

HaraldDAT/HaraldNOM may to borePASS
'Harold may be bored.' (epistemic)
11
Norbert Hornstein (p.c.): "Boskovic (1994) provides examples from Spanish
where quirky subjects are possible in control (-like) structures. This may be due to
a parametric difference between Spanish and Icelandic, as Spanish evidently al-
lows for quirky subjects in control structures whereas Icelandic does not."
12
Thanks to Johannes Gisli Jonsson and Johanna Barödal for data and judgments.
These two Icelandic root modals take nominative subjects, as (8) shows. A
predicate requiring a quirky subject cannot be directly embedded under
them; the causative lata ser needs to be added to the construction:
(8) a. Haraldur vill ekki lata ser leidast.

HaraldNOM wants not let self bore-PASS
'Harold won't let himself be bored.'
b. Haraldur kann ekki ad lata ser leidast.

HaraldNOM can not to let self bore-PASS
'Harold does not know how to be bored.'
Thus, although at least some deontic root modals pattern with raising verbs
with respect to quirky subjects in Icelandic, the Icelandic counterparts to
the Norwegian dyadic dynamic root modals (volitional ville and ability
kunne) pattern with control verbs in not accepting quirky subjects.
Prediction e in Table 2 states that only non-root modals are compatible
with passive complements with inanimate subjects (Lodrup 1996a). Again,
this claim is based on the alleged selectional requirements imposed onto the
subjects of root modals: if root modals are control structures, they are ex-
pected to select for human or at least intentional subjects. This intentional
subject controls the reference of the PRO subject of the embedded passive.
Thus, if this embedded subject (PRO) is inanimate, there is a semantic
mismatch between the controller and the controllee. 13 If we resolve the
mismatch by providing the root modal with an inanimate subject, there
ought to be a mismatch between this subject and the root modal as control
verb selecting for intentional subjects. This mismatch is indeed manifested
in control structures such as (9a). No such anomaly arises with raising
structures, as (9b) shows. Crucially, no such anomaly or mismatch arises
with modals either, as in (9c), which allows for a root as well as a non-root
reading (data quoted from Wurmbrand 1999; originally from Warner
1993). The important thing to note here is that not even a root reading gives
rise to a mismatch effect although such an effect would indeed be expected
if root modals were control verbs.
13
An appropriate question would be how such a sentence could be expressed at all
since a PRO subject of a predicate embedded under a control predicate obligatorily
gets its reference from the matrix subject in the case of subject control or from the
matrix object in the case of object control.
(9) a. *The biscuits tried/decided to be finished by Paul.

b. The biscuits seem to have been finished by Paul.
c. The biscuits may be finished by Paul.
Most Norwegian root modals behave like English may in this respect. They
behave like raising structures, with no selectional requirements ruling out
an inanimate subject.
(10) a. Maten mä/ skal/kan/ bßr/behever ikke/trenger ikke

foodDEF must/shall/should/need not/need not
bli servert snart.
be served soon
b. Maten mä/skal/kan/b0r/behover ikke/trenger ikke

foodDEF must/shall/should/need not/need not
serveres snart.
servePASS soon
'The food must/will/may/should/need not

be served soon.' (root/non-root)
However, the dynamic modals ville 'want to' and kunne 'can' are more
recalcitrant in this construction. Again, volitional ville patterns with control
structures in displaying a mismatch between an inanimate subject and the
root modal; 14 likewise, kunne in its ability reading is marginal in this con-
struction, as (11) shows.

foodDEF will be served soon
'The food will/*wants to be served soon.'
14
It is always possible to get a non-anomalous reading of such sentences if we
allow for animation of inanimate referents (metaphorical uses). If we ascribe the
human property of wanting to something inanimate such as 'the food', we can get
a volitional reading of ville here. Such uses are normally discarded in discussions
on selectional requirements of semantic properties such as [± human] or [± ani-
mate] .
b. Maten kan bli servert snart.

foodDEF can be served soon
??'The food is able to be served soon.'
However, on the monadic dynamic (tendency) reading, ville and kunne both
accept passive complements with inanimate subjects, as in (12):
(12) a. Maten vil gjerne server es senere pä fredager.

foodDEF will typically servePASS later on Fridays
'The food tends to be served later on Fridays.'
b. Maten kan iblant serveres senere pä fredager.

foodDEF can sometimes servePASS later on Fridays
'The food is occasionally served later on Fridays.'
Prediction f of Table 2 states that on the CvR analysis subject-modal scope

ambiguity is to be expected with non-root but not with root modals (cf. also
Wurmbrand 1999). This prediction stems from the observation (May 1977,
1985) that control and raising structures differ with respect to the scope
properties of their syntactic subjects. Raising constructions allow for an
interpretation in which the subject takes narrow scope with respect to the
raising verb ("subject lowering"); in contrast, control verbs never scope
over their subjects, which forces a wide-scope reading of the subject: the
two readings of the raising structure in (13a) versus the single reading of
the control structure in (13b); data from Wurmbrand (1999).
(13) a. Someone from New York is likely to win in the lottery.

and he is likely to win in the lottery.
ii) It is likely that somebody from N.Y.
will win in the lottery.
b. Someone from NY tried/promised to win in the lottery.

There is somebody from N.Y.
and he tried/promised to win in the lottery.
An investigation of this scopal ambiguity in Norwegian modals reveals that

most root modals pattern with raising structures in allowing for narrow-
scope and wide-scope readings of the modal, as in (14).
1 84 Norwegian modals: Argument structure
(14) a. Noen sekere bar/kan/mä/skal sake igjen.

' S o m e applicants should/may/must/will apply again.'
i) There exist some applicants
and they should/may/must/will apply again.
ii) It is preferred/allowed/necessary/intended
that some applicants (whoever they are) apply again.
b. Noen S0kere behever ikke/trenger ikke S0ke igjen.

' S o m e applicants need not apply again.'
and they need not apply again.
ii) There is no need for some applicants
(whoever they might be) to apply again. 15
Again, the volitional reading of ville and the ability reading of kunne be-
have more like control structures; they are incompatible with a narrow-
scope reading of the subject, as in (15a) and (15b). However, on the ten-
dency reading, the dynamic modals display the subject-modal ambiguity
expected from a raising verb, as in (15c) and (15d).
(15) a. Noen sßkere vil soke igjen.

some applicants will apply again
' S o m e applicants want to apply again.'
b. Noen sokere kan ogsä soke til neste or.

some applicants can also apply for next year
' S o m e applicants are also able to apply next year.'
c. Noen S0kere vil gjerne soke hvert or.

some applicants will typically apply every year
' S o m e applicants tend to apply every year.'
and they tend to apply every year.
ii) There is a tendency that some applicants
apply every year.
15
A more natural way to express this meaning would be Ingen sokere behever ä
soke igjen 'no applicants need apply again', but (14bii) is still possible.
The control versus raising analysis 1 85
d. Noen sokere kan S0ke ti är pä rad

some applicants can apply ten years in a row
' S o m e applicants could apply ten years in a row.'
and they are inclined to apply ten years in a row.
ii) There is a tendency that some applicants
apply ten years in a row.
As noted by L0drup (1996a), if root modals are control structures, one

might expect them to passivize, given that this is typically true of control
verbs. However, Norwegian root modals do not passivize. The apparent
exceptions are the main verb version of the modal ville 'want to', which
marginally passivizes when it takes a CP complement, and the main verb
version of kunne ' c a n ' , which marginally passivizes when it takes a D P
complement 1 6 (cf. also Öhlschläger 1989: 59-60 and fn. 12 for German 1 7 ).
In addition, the main verb versions of the two new members of the class of
modals, trenger ikke/behover ikke 'need not', passivize. The passives in
(16) are not passives of the modal auxiliaries kunne, ville and tr enger
ikke/behover ikke firstly, because there is no verbal or directional comple-
ment to which they could function as auxiliaries, 18 and secondly, because
16
Recall from Chapter 2 that neither ville nor kunne passivize when they take a
verbal complement.
(i) *(??Ä) lese leksen mä kunnes i morgen.
to read the homework must can-PASSIVE tomorrow
O n e must be able to read one's homework tomorrow.'
(ii) *(??Ä) laere seg matematikk mä ikke bare 0nskes, det mä villes.
to learn REFL mathematics must not only wishPASS, it must wantPASS
O n e must not only wish to learn mathematics, one must want it.'
Even ordinary control structures are in some cases more comfortable with a non-
verbal complement in their passive versions. Alternatively, the so-called complex
passive substitutes for the construction [control verbPASS + embedded infinitive].
(iii) Det ble forsokt ä äpne doren/ Deren ble forsokt äpnet
it was tried to open doorDEF/ doorDEF was tried openPERF
(iv) *Det häpes ä gjenoppta forhandlingene/Forhandlingene häpes gjenopptatt.
it hopePASS to recommence negotiationsDEF/negotiations hopePASS
recommencedPERF
17
The German cognates of kunne and ville, können and wollen marginally passiv-
ize, but only when their complements are non-infinitives, Öhlschläger notes.
18
A modal with a directional complement is an auxiliary, as shown by the different
tests in section 4.2 of Chapter 2.
all four verbs accept do-replacement in their active version. The latter
property applies to lexical, non-auxiliary verbs only (cf. Chapter 2 for the
full range of supporting data). Thus, the active versions of these passives
are the main verb versions of kunne, ville and trenger/beh0ver ikke ((16a)
and (16b) are from Lodrup 1996a).

lessonDEF must canPASS tomorrow
' Y o u should know your lesson by tomorrow.'
b. Dette mä ikke bare onskes, det mä villes.

This must not only wishPASS, it must willPASS
' Y o u must not only wish this, you must want it.'
c. Medisinen trengs/behoves ikke lenger.

medicineDEF needPASS no longer
'The medicine is no longer needed.'
The modal auxiliaries do not passivize. Barbiers (1995: 157) claims that
modals are statives and statives in general do not passivize.
[M]odal verbs behave identically to other stative transitive verbs with re-
spect to standard transitivity tests.... As has long been known, ...transitivity
is not a sufficient condition for felicitous passivization of a verb. The verb
must have a dynamic aspect.... Since modals and transitives select the auxil-
iary HAVE in the perfect, ...there does not appear to be any reason to assign
the modals...a syntactic status different from stative transitive verbs.
On the other hand, the fact that modals require have as their governor in the
perfect does not automatically grant them membership in the class of transi-
tive verbs. There are predicates in Norwegian, considered raising or unac-
cusative verbs by most linguists, that require ha ' h a v e ' as their governing
auxiliary in the perfect: se ut til ä 'seem to \framsta som 'appear as i f , vise
seg 'turn o u t \ forekomme meg 'appear to me'. 1 9 Even the passive perfect,
19
As for forekomme meg Vikner (1995: 260) states that it selects vcere 'be' rather
then ha 'have' as an auxiliary in Danish. This seems to be one reason why Vikner
assumes that this verb is "ergative with two internal objects," whereas he believes
vise sig 'turn out' to be transitive, with the "embedded CP" as one argument and
sig as the other. In Norwegian, forekomme meg 'appear to me' with vcere 'be' as
an auxiliary sounds very archaic or straightforwardly ungrammatical.
requiring the auxiliary vcere ' b e ' in earlier stages of Norwegian, allows—
and perhaps prefers—ha 'have' in modern Norwegian. 2 0 This is hence not a
valid test for separating transitives from intransitives, at least not in Nor-
wegian. The raising constructions mentioned above do not passivize, a
feature they share with modal auxiliaries. On the other hand, it is certainly
not the case that all control modals passivize either, especially stative ones.
(17) a. *Det häpes/blir häpet ä kunne äpne der a.

there hopePASS to canINF open the door
(Intended: ' O n e hopes to be able to open the door.')
b. *Det vites/ blir visst ä komme seg fram.

there knowPASS to come SELF forward
(Intended: ' O n e knows how to advance oneself.')
Let us now summarize what we have uncovered about the eight predictions
of the CvR analysis in Table 2, repeated here for convenience as Table 3.
Table 3

b. Take weather-det/Pad 'it' yes no
g. Passivize no yes
The last prediction, concerning pseudocleft constructions, will be discussed

in the next subsection. Before looking at pseudoclefts, however, I sum up
the results so far.
Predictions a, b, and c all concern the ability to take non-argument sub-
jects. The CvR analysis predicts that non-root modals do and root modals
do not take non-argument subjects. W e have seen that this is prediction is
not borne out. Norwegian modals, root and non-root, take non-argument
20
Also, the English passive construction requires have to govern it in the perfect.
1 88 Nonvegian modals: Argument structure
subjects. Exceptions are the volitional reading of the dynamic root modal
ville 'want to' and the ability reading of kunne 'can'; however, their imper-
sonal (monadic) root readings take non-argument subjects. Wurmbrand
(1999) presents counterevidence to prediction d; she offers Icelandic data,
in (6) above, to show that root modals occur with quirky subjects. Again,
dyadic dynamic modals are an exception. The Icelandic counterparts of the
Norwegian dyadic dynamic modals behave like control verbs, not allowing
for quirky subjects, as the data in (7) show; the reading of these two modals
is never dyadic when the subject is quirky. 21 Prediction e is not fulfilled
either; only the volitional reading of the dynamic root modal ville 'want to'
and to a certain extent kunne 'can' on the ability reading behave as pre-
dicted by the CvR analysis; all other root modals accept passive comple-
ments with inanimate subjects. Furthermore, all root modals except voli-
tional ville 'want to' and the ability reading of kunne 'be able to' display
the subject-modal ambiguity we find with non-root modals and other rais-
ing predicates. Finally, no root modal auxiliaries passivize, unlike control
verbs. We find passives of verbs that look like modal auxiliaries, but it is
always the transitive, main verb version of the modal that undergoes pas-
sivization, with a DP or a CP complement as direct object. Moreover, only
ville 'want to', kunne 'can' and trenger/behever ikke 'need not' have main
verb versions. That is, we have so far found compelling counterevidence
for seven out of the eight predictions listed in Tables 2 and 3. The evidence
suggests instead an analysis of both non-root and root modals as raising
predicates, with the exception of volitional ville and ability kunne.
The dynamic root modals ville 'want to' and kunne 'be able to' are a
problem for an analysis of all modals as raising verbs. These two modals,
on their subject-oriented, dyadic reading, behave more like control verbs
with respect to the features examined so far. This seems like a good reason
to adopt a control analysis for the subject-oriented dynamic versions of the
root modals kunne and ville. There are issues with this, however, that I will
discuss soon. Also, note that their non-root and monadic root (tendency)
versions appear to be raising verbs.
The emerging picture is that the dynamic modals kunne and ville on
their ability and volitional reading, respectively, seem to fit nicely into the
21
Note that the reading often described as "epistemic" (non-root) for the Icelandic
vilja seems to be the same as the tendency reading found with Norwegian ville·, in
the present investigation, this reading is described as an impersonal dynamic read-
ing, hence a root reading (though still a monadic/proposition-scope reading).
pattern predicted by the control versus raising analysis. The CvR analysis,
however, cannot account for the empirical facts observed with other root
modals. Deontic root modals and impersonal dynamic modals, like their
non-root counterparts, pattern with raising structures with respect to the
properties listed in Tables 2 and 3. The obvious conclusion is that non-root
modals, deontic root modals, and monadic dynamic root modals are in fact
all raising verbs; thus, the control versus raising opposition does not follow
the division between root and non-root modals. Instead, there is a split
within the group of root modals, with dyadic kunne and ville in one sub-
category and all other root modals in another. I repeat the list of properties
from Table 2 in Table 4 below, this time as a list of actual findings, not
predictions. For now, I leave out the prediction concerning pseudoclefted
complements as this issue will be investigated thoroughly in the next sec-
tion. I also include other raising verbs and control verbs in the table to
complete the picture.
Table 4
Raising verbs Control verbs

Non-root modals
Root modals: Deontic Volition- ville
& Monadic dynamic KbiMty-kunne
b. Take wtsihtr-det/frad 'it' yes no
g. Passivize no yes/no
Table 4 shows that deontic root modals and monadic dynamic root modals
pattern with non-root modals and other raising verbs with respect to the
properties under discussion; dyadic (subject-oriented) dynamic root mo-
dals, on the other hand, pattern with control verbs, except for the fact that
they do not passivize. This means that the control versus raising analysis
makes the correct predictions for volitional ville and ability kunne, but not
for the other root modals. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the advo-
cates of this analysis typically support their arguments with examples of
kunne and ville, implicitly or explicitly assuming that the analysis carries
over to all other root modals. What we have found, however, is that the
control versus raising analysis does not apply to the other root modals in
Norwegian or their counterparts in English (Wurmbrand 1999), German
(Öhlschläger 1989) or Icelandic (Wurmbrand 1999). Root modals in Nor-
wegian show signs of being raising verbs, just like their non-root counter-
parts. Volitional ville and ability kunne, which seemingly behave as control
verbs, are the only exceptions.
However, as mentioned above, there are some issues with this. Barbiers
(1995, 2002) provides evidence that modals with a directional complement
are raising structures at least in Dutch (cf. section 2.7, Chapter 3). Using the
"uncontroversial diagnostic" that small clause complements cannot be ex-
traposed, Barbiers (2002) shows that the directional complements of mo-
dals are indeed small clauses, as in (18a) and (18b) (Barbiers' (13)).
(18) a. dat Jan morgen <naar Amsterdam> moet

< *naar Amsterdam>
'That John tomorrow to Amsterdam must to Amsterdam.'
b. dat de brief morgen <in de prullenbak> mag

< *in de prullenbak>
'That the letter tomorrow into the trashcan may
into the trashcan.'
c. Jan drinkt [sc zieh /*PRO ziek].

John drinks SELF sick
'John drinks himself sick.'
d. Jant moet [pp ti naar Amsterdam].

John must to Amsterdam
'John must go to Amsterdam.'
If the bracketed constituents are small clause complements, the DPs Jan
and de brief must be their subjects. Their subjects cannot be PRO; a small
clause complement of a selecting verb cannot have PRO as its subject, as
(18c) taken from Barbiers (2002) shows; therefore, the subject must have
raised from a position inside the small clause, as in (18d) (op.cit. (14b)). 22
22
Small clauses with PRO subjects appear in adjunct positions, headed by som
(Norwegian), as (English) and als (German). Cf. e.g. Eide (1997, 2000a, 2000b),
There is evidence that the corresponding structures are raising structures

even in Norwegian. For instance, in (19a), both a narrow- and a wide-scope
reading of the subject en mann 'a man' are possible, a property typically
associated with raising structures. We have seen that volitional ville has the
semantic and syntactic characteristics of a control verb, but it is still gram-
matical and felicitous in the raising construction in (19b). Ability kunne,
despite having control verb properties, is likewise possible in this construc-
tion, perhaps not in standard Norwegian, but in many dialects (19c), and
also in German (19d).
(19) a. En mann mä ut αν styret.

a man must out of boardDEF
Ά man must leave the board.'
b. Ola ville hjem.

Ola wanted home
O l a wanted to go home.'
c. Marit var syk og kunne ikke pä skolen.

Marit was ill and could not on schoolDEF
'Marit was sick and couldn't go to school.'
d. Können Sie selber ins Auto? German 23

can you self in-the car
'Are you able to get into the car by yourself?'
This is an issue for the otherwise convincing analysis of volitional ville and
ability kunne as control predicates. If these modals are control verbs, they
ought not to occur in raising structures. Preferably, our analysis should
provide an explanation for this piece of empirical evidence.
All other root modals behave as raising verbs, according to Table 4.
However, things get more complicated in pseudocleft constructions.
Eide and Flaate (1999), Flaate (1998), Flaate (2005) and Flaate and Eide (1998).
23
Thanks to Professor Herbert Pütz for providing this example.
3. Modals in pseudoclefts
The subject of this section is the last prediction in Table 2—that only root
modals (20b), not non-root modals (20a), accept a pseudoclefted comple-
ment (data from Thräinsson and Vikner 1995: 61).
(20) a. *Det hun kan er at have sovet over sig. (Danish)

it she can is to have slept over self
(Intended: 'What is possible is that she has overslept.')
b. En av de ting han ikke kan er at sv0mme. (Danish)

one of the things he not can is to swim
'One of the things he cannot (do) is to swim.'
Thräinsson and Vikner (1995) suggest that this difference is expected on

the CvR analysis if we assume that the trace of a moved constituent within
the relative clause needs Case. According to the authors, this is a wh-trace,
and by "standard assumption" (62), wh-traces need Case. The structure
proposed for the relative clause is shown in Figure 2 (op. cit. 62), translated
into a tree structure in Figure 3.
Figure 2
X, [CP (opO (that)... t;...]
Figure 3
DP, CP
Det
spec C'
kan
it (that) she may
'What she may (do/have done)...'
Modais in pseudoclefts 193
According to this proposal, it is the trace tj within the relative clause CP

that needs to be assigned Case by a governing verb. The authors account
for the generalization that only root modals accept a pseudoclcftcd com-
plement by means of Burzio's Generalization: "only verbs that assign an
external θ-role to a subject assign Case to their complements" (Burzio
1986). Root modals, according to this proposal, assign an external θ-role to
a subject and thus assign case to their complement, in this case the (wh-)
trace of the moved constituent, the operator "op." In contrast, non-root
modals are raising verbs and pattern with unaccusatives. They assign nei-
ther an external θ-role to a subject nor case to a complement; the {wh-)
trace in the complement position of a non-root modal in the relative clause
could not be licensed and the structure is ill-formed. Thräinsson and
Vikner's (1995) account of modals in pseudoclefts thus rests on four basic
assumptions: 1) Burzio's Generalization, that the Case-assigning properties
of the modal are dependent on its θ-assigning properties; 2) that only a root
modal, not a non-root modal, assigns an external θ-role and therefore Case
to its complement; 3) that the movement inside the relative clause is a sub-
type of w/z-movement; and 4) that wh-traces need case.
We will focus for a moment on the last assumption. It is indeed a stan-
dard assumption within Government and Binding Theory that wA-traces
need Case (Chomsky 1981: 175; Jaeggli 1980) though this restriction does
not apply to all types of wh-traces. l-F/z-traces in Case, or argument, posi-
tions need Case, but wft-traces in non-argument positions—adjunct or A-
bar positions—do not. When the questioned constituent is a non-argument,
the Case requirement does not apply to the wh-trace, since this requirement
applies to argument-type wh-traces only.
The question is whether the trace within the relative clause must be con-
strued as an argument-type wh-trace. When the operator "op" pertains to
the complement of a control verb, this seems reasonable. Control verbs
assign (at least) two θ-roles, one external and one internal, the latter to a
clausal category such as CP. The argument assigned the internal θ-role may
undergo vWi-movcmcnt and the resulting wh-trace is presumably assigned
Case (21a). Root modals seemingly behave like control verbs in wh-
constructions; their complement may undergo w/?-movement. as in (21b).
(21) a. Hva,pr0vdej Jon tj tj?

what tried Jon
'What did John try?'
b. Hvctj mätte/skulle/villej Jon tt tt ?

what [must/should/want]+past Jon
'What did John have to/intend to/want to (do)?'
A non-root reading of the modals in (21b) is unavailable, a fact lending

support to Thräinsson and Vikner's proposal. However, if a wh-trace com-
plement of a raising verb requires Case, we also expect the complement of
perfect auxiliaries and other raising verbs to be banned from wA-movement.
Perfect auxiliaries are like raising verbs in that they do not assign an exter-
nal θ-role to their subjects or Case to their complement. However, the com-
plements of perfect auxiliaries and certain raising verbs are not excluded
from undergoing w/z-movement. This type of movement is marginal, but
not ungrammatical, as (22) shows.
(22) a. A: Jon harfaktisk solgt bilen uten hennes samtykke.

Jon has actually sold carDEF without her consent
'John has actually sold the car without her consent.'
Β : HVA har han?!24

what has he
'What has he (done)?'
b. A: Bilen ser ut til ä vcere en eneste rusthaug.

carDEF seems to be one single pile-of-rust
'The car seems to be one big pile of rust.'
B: HVA ser den ut til?!

what seems it out to
'What does it seem (to be)?'
Since the wh-trace is licensed in these constructions, 25 it seems that the

questioned constituent in (22) does not need Case. If this wA-movement is
24
The vcA-moved element could be represented as in (i) or in (ii), but I will argue
below for a structure even simpler than (i).
(i) Hva\ harκ hanj ίκ [ t j [ ti ]] (leaving the subject trace behind)
(ii) Hvai hary^ hanj tK [ ti ] (subject trace part of w/z-constituent).
25
Though it is possible for the complement of the perfect auxiliary to undergo wh-
movement, it cannot undergo a pseudocleft, as will be discussed below.
possible with aspectuals and certain raising verbs in matrix clauses, why
should this wA-trace have different Case properties in relative clauses? It
seems that it cannot be the Case requirement of the wh-trace that deter-
mines the behavior of modals in pseudoclefts.
A related line of investigation considers the definite reference require-
ment of the operator "op" in relative clauses in Norwegian. 26 For instance,
"op" is illicit in a structure where it gets its reference from an existential
postverbal subject, e.g. in unaccusative or passive structures such as (23a)
and (23b). The corresponding non-relative structures, (23c) and (23d), are
grammatical, however. One evidently cannot relativize the postverbal DP-
position in existential or passive constructions; instead, a structure without
the expletive must be used, as in (23e) and (23f).
(23) a. *Jeg traff en mann som det kom forbi.

I met a man that there came by
(Intended: Ί met a man who was passing by.')
b. *Jegfant en hatt som det hadde blitt kasta.

I found a hat that there had been thrown
(Intended: Ί found a hat that someone had thrown away.')
c. Det kom en mann forbi.

there came a man by
Ά man came by.'
d. Det hadde blitt kasta ei bok.

there had been thrown a book
Ά book had been thrown away.'
e. Jeg traff en mann som kom forbi.

I met a man that came by
Ί met a man who was passing by.'
f. Jeg fant ei bok som hadde blitt kasta.

I found a book that had been thrown
Ί found a book that someone had thrown away.'
26
This was mentioned in Eide (2002a). To my knowledge, this was then a novel
observation though this effect has been referred to in later works, e.g. Aa (2004).
As pointed out by A a (2004), it is not very surprising that the phonetically

empty operator " o p " would impose a requirement along these lines since
this operator performs the same function as relative pronouns in English
(who) and German (der) and these pronouns are always definite. 2 7
Lodrup (1996a), as discussed in section 2.8 of Chapter 3, observes that
Norwegian modals sometimes take the definite pronoun dette 'this' as their
complement, where dette refers to the V P complement of the modal. Cru-
cially, the modal always gets a root interpretation in these cases.
(24) a. Dette kan/vil/skal/mä/b0r jeg ikke.

It seems promising to relate these two observations: that the operator "op"
is definite, like a definite pronoun, and that root modals, but not non-root
modals, take definite pronoun complements. 2 8 Only root modals take the
type of complement that fulfills the requirements of "op"; therefore, only
the complement of root modals can be pseudoclefted.
The generalization in Thräinsson and Vikner (1995), that root modals
do and non-root modals do not accept a pseudoclefted complement, could
thus be explained along these lines. Given the data in (22), this explanation
may account more effectively for the observed facts than the Case-solution
presented by Thräinsson and Vikner. However, our discussion has not as
yet exhausted the patterns of modals in pseudocleft constructions. These
patterns are more complex than the dichotomy presented in Thräinsson and
Vikner (1995). To fully explain the behavior of modals in pseudoclefts, w e
need to investigate these patterns in more detail.
27
This effect exists even in other types of ivA-movement, e.g.
(i) Hva skjedde (*det)? but (ii) Det skjedde en ulykke.
'What happened (-there)?' 'There happened an accident'.
28
As noted by Lodrup, both types of modal (root and non-root) take pronoun-like
det as complements; thus the difference does not reside here. Aspectuals also take
this pro-form det as a complement, but not the definite dette 'this'.
(i) A: Maritharflytta. B: Har'a DET/*DETTE?
Marit has moved Has she ΤΗAT/THIS ?
'Marit has moved.' 'Has she?'
Modais in pseudoclefts 1 97
3.1. The relevant generalization: ± proposition scope
Although Thrainsson and Vikner do not present data illustrating the behav-
ior of other raising or control structures in pseudoclefts, raising verbs seem
to be ungrammatical in these constructions, as in (25a) and (25b), whereas
control verbs accept a pseudoclefted complement, as in (25c) and (25d).
(25) a. *Det Jon viste seg, var ä vcere inkompetent.

it Jon showed self, was to be incompetent
(Intended: 'What John turned out to be, was incompetent.')
b. *Det Marit antas, er ä vcere ucerlig.

it Marit supposePASS, is to be dishonest
(Intended: 'What Marit is supposed to be, is dishonest.')
c. Det Jon provde, var ä vcere cerlig.

it Jon tried, was to be honest
'What John tried, was to be honest.'
d. Det Marit häpet, var a fä snakke med ham.

it Marit hoped, was to get talk to him
'What Marit hoped (for), was to get to talk to him.'
For now, we will assume that this generalization holds: raising verbs are
illicit and control verbs are licit in pseudoclefts. 29 Since Thrainsson and
Vikner analyze root modals as control and non-root modals as raising
verbs, the prediction would indeed be that root modals accept and non-root
modals reject a pseudoclefted complement (whatever the reason).
Under the approach espoused here, the predictions are somewhat differ-
ent. I agree that non-root modals are best analyzed as raising verbs and, if
raising verbs are always illicit in these constructions, non-root modals
ought to reject a pseudoclefted complement (which they do). However, in
contrast to Thrainsson and Vikner (1995), the findings in the present work
29
This is inaccurate. When the relativized position pertains to the entire embedded
proposition, the raising verb accepts a pseudoclefted complement.
(i) Det som viste seg, var folgende. (ii) Det som antas, er dette.
it that showed self, was following it that supposePASS is this
'What turned out, was the following.' 'What is supposed, is this.'
point to a division within the category of root modals, with dyadic dynamic
modals in one subcategory and all other root modals in another. Thus, so
far, in the present investigation, the prediction is that only dyadic dynamic
root modals (volitional ville and ability kunne) accept a pseudoclefted com-
plement since only these two root modals pattern with control verbs (in
relevant respects). The data in (20), from Thräinsson and Vikner (1995),
where the ability reading of kunne 'be able to' is licit but the non-root read-
ing is not, are to be expected even under the present approach. We would
also expect the other dyadic dynamic modal, volitional ville 'want to', to
accept a pseudoclefted complement, and it does, as (26) shows.
(26) Det Jon vil, er ä kj0pe bilen.

it Jon wants, is to buy car-DEF
'What John wants, is to buy the car.'
A non-root reading is unavailable for (26); such a reading is always un-

available for a modal with a pseudoclefted complement. Non-root modals
pattern with raising verbs, and if raising verbs are illicit in these construc-
tions, this is just what we would expect. Dyadic dynamic modals pattern
with control verbs and ought to accept a pseudoclefted complement.
However, the predictions concerning all other root modals are quite an-
other matter. According to Table 4, all root modals, except the dyadic dy-
namic modals (volitional ville and ability kunne), pattern with raising verbs
in all relevant respects. We would thus expect that all the other root modals
are as unlikely to accept a pseudoclefted complement as non-root modals.
Deontic root modals, for instance, ought to reject a pseudoclefted comple-
ment. But this prediction is not borne out, as (27) shows.
(27) a. Det Marit mä, er ä snakke med ham.

it Marit must is to talk to him
'What Marit must (do), is talk to him.'
b. Det du skal, er äpusse tennene.

it you shall is to brush teeth-DEF
'What you will (do), is brush your teeth.'
c. Det vi alle b0r, er ä tenke gode tanker.

it we all should, is to think good thoughts
'What we all should (do), is think good thoughts.'
d. Det vi ikke trenger, er ä kjepe flere bßker.

it we not need, is to buy more books
'What we don't need, is to buy more books.'
The modals in (27) are all deontic modals. Thus, although deontic modals
pattern with raising verbs with respect to the properties in Table 4, they
differ from raising verbs in accepting a pseudoclefted complement, like
control verbs. The intriguing question is why this should be so. In our quest
for an answer, we need to address one very interesting restriction on the
deontic modals in these pseudocleft constructions.
As mentioned in section 2.6 of Chapter 3, Thräinsson and Vikner (1995)
fail to notice the existence of root modals with proposition-scope (monadic)
readings. In these constructions, the root modal obligatorily takes scope
over the subject and there is no θ-relation between the root modal and the
subject. As the existence of such readings is not acknowledged by Thräins-
son and Vikner, they ignore the fact that proposition-scope root modals are
also illicit in these pseudocleft constructions. The data in (28) illustrate,
however, that proposition-scope root modals reject a pseudoclefted com-
plement, like non-root modals and other raising verbs.
(28) a. *Det en kvinne bßr, er ä bli vär neste statsminister.

(Intended: 'What should happen is that
a woman becomes our next prime minister.')
b. *Det apene ikke mä, er ä mates αν besßkende.

it monkeysDEF not must, is to feedPASS by visitors
(Intended: 'What must not take place is
that the monkeys are fed by visitors.')
c. *Det maten gjerne vil, er ä serveres senere pä fredager.

it foodDEF typically will, is to servePASS later on Fridays
(Intended: 'What tends to happen is that the food is served
later on Fridays')
d. *Det maten kan, er a bli servert senere pä fredager.

it foodDEF can, is to be served later on Fridays
(Intended: 'What can happen sometimes is that the food is
served later on Fridays.')
When we include the proposition-scope readings of root modals in our in-

vestigation, we discover that the line between modals that do and those that
do not accept a pseudoclefted complement does not follow the root-non-
root distinction, as claimed by Thrdinsson and Vikner (1995). Neither does
it follow the distinction between dynamic and deontic, the two groups of
root modals recognized here. Instead, we find that root modals are gram-
matical in these pseudocleft constructions provided the modal has a sub-
ject-oriented (dyadic) reading, as in (27). In sentences where the modal
requires a proposition-scope reading, root modals reject a pseudoclefted
complement. In the ungrammatical sentences in (28), as well as their
grammatical unclefted counterparts, our intuition is that there is no seman-
tic (Θ-) relation between the modal and the subject; neither en k\>inne ' a
w o m a n ' nor apene 'the monkeys' are perceived as having any kind of obli-
gation; nor do w e perceive a semantic relation between maten 'the food'
and the modals vil and kan in (28c) and (28d). Thus, what truly separates
the ungrammatical structures in (28) from their grammatical counterparts in
(27) is the lack of subject-orientedness. We consult the table of readings,
Table 5, once again.
At this point, we can clearly see the relevant generalization. Proposition
scope (monadic) modals, root and well as non-root, reject a pseudoclefted
complement; subject-oriented (dyadic) modals accept such a complement.
Subject-orientedness is the prerequisite for modals to accept a pseudo-
clefted complement. W e still need an explanation for this generalization,
however, and w e will attempt to provide one in what follows.
Table 5
Dyadic: ville: volition; kunne: ability π

Root: Dynamic:
Monadic: tendency (ville: strong; kunne: weaker) *
Dyadic: directed obligation/permission π

Deontic:
Monadic: non-directed obligation/permission *
Non-root: Monadic: epistemic; metaphysical; evidential *

Q: Accept a pseudoclefted complement; *: reject a pseudoclefted complement.
Modais inpseudoclefts 201
3.2. T h e pseudocleft construction
First, I will examine the general properties of pseudoclefts and establish a

terminology for the pseudocleft construction. 3 0 H e y cock and K r o c h ' s
(1999) proposal on pseudoclefts treats these constructions as equative
structures. Furthermore, as noted by Prince (1978), pseudoclefts have a
fixed information structure in which the relative clause denotes the ground
(known information/topic) and the second argument of the copula denotes
the focus (new information/comment) of the sentence. T h e restrictions im-
posed by the semantics of equation dictate that only expressions w h o s e
semantic type matches the relative with which they are equated can appear
30
A much debated fact about pseudoclefts is that they display so-called connected-
ness or connectivity effects; they exhibit the same patterns with respect to certain
syntactic constraints as the simple sentences that paraphrase them. This is the case
for Condition A, B, and C (data from Heycock and Kroch 1999).
(i) a. What Mary, was was proud of herself;η.
b. Mary, was was proud of herself.*/.
c. What Maryt was was proud of herth].
d. Maryj was was proud of hertj,/.
e. What shej was was proud of Mary»f <7
f. Shej was proud of Mary η/
In the literature, three types of approaches try to account for these connectedness
effects; as den Dikken et al. (2000: 42-43) point out, "The semantic approach...
treats connectivity in [pseudoclefts] as a purely interpretive phenomenon, arising
without syntactic c-command. Binding dependencies...are viewed as side effects of
semantic composition, in which semantic properties of what and be play a key role.
The syntactic reconstruction approach...claims that connectivity effects displayed
by [pseudoclefts] reflect syntactic c-command (simple sentence consistency), not
obtaining at S-structure but established at LF via covert movement of the [Focus
Constituent; FC] into the w/z-clause. The ellipsis approach...assumes that the [FC]
is a full IP which is (usually) reduced by PF ellipsis. The IP-[FC] is identical to the
corresponding simple clause...both before and after S-structure..., so that connec-
tivity actually reflects regular c-command relations within the [FC] at all levels of
syntactic representation." Den Dikken et al. list Jacobson (1995) and Sharvit
(1997) as advocates of the semantic approach; Heycock and Kroch (1999) and
Boskovic (1997) as advocates of the syntactic reconstruction approach; and Ross
(1997) and Schlenker (1998) as advocates of the ellipsis approach. Den Dikken et
al. argue that the ellipsis approach is the correct approach, but only for a well-
delineated subset of pseudoclefts, those with the following order: WA-clause < FC.
For the type with the reverse order, FC < wA-clause, they argue that connectivity
effects arise differently, possibly as explained by the semantic approach.
as the foci of pseudoclefts. This Topic-Comment structure could be de-

picted in an X-bar structure (adopted from den Dikken, Meinunger and
Wilder 2000: 62), 31 where the copula is assumed to be the lexical expres-
sion of a pivotal Topic-head. As the internal structure of the (free 32 ) rela-
tive, we adopt Thräinsson and Vikner's (1995) analysis of the relative
clause, evidently following Chomsky (1986: 84-85) and repeated here as
Figure 4. Combining these two pieces of structure, we depict the structure
of modals with a pseudoclefted complement as in Figure 5 (postponing for
a moment the Focus-constituent X P ' s internal structure).
Figure 4
Xi [CP (op,) (that)... t,...] was Y

Figure 5
TopP
Spec: Ground Top'
Del·, [cp (opi) Jon mä t; ]

'What Jon must (do)'
ä vcere pä kontoret
'to stay in his office'
A peculiarity of pseudoclefts, mentioned in Williams (1994: 60), is that the

scope behavior of quantifiers is different from their behavior in correspond-
ing non-cleft sentences. For instance, a universal quantifier in the Focus
Constituent XP cannot take wide scope over an existential quantifier inside
the relative, unlike in the corresponding non-cleft sentence, as (29a) versus
31
In adopting this structure from den Dikken et al. (2000), I do not signal that I
follow their analysis of pseudoclefts rather than Heycock and Kroch (1999); the
structure is employed only as an expository device. Neither Heycock and Kroch
(1999) nor den Dikken et al. (2000) discuss modals with a pseudoclefted comple-
ment, but according to Heycock (p.c.), English modals never accept a pseudo-
clefted complement, the modal needs a do complement in the relative.
32
Unlike the free relative in English pseudoclefts headed by a wA-constituent, the
relative in Norwegian pseudoclefts is headed by a non-wA-constituent.
(29b) and (29c) versus (29d) show; data quoted from Heycock and Kroch
(1999).
(29) a. What bothered a friend of mine

was every article that appeared.
b. Every article that appeared bothered a friend of mine.
c. /'What someone is prepared to read
is every article on linguistics.
d. Someone is prepared to read every article on linguistics.
Williams concludes that there is no reconstruction into the relative. This is

potentially important for our investigation.
Finally, we need to know the basic syntactic properties of the Focus
Constituent XP. Den Dikken et al. (2000) analyze this constituent as a full
IP, where material already expressed in the Ground X P may be repeated or
phonetically elided. In the constructions under examination here, where the
pseudoclefted constituent is the complement of a modal, the correlate of the
relative clause det 'it, what' refers to the V P complement of the modal but
is equated with a Focus Constituent that is syntactically more than a VP, a
constituent headed by the infinitival marker ä ' t o ' . Norwegian modals in
unclefted sentences take bare infinitives; 33 thus, it is somewhat surprising
that the infinitival marker shows up in pseudocleft constructions (cf. also
Thrdinsson and Vikner 1995: f n 16).
A ' t o ' has been considered a complementizer, sited in C 0 (Nordgärd and
Äfarli 1990: 117); others have suggested that it is the head of IP (Christen-
sen 1983, Platzack 1986: 123). Bech (1998: 62), investigating Norwegian
psych verbs with clausal complements, claims that infinitival constructions
headed by a ' t o ' come in two varieties: a control variety with a P R O sub-
ject in [Spec, IP], protected from government by a CP on top of IP, and a
raising variety, with a trace of a raised subject in [Spec, IP]. 34 The latter
type is a bare IP, allowing the NP-trace in [Spec, IP] to be properly gov-
erned by a lexical head, the raising verb selecting the IP. In both cases, ä
33
But cf. fn. 38, Chapter 2 on non-standard dialects where ä occurs in the modal's
complement with interpretive effects. No such interpretive effect is present here.
34
Stowell (1982) also emphasizes that there are structural differences between
control and raising infinitives. Control infinitives have tensed I(nfl)s, according to
this proposal, unlike raising infinitives. Infinitive tense checks null Case, and the
only empty category that requires null Case is PRO. Hence, only PRO can appear
in [Spec,IP] of tensed infinitives.
heads IP, but the control infinitival construction is structurally a CP; in

contrast, the raising infinitive is a bare IP.
(30) a. Jon liker [ C p [ip P R O x ä [ V p t x spise bananer]]].

Jon likes to eat bananas
'Jon likes to eat bananas.'
b. Jorii antas [ip tj α [γρ t; spise bananer]].

Jon presumePASS to eat bananas
'Jon is presumed to eat bananas.'
When we insert these two sentence types into the TopP pseudocleft struc-
ture, the control structure in Figure 6 is a fully grammatical pseudocleft,
while the raising structure in Figure 7 is an ill-formed pseudocleft. 3 5
Figure 6
OK: TopP
Spec: Ground Top'
35
This type of approach would favor an analysis where the connectedness effects
observed in pseudoclefts are a result of interpretive mechanisms and not the result
of actual syntactic C-command between the antecedent and the anaphor.
Figure 7
Ungrammatical: TopP
Jon I' spise bananer
1° ti
antas
'What Jon is-presumed is to eat bananas.'
We could construct a GB-style account for this contrast by assuming that

the subject trace in [Spec, IP] of the Focus constituent is the offending ele-
ment in the structure in Figure 7. This trace does not have an antecedent in
a c-commanding position; in fact, it does not have an antecedent at all and
must be base-generated as a trace, not the silent copy of a moved constitu-
ent. These assumptions suggest another explanation for why raising struc-
tures are ill-formed in these pseudoclefts.
3.3. Modals and subject scope
I pointed out in section 3.1 that modals accept a pseudoclefted complement

only if they have a subject-oriented or dyadic reading. A proposition-scope
modal, root or non-root, rejects a pseudoclefted complement, just like rais-
ing verbs. In this section, I will discuss the relative scope possibilities of
modals and their subjects and see if this brings us any closer to an explana-
tion for their behavior in pseudoclefts. As discussed in section 2, it is
widely acknowledged that raising predicates allow their subject to scope
over or under the matrix predicate. Not so for control structures where the
subject invariably takes wide scope. Deontic modals pattern with raising
predicates in that their subject may scope over or under the modal. Com-
pare the deontic modal must to the raising verb seem and the control verb
hope'.
(31) a. John must stay in his office

i. It is considered necessary (e.g. by speaker)
that [John stays in his office].
ii. John [has an obligation to stay in his office].
b. John seems to be happy.

i. It seems (e.g. to the speaker) that [John is happy].
ii. John [is showing signs of being happy].
c. John hopes to talk to her.

# i. It is hoped (e.g. by the speaker)
that [John talks to her],
ii. John [has a hope to talk to her].
This difference between raising and control structures has received differ-
ent explanations (Wurmbrand 1999 offers a survey of proposals). 36 One
widespread assumption is that the contrast is due to the availability of a
lower subject position (e.g. at LF) in raising structures, an effect often ex-
plained as a consequence of the raising operation itself. The raising of the
subject from the (+Θ) subject position of the embedded predicate to the (-Θ)
subject position of the raising predicate yields a structure where the subject
may be interpreted in the upper subject position-which gives it a wide-
scope reading-or in the lower subject position, the subject position of the
embedded predicate ("reconstruction"). The latter option gives the subject
the narrow-scope reading with respect to the raising predicate. This inter-
pretation depends on the possibility of "lowering" the subject into its posi-
tion in the embedded predicate or the possibility of interpreting the trace
instead of the raised subject DP. On both accounts, the point is to semanti-
cally undo the overt raising of the subject. This difference between control
and raising predicates is depicted in Figure 8, adopted from Wurmbrand
(1999).
36
Wurmbrand lists Bobaljik (1998), Fox (1998, 1999), Lebeaux (1994), May
(1977, 1985), and Sauerland (1998) as approaches proposing mechanisms to ac-
count for the narrow-scope reading of the subject.
Figure 8
a. Control b. Raising
IP IP
Deontic modals behave like other raising verbs in allowing narrow- as well
as wide-scope readings of the subject. However, one difference between
deontic modals and (most) other raising verbs is that whereas the perceived
θ-properties of ordinary raising verbs, such as antas in (32a) below, evi-
dently remain uninfluenced by the subject's scope, a subject scoping over
the deontic modal is related to a subject-oriented (+Θ) reading of the modal
as in (32bii). Specifically, a wide-scope reading of the subject is a prerequi-
site for the subject-oriented reading since a narrow-scope subject cannot be
construed as having any obligation or permission. A proposition-scope root
or non-root reading always and only occurs when the subject is "lowered,"
when the subject trace in the lower subject position is interpreted. This is
illustrated in Figure 9.
(32) a. En mann antas a vcere morderen.

a man presumePASS to be killerDEF
Ά man is presumed to be the killer.'
I. It is presumed that [a man is the killer].
II. There is a man [who is presumed to be the killer].
b. En mann mä passe hunden.

a man must watch dogDEF
Ά man must watch the dog.'
I. It is necessary that [a man watches the dog].
II. There is a man [with an obligation
to watch the dog].
Figure 9
Modal raising structures
IP
Subject ModP
tsUBJ V
Scope: SUBJ > MODAL > SUBJ

I I
Reading: Subject-oriented (+Θ) root Proposition scope ( - Θ) root/non-root.
There is a seemingly straightforward way of accounting for the observed

generalizations and simultaneously shedding some light on the behavior of
modals with a pseudoclefted complement. Modals accept a pseudoclefted
complement if they have a subject-oriented reading. Whenever the natural
interpretation of the sentence requires that the modal be given a proposi-
tion-scope (root or non-root) reading, as in (28a) and (28b), repeated here
as (33), the modal rejects a pseudoclefted complement.
(33) a. *Det en kvinne ber, er ä bli vor neste statsminister.

(Intended: 'What should happen is
that a woman becomes our next prime minister.')
b. *Det apene ikke mä, er ä mates αν besehende.

it the monkeys not must, is to feed-PASSIVE by visitors
Let us start by examining why proposition-scope readings are unavailable

in these pseudocleft constructions. First, we need to revisit the internal
structure of the relative in [Spec,TopP] represented in Figure 10 (also
Figure 5).
Figure 10
TopP
Spec: Ground Top'
Det\ [CP (ορ;) Jon mä t; ] Top0 XP: Focus

'What Jon must (do)' er
ä vcere pä kontoret
'to stay in his office'
The complement of the modal, dubbed "op" here, is raised to [Spec,CP]. As

discussed above, this operator shares its reference with the correlate Det 'it'
outside of CP. 37 Det ' it' has a variety of functions in Norwegian; here, I
assume it is a pronoun, cf. Ladrup (1994). 38 Det, and the operator "op,"
pertain to the VP complement of the modal. A mainstream way of getting
the semantics right for such a structure is to assume that the phonetically
deleted VP is syntactically present in the phrase marker, at least at LF
(Lodrup 1994: 308). 39 1 suggest instead that det is a simplex structure, such
as a pronoun. There is no syntactic reconstruction of this proform into a VP
at any syntactic level. 40 The structure of the relative clause in [Spec,TopP]
is depicted in Figure 11; irrelevant details omitted.
37
Chomsky (1986b), Negärd (2001: 121). The reference and function of a wh-
operator is determined by its structural environments—whether there is a correlate.
In relative clauses a correlate exists, so "op" refers to the correlate.
38
Lodrup (1994) analyzes root modals as control verbs, which "always allow an
NP object as an alternative to a verbal complement." Hence, det may be a pronoun
object complement of a root modal. I have glossed over the differences between
det as a complement of a subject-oriented root modal and det as a complement of a
proposition scope (non-root) modal observed by Lodrup; det as the complement of
a subject-oriented modal (but not the other one) may undergo "object-shift."
39
L0drup's framework is LFG and this is analyzed as semantic reconstruction; the
antecedent of det is copied in and replaces det in functional structure. Lodrup
(1994: 309) argues that this proform det can also be treated as a direct object.
40
I do not rule out reconstruction at a level "more abstract than LF under most
current assumptions" as proposed for reconstruction of pseudoclefts in Heycock
and Kroch (1999: 365).
Figure 11
Assuming this structure for the relative clause accounts for the lack of
quantifier scope reconstruction into the (free) relative in a pseudocleft, ob-
served by Williams (1994) and repeated here as (34). We assume the struc-
ture in Figure 12 for the relative clause in (34a) (the IP-level is omitted for
simplicity, this has no relevant theoretical implications).
(34) a. What bothered a friend of mine

was every article that appeared.
b. Every article that appeared bothered a friend of mine.
c. 7 What someone is prepared to read
is every article on linguistics.
d. Someone is prepared to read every article on linguistics.
Figure 12
bothered a friend of mine

There is no reconstruction of the What-phrase into the quantified phrase

every article that appeared within the relative clause; hence, one would not
expect scope-variability any more than scopal ambiguity of two quantifiers
in two different clauses, as in the following example. 41
(35) Something bothered a friend of mine.

It was every article that appeared.
Thus, the structure I assume for a relative in [Spec, TopP] where the pseu-
doclefited constituent is the complement of the modal is the one depicted in
Figure 11, repeated here as Figure 13.
Figure 13
For the modal to get a proposition-scope reading, it is essential that the

subject trace be interpreted instead of the surface subject DP; correspond-
ing to May's (1977, 1985) "lowering." This means that we need access to a
specifier position below the modal to find the trace of the subject, but in the
structure in Figure 13 there is no such position. The pre-movement subject
position is simply deleted and not available for interpretation.
The only specifier position available is the position scoping over the
modal, which gives the subject wide scope and the modal a subject-oriented
41
Connectedness effects, e.g. binding of anaphors, may seem possible between
two different sentences in a discourse (cf. (i)). Some authors, like Reinhart and
Reuland (1993), may consider himself here a logophor, not an anaphor. This is
corroborated by Norwegian data. Norwegian seemingly has different forms for
anaphors and (some types of) logophors, and the "logophoric" form ham selv 'him
self, is more natural here than the anaphor segselv 'himself,
(i) John suddenly saw something. It was himself in the mirror.
reading. If this is correct, a pseudocleft structure where this lower subject

position is retained inside the relative clause should give rise to proposi-
tion-scope readings. This is the case, as (36b) shows. Compare (36b),
where root and non-root proposition-scope readings are both possible, to
(36a) where no proposition-scope reading is available. The structure of the
relative clause in (36b) is depicted in Figure 14 below.
(36) a. Det Jon mä, er ä vcere arkitekt.

it Jon must, is to be an architect
'What John must do, is to be an architect.'
b. Det Jon mä vcere, er arkitekt.

it Jon must be, is architect
'What John must be, is an architect.'
Figure 14
Modp
(,som)
Jonk
(36b) is three-ways ambiguous between a subject-oriented reading, a

proposition-scope root reading, and a proposition-scope non-root reading.
The two root readings are easier to get in context, e.g. if uttered by a direc-
tor of a play. Crucially, both root and non-root proposition-scope readings
are possible only if the lower subject position (here, the specifier position
of vcere 'be') is present. When this position is deleted, as in Figure 13
above, the proposition-scope readings are impossible, and the wide-scope
subject/subject-oriented reading is the only one.
There is a potential snag here. Consider the data in (37).
(37) a. *Det Jon mä ha, er solgt bilen hennes.

it John must have, is sold her car
(Intended: 'What John must have done, is to have sold
her car' from Jon mä ha solgt bilen hennes.)
b. *Det Marit mä vcere/ha, er blitt stengt inne.

it Marit must be, is become shut in
(Intended: 'What Marit must have been is shut in' from
Marit mä vcere/ha blitt stengt inne.)
Here the aspectual ha/vcere provides a lower subject position, but the struc-
ture is nevertheless ill-formed. However, the ungrammaticality of (37) is
straightforwardly explained when we consider the overall structure of
pseudoclefts. There are strong restrictions on the possible syntactic realiza-
tion of the Focus constituent XP. The generalization could be expressed as
follows: the pseudocleft structure is an equative structure (cf. Hey cock and
Kroch 1999 and section 3.2 above) where two (referential) entities are
equated. As the head of the relative clause is a pronoun—and there is a
restriction on equatives that the two arguments equated be of the same se-
mantic type—the focus constituent XP must be, in some sense, nominal.
The relevant structure reads roughly "XP N - XPN" which entails that only
argument-type clauses (headed by at 'that' or the infinitival marker ä 'to'),
DPs, or adjectives are allowed here. Bare VPs, as in (37), adverb phrases
and directionals, as in (38), cannot constitute the Focus constituent XP.
(38) a. *Det Jon mä, er hjem/tilflyplassen.

it Jon must is home/ to airport-DEF
'What Jon must do, is go home/to the airport.'
b. *Det Jon sprang hjemover, var fort.

it Jon ran homeward, was rapidly
(Intended: 'What Jon ran home, was fast.')
Vcere 'be' accepts a pseudoclefted complement when it functions as a cop-

ula, taking adjectival and (other) nominal categories as complements. In
these cases, it provides a lower subject-position inside the relative clause
and only when this position is syntactically present is the proposition-scope
reading of the modal possible. The aspectual version of vcere 'be' and as-
pectual ha 'have' require their complement to be a perfect participle, hence
a bare VP. But verbal ([+V]) categories cannot head the Focus constituent
XP and the structure is ill-formed.
This line of thought constitutes one part of the explanation for why
proposition-scope (non-root and root) modals reject and subject-oriented
modals accept a pseudoclefted complement. The proposition-scope reading
of a modal consists of interpreting a subject-trace in a subject position
within the syntactic scope of the modal. When the complement of a modal
is pseudoclefted, however, it is replaced with the proform det, which has no
internal structure or at least no subject position of a relevant kind. The
lower subject position, giving rise to the proposition-scope reading of the
modal and correspondingly to the narrow-scope reading of the subject, is
simply not present in the syntactic structure. Stipulating a correspondence
between a wide-scope subject and a subject-oriented reading on the one
hand and a narrow-scope subject and a proposition-scope reading on the
other at first glance yields the right results. Norwegian deontic modals are
allowed in this structure because they allow wide-scope, subject-oriented
readings.
However, there are two serious problems with this proposal. Firstly, it
does not explain why other raising verbs are ill-formed in this construction.
Raising verbs allow for a wide-scope reading of the subject; hence, all rais-
ing verbs ought to accept a pseudoclefted complement, if a wide-scope
reading of the subject is all it takes to rescue the structure. However, oher
raising verbs typically do not display a subject-oriented reading of the kind
deontic modals do, though there are exceptions: the Norwegian raising
construction ser ut til a is accepted in these constructions provided the main
predicate is a subject-oriented predicate and the reading of ser ut til ä is the
'direct visual access' reading, as in (39a). A predicate, such as borte 'gone',
forcing a proposition-scope reading of ser ut til a incompatible with the
'visual access' reading, renders the construction ungrammatical. 42
42
Not all informants accepted (39a), but they all judged (39b) to be worse than
(39a). The same pattern seemingly exists in German. When presented with (i) and
(ii), my informant reveals that (i) "may not be 100% impossible," and that (i) is at
least better than (ii). Thanks to Professor Doktor Rolf Thieroff for the information.
(i) ? Was Johann scheint, ist wütend (zu sein).
what Johann seems, is furious (to be)
(ii) * Was Johann scheint, ist weg (zu sein).
what Johann seems, is gone (to be).
(39) a. 7Det Jon ser ut til, er ä vcere irritert.

it Jon looks out to is to be annoyed
'What Jon seems (to be), is annoyed.'
b. *Det Jon ser ut til, er ä vcere borte.

it Jon looks out to is to be gone
'What Jon seems (to be), is gone.'
The corresponding raising verb in English has two different versions with
different selectional requirements. The 'direct visual access' version ac-
cepts an adjectival predicate in addition to an infinitival complement and
does not accept a proposition-scope reading. A teacher looking at an empty
classroom may thus utter (40a), but not (40b). Moreover, (40a) has two
different readings: a subject-oriented one and a proposition-scope one. 43
(40) a. Everyone seems to be sick.

b. Everyone seems sick.
It seems that—just like with modals—subject-orientation, not the wide-

scope reading of the subject, is what allows even certain raising verbs to
partake in this construction. Therefore, we need to describe the relationship
between subject-orientation and the upper subject position.
The second, presumably related, problem for the 'subject position ap-
proach' is that the assumed correspondence between subject scope and ±
subject-oriented reading of the modal sometimes fails. Admittedly, subject-
oriented readings do seem to require wide-scope subjects, but proposition-
scope readings of deontic modals, like other raising verbs, allow for wide-
scope subjects in addition to narrow-scope subjects, as in (41a). Also, a
modal sentence where the subject is a proper noun may yield a proposition-
scope reading and a proper noun is in some sense always a wide-scope
subject (41b). Even when the reading of the subject is wide-scope, proposi-
tion-scope modals, like (other) raising verbs, reject a pseudoclefted com-
plement, as (41c) and (41 d) show.
(41) a. En pasient mä opereres.

a patient must operatePASS
Ά patient must be operated on; 3x & I (operated on x).'
43
Thanks to Professor Greg Carlson for discussing with me the properties of seem.
b. Jon mä opereres.
Jon must operatePASS
'Jon must be operated on.'
c. *Det en pasient mä, er ä opereres. 44

it a patient must is to operatePASS
'What a patient must (do), is to be operated on.'
d. *Det Jon mä, er ä opereres.

it Jon must is to operatePASS
'What Jon must, is to be operated on.'
This means that a wide-scope subject does not guarantee a subject-oriented

reading. If the wide-scope reading of the subject is what is encoded in the
upper position, our subject position approach to pseudoclefts predicts that
subject-orientation ought to be less important than subject-scope in deter-
mining whether a modal can occur in this construction. As seen above,
however, subject-orientation—not subject scope—is the decisive factor. In
fact, the wide-scope/narrow-scope subject distinction is useful to us only as
long as it correspond to the ±subject-oriented reading.
Moreover, the pseudocleft data indicate that the syntactic presence of
the lower subject position is crucial for a proposition-scope reading of the
modal. Hence, being able to relate ±subject-oriented readings—instead of
-wide-scope subject readings—to upper and lower subject positions, would
strengthen the subject position approach to pseudoclefts.
As discussed above, these subject positions have been claimed by nu-
merous authors to encode wide- and narrow subject scope respectively, not
θ-relations or subject-orientation. Therefore, if we want to claim that ±θ-
reading, or subject-orientation, is the result of access to the upper and lower
subject positions, we need to discredit the hypothesis that these positions
encode subject scope. This is what we turn to next.
44
The sentence is possibly well-formed given a generic reading of the subject, but
not on the wide-scope (or the narrow-scope/non-theta) reading intended here.
3.4. Competing for subject positions: Theta-relations versus subject scope
Various arguments have been offered in support of the assumption (attrib-

uted to May 1977) that raising predicates give rise to a wide- as well as a
narrow-scope reading of the subject, while control predicates do not allow
for a narrow-scope reading. I will examine three of those arguments here.
3.4.1. The argument from nobody/somebody
Zubizarreta (1982: 54), following May (1977), points out that the interplay
of the quantifiers nobody and somebody is different when they occur in the
subject positions of raising and control verbs. She presents the following
data (her 1 6 - 2 0 ) :
a. Nobody tried to leave.

b. Nobody seemed to have left.
c. Nobody tried to leave
but somebody tried to leave (contradictory).
d. Nobody seems to have left
but somebody seems to have left (non-contradictory)
e. (Vx (x does not seem to have left))
but (seems (3x (x have left)))
Zubizarreta's explanation for the lack of contradiction in (42d) is that seem

is predicated of an individual χ in the first part of this clause, but not in the
second one. Control predicates are not able to scope over their subjects the
way raising verbs do; hence a narrow-scope reading of the subject is not
available and (42c) is contradictory.
When illustrating this phenomenon, authors typically use the raising
verb seem as an example. The picture gets more complicated, however,
when we include other raising verbs. Replacing seem with the epistemic
(non-root) must, which we have established is a full-fledged raising verb,
results in different judgments from my informants:
(43) a. Nobody must have left but somebody must have left.
b. There is no person such that he must have left;
yet it must be the case that somebody left.
My informants judged (43a) contradictory. When I paraphrased the sen-

tence to avoid contradiction, as in (43 b), the sentence was still considered
contradictory. The same informants accepted the structure with seem,
(42d), without hesitation. It is important to note that seem, as well as its
Norwegian counterpart ser ut til a, has a subject-oriented counterpart, as in
(40). The subject-oriented version denotes 'direct visual access to x', takes
adjectival and infinitival complements, and is felicitous in a sentence de-
scribing the visible properties of a subject. The proper raising verb version
takes infinitival complements—but not adjectival ones—and is the only one
that can give rise to proposition-scope readings, as demonstrated by the fact
that only this version allows a predicate such as gone to be predicated of
the subject.
(44) a. John seems sick/*gone.

b. John seems to be sick/gone.
These facts about seem likely influenced the informants' acceptance of

(42d) as non-contradictory: the first part of the conjunct may contain one
version of seem and the second part the other, thus allowing for the non-
contradictory paraphrase. 45 Some raising verbs, such as the non-root (epis-
temic) must, have no subject-oriented (non-root) version; this may explain
the informants' rejection of a non-contradictory reading of (43a). Thus, it is
possible that subject-orientation, not subject scope, is the decisive factor
even in the data in (42).
3.4.2. The argument from some/every
The second set of data considered to confirm subject-scope differences

between control and raising predicates also stems from May (1977) (data
from Zubizarreta (1982: 54-55); 4 6 Hornstein (1998: 109) attributes these
45
This requires a visual access reading of seem to be possible even though its
complement is to have left, which may appear counterintuitive. However, John is
showing no signs of having left is not unacceptable and this is the type of reading
we are looking for.
46
Zubizarreta (1982) refers to Burzio (1981) for the following data. One inter-
preter each seems to have been assigned to the visiting diplomats but *One inter-
preter each tried to be assigned to the visiting diplomats. Cf. Beghelli and Stowell
(1999) for an analysis of distributive each.
observations to Burzio (1986). According to Zubizarreta (1982: 54-55), the

data illustrate that "a quantifier in the embedded clause of a raising con-
struction may have scope over the matrix surface subject" whereas "in a
control structure the matrix quantifier is always construed as having scope
wider than the quantifier in the complement clause."
(45) a. Some politician is likely

to address every rally in John's district.
Some > every; every > some
b. Some politician decided

to address every rally in John's district.
Some > every; # every > some
Hornstein (1998) accepts these judgments and assumptions although his

data are slightly different. According to my informants, however, these
conjectures are not quite correct since both scope possibilities are available
in the following control structures. 47
(46) a. Someone tried to read every book.

(for every book, someone tried to read it)
b. Someone decided to read every report.

(for every report, someone decided to read it)
The latter reading of (46b) might be harder to get out of context: I am a

lecturer and encourage my students to read each other's reports, promising
to read those reports that will otherwise not be read by anyone. In this case,
I might utter: Luckily, someone decided to read every report, where every
scopes over someone. If the judgments of my informants are representative,
the relative scope of quantifiers in raising and control structures is not as
different as we are led to believe.
47
According to a reviewer for Mouton de Gruyter, the wide scope reading for
every is hard to get; it is a well-known fact that scope interactions across clause
boundaries are possible, but lead to very weak scope readings. My informants,
however, seemingly had no difficulty getting both readings.
3.4.3. The argument from the ambiguity of indefinites
A third set of data often invoked to illustrate scopal differences between

control and raising predicates consists of the possible readings of indefi-
nites. In certain contexts, indefinites may be ambiguous between a specific
and a non-specific reading, as in (47).
(47) a. John is seeking a unicorn.
On the specific reading of the indefinite, there is a particular unicorn of

which it is true that John is seeking it. On the non-specific reading, John is
not seeking a particular individual; he is simply looking for anything that
would fit the description of a unicorn. In the latter case, there may not be a
single individual in the real world fitting this description, but the sentence
may nevertheless be true in the real world: John might not know or believe
that unicorns do not exist. Frege (1892) noted that modal operators (e.g.
necessarily, possibly) are elements giving rise to contexts where we find
this type of ambiguity—referentially opaque or intensional contexts.48
Other elements that create such contexts are verbs denoting utterance
events (tell, report), propositional attitudes (believe,49 think), or intentions
(want, seek). We refer to all those elements that create the aforementioned
ambiguity-promoting contexts as intensional predicates.
A popular way of representing the different readings of indefinites in
formal semantics is to give the indefinite wide scope over the intensional
predicate on the specific reading and narrow scope on the non-specific one.
(48) a. Ξχ (χ: a unicorn) & John seeks χ (= specific reading)

b. John seeks 3x (x: a unicorn) (= non-specific reading).
Thus, the terms wide-scope subject and narrow-scope subject refer to the
way these two readings are represented in formal semantics. Of course, it
would be nice if these semantic representations corresponded to syntactic
48
In fact, this is part of a bigger complex of interpretation, including definite de-
scriptions (e.g. The Morning Star) in addition to indefinites. This ambiguity with
definite descriptions is often referred to as the de dicto vs. the de re, the descrip-
tion vs. the individual fitting the description. The phenomenon in both definite and
indefinite cases concerns the intension versus the extension of a DP.
49
A prerequisite for an intensional reading of believe is that its complement denote
a proposition, so John believes me does not qualify as an intensional context.
Modais in psendoclefts 221
representations in a homomorphic fashion; May (1977, 1985) set out to

show that wide- and narrow-scope readings of subjects are in fact syntacti-
cally encoded. I will examine the main points of his analysis and the most
fundamental arguments.
Firstly, May observes a difference between raising and control struc-
tures with respect to their ability to give rise to the specific-
nonspecific/existing-nonexisting ambiguity for indefinites, as in (49).
(49) a. A hippogryph is likely to be apprehended.

b. A hippogryph is anxious to be apprehended.
According to May, (49a) does not necessarily entail that hippogryphs exist,
unlike (49b), which can only be truthfully uttered if hippogryphs exist.
May links this difference between raising and control structures to the the-
matic properties of the matrix verb. Raising predicates have non-thematic
subject positions. The ability to take expletive subjects is used as a diagnos-
tics for this non-thematic property of the matrix subject position, as in (50).
(50) a. It is likely that a hippogryph will be apprehended.

b. *It is anxious that a hippogryph will be apprehended.
The non-thematic property of the matrix subject position in a raising struc-

ture has two major consequences. First, it entails that raising predicates
allow movement from the subject position of the complement into the ma-
trix subject position. Second, it allows the matrix subject position of a rais-
ing predicate to host an empty expletive. Empty expletives are ruled out in
the subject position of a control predicate since this is a thematic position.
Moreover, (50b) is a finite clause, hence the subject position of the control
predicate cannot host PRO either: the subject position of a finite clause is
always governed and PRO must be ungoveraed. Thus, there is no empty
category that would be allowed to fill the subject position of a control
predicate in finite clauses and this type of structure is ruled out as ill-
formed at LF. However, for the non-specific, narrow-scope reading of an
indefinite subject to arise, it is crucial that an empty expletive fill the upper
subject position at LF. It follows that control predicates do not allow for a
narrow-scope construal of the subject: having a thematic subject position
ensures that their subjects never get a narrow-scope reading.
However, this analysis faces some serious problems. May in fact
equates the specific-nonspecific distinction with ±presupposition of exis-
tence, a common tendency in discussing these phenomena within a syntac-

tic framework, perhaps stemming from the formal semantics way of repre-
senting this distinction. Nevertheless, these two interpretational features
should and must be kept separate, as we will see shortly. The presupposi-
tion of existence effect is not unrelated to the modal nature of the matrix
predicate, nor is it (solely) determined by the syntactic position or function
of the indefinite; it is also not uniquely related to (non-)thematic properties
of subject positions, as illustrated in (51a) and (51b).
(51) a. It is likely that a unicorn ate all your flowers.

b. It is regrettable that a unicorn ate all your flowers.
According to May (1985: 97), a sentence such as (51a) "can be truthfully

uttered without any supposition regarding the existence of [unicorns]." This
does not seem to be true for (51b): uttering (51b) entails that the speaker
believes in the existence of unicorns. Crucially, it still allows for a spe-
cific/non-specific distinction; I may regret that a particular unicorn (e.g.
Petunia) ate your flowers, or I might not know which unicorn did it, but
still I may regret the fact that some unicorn ate all your flowers. 50 This sen-
tence shows that the specific-nonspecific distinction is independent of the
presupposition of existence effect since the latter in fact runs across the
specific-nonspecific distinction. The sentence also shows that the non-
thematic properties of the matrix subject position are not enough to entail
no presupposition of existence.
My claim that presupposition of existence may be partly unrelated to the
syntactic position of the indefinite is supported by data such as (52).
(52) a. A Martian is supposed to have taken a unicorn captive

in a UFO.
Uttering this sentence truthfully does not entail the speaker's commitment
to believing in Martians (subject position), unicorns (direct object position)
or UFOs (complement of preposition). Furthermore, although the raising
predicate is supposed creates the "no presupposition of existence" effect in
this particular sentence, any element expressing someone's propositional
50
Potential objection: the adjective regrettable is derived from a factive verb re-
gret. Factive verbs (or bridge verbs) have distinct syntactic behavior in many lan-
guages, as opposed to other verbs taking propositions as a complement.
attitude towards the proposition will do, as in (53), where the element creat-
ing the effect is an adverbial.
(53) a. Allegedly, a Martian has taken a unicorn captive

in a UFO.
When the adverbial allegedly is left out, the speaker is committed to believ-
ing in Martians, unicorns and UFOs. That is, the "no presupposition of the
existence of an x " on behalf of the speaker is a result of employing an in-
tensional predicate, whatever that might be. I argue that the ability of rais-
ing verbs to give rise to this effect is the semantic property of modality,
shared by all intensional predicates. An intensional predicate relieves the
speaker of committing to the proposition embedded under this predicate as
a state of affairs belonging to the speaker's model of the world. Instead, the
intensional predicate signals that the embedded proposition describes a
state of affairs in someone else's model of the world, which may of course
differ from that of the speaker.
A possible objection to the discussion of the data in (51) is that the
structure (51b) is not a raising type adjective. Compare (54a) and (54b).
(54) a. A unicorn is likely to have eaten all your flowers.

b. *A unicorn is regrettable to have eaten all your flowers.
One might assume that the "no presupposition of existence" effect is in

some way related to the predicate's ability to host the embedded subject in
its subject position. This line of thought does not take us very far either.
There are a number of predicate types, such as unaccusatives, assumed to
have non-thematic subject positions, as suggested by the fact that this posi-
tion may host expletives. This subject position may also host the raised
postverbal DP and this DP could be argued to be a subject raised from an
embedded small clause (cf. Stowell 1981, 1983).
(55) a. There appeared a policeman on the scene.

b. A policemanappeared t; on the scene.
However, these structures do not give rise to the "no presupposition of ex-
istence" effect, irrespective of their non-thematic subject positions and their
ability to host a raised subject or an expletive in this subject position. The
reason, I argue, is that they are not intensional predicates. 51 They do, how-
ever, give rise to the specific-nonspecific ambiguity, which, evidently, is an
inherent property of indefinites partly unrelated to the syntactic position
they occupy (En? 1991 s2 ). Notably, a policeman above may be a particular
individual who we know is a policeman (e.g. John) or someone who hap-
pens to fit the description of a policeman (someone wearing a policeman's
uniform).
I conclude that it is the semantic properties of raising verbs that give rise
to the described ambiguity, not their argument structure. Yet, in one sense
May is right in claiming that the presupposition effect evidenced with in-
definite subjects of raising structures relates to the non-thematic property of
this position. Raising constructions allow for the raising of the subject of an
embedded proposition into the matrix subject position. This embedded
proposition is semantically (and via the subject's trace, syntactically)
within the scope of the intensional predicate, e.g. is believed, and all ele-
ments semantically belonging to this proposition are under the modal influ-
ence of the intensional predicate. This is why May's argument against a
semantic explanation fails; cf. May (1985: 105).
[A semantic analysis fails] to distinguish active and passive occurrences of

believe·, even if there were some generalization linking believe with predi-
cates like appear and likely, we would have to ask why we find an ambigu-
ity in No agent is believed by Philby to be a spy for the other side but none
in No agent believed Philby to be a spy for the other side. Presumably both
occurrences of believe mean the same thing.... Further, why wouldn't other
matrix constituents interact scopally with the predicate? As pointed out, we
only find ambiguities with respect to the subject NP; witness the nonambi-
guity of Philby is believed by no agent to be a spy for the other side.
To stay with readings of indefinites, we replace M a y ' s examples with sen-

tences containing indefinites; however, the point remains the same.
51
Appear has many of the properties attributed to seem above. These verbs may be
intentional predicates, provided they have a verbal complement. Note the differ-
ence between (i) and (ii) and (iii) and (iv), respectively:
(i) A unicorn appeared in the garden, (ii) A unicorn appeared to be in the garden.
(iii) A unicorn seems very annoyed. (iv) A unicorn seems to be very annoyed.
52
A reviewer for Mouton de Gruyter notes that to Εης non-specificity is a neces-
sary and sufficient condition on /fere-insertion (in existential constructions), so
non-specificity cannot be unrelated to syntactic positions. On the other hand, this
could be a semantic property of the existential construction and not a property of
the syntactic position of the indefinite as such; cf. next section for discussion.
(56) a. A unicorn is believed by Philby to be a hippogryph.

b. A unicorn believed Philby to be a hippogryph.
c. Philby is believed by a unicorn to be a hippogryph.
In (56a), a unicorn belongs to the proposition believed by Philby to de-

scribe an actual state of affairs, [A unicorn is a hippogryph]. Hence, a uni-
corn is under the modal influence of the intensional predicate is believed,
which means that the speaker is entitled to being agnostic about the exis-
tence of unicorns, but Philby is not (given that Philby is a rational person).
The same goes for the supposed existence of hippogryphs: the speaker is
not committed to believing that hippogryphs exist, but Philby must believe
in them. This is because the speaker reports both unicorns and hippogryphs
as something belonging to Philby's system of beliefs, while remaining si-
lent about whether or not these creatures belong to his or her own belief
system. Furthermore, given that Philby is convinced that unicorns and hip-
pogryphs exist, there is still the specific-nonspecific ambiguity. Philby may
have suspicions concerning one specific unicorn (e.g. Petunia) to be a dis-
guised hippogryph, or he may not know which of the unicorns is a dis-
guised hippogryph. Furthermore, he may suspect that one particular hip-
pogryph (e.g. Baltus) has disguised himself as a unicorn, or he may not
know which of the hippogryphs to suspect.
In (56b) and (56c), a unicorn does not belong to the proposition about
what is believed; in both sentences the unicorn is the entity holding the
belief reported. Instead, a unicorn belongs to the matrix proposition de-
noted by the sentence uttered by the speaker. Hence, the speaker is commit-
ted to the assumption that unicorns exist. However, the specific-nonspecific
ambiguity is still present since the speaker may or may not know which
unicorn holds the reported belief. Furthermore, as far as the speaker is con-
cerned, hippogryphs may or may not exist-since a hippogryph is contained
in the proposition reported as belonging to the belief system of α unicorn.
The discussion so far has been an informal and intuitive description of
the "no presupposition of existence" effect in propositions embedded under
intensional predicates. There are far more formalized ways of expressing
these intuitions. A recent formal semantic approach to intensional predi-
cates is found in Quer (1998), who sets out to explain the distribution and
semantics of the subjunctive mood, particularly in Catalan and other Ro-
mance languages. Quer builds on the recent work of Giannakidou (1994,
1995), where one fundamental assumption is that the subjunctive has to be
(syntactically) licensed by occurring within the scope of a "non-veridical"
operator. In Giannaikidou (1994, 1995) the property of (non-)veridicality is

defined as follows (quoted from Quer 1998: 18):
An operator Op is non-veridical iff Op ρ does not imply p; Op is veridical
iff Op ρ implies ρ (where ρ is an arbitrary proposition). Schematically:
a. Op ρ -/-> ρ Non-veridicality
b. Op ρ -> ρ Veridicality
The categories that obey non-veridicality are "desideratives, directives,

modals and predicates of fear," sometimes referred to simply as intensional
predicates (Quer 1998: 18-19).
The next building block of Quer's analysis is the idea proposed by Far-
kas (1992) that in the interpretation of argument clauses, truth has to be
relativized to worlds and individuals. An epistemic predicate such as be-
lieve, for instance, introduces those worlds that accord with what is be-
lieved by the referent denoted by its subject. Thus, propositions denoted by
complement clauses must be "individually anchored," true as far as the
individual referred to by the matrix subject is concerned, as in (57).
(57) [p2 Philby believes

\v\that a unicorn is sleeping in the garden\\.
In (57), one proposition is denoted by the embedded sentence and another

by the whole sentence, the latter incorporating the embedded proposition as
a subpart. To interpret the embedded proposition, we must relativize its
truth to the individual denoted by the main subject in the following fashion:
(58) PI = Τ in w R (Philby); i.e. PI is true in a world w

that models reality R according to Philby.
As regards the unembedded proposition, the individual anchor in the de-

fault case is the speaker unless another anchor is implied by the context, for
instance, when the unembedded proposition occurs in a sentence that is part
of a larger discourse, a speech, a report or a text where the individual an-
chor remains constant throughout the discourse (and is indicated to be
someone else than the speaker). In the default case, however, the truth of
the unembedded proposition in (57) is evaluated with respect to the world
according to the speaker S as follows:
(59) P2 = Τ in w R (S); i.e. P2 is true in a world w

that models reality R according to the Speaker.
The "no presupposition of existence" effect could easily be modeled in this

system by means of individual anchoring. Intensional predicates allow the
speaker to be agnostic about the factual existence of entities described in
the proposition embedded under these predicates. This is so because inten-
sional predicates allow for a second individual anchor in addition to the
speaker—the individual holding the reported belief or assumption de-
scribed by the embedded sentence. Thus, the embedded proposition may
refer to entities that exist merely in the subject's (e.g. Philby's) model of
the world; these entities need not exist in the speaker's model of the world.
The "no presupposition of existence" effect boils down to the two (possibly
different) models allowed in intensional contexts. Again, this is a semantic
property of intensional predicates (subsuming raising predicates), unrelated
to argument structure.
To sum up, the wide-scope/narrow-scope effect described by May
amounts to two different, partly unrelated phenomena. One is the "no pre-
supposition of existence" effect arising in intensional contexts: propositions
embedded under modal predicates such as raising verbs allow the speaker
to be agnostic about the factual existence of the entities described in the
proposition. This phenomenon affects all indefinites contained in a proposi-
tion embedded under an intensional predicate, irrespective of their status as
subject, object, or complement of a preposition (cf. (52) and (53)). As this
effect in itself is unrelated to syntactic positions, it should not be linked to
the upper versus lower subject position in a raising structure. The second
observed effect, the specific-nonspecific distinction, is present in all indefi-
nites, partly unrelated to the semantic nature of the matrix predicate. There-
fore, it should be considered an inherent property of indefinites, not linked
to upper or lower subject positions. I conclude that both the wide- and nar-
row-scope readings of indefinites are unrelated to syntactic subject posi-
tions.
Summing up our findings of syntactically encoded scope relations be-
tween quantified DPs, we found that the three families of arguments in-
voked are not invulnerable. The first argument, based on the interplay of
nobody/somebody in raising and control structures, turned out to be less
sound than often claimed. Not all raising structures result in the lack of
contradiction predicted; some are judged to be just as contradictory in this
respect as control structures. Hence, this argument fails to clearly distin-

guish raising from control structures.
The second argument is based on the relative scope of some/every,
where some is the matrix subject and every is contained within the embed-
ded clause. It has been claimed that raising structures allow, and control
structures reject, the embedded quantified phrase to take scope over the
matrix quantified phrase. My informants disagree with this generalization
and allow for both scope possibilities in raising and control structures.
The third argument rests on the ambiguity of indefinites in raising struc-
tures. In principle, indefinites are ambiguous between a specific and a non-
specific reading in any position and I argue that this ambiguity should be
treated as an inherent property of indefinites. A second type of ambiguity is
the lack of presupposition about the factual existence of the entity de-
scribed by the indefinite. This was argued above to be a result of the in-
definite belonging to the proposition embedded under an intensional predi-
cate. This effect encompasses all indefinites in the proposition, not only the
subject. Hence, this is an effect arising from the semantics of intensional
predicates and should not be ascribed to the subject position.
3.5. Subject-orientedness and subject positions
If subject scope is not what is encoded by the upper and lower subject posi-
tions, these positions could be related instead to the subject-oriented read-
ing of the modal. We have seen that there is a correspondence between
subject scope and subject-orientation; specifically, the subject-oriented
reading of a modal requires a wide-scope subject. Moreover, the lower
subject position is required for a proposition-scope reading of the modal. I
have also argued that what we normally refer to as subject scope in raising
constructions (±specific; ±presupposition of existence) is not encoded in
the upper and lower subject positions. Instead, the upper subject position is
related to subject-orientation of the upper predicate, the lower one to the
lack thereof. Finally, proper raising structures give rise to a proposition-
scope reading, a reading with nothing resembling a Theta-relation between
the subject and the raising verb. Thus, I argue that the subjects of raising
verbs (including proper names) are interpreted in the lower subject position.
In this position, an indefinite yields either a narrow- or a wide-scope read-
ing. The subject still overtly appears in the upper subject position in raising
structures due to other requirements (e.g. EPP), but given a proposition-
scope reading, it is always interpreted in the lower subject position. The

proposition-scope reading is the only reading if the verb is a genuine rais-
ing verb (like epistemic must), not a subject-oriented Doppelgänger such as
those possible with ser ut til ä (Norwegian), scheinen (German) and seem
(English). Raising verbs, including proposition-scope readings of modals,
are illicit when the lower subject position is deleted, as in (60) and Figure
15. Retaining this position in pseudoclefts allows the proposition-scope
(raising) reading of the modal, as in (61) and Figure 16.
(60) a. Det Jon mä, er ä vcere arkitekt.

it Jon must, is to be an architect
'What John must do, is to be an architect.'
(61) a. Det Jon mä vcere, er arkitekt.

it Jon must be, is architect
'What John must be, is an architect.'
Figure 16
V ti
vcere
To sum up, what separates the discussion of subject scope in the present
proposal from that of May (1977, 1985) is the argument that wide-scope
subjects, including proper names and specific indefinites, do not obligato-
rily occur in the upper subject position; they can occur in either the upper
or the lower subject position. When these subjects are interpreted in the
upper subject position, the modal (or raising verb) obligatorily gets a sub-
ject-oriented reading. When they occur in the lower subject position, the
modal gets a proposition-scope reading, scoping over the subject.
May assumes that there is an "empty expletive" filling the upper subject
position of narrow-scope subjects such as non-specific indefinites. I agree
that non-specific indefinites are unique in that they cannot occur in the
upper subject position on LF, perhaps because they lack a crucial semantic
property required for this position; they may be semantically incapable of
participating in the relation giving rise to subject-orientedness (cf. Vangs-
nes 2002 who proposes that different subject positions impose different
semantic requirements on a DP occupying them). It may be that May's
"empty expletive" occupies the upper subject position in these cases.
If the spec-head relation between the modal and the subject holds in
overt syntax, and is forced to hold at LF (because the lower subject position
is elided), this forces a subject-oriented reading of the modal. But what if
the subject is prevented from occurring in the upper subject position be-
cause of a visible expletive subject? We revisit the relevant data in (62).

there shall always be at-least two adults present
b. Det mä komme minst femtipersoner.

there must come at least fifty persons
c. Det bor bli for andringer m.h.t. denne praksisen.

there should occur changes in this (code of) practice

there can be up-to four cartridges in caseDEF pr load
e. Det behover/ti~enger ikke vcere noen voksne til stede.

there need not be any adults at-placeDAT
'There need not be any adults present.'
As (62) shows, when an expletive occupies the upper subject position, the
subject-oriented reading is impossible and the modal has a proposition-
scope reading only. Again, this might be a consequence of the nature of the
postverbal DPs since all the relevant DPs in (62) have a nonspecific read-
ing. It is impossible to combine a subject-oriented reading (directed deon-
tic) of the modal with a non-specific reading of the subject, so we construct
a context allowing a specific construal of the indefinite.
(63) a. Det skal alltid vcere en voksen til stede, nemlig Jon.
there shall always be an adult at place, specifically Jon
'There should always be an adult present; specifically Jon.'
b. Det kan komme en venn i selskapet ditt;

there can come a friend in partyDEF yours
'There may come a friend to your party,
jeg tenkte pä Marit.

I thought of Marit
I am thinking, Marit.'
By means of the added referent, the indefinite is assigned a specific read-

ing. However, this does not yield a subject-oriented reading: (63a) still does
not mean that Jon has a personal obligation; the natural reading is that
someone else (e.g. the addressee) is responsible for making sure Jon is pre-
sent. Likewise, (63b) does not mean that Marit is the one who is given
permission to come to the party. Instead, the natural reading is that the
speaker grants the addressee the permission to invite a friend, e.g. Marit, to
the party.
This does not prove, of course, that the lack of access to the upper sub-
ject position is what prevents subject-oriented readings. The expletive re-
quires an associate DP with a non-specific interpretation, which may be
incompatible with subject-orientedness. The subsequent addition of a spe-
cific referent may not be enough to override this initial interpretation at the
relevant point in the structure. What it does suggest, however, is that the
associate postverbal DP, en voksen 'an adult' in (63a), does not raise to fill
the upper subject position in covert syntax, if interpretation in this position
is related to subject-orientation (at LF).
Building on Chomsky's (1986, 1991, 1993) idea that the expletive there
is replaced by its (postverbal) associate at LF, 53 Lasnik (1999) assumes that
the expletive there is an "LF-affix." 54 Lasnik (1981: 34) suggests there is "a
general 'stranded affix' constraint demanding that underlyingly freestand-
ing affixes ultimately be attached to an appropriate host." That is, if the
associate of there does not adjoin to there, the derivation will crash at LF.
This alleged adjunction of the postverbal DP to the expletive at LF does not
result in a subject-oriented reading of the modal; this is unexpected, given
that the configuration between the initially postverbal DP and the modal
ought to be just right-at LF-for the association between the modal and the
DP. Apart from the fact that Lasnik's account rests on a number of stipula-
tions (that there is an LF-affix, a notion otherwise unheard of, to my
knowledge), it cannot explain why modals reject the subject-oriented read-
ing unless a thematic subject is granted access to the upper subject position
53
This is inaccurate. Chomsky (1986a) introduces the "replacement" idea; in
Chomsky (1991, 1993) "replacement" is itself replaced by "adjunction," the asso-
ciate of there adjoins to there at LF to check its Case.
54
Lasnik (1999: ch. 4 and 6) suggests that there lacks agreement features, which
means that the agreement features of Agr s would not be checked unless some
movement takes place. The main objective for Lasnik (as for Chomsky before him)
in this approach is to explain the agreement facts of English existential construc-
tions, where the verb agrees morphologically with the postverbal DP.
in overt syntax. 55 I take this as evidence against the hypothesis that exple-
tive there is replaced by the associate at LF.
The data suggest that access to the upper subject position is a prerequi-
site for subject-oriented readings. When this subject position is occupied by
an expletive, a subject-oriented reading cannot arise. In addition, the pseu-
docleft data show that a lower subject position is crucial for a proposition-
scope reading of the modal. Thus, subject-orientedness seems to be syntac-
tically encoded. When a thematic subject is interpreted in the upper subject
position, this gives rise to subject-orientedness.
There are other ways to explain the data, of course. It is very likely that
the expletive is what forces the non-specific reading of the associate, and a
non-specific subject does not simultaneously give rise to a subject-oriented
reading of the modal. If so, the expletive is only indirectly responsible for
the lack of subject-orientation, not by means of occupying the subject posi-
tion and preventing a spec-head configuration between the modal and the
associate, but by means of its requirements towards the associate, making it
semantically unfit as a subject for a subject-oriented modal.
Likewise, we know that control verbs typically do not allow their sub-
jects to reconstruct and give rise to a proposition-scope reading (Hornstein
1998; May 1985). Thus, assuming that the modal assigns an external Theta-
role on its subject-oriented reading would give the modal the right property
to prevent the subject from reconstructing. The upper subject position in
55
Another strong objection to the idea that the associate of the expletive is raised
and adjoined to the expletive at LF is the observation in Lasnik (1999: 136) that
this putative raising of the associate is unable to create new scope relations be-
tween negation and the associate.
(i) There aren't many linguists here.
Many linguists necessarily scopes under negation, although if this constituent is
raised and adjoined to the expletive at LF, we expect this construction to exhibit
the same scopal relations between Many linguists and negation as the ones found
in ii):
(ii) Many linguists aren't here.
However, this is not what we find. To account for this fact, Chomsky (1991, 1993)
stipulates that the operation of adjunction, as opposed to replacement, does not
create new scope relations. However, Lasnik (1999: 137) points out that on the
theory of adjunction, developed in May (1985) and "assumed in all of Chomsky's
writings ever since" (Lasnik 1999: 137), the adjunction procedure does create a
relevant c-command relation and should be expected to give rise to new scopal
relations.
and of itself is secondary; the theta-role is what is important, and only verbs
that assign an external theta-role allow for a pseudoclefted complement.
W e may very well accept this as the explanations for the observed facts
and refer to the upper and lower subject positions simply as labels for the
relations, or the lack of relations, w e observe. The crucial claim I am mak-
ing here is that interpreting the subject in the lower subject position is the
defining characteristics of a raising verb and that interpreting a Theta-
subject in the upper subject position entails the relation of subject-
orientation. Unlike Barbiers (1995, 2002), I do not claim that this semantic
relation is encoded by a designated syntactic head (Barbiers' "D"). Instead,
I propose that a subject-oriented reading arises by means of the spec-head
relation between the subject and the modal when the subject is interpreted
in the upper subject position. Wide-scope subjects, such as proper names
and specific indefinites, are interpreted in the upper subject position on
subject-oriented readings of modals and in the lower one on proposition-
scope readings. Non-specific subjects are not allowed in the upper subject
position; thus, they never occur with subject-oriented readings.
As non-specific subjects are always interpreted in the lower subject po-
sition, whether or not there is an overt expletive occupying the upper sub-
ject position, we would expect to find semantic similarities between con-
structions with non-specific subjects and existential constructions with
overt expletives. In fact, many speakers evidently perceive an "empty ex-
pletive" occupying the upper subject position of a proposition-scope modal
with a non-specific subject. In an expletive-associate construction, the ex-
pletive, not the non-specific associate, functions as the subject in a corre-
sponding tag, as in (64a). Likewise, a non-specific subject of a proposition
scope modal is not accepted as the subject in a tag, as (64b) shows.
(64) a. Det kommer mange, g/0r det ikke?

There comes many, does there not
'There is a lot of people coming, isn't there?'
b. En kvinne b0r bli vär neste statsminister,

a woman should become our next prime minister
Ά woman should be our next prime minister,
b0r *hun/?det ikke?

should she it not
should she/it not?'
Modais inpseudoclefts 235
I solicited the judgments of a number of informants about a sentence very

similar to (64b). Their answers are summed up in Figure 17. A total of 25
informants participated in the test: nine accepted neither of the possibilities,
one said that hun 'she' is possible, one said both are possible, and 14 pre-
ferred the expletive det as the subject of the tag.
How would you continue sentence c, based on the pattern in ab? How do you
assess its grammaticality (not its content)?
Alternatives: None is possible, hun 'she', det 'it', both are possible.
a. Kristin Halvorsen bor vel bli vär neste statsminister, bor hun ikkel
'Kristin Halvorsen should probably be our next PM, should she not?'
b. Det bor vel bli Kristin som blir vär neste statsminister, bor det ikkel
'It should be Kristin who is our next prime minister, should it not?'
c. En kvinne bor ihvertfall bli vär neste statsminister, bor...ikkel
Ά woman should, at least, be our next prime minister, should...not?'
Figure 17
• none
• hun
• det
• both
One informant volunteered that "it feels like the subject (of the tag) refers
to the entire proposition, instead of the subject." These facts, though not
conclusive, suggest that the proposition-scope reading of the modal leads to
a demoting of the subject, comparable to constructions with an overt exple-
tive in the upper subject position: 15 out of 25 speakers accept an overt
expletive as the subject of the corresponding tag. These judgments lend
support to the assumption that the non-specific subject, whether an exple-
tive is overtly present or not, is interpreted below the upper, 'canonical'

subject position, in what I refer to as the lower subject position.
3.6. Reanalysis verbs
The emerging picture in this investigation is that modals behave like raising
verbs in some respects and like control verbs in others. If this is the case, it
would be surprising if modals were the only verbs behaving in this way. In
this section, I examine some verbs that resemble modals in many respects, a
group of verbs dubbed the threaten class (Arad 1998; Johnson 1985; Zubi-
zarreta 1982). I refer to these verbs as reanalysis verbs as they are said to
undergo reanalysis (Arad 1998; Johnson 1985). Examples of such verbs are
promise and threaten and their counterparts in various languages: German
Es versprach zu regnen'it promised to rain' (see Arad 1998 for French,
Hebrew and Italian counterparts).
The agentive reading has been considered the primary reading of these
verbs. In addition, these verbs have another interpretation, described by
Johnson (1985: 25-26) as "events are in motion, such that χ is imminent"
(as quoted in Arad 1998: 115). These verbs may take a DP complement, as
in (65a), in which case the verb has only the agentive reading. In fact,
whenever the DP encoding the recipient of the threat or promise is present,
the non-agentive reading is blocked, as in (65b). On the other hand, a non-
agentive subject gives rise to the non-agentive reading only, (65c), whereas
an agentive subject gives rise to both readings, provided the main predicate
allows for a causer or an agent (Arad 1998), as in (65d).
(65) a. John threatened Mary, (agentive reading only)

b. John threatened his mother to marry Mary.
(agentive reading only)
c. The ice-cream threatens to melt.
(non-agentive reading only)
d. John threatened to destroy the party.
(agentive/non-agentive)
(65 d) is ambiguous between a reading where John states his intention to

destroy the party (agentive) and a reading where his presence or behavior
56
1 am indebted to Philippa Cook for bringing this example to my attention.
Modais in psendoclefts 237
suffices to ensure the party is destroyed (non-agentive). In the latter case,

John might not even be aware that his behavior is destroying the party for
everyone else; he might be causing this result by his mere presence.
Johnson (1985), Ruwet (1991), and Zubizarreta (1982) observe a range
of similarities between the reanalysis (non-agentive) readings of these verbs
and raising verbs (the list is adopted from Arad 1998, Zubizarreta 1982):
(66) I. In both, the subject role is defined by the lower predicate.

Π. Both can host in their subject position an idiom which is
associated with the lower predicate
(e.g. The shit threatens to hit the fan).
III. Both allow e«-cliticization in French (which indicates a
connection with a lower position in the structure).
However, the reanalysis readings of these verbs differ from raising verbs in
a number of ways:
(67) I. Reanalysis verbs do not allow expletive it as a subject,

or French il.
II. Reanalysis verbs do not allow narrow scope of the subject.
III. Reanalysis verbs do not allow any object to intervene be-
tween the matrix verb and its complement
(compare threatens #me to... vs. It seems to me that...).
The set of Norwegian reanalysis verbs is small and my data consist of the
compound verb corresponding to threaten (true med). This verb, evidently
unlike its French and English counterparts, does allow for expletive sub-
jects, at least marginally, as in (68).
(68) a. Det truer med ä bli en fryktelig oppstandelse

it threatens with to become a terrible commotion
pä jobben i morgen.
at work tomorrow
Ά terrible commotion threatens to take place

at work tomorrow.'
The second alleged difference between raising verbs and reanalysis verbs,
(6711)—and typically illustrated by means of the quantified phrases some
and every—is not correct, according to my English-speaking informants.

Note the scope ambiguity in (69).
(69) a. Some tornado threatened to destroy every city.
This sentence does in fact yield 'for every χ, χ a city, some tornado threat-
ened to destroy x ' as one possible reading, according to my informants. The
generalization that adding the recipient of a threat (or a promise) blocks the
reanalysis reading holds even in Norwegian. Adding the recipient of a
threat gives the construction a directed reading which is evidently incom-
patible with the reanalysis reading 'events are in motion, such that χ is im-
minent.' I can offer no explanation for this restriction. 57
These verbs are of interest to us because they reject a reanalysis reading
in exactly the same environment where modals reject a proposition-scope
reading—when their complement is pseudoclefted, as in (70).
(70) a. Det Jon truer med, er ä odelegge selskapet.

it Jon threatens with is to destroy the party
'What John threatens to do, is to destroy the party.'
b. *Det iskremen truer med, er ä smelte.

it ice-cream-DEF threatens with, is to melt.
'What the ice-cream threatens to do, is to melt.'
In these environments, the matrix verb has only the agentive, subject-
oriented reading and requires an agentive subject; thus, (70b) is ill-formed,
unless we assign a human-like property to the ice-cream.
Modals do not allow for a subject-oriented reading when they take ex-
pletive subjects. Reanalysis verbs take true expletives only marginally, but
notice (68) above and also (71). 58
(71) a. IDet truer med ä komme to inspektßrer hit i morgen.

it threatens to arrive two inspectors here tomorrow
'Two inspectors threaten to arrive here tomorrow.' 5 9
57
Especially since there are raising verbs with an experiencer argument: Marit
forekommer meg a vcere irritert lit. 'Marit seems me to be annoyed'.
58
They also take weather-arguments, as in Det truer medä regne/sno i morgen 'It
threatens to rain/snow tomorrow'.
To the extent that (71) is acceptable, it only yields the non-agentive, propo-
sition-scope interpretation. Reanalysis verbs in a pseudocleft where the
lower subject position is retained within the relative are hard to find. Noti-
ce, however, (72).
(72) a. ?Det mora di truer med ä bli, er virkelig tjukk.

it motherDEF yours threatens to become, is really fat
'What your mother threatens to become, is really fat.'
Again, to the extent that this construction is possible, it is ambiguous be-

tween the agentive and the non-agentive reading, as expected if reanalysis
verbs are anything like modals.
It seems then that in Norwegian reanalysis verbs have a lot in common
with modals. They allow for subject-oriented readings as well as proposi-
tion-scope readings and obey the same restrictions in pseudoclefts, allow-
ing solely for the agentive or subject-oriented reading when their comple-
ment is pseudoclefted. When the lower subject position is retained, they are
ambiguous between a subject-oriented and a proposition-scope reading.
They disallow a subject-oriented reading when they have an expletive sub-
ject or a proposition-scope reading. Thus, it seems we can describe reanaly-
sis verbs with the same type of figure used to illustrate scope and subject-
orientedness for Norwegian modals, Figure 9, repeated here as Figure 18. 60
59
The judgments about this sentence vary from 'excellent' to 'unacceptable'.
60
Reanalysis verbs, like modals, typically denote agent-oriented, mental, socially
determined actions and states such as promise or threaten (cf. section 3.4. of Chap-
ter 2). I assume that reanalysis verbs do not have all the properties associated with
raising verbs because they are less "grammaticalized," they have not yet completed
their transformation to raising verbs. Evidently, not all modals went through all
changes at the same time either. For instance, the modals kunne and ville and their
cognates in several languages continue to occur as lexical verbs, and Thräinsson
and Vikner (1995) provide data from the Icelandic Sagas indicating that the mo-
dals skulu 'should' and munu 'may' had an epistemic reading earlier than any of
the other modals. Likewise, Elly van Gelderen (p.c.) suggests that can has lost its
epistemic reading in English, but it is still defined as a modal.
Figure 18
Reanalysis verb raising structures
IP
Subject' odP
Modal F
• •
Scope: SUBJ > VERB > SUBJ
Reading:
i I
Subject-oriented (agentive) Proposition scope (non-agentive).
I assume this to be the right description of reanalysis verbs. Unlike other

authors who have examined these verbs, I assume that on the reanalysis
reading, there is no semantic threaten-relation between the subject of these
verbs and the complement of threaten and no semantic relation between the
matrix verb and its syntactic subject. Instead, I argue, the reanalysis reading
of threaten-class verbs (like the proposition-scope reading of modals) arises
w h e n the subject of these verbs is interpreted in the lower subject position,
within the syntactic scope of the matrix verb. When the subject is inter-
preted in the upper subject position, the matrix verb is construed as subject-
oriented for modals and reanalysis verbs alike.
3.7. Raising verbs and pseudoclefts
In the preceding sections, we investigated various constructions to explain

the behavior of Norwegian modals in pseudoclefts. Subject-oriented modals
behave like control verbs in these constructions whereas proposition-scope
modals (root and non-root) behave as raising verbs. Therefore, it seems
likely that the analysis of modals in these constructions ought to be related
to an analysis of control and raising verbs in pseudoclefts. 6 1
61
Where the raising verb's subject is not part of what is pseudoclefted, cf. fn. 29.
We considered solutions that attribute the distinction to a) Case; b) the

requirements of the definite operator "op"; c) an ungoverned trace in [spec,
IP] of the Focus constituent; and d) (lack of) access to subject positions. I
will revisit briefly each of these solutions. Finally, I investigate if either e)
controllability or f) ±external Theta-role could be the decisive factor in the
pseudocleft constructions under consideration.
3.7.1. The Case solution
Thräinsson and Vikner (1995) suggest that the Case requirement of the
complement, the wh-trace in the relative clause of the pseudocleft, is re-
sponsible for the pattern we observe. Only a verb that assigns an external
Theta-role assigns Case to its complement (Burzio 1986). Proposition-
scope modals cannot partake in this construction because they do not assign
an external Theta-role to their subjects and thus assign no Case to their
complement; this means that the wh-trace would not receive the required
case feature. Although Thräinsson and Vikner fail to observe the existence
of proposition-scope root modals, this account can easily be extended to
include both root and non-root proposition-scope modals.
One problem for this account is data as in (73). B ' s answer consists of a
wA-question, where the moved constituent is the complement of an auxil-
iary. The auxiliary presumably does not assign Case. This suggests that
complements of raising or auxiliary verbs are in fact able to undergo wh-
movement, even though their governing verb is not a Case-assigner (or
Case checker, depending on your theory).
(73) a. A: Jon harfaktisk solgt bilen uten hennes samtykke.

Jon has actually sold car-DEF without her consent
'John actually sold the car without her consent.'
Β : HVA har han?!

what has he
'What has he (done)?'
If we chose to ignore data like those in (73), or if we found a different ex-

planation for their grammaticality (perhaps involving specific properties of
focus movement), the Case solution could still be viable.
3.7.2. The "op" solution
The point of departure for this account is the fact that the operator "op" in
relative clauses cannot refer to a non-specific indefinite; one cannot relativ-
ize the position of a postverbal associate in an existential construction like
the one in (74b); see (74a) and (23) for more data.
(74) a. *Jeg traff en mann som det kom forbi.

I met a man that there came by
(Intended: Ί met a man who, there was t, passing by.')
b. Det kom en mann forbi.

there came a man by
Ά man came by.'
Assume that subject-oriented modals, like control verbs, select for a com-
plement which is definite in the relevant sense, fulfilling the requirement of
the operator "op." For instance, assume that this complement is a CP, a
(prepositional) phase in the sense of Chomsky (2001, 2004). Not so for
raising verbs. The complement of raising verbs, according to our assump-
tions, is an IP (or TP), hence not a phase, and presumably not referential or
definite in the relevant sense. Thus it does not fulfill the requirement of the
operator "op" and cannot be relativized. Proposition-scope modals (root
and non-root) behave like raising verbs and could be assumed to take an IP
complement. This IP complement cannot be relativized; therefore, cannot
be pseudoclefted.
3.7.3. The ungoverned trace
I have assumed (following Heycock and Kroch 1999) that the pseudocleft
is an equative structure, with two referential elements equated by means of
a copula. A (free) relative clause is the first part, the Ground, and a Focus
constituent the second. A control verb selects for a complete propositional
Phase, CP, an element referential enough to partake in an equative struc-
ture. Thus, the Focus constituent equated with the relative clause may be a
CP, corresponding to the complement of a control verb. There is referential
identity between the operator "op" and the Focus CP.
Figure 19
OK: TopP
Spec: Ground Top'
Figure 20
Ungrammatical: TopP
anlas
'What Jon is-presumed is to eat bananas'
The complement of a raising verb is not a complete propositional phase;

instead, a raising verb requires an IP complement. Thus, the focus constitu-
ent of a pseudocleft where the head predicate of the relative is a raising
verb ought to be an IP. However, an IP complement of a raising verb gen-

erated as the Focus constituent presumably contains an illicit trace in [spec,
IP] and the structure is ruled out (cf. Figure 20).
3.7.4. Access to subject positions
This proposal assumes that the subjects of all raising verbs are interpreted
in a subject position within the syntactic scope of the raising verb ("recon-
struction"), whether they yield a narrow- or wide-scope reading. An inter-
pretation in the subject position of the raising verb (the upper subject posi-
tion) entails a subject-oriented reading of the predicate. It is impossible for
raising verbs or proposition-scope modals to accept a pseudoclefted com-
plement as this operation deletes the lower subject position essential for
their reading. Subject-oriented modals (like control predicates) require their
subjects to be interpreted in the upper subject position, hence they are licit
in this construction.
(75) a. *Det Jon antas, er ä vcere arkitekt.

it Jon presumePASS, is to be an architect
'What John is presumed to be, is an architect.'
Figure 21
antas
3. 7. J. Controllability
All the proposals we have examined so far tacitly accept ±external Theta-
role as one factor since this feature is assumed to separate control predi-
cates from raising ones. We have suggested that whatever explains the ban
on raising verbs in certain structures can also explain the non-occurrence of
proposition-scope modals. It seems worth investigating, however, whether
we can account for the data about modals in pseudoclefts without referring
to the assignment of an external Theta-role.
Not all verbs typically construed as raising verbs reject a pseudoclefted
complement. If the main verb of the focus constituent is a passive, a propo-
sition-scope reading of the modal is more natural, as in (76a). This reading
of the modal does not allow for a pseudoclefted complement. However, this
effect can be overridden, if we can construe the passive as some kind of
quasi-agentive predicate, as in (76b).
(76) a. *Det Jon absolutt ikke mä, er ä bli oversett.

it Jon absolutely not must, is to be ignored
'What Jon absolutely shouldn't be, is ignored.'
b. IDet Jon mä, er ä bli oppdaget αν et plateselskap.

it Jon must, is to be discovered by a record company
'What Jon must do, is to (let himself)
be discovered by a record company.'
(76b) marginally has a subject-oriented reading conveying that Jon has the
capacity of creating a situation where he is discovered by a record com-
pany, the quasi-agentive reading. 62 Since no such effect is present in (76a),
perhaps it is controllability that is crucial for accepting a pseudoclefted
complement; this would separate control verbs and subject-oriented root
modals from proposition-scope modals and raising verbs.
This seems a natural route to follow, in particular if we accept
Diewald's (1999) analysis of modals as the "passive" or "resulting state"
62
Hornstein (1998: 120) discusses examples where arbitrary PRO has a 'quasi-
agentive' reading: PRO to appear to be intelligent is harder than one might think.
Chomsky (1995b) assumes this reading to be a by-product of raising; "this is the
sort of interpretation one gets in the raised subject position." Hornstein continues
(fn. 30): "it is plausible that these effects are quasi-thematic properties of IP."
equivalent of a directive (e.g. an imperative). One cannot felicitously issue

a directive to a subject who has no potential control over a situation. Also,
control verbs often have an agentive flavor: decide, try, promise. Raising
verbs, on the other hand, constitute predicates where the subject has no
control over the situation described: seem, appear, be likely to. This line of
thought is supported by the fact that, in English, a modal does not accept a
pseudoclefted complement unless it is replaced by do (an agentive light-
verb), as well as the fact that in German the corresponding lightverb tun is
optional in the constructions we are examining. 63
However, we have seen data suggesting that subject-orientation is the
decisive property. For instance, the Norwegian construction ser ut til a is
accepted in these constructions, provided the main predicate is subject-
oriented and the reading of ser ut til ä is the direct visual access reading, as
in (77a). A predicate such as borte 'gone', forcing a proposition-scope
reading of ser ut til a and incompatible with the visual access reading, ren-
ders the construction ungrammatical, as in (77b).
(77) a. IDet Jon ser ut til, er ä vcere irritert.

it Jon looks out to is to be annoyed
'What Jon seems (to be), is annoyed.'
b. *Det Jon ser ut til, er ä vcere borte.

it Jon looks out to is to be gone
'What Jon seems (to be), is gone.'
The subject Jon has no more control over the situation in (77a) than in
(77b), but there is a transparent semantic relation between this subject and
the matrix predicate in (77a), what we have referred to as subject-
orientation. This suggests that it is in fact subject-orientation, not controlla-
bility, that allows ser ut til a to partake in this construction.
3.7.6. ±Theta-role
Another way to account for the difference between raising and control
verbs in pseudoclefts would be to argue that the assignment of an external
63
As pointed out to me by one reviewer for Mouton de Gruyter. The light verb
gj0re 'do' is optional in the Norwegian constructions, too.
Theta-role is in fact responsible for the observable facts. However, the re-
striction is not derivative from Theta-assignment in the form of a Case or
definite reference requirement; instead, it refers directly to Theta-
assignment, Theta-identification. This approach builds on Zubizarreta
(1982: 97), where the term thematically identified is defined as follows:
[E]very Α-position must be thematically identified. A position is themati-
cally identified if it is a semantic position or...linked to a semantic position.
In the structure in (77a), for instance, all elements occurring in A-positions

are thematically identified: "op" receives an internal Theta-role from the
raising verb and the subject Jon is identified through its semantic relation to
the matrix verb. In the ungrammatical (77b), the subject Jon is not themati-
cally identified within the relative clause since the matrix verb is unequivo-
cally a raising verb and assigns no θ-role to its subject. Thus, the DP Jon is
not identified as to argument status or θ-properties. This sentence violates
the first half of the theta-criterion, which states that each argument (DP)
must be assigned a theta-role; thus, (77b) is ungrammatical for the same
reason that (78) is ungrammatical.
(78) a. *Det Jon, var at han ble overkjert av toget.

it John, was that he was run over by the train
* 'What Jon, was that he was run over by a train.'
If we choose this approach, we are in fact claiming that modals assign a Θ-

role in the relevant pseudoclcft structures—when their complement is
pseudoclefted, the main predicate is agentive, and the raised subject is an
intentional subject. In these pseudoclefts, the modal must assign a θ-role for
the structure to be well-formed. This explains why modals always get a
subject-oriented reading in these structures since the subject DP must be
thematically identified. The only option is to construe the modal as a Θ-
assigner, and a Theta-assigning modal is always subject-oriented. Whether
we want to call this an external, adjunct, additional, or secondary Theta-
role, this θ-role assigned by the root modal to the subject is a prerequisite
for a pseudoclefted complement and makes the modal display the character-
istics of a control verb. When no semantic role is assigned to the subject, as
in root or non-root proposition-scope modal constructions and with raising
verbs, the complement cannot be pseudoclefted. This does not necessarily
entail that subject-oriented root modals are in fact full-fledged control
predicates. I will discuss different potential approaches to this question in

the following two sections.
4. Explaining subject-orientedness
In this section, I consider ways of accounting for the subject-orientedness

effect of modals. This effect occurs in pseudoclefts, as only subject-
oriented modals accept a pseudoclefted complement. Also, only subject-
oriented modals accept a definite proform dette 'this' as their complement.
The structures in (79) cannot give rise to a proposition-scope reading of the
modal; the obligatory subject-oriented reading makes a generic reading of
en kvinne 'a woman' the natural reading in (79b).
(79) a. Dette kan/vil/skal/mä/bor jeg ikke.

b. Dette kan/vil/skal/mä/ber en kvinne.

this can/will/shall/must/ought a woman
Ά woman can/will/should/must/ought to do this.'
Another important point is that a subject-oriented modal with a symmetric

predicate as its complement gives rise to different inference patterns than a
raising verb or a proposition-scope modal (cf. Chapter 3, section 2.11).
Symmetric predicates are relations for which the following inference pat-
tern is valid: R(x,y) -> R(y,x)· If x resembles y, then y resembles x. Ac-
cording to Brennan (1997, 2004), 64 if clauses with symmetric predicates
also contain modals, the inference R(x,y) -> R(y,x) only remains valid un-
der non-root readings, (80b), not under root readings, as in (80c).
(80) a. Arthur looks like Susan -> Susan looks like Arthur
b. Arthur might look like Susan --> S. might look like Arthur
c. Arthur can look like Susan -|-> Susan can look like Arthur
64
See also Brennan (1993). Diewald (1999: 62) observes restrictions on active-
passive alternations such as (81) for the German dürfen.
Explaining subject-orientedness 249
If it is a possible assumption that Arthur looks like Susan, then it must also
be a possible assumption that Susan looks like Arthur. However, in (80c),
Arthur may have great impersonation skills, allowing him to look like
Susan, but Susan may lack any such skills, preventing her from looking like
Arthur. This pattern seems to result from subject-orientedness.
These data resemble a fourth construction not mentioned so far—the ac-
tive-passive alternation possible with raising verbs. As noted by
Rosenbaum (1967: 59-61) and Davies and Dubinsky (2004: 5), for raising
verbs such as seem, the sentence with the active complement is usually
synonymous with the corresponding sentence with a passive complement, a
situation unlike that of control verbs. This alternation is not always possible
with root modals, an unexpected fact if root modals are raising verbs.
(81) a. The doctor seems to have examined John —>

John seems to have been examined by the doctor.
b. The doctor decided to examine John -|->
John decided to be examined by the doctor.
c. The doctor can examine John -|->
John can be examined by the doctor.
These four constructions evidently depend on subject-orientedness for their

grammaticality. The question is: what does subject-orientedness consist of?
4.1. It is not a real Theta-role
What I referred to as subject-orientedness in the discussion above (Barbiers

1995, 2002) is exactly what numerous authors, advocates of the CvR analy-
sis, call a θ-relation, or a dyadic reading. 65 As shown in the survey of earlier
proposals in Chapter 3, however, many authors are reluctant to describe this
relation as a full-fledged Theta-relation and instead invoke terms such as
65
Within the functionalist literature on modals, the term agent-oriented is pre-
ferred (Bybee et al. 1994; Bybee and Fleischman 1995). The problem with this
term is that it is sometimes used to refer to an agent that is not syntactically pre-
sent: Das Bier sollte hallt sein 'The beer should be cold' has an agent-oriented
reading, according to Heine (1995: 26), where "agent" is used to designate the
person who acts on this sentence, the one who puts the beer in the fridge. Thus this
term sometimes incorporates information that is of no relevance to us here for
describing the behavior of modals in pseuodclefts.
adjunct, additional, or secondary Theta-role, the properties of which are

slightly different from those of regular argument Theta-roles. 66
Within the "all modals are raising verbs" camp, various accounts of the
subject-orientedness effects have been proposed. Wurmbrand (1999) sug-
gests that, in these cases, what appears to be a θ-role assigned by the root
modal is in fact something else, a role or function assigned contextually,
not syntactically. Modals do not assign an external θ-role, but certain ap-
parent thematic relations result from a "rich contextual component" (13) of
modal statements. Wurmbrand (1999: 13) claims that these apparent the-
matic relations are not syntactically encoded, as demonstrated by the fact
that non-directed interpretations (proposition-scope readings) are available
in most modal constructions.
The availability of non-directed 'interpretations' shows that roles/functions
like 'obligee' or 'permissee' etc. do not have to coincide with a specific
syntactic argument in the sentence. In other words, the determination of
these roles cannot be seen as a mapping between θ-roles and syntactic ar-
guments.
While this claim is correct for modals in most constructions and sentence
types, the problem with modals with a pseudoclefted complement and the
definite complement dette 'this' is that in these constructions the non-
directed reading is never available. The subject-oriented reading is the only
one possible. An approach that invokes contextually determined Theta-
assignment would have to explain why the contextually determined role
must be assigned in pseudocleft cases. What contextual properties of the
pseudocleft prevent the proposition-scope reading from arising?
66
Zubizarreta (1982) also counts adverbs as adjunct theta-role assigners, e.g. sub-
ject-oriented adverbs such as intentionally, unwillingly, etc. (whereas Muysken
(1981) claims that adverbs are important to interpretation, but less important to the
structure of a clause). As pointed out by a reviewer for the publisher, who evi-
dently leans towards the "all modals are raising verbs" analysis, this entails that we
need the term adjunct Theta-role anyway. This is true, and in my view, what we
lump together as Theta-roles is probably a much more gradable property.
67
Two comments are in order: firstly, Wurmband never discusses modals and
pseudoclefis in the article referred to here or in the 2001 book. Secondly, she ex-
plicitly states that the section containing the proposal of contextually assigned
roles is "somewhat preliminary."
68
It is not without precedence to claim that contextual information and world
knowledge affects syntactic operations. Erteschik-Shir (1981) notes that wIt-
extraction from an NP depends on contextual differences:
In contrast to Wurmbrand's proposal, Barbiers (1995, 2002) maintains

that subject-orientedness is syntactically encoded, not as lexically encoded
argument structure, but as an abstract head D heading a designated projec-
tion in the sentence phrase marker. This head D establishes the semantic
relation between the subject and the verb, and "it depends entirely on the
base position of the modal" relative to this D head whether the semantic
relation will be established or not, as Figure 22 shows (see section 2.7 of
Chapter 3 for a more detailed account). If the modal is generated below D,
a subject-oriented reading results; if the modal is generated above D, the
structure yields the non-root (epistemic) reading. The proposition-scope
root reading of the modal arises either because the head D is entirely absent
from the structure, or because the subject reconstructs at LF into a lower
subject position (Barbiers 2002: 67).
Figure 22
a. root b. non-root
Mod IndP Dv IndP
If we adopt Barbiers' D-projection to account for the subject-orientedness

of modals and claim that only in Figure 22a does the modal accept a pseu-
doclefted complement, we still need some auxiliary hypotheses to explain
why this is the case. Why is D obligatorily generated between the subject
and the modal in exactly these cases?
(i) Which car did you like the gears in?

(ii) #Which car did you like the girl in?
Bouchard (1995) claims that there is a transparent relation between gears and cars,
but a non-transparent relationship between girls and cars. This transparency affects
the extraction possibilities. Alec Marantz (p.c.) suggests that the relationship be-
tween gears and cars, unlike the relation between girls and cars, amounts to a head-
complement relation which is encoded in (covert) syntax, as shown by the fact that
the gears of the car is a felicitous construction whereas the girl of the car is not.
4.2. Occasional redefinition of argument structure
If we do not accept the idea of adjunct Theta-roles, for instance, because of

their half-way status, and we do not want to assume that root modals come
in both a raising and a control variety, we might be inclined to propose that
root modals—although they are always defined as raising verbs in the lexi-
con—are able to be redefined as control verbs is some structures. This is
not unprecedented: it is possible for certain verbs with a specific type of
argument structure to be forced into a different one.
(82) A: Fjernkontrollen har forsvunnet.

remote-controlDEF has disappeared
'The remote control has disappeared.'
Β: Uasä, hvem har forsvunnet den, da?

really, who has disappeared it then
'Really, who disappeared it?'
Forsvinne 'disappear' is clearly an unaccusative, non-agentive verb in Nor-

wegian. Nevertheless, it is marginally possible to force an agent into this
construction. 69 The resulting construction has a causative reading, 'who
made the remote control disappear'.
However, allowing deontic modals to be redefined in this way is an un-
satisfactory solution for several reasons. Forcing a verb with a given argu-
ment structure into a different verb frame typically gives rise to deviating
readings. No such effect is observed with modals in pseudoclefts. Further-
more, how could we restrict this kind of redefinition so as to allow root
modals to undergo redefinition of argument structure and disallow other
raising verbs? Finally, if we allowed root modals to be control verbs in
certain constructions, couldn't we simply allow for double lexical entries of
each root modal?
69
Interestingly, it is a prerequisite that the additional argument forced into this
construction be a prototypical agent. If we replace hvem 'who' with hva 'what',
the construction is close to nonintelligible, according to my informants:
(i) ΊΊ*Ηνα har forsvunnet fjernkontrollen?
what disappeared remote-controlDEF
'What disappeared the remote control?'
4.3. Double entries
The fastest and simplest way to account for the double behavior of root
modals—their subject-oriented and proposition-scope readings—would be
to propose that each root modal corresponds to two different modals, 7 0 the
way Brennan (1997: 226) does:
[E]ach modal auxiliary is actually two modal auxiliaries: mays is translated
as an operator which combines with a (proposition-level) conversational
background and a proposition to form a modal proposition; mayvP is trans-
lated as an operator which combines with a (property-level) conversational
background and a property expression to form a modal property expression.
I make parallel claims for the other modal auxiliaries. I do not identify the
interpretive class of mays as epistemic or of mayvf> as root.
In Brennan's proposal, all non-root (epistemic) modals are raising verbs

and root modals come in two varieties—a raising variety that does not as-
sign a Theta-role to its subject and another one that does. The latter may be
considered a full-fledged control verb, as proposed for all Norwegian root
modals by L0drup (1996a) and Dyvik (1999). W e would then be assuming,
in addition to an entry for the non-root version of the modal, two lexical
entries for each root modal, one control and one raising version. Consider
once again the table of readings for Norwegian modals.
Table 6
Dyadic: ville: volition; kunne: ability

Root: Dynamic:
Monadic: tendency (ville\ strong; kunne: weaker)

Deontic:
70
Her analysis at this point builds on the analysis of Perlmutter (1970), who identi-
fies two verbs begin. As noted by Perlmutter and Brennan, many of Perlmutter's
arguments carry over to modals.
Translating these readings into argument structure, the dyadic or subject-

oriented readings arise when the root modal assigns a subject θ-role; the
absence of a subject θ-role yields the monadic, proposition-scope reading.
Indeed, we would say that a dyadic reading arises exactly because the mo-
dal in these cases is a two-place predicate syntactically—it assigns both a
subject and an object role. This yields a homomorphic relation between the
syntactic properties of a modal and its available readings.
This analysis has several advantages. Firstly, it reconciles the two main
families of analyses within the P&P framework—the control versus raising
analysis and the "all modals are raising verbs" analysis. Thus, it unifies
analyses and insights from both camps. For instance, works within the con-
trol versus raising camp have often ignored the proposition-scope readings
of root modals, which results in a skewed picture of the relevant data. On
the other hand, even authors who maintain that all modals are raising verbs
need a way to account for the subject-orientedness effects. An analysis
postulating two versions or lexical entries for each root modal makes it
possible to maintain many of the hypotheses within the control versus rais-
ing analysis and simultaneously account for proposition-scope readings of
root modals. Assuming the existence of a raising root modal in addition to
the control version would simply function as an extension of the theory by
means of an additional lexical entry for each root modal.
However, within the P&P framework (unlike several other generative
frameworks), one is typically reluctant to resort to double entries in the
lexicon. One reason is the conceptual problem resulting from the existence
of homonym pairs for all root modals, where each pair is identical semanti-
cally, except in terms of θ-properties. Secondly, say we implement this idea
by assigning a control structure to the subject-oriented root modal whereas
the proposition-scope reading is construed as a raising verb. In any sen-
tence containing the modal, there would be a structural ambiguity with
regard to the complement of the modal—whether the complement is a CP
or an IP. A potential problem with this massive doubling of possible struc-
tural representations is that in most non-cleft sentences this structural am-
biguity would have no observable syntactic consequences. We would have
a stronger case if the subject-oriented modal displayed a number of syntac-
tic properties not found in its proposition-scope counterpart: if subject-
oriented root modals, but not proposition-scope ones, could passivize,for
instance. Or we might expect the complement-taking properties of one
member of the pair of homonyms to differ from those of the other. There
are admittedly two such differences in the complement-taking properties of
subject-oriented and proposition-scope modals: only the subject-oriented

version accepts pseudoclefts and the definite proform dette 'this' as its
complement. However, these facts could presumably be explained inde-
pendently of the selectional requirements towards a complement.
As this addition of lexical entries is theoretically unattractive within a
P&P framework (Barbiers 1995: 156), I will consider another possible ex-
planation for the double behavior of modals.
4.4. Optional Theta-assignment
In this section, I consider an approach allowing us to keep the complement

of a modal constant while varying its property to assign an external Theta-
role. The external Theta-role is optionally assigned, which gives the modal
the characteristics of a control verb (if the role is assigned) and those of a
raising verb (if the role is not assigned). The properties of the complement,
however, remain unchanged. This approach avoids the massive structural
ambiguity of the double entry approach, but it does force us to stray from
certain well-established 'truths' in Theta-theory. Luckily, the path is not
untrodden: Hornstein's movement theory serves as the point of departure
for this proposal.
4.4.1. Hornstein (1998, 1999, 2000)
The objective of Hornstein (1998, 1999, 2000) is to reduce the notions of

raising and obligatory control (as opposed to arbitrary control) to one no-
tion. He concludes that both phenomena can be reduced to raising and pre-
sents a range of arguments to support his analysis; I review some important
ones and refer the reader to Hornstein's articles for more details.
Firstly, Hornstein observes that the interpretational properties and dis-
tribution of Obligatory Control PRO (OCP) and Non-obligatory Control
PRO (NOCP) differ in important respects. He goes on to note that the dif-
ference between OCP and N O C P structures is that OCPs behave like ana-
phors whereas NOCPs behave like pronouns. 71 The interpretive data point
71
Properties of OCP are illustrated in (i); those of NOCP in (ii) (paradigms deriv-
ing from Fodor 1975, Higginbotham 1992, Lebeaux 1985, and Williams 1980).
to the conclusion that PRO is ambiguous. However, a PRO theorem ap-

proach to P R O ' s distribution cannot accept ambiguity. The PRO theorem
relies on the assumption that every PRO is simultaneously [+pronominal,
+anaphor].
Instead, Hornstein proposes an account of PRO where N O C P is as-
sumed to equal (small) pro, the null counterpart of the pronoun one. Firstly,
the 'arbitrary' reading characteristic of non-obligatory control PRO can be
accommodated under this assumption. Secondly, N O C P readings are
largely restricted to positions from which movement is not allowed— com-
plex subjects or w/i-islands (cf. also Manzini 1983). In Hornstein's analy-
sis, OCP is reduced to Α-movement, this empty category being simply an
intermediate NP-trace.
The theoretical obstacle to this move is obviously the θ-criterion, re-
tained in the Minimalist Program. Chomsky (1995a) restricts θ-assignment
to the merger of trivial (one-membered) chains, which assures that Θ-
assignment happens prior to any Α-movement and that movement from one
θ-position to another is strictly forbidden. 72 Hornstein (1999: 71) suggests it
is time to reexamine these assumptions:
(i) a. * It was expected PRO to shave himself.

b. *John thinks that it was expected PRO to shave himself
c. *John's campaign expects PRO to shave himself.
d. The unfortunate expects PRO to get a medal.
(ii) a. It was believed that PRO shaving was important.
b. Johnj thinks that it is believed that PROj shaving himself is important.
c. Clinton 'Sj campaign believes that PRO, keeping his sex life under
control is necessary for electoral success.
d. The unfortunate believes that PRO getting a medal would be boring.
(ia) and (iia) show that OCP needs an antecedent whereas NOCP does not. (ib) and
(iib) show that the antecedent of OCP must be local; if NOCP does have an ante-
cedent, it need not be local, (ic) and (iic) show that the antecedent of OCP must c-
command PRO while that of NOCP need not do so. In (id) and (iid), the issue is
whether PRO must have a de se (reflexive) reading. For OCP only the de se read-
ing is possible, in that the unfortunate expects himself to get a medal; in the NOCP
construction, a non-de se interpretation is possible—(iid) could mean 'for anyone
to get a medal would be boring'.
72
Brody (1995: 12) also includes as a fundamental constraint the theta-criterion; in
this approach dubbed the Main Thematic Condition: "All non-root positions of
chains are nonthematic (where the root of the chain is its most deeply embedded
position)." Further, "only the root position(s) of a chain can be theta-related (i.e.,
assigning or receiving a theta role)" (77).
How well motivated are they? Why assume that chains are biuniquely re-
lated to θ-roles? What goes wrong if movement takes place from one Θ-
position to another? Why distinguish trace from PRO? As is generally the
case with minimalist meditations, I assume that the burden of proof is on
those who wish to promote these assumptions and invoke these distinctions.
What is not at issue is that control and raising sentences manifest different
properties. The minimalist question is whether these differences require the
technical apparatus standardly invoked to distinguish them.
Hornstein does, however, acknowledge the set of data constituting the em-
pirical basis for prohibiting movement from one θ-position into another.
(83) a. *Jo hri] s aw tj. (meaning: John saw himself)

b. * Johnι believes t/ to be a fool.
(meaning: John believes himself to be a fool).
In "an inadequate sketch," Hornstein suggests that the sentences may vio-
late Case theory: the verbs in (83) may have an accusative Case feature
which must be checked by an overt DP. In these cases, what we find in-
stead of a phonetically null DP-trace is a reflexive. In other words, reflex-
ives are also the residue of movement; they are spelled-out DP-traces
(Kayne 1996 proposes something similar for reflexive se in French). When
the verb in question does not require its accusative Case feature to be ex-
pressed, the reflexive is no longer obligatory, as in (84).
(84) a. Mary washed (herself) thoroughly.

b. John shaved (himself) carefully.
Although there are many remaining questions for this approach to control
versus raising phenomena, I will leave those aside for now and proceed to
summarize the main points of Hornstein's theory. Firstly, he assumes that
links, not chains, are the actual entities of interpretation.
(85) a. At the CI Interface (LF) an Α-chain has one and only one
visible link.
b. DPs begin in VP internal positions-their θ-domains-and
move to VP external specifier positions to check morpho-
logical features such as Case.
c. Movement is actually copy plus deletion.
d. Grammatical conditions apply exclusively at LF.
(85a) requires that all but one link of a chain delete, but it does not specify
which one is retained nor does it favor the deletion of lower links over
higher ones, which implies that "lowering" is possible in Α-chains. Lower-
ing happens when higher links of a chain are deleted and a lower link is
retained. Chain links rather than chains are responsible for determining
relative scope, by means of the interpretive rule
α scopes over β just in case a c-commands β.
Secondly, Hornstein makes some assumptions concerning the nature of Θ-
assignment. Importantly, θ-roles are considered semantic features on verbs
and predicates; thus, they may be checked by DPs (Hornstein 2000: 38). 73
(86) a. θ-roles are features on verbs.

b. A DP "receives" a θ-role by checking a θ feature of a ver-
bal/predicative phrase that it merges with.
c. There is no upper bound on the number of θ-roles a DP can
have.
As mentioned above, nothing in the fundamentals of this proposal prevents

the upper link from being deleted and a lower (or intermediate) link to be
retained. However, certain properties of a sentence and the grammar may
force the upper link to be retained for the sentence to converge. One such
property may be the requirements of binding theory, as in (87).
(87) a. A studenti seemed to hiSj supervisor [ti to read every book].

b. A studenti seemed to himselfi [t, to read every book].
In these phrase markers, the lower copies (in brackets) must delete, other-
wise binding of the pronoun/reflexive is not possible, and the sentence is
73
Manzini and Roussou (1997) propose an analysis of control that shares many of
these assumptions. The main difference is that Manzini and Roussou suggest that
DPs are base generated in their Case position, hence, that Α-movement does not
exist. The θ-features of the embedded predicate(s) raise to adjoin the head Infi of
the matrix sentence, aquiring the right spec-head relation to the matrix subject DP.
PRO positions are phonetically null because there is nothing there at all, according
to this proposal. For my purposes, Hornstein's approach is better suited, since it
also addresses scope issues and allows for "lowering" of a DP into an embedded
subject position.
ill-formed. Another property that would force the upper link of the A-chain
to be retained is the expression of θ-roles, as in (88).
(88) a. *The shit expects [t to hit the fan].

b. *There expects [t to be a man in the garden].
These sentences are ill-formed because idiom subjects (The shit) and exple-
tives (Therej are unable to check θ-roles (although they are able to check
the EPP-feature). Thus, verbs that assign an external θ-role need a thematic
DP of a certain kind in their subject position. Provided this spec-head rela-
tion must hold at LF—which seems reasonable, given that thematic roles
are important to the overall interpretation of a sentence—a matrix verb
assigning an external θ-role would always force the upper link of an A-
chain to be retained and all other links to be deleted. Deleting the upper A-
link would leave the θ-feature of the verb unchecked and the sentence
would not converge at LF.
Hornstein mentions (1998: fn. 10) that a weak-strong distinction might
be relevant to the checking of θ-roles.
θ-roles are presumably interpretable. As such, they need not be checked....
One could argue that θ-theory requires these roles to be expressed and
nominals to bear them.... One might further ask why θ-roles must meet this
requirement.... An answer consistent with the spirit of MP is that θ-roles are
bound affixes. If so, they would need nominal support. If these affixes are
strong, then they would have to be supported in overt syntax. If weak, a Θ-
feature could be checked at LF.
For modals, it is a prerequisite for a +Θ (subject-oriented) reading that the

subject position not be filled by an expletive in overt syntax. On the other
hand, if any verb has a weak θ-feature, it must be root modals, since they
allow for a θ-reading-given that they have a thematic subject-but they also
allow for their θ-feature to be unexpressed (even at LF). However, the Θ-
reading cannot arise at LF unless established in overt syntax by means of
the overt spec-head relation between the modal and the subject. It would
thus make sense to ascribe a weak θ-feature to modals only if the weak-
strong distinction is taken to mean optional vs. obligatory assignment of a(n
external) θ-role, where this relation holds in overt syntax as well as at LF.
As the terms strong and weak are associated with other, specific theoretical
assumptions regarding overt syntax/LF discrepancies, I will utilize instead
the terms optional and obligatory.
It is not unheard of to ascribe an optional θ-role to modals. Zubizarreta

(1982: 84) refers to the subject position of modals as receiving a "non-
obligatory adjunct external θ-role." Hornstein's theory, where the Θ-
criterion is modified to allow for movement into a θ-position, allows us to
assume that the Theta-role assigned by modals is an argument Theta-role,
not an adjunct one.
Let us investigate then what happens if we classify Norwegian root mo-
dals as raising verbs that optionally assign an external θ-role to their sub-
jects and non-root modals as raising verbs that never assign an external Θ-
role to their subjects.
4.4.2. Optional versus obligatory Theta-assigners
Ascribing the property of being optional θ-assigners to root modals allows

us to account for their syntactic behavior without assuming two different
entries in the lexicon for each root modal. That is, instead of the two-entries
listing in (89a), we can assume the single-entry listing in (89b).
(89) a. ma, root modal: [ θ, Θ (CP)]

ma, root modal: [ _ ,θ (IP)]
b. mä, root modal: [(θ),θ]
Under this approach, Norwegian root modals (and presumably, reanalysis

verbs) are described in the lexicon as raising verbs with an optional exter-
nal θ-role. This θ-feature is optionally checked or discharged by an agen-
tive DP entering into a spec-head relation with the modal at some point
before Spell-Out, i.e. during the part of the derivation belonging to overt
syntax. Discharging this θ-feature forces a subject-oriented reading of the
modal and simultaneously prevents the DP from being interpreted in the
lower subject position; thus, the proposition-scope reading of the modal is
unavailable. However, it is also possible for the agentive DP to enter into a
spec-head relation with the modal in overt syntax without discharging the
θ-feature, to fulfill the EPP or subject requirement of a clause. In this case,
lowering (interpretation of the lower DP-link) is allowed, and the proposi-
tion-scope reading of the modal arises. 74
74
This distinguishes modals from verbs like rope 'call'. In Norwegian, impersonal
Figure 23
a. b.
ModP ModP
DP [Θ+Θ] Tvlod' DP[e

Marit Marit
'Marit must 'Marit must
In Figure 23a, the DP Marit checks the theta-feature of smile by merging

with it; this results in a spec-head configuration, and the theta-feature of
smile is checked (represented by V ) . This is an obligatory operation, since
smile obligatorily assigns a theta-role. Next, the VP [Marit [smile]] merges
with the modal. This operation is also obligatory given the string at hand.
The third merger is also obligatory, presumably because of the EPP: the
M o d ' merges with the raised subject. However, at this point there is an
optional operation: either the subject DP checks the theta-feature of the
modal mä or it does not. If it checks this feature, the resulting representa-
tion is Figure 23a, where the subject DP ends up bearing two theta-roles. If
the subject DP does not check the theta-feature of the modal, the resulting
structure is Figure 23b, where the subject DP has only one theta-role, the
one assigned by the embedded predicate smile.
Considering the possible interpretations of these phrase markers, we
find that when the subject DP checks the theta-feature of the modal, as in
Figure 23a, the subject must be interpreted in this position: the topmost link
of the DP-chain is the link retained and interpreted, as in Figure 24a. How-
constructions are possible with these highly agentive verbs; e.g. (i):
(i) Det roper i skogen. (ii) Jon roper i skogen
(lit.) 'There calls in the woods.' I. 'Jon calls in the woods.'
II.# 'Something calls "Jon" in
the woods.'
Thus, these verbs could easily be argued to assign an optional external theta-role,
like modals. However, these verbs do not allow for non-thematic (proposition-
scope) readings when they have an intentional subject (ii), unlike (deontic) modals.
ever, if the Theta-feature of the modal is left unchecked, as in Figure 23 b,

the lower link of the DP-chain (the subject trace) is the link retained and
interpreted, as in Figure 24b.
Figure 24
a. b.
ModP ModP
DP fe+θ]
Marit
Mod0 Mod0
(Θ)
mä t; mä DP [θ]
Marit
V°
Ve
smile
'Marit must 'Marit must smile'
This implies that a proposition-scope modal construction would prevent its

subject from binding an anaphor in an adjunct scoping over the lower sub-
ject position; recall the data in (87) above.
(90) a. En kvinne, berffor sin, egen del] tt bli statsminister.

a woman should for SELF own part become prime minister
Ά woman should for her own sake be the prime minister.'
b. En apej berffor sin, egen del] i, ikke mates av besokende.

an ape should for SELF own part not feedPASS by visitors
'An ape should not, for its own sake, be fed by visitors.'
As expected, it seems impossible to get a proposition-scope reading of the

modal in these sentences; the natural reading is the subject-oriented one,
requiring either a specific or a generic (both wide-scope) reading of the
subject. The non-specific reading of the subject, which guarantees the nar-
row-scope reading of the modal, seems impossible. A note of caution, how-
ever: the judgments about (90) need not be due to subject scope; a non-
specific subject may be referentially too rudimentary to function as a binder
for the anaphor (this may be the case even in Hornstein's data in (87)
above). 75
An appropriate question at this point is: What prevents the modal from
assigning a theta-role to an argument other than the raised subject? If the
modal optionally assigns a theta-role and the embedded predicate assigns
another theta-role, what excludes strings like (91a) and (91b)?
(91) a. * Marit mä Jon r0mme.

Marit must Jon escape
'Marit must Jon escape.'
b. *Det mä Marit remme.

there must Marit escape
'There must Marit escape.'
To provide an answer, I will invoke an assumption f r o m Nordgärd and

Äfarli (1990: 100) that modal auxiliaries are not Case assigners. Consider
the structures in Figure 25.
Figure 25
a. b.
ModP ModP
DP (ß] ^^Mod'
Marit
Mod1 Mod" VP
V(0) (Θ)
mä DP
Jon[Q] ΤV
mä DP [θ]
Marit
V'
v°
Ve Ve
remme romme
'Marit must Jon escape' 'There (expl.) must Marit escape'
75
The sentence Jon bor for sin egen del holdes utenfor 'Jon should for his own
sake be kept out of it' corroborates the latter assumption. Here, a proposition-scope
reading of the modal is possible, but Jon can still bind the anaphor sin. This sen-
tence would still be ungrammatical with a pseudoclefted complement and a propo-
sition scope reading of the modal. I can offer no explanation at this point.
In Figure 25 a, Marit will be assigned Case by whichever head assigns Case

to the subject of finite clauses. However, Jon will not be assigned Case,
because the modal is not a Case assigner. Likewise, in Figure 25b, the ex-
pletive will be assigned Case because it is the subject of a finite clause;
Marit, however, will not be assigned Case because the modal does not as-
sign Case to a DP it C-commands (and this particular structure would be
ruled out anyway, because of the defmiteness-effect).
Would it be possible for a subject DP to acquire a θ-feature from the
modal before lowering into the lower subject position? The resulting read-
ing ought to be simultaneously subject-oriented and proposition-scope.
More generally, control verbs (obligatorily subject-oriented) do not allow
for proposition-scope readings. Hornstein suggests that deleting the upper
Α-link would leave the θ-feature of the verb unchecked and the sentence
would not converge at LF.
(92) a. Delete all links in the Α-chain except one. BUT:

b. The retained link must be at least as high in the structure
as the topmost θ-position.
In the case of root modals then either the θ-feature is discharged, which
prevents lowering, or it is not, and interpreting the lower link in the DP-
chain is allowed.
4.5. Evaluating the alternatives
At this point, we have four competing hypotheses accounting for the sub-
ject-orientedness of root modals. I will discard the first hypothesis, outlined
in 4.1, that subject-orientedness does not amount to a real Theta-role and/or
that it is contextually defined. When we consider subject-oriented modals
and control verbs on one hand, and proposition-scope modals and raising
verbs on the other—and compare their behavior in pseudoclefts and other
obligatorily subject-oriented constructions—we find a striking similarity
between control verbs and subject-oriented modals and between raising
verbs and proposition-scope modals. If the presence of an external Theta-
role is what separates control verbs from raising verbs, it seems counterin-
tuitive to claim that the corresponding difference between subject-oriented
modals and proposition-scope modals should receive an entirely different
explanation.
I have already discussed my objections to the "occasional redefinition-

of argument structure" hypothesis outlined in section 4.2. Restricting the
proposed redefinition to exactly the right cases and accounting for the fact
that the deviating readings typically resulting from this type of redefinition
do not occur in modals is problematic, to say the least.
The two remaining hypotheses account for the subject-orientedness ef-
fect by assuming the assignment of an external Theta-role for root modals
with subject-oriented readings. This is why the inference tests with active-
passive and symmetric predicate complements do not work (cf. the alterna-
tions in (80) and (81)); modals have subject-oriented readings as well as
proposition-scope readings (unlike most raising verbs), so they behave like
control verbs on at least one reading. This is also the feature allowing them
to take as their complement definite dette 'this' and to appear in pseudo-
clefts where raising verbs are typically ungrammatical.
Both hypotheses have strengths and weaknesses. The "optional Theta-
role" hypothesis requires deviating from well-established facts in Theta-
theory in allowing movement into a Theta-position. 76 The "double entries"
hypothesis, on the other hand, requires double entries in the lexicon, where
each root modal has one raising version and one control version. As Bar-
biers (1995: 156) points out, a double-entry solution is considered theoreti-
cally unattractive within a P&P framework. In addition, this move forces us
to assume a massive structural ambiguity in each and every sentence con-
taining a root modal, especially as regards the properties and categorial
status of the modal's complement. Apart from these theoretical differences,
both approaches seemingly account for the observed facts although they do
so in different ways. The facts are summarized in (93).
(93) a. Non-root modals have only proposition-scope readings

and behave like raising verbs,
b. Root modals exhibit double behavior. They take non-
argument subjects and display scope ambiguities reminis-
cent of raising verbs. In these cases, they get a proposition-
scope reading. In certain constructions though, they behave
76
Bouchard (1995: 59) argues against the concept of theta-roles altogether and
claims that the term theta-role has no identifiable content across verb classes: "If
verbs can vary so much in restrictiveness, a given thematic role could be associ-
ated with no selectional restrictions. For example, seem could assign a 'Seemer'
role, with no selectional restrictions - anything can seem."
like control verbs. In these constructions they obligatorily

get a subject-oriented reading,
c. Even the subject-oriented modals take directional (raising
structure) complements.
In both accounts, non-root modals are raising verbs; both explain (90a) in
the same manner. On the hypothesis that root modals are specified in the
lexicon as optionally assigning an external Theta-role, (90b) can be
straightforwardly explained. The subject-oriented reading arises when the
optional Theta-role is assigned; the proposition-scope reading is the result
of the modal not assigning its optional external Theta-role. The double-
entry hypothesis is not very different; here, root modals each have two
entries in the lexicon, one specified as assigning an external Theta-role and
yielding the subject-oriented reading, another specified as not assigning an
external Theta-role and giving rise to the proposition-scope reading.
Both approaches can account for the behavior of modals in pscudoclefis
and constructions with a definite complement dette 'this'; in doing so, how-
ever, they rely on a different set of auxiliary hypotheses. In section 3.7, I
reviewed various accounts explaining the differences between raising (and
proposition-scope modals) and control verbs (and subject-oriented modals)
in pseudoclefts. Some of the accounts ascribed the difference to the com-
plements of raising and control verbs (the Case solution in 3.7.1, the "op"
solution in 3.7.2. and the ungoverned trace approach in 3.7.3). These ac-
counts would not lend support to the optional Theta-role hypothesis, since
this hypothesis assumes that the complements of proposition-scope and root
modals are structurally identical. Instead, the optional Theta-role hypothe-
sis would need to refer to the 'access to subject positions' approach (section
3.7.4) or the 'Theta-identification' approach (section 3.7.6) to account for
the ban on proposition-scope modals in pseudoclefts. The double-entries
hypothesis can be supported by any approach in section 3.7. Apart from
this difference, both hypotheses seem equally well-equipped to account for
the data at hand. There is one construction that they cannot explain equally
well, however, the construction where the modal takes a directional com-
plement, mentioned in (93 c) above.
If we choose the double entries hypothesis, it would be natural to let
ourselves be guided by the table of possible readings when we decide what
entries to assume.
Table 7
Dyadic: ville·. volition; kunne·. ability

Root: Dynamic:
Monadic: tendency (ville: strong; kunne·. weaker)

Deontic:
Recall that monadic means a proposition-scope and dyadic a subject-

oriented reading. The subject-oriented reading of ville 'want to' is thus the
volitional reading, and this volitional modal ought to be listed as a control
predicate in the lexicon. Likewise, the ability reading must be the subject-
oriented reading of the dynamic kunne ' c a n ' . However, we k n o w that these
modals take directional complements even on these subject-oriented read-
ings, 77 and these structures have all the features of raising structures (see the
discussion of the data (18) and (19) in section 3 for more detail; (19) is
repeated here as (94)). For instance, the subjects in these structures display
the subject-predicate scope ambiguity typical of raising structures, as (94a)
shows.

b. Ola ville hjem.

Ola wanted home
'Ola wanted to go home.'
c. Marit var syk og kunne ikke pä skolen.

77
Kunne 'can' more reluctantly than ville 'want to' in standard Norwegian.
d. Können Sie selber ins Auto? German

can you self in-the car
'Are you able to get into the car by yourself?'
This constitutes a problem for the double entries hypothesis: if these struc-
tures are indeed raising structures, we would not expect to find them as the
complements of subject-oriented modals. The double entry hypothesis rests
on the assumption that subject-oriented modals are control predicates.
Hence, the fact that these modals show raising verb behavior in certain
constructions is a serious blow to the double entries hypothesis.
Not so for the optional Theta-role approach. Under this approach, the
behavior of the subject-oriented modals in (94) is just what we would ex-
pect. Control verbs are simply raising verbs with an attitude; the comple-
ments of raising and control structures are identical and only the properties
deriving from the matrix external Theta-role of the construction separate
control from raising constructions structurally.
This being the case, the optional Theta-role approach accounts for a
bigger set of data than the double entry approach, and I conclude that it is
superior. Whereas Norwegian non-root modals are raising verbs that never
assign an external Theta-role, root modals are best described as raising
predicates that optionally assign an external Theta-role. When this role is
assigned, the modal gets a subject-oriented reading. When the optional
external Theta-role is not assigned, the reading is proposition-scope. Non-
root modals, on the other hand, have only proposition-scope readings since
they never assign an external Theta-role.
5. The Source of modality: Two semantic levels
In this section, I explore who or what may constitute the source of modal-
ity. In the functionalist literature, this question is an important one, as it is
claimed that the source of an obligation or permission determines to a great
extent the overall interpretation of an utterance containing a modal in a
specific context; cf. Heine (1995: 29). Functionalists are not the only ones
who take interest in this issue, however; there are attempts to formalize the
source of an obligation or permission in logic (the dyadic deontic logic of
Hansson 1970), Transformational Grammar (Newmeyer 1969) and Gov-
ernment and Binding (Öhlschläger 1989).
The source of modality 269
To clarify, so far we have been exclusively concerned with what is

known as the goal of modality—the individual towards whom the obliga-
tion or permission is directed on a directed deontic or subject-oriented read-
ing (and correspondingly, towards whom no obligation or permission is
directed on a proposition-scope reading). At this point, we want to look at
the source of modality (German: Quelle). Calbert (1975: 24) states that
[E]ach modality can be expressed from the point of view of the Source (X
in [a below]) or from the point of the Goal (Y in [b below]). These alterna-
tives may be called Source-oriented and Goal-oriented modalities respec-
tively...:
a. X wants Y to...
b. Y has to...
Heine (1995: 29) dubs this source Force and explains it as follows:
There is some force F that is characterized by an "element of will" (Jesper-
sen 1924: 320-1), i.e. that has an interest in an event either occurring or not
occurring.
Newmeyer (1969) suggests that deontic root modals are ditransitive seman-
tically: must in the sentence John must eat soup has a semantic structure
like require in the sentence Something requires of John that he eat soup. In
early Transformational Grammar literature, the source is often referred to
as the rule-giver argument (Brennan 1997: 38).
The interpretive importance of the source of modality is thus acknowl-
edged in a variety of linguistic frameworks. One might rightfully argue that
the rule-giver or source of modality belongs to the pragmatic information
provided by the context; thus, it is not obvious that this matter needs to be
examined in a semantic-syntactic investigation. In my opinion, however,
investigating the source of modality helps sort out certain quasi-conceptual
influences which direct the readings of modals in specific ways, readings
that have been taken to be syntactically encoded (Barbiers 1995, 2002).
The source of modality expressed by modals thus implies a mostly con-
textually determined presence of a rule-giver that may or may not be ex-
plicitly expressed. However, even if this rule-giver is overtly expressed,
this entity does not occupy an argument position of the modal, at least not
an argument position in any current understanding of the term. In (95), the
rule-giver or source of modality is explicitly expressed.
(95) a. According to your mother, you ought to become a doctor.

b. The doctor said that I may stop taking this medicine.
c. In my view, you shouldn't do that.
d. Regulations indicate that all students must take this exam.
e. Thanks to his exceptional physical shape,
John can cross the river.
Öhlschläger (1989) offers a G&B approach for addressing the source of

modality. Although he relegates the rule-giver argument exclusively to the
semantics of the modal, he recognizes that this produces a discrepancy be-
tween his syntactic description of modals as raising verbs and the semantic
description, which contains an argument not expressed in syntax (op.cit.
246; my translation).
[T]here is a discrepancy, an opposition, between my syntactic and semantic
descriptions, rooted in the fact that I invoke a θ-role source in my semantic
description that does not correspond to an argument position in the D-
structure of raising verbs, which leads to a violation of the θ-criterion. In
my opinion, however, the syntactic arguments support an analysis of mo-
dals as raising verbs just as unequivocally as the semantic arguments sup-
port a semantic explication of the kind I have proposed. One way to resolve
this opposition would be to add an argument position in D-structure.
The author is reluctant to make this move, however, since this would
amount to proposing an argument position not occupied in overt syntax;
thus, he leaves the issue unresolved.
The core problem is accurately identified by Öhlschläger: the semantics
of modals seemingly encode some kind of argument, the Source, which
does not correspond to a syntactic argument position. The way D-structure
is employed within G&B, this is a serious problem. There is something
about modals—especially non-root and deontic ones—that implies the
presence of an intentional, rational mind, an authority or a narrator, and it is
not obvious that this is simply in the realm of pragmatics. Modals require a
Source argument much in the way speaker-oriented adverbs such as luckily,
obviously, unfortunately, and evidently are associated with the speaker:
these adverbs can only be interpreted as evaluations expressed by the
speaker (cf. Jackendoff 1972 for similarities and differences between mo-
dals and speaker-oriented adverbs). 78 One might quite rightfully claim that
78
Op.cit. 104: "The claim, then, is that speaker-oriented adverbs and epistemic
modals, which are syntactically totally dissimilar except that they are daughters of
this type of information needs to be expressed in the semantic representa-

tion of an entry in the lexicon, not contextually inferred. Since D-structure
argument positions cannot do the job (and since D-structure no longer ex-
ists in the Minimalist Program version of P&P), one might imagine that
Source interpretations could be encoded by LF-relations, as implied by
Barbiers (1995). Barbiers proposes a syntactic projection DP headed by an
invisible determiner D to account for subject-orientedness. The subject-
orientedness of kunnen 'can' may be interpreted either as ability or as per-
mission. According to Barbiers (1995: 186), this is due to the abstractness
of the head D.
The relations established by D are the other building blocks: the possibility
of the...event is determined and the subject is the determiner. Since the no-
tion of determiner is taken to subsume notions such as source, possessor,
origin and so on, the subject...can be interpreted as the source of the possi-
bility [my italics], which yields the ability interpretation, or as the possessor
of the possibility, which yields the permission reading. The ambiguity be-
tween a dispositional and a directed deontic interpretation is thus ascribed
to the ambiguity of, or rather the abstractness of D, just as in the case of
John's portrait, where the semantic relations between John and portrait es-
tablished by D can be interpreted as possessor, artist, source...
Some readers may find it strange that the subject itself could be considered
a source of modality, as we earlier equated Source with rule-giver. How-
ever, within the German tradition at least, it is common to recognize two
major types of Source: subject-external and subject-internal modality. Only
in the former case does it make sense to equate Source with rule-giver;
typical examples are deontic modals. In the latter case, the Source of mo-
dality resides within the entity described by the subject DP, for instance the
subject-internal intention of wollen (Germ.)/v;7/e (Norw.)/wz7/erc (Dutch)
'want to' or the subject-internal enabling properties of the ability reading of
können (Germ,)/kunne (Norw.)/kunnen (Dutch).
Instead of invoking abstract LF heads, or writing this off as prag-
matic/contextual/world knowledge, the present proposal situates the Source
of modality on the border between semantics and pragmatics. In an effort to
examine the Source of modality, I adopt the idea of a two-level semantics
of the kind advocated by Bierwish and Lang (1989) and Bouchard (1995). 79
S, are treated identically by the semantic component, which only makes use of the
single syntactic property they have in common."
79
There are differences between Bouchard's levels and Bierwisch and Lang's
Although I will not use the elaborated notation and machinery of Bierwisch
and Lang here, I will utilize their idea of separating a level of Semantic
Form (SF) from a level of Conceptual Structure (CS). The two semantic
levels allow us to describe linguistic objects by two different semantic rep-
resentations; Bierwisch and Lang (1989: 474) maintain that
[C]ertain properties of the lexical items which determine their syntactic be-
havior are established in their internal SF structure. This applies in particu-
lar to the syntactic argument structure of lexical items, determined by the
θ-grid, a structure which has crucial bearing on the syntactic functions of
lexical items.... [S]ince...the conceptual interpretation of the [linguistic ob-
jects] must be distinguished from their SF structure, there can be no general
identity between SF and CS.
This gives us a system allowing for one semantic level operating close to
syntax and another one operating close to conceptual organization and the
important assumption that no general identity exists between them.
I will pursue the following idea: at the SF-level close to syntax, non-root
modals are one-place predicates that take the embedded proposition as their
argument. Root modals are either one-place or two-place predicates; they
optionally assign an external θ-role to a subject while obligatorily taking
the embedded proposition as an internal argument. However, I assume that
at the CS level close to conceptual organization all modals are two-place
predicates, where the second argument is the embedded proposition, and
the first argument, the Source, may be instantiated by one of three op-
tions—Speaker, Subject or External.
(96) Semantic Form: Conceptual Structure:

Non-root modals: Modal (p) All modals: Modal (x, p) &
Root modals: Modal (p) or [x = Speaker] or
Modal (x,p) & [x = Subject] or
[x = Subject] [x = External]
levels. The latter assume Theta-roles to be essential to Semantic Form. Bouchard

(1995: 41-51) rejects that Theta-roles belong to grammar: "Theta-roles are...not
appropriate primitives to use in constructing Semantic Representations. They are
unsuitable to represent meaning because any slight change in the context can bring
about a change in roles.... [A] thematic representation is, in a sense, analogous to
the situation it describes; it corresponds to the situation itself.... The very notions
on which Theta roles are based are external to Grammar."
I consider the term Speaker self-explanatory, 80 Subject refers to the syntac-

tic subject of the modal, but External requires an explanation. First of all,
External refers to an entity different from the Speaker and the Subject. Sec-
ondly, it does not refer to an entity necessarily external to the discourse; on
the contrary, the External Source entity is in general easily recoverable
from the overall context. Moreover, External does not always refer to an
entity external to the sentence either; the Source of modality may be speci-
fied and explicitly expressed in a sentence albeit not as a syntactic argu-
ment of the modal, as in (95) above. In general, however, the external
Source of modality does not need to be explicitly expressed. The term ex-
ternal is chosen for two reasons. Firstly, because the Source is in general
sentence-external and, secondly, because the term external modality is of-
ten used in the German literature on modals. Admittedly, this term tradi-
tionally incorporates Speaker as Source readings; moreover, external mo-
dality is sometimes treated as an inherent property of deontic modals;
Heine (1995: 30) states that:
Force [i.e. Source] is different from C [the agent] in the case of modals such
as müssen 'must', sollen 'shall, should' or können 'can'.
This is not completely accurate, however, at least not for Norwegian. Deon-
tic modals allow for an external Source of modality, but they do not rule
out the possibility of the subject being the Source of modality in some
cases. This is particularly obvious in (97) below:
(97) a. Jon skalpa kino.

Jon will to movies
'Jon is going to the movies.'
b. Marit mä kaste opp.

Marit must throw up
'Marit must throw up.'
The more natural reading of both sentences requires the subject to be the
Source of modality (Jon's intention for skal; Marit's physical condition for
mä) although one might object to this reading in the latter case. Marit does
80
A temporal point of reference can be shifted, or the reference of the first person
pronoun I can be shifted from the speaker to some other referent given that the
sentence is embedded within a discourse of reported speech, a letter etc.; Speaker
as a first CS argument can likewise be shifted.
not require of herself that she throw up; instead her physical condition re-
quires that she throw up. On the other hand, 'the physical condition of x ' is
traditionally considered sufficiently subjective in the case of kunne 'can' to
be dubbed internal modality on this paraphrase. Thus, this ought to suffice
in the case of matte 'must' as well.
Another pressing question in describing the argument structure of mo-
dals on two semantic levels is whether it is possible to find paraphrases or
semantic descriptions substantial enough for a close-to-syntax semantic
level and sufficiently abstract to allow for a "conceptual argument" not
expressed in overt syntax, with a core meaning covering all root and non-
root readings. I do agree with Dyvik (1999: 6) that
the analysis of epistemic and root modals as distinct lexemes would give
rise to a puzzlingly systematic homonymy linking pairs of epistemic and
root modals in Norwegian, a systematicity which would then be unac-
counted for. The formal identity of all morphosyntactic forms which they
both have, along with their obvious semantic relatedness, would appear ac-
cidental.
This quote places Dyvik (1999) in the Unifiers camp, whereas some of my
descriptions signal an affinity with the Dividers camp; the terms are due to
Brennan (1993), who described the two major approaches to the dual read-
ing of root versus non-root modals. Unifiers argue that there is only one
lexical entry with two different uses, non-root and root. The context, the
syntactic surroundings are responsible for the difference in meaning. Divid-
ers argue that modals are lexically ambiguous, that there are (at least) two
different lexical entries for each modal. In principle, I agree wholeheartedly
with the Unifiers; thus, I set out to find semantic descriptions that cover
both non-root and root readings, descriptions that function simultaneously
on a Conceptual Structure level as well as on the level of Semantic Form.
This turned out to be quite a challenge and the suggestions 1 have made
should be considered tentative descriptions that ought to pave the way for
better developed concepts. In some cases, I decided to pursue two different
descriptions of root and non-root readings although I believe it is possible
in principle to find more abstract notions that could encode both root and
non-root versions. For instance, I have described the core semantic content
of skulle 'shall' as intention on the root reading, but opinion on the eviden-
tial reading even though there is probably a more abstract concept covering
both. For example:
(98) a. He insists that I leave him.

b. He insists that I left him.
c. John is supposed to become an architect.
d. John is supposed to be an architect.
In (98a), insists means roughly 'forcefully expressing an intention that p'

whereas in (98b), it means 'expressing a convinced belief that p'. Although
it is possible to account for this fact by assuming two different lexical en-
tries for insist, it is tempting to conclude that insist denotes a concept cov-
ering both intention and opinion. The same overlap can be observed with
be supposed to in (98c) and (98d): intention and opinion are the relevant
readings. These two readings are found with one and the same linguistic
form in case after case, which indicates the two concepts are closely re-
lated, perhaps different aspects of one and the same concept on a more ab-
stract level. However, since I have found no word in my vocabulary corre-
sponding to this more abstract concept, I have resorted to two different
descriptions for root and non-root skulle. Thus, I have chosen to give skulle
'shall' the following semantic description:
(99) Skulle:
Semantic Form: Conceptual Structure:

Root: There exists an intention Root: Intention of (x)
that ρ is made true that ρ is made true
V θ : The subject has the [x = Speaker] or
responsibility of acting on this intention. [x = Subject] or
NoV θ : The intention is not addressed [x = External]
to any particular individual.
Non-root: There exists an opinion Non-root: Opinion of (x)
that ρ is true that ρ is true
[x = External]
The choice between Speaker, Subject, and External as the first CS argu-
ment produces three nuances of meaning. If Speaker instantiates this first
argument, the reading of the modal is typically performative, as the Speaker
reports his or her intention that ρ be made true. This does not necessarily
mean that the utterance is perceived as an order or command; that depends
on whether the subject is 2 nd or 3 rd person (a 2 nd person subject favors a
command reading), but the utterance may just as well be perceived as a
promise (cf. Dyvik 1999 for the promise reading of skulle), or a threat,
depending on whether the state of affairs described by the embedded
proposition is perceived as positive or negative for the hearer; cf. (100).
(100) a. Du skal ikke pä kino i kveld.

You will not to moviesDEF tonight
'It is my intention that you do not go to the movies tonight'
In my view, the perlocutionary (Austin 1962) aspects of the utterance—

how an utterance is perceived by a hearer—belong to the pragmatics com-
ponent, and I do not intend to formalize these aspects of modals here. Thus,
whether the utterance is considered a command, a promise or a threat de-
pends on the context. The Source of modality for a modal, however, can
and should be systematized and formalized in order to shed some light on
the complex semantics of modals.
The sentence in (100) has another reading where the subject is the
Source of modality; the intention reported belongs to the subject, which
thus constitutes the first CS argument. This reading is more visible if we
make the sentence into a question, as in (101).
(101) a. Du skal ikke pä kino i kveld?

'Is it your intention not to go the movies tonight?'
The third possibility is that the source of modality is neither Speaker nor
Subject, but some other entity, typically an authority of some kind. Say
John's baby sister, Mary, delivers the following message from their par-
ents:
(102) a. Du skal ikke ρä kino i kveld.

'It is their intention that you not go to the movies tonight.'
Here, the Source is external, neither Speaker nor Subject. Instead, the inten-
tion of the parents is denoted by skulle in this context.
In many sentences, the Source of modality—the entity whose intention
is expressed by skulle—cannot be the subject because the syntactic subject
does not denote a rational being, as in (103). As indicated by the gloss, the
intention reading is particularly clear here.
(103) a. Maskinen virker ikke slik den skal.

machineDEF does not work like it should
' T h e machine does not work the way it is intended.'
Another intriguing fact about the Source of modality, in this case the entity
with the intention, is that it need not be constant throughout a context or
even throughout a sentence. The following authentic example is particu-
larly enlightening (a response from an official to a curious journalist's
questions about a suspicious deal; roughly, Why w e r e n ' t the proper
authorities informed about this deal?).
(104) a. Det var aldri noen annen intensjon enn

there was never any other intention but
[si at [s2<ie som skulle kjenne til avtalen],

that they who should know about dealDEF
skulle kjenne til avtalen].

should know about dealDEF
'There was never any other intention;

[si [s2 those who were supposed to know about the deal],
were supposed to k n o w about the deal].'
One might have expected this sentence to be a tautology, but it is not. The
reason is the different Sources of modality in the two instances of skulle. In
S2 the Source is external authorities—laws and regulations; in S I , the
Source argument is instantiated by the parties involved in the deal (includ-
ing the Speaker). The sentence means that the intention of the parties in-
volved in the deal (including the speaker) were the same as the law's inten-
tions as regards informing the proper authorities about the deal.
Interestingly, the corresponding sentence with a control construction
(105a) is clearly tautological, and evidently does not allow for two different
CS arguments. A similar construction with a raising verb, on the other
hand, does not seem to be a tautology, as (105b) shows. Hence, one might
speculate that the ability to take CS arguments different from the Subject
(or the speaker) derives from the raising status of modals. I will not go fur-
ther into this idea here.
(105) a. Det var aldri noen annen mening enn at de som mente a
there was never any other view but that they who meant to
kjenne til avtalen, mente ä kjenne til avtalen.
know about dealDEF meant to know about dealDEF
'There was never any other opinion; those who believed to

know about the deal, believed to know about the deal.'
b. Det er enighet om at de som antas

there is agreement on that they who presumePASS
ä kjenne til avtalen, antas a kjenne til avtalen.
to know of dealDEF presumePASS to know of dealDEF
'There is a consensus that those who are believed to

know about the deal, are believed to know about the deal.'
By describing the semantic content of deontic skulle as ' intention of (x) that
ρ is made true', I reject the more widely accepted assumption that skulle
'shall', matte 'must' and burde 'should' denote obligation in and of them-
selves (S0rensen 2000). Instead, obligation is an implication, a derived
meaning, stemming from one specific set of possible CS argu-
ment/±external θ-role combinations. Specifically, this reading arises when
we have a +Θ reading in Semantic Form and the Source argument in Con-
ceptual Structure is different from the Subject. This reading arises when,
for instance, the intention expressed by skulle is the intention of some en-
tity different from the Subject, and the Subject is responsible for making
the embedded proposition true (+external θ-role). This pertains to matte
and burde as well; what is perceived as an obligation is in fact just one
possible combination of CS arguments and SF θ-relations. Note, for in-
stance, that no obligation reading arises if the subject itself constitutes the
first CS argument:
(106) a. Skal du kj0pe den boken?

will you buy that book
'Is it your intention to by that book?' -|-> obligation
'Is it the intention of someone else that you buy that
book?'~> obligation
On the non-root, evidential reading, the Source of modality is always Ex-

ternal in the case of skulle, which means that the opinion expressed is al-
ways the opinion of some entity other than the Speaker or the Subject, as in
(107). This being an idiosyncrasy of skulle, it seems likely that this infor-
mation belongs to the lexical description of this modal.
(107) a. Hovmesteren skalvcere morderen.

butlerDEF shall be murderDEF
'The butler is supposed to be the killer.'
In accordance with a long tradition of proposals in numerous linguistic

frameworks, I also propose that necessity is an inherent part of matte
'must'. My proposal differs, however, from those of many other authors
(especially within logic) in assuming that this necessity is always perceived
by some entity·, I am assuming a Source of modality even for this modal. In
this respect, I follow Öhlschläger (1989) and more generally Palmer
(1986:16), who suggests that
Modality in language is, then, concerned with subjective characteristics of
an utterance, and it could even be further argued that subjectivity is an es-
sential criterion for modality. Modality could, that is to say, be defined as
the grammaticalization of speaker's (subjective) attitudes and opinions.
Thus, I reject the distinction drawn by authors such as Lyons (1977) and
Öhlschläger (1989) between subjective and objective readings of matte
'must', where objective=alethic=logically necessary. In my view, only the
subjective reading is viable in natural language (cf. the discussion on this
topic in sections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 of Chapter 2).
(108) Matte:

Root: There exists a necessity Root: Necessity perceived
that ρ is made true by (x) that ρ is made true
responsibility of acting on this necessity. [x = Subject] or
NoV θ : The necessity is not addressed [x = External]
to any particular individual. Non-root: Necessity
Non-root: There exists a necessity perceived by (x) that ρ is true
that ρ is true [x = Speaker]
The following non-tautological sentence shows that even matte allows for
different entities to instantiate the first CS argument:
(109) a. Du mä si det du mä si.

you must say it you must say
'You must say what you must say.'
One possible reading of this sentence is the following: the speaker per-
ceives it as necessary that the subject utter what is perceived as necessary to
utter by the speaker.
The description of trenger ikke/behover ikke 'need not' takes the de-
scription of matte 'must' as its point of departure and amounts to the ne-
gated version of mätte ιΠ, no necessity. I offer one description for both
ikke trenge/ikke beh0ve, as I have found no semantic differences between
them. Stylistically, though, beh0ve sounds slightly more archaic. I have
chosen not to represent this fact here.
(110) Ikke trenge/beheve:

Root: There exists no necessity Root: No necessity perceived
that ρ is made true by (x) that ρ is made true
V θ : The subject would have had the [x = Speaker] or
responsibility of acting on this necessity. [x = Subject] or
NoV θ : The necessity would not be [x = External]
addressed to any particular individual.
Non-root: There exists no necessity Non-root: No necessity
that ρ is true perceived by (x) that ρ is true
[x = Speaker]
Burde 'should' is often described as denoting weak obligation. As argued

above, the obligation reading arises when the first CS argument is not the
Subject, and the Subject is assigned a θ-role by the modal. Moreover, as
this reading is typically paraphrased as 'weak obligation' and not simply
'obligation', it signals optionality, instead of the absolute necessity repre-
sented in the description of mätte. I have chosen to represent this optional-
ity as preference.
(111) Burde:

Root: There exists a preference Root: From a set of
that ρ is made true propositions <pi....p n >, (x)
prefers that ρ is made true
Λ/ Θ : The subject has the [x = Speaker] or
responsibility of acting on this preference. [x = Subject] or
NoV θ : The preference is not addressed [x = External]
Non-root: There exists a preference for ρ Non-root: From a set of
as the proposition most likely to be true propositions <p 1 ....p n >, (x)
prefers ρ as the one most
likely to be true
[x = Speaker]
T h e deontic modals described so far are all ascribed an obligation (wiz.

lack of obligation) reading by numerous authors. Kunne is different in that
it is said to denote permission. Again, I suggest that the personal permis-
sion reading stems f r o m the same combination of C S arguments and Θ-
assignment as mentioned for obligation. This assumption allows us to give
kunne ' c a n ' a slightly more abstract representation than simply 'permis-
sion'.
(112) Kunne (deontic):

Root: There exists a possibility Root: (x) allows
opportunity to act on this possibility. [x = Subject] or
NoV θ : The possibility is not addressed [x = External]
Non-root: There exists a possibility Non-root: (x) allows that ρ
that ρ is true is true
[x = Speaker]
Kunne has t w o different entries: as a deontic and a dynamic modal. In my

view, this m o v e is justified although it is possible to claim, like P a p a f r a g o u
(1998), that the dynamic ability reading of kunne 'can' (and presumably,
the tendency or quantificational reading) is subsumed by the seemingly
more general deontic reading. The ability reading seems to be special in
several respects. It is the reading that survives as a lexical main verb in
various English dialects and other languages, including Norwegian. More-
over, the Source argument is always the subject on the ability reading, cor-
responding to the internal modality source in the German literature. On the
other hand, the impersonal ability reading ('it happens that p ' ) takes the
speaker as CS argument, like most non-root modals. These idiosyncrasies
sets dynamic kunne apart from deontic kunne and deontic modals in gen-
eral.
(113) Kunne (dynamic):

Root: There exists a possibility Root: (x) allows
V θ : The properties of the subject [x = (physical properties
enables ρ of the) Subject]
NoV θ : The properties of the situation [x= Speaker ]
enables p.
Moreover, I will assume here that it is deontic kunne that gives rise to the
epistemic reading. Thus dynamic kunne lacks a non-root counterpart. This
assumption is not unproblematic. Recall from Chapter 2 that fä 'get' was
excluded from the class of modals exactly because it lacks a non-root coun-
terpart. Consistency requires dynamic kunne to be excluded from the class
of modals on the same grounds. One way to circumvent this problem would
be to say that dynamic kunne has a non-root counterpart semantically so
close to the non-root counterpart of deontic kunne that they are in principle
indistinguishable. No such solution would be possible in the case of fä
'get'.
The volitional reading of ville 'will' is like the ability reading of kunne
in requiring the subject to instantiate the first CS argument on the root read-
ing. However, the first CS argument of impersonal dynamic reading, ten-
dency, is the speaker, just like the first CS argument of the non-root ville
'will' is instantiated by the speaker in Norwegian. Interestingly, the Ger-
man cognate of ville requires the subject as the first CS argument even on
the non-root reading and the meaning is reminiscent of non-root skulle—

opinion.
(114) a. Johann will reich sein.

Johann will rich be
'Johann claims to be rich.'
b. Maria will Schauspielerin gewesen sein.

Maria will actress been be
'Maria claims to have been an actress.'
The Norwegian non-root counterpart of wollen, ville, has prediction as its

core semantics rather than opinion (cf. discussion and informant test in
section 3.4 of Chapter 2). 81
(113) Ville:

Root: There exists an inclination Root: (x) is inclined
that ρ is made true to make ρ true
V θ : The inclination is that of [x = Subject]
the subject [x= External (situation)]
NoV 0 : The situation
is inclined to (typically) lead to p.
Non-root: Non-root:
There exists a prediction (x) predicts that ρ will be true
that ρ will be true [x= Speaker ]
81
Numerous authors count the English cognate of ville 'will' in its non-root read-
ing as a tense morpheme instead of a modal (cf. the discussion in Dyvik 1999,
Julien 2000a, and McCawley 1971). However, as pointed out by Dyvik (1999),
"The epistemic [non-root] meaning of ville comes close to 'future tense', but con-
sidering the systematic relationship between ville and the other modals, Norwegian
grammar seems to classify this meaning as the epistemic counterpart of volition,
i.e. as a modal rather than as a temporal kind of meaning." Bybee et al. (1994: 244)
maintain that 'future' is equivalent to prediction in many languages: "We regard
the focal use of future as equivalent to a prediction on the part of the speaker that
the situation in the proposition, which refers to an event taking place after the
moment of speech, will hold."
The main verb version of ville may be given the same description as modal
auxiliary ville, since main verb ville takes CP complements, which also
denote a proposition p. For main verb kunne 'can' and trenge/behove, the
meaning resembles the auxiliary versions, although main verb kunne typi-
cally denotes mental, not physical ability ('know' as opposed to 'know how
to'), and main verb trenge/behßve denotes that the subject needs whatever
is denoted by the DP/CP complement. This could nevertheless be described
as 'necessity perceived by (x)', where χ is always the subject. Thus, there is
no doubt that the main verb modals semantically resemble their auxiliary
counterparts to a great extent.
I want to emphasize once again that the descriptions provided here
should be considered a first approximation of the core semantics of Norwe-
gian modals. This is a tentative and sketchy account, offered exclusively to
suggest a direction for how a two-level semantics with different sets of CS
and SF arguments could describe the semantic nuances of modals. The data
in this section suggest that although the relevant rule-giver or modality
source has to be recovered from context, the ability of modals to take on
such a source argument separates them from other verbs and auxiliaries; cf.
the non-tautological (104), where this is particularly striking. Hence, to
incorporate this information in the argument-structure of modals, albeit on
a Conceptual Structure level of less importance to syntax, seems justified.
6. Summary
We have seen in this chapter that Norwegian modals display an uncanny

plasticity with regard to Theta-properties. Firstly, there are main verb mo-
dals that behave like ordinary transitive verbs (tr enger (ikke), belwvcr
(ikke), kunne, ville), assigning one external and one internal Theta-role.
There are also non-root modals that group with raising verbs and never
assign an external argument but take infinitival complements. Lastly, there
are root modals best described as optional theta-assigners; these modals too
take infinitival complements. They behave like raising verbs in some re-
spects and like control verbs in others, so I have suggested that they option-
ally assign an external theta-role. Modals with a pseudoclefted complement
constituted an important part of this discussion.
I relied on Hornstein (1998, 1999, 2000), who argues that control should
be reduced to raising. I argued that making this assumption would allow us
Summary 285
to account for otherwise problematic constructions such as subject-oriented

root modals with a small clause raising complement.
Finally, I have argued that what is known in the literature as the source
of modality constitutes an important part of the semantics of modal auxilia-
ries. Since the source of modality seems to be of little or no importance to
the syntactic behavior of Norwegian modals, I invoked a two-level seman-
tics in the sprit of Bierwisch and Lang (1989) to account for the various
readings of modals. I argued that the obligation and permission readings of
deontic modals stem from a combination of entities instantiating the argu-
ments of these modals at Conceptual Structure and Semantic Form.
Chapter 5
Norwegian Modals, Aspect and Tense
1. Introduction
The literature on the grammatical categories modality, tense, and aspect is

comprehensive. One important and unassailable fact established by this
literature is that cross-linguistically these categories interact in complex and
intricate ways. Firstly, their semantic and syntactic domains tend to overlap
partially; for instance, past and present tense may be expressed by tense
affixes whereas future tense is expressed by a modality marker. This has
been argued for Norwegian, where the modal ville is often considered a
future tense marker although syntactically it belongs to the category of
modal auxiliaries. There are, furthermore, many languages where tense
markers also encode aspectual information, a case in point being the imper-
fect in Romance languages. There are also language systems where it is
difficult to determine whether a certain construction encodes primarily
aspectual or temporal information; an example is the present perfect in
Germanic languages. Secondly, many languages employ a set of markers
belonging to the same system and consisting of the categories of modality,
tense, and aspect; this is a well-documented trait of Creole languages (cf.
discussion in section 4). Thirdly, it is widely attested that the presence of
one category constrains the use and availability the other categories; a mo-
dality marker, for example, may force or prohibit the presence of a specific
tense or aspect marker. There might also be strong restrictions on the se-
quence in which the markers occur (cf. section 4.1). Finally, specific com-
binations of tense, modality, and aspect (markers) typically give rise to
certain readings. The presence of a particular aspect marker may yield one
specific temporal reading of the predicate or the presence of one specific
tense marker may hinge on the aspect features of the predicate. This is the
case, for instance, in Capp Verde Creole, where the stative marker sta im-
poses the temporal reading of simultaneity and the tense marker -ba en-
codes past with stative predicates only; non-stative predicates do not re-
quire this marker to signal past (Baptista 1997). In Germanic languages, a
Tense and aspect 287
particular tense or aspect construction—an infinitive perfect or a progres-

sive complement—may force (or rather facilitate) a non-root reading of an
otherwise ambiguous modal.
These and related issues are the subjects of this chapter. Section 2 offers
an explanation of how I will employ the terms tense and aspect in this in-
vestigation, and section 3 deals with the tense and aspect features often
considered relevant for the readings of modals and other modality markers
as root (e.g. deontic) or non-root (e.g. epistemic). While there are factors
that typically give rise to root or non-root readings respectively, there are
important exceptions, showing that these factors are important but not deci-
sive. In section 4 , 1 investigate the readings and relative scopes of modality,
tense, and aspect. This section includes a brief overview of the long tradi-
tion of syntactic universalist approaches to modality, tense, and aspect in
Creoles and other languages. I show, however, that these approaches cannot
diminish the impact of the exceptions that emerge in this investigation.
Section 5 proposes a new, compositional approach to the tense system in
Norwegian and other Germanic languages, an approach I will argue is nec-
essary and sufficient for explaining the aforementioned exceptions. I dem-
onstrate this in section 6, focusing on the temporal and aspectual properties
of the modal's complement. Section 7 focuses on the temporal properties of
root and non-root modals, and section 8 concludes the chapter.
2. Tense and Aspect
In this section, I briefly examine some basic notions from the literature on
aspect and tense and specify how I will employ these terms in the present
investigation. The literature on aspect and tense constitutes an entire indus-
try within language research and I will not attempt to do justice to the vast
spectrum of existing proposals. Instead, I will keep this exposition brief and
refer the reader to specialized works for a more comprehensive discussion.
The reader should keep in mind that my interest in tense and aspect stems
from the importance of these categories to the different readings of Norwe-
gian modals. The scope of this overview is therefore limited to those fea-
tures that may shed some light on root and non-root modality, in particular
in Norwegian and other Germanic languages.
288 Norwegian modals, aspect and tense
2.1. Tense
According to Comrie (1985: 9), "tense is grammaticalized expression of

location in time." Tense is a deictic category, used to locate a given situa-
tion (encoded by a predicate) relative to some other situation or time, typi-
cally the speech event or the moment of speech. Thus, the sentences in (1 a)
and (lb) can be described as identical in all respects, except for their tense
features. In (la), the verb has a tense affix encoding (at least) present, locat-
ing the smiling event as simultaneous to the speech event; the correspond-
ing verb in (lb) has a preterite tense affix encoding past and locating the
smiling event at a point in time prior to the speech event.
(1) a. Marit smiler.

Marit smilePRES
'Marit smiles.'
b. Marit smilte.
Marit smilePRET
'Marit smiled.'
When temporally relating one event or situation to another, there are logi-
cally only three possibilities. The first event may be past, present, or future
with respect to the second event. Although all languages have means of
expressing all three of these temporal relations, many have only a two-way
(basic) tense split. This is the case, for instance, in many European lan-
guages, where the primary distinction is between past and non-past tenses
(Comrie 1985: 49). We will discuss these matters more thoroughly in sec-
tion 5.
There are a wide range of proposals on the semantics and nature of tense
elements represented in (1) by the present affix -er and the preterite —te.
Prior (1967) and Montague (1974) suggest that tense elements are opera-
tors, taking the proposition in their scope; others have suggested that tense
elements are referential entities, resembling pronouns (Εης: 1986, Partee
1973), even adverbial elements (Hornstein 1990). All these analyses have
pros and cons which I will not go into here; Julien (2001) offers an infor-
mative discussion. The present proposal will adhere to the analysis of tense
elements as dyadic predicates, following Julien (2000a, 2001), Stowell
(1995, 1996), and Zagona (1995).
If tense elements are dyadic predicates, what are their arguments? This
is a question with many possible answers. Reichenbach (1947) and Comrie
(1985), for instance, suggest that these predicates amount to a relation be-
tween time points or time intervals (Bennett and Partee 1978; Demirdache
and Uribe-Exterbarria 2000); others claim that tense elements encode a
relation between two events or situations (Giorgi and Pianesi 1997; Julien
2001). The present proposal adheres to the latter view: I will assume that
tense is a grammatical category semantically consisting of a dyadic predi-
cate, locating a situation in time by means of creating a temporal relation
between its two arguments, both being events (or situations), where the
speech event may be one of these events. The details of this account are
postponed until section 5.
Numerous proposals focus on the relationship between finite tenses and
specific readings of Germanic modals. Denison (1993: 311), for instance,
claims that in Old and Middle English "the modal in the infinitive is non-
epistemic," 1 i.e. root. Plank (1984: 314), objecting to Lightfoot (1979),
states that
[M]odals when used epistemically in general do not seem to have occurred
non-fmitely in 0[ld] Efnglish] and M[iddle] E[nglish] in the first place.
(Note that an identical finiteness requirement characterizes epistemic mo-
dals also in other Germanic languages where there can be no question of
modals not being verbs; in fact, a requirement to this effect can presumably
claim general rather than language particular validity.)
Roberts and Roussou (2002, 2003), Vikner (1988), van Kemenade (1985)
and Fagan (2001) make similar claims for epistemic modals in Danish,
Dutch, and Gennan. Some form of the finiteness requirement on epistemic
and other non-root modals is included in many works on modality and we
could easily have made the list of references much longer.
It is also a wide-spread claim that non-root modals cannot occur in past
forms, except in sequence of tenses contexts, where a preterite embedding
predicate of saying or reporting forces the embedded sentence to also occur
in the preterite or in indirect speech (Boogaart 2005: 6; Iatridou 1990b: fn
1; Stowell 2004: 626 (quoting Abusch 1997)). Cinque (1999: 79) suggests
that both (certain aspects of) the finiteness requirement and the lack of past
tense with non-root modals can be traced back to a universal constraint
forcing the epistemic modal to scope over tense, since "[epistemic modals
1
He does, however, comment on three examples that show a slight possibility of
an epistemic interpretation although the modal is non-finite.
occur] outside the scope o f . . . tense altogether." Recently, certain proposals

have questioned the validity or scope of this constraint. Condoravdi (2002)
and Stowell (2004) both suggest that certain types of non-root modals
(dubbed metaphysical modals by Condoravdi) can scope under tense and be
affected by the semantics of tense elements.
I examine these matters more thoroughly in sections 4 and 7. For now,
suffice it to say that many authors have claimed that epistemic and, more
generally, non-root modals cannot occur in non-fmite tense forms (e.g. in
the infinitive or as a perfect participle) and that a tense encoding past is
unable to affect a non-root modal semantically. Non-root modality, to the
extent that it has a temporal feature at all, is generally considered tempo-
rally simultaneous with the utterance event.
2.2. Aspect
At a very general and informal level, aspect refers to how we conceptualize

a situation or event with regard to how it begins, continues, and ends (and
possibly repeats itself). Figure 1, for instance, illustrates a situation concep-
tualized as an event with a beginning, duration, and end.
Figure I
S
-s -s
Before the event takes place, it does not yet exist ("'S). Likewise, when the
event has ended, it no longer exists ("'S). At the point where the event be-
gins, the state of affairs changes from "'S to S. This change is implied or
encoded by a range of predicates—sovne 'fall asleep' and gjenkjenne 'rec-
ognize'; there are also functional markers and (semi-)lexical verbs, such as
begynne 'begin', specialized to encode this aspectual information. The as-
pectual information about the beginning of an event is often referred to as
ingressive aspect, but we also refer to verbs that encode a change from S
to S as dynamic or eventive verbs; the aspectual feature is dynamic (or
eventive) aspect.
Figure 2
There are also predicates that do not refer to the beginning or end of the
situation they describe; instead, they simply refer to the stative situation, S
in Figure 3. Accordingly, these predicates are called stative—sove 'sleep'
and vcere intelligent 'be intelligent'; this aspect can be dubbed progressive
(ongoing), imperfective, durative, or stative. Specialized predicates are
sequences such as (keep) v-ing, holde pä (med) ä 'be in the process o f .
Figure 3
Progressive, imperfective, durative, stative
Finally, there are predicates that encode information about the natural end-
point of an event. For instance, predicates such as eat an apple or paint a
house imply or encode the natural endpoint of the event they describe: the
event will end when the apple is eaten or the house painted.
Figure 4
Specialized predicates for this type of aspect are slutte 'stop', or 'finish',
and we refer to this aspect as egressive or, more frequently, perfective or
telic. These terms have slightly different meanings, but they all refer to the
ending or "(right) boundary" of an event in one way or another.
For the purposes of the present investigation, the egressive/perfective/
telic aspect will be of less relevance. For Norwegian modals, the distinction
between stative situations or states (illustrated in Figure 3) and dynamic
situations or changes of state (illustrated in Figure 2) provides important
aspectual information that can influence the reading of a modal as root or
non-root. When a modal takes as its complement a dynamic predicate, its
reading is most likely to be root, as in (2a); a stative complement typically
gives rise to a non-root reading of the modal, as in (2b) (although the oppo-
site readings are also possible).
(2) a. Jon mä bli arkitekt.

Jon must become architect
'Jon must become an architect.' deontic
b. Jon mä vcere arkitekt.

Jon must be architect
'Jon must be an architect.' epistemic
In the literature on aspect, the distinction between stative (states) and dy-
namic (events) situations is considered of fundamental importance to con-
ceptual and linguistic organization. For instance, Michaelis (1998: 16)
quotes Langacker (1987: 258), who claims that the distinction between
states and events has "a primal character" because it is linked to a basic
cognitive capacity—the ability to perceive change (or the lack of change)
over time. 2 Michaelis herself (1998: 4) also considers states and events the
"two primary situation classes:"
2
Comrie (1976: 49) characterizes the difference between a stative and a dynamic
situation as follows: "With a state, unless something happens to change that state,
then the state will continue.... With a dynamic situation, on the other hand, the
situation will only continue if it is continually subject to a new input of energy....
To remain in a state requires no effort, whereas to remain in a dynamic situation
does require effort, whether from inside... or from outside." Comrie later divides
dynamic situations into events and processes. I will not adopt these more fine-
grained distinctions here, as they are less relevant to the readings of Norwegian
modals.
[EJvents... are situations which (a) have salient boundaries (i.e., points of
inception and/or termination) and (b) involve change over time; states... are
situations which do not involve change over time, and which do not have
salient endpoints. I will maintain that the event-state distinction, as outlined
here, should form the basis of all explanation in aspectology.
Many linguists have found it useful to distinguish between Aktionsart and
(grammatical) aspect. The former is usually taken to denote the aspectual ly
relevant inherent semantic properties of the verb, either in isolation or with
its arguments. 3 This is in contrast to aspectual properties acquired by the
verb in specific syntactic environments. 4 The aspectual properties of a verb
may change when the aktionsart of the verb interacts with other lexical
items in the clause such as adverbials. For instance, when a verb with a
dynamic, punctual aktionsart ( e . g . f l a s h ) combines with a durative adver-
bial (e.g. until dawn) and as a result produces an iterative reading (The light
flashed until dawn), one may refer to this as iterative aspect5
Aspect in its most restricted sense denotes a grammatical category, the
"grammaticalization of the relevant semantic distinctions" (Comrie 1976:
7). When describing the differences between aspect and tense, Comrie
(1976: 5) claims the latter to relate the time of a situation to some other
time point. The relevant features of aspect are described as follows:
Aspect is not concerned with relating the time of the situation to any other
time-point, but rather with the internal temporal constituency of the one
situation.
In the present discussion, the perfect (John has read the book) and progres-
sive (John is reading a book) will be the most relevant grammatical (or-
grammaticalized, in Comrie's terms) aspect categories. In both cases, there
3
Verb semantics is the subject of a large body of linguistic literature, and I cannot
do justice to the attested and conceivable verb types represented in this literature.
However, I will mention the seminal work of Vendler (1967) and his four verb
types: states, activities, accomplishments and achievements; cf. also Pustejovsky
(1995: 16).
4
The use of the term Aktionsart in the literature on Slavic languages restricts this
term to the properties of morphological affixes (Comrie 1976: 6, fn. 4).
5
The sentence is from Jackendoff (1997: 51), who refers to this type of aspectual
shifting as aspectual coercion, a topic also addressed in Pustejovsky (1995: 202)
via a more formal apparatus. Pustejovsky (1995: 111) defines coercion as "type
shifting: a semantic operation that converts an argument to the type which is ex-
pected by a function, where it would otherwise result in a type error." The term
coercion is later extended to refer to aspectual changes, for example.
is an aspectual auxiliary heading the construction and presumably provid-

ing it with specific aspectual and temporal properties in a manner to be
discussed in sections 5 and 6.
For our purposes, the distinction between aktionsart and aspect is less
important; I will refer to the aspectual properties of the modal's comple-
ment simply as encoding dynamic or stative aspect although in some cases
the term aktionsart might in fact be more accurate.
3. Aspect and tense of complements
In any investigation of root and non-root modality—and especially in sta-

tistical approaches—it is useful to determine what features of the sentence
facilitate, perhaps even force, a root or non-root reading of the modal.
Coates (1983) lists a range of features statistically associated with epistemic
modality. See also Wärnsby (2004) and forthcoming for an investigation of
these features in a large English-Swedish parallel corpus. The most impor-
tant features seem to be the properties of the subject: inanimate and existen-
tial subjects are statistically associated with non-root modality (this will not
be of the focus of the present section as the features of the modal's subject
were discussed thoroughly in Chapters 3 and 4). Other important features,
and ones of more interest to the present investigation, are the aspectual
features of the sentence. If the complement of the modal is a perfect or
progressive, 6 or if the complement is a stative predicate, the reading of the
modal is typically non-root, according to Coates.
Numerous authors have observed that a stative complement facilitates a
non-root reading of the modal while a dynamic predicate complement fa-
vors a root reading. This observation is made by Barbiers (1995) for Dutch
root and epistemic modals and it constitutes the basis for one fundamental
notion in his analysis—polarity transition (cf. Chapter 3, section 2.7; Bar-
biers 1995: 149). What gives the modal a root reading, according to Bar-
biers, is that the complement of the modal denotes a transition from a nega-
tive stage —iS (where the situation S does not hold) at the time of speech to
a positive one S (where the situation S does hold) at some point in the fu-
ture; in this case, the complement encodes a dynamic situation. An epis-
6
Norwegian does not employ a designated progressive form; hence English mo-
dals are utilized in this discussion to illustrate progressive complements of modals.
Aspect and tense of complements 295
temic reading of the modal ensues when the complement of the modal does
not encode a transition from —>S to S, i.e. when it encodes a stative situa-
tion. Compare (3 a), where the modal has a dynamic complement—or in
Barbiers' terminology a complement that denotes a polarity transition—and
(3 b), where the complement is stative and hence does not encode a polarity
transition (cf. also (2) for the same contrast).
(3) a. Marit mä klatre over gj erdet.

Marit must climb over fenceDEF
'Marit must climb the fence.'
b. Jon mä virkelig like pannekaker.

An obvious way of explaining this contrast is to assume that non-root and

root modals have different selectional requirements, that non-root modals
select for stative predicate complements whereas root modals select for
dynamic predicates. Seemingly very promising for this line of thought are
the distinctions made in Bybee et al. (1994) who investigate the importance
of the aspectual and temporal properties of the modal's complement; the
discussion mentioned here concerns English must. On a root reading, the
modal must selects for a dynamic complement with a future reading; on a
non-root reading, must selects for a stative complement with a simultaneous
(present) reading (op.cit.: 200).
The contexts in which must has an obligation and an epistemic reading are
mutually exclusive. In the future, must has only an obligation reading.
(i) The letter must arrive some time next week.
In present and past sentences, however, must has only an inferred certainty
reading.
(ii) The letter must be in the mail.
(iii) The letter must have been in the mail.
In fact, in the past tense and in the present tense with a stative verb, must
can ONLY have an epistemic reading. Thus, even with a dynamic verb in
the past, must is epistemic.
(iv) He must have called three times while you were gone.
In the non-past with a dynamic verb, must is epistemic with progressive

situations.
(v) He must be trying to call me right now.
In a restricted set of cases, must can be ambiguous between an epistemic

and an obligation reading. One such case is (vi).
(vi) He must play tennis a lot (or he won't win the tournament).
(and that is why he is so good).
In this case, the epistemic reading has the present habitual aspect, while the
obligation reading is future-projecting.
The terms present and future in Bybee et al. (1994) refer to the temporal
readings of the infinitival complement of a modal, as future tense and pre-
sent tense do not correspond to a formal distinction; no morphological
marking on the infinitive corresponds to the future and present readings,
respectively. Instead, the infinitive is inherently ambiguous between a fu-
ture and a present reading; specifically, the event encoded by the infinitive
may be interpreted as temporally subsequent to the modal (future) or as
simultaneous to it (present); cf. also Zagona (1990) and Stowell (2004) for
this observation. We will investigate these facts thoroughly in section 5.
The quote from Bybee et al. (1994) mentioned above suggests, like Bar-
biers (1995), that the Stative vs. dynamic construal of the modal's comple-
ment might trigger the non-root or root reading of the modal. Moreover, the
temporal reading of the infinitival complement seems to be intertwined
with the aspectual construal. The combinations [dynamic aspect + future
tense] and [stative aspect + present tense] are seemingly the prototypical
combinations of aspectual and temporal features for the infinitival comple-
ment of the modal. This assumption can be made on the basis of sentences
such as (4) (Bybee et al, 1994: 201):
(4) a. He must understand what we want

(or we ΊI never get it [root]).
(we've told him so many times [non-root]).
Bybee et al. observe that "the epistemic [non-root] reading here calls for a
stative interpretation of the main verb, but the obligation reading requires a
dynamic sense" (p. 201). As implied by the quote, the non-root reading
requires the present (i.e. simultaneous) reading of the (infinitival) comple-
ment, whereas the root reading yields a future interpretation of the infini-
tive. We can paraphrase the two distinct readings as in (5).
(5) a. He must understand what we want.

(i) It is necessary that there is a change of state from the
present state, where he does not understand what we want
(-iS), to a future state, where he does understand what we
want (S).
(ii) It must be the case that he is presently in a state
of understanding what we want (S).
There are different ways of explaining these facts. We might consider the
relevant combinations of tense and aspect features of the complement to be
subject to syntactic selectional requirements (as implied by Barbiers 1995,
2002; cf. also van Gelderen 2003, 2004). Then root and non-root readings
of modals select for the exact opposite feature combinations in their com-
plements: [dynamic aspect + future tense] for root modals and [stative as-
pect + present tense] for non-root modals. In that case, we would need sim-
ply to identify these two properties with respect to any potential
complement, which would give an elegant generalization with strong pre-
dictive powers. In fact, we would be in a position to predict exactly where a
non-root reading could arise and where a root one is the only possibility.
Another possible approach maintains that the semantics of root versus
non-root modals facilitates—but does not dictate—the specific aspect and
tense features of the modal's complement. In this case, we would expect
[+stative, +present] complements to occur statistically more often with non-
root modality even though [+dynamic, +future] complements would not be
ruled out. Likewise, we would expect to find [+stative, +present] comple-
ments with root modals though statistically we expect [+dynamic, +future]
complements to be more frequent under root modals. This latter approach is
the one we will adopt since there are numerous pieces of counterevidence
to the hypothesis that non-root modals select for [+stative, +present] com-
plements only. For instance, the metaphysical modal ville 'will' obviously
prefers future-denoting complements; and all non-root modals in Norwe-
gian in fact are capable of taking complements denoting future with respect
to the modal, some more marginally than others; cf. the data in (6) (and
Chapter 2, section 3.4 for discussion).
(6) a. Det skal bli regn i morgen.

there shall become rain tomorrow
'It is supposed to rain tomorrow.'
b. Da mä bomben eksplodere om bare tre sekunder! 7

then must bomDEF explode in just three seconds
'Then the bomb must explode in only three seconds!'
c. Han beh0ver ikke komme pä festen, bare fordi han sa det.

he need not come to partyDEF just because he said so
'He need not come to the party, just because he said so.'
d. Ifolge mine opplysninger, b0r motet vcere i morgen.

from my information should meetingDEF be tomorrow
'According to my information, the meeting should take
place tomorrow.'
e. Konserten kan bli avlyst.

concertDEF may become cancelled
'The concert may be cancelled.'
The sentences in (6) are ambiguous between root and non-root readings; it
is important to note that they do in fact allow the non-root interpretation
even though the complement is future-denoting.
Likewise, root modals may seemingly take [+stative, +present] comple-
ments, as the (authentic) example in (7a) indicates; (7b) can also easily be
construed as a situation already holding.
(7) a. Dette skal jeg egentlig ikke vite, men det gjor jeg.
this shall I actually not know but that do I
Ί am not actually supposed to know this, but I do.'
b. Jon mä vcere pä kontoret.

Jon must be in officeDEF
7
Thanks to Tor Äfarli for this example.
Both examples have non-root readings as a possibility, but here we are

interested in their root readings (intention of χ and necessity perceived by
x, respectively), which are felicitous in spite of what is arguably a comple-
ment with [+stative, +present] features.
The default pattern is that complements of root modals are [+dynamic,
+future] and complements of non-root modals (except non-root ville) are
[+stative, +present] although it can be overridden. At this point, we do not
have an explanation either for the default pattern or for the override effect.
First of all, however, we need to be sure that this is a viable generalization,
which is why we will study in some more detail the complement types of
Norwegian modal auxiliaries with regard to their aspect and tense features.
Figure 5
Complement Default reading of modal

[dynamic + future] root
[stative + present] non-root
directional small clause root
perfect non-root
progressive non-root
habitual/iterative non-root
3.1. Directional small clauses
As mentioned in Chapter 2 section 4.1, a modal with a directional comple-

ment rejects a non-root reading; cf. also Barbiers (1995, 2002) 8 and (8).
(8) a. Jon mä hjem.

Jon must home
'Jon must go home.'
b. Vi skal pä kino.
We shall in the movies
'We are going to the movies.'
8
Barbiers takes these small clause complements as the basis for his analysis, which
is then extended to account for verbal complements.
These small clauses have a [+dynamic, +future] reading. The situation de-
scribed by the small clause ([Jon home]/[We in the movies]) does not hold
at the moment of speech; it would not be felicitous to utter (8a) in a situa-
tion where Jon is already home or (8b) if we are already in the movie thea-
tre. Instead, the situation described by the small clause is required or in-
tended to hold at some point in the future; it fulfills the requirements of a
polarity transition, in Barbiers' (1995, 2002) terms. There is hence no way
to construe the small clause complement of a Norwegian present tense mo-
dal as encoding a situation simultaneous with the moment of speech; nei-
ther is it possible to construe the small clause as a stative predicate. The
stative counterpart of (8a)—which would involve the non-directional, sta-
tive counterpart of hjem 'home (directional)', i.e. hjemme 'home (sta-
tive)'—is ungrammatical in these constructions, as (9) shows.
(9) a. *Jon mä hjemme.

Jon must homeSTATIVE
Intended: 'Jon must stay at home.'
One plausible reason for the ungrammaticality of (9) are the properties of
the phonetically empty verb GO (cf. van Riemsdijk 2002a, 2002b and
Chapter 2 section 4.1) which we assume to be obligatorily present in these
modal + directional constructions. GO is a motion verb and inherently dy-
namic and directional; hence, it is compatible only with the non-stative
adverbial hjem, not its stative version hjemme. The lexicalized counterpart
dra 'go', is subject to the same restriction, as (10) shows:
(10) a. Jon mä dra hjem/*hjemme.

Jon must go homeDIRECTIONAL/homeSTATIVE
'Jon must go home.'
All non-root modals in Norwegian accept future-denoting complements to

some degree (cf. 6); the non-root, metaphysical ville 'will' even requires its
complement to denote future. It also readily accepts dynamic complements,
as in (1 la). However, like all other non-root modals, on its non-root read-
ing it rejects a complement headed by phonetically empty GO even though
it does accept a complement headed by a visible motion verb dra 'go':
(lib), unlike (11a), yields a root reading only.
Aspect and tense of complements 3 01
(11) a. Farfar vil dra hjem i morgen.

father-father will go home tomorrow
'Granddad will/wants to go home tomorrow.'
b. Farfar vil hjem i morgen.

father-father will home tomorrow
'Granddad wants to (/*will) go home tomorrow.'
A directional complement hence never gives rise to a non-root reading of

the modal even in cases where the aspect and tense specifications ought to
be just right, as with ville (cf. also Brandt 1999: 183). These directional
constructions are thus not subject to a default and override effect of the
kind we are investigating in this section. This fact calls for an explanation
not rooted in the differences investigated here. I propose an explanation in
section 6.2.
3.2. The perfect
A modal with a perfect complement typically, though not always, gets a

non-root reading, as has been observed many times in the modal literature
(Barbiers 1995, Dyvik 1999, Fagan 2001, van Gelderen 2003, 2004 and
many others). It might be worth investigating whether this is another
instantiation of the generalization that a [+stative, +present] complement by
default gives rise to a non-root reading of the modal.
It is commonly assumed that the perfect encodes a past-time reference;
in the words of Dyvik (1999: fn. 1), the perfect is a "non-referential relative
past. " 9 However, this by no means rules out the possibility that the garden
9 Dyvik makes this claim for the Norwegian and English perfect only: "The Nor-
wegian perfect is semantically very close to the English perfect, and less close to
the French and German perfects, which can be used to refer to specific past times
(Ich habe ihn gestern gesehen Ί saw him yesterday'). The meaning of Norwegian
(and English) perfect is neither deictic past tense nor perfective aspect, but rather
non-referential relative past - the category existentially quantifies over times pre-
ceding the time indicated by the tense of the finite verb: Jeg har sett ham Ί have
seen him' = There exists a time in the past such that I saw him then." In my opin-
ion, however, the difference between the Norwegian and the German perfect is not
a difference between a specific and a relative reading; they both denote relative
past. Languages differ with respect to whether or not they employ two (or more)
variety Germanic perfect simultaneously encodes a (present) state, and in

the literature w e often find the claim that it indeed does, cf. ter M e u l e n
(1995: 5 -6):
The perfect Jane has sighed describes th[e] state caused by the end of
[Jane's] sighing. Such perfect states are atemporal in the sense that once
they have begun, they never end... The difference between the simple past
and the perfect is hence aspectual in nature: The former describes events in
a context-dependent way, whereas the latter gives only stative information.
W h a t this proposal suggests is that, unlike most states, the perfect denotes
the event w h o s e culmination caused the given state. The 'relative past'
reading is an inference: if there is a state described as c o m m e n c i n g at the
exact time of the culmination of the very event that caused the state, and the
culmination of this event is an essential part of the description of the state,
it follows that this event must already have taken place in order for the state
to hold at the time of utterance. Therefore, the 'past event' reading is an
inevitable inference, according to this proposal.
Michaelis (1998: 51), following H e r w e g (1991a, 1991b), refers to the
perfect as a stativizing operator, an operator that maps an event predication
true at one time ( M a d g e swallow-the fly) into a stative predication true at a
later time. This stative predication is described as the aftermath of the fly-
different formal markers to encode what Bybee et al. (1994: 100) refer to as the
immediate past versus remote past distinction: "The exact time period covered by
immediate and remote may vary." For instance, Comrie (1985b: 85) claims that the
Spanish present perfect may be used as a simple past for situations taking place on
the day of the speech event. Dahl (1985: 125) reports that Spanish, Catalan and
Occitan use the present perfect with this morning, but the simple past with yester-
day; this is the case in Norwegian, too. However, the immediate vs. remote system
is more intricate than observed by Bybee et al. In Norwegian, what counts as im-
mediate past, signaled by the perfect, are the cycles: today, this week, this year,
etc.: Jeg har sett ham i dag/denne uka/i ά Ί have seen him today/this week/this
year' are all fine, and the perfect is possible with these adverbials. However, for
the adverbials meaning 'yesterday', 'last week' or 'last year' to be licensed, the
simple past must be employed and the perfect is impossible: Jeg sä ham i gar/i
forrige uke/i fjor Ί saw him yesterday/last week/last year'; *Jeg har sett ham i
gär/i forrige uke/i fjor Ί have seen him yesterday/last week/last year'. Norwegian
seems to encode the distinction between remote and immediate past through two
different syntactic forms—the simple past and the perfect; German does not. This
is not accounted for by Dyvik's (1999) terms specific past and relative past.
swallowing event, just as in ter Meulen's proposal. The perfect provides a

Stative construal of what would otherwise be an event predication.
Several proposals suggest that the perfect encodes a stative situation.
Moreover, it has been argued that the perfect is some kind of present tense;
Jespersen (1931: 47) claims that
The perfect... is itself a kind of present tense, and serves to connect the pre-
sent time with the past. This is done in two ways: first, the perfect is a retro-
spective present, which looks upon the present state as a result of what has
happened before in the past; and second the perfect is an inclusive present,
which speaks of a state that is continued from the past into the present time.
Comrie (1976: 52) also claims that the perfect has "a present relevance."
Thus, several proposals support the assumption that the perfect encodes the
features [+stative, +present], the features of a complement that by default
give rise to the non-root reading of a modal.
However, contrary to what is often claimed in the literature (Dyvik
1999, Stowell 2004, van Gelderen 2003 and 2004 and many others), the
non-root reading is by no means the only one when the complement is an
infinitive perfect. This is the most natural reading in most cases, as in (12a),
but adding a purpose clause or a future-denoting adverbial to the construc-
tion almost always allows (and often forces) a root reading of the modal, as
in (12b) and (12c). Moreover, one does not even need the purpose clause or
adverbial in many contexts, as (12d) shows; (12e) and (12f) are examples
of root readings of modals with perfect complements in Dutch (from Bar-
biers 1995: fn. 41) and English (from Brennan 2004: 44).
(12) a. Pasienten mä ha blitt feilbehandlet.

patientDEF must have been wrong treated
'The patient must have been subject to malpractice.'
b. Pasienten mä ha blitt feilbehandlet for ά fä erstatning.

patientDEF must have been wrong-treated for to get
compensation
'The patient must have been subject to malpractice

in order to get compensation.'
c. Du skal ha gjort ferdig leksene dine forst.

you shall have done finished homework yours first
'You must have finished your homework first.'
d. Paris er en av de stedene man bare mä ha vcert.

Paris is one of the places one just must have been
'Paris is one of those places one simply must have been.'
e. Jon moet morgen zijn kamer opgeruimd hebben.

Jon must tomorrow his room cleaned have
'Jon must have cleaned his room (by) tomorrow.'
f. Students must have taken calculus

Our account must explain two things: why the perfect complement gives
rise to the non-root reading by default and what about this construction
allows for an override effect, allowing for a root reading when the adverbial
is added. We should note, however, that this default and override pattern
with the perfect seems to be paralleled by that of stative verbs when they
function as the complement of a modal. As mentioned above (cf. data in 2
and 3), a stative complement typically gives rise to a non-root reading of
the modal, as in (13a), but a purpose clause or a future-denoting adverbial
easily pave the way for a root reading, as in (13b).
(13) a. Jon mä virkelig likepannekaker.

b. Jon mä virkelig like pannekaker

for at svigermora skal like ham/innen fredag
for that mother-in-law shall like him/by Friday
'Jon must really like pancakes for his mother-in-law to like

him/by Friday.'
We would expect the explanation for the default-and-override effect with

the perfect to be somehow related to its aspectual properties, seemingly
akin to those of stative verbs. However, the complex temporal properties of

the perfect are also important to the reading of the modal, as demonstrated
by the data in (14). In (14a), the non-root reading is more natural, in (14b)
the root reading is more natural, and in (14c) the non-root reading is the
natural, and perhaps only, reading. I will discuss these intriguing data in
section 5.
(14) a. Jon mä ha spist.

Jon must have eaten
b. Jon mä ha spist f0r han kommer.10

c. Jon mä ha spist fer han kom.

Jon must have eaten before he arrived
'Jon must have eaten before he arrived.'
3.3. The progressive
The progressive is widely taken to encode a stative aspect" (Langacker

1987, 1991; ter Meulen 1995: 66). Michaelis (1998: 52) follows Herweg
(1991a, 1991b) in referring to the progressive as a stativizing operator, an
operator that maps an event into a state. For any given event, there is a state
that holds prior to the time at which that event has reached its point of cul-
mination. This state is the progressive state. Thus, the event (interval) "se-
lected" by the progressive is not a state in and of itself (e.g. Madge swallow
the fly), but the progressive selecting this event denotes a state ( M a d g e is
swallowing a fly), as argued in Michaelis (1998: 266). Likewise, almost any
proposal on the subject suggests that the progressive encodes present;
Kreidler (1998: 222), for example, states that
[The progressive] is also about the present moment but calls attention to the
fact that the activity is in process now.
10
This type of data is mentioned, and then ignored, in Condoravdi (2002: 60).
11
But cf. Comrie (1976: 35) for a different view.
Thus, even the progressive evidently encodes the features [+stative aspect,
+present tense] which, when associated with a complement, usually give
rise to the non-root reading by default. As observed many times in the lit-
erature, a progressive complement in general gives rise to a non-root read-
ing of the modal, as in (15a). However, the default reading may be overrid-
den by means of a temporal adverbial, which makes a root reading of the
modal possible ((15b) is from Brennan 2004: 44). A purpose clause has the
same effect; see (15c) versus (15d).
(15) a. The water must be boiling.

b. The water must be boiling
c. The patient must be sleeping.
d. The patient must be sleeping for the medicine to work.
It seems we are dealing with the same pattern: a [+stative, +present] com-
plement by default gives rise to a non-root reading of the modal. Adding a
temporal adverbial or a purpose clause, however, yields a root reading.
3.4. The iterative
The stative properties of the iterative are perhaps less obvious although
Stowell (2004: 624) points out that the iterative (or habitual), like progres-
sive or dynamic predicates, behaves similarly to stative predicates when
embedded under modals ("as in other syntactic contexts"). The event-state
or dynamic-stative distinction I employ in the present context is primarily
concerned with the presence or absence of change of state. Thus, the itera-
tive does indeed qualify as a state, since it encodes no reference to the be-
ginning or the end of the (iterative) situation, the defining property of a
state. Furthermore, adverbials typically licensed in stative constructions are
also licensed with the iterative construal of otherwise dynamic predicates:
note the difference between (16a), interpreted as a single dynamic event,
and (16b), which gives rise to an iterative construal.
(16) a. Marit klatret over gjerdet [pä seks sekunder],

Marit climbed over fenceDEF in six seconds
'Marit climbed the fence in six seconds.'
b. Marit klatret over gjerdet [i seks är],

Marit climbed over fence-DEF for six years
'Marit climbed the fence for six years.'
The natural reading of (16b) is that Marit was in the habit of climbing the
fence on a regular basis for a period of six years, an iterative reading
(unless Marit was a really slow climber); the adverbial 'for six years' is the
durative kind typically found with stative predicates. This indicates that the
iterative has stative features. In Carlson's (2000) system, we may depict the
iterative as a series.
Figure 6
-iS
Here, we represent the dynamic situation of climbing the fence as the

change from -.S to S and back; the iterative, on the other hand, is repre-
sented as a state framing or encompassing the dynamic situation character-
ized by the repeated sequence of -iS and S.
The iterative may thus be construed as a stative. But does it have a pre-
sent reading? At least with regard to iterative readings of predicates em-
bedded under modals, the answer is yes; see (17).
(17) a. Marit mä klatre over gj erdet.

Marit must climb fenceDEF.
b. Tom Cruise skal spise i denne restauranten.

Tom Cruise shall eat in this restaurant
'Tom Cruise is supposed to dine in this restaurant.'
The sentences in (17) have (at least) two readings—one where the modal
gets a root reading and the embedded predicate encodes a future event and
another where the modal has a non-root reading 1 2 and accordingly the em-
bedded predicate is an iterative, hence a stative. Crucially, the reading of
the embedded predicate in the latter case is one of simultaneity. The predi-
cate encodes a state characterized by the repetition of the event of Marit's
climbing the fence or Tom Cruise's dining in this restaurant. This state has
no beginning and no end (which defines it as a state): there is no reference
to when Marit started or stopped climbing the fence or when Tom started or
stopped dining in this restaurant. It would not be felicitous to utter this sen-
tence intending the non-root reading of the modal if the speaker did not
believe that the situation characterized by this repeated action still holds—
that Marit still climbs the fence and that Tom still dines in this restaurant on
a regular basis.
Once again, the default pattern holds: the iterative yields a [+stative,
+present] reading and a non-root reading of the modal ensues. And once
again, the pattern can be overridden by means of a future adverbial; cf.
(17a), repeated here as (18a): it is ambiguous between a root and a non-root
reading of the modal (cf. discussion above) although the iterative facilitates
a non-root reading. In (18b), the iterative reading is still felicitous, but the
future adverbial paves the way for a more accessible root reading.
(18) a. Marit mä fklatre over g/eraiei]jTERATivE·

Marit must climb fenceDEF
b. Marit mä [klatre over gjerdet] ITERATIVE resten av sitt liv.

Marit must climb fenceDEF restDEF of her life
'Marit must climb the fence for the rest of her life.'
Our findings corroborate the generalization that a [stative, +present] com-

plement by default gives rise to a non-root reading of the modal. However,
it is seemingly always possible to force a root reading of the modal in the
same construction by adding a purpose clause or a future adverbial; this is
the override effect.
12
One informant had difficulties with getting the iterative reading of the VP and
the associated non-root reading of the modal in (17a), but was helped by this con-
text: You and I are coming to visit Marit in her new house. However, we can find
no gate in the garden fence. How does Marit manage to get into her own garden?
In desperation, I utter (17a), meaning 'it must be the case that she climbs the
fence'.
Scope, readings, and universality 309
Whether the complement of the modal is a stative verb, a perfect, a pro-

gressive, or an iterative, we have at present no evidence against the
assumption that it is the features [+stative, +present] that facilitate a non-
root reading. Non-root modals are apparently much more comfortable with
[+stative, +present] complements, for reasons we have yet to investigate.
Root modals, on the other hand, clearly prefer [+dynamic, +future] com-
plements. There are exceptions, however. Firstly, root modals seemingly
allow [+stative, +present] complements in certain cases (cf. the data in (7)),
and all non-root modals allow future-denoting complements (see (6)). The
non-root modal ville 'will' even requires such complements. However,
directional small clauses are never complements of non-root modals, not
even the metaphysical ville, which otherwise takes complements with ex-
actly the right aspect and tense feature specification. Non-root modals,
regardless of the aspectual and temporal features of the complement, re-
quire that their complements be headed by a phonetically realized verb. The
phonetically empty GO, which heads directional complements, cannot ful-
fill this requirement. I suggest an explanation for this fact in section 6.2.
4. Modality, tense, and aspect: scope, readings, and universality
In the recent generativist literature on aspect, tense, and modality, the na-
ture of distinct and possibly designated functional projections plays a major
role (cf. Chapter 3 section 1.2 for a fuller account). One standard use of the
term functional projection is given in Epstein et al. (1996: 11):
A standard distinction exists in linguistic theory between contentful ele-
ments and functional elements. Word stems are contentful elements,
whereas inflectional morphemes are functional elements.... [I]n the Gov-
ernment and Binding framework, the distinction between contentful (or
lexical) elements gradually took the following shape. Functional elements
are generated as heads of independent phrasal projections.... The functional
heads...consist of features associated with inflectional morphology.
The inventory and relative order of the functional projections, headed by

functional categories, are supposed to express generalizations regarding
how these categories relate to each other, how they interact syntactically
and semantically, and word order phenomena. A given functional projec-
tion may assume one task or several different tasks, depending on the as-
sumptions of the proposal at hand. Although the features of functional pro-
jections are in general "associated with inflectional morphology" (see the
quote above), this does not necessarily entail that the given feature—for
instance, an aspect feature—is expressed (only) by such morphology in the
language under consideration. Moreover, if a language does employ such
morphology—aspect affixes or aspect auxiliaries—it may still encode the
relevant features also by means of the relevant functional projection, even
without the inflectional morphology in certain constructions. Let us look at
one proposal.
Van Gelderen (2003: 34; also 2004: 162) claims that while non-root
modals may take either stative or dynamic (eventive) complements, root
modals are restricted to dynamic complements. She argues that the differ-
ence is explained if we assume that root and non-root modality are associ-
ated with different functional projections in a clause. Specifically, she as-
sumes that non-root modality is associated with the projection M(od)P and
root modality with the projection AspP; compare Figures 7 and 8.
Figure 7
Van Gelderen in effect suggests that the projection AspP is associated with
various facets of the stative features in a clause. For instance, the auxiliary
have of the perfect construction and the auxiliary be of the progressive
construction both originate in—or at least move through—AspP to check
their aspectual features. Moreover, a stative verb, unlike a dynamic verb, is
associated with the Asp projection: the unboundedness of a stative verb
(even when there is no specific morphology to encode it) must be expressed
by checking (for instance, in moving to) Asp or by having have/be in Asp.
A dynamic verb is just vP, or VP, and does not need to enter into a check-
Scope, readings, and universality 3 11
ing relation with AspP. This means that non-root modals, originating in the
ModP projection, are free to take dynamic verbs (vP or VP), stative verbs
(AspP), progressives and perfects (both AspP) as their complements (con-
sult Figure 7).
Figure 8
Root modals are different. According to van Gelderen (2003: 34), stative
verbs are ungrammatical as the complements of deontic (i.e. root) modals.
Likewise, root modals cannot occur with perfective and progressive auxil-
iaries as their complements (2003: 32). Even though we know this to be
incorrect—see the examples in (7), (12) and (15)—we allow this assump-
tion here for the sake of argument. These facts are explained, van Gelderen
says, if we assume that root modals are associated with the AspP projec-
tion. 13 If root modals at some point in the derivation occupy this projection,
they will compete with stative verbs and perfective and progressive auxilia-
ries (have/be) for it. It follows that root modals cannot take stative verbs,
the perfect auxiliary have, or the progressive auxiliary be as their comple-
ments; if Asp is occupied by a root modal, statives, perfects and progres-
sives have nowhere to check their features. Hence, only dynamic predi-
cates, dominated by vP and VP, are possible complements of root modals.
13
Root modals derive diachronically from perfective verb forms, which suggests
an 'affinity' with aspect (van Gelderen 2003: 27). See Chapter 3 section 2.12 of
the present work for comments.
We know at this point that certain premises of van Gelderen's analysis

are incorrect: root modals can take at least perfect and progressive com-
plements and seemingly stative ones as well. However, it is still true that by
default root modals take dynamic complements and that they often need the
assistance of a temporal adverbial or a purpose clause to be felicitous with
statives, perfects, and progressives. Thus, we might assume that an analysis
along the lines of van Gelderen's approach can help us account at least for
the default pattern.
Finally, with the analysis discussed above, van Gelderen can account for
the fact that non-root modals universally scope over root modals since root
modals are associated with AspP, non-root modals are associated with
ModP, and ModP scopes over AspP.
4.1. Creole TMA systems and universalist hypotheses
Since the mid-eighties, many authors (Picallo 1984) have argued that root
modals originate lower in the syntactic structure than non-root ones. The
much-quoted work of Cinque (1999) posits this as a universal constraint for
non-root and root modality; these two modality types are subdomains of a
universal functional hierarchy where each functional projection has a des-
ignated position relative to all other projections and each projection has
specific semantic features. The same form—a modal auxiliary or a modal
particle, for instance—can be associated with several different projections
and give rise to different readings depending on the projection where it
originates or surfaces; this is also a central claim of van Gelderen's pro-
posal discussed earlier. Cinque draws on a wide range of languages to sup-
port his claims about universality and on creole languages to illustrate the
behavior and function of preverbal modal particles.
The creole language Sranan in Surinam, for instance, has a modal parti-
cle kan 'can, may' which occurs either to the right or to the left of the tense
particle ben 'past'. When the modal particle surfaces to the left of the tense
particle, the reading of the particle is epistemic, i.e. non-root; when the
modal particle occurs to the right of the tense particle, the reading of the
modal is root; cf. (19a) and (19b) and Cinque (1999: 60).
(19) a. A ben kan nyan.

he PAST can eat
'He could eat.'
b. A kan ben e nyan.

he may PAST PROG eat
'He may have been eating.'
Cinque takes these and a range of other data to suggest that epistemic mo-
dality universally scopes over (past and future) tense and root modality
under (past and future) tense; this implies that root modality can be affected
by temporal alteration, whereas epistemic modality cannot (cf. section 7 for
a more detailed discussion of these matters). Note also that the aspect
marker e (encoding progressive) occurs to the right of both the tense and
the modality markers, which again follows a universal pattern: aspect
markers are low in the structure in Cinque's hierarchy, so [non-root modal-
ity > tense > aspect] is the expected relative order.
Cinque is by no means the first author to argue that the relative order of
modality, tense, and aspect in creole languages is universal. The Language
Bioprogram Hypothesis of Bickerton (1981, 1984), described as a water-
shed in the literature on pidgin and creole languages, focuses on the expres-
sion of tense, mood, and aspect (TMA-markers) in Creoles.14 The empirical
findings underlying his theory are in fact not new; the surprisingly similar
properties of TMA markers in Creoles with radically different lexical bases
were noted by various authors as early as the nineteenth century; Singler
(1990: vii ff.) mentions Van Name (1869-70) and Schuchardt (1882) as
early works commenting on this similarity. Thompson (1961) and Taylor
(1971) later drew attention to these TMA systems. Specifically, these au-
thors make the following observations about the preverbal TMA particles
found in Creoles (summarized by Muysken 1981: 183):
a. Each Creole language tends to have three of them; a past tense marker;
a potential mood marker; and a durative aspect marker.
b. When we find more than one particle accompanying a verb, the parti-
cles always occupy a fixed order; tense, mood, aspect, main verb. The com-
binations of the particles are interpreted in fixed, and rather complex ways.
14
There are other categories in Creoles considered to constitute the unmarked set-
tings of language parameters. Bickerton (1999: 59) lists this set of unmarked set-
tings of semantic oppositions: (in TMA systems) anterior/non-anterior, re-
alis/irrealis, punctual/non-punctual; (in nominal systems) specific/non-specific;
and (in aspectual systems) accomplished/unaccomplished and stative/nonstative.
B i c k e r t o n a r g u e s that Creoles p r o v i d e a w i n d o w into U n i v e r s a l G r a m m a r —

o u r innate linguistic c a p a c i t y — a n d that t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s m a d e a b o u t t h e m
c a n be u s e d to d e m o n s t r a t e the d e f a u l t settings of p o s s i b l e s e m a n t i c a n d
s y n t a c t i c p a r a m e t e r s . T h e inventory and relative o r d e r i n g of Creole syntactic
m a r k e r s h e n c e point to the d e f a u l t syntactic structure of h u m a n language.
T h e f u n d a m e n t a l s o f the h y p o t h e s i s are outlined in M u y s k e n and Smith
( 1 9 9 5 : 11):
The bioprogram theory claims that Creoles are inventions of the children
growing up on the newly founded plantations. Around them they only heard
pidgins spoken, without enough structure to function as natural languages,
and they used their own innate linguistic capacities to transform the pidgin
input from their parents into a full-fledged language. Creole languages are
similar because the innate linguistic capacity utilized is universal, and they
are simple because they reflect the most basic language structures. One fea-
ture shared by all Creoles that would derive from the innate capacity is the
system of pre-verbal tense/mood/aspect particles. Not only do they seem
limited in the Creole languages to a particular set of meanings, but they also
seem always to occur in a particular order. The system of tense/mood/aspect
particles, its interpretation and its ordering would directly reflect universal
aspects of the human language capacity.
M u y s k e n ( 1 9 8 1 ) p r o p o s e s that T M A particles, u n l i k e adverbs, are con-

strained b y principles o f core g r a m m a r . This p r o p o s a l m a y b e seen as an
early a t t e m p t to s p e c i f y a universal o r d e r i n g o f f u n c t i o n a l h e a d s or f u n c -
tional categories and, in d o i n g so, separate f u n c t i o n a l categories f r o m lexi-
cal o n e s (such as adverbs), 1 5 the latter not s u b j e c t to t h e constraints of c o r e
g r a m m a r . M u y s k e n (1981: 187) p r o p o s e s the f o l l o w i n g :
Semantic interpretation involves two components...: SI-1, constrained by

principles of core grammar, and SI-2, determined by the interaction of
pragmatic, lexical, cognitive, and other considerations. The elements in the
auxiliary, which may include tense, mood, and aspect, are interpreted by
component SI-1. The interpretation rule can be roughly formulated as fol-
lows: [ S ... [AUX Τ , Mj, A K , ..·] ..·] is interpreted as: Τ M j A K (P), where Ρ
corresponds to the propositional content of S.
Traditionally, the p r o p o s e d d e f a u l t o r d e r o f T M A particles is e x p l a i n e d

either b y u n i v e r s a l syntactic o r d e r i n g p r i n c i p l e s — w h i c h m a y or m a y not be
15
Muysken's proposal thus differs from Cinque's (1999) more recent theory where
even adverbs are associated with specific functional projections, as adverbs are
specifiers of projections whose heads have semantic content similar to the adverb.
directly determined by interpretation—as in Woisetschlaeger (1977), or by

the assumption that the structure of creole languages directly reflects uni-
versal semantic structures (The Hypothesis of Semantic Transparency). The
latter view takes Creole T M A particles to reflect separate logical operators,
fairly directly mapped onto surface structures; thus, the syntactic ordering
between them reflects the universal relative semantic scope of these seman-
tic operators (cf. Cinque 1999; Muysken 1981; Muysken and Smith 1995:
11).
A third influential view (especially within functionalist frameworks) is

that of Bybee (1985), where the constraint responsible for the relative order
of T M A markers or morphemes (in this case, T M A type inflections) is the
principle of relevance, defined as follows (Bybee 1985: 13 and 15):
A meaning element is relevant to another meaning element if the semantic

content of the first directly affects or modifies the semantic content of the
second.... Among inflectional categories, we can distinguish degrees of
relevance of the concept expressed inflectionally to the concept expressed
by... a verb stem. A category is relevant to the verb to the extent that the
meaning of the category directly affects the lexical content of the verb stem.
The workings of this principle of relevance thus rigidly restrict the relative
ordering of T M A markers or morphemes, as described in Hopper and
Traugott (1993: 143):
Given the hypothesis of relevance, aspect is most relevant to the verb, tense
less so, since it relates the time of the situation to some other time, and
mood least so since it expresses speaker point of view on the situation. If
that which is most relevant is that which is most likely to be close to the
verb, then we would expect aspect to be most likely of the three categories
to be ordered next to the stem (or even be part of it, as a derivational form),
tense next, and mood last... [T]he natural order is mood-tense-aspect-V (or,
in OV languages, V-aspect-tense-mood).
The concept of relative closeness to the verb stem is the common element
of these approaches to T M A markers. In the case of free-standing T M A
particles, relative closeness to the verb stem is signaled by the overt se-
quence of (in this case) pre-verbal markers, where the marker closest to the
verb occurs in the rightmost position in the T M A cluster. With T M A in-
flections, relative closeness to the verb stem refers to the position of an
inflectional morpheme, an affix, encoding tense, mood, or aspect, relative
to the verb stem and the other T M A affixes.
The findings of Bybee (1985) suggest that the relative ordering of TMA
markers or morphemes is mood > tense > aspect rather than tense > mood >
aspect. Bybee thus objects to the relative ordering of TMA markers consid-
ered universal by Bickerton and his followers; her sample of 50 languages
contains only one (Ojibwa) in which the mood marker occurs closer to the
stem than the tense marker (Bybee 1985: 35). One might try to explain this
fact by assuming that TMA morphemes display a different relative ordering
when expressed by inflectional morphemes then when expressed by free-
standing, synthetic particles (a line of thought pursued and ultimately re-
jected by Bybee).
However, if functional elements such as TMA markers head their own
syntactic projections regardless of their status as affixes or free-standing
particles and we adopt the Mirror Principle of Baker (1985), which states
that "morphological derivations directly reflect syntactic derivations and
vice versa," the universal relative ordering of TMA markers and their rela-
tive closeness to the verb stem ought to be identical regardless of their
status as bound or free morphemes. There ought to be no divergence be-
tween free-standing particles and inflectional morphemes with regard to
relative closeness to the verb stem, if we adopt the Mirror Principle. A
slightly modified version of the Mirror Principle, dubbed the Lexicalist
Mirror Principle, is proposed in Thräinsson (1996: 258). This, or some
similar version of the Mirror Principle, is generally assumed within the
Principles and Parameters framework.
Let us make the natural assumption that morphological features are not as-
sociated with each lexical element as a set (i.e. in an unordered fashion) but
rather with the relevant overt morphemes (when such morphemes are avail-
able). Thus the morphological feature of tense is associated with the tense
morpheme of a verb, and morphological features of person and number
(e.g. subject agreement features) of a finite verb are associated with the
agreement morpheme of the verb in question. These morphological features
are then checked off in a cyclic fashion as the verb form is adjoined to the
relevant functional head, beginning with the features associated with the
morphemes closest to the stem of the verb since features associated with
"outer" morphemes are not visible until features associated with mor-
phemes closer to the stem have been checked off. In a language where a
tense morpheme is closer to the stem of a finite verb than a subject agree-
ment morpheme for instance, this would mean that the functional head Τ
(i.e. the head against which the morphological feature of tense is checked)
would have to be lower in the syntactic structure than AgrS (the head
against which the subject agreement feature is checked). I will refer to this
version of the Mirror Principle as the Lexicalist Mirror Principle.
In keeping with the Mirror Principle, w e expect the affix closest to the stem
to be lower in a syntactic structure and have a narrower scope than an affix
further away from the stem. In a universalist approach, the relative ordering
of T M A morphemes ought to be identical on this level of abstraction, re-
gardless of their status as inflections or free-standing particles. Thus, the
difference between different sets of T M A morphemes (apart from their
lexical content) should reduce to their status as bound or free morphemes,
the relevant feature being [± affix].
Imagine two languages employing the same number of T M A mor-
phemes (see Figure 9). The only (presently relevant) difference between
these two languages is that the language in (9a) has affixal T M A mor-
phemes and the language in (9b) free-standing preverbal T M A particles.
Abstracting away from all potential issues (e.g. portmanteau-/zero mor-
phemes; head-complement direction, possible mixes of prefixes, infixes and
suffixes, possible combinations of pre- and postverbal markers), the two
structures in question would look as follows:
Figure 9
a. Bound TMA affixes b. Free-standing TMA particles
T.+Aff T„
[ Aff Tense [Aff Mood [Aff Aspect [V-stem]]]] Tense Mood Aspect Verb
The status of a morpheme as [± affix] hence should not affect its position
relative to the stem; the discrepancy between the findings of Bickerton
(1981, 1984) and those of Bybee (1985) regarding the position of mood
particles relative to tense particles is unexpected. Bybee (1985: 197 ff)
proposes a solution to the puzzle. The " m o o d " particles employed in the
Creole systems investigated in Bickerton's work are examples of "agent-
oriented modality" markers, i.e. root modality, rather than mood or non-
root modality markers, she claims. Thus, it comes as no surprise that these
modality markers occur closer to the verb stem than tense particles. Root
modals scope under tense and non-root modality and mood (the way she
employs this term) cannot be modified by tense, and always scope over
tense (see also Cinque 1999 and the data in (19)).
4.1.1. A digression on mood and modality
It may seem unnecessarily confusing to treat non-root modality on a par

with mood. However, it is by no means unusual to think that non-root
(epistemic or evidential) modals express mood-like semantic content. By-
bee (1985: 28) defines mood as follows:
Mood refers to the way the speaker presents the truth of the proposition,
whether as probable, possible, or certain.
Palmer (2001: 8) suggests that epistemic modals express the speaker's atti-
tude about the truth-value or factual status of the proposition; hence, they
fit Bybee's definition of mood. Huddleston (1984: 164) proposes that mo-
dal auxiliaries constitute "an analytic mood system." Cinque (1999: 78),
although he does distinguish between mood and modality, claims that the
difference is in many cases virtually non-significant: "the same category
may be expressed via mood in one language and with a modal in another,
thus suggesting a close link between the two. 'Mood' is traditionally re-
stricted to modal categories...which are expressed in verbal morphology
[Cinque's italics], Modals instead are typically independent words (verbs,
auxiliaries, or particles)."
Roberts (1985: 41-2), among others, suggests that the loss of subjunc-
tive mood markings in Middle English paved the way for more frequent
non-root uses of modals, where the modals were construed as clausal opera-
tors similar to subjunctive inflection. Hence, modals were "semantic substi-
tutes" for subjunctive mood inflection. In the same vein, Afarli (1995: 146)
suggests that
it is perhaps suggestive that we find modal and aspectual auxiliary verbs in
languages like Norwegian or English, i.e. languages that lack mood and as-
pect affixes on verbs.
This might suggest that modal auxiliary verbs are less likely to be found in
languages with inflectional mood or designated preverbal mood markers.
However, Muysken (1981: 199) mentions as a possible issue for his own
proposal on TMA markers the existence of modal verbs in Creole languages
in addition to preverbal TMA particles:
A second, quite major, problem concerns the interaction between the pre-
verbal particles and the modal verbs, which have not been mentioned so far,
but which occur in most Creole languages as well.16
Alternatively, one might be inclined to think that in languages employing
inflectional mood or designated mood markers in addition to modal auxilia-
ries, inflectional mood would render non-root readings of modal auxiliaries
superfluous, so root readings would be the only readings of modal auxilia-
ries. However, languages such as German and Icelandic defy this expecta-
tion since they employ inflectional mood and modal auxiliaries; the modal
auxiliaries in these languages express both non-root and root modality,
similar to modal auxiliaries in Norwegian and English. In fact, in German,
for instance, we even find a subjective inflection on the modal itself, and
the modal may still have a non-root (i.e. epistemic) and a subjunctive read-
ing simultaneously, as in (20).
(20) a. Das dürfte wahr sein.

that dareSUBJ2 true be
'That might be true.'
4.2. TMA markers in Norwegian
Norwegian and other Germanic languages do not employ the same kind of
preverbal tense-mood-aspect particles as creole languages. Norwegian and
other Mainland Scandinavian language also do not productively employ
inflectional mood or aspect affixes. In fact, it used to be widely accepted
16
Another problem, which unfortunately seems to be rarely addressed, concerns
the fact that one and the same form may take on not only one root and one non-
root modality reading, but a range of different functions and readings, depending
on other elements present in the same clause. It is far from trivial to determine
which form (with a corresponding distribution) expresses a given content in a
given construction. For instance, according to Baptista (1997: 106), the TMA
particle to in Capverdean Creole expresses a) futurity, b) purpose, c) continuation,
d) an infinitive marker, and e) a mood marker.
that m o o d and aspect are not functional categories in Germanic languages.

A s Thrainsson (1996: 262) states,
Interestingly, most syntacticians working on Germanic languages, for in-
stance, seem to assume that Mood and Aspect do not play any role as
Functional] Categories] in these languages. I have seen no syntactic evi-
dence that they do and the approach advocated in the present paper would
predict that they do not since Mood and Aspect are not marked separately in
the overt morphology of these languages.
O n e ' s point of v i e w on this matter will be dictated in part by o n e ' s ap-

proach to universality. If one assumes a Strong Uniformity Hypothesis
(Thrainsson 1996: 255), one must assure that "all clauses in all languages
have the same set of functional categories and [that] their sequence (c-
c o m m a n d relation) is u n i f o r m . " This is the view advocated in Cinque
(1999). A Weak(er) Uniformity Hypothesis entails that not all functional
categories need be present in all languages; however, " f o r any functional
categories F; and Fj the sequence will be u n i f o r m whenever they occur"
(Thrainsson 1996: 255). This is the view hinted at in Äfarli (1995) although
the author is not strongly committed to it. Finally, one m a y assume that
variation is possible, not only in the inventory of functional categories
(FCs), but also with regard to the c - c o m m a n d relations b e t w e e n them. This
is The Limited Diversity Hypothesis (Thrainsson 1996: 257):
The Limited Diversity Hypothesis (LDH): Clausal Architecture is deter-

mined by UG in the sense that UG defines the set of functional categories,
(F|, F 2 ..., F„}, that languages "select" from. Cross-linguistic and intra-
linguistic variations are limited to the following:
a. It is not the case that all FCs are instantiated in all languages.
b. The FCs selected by a given language may not be present in all clause
types of that language.
c. The sequence (c-command relations) of those functional categories

(dominance relations between the functional projections) that are di-
rectly related to morphological distinctions may vary from language to
language, consistent with the Mirror Principle.
As mentioned above, C i n q u e ' s (1999) seminal work advocates the Strong

Uniformity Hypothesis and assumes a universal ordering of functional
categories. Contrary to "most syntacticians working on Germanic lan-
g u a g e s " (Thrainsson 1996: 262), Cinque claims that modals and the perfect
could be seen as mood (i.e. non-root modality) and aspect markers in Ger-
manic languages on a par with TMA markers in creole languages. How-
ever, Cinque's views on this matter have a predecessor in Äfarli (1995),
who tries to align the modal and aspectual auxiliaries of Germanic lan-
guages with the tense-mood-aspect (TMA) particles in Creoles.
Äfarli suggests that there is evidence for the functional categories tense,
mood, and aspect in Norwegian, just like in creole languages. Whereas in
creole languages these categories are expressed by designated preverbal
markers, Norwegian mood and aspect operators are expressed by modal
and aspectual auxiliaries. One difference between Norwegian and the creole
languages under discussion is that in Norwegian, tense is a covert, abstract
functional operator assigning a tense feature to a mood operator or an as-
pectual operator in its domain; Äfarli (1995: 146):
If we assume that tense can in fact be assigned to the overt mood operator,
we get an overt mood operator with a tense affix. In other words, we get
what is usually called a modal auxiliary verb.
Tense in Norwegian is assigned to and expressed by an affix on the top-
most verbal category, whether this is a main verb, a modal auxiliary (i.e. a
mood operator), or an aspectual auxiliary (i.e. an aspectual operator). In
creole languages, mood and aspect particles do not have a tense affix; in-
stead, tense is expressed by a designated free-standing particle scoping over
the entire proposition. Äfarli is not strongly committed to a Uniformity
Hypothesis though he does suggest that tense scopes over mood: 17
[T]he order of functional projections is such that the covert tense [operator]
c-commands the overt auxiliary verb.... Laka (1990) independently argues
that tense is the highest functional projection. This is compatible with the
observation made in Muysken (1981) that the normal order of functional
particles in Creole languages is tense, mood, and aspect, (fn. 5).
Although Bybee (1985) and Bickerton (1981, 1984) arrive at different uni-
versal relative orderings for mood and tense markers, a discrepancy that
Bybee (1985) explains by assuming two different modalities (like Cinque
1999), they agree that mood and modality universally scope over aspect.
According to both proposals, aspect markers always occur closer to the
verb (stem) than any type of modality. Under both the strong and the weak
uniformity hypotheses, we would not expect to find an aspectual operator
17
Äfarli also claims that evidence for a proposed functional category must be
found in each language and for each clause type, see Iatridou (1990a).
322 Nonvegian modals, aspect and tense
scoping over modality in any language. However, although we regularly

find the sequence modal-aspect, as in (21a) where the modal is ambiguous
between a root and a non-root reading, aspectual auxiliaries regularly occur
with modal auxiliaries as complements in Norwegian and other Germanic
languages (except English). In (21b), ha precedes a root modal and in (21c)
a non-root modal. In addition, we find examples of non-root modal > as-
pectual > root modal sequences, as in (2Id), and even two (or more) occur-
rences of aspectuals in the same sentence, as in (21e). The latter pattern is
admittedly marginal in Norwegian, but evidently sounds less marginal in
Swedish. (2If) is from Wiklund (1998: 18); including the aspectual is pos-
sible, but not obligatory in each and all positions indicated.
(21) a. Pakken mä ha ankommet pä fredag.

parcelDEF must have arrived on Friday
'The parcel must have arrived by/on Friday.'
b. Han hadde ikke kunnet komme fer.

he had not canPERF arrive earlier
'He hadn't been able to arrive earlier.'
c. Han har mätta arbeidd med det i heile natt.

he has mustPERF workPERF on it in all night
'He must have worked on it all night through.'
d. De kan ha mattet stoppe pä veien hit.

they may have mustPERF stop on wayDEF here
'They may have had to stop on their way here.'
e. ?Jeg skulle gjerne ha kunnet ha kommet f0r.

I should gladly have canPERF have comePERF earlier
Ί should gladly have been able to have arrived earlier.'
f. Jag skulle (ha) velat (ha) kunnat

I shouldPAST have wantPERF have canPERF
(ha) äkt skidor pä fredag.
have goPERF skis on Friday
Ί would have liked to be able to go skiing on Friday.'

As these data show, ha sometimes follows both non-root and root modality
(21a); in other cases, it is sandwiched between non-root and root modality
(2Id), (21e), and (2If). Sometimes it precedes not only root modality, (21b)
and (2Id), but non-root modality as well (21c). Thus, assuming that ha
marks the same category in all cases, we need a hypothesis at least as flexi-
ble as the Limited Diversity Hypothesis (LDH) to account for these word
order facts. LDH allows us to assume that different languages allow for
different orders of TMA markers because these markers are directly related
to morphosyntactic distinctions. However, the LDH does not help us re-
solve the issue of different possible orderings of TMA markers within one
language. Thräinsson (1996: 257) emphasizes that
it follows from... the Mirror Principle that the sequence of any two func-
tional categories that are directly related to morphological distinctions is
uniform for all clause types within each language, as long as the order of
morphological markers... does not vary in the language in question.
Thräinsson adds (fn. 4) that he does not know of any languages where the
order of (morphological) markers varies in this sense; yet, to maintain the
hypothesis that aspectual auxiliaries always instantiate the same type of
aspect operators, we would have to assume that Norwegian is such a lan-
guage. If the surface order of auxiliaries reflects the underlying order (a
question I discuss more thoroughly in section 4.4), we need to assume that
the dominance relations between certain functional projections in Norwe-
gian may vary from one sentence to another.
One alternative is to suggest that ha marks several different types of as-
pect categories, which would not be unprecedented. Cinque (1999) assumes
a range of aspect categories to be accessible in the universal functional
hierarchy, and one and the same form is regularly employed to fill several
different projections, for any type of functional domain. This is not only a
theoretical device; cross-linguistically functional elements are typically
multifunctional. Baptista (1997: 106), for instance, claims the TMA particle
ta in Capverdean Creole to be a multifunctional item with a range of differ-
ent meanings and functions: "Ta\ conveys futurity whereas /«2 expresses
purpose and continuation and ta3 may be closer to an infinitive marker like
English to." In addition, ta functions as a mood marker.
If we were to assume something along these lines for ha in Norwegian,
a major issue is that ha conveys the same meaning, performs the same task,
and has the same semantics in all positions. There is no semantic difference
between the three occurrences of ha in (2If). Likewise, ha does the same
semantic j o b regardless of whether it modifies (and scopes over) a main

verb or a modal. It seems that ha marks some kind of recursive category at
least in Norwegian and Swedish. This, I believe, is one crucial distinction
between ha and aspectual TMA markers in Creoles. The aspectual ha 'have'
will be a recurring topic in later sections.
4.3. Modal-aspectual sequences in other languages
It is widely assumed in the literature on modality in Germanic languages

that modals denoting non-root modality obligatorily precede any aspectual
in the sentence. This claim is made by van Gelderen (2003, 2004) for Eng-
lish, by Wurmbrand (2001) for German, by Picallo (1990) for Catalan, by
Barbiers (1995) for Dutch, and by Dyvik (1999) for Norwegian. It entails
that when a modal follows an aspectual (which is not possible in English,
except for semi-modals like have to), the modal is necessarily a root modal.
Very often, this assumption is accompanied by the claim that a root modal
cannot precede an aspectual auxiliary. 18 We already know the latter claim to
be inaccurate (cf. e.g. the data in (12) and (15) and the discussion of van
Gelderen's (2003) proposal above), and we will also need to modify the
first of these assumptions; however, we allow both assumptions here for the
sake of exposition. We can depict this generalization as in Figure 10, where
M o d i is the designated functional head of non-root modalities and Mod2 is
the corresponding head position for root modalities. 19
18
Barbiers (1995: 197, fn. 41): "The order MOD AUX can also have a polarity
[i.e. root] interpretation.... 1 leave this for further research." The sequence [Have-
Mod] though always yields a root reading of the modal, according to Barbiers.
19
Palmer (1986: 19): "There is... a distinction in Modern Greek. Here, the same
verb (BORO) is used in both senses, but in the epistemic sense the 'impersonal'
(3rd person singular) form is found, with no agreement with the subject, while in
the deontic and dynamic senses fully inflected forms, with agreement, are used."
One might imagine that this variation is due to the different properties of the two
heads Modi and Mod2 and that Modi never interacts with AGR(eement), but
Mod2 does. Since the analysis depicted in Figure 10 cannot be upheld, the restric-
tion must lie with the categories themselves: non-root modals, unlike root modals,
are specified in the lexicon as being unable to interact with AGR.
Figure 10
Modi
Non-root As]
modal aspectual
Mod2
Root modal
a. mä ha kunnet spille piano

must have canPERF play piano
'must have been able to play the piano'
b. kan ha mattet spille piano

can have mustPERF play the piano
'may have had to play the piano'
Dyvik (1999: 5) illustrates this generalization with the data in (22), where
(22a) yields non-root and (22b) root readings:
(22) a. Han vil/kan/mä/skal ha dreiet händtaket.

he will/can/must/shall have turned leverDEF
'He will/may/must/is said to have turned the lever.'
b. Han har villet/kunnet/mättet/skullet dreie händtaket.

he has [want-to/can/must/shall]PERF turn leverDEF
'He has wanted/been able/obliged to turn the lever.'
Wurmbrand (2001) provides the following data for German and notes that
the epistemic reading is favored, but not forced, in (23a):
(23) a. Moel muß die Oliven gegessen haben.

Moel must the olives eaten have
'Moel must have eaten the olives.'
20
Van Gelderen (2003: 30, fn. 3) notes that Abraham (1999[2002]) argues for this
type of structure and she agrees that this may be a viable analysis for German and
Dutch, though she assumes a different structure for English (cf. fig. 7 and 8
above).
b. Sue hat zu hause arbeiten müssen.

Sue has at home work must(IPP)
'Sue (has) had an obligation to work at home.'
Picallo (1990: 293) observes the same phenomenon in Catalan, and uses
these data to support the claim that epistemic modals are constituents of
TNFL, while root modals are adjuncts of VP.
(24) a. En Joan pot haver anat a Banyoles.

'Joan may have gone to Banyoles.'
b. En Joan ha pogut anar a Banyoles.

has could go
'Joan has been allowed to go to Banyoles.'
The same pattern seemingly exists in English, except that embedded mo-
dals have to be substituted by the semi-modal have to: (25a) is from van
Gelderen (2003: 32) and (25b) from Quirk et al. (1985: 145).
(25) a. He must have read that letter.

b. The administration has had to make unpopular decisions.
Barbiers (1995: 197) illustrates the same generalization for Dutch, using the
data in (26).
(26) a. Jan moet zijn kamer gisteren hebben opgeruimd.

John must his room yesterday have cleaned
'John must have cleaned his room yesterday.'
b. Jan heejt de hele dag aardig moeten zijn.

John has the whole day kind must be
'John (has) had to be kind all day.'
So far the same claim has been made for five different languages: a modal
preceding a perfect auxiliary gets a non-root reading, a modal following a
perfect auxiliary gets a root reading.
There are, however, data that pose serious problems for an analysis like
the one depicted in Figure 10. We already know that the sequence modal >
aspectual may give rise to a root reading of the modal, in addition to the
expected non-root reading. I provided examples from Norwegian, Dutch

and English in section 3.2 of this chapter, and I repeat those data here.
(27) a. Pasienten mä ha blitt feilbehandlet for ä fa erstatning.

patientDEF must have been wrong-treated for to get
compensation
'The patient must have been subject to malpractice

in order to get compensation.'
b. Du skal ha gjort ferdig leksene dine ferst.

you shall have done finished homework yours first
'You must have finished your homework first.'
c. Paris er en av de stedene man bare mä ha vcert.

d. Jan moet morgen zijn kamer opgeruimd hebben.

John must tomorrow his room cleaned have
'John must have cleaned his room (by) tomorrow.'
e. Students must have taken calculus

In addition, according to the generalizations proposed by Dyvik, Picallo,

Barbiers, Wurmbrand and many others, and depicted in Figure 10, a modal
auxiliary following an aspectual auxiliary has only a root reading. While
this generalization holds for the two standard Norwegian dialects (Bokmäl21
and Nynorsk), it does not hold for non-standard dialects spoken in western
and northern parts of Norway, where the non-root reading is available even
for a modal embedded under an aspectual, as in (28a), (28b), and (28c).

he has mustPERF workPERF on it in all night
'He must have worked on it all night through.'
21
One informant claims the structure in (28) exists in dialects closer to Bokmäl.
b. Han har skulla vorre en sjarm0r i sine yngre daga.

he has shallPERF bePERF a charmer in his younger days
'He is supposed to have been a charmer in his youth.'
c. Hu har kunna vorre her ogforre igjen.

she has canPERF bePERF here and leavePERF again
'She may have been here and left again.'
Vikner (1988) provides Danish examples, taken from Davidsen-Nielsen

(1988), illustrating non-root readings of modals in the perfect: (29a) and
(29b); (29c) and (29d) are data from the Finnish-Swedish dialect Solv. 22
(29) a. IDer har mäske nok kunnet vcere tale om en feil.

there has maybe probably could be talk about a mistake
'It might have been a mistake.'
b. ΊΗαη har skullet bo i Arhus.

he has should live in Ärhus
'He is supposed to have lived in Ärhus.'
c. An a noo mätta/mästa arbet me e hejla natten.

he has probably mustPERF work with it all nightDEF
'He must have worked on it all night.'
d. On a noo kona varijeer ä fori pä nytt.

she has probably could been here and left again
'She may have been here and left again.'
Mainland Scandinavian dialects are not the only ones that allow this type of
construction, however: (30a) and (30b) are Dutch examples from Boogaart
(2005), (30c) is a German sentence from Fagan (2001), 23 and (30d) is a
Spanish example from Stowell (2004). All allow for non-root readings
(some of them in addition to root readings).
22
These data were kindly provided by Professor Jan-Ola Östman, Helsinki.
23
To avoid misrepresenting Fagan (2001), I will note that she observes a differ-
ence between evidential sollen and wollen on the one hand and epistemic modals
like können and müssen on the other. The latter, she claims, cannot occur in the
perfect.
(30) a. ...hoe onzeker Beethoven geweest heft moeten zijn.

how insecure Beethoven been has must be
'...how insecure Beethoven must have been.'
b. ...dat het vertoon van strijdmachten de aanzeet heeft

that the display of armed forces the beginning has
kunnen zijn voor de recente verandering...
couldINF be for the recent change
'...that the display of armed forces may have been

the trigger for the recent change...'
c. Er hat krank sein sollen.

he has sick be shall
'They claimed that he was sick.'
d. El ladron ha podido entrar por la ventana.

the thief has canPERF enter through the window
'The thief may have entered through the window.'
So far we have proven that a root modal preceding an aspectual may have a
root reading in addition to the expected non-root reading, as the data in (27)
show. Also, a modal following an aspectual auxiliary may have a non-root
reading in addition to the expected root reading, not only in Norwegian
dialects, as in (28), but also in other Mainland Scandinavian languages
(29), other Germanic languages (30a), (30b), and (30c), and even in Ro-
mance languages (30d). This means that the analysis presented in Figure 10
not only fails to account for the fact that root modals may take perfect
complements, but it also fails to account for the fact that many languages
allow a non-root (epistemic and/or evidential) modal to follow an aspectual
auxiliary.
4.4. Universalist approaches and the modal-tense-aspectuals data
In this section, I discuss some issues with applying universalist approaches

such as Bickerton's, Bybee's or Cinque's hierarchy to Norwegian modals
and aspectuals. One major issue is that we regularly find sequences and
morpheme orders that ought to be ruled out by (any strong version of) the
hypothesis of a rigid syntactic hierarchy.
Cinque (1999: 87) admittedly suggests that the hierarchy he proposes
encodes scope relations existing in the representation before (head) move-
ment or after reconstruction. This allows for substantial LF-restructuring of
overt markers, aligning them with the universal hierarchy. In this
interpretation, the Cinque hierarchy is an LF-representation, and the overtly
realized sequence of markers is of less importance to scope relations. At
best, we might expect to find a universal tendency towards overt sequences
that correspond to the universal LF-hierarchy. However, when Cinque dis-
cusses the hierarchy, he illustrates the proposed sub-sequences with overt
markers in various languages, which suggests to the reader that there ought
to be a strong correspondence between the sequence of overt markers and
the universal hierarchy.
Faced with data that disprove such a correspondence, authors have pro-
posed various procedures and mechanisms for explaining 'scope-reversal'
facts. Invoking the autonomy of syntax is one legitimate practice: the re-
quirements of syntax force the presence and sequence of certain markers
not dictated by the primitives of the semantic component (cf. Hornstein
1990: 5). Also, the view that some formal features of languages are in fact
purely ornamental is widely accepted (McWhorter 2005: 315). 24
In what follows, we first investigate some modals-aspectuals data; then,
we briefly examine the mechanisms needed to associate and dissociate mo-
dals and tense. Lastly, we study some modal + modal data. The conclusion
is that the discrepancies between the overtly manifested orders and the pro-
posed universal syntactic hierarchies require many patch-up mechanisms,
sometimes to the extent that little is gained by assuming (a strong version
of) a rigid syntactic ordering such as a full-blown Cinque hierarchy. These
issues emphasize the need for a different approach, one based on semantic
compositional principles instead of a rigid syntactic hierarchy.
24
McWhorter (2005) suggests that inflectional affixes do not necessarily serve any
functional purpose (315): "They are, in Lass's (1997: 13) terms, 'linguistic male
nipples'."
4.4.1. Modals and the perfect
A conclusion to be drawn from the previous two sections is that, contrary to

the claim of Afarli (1995), Norwegian aspectuals cannot easily be accom-
modated in a universalist approach along the lines of Bickerton (1981,
1984), Bybee (1985) and Muysken (1981). If Norwegian aspectuals are
aspect heads resembling the creole preverbal aspect markers, we must ex-
plain why they do not obey the alleged universal rigid order modality >
aspect (where aspect is closer to the verb stem than any type of modality)
as well as why multiple occurrences of an aspectual in what appears to be
the same clause are possible; see (21e) and (2If). The latter fact is particu-
larly troubling if one adheres to the exclusiveness of grammatical catego-
ries noted in Bybee (1985: 191):
The notion of grammatical category is central to all modern linguistics, and
has developed over the years in the work of Boas, Whorf, Sapir, Jakobson,
Bienveniste, Kurylowicz and many others. The basic idea is that sets of
conceptually-related morphemes contrast with one another, in the sense that
the presence of one excludes the presence of another.
It seems that in (many dialects of) Mainland Scandinavian any verb in a

sentence can project an aspectual on top of it, whether it is a main verb, a
passive auxiliary, a root modal, or a non-root modal. Also, as shown in
section 4.3, the possibility to project an aspectual on top of a non-root mo-
dal is by no means limited to Mainland Scandinavian dialects; this needs to
be accounted for in any universalist analysis.
Cinque (1999) advocates a more flexible approach than Bickerton
(1981, 1984), Bybee (1985) and Muysken (1981) although he too proposes
a rigid universal ordering of functional categories qua functional heads.
Cinque, however, proposes a vast number of functional projections, allow-
ing for a number of different Asp heads, some of which scope over certain
modality heads. Also, since root modality scopes over certain other Asp
heads, this proposal might, at least in theory, account for the fact that a root
modal may either precede or follow an aspectual (recall also that Cinque
allows for LF-restructuring of overt markers). In addition, the proposal
might provide the number of functional heads necessary to account for the
fact that there may be more than one perfect auxiliary, more than one per-
fect construction in (what appears to be) the same clause. Cinque's (Cinque
1999: 106) hierarchy is presented in Figure 11.
Figure 11
The universal hierarchy of clausal functional projections (2nd approach)
[>a«WjMood speech aot [/ortMraate/_yMoodevaiuative [ allegedly Moodevidentai

[probably Moodepistemjc [ once T(Past) [ //je/iT(Future) [perhaps Moodirreai,s
[ necessarily Modnecessity {possibly Modpossibiiity [usually Asphabituai
[ again Asprepetitive (i) [ often AspfrequentatiVe (i) [ intentionally Modvoiltlona|
[ quickly Aspceieratlve a ) [ already T(Anterior) [ no longer Asptermmative
[ still Asp contmuatlve [ always AsppelfeCt(?) [just Aspretrospectlve [ soon Asp proximative
[ briefly Aspdurative [ characteristically{?) Aspgenenc/progressive [ almost Aspprospectlve
[ completetly AspSgcompietive (i) [ tutto Asppicompiefve [ well Voice [ fast/early
Aspce|eratIVe(ii) [ again Asprepetitive (II) [ often Aspfrequentative(ii) [completetly
AspsgCompletive(II)
The topmost root modality category in this hierarchy is the Modvo|jtlonai head
since the relative ordering of modality heads is Modepistemic > Modn(.cesslly >
ModpOSSibihty > Modvoiition > Mod0biigation > Modabiiity/permiSsion, and the Mod neces .
sity and ModpOSSibiiity heads are alethic modality heads (Cinque 1999: 81).
Root modality hence scopes over Asp heads such as perfect; we can thus
account for the fact that we find root modals with perfect complements. 25
Likewise, non-root modality (evidential and epistemic) scopes over any
type of aspect; this allows us to account for the fact that we find non-root
modals with perfect complements. Deriving the sequence aspectual-
modality is more difficult for non-root modality since no Asp or T(ense)
head scopes over these modalities. Assume that the aspectual ha can realize
or occupy a T(ense) past head, whereas the participle marking of the perfect
construction must occupy some Asp head. This Asp head ought to scope
over the root modality head so the modal can move and adjoin to the Asp
head, checking its features. However, in my view, none of the three Asp
heads scoping over root modality in Cinque's hierarchy (habitual, repeti-
tive, frequentative) is semantically a plausible candidate to host the past
participle marking. As mentioned above, no Asp or Tense head scopes over
epistemic or evidential modality; hence we would not expect to find aspec-
tuals preceding a non-root modal in any language.
Of course, one could always claim that any aspectual > modal structure
is not mono-clausal, but biclausal. This doubles the inventory of functional
heads theoretically available to us, which greatly increases the number of
possible word orders. However, this makes universalist proposals much less
25
Although on p. 76 it is suggested that perfect aspect scopes over root modality.
appealing. Cinque (1999) already proposes a large number of functional

projections: it seems counterproductive to assume seventy to a hundred
functional projections to account for the fact that aspectuals precede root
and non-root modality in certain languages. Moreover, it is rather unusual
to assume that an aspectual auxiliary can be the main predicate of a(n em-
bedding) clause, which would force us to redefine the notion of a clause.
A different solution is suggested by Vikner (1988: 6), who explains why
the perfect of a non-root modal, surprisingly, is "not completely unaccept-
able" (these data were also given as (29a) and (29b) above).
(31) a. IDer har mäske nok kunnet voere tale om en feil.

there has maybe probably could be talk about a mistake
b. ΊΗαη har skullet bo i Arhus.

he has should live in Ärhus
Vikner (1988: 7) argues that this is an instance of "misplaced tense"; se-

mantically the perfect belongs to the main verb, not the modal, and the
relative semantic scope of the perfect and the modal is the same as in a
corresponding sentence with a modal + perfect structure.
(32) a. Der kan mäske nok have veer et tale om en feil.

there may maybe probably have been talk about a mistake
b. Han skal have boet i Arhus.

he shall have lived in Ärhus
This is also the view adopted in Stowell (2004) who suggests that the non-
root modal moves, at LF, to a position above that of the perfect, which al-
lows the modal to scope over the perfect in semantic representation. An
aspectual can thus only apparently scope over a non-root modal. The under-
lying order of semantic operators still follows the Cinque hierarchy;
according to this proposal, restructuring at LF produces the right order.
There is one quite striking but to my knowledge ignored fact that sup-
ports this kind of analysis of the present perfect of non-root modals. A pre-
sent perfect of a modal is in principle ambiguous between a root and a non-

root reading, at least in many Norwegian dialects, as in (33a). However, if
we add a punctual adverbial to the construction, the construction is no
longer ambiguous, as (33b) shows. 26 Only the non-root reading of the mo-
dal seems possible on the punctual reading of the adverbial. 27
(33) a. Huhar mätta ete.

she has mustPERF eatPERF
'She must have eaten/She has had to eat.'
b. Hu har mätta ete klokka to.

she has mustPERF eatPERF clock two
'She must have eaten at two/*She has had to eat at two.'
This pattern suggests that the present perfect of the non-root modal is in
fact not semantically a present perfect since the present perfect has a strong
restriction against co-occurring with a punctual adverbial. Crucially, we do
not find this restriction with the present perfect of a non-root modal. In-
stead, the present perfect of a non-root modal behaves in this respect ex-
actly like a construction where the modal scopes over a present perfect (cf.
section 5.3 for a more detailed description of this effect); it seems that a
scope-reversal analysis, such as that of Vikner (1988) or Stowell (2004), is
needed to account for this fact.
4.4.2. Modals and tense
Cinque (1999) argues that epistemic and evidential modals are universally
high in the functional structure; they occupy two of the highest projections.
Tense projections are lower than epistemic and evidential modality, but
higher than root modality. Cinque supports his assumptions primarily with
data manifesting this relative order in visible morphemes and syntactic
markers. According to analyses by Stowell (2004) and Bartos (2000), how-
ever, the order of visible morphemes is not critical to deriving the semantic
26
According to my own grammatically judgments. Thanks to Björn Lundquist in
Troms0 for inquiring about these issues and thereby bringing them to my attention.
27
Note that on a habitual reading of the adverbial even the root interpretation is
grammatical. Habitual adverbials are typically possible with the present perfect.
scope of the operators of tense and modality. Discrepancies between mor-

pheme orders and the Cinque hierarchy are straightforwardly resolved by
allowing for substantial restructuring at LF.
Stowell (2004: 631) assumes the usual once-and-for-all relative ordering
of modals and tense in Cinque's hierarchy. Epistemic modals (semanti-
cally) scope over tense and tense scopes over root modals, regardless of the
morpheme order in any given sentence.
Modepistemic > Tense > ModRoot
Finite tenses are not the only ones that may instantiate tense heads; the past
participle suffix may originate in the head position of a tense phrase TP. A
root modal moves from below this suffix and undergoes head movement to
combine with the suffix. An epistemic modal originates in the higher modal
position above the suffix; in this case, the suffix undergoes head movement
to the epistemic projection to combine with the modal. This is paralleled by
other scope-reversal constructions, where the reversed scopes are those of a
modal and a finite past tense; Stowell (2004: 626):
(34) a. There had to be at least a hundred people there.

'There must have been at least a hundred people there.'
One premise of the analysis of this sentence is reminiscent of an idea advo-

cated by Hornstein (1990: 36)—that the sequence modal + have is in fact
the past tense of a modal. The aspectual have, denoting past, overtly fol-
lows the modal in a must have sequence, displaying the natural way to in-
stantiate the relative order of non-root modality and tense. The sequence
had to be in (34) is assumed to overtly instantiate the order [past < non-root
modality]; as this is the wrong relative order of non-root modality and
tense, a scope-reversal procedure must override the overt marking and re-
store it to the order corresponding to the sequence must have (see Stowell's
'translation' of (34)). Tense marking of modals is thus not necessarily com-
positional, according to these proposals. Instead, Hornstein (1990: 5)
suggests that "natural-language grammars do not go directly from tense
morphemes to temporal interpretation." The syntax of tense is autonomous,
with principles "not definable in terms of semantic notions relating to the
temporal interpretation of the sentence;" bridge principles are needed any-
way to bridge the gap between the syntax and the interpretation of tenses.
Bartos (2000), addressing similar scope-reversal data in Hungarian, ad-

vocates a slightly different analysis.
(35) a. Vär-hat-t-ak.
wait-poss-past-3pl
I. 'They were allowed to wait.' Τ Past > Mod Poss
II. 'They may (possibly) have waited.' Mod Poss > Τ Past
While Bartos assumes restructuring principles rearranging the functional

categories at LF to fit the universal relative ordering, he assumes restructur-
ing by means of a "proxy" head, an empty head of a functional projection
available as an adjunction site for tense and modality affixes base generated
in a lower position. This adjunction to a proxy head allows a category to
scope over another category at LF, i.e. the scope relations in overt syntax
may be inverted by means of this proxy head. Bartos notes (fn. 4) that
scope inversion in (35) is accompanied by a switch in modality from root
(I) to non-root (II). He speculates that the two modalities might be repre-
sented in the syntax by two different projections embracing the projection
of tense, an approach compatible with Cinque's hierarchy and Stowell
(2004).
However, Bartos points out an issue with this type of an approach. As
always, the analysis must face the "crucial problem of deriving the identical
morpheme orders" (Bartos 2000: 18, fn. 4). The relative order of affixes
does not change, and the same morpheme order gives rise to both root and
non-root interpretations of the modal in Hungarian, just like the sequence
aspectual > modal may give rise to a root or a non-root reading in many
languages (cf. the data in section 4.3).
We face a related problem with simple tenses and modals in Germanic.
A present tense modal has a tense affix independent of its reading as a non-
root or root modal. However, according to the proposals mentioned in this
section, the present tense morpheme is useless to a non-root modal; non-
root modality is beyond the influence of tense. A present tense affix on a
non-root modal does not receive a semantic temporal interpretation and is
in a sense 'cancelled' at LF. Similarly, an epistemic modal with a past tense
affix does not encode past modality, according to Stowell (2004: 626); cf.
the English example in (34). This is another case of misplaced tense, where
the past tense marking belongs to the main predicate.
In contrast, Boogaart (2005) argues that Dutch epistemic modals are in
fact sensitive to tense distinctions; Fagan (2001), following Iatridou
(1990b), assumes that evidential predicates, such as German evidential

modals, have a time variable. Stowell (2004), like Condoravdi (2002), as-
sumes that metaphysical modals such as could and might can express tem-
poral distinctions. If these proposals are correct, it would be wrong to claim
that any type of non-root modal is "outside the scope of absolute tense al-
together" (Cinque 1999: 79). I revisit this issue in section 7.
4.4.3. The positions of modals
Another discrepancy between word order and the Cinque hierarchy is noted
by Roberts and Roussou (2002: 20, fn.7), who adopt Cinque's hierarchy as
"the null hypothesis." The authors address the high position proposed for
epistemic and evidential modals, which seems counterintuitive for
Mainland Scandinavian languages:
It may seem strange to propose that epistemic modals in Danish occupy a
very high functional position like M o d E p j s t e m i c when the evidence is that all
verbs, including modals, occupy just two positions in this language: The V2
position (presumably C) and what appears to [be] the base V-Position (see
Vikner 1995 and the references given there). The problem really concerns
associating the epistemic interpretation with the low position.
As alluded to in this quote, Vikner (1995: 143 ff) provides evidence that
although main clauses in MSc display V2, I-to-C movement of the finite
verb, as in (36a), the finite verb in embedded clauses remains in situ, in its
base position in V, as in (36b).
(36) a. Jon kunne plutselig ha tatt boka.

Jon could suddenly have taken bookDEF
'Jon might suddenly have taken the book.'
b. Marit mistenkte [at Jon plutselig kunne ha tatt boka],

Marit suspected that Jon suddenly might have taken
bookDEF
'Marit suspected that Jon might suddenly have

taken the book.'
In the main clause in (36a), the finite epistemic modal moves past the ad-
verbial plutselig; in the embedded sentence in (36b), on the other hand, the
verb is considered to remain in situ. It is not easy to determine which of

Cinque's projections would be the most likely candidate to host an adver-
bial such as plutselig 'suddenly' in its specifier position; it seems likely that
it is an Asp head, perhaps the head that hosts quickly, A S P C E L E R A T I V E (please
consult Cinque's hierarchy as depicted in Figure 11).
The Asp heads are lower in the hierarchy than the designated position of
the epistemic modal. If the adverbial plutselig sits in the specifier of an
AspP, and the epistemic modal follows this adverbial, as in Norwegian
embedded sentences, the surface position of the epistemic modal must be
lower in the structure than any of the modal heads, not to mention the head
position of the designated functional projection of the epistemic modal.
Roberts and Roussou (2002: 20) point out that this is a problem for MSc
languages, whether we assume Cinque's hierarchy or not.
This problem is just an instance of the general problem that arises in
Mainland Scandinavian languages... of associating functional information
(at the very least Tense) with the in-situ verb, and as such is not created by
assuming the Cinque hierarchy. Whatever the technical device we postulate
to associate tense with the in-situ verb (affix-hopping, chain-formation, LF-
movement, etc.) can be exploited to associate an epistemic modal with its
functional position.
Van Gelderen (2003: 31) notes that since epistemic modals precede and
root modals follow irrealis modality in Cinque's hierarchy, this would pre-
dict a tendency for an epistemic modal to be followed by an irrealis or pos-
sibility adverb; a deontic modal ought to follow such an adverb. However,
van Gelderen's investigations of two corpora (the 100 million word BNC
and the 2 million American Athelstan) show that there is in fact no differ-
ence between the two types of modals. Instead, both are typically followed
by the adverb. Cinque does seem to claim (p. 87) that all modals of all
types end up in T, van Gelderen says, "but that takes the sting out of the
proposal."
Since Picallo (1984), many proposals have assumed root modals to be
lower in the sentence structure than non-root modals. This assumption is
also adopted in the Cinque hierarchy. A prediction of many of these analy-
ses (which assume only one position for non-root and one position for root
modals) is that in double modal constructions the first modal gets an epis-
temic reading and the second one a root reading. This prediction is by and
large borne out, but there are exceptions, at least in Norwegian. In certain
sequences of two modals, both may get a non-root reading, especially if the
second one is kunne 'can, may' (cf. Vikner 1988: 9-10 and Thräinsson and
Vikner 1995: 76); this is most clearly the case before the perfect auxiliary
ha (the sentence is from Dyvik 1999).
(37) a. Han vil kunne ha reist i morgen.

he will may have traveled tomorrow
'Tomorrow it will be the case that he may have left.'
In Cinque's account, the modal ville would be assumed to instantiate the

head T(future); hence, ville would probably not be counted as a (proper)
modal, 28 whereas kunne is an example of "alethic" (possibility) modality,
which can be affected by tense. Condoravdi (2002) and Stowell (2004)
refer to this modality as metaphysical modality and agree that this is one of
the (non-root) modalities that do in fact scope under tense.
However, it is also possible to get what is indisputably a root reading of
both modals in a modal + modal sequence in Norwegian.
(38) a. Det er absurd at vi skal matte gä til domstolen

It is absurd that we shall must go to courtDEF
med disse sp0rsmälene.
with these questions
'It is absurd that we are supposed to have to go to court

with these questions.'
b. Jenter bürde mätte ta en pr0ve fßr de gär ut med deg.

girls should have to take a test before they go out with you
'Girls should have to take a test before dating you.'
This fact is harder to explain in the Cinque hierarchy since the modals in
both sentences seem to qualify as Mod 0 bii g ation in Cinque's terms, and there
is only one head for modality of obligation.
Thräinsson and Vikner (1995: 78) correctly observe that a monosenten-
tial structure containing a sequence of two modals where a root modal
28
However, we could replace vil in (37) with the evidential modal skal 'is sup-
posed to' and still get a grammatical sentence. In that case, we would have a se-
quence of two non-root modals, which would also be allowed by the Cinque hier-
archy since evidential modality skulle scopes over "alethic" modality kunne.
scopes over a non-root modal is impossible. They ascribe this effect to the
different argument-taking properties of root and non-root modals.
Since epistemic modals predicate of a whole proposition whereas root mo-
dals predicate of one of the arguments (typically the subject) of a proposi-
tion, we would not expect root modals to be able to take scope over epis-
temic modals.
Thräinsson and Vikner assume that root modals always assign a(n addi-
tional) theta-role, whereas epistemic modals assign no theta-role. As dis-
cussed in Chapter 4, root modals may have proposition scope readings
where they do not assign a theta-role to the subject, just like non-root mo-
dals. It seems that even in a sequence of two root modals, a proposition-
scope modal scopes over a subject-oriented modal, never the other way
around. The argument-taking properties of modals are hence seemingly
important for explaining the fact that a non-root modal always scopes over
a root modal. However, they cannot explain why a root modal with a
proposition-scope reading cannot scope over a non-root modal, which
ought to be possible, given that neither assigns a Theta-role. Instead, this is
one effect that seemingly ought to be ascribed to a rigid ordering of func-
tional projections, reflecting a universal ordering of semantic operators,
guided by a Semantic Transparency principle. Of course, this is a stipula-
tion, but it does capture what seems a robust pattern.
To summarize the discussion in section 4.4, what is implied by the pro-
posals of Vikner (1988), Stowell (2004), Roberts and Roussou (2002,
2003) and Bartos (2000) is that although non-root modals such as epis-
temics and evidentials may surface as subordinate to tense and aspectuals,
logically and interpretationally they scope over tense and aspectuals.
Hence, the overt sequence of morphological markers is undone at LF, ad-
hering to a universal hierarchy where non-root modals "are outside the
scope of absolute tense altogether" (Cinque 1999: 79). To maintain the
hierarchy, we need to allow for substantial LF rearranging and scope rever-
sal procedures in spite of the many projections at our disposal.
For instance, we need to allow for LF-movement of an epistemic or evi-
dential modal surfacing "too low" in a structure—in subordinate clauses in
Mainland Scandinavian or when the non-root modal is preceded by an as-
pectual. We need to allow for a great number of non-compositional tense
constructions, e.g. Hornstein's (1990: 31) claim that must have is the "regu-
lar" past tense of the modal. We need to stipulate why the order aspectual >
modal sometimes yields a root reading and sometimes a non-root reading of
the modal and why the default (i.e. root) interpretation sometimes gets can-
celled. This begs the question of what it takes to force an LF scope reversal
movement and how we can predict it. We need similar stipulations for the
sequence modal > aspectual, which displays the same type of ambiguity,
with the non-root reading as the default. Moreover, a past marking on a
modal is sometimes interpreted and sometimes 'cancelled' at LF, and a
present marking on a non-root modal is always assumed to be pleonastic. In
sum, whatever overt sequences might arise, it can seemingly be explained
by means of a range of LF procedures that resolve the lack of correspon-
dence between overt syntactic sequences of markers and the proposed LF
hierarchy.
One serious problem with these analyses is that the arguments utilized
come (almost) exclusively from recalcitrant and subtle intuitions about
relative semantic scopes of syntactic operators. This is not necessarily a
problem for an analysis aspiring to be semantically based. However, the
analyses discussed in this section adhere to the autonomy of syntax; in this
type of analysis, utilizing solely intuitions about semantics and interpreta-
tion is considered theoretically inadequate. Hornstein (1990: 5) states that
I would argue that the substitution of syntactic notions and methods for se-
mantic ones has been one of the major factors in the success of the genera-
tive program. This, of course, is not to say that issues of semantic interpre-
tations are unimportant, or that the interpretative properties of sentences is
an improper topic of study. However, the syntactic turn within grammatical
theory has tended to emphasize two oft-neglected facts: semantic notions
are terribly obscure, and theories incorporating them often inherit this lack
of clarity; and there is a real cost to premature interpretation.
In what follows, I will explore a different line of analysis. Instead of assum-

ing that the temporal construals of modals are exclusively due to their pre-
determined positions relative to tense and aspectual heads in a universal
syntactic (LF) hierarchy, I argue that temporal construction in modal con-
structions is typically highly compositional and quite transparent for root
and non-root modals alike. Particularly enlightening are the data in (14),
section 3.2, repeated here as (39). In (39a), the non-root reading is more
natural; in (39b), the root reading is more natural; in (39c), the non-root
reading is the natural, perhaps the only reading.

Jon must have eaten
b. Jon mä ha spistf0r han kommer.

c. Jon mä ha spist for han kom.

In order to prove this compositionally determined temporal construal of

modal constructions, however, we need a truly compositional tense system.
That is what we turn to next.
5. A compositional tense system for Norwegian
In this section, I will take as my point of departure the approach of Julien

(2000a, 2001). I present some of her fundamental assumptions and the
workings of her model. In section 5.2,1 argue against some of Julien's as-
sumptions; I also adopt certain claims that, in my opinion, offer valuable
insights. Elaborating on these insights, I propose a system of Tense chains,
where each verb in a sentence is temporally ordered with respect to the c-
commanding verb or the speech event S and where each and every verb has
an inherent tense feature. I use this model to account for the default and
override effects in perfect constructions discussed in earlier sections.
5.1. Julien (2000a, 2001)
Julien (2000a, 2001) proposes a universal theory of tense in natural lan-

guage. One crucial assumption is that any clause contains two temporal
heads, past and future, T(past) scoping over T(future). Each head can each
have a positive or a negative value, where the positive value is spelled out
by a corresponding tense marker.
A compositional tense system for Norwegian 343
Figure 12
TP(past)
.JP(past)
Τ (Past) TP(Future)
[± PAST]
TP(Future)
T(Future) VP
[± FUT]
A positive value for T(past) combined with a negative value for T(future)
yields simple past. A positive value for T(future) combined with a negative
value for T(past) yields simple future. A negative value for both heads
yields present tense. It is also possible for both heads to have a positive
value; this results in "a future viewed from the past," as in the following
sentence (Julien 2000a: 130):
(40) a. She woul-d write.

FUT-PAST
In Julien's theory, there is a distinction in the universal tense system be-

tween finite and non-finite tenses (in the words of Comrie 1976, absolute
and relative tenses). Julien argues quite convincingly that the perfect, the
progressive, and the prospective should be viewed not as aspects, but as
non-fmite tenses: the perfect is a relative past, the progressive is a relative
present, 29 and the prospective is a relative future. The difference between
finite or absolute tenses and non-finite or relative tenses is that the latter are
unable to relate to the moment of utterance (or the speech event), whereas
the former typically do relate to it. Hence, non-finite tenses will always be
embedded under some other, finite verbal element, whereas finite tenses
occur as the highest tense element in a sentence functioning as a complete
utterance.
A third important assumption in Julien's theory is that tense elements
are dyadic predicates of temporal ordering. They are considered abstract
29
See also Demirdache and Uribe-Extebarria (2000), Comrie (1976), and Gueron
and Hoekstra (1995) for closely related ideas.
entities although they are phonologically realized by appropriate tense

markers 30 such as affixes or designated preverbal particles. The two argu-
ments of a tense element are both events,31 and each tense element specifies
a temporal relation between these two events. To exemplify, let Τ be a
tense element, hence a dyadic predicate, specifying a temporal relation
between its two arguments, ei and e 2 . Let the tense element in question
encode the temporal relation precedence, such that ei precedes e 2 . This
would be a description of a tense element encoding that e 2 is future with
respect to e ]5 as in (41).
(41) T+FUT & -PAST --> (ei < e 2 ) 3 2
In any tense construction, the highest tense element can have the speech
event S as one of its arguments. The lowest tense element must have the
predicate event, E, as one of its arguments. Ε is syntactically represented by
VP. It follows that in simple tenses, where there is only one active tense
element (Julien suggests that the non-active tense element may be inert),
this tense element must have both S (the speech event) and Ε (the predicate
event) as arguments, so that S is directly related to E; in this case, e, and e 2
in (41) would correspond to S and E, respectively. The two events, S and E,
must be related in one of three ways, which exhaust the logical possibili-
ties: precedence, subsequence, or simultaneity.
30
"Tense markers" may sometimes be phonologically zero: the present tense is
often phonologically zero, according to Julien (2001: 129). In such cases, it is
customary to assume that "zero morphemes" still have a denotation because of
their paradigmatic opposition to other, phonetically realized tense markers.
31
Julien discusses and rejects various hypotheses about the arguments of tense
elements (cf. also section 2.1 of the present chapter) and adopts the assumption of
Giorgi and Pianesi (1997) that tense elements relate not time points or time inter-
vals but events, where event is construed as a cover term for events in the narrow
sense (i.e. non-states/dynamic situations) and states; it is synonymous with the
eventuality of Bach (1981) or the situation of Barwise and Perry (1983). Julien
(2001: 127): "On this approach, John ran is true iff before the speech event there
was an event of John running, similarly, John was sick is true iff before the speech
event there was an event that consisted in John being sick. It follows that the pre-
cise extension in time of the event or state becomes irrelevant, and the problems
associated with the time point or time interval approaches disappear."
32
This formula amounts to my understanding of Julien's assumptions; it is not
quoted from Julien's work; thus, any errors are mine.
(42) a. Mary loves John. S = Ε

( S is contemporaneous with E ) ; T . F U T & PAST ( E I =
E2)
b. Mary loved John. S > Ε

(S follows E); Τ -FUT & +PAST (ei> e 2 )
c. Mary will love John. S < Ε
(S precedes E) T +FUT & -PAST (ei < e 2 )
These options exhaust the possible orderings of S and E. However, S and Ε

do not account for all possible temporal orderings in natural language, as is
well known. Reichenbach (1947) introduced R, reference time, to account
for the intricacy of natural tenses; each tense is considered a global order-
ing of S, R, and E. In response to the shortcomings of Reichenbach's sys-
tem, Vikner (1985) proposes that every tense involves two Rs, two refer-
ence times. Julien rejects both of these views and argues instead that each
tense element specifies only one relation, a relation between two events,
where the speech event may constitute one of those events. Furthermore,
there is in principle no upper limit on the number of such relations within a
construction. Instead, the number of reference times R is a function of the
number of tense elements present in the construction. Since Tense elements
are realized in Tense projections projecting on top of VPs, the number of
tensed verbs (finite or non-fmite) in a construction determines the number
of reference times R.33 However, there is a requirement that every R must
serve a function to be licit at LF. Thus R„ cannot coincide with either S or Ε
or Rn_i; Julien claims that this is why (43) is ungrammatical.
(43) *She is being reading LGB.
Here, the finite auxiliary states that S is simultaneous with Rj (R, is the
reference time introduced by the finite auxiliary). Moreover, the progres-
sive being adds another R, R 2 , simultaneous with R,. Finally, the progres-
sive reading states that R 2 is simultaneous with E. In other words, Ri, R 2
and Ε are all simultaneous. The two Rs cannot both have a function; there-
fore, the construction is ungrammatical.
33
This is inaccurate, as Julien proposes (see above) that both T(FUT) and
T(PAST) may be active in one and the same clause, as in (40), where the verb
would is taken to realize both T(FUT) and T(PAST). If both heads have a positive
value, there are two tense elements present in the same extended projection of one
and the same verb; thus, the number of Rs is only partly determined by the number
of verbs.
Julien elaborates on the function and syntactic realization of R, claiming

that R is a perspective time, a time from which another event is viewed, and
that it might be encoded by the syntactic head T(Future), at least in certain
cases; or R might not have a syntactic representation at all and might be
just an interpretational link between tense heads (2001: 130).34
For Julien, the difference between the (present) 35 perfect and the simple
past—and the difference between the progressive and the simple present—
is that the simple, finite tenses directly relate S to E; the complex, non-
finite tenses contain an R in addition to S and E. It is the tense marking of
the auxiliary that specifies the relation between S and R, whereas the tense
marking of the main verb -en (and presumably -ing in the progressive)
specifies the relation between R and E. In the present perfect, R is simulta-
neous with S and focuses on the fact that Ε is viewed from S, as in (44b).
(44) a. I bought that book. S > Ε

b. I have bought that book. S = R & R > Ε
Since R = S, the only temporal adverbials compatible with these construc-

tions are the ones denoting the moment of utterance. The focusing function
of R in the present perfect, Julien claims, prevents adverbials from specify-
ing the predicate event E. This entails that they must specify R, which in the
present perfect is contemporaneous with S.36
34
Cf. also Giorgi and Pianesi (1997: 30), who suggest that R does not correspond
to an event (unlike S and E, each having a relationship with a T-projection). In-
stead, "the variable corresponding to R constitutes the trait d 'union between the
event variable and the context," although R can also be provided by a superordi-
nate clause or a superordinate auxiliary.
35
The present perfect is a perfect where the auxiliary has present tense. Thus, I
have seen him is the present perfect, I had seen him the past perfect.
36
Two objections: In Norwegian you may add to the present perfect adverbials not
specifying the moment of speech if they denote the current daily, weekly, monthly
or yearly cycle; e.g. Jeg har kjopt mange beker i dag/denne uka/denne mäneden/i
är Ί have bought many books today/this week/this month/this year'. Julien (2001:
143) mentions that the speech event is not necessarily construed as punctual, an
assumption that might be able to account for this fact (in some type of "extended
now" approach). As to Julien's claims about the possible specification of R versus
E, cf. (i), where both Ε and R of the present perfect are specified.
(i) Hver gang jeg ringer min mor, har hun sovet därlig nattenfor.
'Every time I call my mother, she has slept poorly the night before.'
Hver gang 'every time' specifies R and natten fer 'the night before' specifies E.
(45) a. I have bought that book now/*yesterday.
On the other hand, in the past and future perfect, R does not coincide with
S, which is why temporal adverbials in these constructions need not specify
R; according to Julien, they may also specify E. This accounts for the am-
biguity of the following sentences:
(46) a. Mary had arrived at six ο 'clock.

b. When you arrive at seven, she will have arrived at six.
The ambiguity is in the two possible paraphrases of each sentence: either

M a r y ' s arrival took (or will take) place at six o'clock or she had (or will
have) arrived by six o'clock. In the former case, the adverbial specifies E,
the predicate event time; in the latter, it specifies R, the reference time.
5.2. A different approach
Although I consider Julien's system superior to many other syntactic ap-

proaches to tense, I have strong objections to it. Firstly, in this approach,
complex tenses typically imply the existence of several clauses, one em-
bedded into the other. Each verb in a construction projects the two temporal
heads T(Past) and T(Future) on top of it, with past scoping over future;
since Julien states that each clause can contain a maximum of two temporal
heads, w e need (in most cases) one clause with two heads for each verb. 37 If
two past relations are to be licit in one construction (e.g. She had [past]
eaten [past]), we need two T(PAST) heads. If it is a universal principle that
only one T(PAST) head—and one T(FUT)—is projected in each clause, it
follows that such constructions must be biclausal. The definition of clause
is thus fully dependent on the assumption that universally two is the maxi-
m u m number of T(ense) heads in a single clause. 3 8 I will not adopt this
assumption or this definition of the term clause.
37
Again, with the exception mentioned in fn. 33.
38
In addition, every extended projection of each verb in a clause must contain a
FinP, encoding ±finiteness. This, in my view, creates unnecessarily complex struc-
tural representations for each sentence. I see no a priori reason why finiteness and
tense could not be encoded by the same functional head, as long as they do not
clearly correspond to two different, separable affixes in Mainland Scandinavian.
Julien's reason for assuming a separate Finiteness projection is the correlation
Secondly, although Julien assigns a temporal function to the perfect par-

ticiple, she assigns no such function to the infinitive, the sole function of
which is to lexicalize the V head of the predicate VP. In fact, Julien (2001:
126) explicitly rejects the idea that the infinitive has tense features: "the
(infinitival) main verb is uninflected." In my view, the infinitive does have
a temporal function on a par with the perfect participle and partakes in the
temporal construal of sentences; thus, I will ascribe temporal properties to
the infinitive as well. I elaborate on this point below.
Thirdly, it seems arbitrary to stipulate that R is encoded by the syntactic
head T(Future). There seems to be no semantic reason, for instance, to as-
sume that R has a particular affinity with future tense. Resorting to the as-
sumption that R has no syntactic realization seems unsatisfactory as well,
especially since w e know that 'an R different from S' is always dependent
on the presence of an aspectual auxiliary or a modal; at least this is the case
in the languages presently under consideration.
Fourthly, although it may very well be that the T(FUT) and T(PAST)
heads are the only tense heads universally available in natural languages (as
Julien claims), this does not necessarily entail that all languages make use
of both. Contrary to Julien (2001: 128), I suggest that the inventory of tense
heads may be parametrized: languages may select T(Past) only, T(Future)
only, both, or neither. Specifically, I propose that Mainland Scandinavian
languages do not employ T(future) in their tense systems: the tense feature
denoting future is never morphologically encoded in these languages.
Comrie (1985: 48 ff) discusses languages where a) only a future/non-
future distinction is present—the language Hua in N e w Guinea (the basic
system of Capverdean Creole is seemingly also of this type, according to
Baptista 1997); 39 b) languages where only a past/non-past distinction is
between agreement and finiteness (Julien 2000a: 63): "Since subject agreement
always co-occurs with finiteness, one might reasonably guess that it is the Finite
head which hosts subject agreement." Assuming a separate projection FinP is one
way of accounting for this fact; another way is to assume that a feature [FIN] may
be hosted by another projection, e.g. a T-projection. A T-projection carrying the
feature [+FIN] would then be assumed to trigger subject agreement; a T-projection
lacking this feature does not trigger subject agreement. Moreover, MSc in general
does not employ subject-verb agreement, except as relics. Thus, one might claim
that even FINP could be parametrized and possibly absent in MSc.
39
In this language, a bare verb form is inherently underspecified as to whether it
denotes present or past. A dynamic predicate usually gets a past reading and a
stative one a present reading. The future is encoded by a separate marker. There is
present such as German and Finnish; and c) "languages that lack tense alto-
gether" (Comrie 1985: 50), like Burmese and probably also the Australian
language Dyirbal. Julien (2001: 129) provides data from Irish and Turkish,
evidently both languages with both past/non-past and future/non-future
distinctions. These facts can easily be taken to support the idea of pa-
rametrized tense heads. This information is presented in Figure 13:
+T(Past) means the language employs the T(Past) projection and the corre-
sponding morphological (or syntactic) marker; +T(Fut) means the language
does employ this projection and a corresponding marker; -T(Past) and -
T(Fut) means the language does not select for the projection in question.
Figure 13
+ T(PAST) - T(PAST)
+ T(FUT) Irish d Hua a

Turkish Capverdean creole
- T(FUT) Norwegian b Burmese c
Finnish Dyirbal
Mainland Scandinavian languages thus belong to category b); they make

the past/non-past distinction only. This certainly does not mean that Nor-
wegian has no means of expressing future. Just like languages altogether
lacking morphologically or syntactically encoded tense features may ex-
press temporal relations by modal or lexical means, MSc employs modals
and adverbials to fill in the gaps in the tense paradigm. Thus, contrary to
Julien's assumptions, I do not take the modal ville 'will' to be a marker of
future tense, 40 but a modal auxiliary denoting 'intention' on its root reading
and 'prediction' on its non-root reading. Since it denotes intention or pre-
diction, it requires a future reading of its complement, but it does not be-
long to the inventory of tense markers in Norwegian. Recall that all root
and non-root modals in Norwegian may give rise to or allow for a future
reading of their complements without functioning as tense markers. Thus, I
take the two-way distinction—past vs. non-past—to be the fundamental
also a past marker, which, I assume, does not belong to the basic system.
40
Julien mentions Sola (1994), who argues that future in English is not a tense but
a mood. As I argue for Norwegian, Sola assumes one tense distinction [± PAST] in
English.
split in the Norwegian tense system. Comrie (1985: 48) claims this is the
basic distinction in many European languages:
While the general theory allows us a three-way distinction within absolute
tense, many languages in fact have a basic two-way split.... Past versus non-
past is... the basic tense-split in many European languages, with sub-
divisions within non-past (especially future as opposed to the present) being
at best secondary: thus the so-called present tense in such languages is fre-
quently used for future time-reference.
Adopting Julien's hypothesis about the existence of non-finite tenses, 1
propose that Norwegian employs the following distinctions: finite vs. non-
finite and past vs. non-past. Unlike Julien, however, I claim that the infini-
tive is the non-finite non-past tense in Norwegian tense constructions.
Julien (2001: 132) explicitly states that the perfect is the non-finite past. 41 I
claim that the past participle, by itself, is the formal non-finite past in Nor-
wegian. This yields the paradigm in Figure 14, where every Norwegian
verb form encodes an inherent tense feature (note that present participles
are adjectives, not verbs, in Norwegian).
Figure 14
+ Finite - Finite
+ Past preterite participle
- Past present Infinitive
The main differences between Julien's model and the system I propose are:
firstly, I do not assume for each clause a range of empty or inert T-heads
whose presence is dictated by a universal hierarchy; I also do not accept her
definition of clause, a structure containing the two T-heads: T(past) and
T(future). Secondly, I assume that Norwegian selects for the T(Past) feature
only. I do not assume 'future' to be expressed by a designated tense ele-
ment in Norwegian although this is one of the readings of the non-past
forms—the present and the infinitive. Thirdly, I ascribe to the infinitive a
41
Like Stowell (1996), Julien assumes that the participle does encode past, but the
auxiliary is an intrinsic part of the construction, allowing for the generation of the
topmost set of T-projections hosting the finite tenses; cf. section 5.2.5.
prominent place in the tense system, unlike Julien, who assumes that the
infinitive has no tense features. Lastly, I argue that each R has a syntactic
expression, not as a T-head, but encoded by a verb or an auxiliary.
I will, however, adopt Julien's assumption that tense elements, ex-
pressed by affixes in Norwegian, establish a temporal ordering between
events, of which the speech event may be one.42 Unlike Julien, I argue that
each and every verbal predicate denotes an event (in the broad sense, en-
compassing states; cf. fn. 31) and that this event takes part in the temporal
construal. This means, for instance, that I take modal auxiliaries to denote
their own events; they do not express temporal facets of other events, as
suggested by Julien. That is, in my approach, modals provide their own Es
(predicate events).
In addition, I adopt the idea that finite tenses typically relate to S and
non-finite tenses to R. However, I claim that the R in question is provided
by the c-commanding verb; in fact, in my proposal, there are in a sense no
Rs, only Es, since each verb and auxiliary provides an Ε that functions as
an R with respect to the following verb.
Finally, I assume that any verbal predicate in Norwegian hosts a tense-
element, which entails that there are no untensed verbs in Norwegian. Se-
mantically, the tense element of any verb encodes a temporal relation be-
tween two events. If the tense element is non-finite, it encodes a relation
between the event denoted by the previous verb—the verb c-commanding
the tense element—and the event denoted by the verb hosting the tense
element. If the tense element is finite, it encodes a temporal relation be-
tween S (the speech event) and the event denoted by the verb hosting the
tense element.
Syntactically, this tense element is expressed by a designated affix.
More abstractly, a given tense element can be described as a positive or
negative value on the verb, i.e. the V-head itself, or a vP-local T-projection
(like a T-shell on a lexical V-root, or a projection just above vP), rather
than a separate extended projection high in a structural hierarchy. Every
tense element expresses a local syntactic relation between two events,
where every verb encodes such an event. Thus, every verb requires its own
local tense domain, its own TP.
These are not unprecedented thoughts. For instance, Butler (2003: 987)
suggests that in addition to the functional layers existing at the topmost
domain of each clause, there is a full structure of "a Rizzi CP" (cf. Rizzi
42
"Event" may be seen as short-hand for "event-argument;" cf. Davidson (1967).
1997) above vP, i.e. projections encoding functional information such as

finiteness. Other authors—Starke (1993), Belletti (2001) and Jayaseelan
(2001)—have also suggested that clauses contain a functional layer imme-
diately dominating vP, i.e. quite low in the clause. The present proposal
simply exploits such ideas to argue that every verb comes with its own
local tense package.
This solves the problem of associating a tense feature with a finite verb
in situ (cf. section 4.4.3 above), pointed out by Roberts and Roussou
(2002). There is no need for LF-movement, affix-hopping, or chain forma-
tion to associate a Norwegian verb with its tense features. The tense fea-
tures were never separated from the verb in the first place.
5.2.1. Tense chains and temporal relations
A sentence containing three verbal predicates contains three tense elements,

hence three temporal relations; each relation specifies the temporal ordering
of two events. This means that there are four events in all, S being the top-
most one. The three verbal predicates constitute a tense chain with four
links, with S as the topmost or left-most link, as in (47). The preterite mo-
dal ville, for instance, hosts the tense-element [+PAST, +F1N(ITE)], thus
taking S as its first argument.
ej e2 es
(47) Marit ville prove ä komme. —>
ville (S, Z\),pr0ve (ei, e 2 ), komme (e2, e 3 )
Marit would try to come
'Marit would try to come.'
This tense chain consists of four events: S, ei,e 2 and e3; e, is the event de-
noted by the modal ville, e2 the event denoted by the verb prove, and e3 the
event denoted by komme. The verbal predicates involved are hooked up to
one another in a 'tongue and groove' fashion; each tense element anchors
its verb to the previous event in the chain, and the event denoted by the
verb itself provides the anchor for the next tense element in the construc-
tion. Thus, the tense element of ville orders the event denoted by ville with
respect to S, the tense element of prove orders the event denoted by prove
with respect to the event denoted by ville, and the tense element of komme
orders the event denoted by komme relative to the event denoted by prove.
A compositional tense system for Nonvegian 353
I stated above that Norwegian employs a past/non-past distinction only,

which entails that the two relations, past and non-past, are the only two
relations encoded by Norwegian tense elements. I will represent the past
relation as ei > e2. This encodes that the past tense element takes ei as its
first argument and orders it as temporally subsequent to e 2 (ei is after e 2 )
The second temporal relation expressed by Norwegian tense affixes is the
non-past. Recall the quote from Comrie (1985) that the non-past form en-
compasses present as well as future. Thus, we have at least two possible
ways of representing this relation. One choice is to represent it as a disjunc-
tion—((ei = e 2 ) ν (ei< e 2 ))—which means that either ei is simultaneous with
e 2 or ei precedes e 2 . This means that e 2 is either present or future with re-
spect to ei; the non-past forms are underspecified with respect to these two
relations and encode both simultaneously. An alternative is to represent the
non-past relation simply as the "elsewhere" case, as the negated past rela-
tion —i(ej > e 2 ), which means non-past. This amounts to saying that the non-
past form encodes everything but the past-relation—the present as well as
the future. The latter representation is the one I will employ in what follows
while assuming that it equals the representation ((ei= e 2 ) ν (e,< e 2 )) in all
relevant respects.
The past relation is expressed by the participle, encoding the non-finite
past relation, and by the preterite, encoding the finite past relation. The
finite non-past relation is encoded by the present and the non-finite non-
past relation by the infinitive (cf. Figure 14). The difference between finite
and non-finite tense elements is that finite tense elements typically relate to
S (which means that they take S as their first argument), whereas non-finite
tense elements relate to the c-commanding verb.
5.2.2. The preterite
The past relation the preterite modal ville expresses in (47) takes S as its
first argument and the event denoted by ville as its second argument, order-
ing S after the event denoted by ville, as shown in (48).
(48) ville [+PAST, +FIN] (S > CVILLE)
The tense element of the preterite ville thus consists of a matrix with two
formal features. Firstly, the past relation encoded by the tense element sig-
nals that the event instantiating its first argument is subsequent in time to
the event instantiating its second argument. Secondly, the positive finite-
ness feature [+FIN] signals that the first argument of this specific tense
element is S, the speech event. In short, the speech event S is temporally
subsequent to the event denoted by ville, which means that the event de-
noted by ville is past relative to S.
5.2.3. The present
The finite non-past tense element is encoded by the present. The present is
hence represented by the matrix [-PAST, +FIN], which means that it im-
poses a non-past relation on its two arguments; because of the positive
value of the finiteness feature, the first of these arguments is S; see the
identical matrices of the verbs in (49a) and (49b).
(49) a. Marit kommer.

Marit comePRES.
'Marit arrives.'
kommer [-PAST,+FIN] - I (S > ΘΚΟΜΜΕ)
b. Marit liker Jon.

Marit likePRES John.
'Marit likes John.'
liker [-PAST,+FIN] - , (S > CURE)
The information encoded in this tense element is that it imposes a non-past

relation on its two event arguments, a relation encompassing the present as
well as the future. Thus, the event denoted by the verbal predicate is any-
thing from future to concurrent with S, the speech event. We know from
section 3 that dynamic predicates tend to get a future reading and stative
predicates a present one. We can observe this effect in (49a) and (49b). The
dynamic predicate kommer 'comes' is easily construed as future with re-
spect to the speech event S, whereas the stative predicate liker 'likes' is
difficult to construe as future. The natural reading of the stative predicate is
simultaneity, hence present. However, this is not information encoded by
the tense element. The tense element encodes only two pieces of informa-
tion: the relation imposed by the tense element on its two arguments is the
non-past relation and the first of these arguments is S since the tense ele-
ment has a [+ FIN] feature. The choice between a future and present read-
ing is not imposed by the tense element; it is the result of the lexical aspec-
tual properties of a given predicate hosting the tense element. The tense
element itself is blind to these aspectual properties although they are impor-
tant to the temporal construal of a construction, conducted by other concep-
tual-interpretational modules in the language user.
5.2.4. The infinitive
As shown in Figure 14, in the present system the infinitive is the η on-finite
non-past. Julien (2000a, 2001) does not ascribe any tense properties to the
infinitive, a claim also found in Comrie (1985: 52):
In many languages with tense distinctions, certain non-finite forms, in par-
ticular, lack tense oppositions.... Thus, in English, the infinitive after the
verb promise shows no tense opposition, e.g. John promised to give me ten
pounds. However, it is possible to deduce that the time reference of to give
me ten pounds is to a time subsequent to the time of John's promise, i.e.
relative future tense. This deduction has nothing, however, to do with the ...
grammatical expression of time reference.
This is not the case in Norwegian where the event described by an infini-
tive can never be construed as prior to the event described by the preceding
verb, even if the predicates and adverbials partaking in the construction
favor, or force, a past reading of the infinitive.43
(50) *Hun hevder ä ankomme igär.

she claims to arrive yesterday
Intended: 'She claims to have arrived yesterday.'
Hence, I argue that the infinitive is the non-finite tense form encoding the
entire temporal stretch from present to future; the relation this tense ele-
ment imposes on its two event arguments is non-past, just like the present.
However, unlike the present, the infinitive does not take S as its first argu-
ment. Being non-finite, it takes the event of the c-commanding verb as its
first argument.
43
English "Exceptional Case Marking" contexts (non-existent in Norwegian)
seemingly can. Stowell (1982: 566) observes that ECM contexts (but no other
infinitivals) allow for past tense construal: I remember John to be the smartest.
(51) a. Jon skal arbeide.

Jon shall work
'Jon is supposed to work.'
arbeide [ - P A S T , - F I N ] - , ( e S K u L L E ^ A R B E I D E )
b. Jon skulle arbeide.

Jon should work
'Jon was supposed to work.'
arbeide [-PAST,-FIN] - , ( G S K U L L E > ^ARBEIDE )
The representation of the infinitival tense element is identical in (51 a) and

(51b). With respect to S, however, the event denoted by arbeide is future or
present in (51a), while it might be past relative to S in (51b). This is ex-
pected under the theory outlined here. The tense element of arbeide, being
non-finite, cannot relate directly to S. It relates only to the event denoted by
the c-commanding verb, in this case skal/skulle. Whereas skal in (51a) is
present, hence encodes a [-PAST, +FIN] tense element, skulle in (51b) is
preterite and encodes a [+PAST,+FIN] tense element. Thus, skal is non-
past with respect to S, and skulle is past with respect to S. The tense ele-
ment of the leftmost (or topmost) verb relates to S; the infinitive relates to
the preceding verb. Thus, the event denoted by arbeide must be construed
as non-past relative to S in (51a) because of its dependence on the c-
commanding verb, which is non-past relative to S. The event denoted by
arbeide in (51b) may be construed as past relative to S because its c-
commanding verb is past relative to S. This amounts to a kind of "temporal
inheritance" for the infinitive, since the temporal construal of arbeide rela-
tive to S depends on the relation between the c-commanding verb
(,skal/skulle) and S. Consider (52), an apparent counterexample to this
claim.
(52) a. Jon skulle arbeide i morgen, sa han.

Jon should work tomorrow, said he
'Jon was supposed to work tomorrow, he said.'
arbeide [ - P A S T , - F I N ] - , ( e S K u L L E > β A R B E I D E )
Here the event denoted by arbeide is construed as future relative to S, even

though skulle is still past relative to S. This appears to be a counter-
example to temporal inheritance. However, arbeide in (52) is still non-past
relative to skulle, which is the information encoded by the tense element, so
it may be construed as future relative to skulle; since the tense element does
not encode any restriction on how far into the future with respect to skulle
this event may be located, it follows that the event denoted by arbeide may
even be construed as future relative to S. The tense system simply remains
silent about this relation; the only two relations encoded are the one be-
tween arbeide and skulle (encoded by the infinitive) and the one between
skulle and S (encoded by the preterite). The future specification of the non-
past tense is provided by the adverbial imorgen 'tomorrow'.
Figure 15
S imorgen 'tomorrow'
1
(S>ESKULLE) (^SKULLE > EARBEIDE )
skulle arbeide
The specification of a tense element (the infinitive) through the aspectual

properties of the predicate or by means of adding an adverbial to the con-
struction must always be compatible with the overall temporal construal.
This requirement is fulfilled in (52), but not in (53).
(53) a. *Jon skal arbeide i gar, sa han.

Jon shall work yesterday said he
'Jon will work yesterday, he said.'
arbeide [ - P A S T , - F I N ] (eSKuLLE > ^ARBEIDE )
In this sentence, there is no tense element capable of licensing the adverbial

i gär 'yesterday': the only two temporal relations encoded are the non-past
relation encoded by the infinitive arbeide and the non-past relation encoded
by the present skal. Thus, neither of the events may be construed as past
relative to S, and the adverbial i gär is illicit.
As for the interpretational choice between future and present, both being
encompassed by finite and non-finite non-past forms, we already know that
the aspectual properties of the verb hosting the non-past tense element are
decisive. Dynamic predicates typically give rise to a future construal and
stative predicates to a present construal. We observed that the present, the
finite non-past tense element, is subject to this effect in (49a), as compared
to (49b). In that case, the interpretation is future or present relative to S. We
observed in section 3 that this effect is also found with the infinitive; in this
case, however, the construal is future or present with respect to the c-

commanding verb. In (54), the c-commanding verb in question is the modal
mä. With a dynamic predicate such as komme 'come', the infinitive is con-
strued as future with respect to the modal (54a), whereas the stative verb
like 'like' is typically construed as present with respect to the modal, as in
(54b).
(54) a. Marit mä komme.

Marit must come
'Marit must come.'
komme [-PAST,-FIN] (e M A > ΘΚΟΜΜΕ)
b. Marit mä like pannekaker.

Marit must like pancakes
'Marit must like pancakes.'
like [-PAST,-FIN] - , (eMÄ > e LIKE )
As represented in the matrices, the choice between future and present is not
encoded by the tense element of the infinitive. The tense element encodes
solely that the relation between its two arguments is the non-past relation
and that the first of these arguments is the event denoted by the c-
commanding verb. The choice between a future or present construal of the
non-past relation is instead affected by the aspectual properties of the
predicates involved, as paralleled by the finite non-past, i.e. the present, as
described above (cf. 49).
However, unlike the finite non-past, which relates directly to S, with the
non-finite non-past, the infinitive, the properties of the c-commanding verb
are also important; the lexical properties of the c-commanding verb affect
the choice between the future and present readings of the infinitival com-
plement. For instance, if we replace the modal mä in (54b) with ville, it is
easier to get a future construal even of the stative infinitive simply because
ville denotes intention (root) or prediction (non-root), both being future-
projecting predicates in the sense that their complements are construed as
future with respect to the modal.
A compositional tense system for Nonvegian 359
5.2.5. The past participle and the perfect
In the system proposed here, the non-finite past tense element is encoded
by the past participle (Figure 14). Non-finite tense elements relate to the
event denoted by the c-commanding verb: the participle is past with respect
to the c-commanding verb, here the aspectual auxiliary ha ' h a v e ' . Ha
comes in three tense forms—present, preterite, and infinitive—and hosts its
own tense element. Hence, a non-finite perfect, for instance, is composi-
tionally built from two tense relations: the non-finite non-past of the infini-
tival auxiliary ha ' h a v e ' and the non-finite past of the participle.
Julien (2001: 136) assumes that "the u n i n f e c t e d " auxiliary have is in-
serted into a V head, projected solely to allow for the T-heads to be pro-
jected on top of it; a T-head may be filled by what she assumes to be the
future tense marker, the modal will.
Figure 16
T(PAST) T(FUT) V T(PAST) T(FUT) V

She will have [writt]i-en tj
This entails that she considers the "uninflected" auxiliary have to have no
tense features (which is in keeping with her assumption that infinitives,
which she claims to be uninflected, have no tense properties). Thus, in
Julien's approach, the non-finite perfect is in a sense a compound, consist-
ing of the non-finite auxiliary have and the perfect participle, and this com-
plex construction encodes non-finite past tense.
There are several problems with these assumptions, some conceptual
and others empirical. Firstly, in Julien's approach, some auxiliaries lexical-
ize only T-heads (will), others only V-heads (have). There is no natural
dividing line corresponding to the finite/non-finite distinction; instead,
some non-finite verb forms, such as past participles, have tense features,
whereas others, such as infinitives, have no tense properties. Moreover,
although Julien illustrates these claims with an English example and Eng-
lish modals like will cannot occur in the "uninflected" form, the corre-
sponding modal in Norwegian may occur in the infinitive, as in (55).
(55) a. Dette antas ä ville bli et problem.

this supposePASS to willINF become a problem
O n e supposes that this will become a problem.'
What is the status of ville in this example? Does it lexicalize a T-head, be-
cause it is the "future tense marker" or a V-head since it is arguably an
infinitive? It is hard to decide, in Julien's system. One may be inclined to
accept these quirks of the system if it yielded the right empirical results.
However, this is not the case. For instance, it is not obvious how to explain
the data in (14) and (39), repeated here as (56), in Julien's system.

Jon must have eaten
b. Jon mä ha spist fer han kommer.

c. Jon mä ha spist f0r han kom.

Whereas (56a) and (56c) can be accounted for by Julien's assumption that
the perfect is the non-finite past tense, the temporal construal of (56b) is
much worse. What is the position of mä? How come it allows for a future
construal of its complement if the perfect is a non-finite past tense and the
modal mä is not a future tense marker? The present proposal, I argue, is
sufficiently flexible to account for the data in (56); it also has a regularity
and predictability lacking in Julien's system. This proposal thus has better
empirical coverage in addition to having more adequate explanatory power.
We start out by summarizing the basic properties of the system, gradu-
ally closing in on the data in (56). We already know that a predicate hosting
a non-past tense element (finite or non-finite) may be construed as future or
present, depending on the its aspectual properties: a dynamic predicate is
typically construed as future and a stative one as present. However, we can
override this default reading of the stative predicate if we add an adverbial
denoting a point in the future, as in (57).
(57) a. Jon spiser.

Jon eatPRES
'Jon is eating/eats.'
spiser [-PAST, +FIN] - , (S > eSpisE)
b. Jon spiser när han kommer.

Jon eatPRES when he arrives
'Jon will eat/eats when he arrives.'
spiser [-PAST, +FIN] - , (S > eSP,sE)
Note that the reading of the predicate spiser in (57b) can be either stative or
dynamic: either Jon will start eating when he arrives, or he will be eating
when he arrives. Hence, it would be wrong to claim that the adverbial can-
cels or overrides any semantic or syntactic features present in the predicate,
that it turns a [+stative] feature into a [+dynamic] one; instead, the future
adverbial simply specifies the non-past tense of the present tense element.
This overrides the default construal of a stative predicate as present.
The aspectual auxiliary ha 'have' is a stative predicate (see for instance
the descriptions of the perfect quoted in section 3.2 of the present chapter).
Hence, the default reading of a non-past ha will also be present; this default
construal may be overridden if a future-denoting adverbial is added to the
construction. The non-past tense element in (58) is the present, hence the
finite, non-past tense element.
(58) a. Jonhar spist.

Jon has eaten
'Jon has eaten.'
har - , (S > e HA ); spist (eHA > eSPiST )
b. Jon har spist när han kommer.

Jon has eaten when he comes
'Jon has eaten when he arrives.'
har - , (S > e H A ); spist (eHA > eSPisT)
In (58a), the reading of the aspectual is by default present with respect to S

since ha is stative; thus, har denotes a present state. In (58b), the non-past
tense is specified as future by means of the future-denoting adverbial, and
the reading of the aspectual is future with respect to S, a future state. Note
that this pattern is paralleled by the stative predicate spiser 'eats' in (57).
The perfect in (58) consists of an auxiliary and a past participle.
Whereas the finite non-past auxiliary har may be construed as present or
future with respect to S, the participle must be past relative to har in both
cases, (eHA > eSPisT ), since the past participle is the non-finite past tense
3 62 Norwegian modals, aspect and tense
element and it takes the c-commanding verb as its first argument. The two
construals may be depicted as the two timelines in Figure 17.
Figurel7
a. S
(e H A>e S pisT) -.(S>eHA)

spist har
b.
S Jon's arrival
e
(eHA > spisT) —ι ( S > e H A )
spist har
The first timeline illustrates the interpretation 'there is a present state con-
sisting in Jon's having eaten'; the second is the interpretation 'by the future
point in time characterized by Jon's arrival, a state will have commenced,
consisting in Jon's having eaten'. Note that the position of spist 'eaten' on
the second timeline is somewhat arbitrarily chosen as subsequent to S. In
reality, spist may be anywhere on the timeline, including before S, as long
as it precedes har, since this relation is all that is encoded by the non-finite
past tense element hosted by spist. This also captures our intuition about
this construction; we cannot tell from the tense elements present here when
the eating took place, before or after S; we only know that it preceded ha.
We expect the non-finite perfect to behave like the present perfect with
regard to temporal construal since the auxiliary ha hosts a non-past tense
element in both cases; we also know from the data in (54) and (57) that the
infinitive behaves like the present with regard to default and override in
temporal construal: a non-past stative is typically construed as present, but
may be forced into a future reading by means of an adverbial. The differ-
ence between the present and the infinitive is that the construal as present
or future is relative to S in the case of the present, but relative to the c-
commanding verb in the case of the infinitive. At this point, we return to
the data in (56), repeated here as (59).

Jon must have eaten
mä -i(S > eMA); ha -.( eMA > eHA); spist (eHA > e5pisT)
b. Jon mä ha spist for han kommer.

mä -i(S > eMA); ha -.( eMA > eHA); spist (eHA > eSPiST)
c. Jon mä ha spist for han kom.

mä ->(S > eMA); ha -,( eMA > e H A ); spist (eHA > eSPiST)
The modal mä 'must' is [-PAST, +FIN], a finite non-past. This means that
it is non-past with respect to S. However, modals are stative predicates (cf.
Barbiers 1995; Boogaart 2005); hence, the default construal is present. The
[-PAST, -FIN] aspectual ha is also a stative, and its default construal is
present relative to the c-commanding verb, i.e. simultaneous to ma. The
participle is [+PAST, -FIN], hence past relative to ha, no matter how the
two preceding verbs are construed. This default construal, exemplified by
(59a) above, is depicted as the first timeline in Figure 18.
Figure 18
a. S
(eHA > espisT) (S>e M A )

mä
( eMA > e HA )
spist ha
b. J o n ' s arrival
(S > eMA) (eHA > espisT) "'(eMA > eHA)

mä spist ha
Like the second timeline in Figure 17, the non-past tense element of the
aspectual ha can be specified by means of a future-denoting adverbial. This
forces the stative ha to encode a future state, with the participle tagging
along since it must be past with respect to ha. The interpretation of (59b) is
hence that there is a present necessity (mä) that by a future point in time—
characterized by Jon's arrival—a state would be established, characterized
by Jon's having eaten. Again, spist may be anywhere on the timeline (even
to the left of S), as long as it is to the left of ha. In (59c), there is no future-
denoting adverbial to force a future interpretation of the aspectual, only an
adverbial denoting a time point in the past. The aspectual, being stative,
assumes its default reading, as present relative to the c-commanding verb
mä, and the timeline will look just like the one for (59a), the first of the two
timelines in Figure 18. The difference is that in (59c) the past-denoting
adverbial specifies the past tense element hosted by spist 'eaten' since this
is the only past relation in the construction. Mä and ha both encode non-
past relations, and neither of these elements allows for a past-denoting ad-
verbial to specify them. This captures our intuitions about the temporal
construal of (59c): there is a present necessity (mä) that there be a state (ha)
consisting of the aftermath of the event of Jon's eating before he arrived.
Considering that even the modal mä 'must' is a non-past stative, the
modal too should be able to yield a future interpretation if modified by a
future adverbial. This is correct. If we add the adverbial imorgen 'tomor-
row' to (59b), yielding (60), we may construe the sentence as in Figure 19.
(60) a. I morgen mä Jon ha spist fer han kommer.

tomorrow must Jon have eaten before he arrives
'Tomorrow, Jon must have eaten before he arrives.'
mä -,(S > eMA); ha -.( eMA > eHA); spist (eHA > eSPiST)
Figure 19
tomorrow
λ
f Λ
S Jon's arrival
(S > e M A)
mä
(enA > espisT) -i(eMA > eHA)
spist ha
There are of course several other possibilities given that every non-past is
in principle underspecified as to future or present, and given that the parti-
ciple may be anywhere on the timeline as long as it is to the left of ha. The
reading of the timeline in Figure 19 is 'tomorrow it will be necessary that
Jon will have eaten before he arrives'.
In this system, deriving the correct tense relations for the past perfect is
trivial. The auxiliary hadde 'had' denotes a past state, as the preterite form
encodes [+PAST, +FIN], past with respect to S. The participle encodes the
non-finite past relation and is thus past with respect to hadde. Thus, (61)
receives the interpretation depicted in Figure 20.
(61) a. Jon hadde spist.

Jon had eaten
'Jon had eaten.'
hadde (S > eHA); spist (eHA > espisT)
Figure 20
S
(βΗΑ > ßSPIST ) (S > ΘΗΑ)

spist hadde
Finally, we put our system to the test on a somewhat longer tense chain,
where the temporal relations call for a complex temporal construal.
(62) a. Han mätte ha villet prove ä la dem se henne sv0mme.

he mustPAST have wanted try to let them see her swim
'He had to have wanted to try to let them see her swim.'
mätte [+PAST,+FIN] (S > ε Μ Αττ Ε )

ha [ - P A S T , - F I N ] - , (ε Μ ΑττΕ > e H A )
villet [+PAST,-FIN] (e H A > e V i L LET)
prove [ - P A S T , - F I N ] - , (eviLLET > e P R 0 v E )
la [ - P A S T - F I N ] - , (ePR0VE > e L A )
se [ - P A S T - F I N ] - , (eLA > eSE)
i V 0 m w e [ - P A S T - F I N ] - , (e S E > e S V 0MME)
This tense chain consists of eight events—one encoded by each verb plus
S, the speech event. These events are ordered by seven tense elements, each
encoded by a tense affix on a verb. Only the topmost tense element is finite;
it is the only tense element that takes S as an argument. All other tense ele-
ments in this chain are non-finite; each takes the event denoted by the c-
commanding verb as its first argument. Two of the relations in this chain
are past and five non-past. All of the non-past relations may in principle be
construed as future or present, depending in part on the aspectual properties
of the predicates involved. We may depict these tense relations as in Figure
21.
Figure 21
S
(S > eMATTE)
mätte
1 e
(MÄTTE > eHA )
ha
(eHA > eVILLET )
villet
' (eVILLET > epR0VE)
prove
~11 (epR0VE > eLA) -I (öLA > 6SE)
la se
(eSE > eSV0MME)
svomme
Ville 'want t o \ p r 0 v e 'try', and la 'let' are all future-projecting predicates; I

have represented this by positioning their complements further to the right
on the timeline (although this is not information encoded in the tense ele-
ments). Stative predicates like mä 'must' and ha 'have' are typically pre-
sent with respect to their c-commanding verb and I have represented this
default reading on the timeline. Se 'see' is also a stative, but complement of
the future-projecting verb la 'let'; hence it is future relative to la 'let'. The
swimming event must be simultaneous to the perception event denoted by
se 'see', which I have represented in the figure. Keep in mind, however,
that the timeline in Figure 21 is only one of many possible construals of
this sentence allowed by the underspecified tense system. For instance, the
verbs pmve, la, se, and svomme may all be to the right of mätte, ha and
even S, i.e. they may be future relative to S. What is encoded by the non-
past tense elements is simply that the event of verb hosting the tense ele-
ment is not to the left of the c-commanding verb. As long as it is at least as
far to the right as the verb preceding it in the sentence, it may in principle
be anywhere on the timeline.
I argue that the tense system outlined here is flexible enough to account
for the tense relations we observe in MSc while also being regular, predict-
able, and attainable. Each tense marker always performs the same job, each
verbal element, whether it is a main verb, an aspectual, or a modal, has
access to the same tense features. Simple elements, each with little informa-
tion, interact to create a powerful tool of temporal expression. There is in
principle no upper limit to the number of tense elements in a sentence or a
tense chain since any verb is anchored to the previous event in the chain;
thus, there is no definite number of Rs. In fact, as mentioned above, in this
system, there are no Rs, only Es, and each Ε acts as an R to the next tense
element in the chain. There is hence no upper limit on the number of tense
projections in a clause: each verb provides its own tense package.
5.3. The function of ha 'have'
In Julien's (2001: 136) system, the aspectual have is a proxy element. It

does not have any semantic content (except for formal features, op.cit.
137); it is simply a realization of a V, allowing for the projection of the
tense head hosting will on top of it. In contrast, the present proposal as-
cribes certain semantic features to the corresponding Norwegian aspectual
ha. Specifically, the aspectual provides the perfect construction with stative
features and acts as a stativizing operator (Michaelis 1998: 51, also section
3.2). In the words ö f t e r Meulen(1995: 5 -6),
The difference between the simple past and the perfect is... aspectual in na-
ture: The former describes events in a context-dependent way, whereas the
latter gives only stative information.
The 'present perfect puzzle' is usually characterized as the observation that
a past-denoting adverbial cannot cooccur with the present perfect. Julien's
solution is the stipulation that in the present perfect, the reference time R is
necessarily focused; hence any temporal adverbial must specify R and not
E, the predicate event time. However, this is inaccurate. It is possible to
specify both R and Ε in a present perfect, i.e. one may actually specify both
tense elements, as in (63).
(63) a. Hver gang jeg ringer min mor,

Every time I call my mother,
har hun sovet därlig natten f0r.
has she slept poorly nightDEF before
'Every time I call my mother,

she has slept poorly the night before.'
Here, the adverbial Hver gang jeg ringer min mor specifies R, i.e. the tense
element denoted by har, and natten f0r 'the night before' specifies E, i.e.
the tense element denoted by sovet.
What the perfect puzzle reveals is that a punctual past-denoting adver-
bial such as yesterday cannot cooccur with the present perfect. However, as
mentioned in fn. 35, 'current cycle' adverbials, i.e. adverbials denoting the
present daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly cycle are always licit with the
present perfect in Norwegian. Adverbials setting up a cycle, such as hver
gang 'every time', are also perfectly fine. 44 Thus, I believe that the present
perfect is a tense construction signifying 'there currently exists a state con-
sisting of the aftermath of a past event', where 'currently' can be para-
phrased 'within some (salient) current cycle'. In Norwegian, the present
perfect is hence the proper 'past tense for the current cycle', and it seems
legitimate to characterize it as an immediate past. Any event taking place in
the previous cycle must be signaled by the preterite, which acts as the re-
mote past. As observed by Bybee et al. (1994: 100), many languages dis-
tinguish between immediate and remote pasts, and I claim that Norwegian
is such a language. This is the reason for the 'present relevance' reading of
the present perfect-it denotes a state consisting of the aftermath of a past
event that took place within the current cycle. I also believe that one impor-
tant difference between the uses of the German and the Norwegian present
perfect is that Norwegian makes the distinction between immediate and
remote past, whereas German does not. The German present perfect can be
used to describe a situation in the previous cycle, unlike its Norwegian
counterpart. I thus do not assume that the semantics of the German present
44
See also the observations made in Comrie (1985: 78-9) and Giorgi and Pianesi
(1997: 111) that habitual adverbials are possible with the present perfect.
perfect is different from the present perfect in Norwegian. It is more a ques-

tion of use; the German present perfect has a wider domain of functions as
it is allowed to signify previous cycle, unlike Norwegian present perfect.
These assumptions are presently not much more than speculations, I
admit. However, they have at least as much explanatory significance as the
stipulation offered by Julien (2001)—that R is obligatorily focused in the
present perfect, such that any adverbial must specify R, not E. Not only is
this a stipulation, but it is not descriptionally adequate.
The distinction between remote past (preterite) and immediate past (pre-
sent perfect) disappears when the present perfect is embedded under a mo-
dal, as in (64a). In this context (unlike in the present perfect, cf. (64b)), the
participle may be modified by an adverbial denoting previous cycle.
(64) a. Jon mä ha kommet i gär.

Jon must have arrived yesterday
'Jon must have arrived yesterday.'
b. *Jon har kommet igär.

Jon has arrived yesterday
'Jon has arrived yesterday.'
In cases like (64a), the domain of the immediate past, the present perfect, is
extended to cover the remote past, the preterite, which semantically would
be the correct past in this construction. In such cases, there are conflicting
requirements from the syntax and the semantics. The semantic component
requires the remote past as the adverbial igär denotes previous cycle. How-
ever, there is no way to embed a remote past under a modal, due to the mo-
dal's strict syntactic selectional requirements, which specify that it accepts
only a complement with the matrix [-PAST, -FIN], Hence, as observed by
Hofmann (1976: 94), the preterite must be replaced by the non-finite per-
fect under a modal, and is "of course, the only way to represent past time
[under a] modal." The remote past is replaced by the immediate past,
fulfilling the syntactic requirements: the auxiliary ha contributes the right
feature specification and the past participle provides the past tense element.
Hence Β is the answer to the question in (65b) as well as the one in (65a).
(65) a. A: Tror du Marit har drept ham?

believe you Marit has killed him
'Do you believe that Marit has killed him?'
b. A: Tror du Marit drepte ham?

believe you Marit killed him
'Do you believe that Marit killed him?'
B: Hun mä ha drept ham.

she must have killed him
'She must have killed him.'
The non-finite perfect shows up not only under modals, but in every case
where the semantic component requires the preterite and the selecting ele-
ment requires a non-past complement. The clause in (66b) is the non-finite
version of the one in (66a). It employs the non-finite perfect to express the
past expressed by the preterite in the corresponding finite clause. The in-
finitival marker ä requires a complement with a matrix [-PAST, -FIN], just
like a modal; the way to meet his requirement and preserve the past reading
is to employ the immediate past, i.e. the (non-finite) present perfect, as a
substitute for the remote past, the preterite.
(66) a. Hun hevder at hun ankom i gär.

she claims that she arrived yesterday
'She claims that she arrived yesterday.'
b. Hun hevder ä ha ankommet igär.

she claims to have arrived yesterday
'She claims to have arrived yesterday.'
How come the non-finite past cannot be expressed by the participle in these
cases? We know that at least sometimes modals accept a past participle as
their complement, as in (67) (repeated from section 4.1. of Chapter 2),
where ha can be omitted in every case.
(67) a. Jon bürde (ha) vcert pä kontoret.

Jon ought-to have been on office-DEF
b. Marit kunne (ha) sv0mt.

Marit could have swum
c. Pasienten mätte (ha) blitt behandlet straks.

patientDEF mustPRET have become treated immediately
'The patient had to have been treated immediately.'
d. Begge skulle (ha) reist i morgen.

both should have left in morning
e. Myndighetene ville (ha) revet huset.

authoritiesDEF would have torn-down houseDEF
'The authorities would have demolished the house.'
As noted by Julien (2000b), two important observations concerning ha-

omission in Norwegian are presented by Taraldsen (1984) and Wiklund
(1998). Taraldsen (1984) observes that ha cannot be omitted after a modal
verb that does not have a counterfactual reading, as in (68).
(68) a. Han krevde at vi skulle *(ha) gjort det innen mandag.

he demanded that we shouldPRET have done it by Monday
'He demanded that we should have done it by Monday.'
Wiklund (1998: 15) observes that ha can only be omitted if the combina-
tion of ha and the participle does not require "a perfect state reading." She
supports her claims with the following Swedish sentences (cf. also Julien
2000b: 41 for similar data).
(69) a. Han skulle ha last boken pa mandag.

he should have read bookDEF on Monday
I. 'He should have read the book on Monday.'
II. 'He should have read the book by Monday.'
b. Han skulle last boken pä mändag.

he should readPERF the book on Monday
I. 'He should have read the book on Monday.'
II. *'He should have read the book by Monday.'
Julien (2000b) explains the grammaticality judgments in (69) by analyzing

the perfect as a non-finite past. Thus, the ambiguity of (69a) stems from the
fact that the perfect provides an R and an E, both of which can be specified
by the temporal a d v e r b i a l p ä mändag (Julien 2000b: 43, details omitted):
Figure 22
[ Han skulle (Τι) [ ha last (T 2 ) [ boken pä mändag]]]

he should have read the-book on Monday
Ti = Past: S after R Ε R S
T 2 = Past: R after Ε J | | ^
If the temporal adverbial specifies E, the predicate event, we get reading I

of (69a). When this adverbial specifies R, however, we get reading II of
(69a). Julien goes on to claim that the lack of ambiguity in (69b) is ex-
plained on the assumption—based on Taraldsen's (1984) observation men-
tioned above—that the modal in these cases does not instantiate a T(ense)
head at all, but a M(ood) head. This means that the only Τ head in this sen-
tence is the one instantiated by the participle, so Τ in this case is spelled out
by a non-finite past:
(70) [ Han skulle (Μ) [ läst (Τ]) [ boken pä mändag]]]

he should read (Participle) the-book on Monday
Τ, = Past: S after E E S
While this accounts for the observed data, it cannot be correct, even within
Julien's system. If the modal in these cases is inserted in a M o o d head, and
the participle is what spells out the obligatory tense features, there would
be a range of Norwegian sentences where no tense features would be
spelled out at all. In Julien's account, the adverbial is in effect parasitic on a
T-feature, but if we accept Julien's (2000a, 2001) assumption that the in-
finitive has no temporal properties (a claim that was disputed in the previ-
ous section), no tense features are present in (71a) and (71b). However, we
can still modify the event by means of temporal adverbials. What is some-
times known as "the modal use of past" (cf. e.g. Palmer 1986: 210 ff) is by
no means excluded for modals with an infinitival complement.
(71) a. Vi kunne reise imorgen.

we could travel tomorrow
'We could leave tomorrow.'
b. Du skulle heller komme pä fredag.

you should rather come on Friday
'You ought to come on Friday instead.'
In the present system, R, the "extra" temporal reference point found with
the perfect, is provided by the auxiliary ha 'have'. It is thus to be expected
that the omission of ha prevents a temporal adverbial from specifying the
state denoted by ha (R, in Julien's terms). Omitting ha leads to the absence
of one temporal relation present in the corresponding construction with ha.
However, if Αα-omission is simply a phonological procedure, deleting
an element that is recoverable (because the perfect participle requires to be
governed by an overt or covert auxiliary), we would expect the sentences
where ha is omitted to be synonymous to those where ha is retained. This is
not the case: /(«-omission always gives rise to the counterfactual reading
only, as observed by Taraldsen (1984).
Julien (2003), unlike Julien (2001), discusses the semantic properties of
the participle in these constructions and argues (convincingly, in my view)
that the participle can act as an irrealis marker in Mainland Scandinavian.
Thus, what looks like a participle in (69b) and (72) is in fact an infinitive. It
is an irrealis infinitive, but an infinitive nevertheless. As such, it fulfills the
strong selectional requirements of a modal, encoding the matrix [-PAST, -
FIN],
(72) a. Jon bürde vcert pä kontoret.

Jon ought-to been on officeDEF
b. Marit kunne svemt.

Marit could swum
c. Pasienten mätte blitt behandlet straks.

patientDEF mustPRET become treated immediately
'The patient had to have been treated immediately.'
d. Begge skulle reist i morgen.

both should left in morning
e. Myndighetene ville revet huset.

authorities-DEF would torn-down house-DEF
'The authorities would have demolished the house.'
This also explains why /za-omission is only allowed after a (root or non-
root) modal in the preterite. A present modal cannot signify a counterfac-
tual. For this, we need what Langacker (1978: 855) dubs a distal form, a
term covering both past tense and unreality (cf. also Joos 1964: 121-2, "the
essential common feature is remoteness, in time or reality"). Distal forms
such as the preterite are used for modal purposes in many languages, as
discussed in Palmer (1986: 208). Julien (2003) notes that the irrealis supine
is only licensed in a counterfactual domain. If the participle is in fact a sub-
stitute infinitive, as I claim here, we would expect to find this form even
after the infinitival marker a, if the supine is otherwise licensed by a coun-
terfactual context. This is borne out, as (73) shows.
(73) a. Det hadde vcert artig ä sett deg igjen.

it had been fun to seePERF you again
'It would have been fun to see you again.'
b. Jeg kunne ikke klart ä gätt lenger.

I could not managed to walkPERF further
Ί could not have managed to walk further.'
In this view, what has been dubbed /za-omission is in fact no omission at

all. It is a different strategy for fulfilling the selectional requirements of the
modal (or the infinitival marker). Instead of selecting an infinitival auxil-
iary ha with the right matrix to mediate between the modal and the past
participle, we select the irrealis infinitive directly. This infinitive looks like
the participle, but it is distinguishable by means of its semantic require-
ment: it is only licit in counterfactual contexts.
The counterfactual modal constructions discussed above illustrate an-
other parallel between the finite and non-finite past tense forms: both are
used to express counterfactuality and these constructions observe composi-
tionality. There is a gradually increasing "distance to reality" in the modal
constructions in (74), from the potential reading of (74a), via the hypotheti-
cal reading of (74b) to the counterfactual reading of (74c).
(74) a. Dette kan vcere en Ißsning.

this may be a solution
'This may be a solution.'
b. Dette kunne vcere en losning.

this mayPRET be a solution
'This might be a solution.'
c. Dette kunne vcert en Ißsning.

this might been a solution
'This might have been a solution.'
The participle, even without the aspectual ha, is able to encode a distal
relation, just like the preterite. 45
One may rightfully ask whether the construction in (72) and (74c) can
be described as perfect since it is a common assumption that the aspectual
ha is an intrinsic part of the perfect. If this is a criterion, we ought to find a
different name for the construction in (74c). It is not simply a perfect with a
PF-deleted ha; there never was an auxiliary there in the first place. In addi-
tion to its formally being different from the perfect, the construction in
(74c) also has specific semantic features, notably counterfactuality. Like-
wise, for a non-finite perfect to fulfill its potential range of temporal func-
tions, ha can never be omitted since it provides the tense chain with one
additional event and one additional tense element.
45
In Icelandic this is not as clear-cut as in MSc. Here, a preterite modal + a parti-
ciple may encode what corresponds to the 'hypothetical' construction in (74b). To
encode counterfactuality, the aspectual hafa must be added. Thanks to Gunnar
Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson for the data and judgments,
(i) Hann gceti oröid fyrir slysi (ii) Hann gceti hafa ordid fyrir slysi
He could become for accident He could have become for accident
'He could hurt himself.' 'He could have hurt himself.'
6. The properties of the complement: tense and aspect
Stative complements such as the non-finite present typically give rise to a

non-root reading of the modal, whereas dynamic, future-denoting comple-
ments typically occur with root modals. I argue in section 6.1 that aspectual
properties are subordinate to temporal ones in this pattern; the correlation
dynamic complement + root modal and stative complement + non-root
modal exists because dynamic predicates are usually future-denoting,
whereas stative predicates usually denote present. In section 6.2, I discuss
directionals and seek an explanation for the fact that directional comple-
ments of modals never give rise to a non-root reading of the modal.
6.1. Default and override
We are finally in a position to pursue a semantic explanation for the default

and override rule discussed in section 3. We observed that stative comple-
ments of modals, such as non-finite perfect complements, by default give
rise to a non-root reading, as in (75a). However, when we add a certain
type of adverbial—a temporal future-denoting adverbial or a purpose
clause—the natural reading of the modal is a root reading, as in (75b). Add-
ing an adverbial denoting a point in the past to the perfect construction
once again yields a non-root reading, as in (75c).

Jon must have eaten
mä -i(S > eMA); ha -,( eMA > eHA); spist (eHA > eSPiST)
b. Jon mä ha spist für han kommer.

mä -,(S > eMA); ha -.( eMA > e HA ); spist (eHA > eSPiST)

'Jon must have eaten before he arrived.
mä -,(S > eMA); ha -.( eMA > e H A ); spist (eHA > eSPiST)
Properties of the complement: tense and aspect 377
Root and non-root modals have different communicative functions. Root

modals are used as indirect directives; 46 they state what is required, needed,
allowed, or intended to hold at some point in time. The situation described
by the modal's complement—the situation that is required, intended,
needed, or allowed to hold—cannot denote a point in time preceding the
time denoted by the tense element of the modal; this would lead to a con-
ceptual crash. It would make no sense to require, intend, want, need, or
permit a situation to take place in the past. This is why all root modals are
future-projecting—their complements describe a situation that is temporally
subsequent to the eventuality-time of the modal, for conceptual reasons.
When we require, intend, want, need, or permit a situation to hold, we
know that our intentions, wants, or needs cannot possibly influence events
that have already taken place. 47 However strongly I might have wanted my
requiring John to have eaten before S to alter the actual sequence of events,
this is not possible. In the word of Lyons (1977: 843),
John may have come yesterday construed as a permission-granting utter-

ance is semantically anomalous for the same reason that Come yesterday,
John! is anomalous.
When an event embedded under a modal is construed as temporally preced-
ing the eventuality-time of the modal (because the complement is a non-
finite perfect in the function of a non-finite, remote past tense, for instance),
the reading of the modal is non-root, as in (76a). When the situation de-
scribed by the modal's complement is construed as simultaneous to the
modal's tense, the reading of the modal is usually non-root, as in (76b).
Only when the complement of the modal is construed as future with respect
to the time denoted by the modal's tense element does the root reading
become felicitous and natural, as (76c) shows.
46
This is confirmed by the fact that in MSc languages modals take on the function
of the imperative in embedded clauses (imperatives cannot be embedded).
(i) Han sa: gä! —> Han sa at vi skulle/mätte gä.
'He said: Leave! —> He said that we should/had to leave.'
(ii) Han sa: Bare gä! —> Han sa at vi kunne gä.
'He said: Just leave! —> He said that we might leave.'
47
Unless, of course, you live in a universe where time travel is possible and trivial,
cf. e.g. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (Adams 2005), where excessively
complex tense systems had to be invented to describe exactly this type of situation.
(76) a. Jon mä ha vcert arkitekt.

Jon must have been architect
'Jon must have been an architect.'
b. Jon mä vcere arkitekt.

'Jon must be an architect.'
c. Jon mä bli arkitekt.

'Jon must become an architect.'
Figure 23
'past' S48 'future'
modal
V A J
V Y
Non-root only Root and non-root possible
I argued in section 3 that root modals take Stative complements construed

as simultaneous with the modal. The examples are repeated here for con-
venience (ignore for the moment that a non-root reading is also possible).
(77) a. Dette skal jeg egentlig ikke vite, men det gjor jeg.
this shall I actually not know but that do I
Ί am not actually supposed to know this, but I do.'
b. Jon mä vcere pä kontoret.

48
In this figure, the modal is set to be simultaneous with S, but modals can occur
in various tenses (see section 7), and in every case, the relative temporal construal
of the modal and its complement is the important feature, not the relation between
the modal and the speech event S, or the complement of the modal and S.
The situations described by the complement of the modal—'my knowing

this' and 'Jon's being in the office', respectively—may very well hold at
the time of utterance; in (77a), this is the natural, perhaps the only reading,
given the rest of the sentence—'but I do'. However, simultaneity is not the
construal implied by the communicative function of a root modal. As noted
in the quote from Lyons (1977) above, it makes no sense to allow a person
to do something yesterday. Likewise, it makes little sense to order a person
to bed, if that person is already in bed, or more generally, to permit, forbid
or require a situation that already holds. However, it is quite irrelevant for
the root reading of a modal whether or not the situation embedded under
the modal may be construed as already existing. The root modal states that
'from now on (i.e. from the time encoded by the modal's tense element),
the following situation must, may, is supposed to hold'; the modal makes
no reference to whether the complement is describing a situation already in
existence. This, I believe, is what is referred to in various descriptions of
the future-projecting properties of root modals. Since a modal is a stative
predicate that sometimes takes stative complements, we may create con-
struals where the time of the complement partly overlaps with the time of
the modal. However, given the communicative function of root modals as
indirect directives, the modality will always have commenced before the
existence of the situation described by the complement became relevant.
Unlike root modals, non-root modals grade or modify the truth value of
the proposition encoded by their complements. Thus, they do not require
the situation to take place in the future; on the contrary, most non-root mo-
dals are perfectly comfortable with, and even prefer, propositions denoting
events in the past, or situations holding at the modal's evaluation time. This
is natural, since it is typically easier for a language user to decide what
degree of likelihood to ascribe to a proposition describing a situation that
already exists or used to exist. The only non-root modal that clearly re-
quires its complement to denote 'future with respect to the modal' is the
metaphysical modal ville, denoting prediction. All other non-root modals in
Norwegian may take future-denoting complements as well, some more
marginally than others. For instance, kunne 'may' is used more often with
future complements than matte 'must', presumably because kunne denotes
possibility whereas matte denotes necessity and it is difficult to know what
will necessarily take place in the future. 49
49
This is confirmed by the fact that many languages use mood markers instead of
tense markers to refer to the future: in languages like Dyirbal and Burmese, the
With these assumptions, we can explain our intuitions about the natural
readings of the modal in (75a), (75b), and (75c), repeated here as (78), (80),
and (81).

Jon must have eaten
mä -,(S > e M A); ha -i( eMA > e H A ); spist (e HA > eSPisT)
Figure 24
S
(eHA>espisT) ~1 (S>e M A)
mä
-ι ( eMA > eHA)
spist ha
There are two features facilitating the non-root reading of the modal here.
First of all, the complement of the modal is stative (it is headed by a stative
aspectual ha) and by default simultaneous with the modal. This simultane-
ous construal of the complement favors a non-root reading. Secondly, we
know that the non-finite perfect may be a substitute for the remote past (the
preterite) when embedded under a modal or when selected by an infinitival
marker; hence, we are allowed to construe the complement as past relative
to the modal. Root modals cannot take complements denoting past relative
to the modal, so this construal forces the non-root reading. However, there
are several construals of (78) that allow for a root reading such as the one
illustrated in Figure 25. It may be easier to see this reading with an example
such as (79). Note that even (79) can be construed as in Figure 24 and still
(marginally) allow for a root reading, cf. the discussion of the stative ex-
amples in (77).
(79) a. Paris er en av de stedene man bare mä ha vcert.

irrealis form is used to refer to future situations (Comrie 1985: 45).

Figure 25
S
(eeA > eV/ERT) -> (S > eMA) ( CMÄ > eHA)

vcert mä ha
Again, the tense elements involved allow for the construals in Figures 24
and 25. We may also construe the participle as future with respect to S, as
long as it is past relative to ha. This is the construal in Figure 26, one pos-
sible construal of (80) (and (79) and (78)). Whenever the aspectual is
forced to denote future (by means of an adverbial), as in (80), the root read-
ing of the modal is possible and felicitous.
(80) a. Jon mä ha spist for han kommer.

mä -i(S > e M A); ha -i( eMA > e H A); spist (eHA > eSPiST)
Figure 26
S Jon's arrival
—ι (S > eMA) (eHA > SSPIST ) (^MA > eHA)

mä spist ha
Finally, adding an adverbial denoting a point in the past gives rise to the
non-root reading of the modal, and the temporal construal of the sentence in
(81) is the same as the one for (78). Here, no future-denoting adverbial
forces ha into the future, and the default readings of the respective predi-
cates once again kick in. We are allowed to construe the non-finite perfect
as an embedded remote past (embedded preterite); this gives rise to the
non-root reading of the modal.
(81) a. Jon mä ha spist for han kom.

mä i(S > e M A); ha -i( eMA > e H A); spist (e HA > e SP i S T)
Figure 27
(eHA > espisT) —ι (S > eMA)

mä
-ι ( eMA > eHA)
spist ha
At this point, we have an explanation for the fact that a modal preceding an
aspectual ha 'have' by default has a non-root reading. The complement
headed by the stative aspectual ha is stative; thus, it denotes an existing
state. This favors a non-root reading. Likewise, the non-finite perfect often
acts as a substitute denoting embedded past; hence a non-finite perfect may
also encode a situation construed as temporally prior to the eventuality-time
of the modal. Root modals are not felicitous with complements denoting
situations preceding them in time. We also have an explanation for the fact
that a temporal adverbial denoting a point in the future with respect to the
modal's eventuality-time or a purpose clause (which has the same type of
temporal function) may give rise to a root reading of the modal even
though the complement of the modal is the non-finite perfect. Even in this
case the participle is construed as past with respect to ha, but ha is forced
into a future reading by means of the adverbial; hence the modal's com-
plement is future relative to the modal. As such, it is a possible complement
for a root modal, and the root reading becomes possible. Finally, a temporal
adverbial denoting a point in time prior to the modal's eventuality-time
does not have the same effect; it cannot act as a trigger for the override
rule, forcing the stative aspectual into a future reading. Thus, the root read-
ing becomes unnatural, though not impossible: on a construal such as the
one in Figure 25, even (81) should give rise to the root reading though this
reading is hard to get with the elements involved in (81). Adding an adver-
bial like om to minutter 'in two minutes' perhaps paves the way for the
construal in Figure 25, where the aspectual and the participle envelope the
speech event S. The reading is: 'In two minutes, a state must have com-
menced consisting of the aftermath of Jon's eating before he arrived.' Con-
ceptually, this is still a difficult construal to get because it requires Jon's
having eaten before S; the addressee cannot possibly change this event. The
state that has to commence in two minutes consists of the aftermath of the
eating that has already taken place; thus, the only felicitous reading is in
Properties of the complement: tense and aspect 3 83
effect that 'In two minutes, I want you to inform me that Jon ate before he
arrived'. On this construal, the root reading is possible because the com-
plement of the modal is future, as in (82), but it remains a far-fetched and
awkward construal.
(82) a. Om to minutter mä Jon ha spistfer han kom.

In two minutes must Jon have eaten before he arrived
'In two minutes, Jon must have eaten before he arrived.'
The default and override effect, as outlined here, concerns all stative predi-
cates, not only (non-finite) perfects, although the complex temporal rela-
tions of the perfect add another dimension to the issue. However, the fact
that a root modal prefers a dynamic predicate and a non-root modal (except
for the metaphysical ville 'will') prefers a stative predicate is stems from
the temporal properties of any verbal complement of a modal. Root modals
are future-projecting and dynamic predicates give rise to a future construal
by default. A stative predicate yields a present reading by default and thus
occurs more often as the complement of a non-root modal. However, if we
force the stative predicate into a future construal by means of a future-
denoting adverbial, the root reading becomes felicitous and natural.
To exploit the aspectual properties of a predicate to specify an otherwise
underspecified tense system is evidently a common practice in natural lan-
guages. In Capverdean Creole, for instance, the bare verb form is ambigu-
ous between a past and present reading. However, a dynamic predicate
typically yields a past reading, a stative predicate a present reading (Bap-
tista 1997). It is possible to override these default readings by adding other
elements, but in the default case, the stative is present and the dynamic is
past (cf. also fn. 39).
In this section, I have argued that the semantic properties of the per-
fect—specifically, its temporal and aspectual properties—are responsible
for its behavior when embedded under a modal. Likewise, we saw that the
temporal and aspectual properties of the modal's complement are important
even when this complement is a garden-variety infinitive. A (single-event
construal of a) dynamic verb typically yields a future reading which easily
gives rise to a root reading of the modal; a stative infinitival complement,
typically construed as present, facilitates a non-root reading of the modal.
6.2. Truth values and tenses, verbs and directionals
There is one type of construction that, although it frequently occurs as the

complement of a modal, has been ignored in the discussion in the preceding
section. This is the directional construction, illustrated in (83).
(83) a. Marit skal hjem.

Marit shall home
'Marit is supposed to go home.'
b. Jon mä pä butikken.
Jon must in storeDEF
'Jon must go to the store.'
c. Greina vil ikke αν.

branchDEF wants not off
'The branch does not want to come off.'
Directionals never occur as the complement of a non-root modal, as dis-

cussed in section 3.1 of Chapter 2. It is tempting to dismiss this fact as be-
ing due to the different selectional requirements of root and non-root mo-
dals, along the lines of Barbiers (1995, 2002), and claim that the dynamic,
future construal of the directional makes it unfit to be the complement of a
non-root modal. It is true that directionals fulfill the aspectual and temporal
requirements of a prototypical root modal complement in that they are con-
strued as dynamic, hence future with respect to the modal. On the other
hand, we know that all non-root modals in Norwegian allow for [+dynamic,
+future] complements (on their metaphysical construal), and the non-root
modal ville 'will' even requires its complement to denote future. However,
not even non-root ville can take a directional complement; the reading of
(83c) is the volitional, not the prediction, reading, even with an inanimate
subject like greina 'the branch'.
I propose an explanation based on the assumption that directionals lack
tense features. If directionals are indeed headed by a phonetically empty
motion verb GO, as suggested by van Riemsdijk (2000a, 2000b) and dis-
cussed in Chapter 2 section 3.1 of the present work, this empty verb evi-
dently cannot host a tense element, unlike all other verbal predicates in
Norwegian. Gueron and Hoekstra (1995: 101) argue, on quite different
grounds, that non-verbal small clauses lack an "independent T(ense)-
Operator," regardless of their being resultatives like John ran [the pave-
ment thin] or "epistemic" small clauses of the type John considered [stu-
dents boring]. I will adopt this assumption here and argue that directionals
and other small clauses lacking a phonetically realized verb do not consti-
tute their own tense domain; they do not express a tense element.
Why should the presence of a tense element in the complement be of
concern to a non-root reading of a modal? To answer this question, we need
to investigate the function of finite tenses and finiteness in general. The
feature finiteness is not exclusive to tense; the category mood may fulfill
the finiteness requirement of a declarative clause. Thus, in (84a) the finite-
ness requirement is satisfied by tense, in (84b) by subjunctive mood.50
(84) a. Er kann es gesagt haben.

he canPRES it sayPERF havelNF
'He may have said it.'
b. Er könnte es gesagt haben.

he canSUBJ2 it sayPERF havelNF
'He might have said it.'
It is a widespread assumption that finiteness is the common trait of mood

and tense. Holmberg and Platzack (1995: 23), for example, argue that
A category related to tense and mood is the category of finiteness.... In tra-
ditional grammar finite has roughly the meaning 'restricted to the particular
situation', i.e. the finite form of a verb indicates the existence of a predica-
tion at the time of the utterance.... Thus, in a way, finiteness is a prerequi-
site for tense and mood: Unless a predication is related to the time of utter-
ance via the concept of finiteness, we have no basis for expressing the
relative position in time of the situation expressed by the predication vis-a-
vis the utterance, and we cannot relate the attitude of the speaker to the
situation.
This idea is further developed in Platzack and Rosengren (1998: 189 ff);
they implement the idea that tense and mood are related to finiteness by
assuming that the category Fin0 (finiteness) attracts a feature [finite], pre-
50
These data are taken from Reiten (1990). The mood in (84b) is the Konjunktiv II,
a more distal mood than Konjunktiv I. According to Reiten (1990: 207), there is no
temporal distinction between these two forms, although Konjunktiv II is some-
times referred to as the Konjunktiv Präteritum.
sent in tense and m o o d — t h a t both tense and m o o d may instantiate fmite-

ness. Moreover, the semantic function ascribed to finiteness is that of refer-
entiality: finiteness endows the proposition with a reference. Platzack and
Rosengren (1998: 191) state:
Let us finally consider the contribution of Tense/Mood and Finiteness to the

finite clause. Generally speaking, Mood indicates whether the event de-
scribed is relevant for our world (indicative) or for some other world (sub-
junctive) whereas Tense relates the event or situation referred to by the
clause to a time line. Finiteness, finally, anchors the event in time and
space, by identifying a point on the time line with the speaker's here and
now. In other words, a finite utterance is referring to an event in the
speaker's world or some other world.
I exploit this idea by assuming that finiteness is an inherent part of an as-

sertion. 1 want to distinguish between an assertion, which I define as ' a
proposition with a (potential) truth value' and a proposition, consisting
solely of a subject-predicate relation (not necessarily with a truth value). 51
Thus, (85a) is a proposition but not an assertion; (85b) is both a proposition
and an assertion due to the presence of a finite verb. 5 2
(85) a. Unicorns (to be) in the garden.

b. Unicorns are in the garden.
O n e crucial difference between a proposition, as defined above, and an

assertion is that the latter has a truth value. T h e linguistic expression Uni-
corns (to be) in the garden has no such value, since it is not anchored with
respect to the m o m e n t of utterance neither by means of tense, w h i c h w o u l d
anchor the event on a timeline, nor by means of mood, which w o u l d anchor
51
I take a predication relation to hold between a thematic subject and a predicate
only. An expletive subject + a predicate still constitute a proposition although there
is no predication relation between them (Äfarli and Eide 2001).
5Z
This assertion can be further operated on by a question operator, for example,
questioning either whether the truth value is true or false (in yes-no questions) or
what referent must be filled in to make the truth value true (vcA-questions). The
notion of assertion is often taken to partake in the opposition between questions,
assertions, and commands (cf. e.g. Stenius 1967); thus a different term should
perhaps be found for the notion 'proposition with a truth value'. It is not important,
however, if the term 'assertion' is the best term possible. What is important is the
distinction made.
the event with respect to reality. 53 It is of course not a novel idea that the
truth value depends on the presence of tense. Higginbothham (1997: 27)
states:
[I]t is attractive to take the logic peculiar to tenses as intentional, so that
sentences of natural languages can be evaluated as true or false only relative
to moments or intervals of time.
A similar statement is found in Larson and Segal (1995: 510):
Tense thus brings in an important element of deixis or indexicality. Tenses
force sentences to be evaluated relative to the moment of utterance.
I will combine the assumptions of Higginbotham and those of Platzack and
Rosengren (1998) that fmiteness is what endows the event described by a
proposition with referentiality. I claim that this referentiality turns a propo-
sition into an assertion and gives rise to a truth value. In what follows, we
will concentrate on tense as the expression of fmiteness since Norwegian
does not employ mood (except as relics). In other languages, however,
mood provides a proposition with fmiteness and turns it into an assertion.
Non-root modals, as mentioned above, target the truth value of their
complement and grade, qualify, or modify it (see the discussion in section
7): they are assertions about assertions. 54 From what I have said so far, it
ought to follow firstly, that non-root modals are always finite (I postpone
this question until section 7) and secondly, that they take finite comple-
ments only. However, it is easy to find counterexamples to the latter claim.
Non-root modals exclusively take infinitival, i.e. non-finite, complements,
as in (86).

53
Here, I ignore recent approaches to Mood suggesting that the realis/irrealis
division is inadequate and impressionistic and, at the very best, too coarse-grained
to account for the observed interpretations of e.g. the subjunctive; cf. Quer (1998).
54
This is a simplification, as non-root modals may occur in questions:
(i) Ok, so John is a thief. Must he therefore be a murderer?
The second sentence could be paraphrased as follows: What is the truth value of [it
is necessarily true [that John is a murderer]?
b. *Det mä at Jon er pä kontoret.

it must that Jon is in officeDEF
c. Det kan vcere at Jon er pä kontoret.

it may be that Jon is in officeDEF
'It may be that Jon is in his office.'
Note that even in (86c), the complement of the modal is an infinitive. Thus,
we need to refine our hypothesis. This is possible by means of the system
of tense chains developed in the previous sections.
In this model, the infinitive contains the tense element [-PAST,-FIN],
The tense element of a non-finite verb takes two arguments—the event
argument of the closest c-commanding verb as its first argument and the
event denoted by the verb hosting the non-finite tense element as the sec-
ond. The tense element of the infinitive encodes a non-past relation: —i(ei>
e2). If the verb is stative, as is often the case with the complement of non-
root modals (see the previous section and section 3), the non-past relation is
taken to be one of simultaneity. The closest c-commanding verb in the
cases under consideration is the non-root modal. This modal is finite, and a
finite tense element takes S as its first argument and the event argument of
the verb hosting the tense element—in this case the modal—as the second
one. The finite tense in (86a) and (86c) is present, so the relation between S
and the modal is non-past, —i(S > ei). This non-past relation is construed as
one of simultaneity since the modal is stative.

mä [-PAST,+FIN] —. (S > e M A ) ; e i v t A :stative -> simultaneity

viere[-PAST, -FIN]-. (eMA>ev/ERE); eV/ERE :stative -> simultaneity
The complement of the modal is "finite by inheritance," i.e. it is anchored

on the timeline with respect to S via its relation to eMA, the event argument
of the modal. To maintain our hypothesis that non-root modals are asser-
tions about assertions, we need to say that this explicit semantic temporal
anchoring with respect to S suffices to give the complement of a modal a
truth value; it converts it from a proposition to an assertion. Thus, the gen-
eralization we are looking for is not that a proposition must be endowed
Properties of the complement: tense and aspect 3 89
with a finite verb to be interpreted as an assertion, but that a proposition

must contain at least one member of a tense chain to be interpreted as an
assertion. A sentence becomes the member of such a tense chain by means
of an overtly expressed tense element, finite or non-finite. If the assertion
contains a finite tense element, it is directly linked to S; if it contains a non-
finite tense element, it is indirectly linked to S by means of at least one
intermediate member of a tense chain where the topmost tense element
relates to S.
If finiteness endows the proposition with a truth value, and if this truth
value is what gives it a reference (by turning it into an assertion), one
would expect finiteness to be 'inherited', as suggested here. We know that
a comparable mechanism exists in the nominal domain in the procedure of
ascribing reference to anaphors. An anaphor has no independent reference;
although it may possess a range of semantic features (e.g. phi-features), it
receives reference only by means of being a member of an argument chain,
where the topmost member is the R-expression, the element with an inde-
pendent reference. 55 Thus, an anaphor has the same type of dependent ref-
erence as a non-finite tense element. Just like an anaphor, a non-fmite tense
element gets its reference from being the non-topmost member of a referen-
tial chain. A nominal R-expression is, for instance, a proper name. A tem-
poral R-expression is a finite tense element.
For any proposition to become an assertion, it must contain a tense ele-
ment that is a member of a tense chain. This tense chain must contain a
finite verb as its topmost member (the R-expression). In Norwegian, only
verbs host tense elements and they are inherently temporal. Thus, Norwe-
gian verbs cannot not express tense since no verb form comes without ei-
ther a finite or a non-finite tense element. The only way to express a seem-
ingly tenseless verb is by means of a non-finite verb not partaking in a
tense chain with a finite verb as its topmost member, as in (85a). In this
case, nothing instantiates the first event argument of the tense element since
non-finite tense elements cannot relate directly to S; they require the event
argument of a c-commanding verb as their first argument. This would be
like employing a nominal anaphor with no antecedent: *each other liked.
There is nothing to give reference to the anaphoric element, in contrast to
they liked each other, where the anaphor gets its reference from they. Non-
finite tense elements are anaphoric and only tense elements can inherit ref-
55
See Reinhart and Reuland (1993) for this specific use of the term R-expression,
where R-expression includes deictic pronouns.
erence from a finite antecedent. Since only verbs host tense elements in
Norwegian, this means that for any clause to be interpreted as an assertion,
it must contain at least one verb.
This hypothesis straightforwardly explains the ban on directionals as the
complements of non-root modals. Only phonetically realized verbs are
equipped with tense elements. Directionals contain no tense element and,
therefore, cannot be interpreted as assertions, only propositions. But propo-
sitions as defined above consist solely of a subject-predicate relation and do
not give rise to truth value. Thus, the bracketed parts of the sentences in
(88) are propositions, not assertions, because of the lack of a tense element.
(88) a. MaritIskal[tihjem\.
Marit shall home
b. Jorij mä [tr pä butikken].

c. Greina/ vil ikke [ti av\

Since these directionals lack a tense element, which is a requirement for a

proposition to be interpreted as an assertion, they have no truth value. Since
they have no truth value, there is nothing for a non-root modal to qualify.
Thus, the non-root reading of the modal is excluded and the root reading is
the only possibility.
7. The tense properties of root and non-root modals
In this section, I briefly consider the relatively non-controversial temporal

properties of root modals before investigating the more recalcitrant tense
properties of non-root modals. Then, I elaborate on the claim from the pre-
vious section that non-root modals are assertions about assertions. In this
discussion, I draw on properties of generic sentences (semantically quite
similar to non-root modals) and sequence of tenses phenomena. I also chai-
Tense properties of root and non-root modals 3 91
lenge the long-standing "finiteness requirement" assumed to hold univer-

sally for non-root modals.
7.1. The tense of root modals
Most proper modals in English have a simplified paradigm of tense forms, 56

but this is a rare situation in Germanic languages more broadly. There is a
general consensus in the literature that modals in most Germanic languages
have a full paradigm for tense; the controversy revolves around what types
of modals have access to which forms. Even on this issue, however, most
authors agree that root modals have full sets of non-pleonastic tense forms,
including the infinitive and the perfect. Accordingly, the modality denoted
by root modals is sensitive to tense distinctions; in Iatridou's (1990b)
terms, root modals contain a time variable. This can be seen, for instance,
in the fact that quantificational adverbials like ofte 'often' may easily take
semantic scope over a root modal, as in (89).
(89) a. Ofte vil Jon pä fotballkamp när jeg vilpä kino.

Often wants Jon to football match when I want on cinema
'Often, Jon wants to see a football match when I want to go
to the movies.'
b. Marit mä ofte passe lillesesteren.

Marit must often watch baby sisterDEF.
'Often, Marit must watch her baby sister.'
c. Ofte kan ikke sykkelen tas med pä bussen.

Often can not bicycleDEF takePASS on busDEF.
'Often, one cannot take one's bicycle on the bus.'
Root modals are stative predicates; they typically denote simultaneity when
equipped with a non-past tense element—the present or the infinitive. They
are also possible complements of non-root modals, in which case the choice
56
Palmer (2001: 100) notes that English modals lack non-finite forms and nearly
all of them have past tense forms not denoting past (could is an exception and may
refer to past time; Stowell (2004) suggests that even might may be used to express
past). Must has no past tense form and is replaced by had to for past reference.
of non-root modal may influence the temporal reading of the root modal.
For instance, the non-root ville 'will' denotes prediction, and root modals,
like other verbs (even stative ones), yield a future reading when they follow
ville.
7.2. The tense of non-root modals
Non-root modals, and their compatibility with tense, are the subject of
much more controversy in the literature than root modals. It has often been
claimed that non-root modals cannot interact with tense, that they occur
with a pleonastic present form only, not in past or non-fmite forms. There
are at least three plausible approaches to these issues. One might imagine
that non-root modals do not have access to the right forms, that they are
specified as having no past or non-finite forms in the lexicon. Secondly,
there is the approach often advocated in recent generativist proposals—that
there is a universal hierarchy forcing non-root modals to occur in specific
head positions in the clause, positions that prevent them from interacting
with tense heads. We discussed some of the problems with this type of an
approach in section 4, in particular in section 4.4. Thirdly, one might imag-
ine that it is the semantics of these modals that make them reluctant to in-
teract with tense and express tense alternations. The third approach is the
one I advocate here.
First, I will show that non-root modals have access to non-fmite forms
such as the infinitive and the participle. Secondly, I address the question of
past tense root modals in sequence of tenses and certain other contexts.
7.2.1. Non-root modals and finiteness
A widespread assumption in the literature on Germanic modals seems to be

that non-root modals have no non-finite forms. Denison (1993: 311), for
instance, referring to Old and Middle English, states that "the modal in the
infinitive is non-epistemic," 57 which in our terms means that no non-root
modal occurs in the infinitive. Furthermore, Plank (1984: 314), objecting to
Lightfoot (1979), states that
57
He does, however, comment on three examples that show a slight possibility of
an epistemic interpretation although the modal is non-finite.
Tense properties of root and non-root modals 393
[P]remodals when used epistemically in general do not seem to have oc-

curred non-finitely in OE and ME in the first place. (Note that an identical
finiteness requirement characterizes epistemic modals also in other Ger-
manic languages where there can be no question of modals not being verbs;
in fact, a requirement to this effect can presumably claim general rather
than language particular validity.)
Roberts and Roussou (2002) follow Vikner (1988) and van Kemenade
(1985) who make similar claims about non-root modals in Danish and
Dutch, respectively. In the present proposal, however, there is no a priori
reason to assume that non-root modals cannot occur in the infinitive. I ar-
gued in section 6.2 that the tense element of a non-fmite verb suffices to
turn a proposition into an assertion if it belongs to a tense chain where the
first tense element is finite. The criterion is explicit semantic anchoring of
the relevant tense element. Thus, even if non-root modals are assertions
about assertions, one would expect them to be able to appear as infinitives
when embedded under another verb hosting a finite tense element. Of
course, it would take a predicate of the right kind to embed these speaker-
oriented non-root modals; since non-root modals never assign a Theta-role
to a subject, they would not be expected to show up as the downstairs
clausal head of what is usually considered a control structure. This is be-
cause control structures demand a PRO subject and PRO usually requires a
Theta-role. We would have no reason, however, to expect non-root modals
not to occur in raising constructions. Our expectations are borne out, as the
data in (90), repeated from Chapter 2 section 2, show. 38
(90) a. Nevßen pästäs ä skulle vcere morderen.

nephewDEF claimPASS to shall be the killer
'The nephew is claimed supposedly to be the killer.'
b. Dette antas ä matte vcere en misforstäelse .

this supposePASS to must be a misconception
O n e supposes that this certainly is a misconception.'
58
See also Faarlund et al. (1997: 578), where an embedded skulle occurs in the
infinitive and retains an evidential reading. They also show in effect that skulle
inherits tense anchoring from the tense of the matrix verb embedding it.
3 94 Nonvegian modals, aspect and tense
c. Denne tabben fryktes ä kunne ha kostet dem oppdraget.

this mistake fearPASS to may have costed them the job
O n e fears that this mistake possibly made them loose
the job.'
d. Dette anses ä bürde vcere et tilbakelagt stadium.

this regardPASS to ought-to be an endured stage
'This is regarded as most likely a thing of the past.'
e. For andringen forventes ä ville 0ke sal get.

changeDEF expectPASS to will increase saleDEF
'The changes are expected to increase the sales
(in the future).'
In all sentences in (90), the embedded modal is infinitive, has a non-root

reading and sounds somewhat bookish and perhaps redundant, but not un-
grammatical or infelicitous. There are even exceptional examples where
(what I believe to be) the evidential skulle occurs in an infinitival construc-
tion with an arbitrary PRO reading, as in (91a). In this case, there is a
"quasi-agentive" reading of arbitrary PRO, comparable to the reading with
other raising verbs in a similar context, as in (91b), quoted here from Horn-
stein (1998: 120) and also discussed in Chomsky (1995b). 59
(91) a. Det er belastende ä skulle vcere fadermorder.

it is straining to shall be father-murderer
'It is straining to be an alleged father-murderer.'
b. To appear to be intelligent is harder than one might think.
We have also already seen many examples of non-root modals in the pre-
sent perfect (the data in (28) through (30)), and we know from Chapter 2
that there are counterfactual constructions where epistemic modals occur in
what is formally a past perfect construction.
59
Chomsky (1995b: 436, fn. 27) assumes this reading to be a by-product of rais-
ing, this is the interpretation one gets in the raised subject position. Hornstein
(1998: fn. 30) continues: "it is plausible that these effects are quasi-thematic prop-
erties of IP." Or perhaps something like subject-orientedness could be involved, at
least in the case of (91b); cf. sections 3 and 4 of chapter 4.
(92) a. Dersom tyngdekraften ikke fantes,

if gravityDEF not existed,
hadde det mättet vcere vanskelig ä holde beina päjorda!
had it mustPERF be hard to keep legsDEF on groundDEF
'If gravity had not existed,

it would have to be difficult to stay grounded!'
b. Hvis jeg hadde kunnet vcere morderen, herr Holmes,

if I had can-PERF be killer-DEF, mr.Holmes,
hadde politiet arrestert meg for lenge siden.
had policeDEF arrested me for long since
'If it were possible that I was the killer, Mr. Holmes,

the police would have arrested me long ago.'
We may conclude, therefore, that the finite requirement assumed for non-
root modals (at least epistemic ones) in Germanic is not a requirement, but
a tendency, albeit a very strong tendency. The semantics of these predicates
make them more comfortable with finite than non-finite forms, and there is
no doubt that statistically their finite forms are much more frequent. Howe-
ver, their semantics does not exclude the possibility of non-finite forms, as
demonstrated by the data in (91) and (92); see also (28)-(30) in section 4.3
for present perfect data.
7.2.2. Non-root modals for the past and future
According to Cinque (1999), non-root modalities such as epistemic and

evidential are outside the scope of tense altogether. Hence, we would not
expect non-root modals to be able to interact with tense at all, and we
would not expect such modalities to be sensitive to temporal alternation.
More recent work in the Principles and Parameters framework has chal-
lenged this conjecture, however. Stowell (2004) and Condoravdi (2002)
suggest that "metaphysical" modals such as could and might in fact encode
tense information; these forms are not always pleonastic tense forms. 60 Fa-
60
Stowell (2004: 628) aligns this metaphysical modality with Cinque's alethic
modality which may be affected by tense even in Cinque's system.
gan (2001) suggests that German evidential (but not epistemic) modals can
undergo tense alternations, and Boogaart (2005) argues that even epistemic
modals are sensitive to tense alternations. There are a number of different
opinions on this matter, and we need to go into the details if w e are to make
sense of the claims.
There is no reason to reject the assumption that different types of non-
root modality behave differently with regard to temporal alternation. For
instance, Iatridou (1990b) observes a difference between two types of mo-
dal adjectival predicates taking propositional complements in the frame [It
was/will be A P that S]. Predicates like evident/obvious are fully acceptable
in this context, whereas predicates like possible and probable are not; ob-
serve the difference between (93a) and (93b).
(93) a. It was/will be evident that John stole the tapes.

b. #It was/will be possible/probable that John stole the
tapes.
c. It is possible/probable that John stole the tapes.
Iatridou assumes that evidential predicates like obvious and evident contain
a time variable, unlike epistemic predicates like possible and probable.61
This assumption also explains the contrast in (94), according to Iatridou,
since adverbials like often are predicated of a time variable.
(94) a. It is often obvious (to me) that you don't study enough.
b. * It is often possible that you don't study enough.
The lack of a time variable is claimed to be responsible for the fact that
epistemic predicates cannot be modified by a past or future tense, as (93b)
suggests, and cannot scope under a quantificational adverbial like often.
Fagan (2001: 31) adopts this analysis and applies it to German modals. She
finds that evidential modals like sollen 'shall' and wollen 'will' indeed
undergo temporal alternation, which is best witnessed in the perfect, as in
(95a) and (95b), the latter originally from Leirbukt (1988: 178). This dis-
tinguishes German evidential modals from epistemic ones, according to
Fagan.
61
Iatridou uses the term epistemic for predicates I call evidential and the term
metaphysical for predicates I call epistemic.
(95) a. Er hat krank sein sollen.

he has sick be shall-IPP
'They claimed that he was sick.'
b. Man hat später wissen wollen, dass...

one has later know will-IPP, that
O n e later claimed to know that...'
However, Dyvik (1999: 5) provides examples where the Norwegian epis-

temic modal kunne follows a metaphysical ville and suggests that this is
clearly a future reading of kunne, as in (96a): kunne is at least able to de-
note a future modality, suggesting that epistemic modality may undergo
temporal alternation. Likewise, Vikner (1988: 9-10) and Thräinnson and
Vikner (1995: 76) claim that only kunne can be the second of two Danish
non-root modals in a sequence, as in (96b), which "is totally mysterious
under our analysis."
(96) a. Han vil kunne ha reist imorgen. Norwegian.

he will mayINF have travelled tomorrow
'Tomorrow, it will be the case that he may have left.'
b. Det vil let kunne gä noget gait. Danish.

there will easily canINF go something wrong
'It will easily be possible that something goes wrong.
I suggested in section 6.1 that kunne occurs more easily with propositions
denoting future situations than matte 'must', presumably because kunne
denotes possibility whereas matte denotes necessity. It is impossible to tell
what will necessarily happen in the future; hence, it is typically infelicitous
to use a necessity modal about a future situation (many languages use irre-
alis to encode future tense; see Comrie 1985: 45). Likewise, ville 'will'
denotes prediction and it seems counterintuitive to embed a necessity mo-
dal under a prediction. The informant test discussed in section 3.4 of Chap-
ter 2 shows that Norwegian speakers prefer the bare form of a main verb to
the corresponding construction with ville + main verb for expressing a firm
conviction about the future: ville encodes a certain degree of uncertainty, a
plausible reason for its incompatibility with the epistemic modals encoding
necessity. There is a parallel explanation for the fact that might and could
can be used for situations that were future unrealized possibilities of past
situations, as (97), from Condoravdi (2002), shows.
(97) He might have won the game.

I. He might have (already) won the game (# but he didn't).
II. At that point he might (still) have won the game
(but he didn't in the end).
A necessity modal such as had to could not replace might here and give the
counterfactual, metaphysical reading in II since a non-root necessity modal
would signal that the situation described was the only possible future at that
point. The counterfactuality of the construction in II indicates that the situa-
tion did not take place, hence it was not the only possible outcome; thus,
the non-root necessity modal would be infelicitous. The only reading of the
modal in At that point, he had to have won the game is the root reading: 'It
would have been necessary for him to win the game'.
Of course, this does not entail that non-root necessity modals are com-
pletely insensitive to tense alternations. Boogaart (2005: 16) argues that the
past of epistemic modals is just like any other past of stative, imperfective
predicates. He supports his assumptions with data such as (98).
(98) a. The voices melted into his reality and he didn't realize
that he could be ill.
b. Why didn't he want to be a doctor or a lawyer? He must

be ill, mad, or very bad!
c. Η et moest wel een lieh en lief geheim zijn... Dutch

it mustPRET probably a light and sweet secret be
'The secret had to be a light and sweet one...'
Boogaart continues:
The past tense in these examples does what it always does: it indicates that
the reference point precedes the point of speech (R < S), i.e. not the mo-
ment of utterance but some moment in the past functions as epistemic
evaluation time. In my view, there is thus no reason for claiming that the
past tense of epistemic modals is in any way not a normal, real (temporal)
past tense in these cases.
The data in (98) are all so-called "sequence of tenses" contexts; a verb of
saying, thinking, referring is in the preterite, allowing—and sometimes
forcing—the finite verb of the embedded clause to also occur in the preter-
ite. It has been observed many times that even epistemic modals can occur
in past forms in these contexts. However, Iatridou (1990b) has argued that
the past in sequence of tenses is not a real past, but some kind of pleonastic
past. If we want to argue that epistemic modals are sensitive to temporal
alternation, we need to dispute this claim.
7.2.3. Sequence of tenses, non-root modals, and generics
The claim that all non-root modals tend to avoid undergoing tense alterna-
tions seems defendable. However, evidential modals can be argued to be
sensitive to past tenses, metaphysically construed possibility modals take
on past (and future) tenses, and epistemic modals seemingly occur in a past
form with a past reading only in sequence of tenses. This suggests that the
recalcitrant tense properties of non-root modals are restricted by the seman-
tics of these modality types, not by their syntactic or morphological proper-
ties. For instance, the fact that none of the Norwegian non-root modal types
lack access to past forms is supported by the fact that they are quite com-
fortable with sequence of tense contexts, as (99) shows.
(99) a. Marit pästod at Jon mätte/kunne vcere morderen.

Marit claimed that Jon must/canPAST be killerDEF
'Marit claimed that Jon had to/might be the killer.'
b. Man trodde at dette ville vcere l0sningen.

one believed that this would be solutionDEF
'One believed that this would be the solution.'
c. Ryktene sa at han skulle vcere reist.

rumoursDEF said that he shallPRET be left
'The rumors said that he supposedly had left.'
As mentioned above, Iatridou (1990b: fn.l) claims that past tense in se-
quence of tenses contexts is irrelevant to anchoring the embedded clause in
time; thus, past tense in these contexts is not a 'real' tense. This is a wide-
spread assumption in the literature: the preterite marking of the embedded
finite verb is typically seen as some kind of non-semantic or pleonastic

morphosyntactic reflex. However, En? (1987) objects to this interpretation
of the sequence of tenses phenomenon and notes that the past marking of
the embedded verb in sequence of tenses is not obligatory.
(100) a. John heard that Mary was pregnant.

b. John heard that Mary is pregnant.
c. Sally told me that John was very depressed.
d. Sally told me that John is very depressed.
If the preterite form of the embedded finite verb were merely morphologi-
cal copying of past tense from the matrix clause finite verb, a rule that is
optional, one would expect (100a) to be synonymous with (100b) and
(100c) with (lOOd) since the past tense of the embedded sentence is by
assumption "pleonastic," i.e. semantically vacuous. This is not the case,
however. There is an observable interpretational difference, which must be
due to the alternation between the past and present tense marking on the
embedded verb since all other elements are identical. Comrie (1985) claims
that the present tense on the embedded verb signals that the proposition
expressed by the embedded sentence has "present relevance." Εης: (1987)
sets out to make this statement more precise. She claims that the past tense
on the embedded verb signals that the embedded proposition should be
evaluated not at the speech time S but at the past time given by the matrix
tense. Present tense on the embedded verb signals that the proposition ex-
pressed by the embedded sentence should be evaluated at the speech time
S, i.e. now. The past tense on the embedded verb hence signals a "shift in
evaluation time," triggering the requirement that the embedded proposition
relate temporally to the matrix event instead of the outmost speech event S.
This means that the preterite marking on the embedded verb signals that the
truth value of the embedded proposition is true (or false) at a time simulta-
neous with the matrix event.
However, there are data where this assumption does not seem to yield
the correct result. For instance, we can easily construct examples where the
past tense of the embedded verb must be constructed as non-simultaneous
with the matrix past time, as in (101).
(101) a. Jeg hßrte at du strokpä proven.

I heard that you failed on test-DEF
Ί heard that you failed the test.'
Conceptually, it is natural to assume that your failing the test precedes my

hearing about it, which means that the embedded predicate is construed as
past relative to the matrix past. En? proposes an elaborated apparatus to
account for the fact that the past tense of embedded sentences sometimes
gives rise to what she calls shifted readings (i.e. past relative to matrix past)
and sometimes does not (i.e. present relative to matrix past). Let us explore
instead the idea that the past-past reading arises in some cases simply for
conceptual reasons and that the past of the embedded predicate does not
signal that the embedded event must be temporally related to the event of
the embedding verb.
Consider (101). The more natural reading out of context would be the
aforementioned past-past reading, but this sentence could also be used to
describe a situation where the speaker was standing outside the open win-
dow at the very minute the addressee failed the test and the speaker actually
heard it happen. In this case, the two events are simultaneous. A past mark-
ing on the embedded predicate may even give rise to a reading where the
embedded event is subsequent to the matrix event. This is shown in (102).
(102) a. Jon er tydeligvis en stor spämann.

Jon is evidently a great fortune teller.
Han spädde at du strek pa preven.
He predicted that you failed testDEF
'Jon is evidently a great fortune teller.

He predicted your failing the test.'
Again, on conceptual grounds, the prediction event must precede the failing
event; otherwise, it would not have been a prediction. These facts support
the idea that the past of the embedded predicate does not force any particu-
lar temporal ordering of the embedded event with respect to the matrix
event. The temporal relation between the embedded and the matrix events
depends instead on the conceptual construal arising from the aspectual and
conceptual properties of the two predicates.
Thus, all that is expressed by the tense elements involved in sequence of
tenses is that the event of the embedded sentence—your failing the test—is
past relative to S, just like my hearing about it or Jon's prediction of it is
past relative to S. No temporal ordering between the two events is imposed
by the tense elements of the two verbs. This assumption is supported by the
fact that the sequence of tense phenomenon is optional; if there is a tempo-
ral ordering between an embedding verb and a finite embedded predicate, it

cannot be obligatory. Recall that even En? agrees that the embedded predi-
cate may relate to S whenever it is present instead of past. I suggest that
there is no reason to expect that the temporal ordering of the embedded and
the matrix events should be obligatory when the embedded proposition
shows past instead of present tense. Furthermore, the possible construal of
the embedded event as past, simultaneous, or subsequent relative to the
matrix event depending on the predicates involved supports the assumption
that the past of the embedded predicate does not force a particular temporal
ordering of the matrix and the embedded events. Instead, the past of the
embedded predicate signals one particular temporal ordering of the embed-
ded predicate with respect to S—that the event expressed by the embedded
predicate is situated at a point in time previous to S.
If this is so, sequence of tenses phenomena are in fact instances o f ' r e a l '
tenses, as claimed by Eide (2002a) and Boogaart (2005) and in contrast to
Iatridou's (1990b) claims. Since non-root modals partake in sequence of
tenses, they must contain a time-variable, a semantically non-vacuous tense
element fully able to relate the modal to the speech event S.
However, the question remains how to explain the differences between
the various non-root modalities pointed out by Iatridou (1990b); the data
are repeated here as (103).
(103) a. It was/will be evident that John stole the tapes.

b. #It was/will be possible/probable that John stole the
tapes.
c. It is possible/probable that John stole the tapes.
Unlike evidentials, which denote what kind of evidence the speaker has for
making the assertion, epistemic modals refer to an individual's model of
the world. In this respect, epistemic modals resemble generic constructions.
In fact, all non-root modals share certain semantic properties with generic
constructions. Firstly, generic sentences, like non-root modals, cannot eas-
ily scope under the quantificational adverbial often, as in (104a), (104b),
and (104c). Generic sentences also typically refuse past and future tenses,
as (104c), (104d), and (104e) show.
(104) a. #Two plus two often equals four.

b. #The earth is often round.
c. #Lions are often mammals.
d. #Two plus two will equal/equalled four.
e. # The earth was/ will be round.
62
f. # Lions were/will be mammals.62
Like epistemic and other non-root modals, generic constructions appear in

past forms in sequence of tenses contexts.
(105) a. He claimed that lions were mammals.

b. The plaque read that two plus two did equal four.
c. The vikings believed that the earth was flat.
The atemporal flavor of generic constructions is mentioned in Carlson

(1988: 167), who claims that
Epistemologically, a generic sentence is one expressing a truth (or false-
hood) the truth value of which cannot, in general, be ascertained solely with
reference to any particular localized time. For instance, the present tense
sentence "Dogs bark" is true, even though at the present time there may be
no dogs barking.
I assume that epistemic modals and generic constructions have common
semantic traits that make them very reluctant to interact with tense. They
both target the truth value of an assertion and state it (in the case of gener-
ics) or qualify it (in the case of epistemic modals). Generics are hence a
particular type of assertion in that they accentuate the truth value of the
assertion as much as they describe a state of affairs. Like epistemic modals,
they state what are conceived as stable truths in an individual's (e.g. the
speaker's) model of the world.
These linguistic expressions hence encode what are considered reliable
facts and stable truths as well as what is ontologically possible or necessary
given an individual's model of the world. They deal with what is possible,
probable, or given for this model to be a coherent model. If an individual's
model of the world is rational and adequate, what is construed possible or
necessary within such a model is not likely to change from one moment to
another. Thus, in order for me to felicitously utter (106a), I have to believe
that my model of the world will change from its present state to a different
62
Observe an apparent exception in the proverb Boys will be boys.
one in the future. Likewise, for me to utter (106b), I have to admit that what
constituted my model of the world yesterday turned out to be inadequate
since I obviously no longer entertain that model:
(106) a. It will be possible that John is the killer.

b. Yesterday, it was probable that Mary was killer.
This reading is odd because we do not change our perception and model of
the world on purpose or by volition. Our current model of the world is the
best one since we always strive to construe the model that is most accurate,
given our state of knowledge. Our state of knowledge may change, in
which case we are forced to reconstruct our model accordingly; this entails
a different set of contingent possibilities and necessities. However, this is
not in our control since our model usually changes only when our world, or
our perception of it, changes.
On the other hand, if we invoke a context of somebody writing a novel,
where the writer is free to construct his own fictional model of the world—
the discourse universe—and change this universe as he pleases from one
day to the next, (106a) and (106b) are felicitous. The reading of (106a)
would imply that the author intends to change the novel's universe in such
a way that it will be possible that John is the killer although the present
universe may not give rise to this possibility. Likewise, (106b) implies that
yesterday's version of the novel's universe gave rise to the possibility that
Mary was the killer although today's version of this universe may not give
rise to the same possibility. However, in the actual world, where the events
take place in a unidirectional manner, we cannot go back to erase or delete
those events that would lead to another set of contingent possibilities and
necessities. This means that the large scale traits of an individual's coherent
model of the world do not change easily and many of the propositions we
accept and live by may seem like unchanging truths.
There are, however, numerous examples where what used to be con-
ceived of as an unchanging truth turns out to be false. In these instances,
one would expect generic sentences, for example, to be sensitive to tempo-
ral reference, as in (107), which appeared in the newspaper VG November
15th 2003 (p. 2); cf. also (108) (see also Hofmann 1976 for similar data).
(107) a. Daglig sigarettreyking har vcert helsefarlig helt siden

daily cigarette smoking has been health-damaging ever
since
begynnelsen av femtitallet. Passiv royking, derimot,
beginningDEF of fiftiesDEF. Passive smoking, in contrast,
begynte ikke ä bli ordentlig skadelig for ncermere 1980.
began not to become really damaging until closer-to 1980
' Smoking every day has been damaging to your health ever
since the beginning of the fifties. Second-hand smoke, in
contrast, did not start to get seriously damaging to your
health until shortly before 1980.'
(108) a. Jorda har faktisk vcert rund i over 500 or.

earthDEF has in fact been round for 500 years
'The Earth has actually been round for 500 years.'
b. Hvaler varfisk for, men nä er de pattedyr.

whales were fish before, but now are they mammals
'Whales used to be fish, but they are mammals now.'
The only natural interpretation of these sentences is not that we used to

have a state of affairs where smoking cigarettes or second-hand smoke
changed from being without risk to being dangerous, or that the earth used
to be flat and at some point became round. The natural way to interpret
(107) is that our state of knowledge has changed, not the state of affairs.
Likewise, the meaning of (108a) is that five hundred years ago, we started
to conceive the proposition [the earth is round] as true, whereas the same
proposition used to be conceived as false before that. Also, (108b) means
that we used to consider the proposition [whales are fish] to be true, but
nowadays we consider the proposition [whales are mammals] to be true.
Given our knowledge of the world, it would be unnatural for a species to
change—overnight, so to speak—from fish to mammals. Admittedly, ge-
neric and other predicates that relate to our model of the world and what is
possible, probable, or timeless truths within this model do not seem to be
very dynamic either. But as the sentences above deal with specific proposi-
tions of which we know that they have "changed truth-values" in the sense
that they used to be conceived as false and now thy are conceived as true,
this interpretation is the more natural.
406 Nonvegian modals, aspect and tense
As outlined in section 5 of Chapter 4, I assume epistemic modals to be

two-place predicates on Conceptual Structure, implying that these predi-
cates are always restricted to some individual's belief system or model of
the world. In the default case, the relevant individual is the speaker; in se-
quence of tenses contexts this individual is often the matrix subject (or in
longer sequences, a narrator implied by context); cf. the difference between
(109a) and (109b) and (109c).
(109) a. Jon mä vcere morderen.

Jon must be killerDEF
'Jon must be the killer.'
b. Marit pästod at Jon matte vcere morderen.

Marit claimed that Jon mustPAST be killerDEF
'Marit claimed that Jon had to be the killer.'
c. Marit pästod at Jon mä vcere morderen.

Marit claimed that Jon must be killerDEF
'Marit claimed that Jon must be the killer.'
The speaker is committed to the truth of the embedded proposition [Jon

must be the killer] in (109a), but not in (109b) and (109c). In (109b) and
(109c), Marit's conviction is the one expressed by the embedded clause.
Intuitively, the difference between (109b) and (109c) can be stated as fol-
lows: in (109b), the speaker asserts that the truth of the proposition [Jon
must be the killer] was compatible with Marit's belief system or model of
the world at some previous point in time, without any reference to whether
or not the truth of this proposition is in Marit's present belief system. This
previous point in time is in this case taken to be simultaneous with the ma-
trix event, i.e. Marit's claiming that Jon must be the killer, since Marit, if
she is truthful, must believe the proposition to be true at the point in time
where she states it.63 In (109c), the truth of the embedded proposition [Jon
must be the killer] is construed as entailed by Marit's belief system at pre-
sent; the speaker has no reason to believe that Marit's system of beliefs has
changed since she made the claim [Jon must be the killer]. That is, the
63
A simultaneous reading of the matrix and the embedded events in sequence of
tenses requires that the embedded predicate be construed as stative. This is another
indication that non-root modals are stative predicates.
Summing up 407
speaker asserts that Marit made the claim [Jon must be the killer], and by
endowing this embedded proposition with the present tense, the speaker
signals that he believes this proposition to still belong to Marit's system of
beliefs. Hence the following contrast:
(110) a. #Marit pästod at Jon mä vcere morderen,

Marit claimed that Jon must be killerDEF,
men det tror hun ikke lenger.
but that believes she not longer
'Marit claimed that Jon must be the killer,

but she no longer believes that.'
b. Marit pästod at Jon matte vcere morderen,

Marit claimed that Jon mustPAST be killerDEF,
men det tror hun ikke lenger.
but that believes she not longer
'Marit claimed that Jon had to be the killer,

but she no longer believes that.'
This suggests that epistemic modals (and generic sentences) are sensitive to
temporal reference even though they accentuate the truth value of a propo-
sition as much as the state of affairs described by that proposition. They are
less sensitive to tense alternations than many other types of predicates, but
their tense marking, when it occurs, is not pleonastic. Just like an ordinary
predicate endowed with a past or present tense encodes whether it is rele-
vant for the present (or future) time or some past point in time, the past
marking on an embedded epistemic modal in a sequence of tenses context
signals a past model of the world. A present marking in the same context
signals a model of the world current at the time of utterance.
8. Summing up
In this chapter, I investigated how modals of different kinds interact with

the categories aspect and tense. I started out by observing that there are
certain default patterns: a modal preceding a perfect auxiliary typically
yields a non-root reading, whereas a modal following a perfect auxiliary
typically yields a root reading. More generally, a stative complement typi-

cally favors a present reading of the infinitive and a corresponding non-root
reading of the modal. A dynamic complement usually yields a future read-
ing of the infinitive and more easily gives rise to a root reading of the mo-
dal. However, these are just the default readings of an underspecified sys-
tem. Many languages allow for a non-root reading of a modal overtly
following an aspectual, and seemingly all languages under consideration
here allow for root readings of a modal preceding an aspectual auxiliary.
Likewise, root modals allow for stative complements and non-root modals
allow for dynamic predicates with future readings. So there are robust ex-
ceptions to the default patterns.
There are many proposals regarding these subjects within universalist
approaches, some of them with an extensive apparatus of functional projec-
tions to account for what is seen as a once-and-for-all ordering of the cate-
gories tense, aspect, and modality. I argued that very little is gained by
adopting this type of an approach, as there is in fact no once-and-for-all
ordering of the categories modality and aspect, at least not in Norwegian
and many other Germanic languages. To assume a rigid hierarchy requires
such a range of patch-up mechanisms that it casts serious doubts on the
entire hypothesis of a universal hierarchy. Also, in my investigation of
modals and tense, I reached the conclusion that a once-and-for-all ordering
of modals and tense in a universal hierarchy of functional projections, as
suggested by Cinque (1999) and Roberts and Roussou (2002, 2003), cannot
be maintained; each modal, like any other verb, comes with its own tense
package. In this discussion, I used generic constructions and sequences of
tenses phenomena.
I concluded that we need a much more flexible account. Therefore, I
proposed a tense system for Norwegian, underspecified for present-future
distinctions and exploiting the aspectual properties of predicates and tem-
poral adverbials. This system implies that each and every verb form in
Norwegian hosts a tense element; there are no non-tensed verbs. Thus, the
number of tense elements (or T-projections, in Cinque's terminology), will
be determined by the number of verbs present in a clause; each verb carries
one tense element. I also exploited this tense system to explain why direc-
tionals cannot be the complement of a non-root modal. Furthermore, we
found that the widely assumed finiteness-requirement on non-root modals
does not hold. It should be replaced with a requirement that the non-root
modal must be explicitly temporally anchored by means of being a member
of a tense chain with the topmost member of which is a finite verb.
Summing up 409
More generally, my findings suggest that several important generaliza-

tions often assumed to be syntactic constraints on the behavior of modals
are in fact semantic in nature. Semantics seems to be a far more important
submodule than syntax when it comes to determining root versus non-root
readings and the possible merger points of different types of Norwegian
modals in a syntactic structure. Likewise, the semantic properties of modals
are more important than their syntax in determining how they interact with
each other as well as with the categories aspect and tense.
Chapter 6
Summing up
1. Introduction
This chapter sums up the major points of this investigation of Norwegian

modals. Modality in contemporary Norwegian has been neglected in recent
linguistic research. This allows an author to present new and exciting facts,
make generalizations where there were none, and draw a map of what is
mostly unknown territory. At the same time, Norwegian is a well-studied
language and has a great deal in common with several other well-studied
languages; this means that there are frameworks, theories, and hypotheses
not only for Norwegian, but for closely related languages as well. Thus, I
am fortunate to work with theories and hypotheses that can be tested
against data new to the linguistic audience.
In the course of this investigation, I have had to modify many hypothe-
ses and existing models, which is not uncommon. In addition, I have had to
propose new models to account for the data I observed; a case in point is
the compositional tense system for Norwegian proposed in Chapter 5.'
Also, some of my observations about Norwegian modals contradict earlier
observations by other authors about modals in closely related languages,
which forced me to modify or reject hypotheses. Examples are the possible
orders of modals relative to aspectuals on root and non-root readings and
the dual behavior of root modals, suggesting that they have features of both
control and raising verbs.
In this chapter, I dedicate a section to each chapter of the book (except
Chapter 1) and summarize their main points.
1
Although this system shares certain fundamentals with Julien (2001), it is differ-
ent in how it is composed and how it works; the specifics of the two systems also
differ on a number of points.
The facts 411
2. The facts
In Chapter 2 , 1 set out to provide an observationally adequate description of

Norwegian modals in "theory-neutral" terms (to the extent that any linguis-
tic description can be "theory-neutral"). The two main topics of the present
investigation are the argument structure of Norwegian modals and their
interaction with aspect and tense. In Chapter 2, I presented a great deal of
information not specifically relevant to these two topics in order to provide
a broad and comprehensive picture of Norwegian modals.
The first three sections of Chapter 2 dealt with the morphological, se-
mantic, and syntactic characteristics of Norwegian modals. The morpho-
logical characteristics derive from their status as preterite-present verbs:
they lack the ending -er/-r in the present tense, and their stem vowel (nor-
mally) changes from infinitive to present, but not from infinitive to past
tense. These properties distinguish modals from almost all other verbs
(however, the non-modal vite 'know' is also a preterite-present).
Modals lack present participles, but some other verbs such as weather
verbs and transitive verbs do so as well. Certain modals marginally occur in
the s-passive (kunne 'know' and ville 'want to') and the imperative (kunne
'know'). Neither of these properties thus distinguishes modals from other
verbs. However, it is important to note that the modal kunne 'can' is the
only modal compatible with the imperative and that only two modals,
kunne 'can' and ville 'want to', may undergo passivization. These two mo-
dals, I argue, are modal main verbs and behave like transitive verbs in
many respects; cf. Figure 1 below.
The finiteness requirement for non-root modals, assumed by Plank
(1984) to pertain to all Germanic languages, does not hold for Norwegian,
where non-root modals can occur as infinitives. Finally, the often made
generalization (Dyvik 1999) that non-root modals do not employ a perfect
participle does not hold for a number of non-standard Norwegian dialects,
and even standard dialects allow for a non-root (metaphysical) reading of
the perfect participle modal in plusperfect counterfactuals.
The section on the semantic properties of Norwegian modals discusses
some central and widely-used modality terms. Two seminal lines of work
on modality within formal semantic frameworks are the works of Lewis
and Kratzer, works that have been described as a watershed for the linguis-
tic study of modality in natural language. I reviewed the fundamentals of
these approaches and discussed certain issues in order to lay the ground-
work for my investigation of Norwegian modals.
412 Summing up
Root and non-root modality have also been a popular topic in force-
dynamic approaches to natural language, and the notion of semantic field of
modality was discussed in light of such approaches.
When investigating the semantic properties of Norwegian modals, I
used the terms evidential, epistemic, and metaphysical to describe the non-
root readings. The latter two terms describe what seems to be the same type
of modality. In the present work, however, metaphysical is employed as a
more specialized term: metaphysical modality equals "epistemic modality
about future situations." The root readings of Norwegian modals are deon-
tic and dynamic. Subsection 3.4 of Chapter 2 discusses the root and non-
root readings of Norwegian modals and provides an etymological descrip-
tion of their meaning in Old Norse.
I also included the results of an informant test where 3 5 participants re-
ported their intuitions about the appropriateness of ville 'will' in sentences
describing a firm belief about a future situation. It turned out that an over-
whelming majority of Norwegian speakers prefer to employ the bare pre-
sent form to convey such a belief. Some informants volunteered the infor-
mation that the use of ville + infinitive sounds "less confident" than the
present form. I took these facts to suggest that the modal ville is not a pure
tense marker, as has been repeatedly claimed in the literature. Instead, ville
clearly has modal properties and encodes 'prediction'. This property makes
it a good candidate for a tense marker, but in Norwegian, the transition
from modal to tense marker has not (yet) taken place.
Table 1
Readings available for Norwegian modal auxiliaries:
Dyadic: subject-oriented
Root: Dynamic:
Monadic: non- subject-oriented
Modal
Auxilia-
Dyadic: directed deontic
ries
Deontic:
Monadic: non-directed deontic
Non-root: Monadic (proposition-scope)
Norwegian non-root modals have only one-place (monadic) readings: they

take the proposition in their scope as their argument, and they never assign
The facts 413
a semantic role to the subject. Root modals, on the other hand, can be con-
strued as one- or two-place (dyadic) predicates. They are construed either
as proposition-scope modals with an argument frame similar to that of non-
root modals or as two-place predicates, assigning an internal (object) role
and an external (subject) role. This is shown in Table 1 above.
The syntactic characteristics of Norwegian modals are not subject to the
ban on co-occurrence we find with their Modern English counterparts, al-
though not all types of combinations are possible. A typical sequence of
two Norwegian modals will consist of one non-root modal preceding and
scoping over a root modal. However, a sequence of two non-root modals is
possible (the combination ville plus an epistemic modal kunne is not un-
common) as are sequences of two root modals. One common combination
of the latter kind is a monadic root reading of burde 'should' (or the corre-
sponding reading of skulle) followed by a dyadic reading of some other
root modal, typically kunne 'can' or matte ' m u s t ' .
A defining trait of Norwegian modals is their ability to take bare infini-
tival complements. In addition, Norwegian modals in a preterite form may
take a perfect participle as their complement. In this case, the modal always
has a counterfactual reading (cf. also Taraldsen 1984). Root modals take
directionals as complements, and I presented evidence to support the hy-
pothesis that there is a phonetically empty verb preceding the directional in
these cases. Root modals also take pseudoclefts as complements, but only
on a two-place (subject-oriented/directed deontic) reading.
Elliptic constructions and tag questions help us sort out which modals
are auxiliaries and which are modal main verbs. In ellipsis and tags, a mo-
dal auxiliary cannot be replaced by the verb gj0re ' d o ' ; the modal itself
must be repeated. In contrast, a modal main verb—a modal taking a
DP/finite clausal complement—can be replaced by gjore ' d o ' in such con-
structions. Only when the modal takes a DP/finite clausal complement,
however, does it behave like a transitive lexical verb. When the 'same'
modal takes a bare infinitival complement, it behaves like an auxiliary with
regard to ί/ο-replacement in ellipsis and tags.
The same tests suggest that directionals are in fact VPs at some point in
the representation; this supports the hypothesis that there is an invisible
motion verb between the modal and the directional. VP-pronominalization
facts support this hypothesis as well.
After considering three potential new candidates for the class of modals
in Norwegian, I decided that the verb fä 'get' should not be considered a
modal since it lacks a non-root reading. Trenger ikke, beh0ver ikke 'need
414 Summing up
not', were accepted into the class of modals, however, since they fulfill
most of the requirements, including the crucial requirement for a non-root
reading. My revised inventory of Norwegian modals hence looks like Fig-
ure 1.
Figure I
Norwegian modals

Kunne 'know'
Ville 'want to'
Behover ikke 'need not'
Root

Burde 'should' Kunne 'can/know' Skulle 'be supposed to'
Matte 'must' Ville 'want to'
Trenger ikke 'need not' Matte 'must'
Behover ikke 'need not' Kunne 'may'
Behover ikke 'need not'
In Chapter 2, I also presented the inventories of modals from 7 languages

closely related to Norwegian (Swedish, Danish, Icelandic, Faroese, English,
German, and Dutch) for comparison purposes and to provide a broader
picture.
3. Earlier proposals
Chapter 3 is a survey of 12 earlier proposals on modals in Germanic and

one on modals in Romance. All the works reviewed are cast in some gen-
erative framework (GB, MP, LFG). I briefly outlined each proposal, before
concentrating on two points in particular: whether or not the author of the
work assumes that root modals assign an external theta-role (a subject role)
to their subjects and the author's view on the possible insertion point or
merger site for root and non-root modals.
On the first issue, there are two strong camps in the literature. The tradi-
tional, and seemingly most widespread view, is the control versus raising
analysis, stemming from Ross (1969). The non-root modal is analyzed as a
raising verb (or an auxiliary) with no selectional requirements towards its
(derived) subject. The root modal, on the other hand, is analyzed as a kind
of control verb and accordingly assigns an external theta-role (a subject
role) to its subject. This subject, in turn, controls the reference of the down-
stairs P R O subject, the subject of the infinitive.
The other widespread view is that all modals, root and non-root, are
raising verbs. This analysis has seemingly been around as long as the con-
trol vs. raising analysis, but for some reason, its advocates have been less
visible than the advocates of the "control versus raising" analysis.
In addition, there are hybrids of these two analyses, where modals are
analyzed as "raising verbs with an attitude," i.e. raising verbs that still dis-
play certain selectional requirements towards their subjects. The present
work finds its natural place in this class of hybrid analyses.
The other important issue in the 13 proposals reviewed is the author's
view on a modal's possible position in a syntactic clause structure. This
issue has been especially popular since Cinque's (1999) seminal work sug-
gesting a fixed and universal hierarchy of functional projections; even be-
fore that, however, various authors had argued that root and non-root mo-
dals are inserted or merged in different positions. In my investigation
(Chapter 5), I was concerned in particular with the interaction between
modals and tense and aspect and between certain types of modality.
Several authors argue forcefully for a universal relative ordering of root
modality, non-root modality, aspect, and tense. It is often claimed that non-
root modals are outside the influence of tense. It is also often claimed that a
modal preceding an aspectual always has a non-root reading, whereas the
same modal following an aspectual always has a root reading. According to
my findings, the patterns are a lot less clear-cut. In fact, an analysis based
on a universal relative ordering between modals, tense, and aspect seems to
take us only part of the way (and to a certain extent in the wrong direction).
The counterevidence to universalist approaches suggests that a more flexi-
ble, semantically-based compositional account is called for.
416 Summing up
4. A r g u m e n t structure
Chapter 4 provided a review of the control versus raising analysis, where

root modals are analyzed as control and non-root modals as raising verbs. I
listed the predictions of this (type of) analysis, outlined their theoretical
motivation, and compared the predictions to empirical data from Norwe-
gian and several other languages. Some important predictions of this analy-
sis are summed up in Table 2 and my findings in Table 3.
Table 2

g. Passivize no yes
Table 3
Raising verbs, Control

Non-root modals & verbs,
Root modals (Deontic Root modals:
& Monadic dynamic) Volition- ville
Ability-kunne
e. Allow passive complement yes no
with an inanimate subject
f. Subject-modal yes no
scope ambiguity
g. Passivize no yes/no
As these two tables show, almost all root modals pattern with raising verbs,
not control ones, with regard to the relevant traits (a through g). These re-
Argument structure 417
suits certainly do not corroborate the control versus raising analysis; in-
stead, a body of data (Chapter 4, section 2) supports another wide-spread
analysis of modals, the (nearly-) all-modals-are-raising-verbs analysis.
However, when it comes to the ability of modals to take a pseudoclefited
complement, matters get more complicated. Raising verbs reject and con-
trol verbs accept a pseudoclefted complement, as shown in (la) and (lb).
Although root modals behave like raising verbs in most respects, they pat-
tern with control verbs in accepting a pseudoclefted complement, as in (lc)
and (Id). Upon closer inspection, however, we find that proposition-scope
readings of root modals do not behave like control verbs; they reject a
pseudoclefted complement just like raising verbs, as (le) and ( I f ) show.
Thus, only subject-oriented (i.e. dyadic) root modals pattern with control
verbs in pseudoclefts, as illustrated by (1) and summed up in Table 4.
(1) a. *Det Jon viste seg, var ä vcere inkompetent.

it Jon showed self, was to be incompetent
(Intended: 'What Jon turned out to be, was incompetent.')
b. Det Jon provde, var ä vcere cerlig.

it Jon tried, was to be honest
'What Jon tried, was to be honest.'
c. Det Marit mä, er ä snakke med ham.

it Marit must is to talk to him
'What Marit must (do), is talk to him.'
d. Det du skal, er ä pusse tennene.

it you shall is to brush teeth-DEF
'What you will (do), is brush your teeth.'
e. *Det en kvinne b0r, er ä bli vär neste statsminister.

(Intended: 'What should happen is that
a woman becomes our next prime minister.')
f. *Det apene ikke mä, er ä mates αν besekende.

it monkeysDEF not must, is to feedPASS by visitors
41 8 Summing up
Table 4
Readings available for Norwegian modal auxiliaries:
Dyadic: ville: volition; kunne: ability π

Root: Dynamic:
Monadic: tendency (ville: strong; kunne: weaker) *
Dyadic: directed obligation/permission α

Deontic:
Monadic: non-directed obligation/permission *
Non-root: Monadic: epistemic; metaphysical; evidential *
n: Accept a pseudoclefted complement; *: reject a pseudoclefted complement.
The fact that root modals behave differently in pseudoclefts depending on

whether their reading is dyadic (i.e. subject-oriented) or monadic might
suggest that the semantic feature of -subject-orientedness is mirrored by a
syntactic difference, such that subject-oriented root modals resemble con-
trol verbs (at least in certain respects), whereas proposition-scope root mo-
dals resemble raising verbs. I investigated a range of approaches to account
for the behavior of root modals, control verbs, and raising verbs in pseudo-
clefts, and it seems that these phenomena should be given a unified ac-
count. This entails, however, that one has to accept that root modals in fact
assign something like an external theta-role on the subject-oriented reading.
If we want to explain the similarity in behavior between proposition-scope
modals and raising verbs on the one hand, and subject-oriented modals and
control verbs on the other, and if the difference between raising and control
verbs is that raising verbs do not assign an external theta-role and control
verbs do, then subject-oriented modals assign an external theta-role like
control verbs. These conclusions seem to support an approach where each
modal has two entries in the lexicon, one control-like and one raising-like
(cf. Brennan 2004).
However, we also find evidence that even subject-oriented root modals,
i.e. the most control-like modals, behave like raising verbs in certain con-
structions, e.g. when they take directional complements, as in (2). Barbiers
(2002) demonstrates that these structures have to be raising structures.
Also, the subject in such structures, En mann 'a man' in (2a), displays not
Argument structure 419
only the wide-scope reading, but also the narrow-scope reading typical of
raising structures ('it is necessary that a man (regardless of who he is) leave
the board'; e.g. because of laws and regulations).

b. Ola ville hjem.

Ola wanted home
'Ola wanted to go home.'
c. Marit var syk og kunne ikke pa skolen.

Thus, we have conflicting data. On the one hand, we have clear indication
that subject-oriented root modals behave like control verbs (in pseudo-
clefts); on the other hand, we have evidence that even subject-oriented root
modals must be raising verbs (since they take directional complements). To
resolve this paradox, I applied the analysis of Hornstein (1998, 1999,
2000), who sets out to reduce raising and control to raising only. He does
not deny that there are semantic (and perhaps syntactic) differences be-
tween raising and control. His objective, however, is to investigate whether
the two constructions can be explained without the technical apparatus
usually invoked to account for them.
This type of approach can account for the dual behavior of root modals:
they behave like raising verbs on their proposition-scope reading, but like
control verbs on their subject-oriented reading. Crucially, however, even
subject-oriented modals appear in raising structures, which supports Horn-
stein's assumption that raising is not structurally different from control. If
this is correct, control verbs are "raising verbs with an attitude." Unlike
raising verbs, they have selectional and thematic requirements towards their
syntactic subject. Raising verbs have no such requirements and conse-
quently allow for a narrow-scope reading of the subject. In Hornstein's
approach, an Α-chain has only one visible link at LF. However, there is no
requirement that this link be the topmost link of the Α-chain. Thus, raising
verbs allow for the non-topmost Α-link to be interpreted ("reconstruction").
For a control verb, the topmost Α-link must be interpreted in order for the
420 Summing up
subject theta-role to be expressed at LF. Thus, control verbs never scope

over their subjects. The difference between raising and control verbs in this
approach thus boils down to the properties of the topmost subject position.
The complements of the two types of verbs, however, are presumably struc-
turally the same.
What is gained by this approach, as opposed to an approach where all
root modals have double entries in the lexicon, is that we avoid the massive
ambiguity regarding the complement of a modal— whether it is an IP (for
the modal-as-raising verb) or a CP (for the modal-as-control verb). If the
complements of control and raising verbs have the same structure, the dif-
ference between subject-oriented root modals and proposition-scope root
modals amounts to their relationship to the syntactic subject.
This solves the paradox that even subject-oriented modals occur in rais-
ing structures (with a directional complement). In addition, this could also
be a viable approach to the German non-root modal wollen. Wollen is an
evidential non-root modal, and there is general consensus in the literature
that all non-root modals are raising verbs. However, wollen has strong se-
lectional requirements towards its syntactic subject: the subject must denote
an intentional, rational being. Moreover, this subject seemingly does not
allow for a narrow-scope reading; an unusual behavior for the subject of a
raising structure. Instead, this is the type of behavior we typically find with
the subject of control verbs. Another apparent contradiction could thus be
solved with our Hornstein-type approach. If raising and control verbs are
structurally similar, and the main difference are their requirements towards
the subject, one would expect the line between raising and control verbs to
be blurred in certain cases: some raising verbs will have certain control
verb properties (selectional requirements towards a subject, and rejecting a
narrow-scope subject) and some control verbs will display raising behavior
(in taking directional complements). The data corroborate this expectation.
The last section of Chapter 4 outlines the two-level semantic description
of modals needed to account for their various interpretations. What has
been dubbed the Source of modality ("the rule-giver argument") is seem-
ingly represented at some semantic (not pragmatic) level. While non-root
modals are always one-place predicates at a semantic level close to syntax
(Semantic Form; SF), they are always two-place predicates on a level closer
to conceptual organization (Conceptual Structure; CS; terms from Bier-
wisch and Lang 1989). The various combinations of SF and CS arguments
give the reading of obligation or permission as a derived meaning of deon-
Modals, aspect, and tense 421
tic modals, although this is not their core meaning. Instead, this two-level
description allows us to ascribe a more abstract meaning to each modal.
5. Modals, aspect, and tense
In Chapter 5,1 investigated how modals on their different readings interact

with aspect and tense. I started out by noting certain default patterns: a
stative complement typically favors a present reading of the infinitive and a
corresponding non-root reading of the modal, as in (3a). A dynamic com-
plement usually yields a future reading of the infinitive and more easily
gives rise to a root reading of the modal, as in (3b). Likewise, a modal pre-
ceding a perfect auxiliary or a progressive typically yields a non-root read-
ing, as in (3c) and (3d), whereas a modal following a perfect auxiliary typi-
cally yields a root reading, (3e). However, these are just the default
readings of an underspecified system, as can be witnessed from the fact that
the default non-root reading of the various constructions can be overridden
by adding a purpose clause or a (future-denoting) temporal adverbial to the
construction, as in (3f), (3g), and (3h). In addition, many languages allow
for a non-root reading of a modal overtly following an aspectual, as in (3i).
(3) a. Jon mä vcere arkitekt.

'Jon must be an architect.' (non-root)
b. Jon mä bli arkitekt.

'Jon must become an architect.' (root)
c. Jon mä ha spist.
Jon must have eaten
'Jon must have eaten.' (non-root)
d. The water must be boiling, (non-root)
e. Marit har mättet klare seg med lite.

Marit has mustPERF manage SELF with little
'Marit has had to make do with little.' (root)
422 Summing up
f. Jon mä vcere arkitekt for at svigerfaren skal like ham.

Jon must be architect for that father-in-law shall like him
'Jon must be an architect for his father-in-law

to like him.' (root)
g. Jon mä ha spist f0r han kommer.

'Jon must have eaten before he arrives.' (root)
h. The water must be boiling

when you pour it over the tomatoes, (root)
i. Han har mätta arbeidd med det i heile natt.

'He must have worked on it all night.' (non-root)
There are many proposals regarding the interplay of modality, tense, and
aspect in universalist approaches. Some invoke an extensive apparatus of
functional projections to account for what is seen as a once-and-for-all or-
dering of the categories tense, aspect, and modality. I argued that very little
is gained by adopting this type of an approach, as there is in fact no once-
and-for-all ordering of the categories modality and aspect, at least not in
Norwegian and many other Germanic languages. To assume a rigid hierar-
chy requires such a range of patch-up mechanisms that it casts serious
doubts on the entire hypothesis of a universal hierarchy.
Also, in my investigation of modals and tense, I reached the conclusion
that a once-and-for-all ordering of modals and tense in a universal hierar-
chy of functional projections, as suggested by Cinque (1999) and Roberts
and Roussou (2002, 2003), cannot be maintained. Instead, each modal, like
any other verb, comes with its own tense package. I used generic construc-
tions and sequences of tenses phenomena to illustrate this.
I concluded that we need a much more flexible account to accurately de-
scribe the interplay of modals, tense, and aspect in Germanic languages and
proposed a tense system for Norwegian, underspecified for present-future
distinctions and exploiting the aspectual properties of predicates and tem-
poral adverbials for its specification.
Table 5
+ Finite - Finite
+ Past preterite participle
- Past present Infinitive
This system implies that each and every verb form in Norwegian hosts a
tense element; there are no non-tensed verbs. If a linguistic item does not
host a tense element, it is not a verb in Norwegian. Thus, the number of
tense elements (T-projections, in Cinque's terminology), is determined by
the number of verbs in a clause. Furthermore, each tense element specifies
the relation between two events, where the speech event is the topmost
event in the tense chain. That is, each tense element is "local" in the sense
that it relates its verbal host to the preceding verb in the tense chain, and
each verb provides an event argument for the next tense element, in a
tongue-and-groove fashion.
ei e3
(4) Marit ville prove ä komme. —>
ville (S, e i ) , p r o v e (ei, e2), komme (e2, 63)
Marit would try to come
'Marit would try to come.'
Each Norwegian tense element expresses two pieces of information:

±FIN(ite) and ± P A S T . Any non-past tense element (expressed by present
and infinitival forms) is underspecified: it does not say whether the verb
should be given a future or present interpretation. However, just like noun
phrases can be referentially specified by means of adjectival and adverbial
modifiers, tense elements are specified by means of temporal adverbials.
In several European languages as well as in Capverdean creole (Baptista
1997), Stative predicates typically yield a present reading. This is also the
case for Norwegian. If the non-past predicate is stative (e.g. if it is the Sta-
tive aspectual ha 'have'), it yields a present reading by default. We can
override this default reading, however, by specifying the non-past tense
element hosted by the stative predicate with a future-denoting adverbial.
This forces a future reading of the stative predicate and facilitates the root
424 Summing up
reading of a modal governing this predicate. The semantics of root and non-
root modals ensure that root modals are future-projecting (as they are in a
sense directive, and one cannot issue a directive for something to happen in
the past), whereas non-root modals (because of their function of grading the
truth value of a proposition) are more comfortable with present- and past-
denoting complements; they may, however, also (for most modals more
marginally) take future-denoting complements. This means that a modal
with a present form, being stative, will by default get a present reading,
simultaneous with the speech event S. The temporal interpretation of the
complement relative to the modal will determine its reading as root or non-
root.
Figure 2
'past' S 'future'
modal
V Λ y
γ γ
Non-root only Root and non-root possible
With these assumptions, we can account for the default-and-override effect

of modals with stative predicates as well as the puzzling facts illustrated by
(5): the modal in (5a) naturally yields a non-root reading, mä ' m u s t ' in (5b)
naturally gets a root reading, and the same modal in (5 c) naturally has a
non-root reading.

Jon must have eaten
b. Jon mä ha spist f0r han kommer.


The temporal construal of the three sentences can be represented as in Fig-

ures 3, 4, and 5, respectively (see Chapter 5, section 6 for details). The no-
tation (eHA > espisi ) encodes that there is a past-relation between the event
denoted by ha 'have' and the one denoted by spist 'eaten', such that spist is
'past with respect to ha'. - . (S > e M A ) means that there is a non-past rela-
tion between the speech event S and the event denoted by ma.
Figure 3
S
(eHA > Cspist ) —• (S > eMA)

ma
-I ( eMA > e HA )
spist ha
Ma is non-past, finite and stative, hence by default 'simultaneous with the

speech event'. Ha is also non-past and stative, but non-finite, hence 'simul-
taneous with the preceding verb (ma)' by default. This forces spist to be
located temporally in the past (with respect to the speech event S), by tran-
sitivity, since its tense element denotes 'past with respect to the preceding
verb', in this case, the aspectual ha. Since ha is simultaneous with ma and
mä is simultaneous with S, spist is past with respect to S.
Figure 4
S Jon's arrival
—i (S>CMA) (eHA>espisT) '(cmä >®ΗΑ)

mä spist ha
In (5b), the non-past tense element of the aspectual ha 'have' is given a

specification as future because of the temporal adverbial denoting Jon's
future arrival. This entails that the eating event may also be temporally
located in the future; all that is encoded by the tense element of spist is that
it is 'past with respect to the preceding verb'. The preceding verb is ha, and
when ha is given a future specification, it takes the participle along. How-
ever, all that is encoded by the participle is that it is ' past with respect to
the preceding verb'; hence, we do not know whether the eating event is
prior or subsequent to the speech event S. This also captures our intuition
426 Summing up
about (5b): as long as Jon has eaten before his future arrival, there is no
telling whether this eating has already taken place at S or will happen at
some future point in time.
Figure 5
Jon's arrival
S
(eHA > espisT) —ι (S > Cmä )

mä
-ι ( eMA > eHA)
spist ha
The reason (5c) does not give rise to a root reading is that the temporal
adverbial does not denote a point in the future, but a point in the past.
Hence, it cannot be utilized to specify the non-past relation encoded by ha
as future, and the default reading of ha, simultaneity, once again kicks in.
Thus, the temporal construal of (5c) is similar to that of (5a). Since the
complement does not denote future, unlike in (5b), the root reading is no
longer facilitated, and the default reading of a modal with a stative com-
plement, the non-root reading, is once again the relevant one.
I used this tense system to explain why directionals cannot be the com-
plement of non-root modals. They do not host a tense element, which is
crucial for any predicate to be assigned a potential truth value. As non-root
modals target truth values and grade them, it follows that directionals can-
not fulfill the requirements of a non-root modal's complement. This ex-
plains why modals with directional complements only have root readings.
(6) a. Mariti skal [ti hjem].

Marit shall home
b. Jonj mä [ti pa butikken],

c. Greinai vil ikke [ti av\

Concluding remarks 427
I also found that the widely assumed finiteness requirement on non-root

modals does not hold for Norwegian. Many predicates of reporting, assum-
ing, and judging, for instance, take infinitival non-root modals as their
complements. The so-called finiteness requirement should hence be re-
placed with a requirement that the non-root modal must be explicitly tem-
porally anchored by means of being a member of a tense chain, the topmost
member of which is a finite verb.
More generally, my findings suggest that several important generaliza-
tions often assumed to be syntactic constraints on the behavior of modals
are in fact semantic in nature. Semantics seems to be a far more important
submodule than syntax when it comes to determining root and non-root
readings and the possible merger points of different types of Norwegian
modals in a syntactic structure. Likewise, the semantic properties of modals
are more important than their syntax in determining how they interact with
each other as well as with the categories aspect and tense.
6. Concluding remarks
As I am writing this, I have been working on modals in Norwegian and

other languages for several years. It still feels as though I have merely
scratched the surface of a few interesting topics related to modals and mo-
dality.
One linguist told me some time ago that "one gets taken with modality.
Once started, one can never stop working on it." I believe there is some
truth to this. Every day, I find new and interesting data, new pieces of a
puzzle that perhaps will never be complete. Many other linguists seem to
share this experience; I have been surprised to learn how many researchers,
perhaps renowned for their work in fields quite unrelated to modality, have
articles, papers, and drafts on modals and modality.
It is the destiny of almost any analysis to eventually be replaced by a
new and hopefully better approach. Hence, what one may humbly hope to
achieve as a researcher in linguistics is to present new data, new generaliza-
tions, and new insights that will remain relevant even though the analysis
itself may sink into oblivience.
References
Aa, Leiv Inge

2004 Gul oppgäve med svarte striper (pä) - om relativaktige smäset-
ningar innleidde av med. Ma Thesis, Dept. of Scandinavian Lan-
guage and Literature, NTNU, Trondheim.
Abraham, Werner
2002 Modal verbs. Epistemics in German and English. In: S. Barbiers,
F. Beukema and W. van der Wurff (eds.), Modality and its Inter-
action with the Verbal System: 19-50. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Abusch, Dorit
1997 Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philoso-
phy 20: 1-50.
Adams, Douglas
2005 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. New York: Gramercy
Books.
Adger, David
2003 Core syntax. A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Äfarli, Tor A.
1992 The Syntax of Norwegian Passive Constructions. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
1995 Seeds and Functional Projections. In: P. Goenaga (ed.), De
Grammatica Generativa. Gasteiz: Universidad del Pais Vasco.
1997 Dimensions of Phrase Structure: The Representation of Sentence
Adverbials. In Motskrift 2, 1997, INL, NTNU.
2004 Do verbs have argument structure? MS, NTNU, Trondheim.
Äfarli, Tor A. and Kristin M. Eide
2001 Predication at the Interface. Paper presented at Wokshop on
Syntax of Predication, ZAS, Berlin, November 2-3, 2001.
Anderson, Lloyd B.
1986 Evidentials, Paths of Change, and Mental Maps: Typologically
Regular Assymetries. In: W. Chafe and J. Nichols (eds.), Evi-
dentially: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology: 273-312.
Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Arad, Maya
1998 VP-Structure and the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, Ph.D. Disserta-
tion, University College London.
References 429
Austin, J. L.
1962 How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Auwera, Johan van der
1999 On the typology of negative modals. MS. [Published as van der
Auwera 2001. In: J. Hoeksema et al. (eds.), Perspectives on ne-
gation and polarity items: 23-48. Amsterdam: Benjamins.]
Bach, Emmon
1981 On time, tense, and aspect: An essay in English metaphysics. In:
P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics'. 63-81. New York: Academic
Press.
Baker, Mark
1985 The Mirror Principle and Morphosyntactic Explanation. Linguis-
tic Inquiry 16: 373-415.
1988 Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Baptista, Marlyse
1997 The Morpho-Syntax of Nominal and Verbal Categories in Cap-
verdean Creole. Thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Barbiers, Sjef
1995 The Syntax of Interpretation. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Leiden [Distributed by Holland Academic Graphics (HIL), The
Hague].
2002 Modality and Polarity. In: S. Barbiers, F. Beukema and W. van
der Wurff (eds.), Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal
System: 51-73. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bartos, Huba
2000 Affix order in Hungarian and the Mirror Principle. In: G. Alberti
and I. Kenesei (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian vol 7, Szeged:
J ATE.
Barwise, Jon and John Perry
1983 Situations and attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Battistella, Edwin
1995 The Syntax of the Double Modal Constructions. Linguistica
Atlantica 17: 19-44.
Bech, Elin
1998 Det-konstruksjoner og lofting med utgangspunkt i psykologiske
predikater. Grammatiske studiar i norsk spräk 3, Institutt for nor-
distikk og litteraturvitskap, Norges teknisk-naturvitskaplege uni-
versitet (NTNU), Trondheim.
430 References
Beghelli, Filippo and Tim Stowell

1997 Distributivity and Negation: The syntax of each and every. In: A.
Szabolcsi (ed.), Ways of Scope-Taking: 71-107. Dordrecht: Klu-
wer.
Belletti, Adriana
2001 Aspects of the Low IP area. MS, University of Sienna. [Pub-
lished as Belletti 2002: In: L. Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of IP and
CP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures vol.2. OUP.]
Bennett, Michael and Barbara Partee
1978 Toward the logic of tense and aspect in English. Bloomington,
IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Β ickerton, Derek
1981 Roots of language. Karoma: Ann Arbor.
1984 The language bioprogram hypothesis. In: The Behavioral and
Brain Sciences 7: 173-221.
1999 How to Acquire Language without Positive Evidence: What
Acquisitionists Can Learn from Creoles. In: DeGraff (ed.), Lan-
guage Creation and language Change-Creolization, Diachrony
and Development, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bierwisch, Manfred and Ewald Lang
1989 Somewhat Longer-Much Deeper-Further and Further: Epilogue
to the Dimensional Adjective Project. In: B. Bierwisch and E.
Lang (eds.), Dimensional Adjectives—Grammatical Structure
and Conceptual Interpretation: 471-514. Berlin: Springer-
Verlag.
Bobaljik, Jonathan D.
1998 The autonomy of syntax and the typology of movement. Talk at
GLOW 21, Tilburg.
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. and Höskuldur Thräinsson
1998 Two Heads aren't always better than one. Syntax 1:1: 37-71.
Boogart, Ronny
2005 The Past and perfect of epistemic modals. In: Saussure, L. de, J.
Moeschier & G. Puskas (Eds). Recent Advances in the Syntax
and Semantics of Tense, Mood and Aspect. Berlin: Mouton De
Gruyter.
Borer, Hagit
1984 Parametric Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
2003 Exo-Skeletal vs. Endo-Skeletal Explanations: Syntactic Projec-
tions and the Lexicon. In J. Moore & M. Polinsky (eds.), The Na-
ture of Explanation in Linguistic Theory. 31-67. Stanford: CSLI
Publications.
References 431
Boskovic, Zeljko
1994 D-structure, theta-criterion, and movement into theta-positions.
Linguistic Analysis 24: 247-286.
1997 Pseudoclefts. Studia Lingiistica 5 1 : 2 5 3 - 277.
Bouchard, Denis
1984 On the content of empty categories. Dordrecht: Foris.
1995 The Semantics of Syntax. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Bowers, John
1993 The Syntax of Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 591-656.
Boye, Kasper
2001 Evidence for Evidentiality in Danish. In: Η. H. Müller (ed.),
Reflections on Modality. Copenhagen Studies in Language 26:
81-127. Copenhagen: Samfundsliteratur.
2005 Modality and the concept of force-dynamic potential. In: A.
Klinge and Η. H. Müller (eds.), Modality. Studies in Form and
Function·. 49-80. London: Equinox.
Brandt, Seren
1999 Modal Verbs in Danish. Copenhagen: Cercle Linguistique de
Copenhague.
Brennan, Virginia
1993 Root and Epistemic Modal Auxiliary Verbs. Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [Distributed by: Graduate
Linguistic Student Association, Amherst, Mass.]
1996 Quantificational Modals. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 165-169.
1997 Modalities. MS, Vanderbilt University, Nashville.
2004 Modalities. MS, Vanderbilt University, Nashville
Bresnan, Joan
2001 Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.
Brody, Michael
1993 Θ-Theory and Arguments. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 1-23.
1995 Lexico-Logical Form. A Radically Minimalist Theory, Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brown, Keith
1992 Double Modals in Hawick Scots. In: P. Trudgill and J. K. Cham-
bers (eds.), Dialects of English: Studies in Grammatical Varia-
tion, 74-103. London: Longman.
Browning, Maggie
1996 CP Recursion and that-t Effects. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 237-255.
Brugman, Claudia M.
1988 The Syntax and Semantics of'have' and Its Complements. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
432 References
Burzio, Luigi
1981 Intransitive Verbs and Italian Auxiliaries. Ph.D. Dissertation,
MIT.
1986 Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Butler, Johnny
2003 A Minimalist Treatment of Modality. Lingua, 113: 967-996.
Butt, Miriam, Maria-Eugenia Nino and Frederique Segond
1996 Multilingual Processing of Auxiliaries within LFG. In: Proceed-
ings of KONVENS 96.
Bybee, Joan
1985 Morphology—a study of the relation between meaning and form.
Typological Studies in Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bybee, Joan and Suzanne Fleischman
1995 Modality in Grammar and Discourse. An Introductory Essay. In:
Bybee and Fleischman (eds.), Modality in Grammar and Dis-
course: 1-14. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca
1994 The Evolution of Grammar-Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the
Languages of the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Bödiker, Johann
1690 Grund-Sätze der Deutschen Sprachen im Reden und Screiben.
Berlin: Cölln/Spree.
Calbert, Joseph P.
1975 Toward the Semantics of Modality. In: J. P. Calbert and H. Vater
(eds.), Aspekte der Modalität: 1-70, Tiibingen: Verlag Gunter
Narr.
Carlson, Gregory Ν.
1977 References to kinds in English. Doctoral dissertation, University
of Massachusetts, Amherst.
1988 On the Semantic Composition of English Generic Sentences. In:
G. Chierchia, Β. H. Partee and R. Turner (eds.), Properties,
Types and Meaning II: 167-192.
Carlson, Lauri
2000 Tempus, Mood and Aspect. Talk at NordSem Meeting, Göte-
borgs Universitet, 25. August 2000.
Chomsky, Noam
1957 Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
1975a Questions of Form and Interpretation. Linguistic Analysis 1: 75-
109.
1975b Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon.
References 433
1980 Rules and Representations. Oxford: Blackwell.

1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
1986a Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
1986b Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.
1991 Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In: R.
Freidin (ed.), Principles and parameters in comparative gram-
mar. 417-454. Reprinted as a chapter in Chomsky (1995a).
1993 A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In K. Hale and S. J.
Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20: 1-52, Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press. Reprinted as a chapter in Chomsky (1995a).
1995a The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
1995b Bare Phrase Structure. In: G. Webelhuth (ed.), Government and
Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program'. 383-439. Oxford:
Blackwell.
1999 Derivation by Phase. MITOPL 18. [Published as Chomsky
2001.]
2000 Minimalist Inquiries. In: R. Martin, D. Michaels and H.
Uriagereka (eds.), Step by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in
Honor of Howard Lasnik: 89-155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2001 Derivation by Phase. In: M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale. A Life
in Language: 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2004 Questions about Phases. Talk at GLOW 2004, Thessaloniki.
Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik
1993 The theory of principles and parameters. In: J. Jacobs, A. von
Stechov, W. Sternefeld and T. Venneman (eds.), Syntax: An in-
ternational handbook of contemproary research. 506-569. Ber-
lin: Walter de Gruyter. Reprinted in Chomsky 1995.
Christensen, Kirsti Koch
1983 The Categorial Status of Norwegian Infinitival Relatives. In: F.
Karlsson (ed.), Papers from the Seventh Scandinavian Confer-
ence of Linguistics, Department of General Linguistics Publica-
tion no. 9, University of Helsinki.
Chung, Sandra and Alan Timberlake
1985 Tense, aspect and mood. In: T. Scopen (ed.), Language Typology
and Syntactic Description: Grammatical categories and the lexi-
con·. 203-258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo
1999 Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Coates, Jennifer
1983 The Semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
434 References
1995 The expression of root and epistemic possibility in English. In:

B. Aarts and C. F. Meyer (eds.), The verb in contemporary Eng-
lish, theory and description·. 145-156. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Comrie, Bernard
1976 Aspect-an introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related
problems. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
1985 Tense. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Condoravdi, Cleo
2002 Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and
for the past. In: D. Beaver, L.D. Casillas Martinez, B.Z.Clark,
and S. Kaufmann (eds.), The Construction of Meaning·. 59-87.
Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Costa, Joäo
1998 Word Order Variation. A constraint-based approach. Doctoral
Dissertation, Leiden University. [Distributed by: Holland Aca-
demic Graphics (HIL), The Hague.]
1999 Adverbs as Adjuncts to Non-Universal Functional Categories:
evidence from Portugese. Paper presented at the Conference on
Adverbs and Adjunction, University of Tromse, April 17-18,
1999.
Culicover, Peter W.
1997 Principles and Parameters. An Introduction to Syntactic Theory.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dahl, Osten
1985 Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell.
Davidsen-Nielsen
1988 On Tense and Mood in English and Danish. Ms. Copenhagen
School of Economics, Business Administration, and Modern
Languages.
Davidson, Donald
1967 The logical form of action sentences. In N. Rescer (ed.), The
Logic of Decision and Action'. 81-95. Pittsburg, PA: University
of Pittsburgh Press.
Davies, William D. and Stanley Dubinsky
2004 The Grammar of Raising and Control. A Course in Syntactic
Argumentation. Oxford: Blackwell.
References 435
Demirdache, Hamida and Myriam Uribe-Extebarria

2000 The primitives of temporal relations. In R. Martin, D. Michael
and J. Uriagereka (eds.), Step by Step: 157-186. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Denison, David
1993 English Historical Syntax. London: Longman.
Diewald, Gabriele
1999 Die Modalverben im Deutschen. Grammatikalisierung und Ploy-
funktionalität. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Dikken, Marcel den, Andre Meninunger and Chris Wilder
2000 Pseudoclefts and Ellipsis. Studio Linguistica 54: 41-89.
Dowty, David
1991 Thematic Proto-roles and Argument Selection. Language 67:
574-619.
Drubig, Hans Bernhard
2001 On the syntactic form of epistemic modality. Ms., University of
Tiibingen.URL:www.sfb441. uni-tuebingen.de/b2/papers/Drubig/
Modality.pdf.
Duden-Grammatik
1959 Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Mannheim.
[1984: 4th edition.]
Dyvik, Helge
1999 The universality of f-stucture: discovery or stipulation? The case
of modals. Proceedings of the LFG99 Conference, CSLI Publica-
tions.
Eide, Kristin Melum
1997 Som-predicatives: Exploring the Predication Operator. In: T.
Haukioja (ed.), Proceedings from the 16th Scandinavian Confer-
ence of Linguistics·. 64-74, Publications of the Department of
Finnish and general Linguistics of the University of Turku.
1998 Som-Predikativer. Grammatiske studiar i norsk spräk: 1, Institutt
for nordistikk og litteraturvitskap (INL), Norges tekninsk-
naturvitskaplege universitet (NTNU), Trondheim.
2000a Lexical versus Structural Meaning: A Case Study. In: Ε. Z. Chi-
sarik (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh Manchester University
Postgraduate Linguistics Conference 28. March 1998, Papers in
Linguistics from the University of Manchester 7: 326-342.
2000b The Construction of Meaning: A Case Study. In: G. Thorhalls-
döttir (ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference of
Nordic and General Lingusitics, University of Iceland June 6-8,
1998, The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics 10: 71-80.
2002a Norwegian Modals. Doctoral dissertation, NTNU, Trondheim.
436 References
2002b Adjunction Sites for Negation in Norwegian: Modals and Nega-

tion. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 25: 225-252.
2003 Modals and Tense. In: M. Weisegerber (ed.). Proceedings of the
conference "sub7: Sinn und Bedeutung". Arbeitspapier NR. 114,
FB Sprachwissenschaft. University of Konstanz, http://ling.uni-
konstanz.de/pages/conferences/sub7/proceedings/download/
sub7_eide.pdf
Eide, Kristin Melum and Inghild Flaate
1999 Adverbial small clauses in Norwegian and German. MS. Ger-
man dept./Linguistics dept., Norwegian University of Science
and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim.
En9 Miirvet
1986 Towards a referential analysis of tense expressions. Linguistics
and Philosophy 9: 405 -426.
1987 Anchoring Conditions for Tense. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 633-657.
1991 The Semantics of Specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1-25.
Epstein, Samuel D., Höskuldur Thräinsson and C. Jan-Wouter Zwart
1996 Introduction. In W. Abraham, S.D. Epstein, H. Thräinsson and
C.J-W. Zwart (eds.), Miminal Ideas. Syntactic Structures in the
Minimalist Framework. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi
1981 More on Extractibility from Quasi-NPs. Linguistic Inquiry 12:
665-670.
Faarlund, Jan Terje
1991 Morfologi: Boyingssystemet i nynorsk og bokmäl. Oslo: Det
Norske Samlaget.
Faarlund, Jan T., Svein Lie and Kjell I. Vannebo
1997 Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Fagan, Sarah
2001 Epistemic modality and tense in German. Journal of Germanic
Linguistics, vol. 13: 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Falk, Hjalmar and Alf Torp
[1903-06] 1992 Etymologisk ordbog over det norske og det danske sprog.
Oslo: Bj0rn Ringstroms Antikvariat.
Farkas, Donka
1992 On the Semantics of Subjunctive Complements. In: P.
Hirschbueler and K. Koerner (eds.), Romance Languages and
Modern Linguistic Theory. 69-104. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Feldman, Frank
1986 Doing the Best We Can. Philosophical Studies Series in Philoso-
phy 35. Dordrecht: Reidel.
References 437
Fillmore, Charles J.
1968 The Case for Case. In: E. Bach and R.T. Harms (eds.), Univer-
sale in Linguistic Theory: 1-88. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
1975 An alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning. BLS 1, 123-
131.
1977 The Case for Case Reopened. In: P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and Se-
mantics 8. Grammatical Relations: 59-81, New York: Academic
Press.
1982 Frame Semantics. In: Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Lingus-
tics in the Morning Calm\ 111-138. Seoul: Hanshin.
1985 Syntactic Intrusions and the Notion of Grammatical Construc-
tion. BLS 11: 73-86.
Fillmore, Charles J. and Paul Kay
1993 Construction Grammar. Unpublished manuscript, University of
California, Berkeley.
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay and Catherine O'Connor
1988 Regularity and idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The
Case of Let alone. Language 64: 501-538.
Flaate, Inghild
1998 Einige als-Prädikative im Deutschen. Thesis, German depart-
ment, Norwegian University of Science and Technology
(NTNU), Trondheim.
2005 Die als-Prädikative im Deutschen: Eine syntaktisch-semantische
Analyse. Doctoral dissertation, NTNU, Trondheim.
Flaate, Inghild and Kristin M. Eide
1998 Interpretive effects of Morphological Case. MS., German
dept./Lingusitics dept, Norwegian University of Science and-
Technology (NTNU), Trondheim.
Fodor, Jerry A.
1975 The language of thought. New York: Crowell.
Foolen, Ad
1992 Review of Sweetser (1990). Lingua 88: 76-86.
Fox, Daniel
1998 Economy and Semantic Interpretation: A study of scope and
variable binding. Ph.D. Disseration, MIT, Cambridge, MA. [Pub-
lished as Fox 2000, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 35, Cam-
bridge, MA.]
1999 Reconstruction, Binding Theory and the Interpretation of Chains.
Linguistic Inquiry 30: 157-96.
438 References
Frege, Gottlob
1892 Über Sinn und Bedeutung. In: Zeitschrift für Philosophie undphi-
losophische Kritik 100: 25-50. Also in G. Patzig (ed.), Gottlob
Frege. Funktion, Begriff Bedeutung. Fünf logische Studien·. 40-
65. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.
Fretheim, Thorstein
1977 Kort merknad om bruken av pluskvamperfektum. Norskrift 17:
53-55. Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo.
Gelderen, Elly van
2003 ASP(ect) in English Modal Complements. Studia Linguistica
57.1: 27-44.
2004 Grammticalization as Economy. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Giannakidou, Anastasia
1994 The Semantic Licencing of NPIs and the Modern Greek Subjunc-
tive. Language and Cognition 4, Yearbook of the Research group
for Theoretical and Experimental Linguistics 4: 55-68. Gronin-
gen: University of Groningen.
1995 Subjunctive, Habituality and Negative Polarity Items. In: M.
Simons and T. Galloway (eds.), Proceedings of SALT V: 94-111.
Ithaca: Cornell University.
Giorgi, Alessandra and Fabio Pianesi
1997 Tense and aspect: from semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, Adele
1995 Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument
Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Grimshaw, Jane
1997 Projection, heads, and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 373-422.
Gru'ber, Jeffrey S.
1965 Studies in Lexical Relations. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cam-
bridge, MA.
Gueron, Jacqueline and Teun Hoekstra
1995 The Temporal Interpretation of Predication. In: A. Cardinaletti
and Μ. T. Guasti (eds.), Small Clauses. Syntax and Semantics
vol. 28: 77-107. New York: Academic Press.
Haegeman, Liliane
1994 Introduction to Government and Binding Theory (2nd edition).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser
1993 On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic
relations. In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (Eds.), The View from
References 439
Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromber-

ger: 53-109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hansen, Erik
1977 Beh0ver vi at? Nyt fra Sprogncevnet 19: 1-4.
Hansson, Bengt
1970 An analysis of Some Deontic Logics. In: R. Hilpinen (ed.), De-
ontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings'. 121-147.
Dordrecht: Reidel.
Harley, Heidi
1998 Review of Sjef Barbiers, The Syntax of Interpretation. In GLOT
International 3.1: 10-13.
Harris, Randy A.
1993 The Linguistics Wars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hedlund, Cecilia
1992 On participles. Doctoral dissertation, University of Stockholm.
Heine, Bernd
1995 Agent-Oriented vs. Epistemic Modality. Some Observations on
German Modals. In J. Bybee and S. Fleischman (eds.), Modality
in Grammar and Discourse: 17-53. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Helbig, Gerhard and Joachim Buscha
1993 Deutsche Grammatik. Berlin: Langenscheidt, Verlag Enzyklopä-
die.
Hermeren, Lars
1978 On modality in English. A study of the semantics of the modals.
Lund Studies in English 53. Lund: GWK Gleerup.
Herweg, Michael
1991a A critical account of two classical approaches to aspect. Journal
of Semantics 8: 362-403.
1991b Perfective and imperfective aspect and the theory of events and
states. Linguistics 29: 969-1010.
Heycock, Caroline and Anthony Kroch
1999 Pseudocleft Connectedness: Implications for the LF Interface
Level. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 365-397.
Higginbotham, James
1992 Reference and Control. In: R. Larson, S. Iatridou, U. Lahiri and
J. Higginbotham (eds.), Control and Grammar: 79-108.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
1997 Tensed Thoughts. In: W. Kiinne, A. Newen and M. Anduschus
(eds.), Direct Reference, Indexicality and Propositional Atti-
tudes: 21-48. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. [Originally
printed in Mind and Language, vol. 10: 226-249.]
440 References
Hoekstra, Teun
1984 Transitivity. Grammatical Relations in GB Theory. Dordrecht:
Foris.
Hofmann, T. R.
1976 Past Tense Replacement and the Modal System. In: J. McCawley
(ed.), Syntax and Semantics vol. 7: 86-100. New York: Academic
Press.
Holmberg, Anders and Christer Platzack
1995 The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth C. Traugott
1993 Grammaticalization. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horn, Laurence
1972 On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Hornstein, Norbert
1990 As Time Goes By. Tense and Universal Grammar. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
1998 Movement and Chains. Syntax 1: 99-127.
1999 Movement and Control. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69-96.
2000 Control in GB and Minimalism. In L. Cheng and R. Sybesma
(eds.), The First GLOT International State-of-the-Article Book:
27-46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Huddleston, Rodney
1974 Further remarks on the analysis of auxiliaries as main verbs.
Foundations of Language 11: 215-29.
1976 Some theoretical issues in the description of the English verb.
Lingua 40: 331-83.
1984 Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Iatridou, Sabine
1990a About AgrP. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 551-576.
1990b The Past, the Possible and the Evident. Linguistic Inquiry 21:
123-129.
Jackendoff, Ray
1972 Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.
1997 The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
References 441
Jacobson, P.
1995 On the quantificational force of English free relatives. In: E.
Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer and B. Partee (eds.), Quantification
in Natural Languages vol. 2: 451-486. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Jaeggli, Osvaldo
1980 Remarks on to contraction. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 239-245.
Jayaseelan, K. A.
2001 IP-internal topic and focus phrases. Studia Linguistica 55: 39-75.
Jespersen, Otto
[1924] 1965 The Philosophy of Grammar. New York: The Norton Li-
brary. [Also published in 1992 by The University of Chicago
Press.]
1931 A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, vol. 4:
Syntax. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Johannessen, Janne B.
1998 Negasjonen ikke: kategori og syntaktisk posisjon. In: J.T. Faar-
lund, B. Maehlum og T. Nordgärd (eds.), Utvalde artiklar frä det.
7. motet om Norsk Spräk i Trondheim 1997. Oslo: Novus forlag.
2003 Negative Polarity Verbs in Norwegian. Working Papers in Scan-
dinavian Syntax: 33-73. Department of Scandinavian Languages,
University of Lund.
Johnson, Kyle
1985 A Case for movement. Doctoral Disseration, MIT.
Joos, Martin
1964 The English verb: form and meanings. Madison and Miwaukee,
WI: The University of Winsconsin Press.
Julien, Marit
2000a Syntactic heads and word formation-a study of verbal inflection.
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Tromse. [Published as Julien
2002 by Oxford University Press.]
2000b Optional ha in Swedish and Norwegian. Working Papers in
Scandinavian Syntax 66: 33-74. Lund: University of Lund.
2001 The syntax of complex tenses. The Linguistic Review 18:125-
167. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
2003 Dobbelsupinum og irreal modus. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 21:
135-161.
Kayne, Richard S.
1975 French Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
1993 Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia Linguis-
tica 47: 3-31.
1996 Why are reflexive clitics not canonical object clitics? Paper pre-
sented at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, February 9th.
442 References
Kemenade, Ans van

1985 Old English infinitival complements and West-Germanic V-
raising. In: R. Eaton, O. Fischer, W. F. Koopman and F. van der
Leek, (eds.), Papers from the 4th International Conference on
English Historical Linguistics, Amsterdam, April 10-13, 1985:
73-84. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
1993 The History of the English Modals, a Reanalysis. Folia Linguis-
tica Historica XIII/l-2: 143-166.
Kiparsky, Paul
1970 Semantic Rules in Grammar. In: H. Benediktsson (ed.), The
Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics'. 262-285. Reykjavik:
Visindafelag Islendinga.
Klooster, W.
1986 Problemen met complementen. TABU 16: 112-132.
Koster, I.
1978 Why Subject Sentences Don't Exist. In: S. J. Keyser (ed.), Recent
Transformational Studies in European Languages. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Kratzer, Angelika
1981 The notional category of modality. In: H.J. Eikmeyer and H.
Rieser (eds.), Words, worlds and C=contexts: New approaches
in world semantics: 38-74. Berlin: Walther de Gruyter.
1991 Modality. In: A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds.), Seman-
tik/Semantics. Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenös-
sischen Forschung. An International Handbook of Contemporary
Research: 639-650. Berlin: Walther de Gruyter.
2002 The Notional Category of Modality. In: P. Portner and Β. H.
Partee (eds.), Formal Semantics. The Essential Readings: 289-
323. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kreidler, Charles W.
1998 Introducing English Semantics. London: Routledge.
König, Ekkehard and Johan van der Auwera
1994 The Germanic Languages. London: Routledge.
Laka, Itziar
1990 Negation in syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and
Projections. Ph.D. Thesis, MIT.
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal
about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lambrecht, Knud
1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form: A Theory of Topic,
Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents.
References 443
Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press.
Langacker, Ronald W.
1978 The form and meaning of the English Auxiliary. Language 54:
853-82.
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1. Standford, CA: Stan-
ford University Press.
1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2. Standford, CA: Stan-
ford University Press.
Larson, Richard and Gabriel Segal
1995 Knowledge of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Lasnik, Howard
1981 Restricting the theory of transformations: A case study. In: N.
Hornstein and D. Lightfoot (eds.), Explanation in Linguistics'.
152-173. London: Longmans.
1995 Case and Expletives revisited. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 615-33.
[Reprinted in Lasnik 1999.]
1999 Minimalist Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lass, Roger
1997 Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Lebeaux, David
1985 Locality and Anaphoric Binding. The Linguistic Review 4: 343-
363.
1994 Where does binding theory apply? MS, University of Maryland.
[Published in University of Maryland Working Papers in Lin-
guistics 3: 63-88.]
Leech, Geoffrey N.
1969 Towards a semantic description of English. London: Longman.
Leirbukt, Oddleif
1988 Uber Zeitreferenz und Modalitätsart ("subjektiv"/"objektiv") in
deutschen Modalverbkonstruktionen. In: J. O. Askedal, C. Fabri-
cius-Hansen, and Κ. Ε Schöndorf (eds.), Gedenkschrift für Inge-
rid Dal·. 161-181. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Lewis, David
1973 Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lightfoot, David
1974 The diachronic analysis of English modals. In: J. M. Anderson
and C. Jones (eds.), Historical linguistics 1: 219-249. Amster-
dam: North Holland.
1979 Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
444 References
Lyons, John
1977 Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ledrup, Helge
1994 Surface Proforms in Norwegian and the Definiteness Effect. In
M. Gonzales (ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistics So-
ciety 24: 303-315. Amherst: GLSA. Dept. of Linguistics, Univer-
sity of Massachusetts.
1996a Properties of Norwegian Auxiliaries. In: The Nordic Languages
and Modern Linguistics. Proceedings of the Ninth International
Conference of Nordic and General Linguistics, University of
Oslo, January 11-12, 1995: 216-229. Oslo: Novus.
1996b The Theory of Complex Predicates and the Norwegian Verb fä
'get'. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57: 76-91. Lund:
University of Lund.
Mally, Ernst
1926 Grundgesetze des Sollens. Elemente der Logik des Willens. Graz:
Leuscner & Lubensky.
Manzini, M.-Rita
1983 On control and control theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 421-446.
Manzini, M.-Rita and Anna Roussou
1997 A minimalist theory of movement and control. MS.
Firenze/University of College London and Bangor.
Marantz, Alec
1984 On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
May, Robert
1977 The Grammar of Quantification. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
[Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloom-
ington.]
1985 Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
McCawley, James D.
1971 Tense and time reference in English. In: C. Fillmore and D. T.
Langendoen (eds.), Studies in linguistics semantics: 96-113. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
1988 The Syntactic Phenomena of English, vol. 1. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
McGinnis, Martha
1993 The deontic/epistemic distinction in English Modals: a composi-
tional analysis. M.A. Thesis, University of Toronto.
McWhorter, John H.
2005 Defining Creole. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
References 445
Meulen, Alice G. B. ter

1995 Representing Time in Natural Language. The Dynamic Interpre-
tation of Tense and Aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Michaelis, Laura A.
1998 Aspectual Grammar and Past-time Reference. London: Rout-
ledge.
Montague, Richard
1974 Formal Philosophy. New York: Yale University press.
Muysken, Pieter
1981 Creole tense/mood/aspect systems: the unmarked case? In: Muy-
sken (ed.), Generative studies on Creole Languages'. 181-200.
Dordrecht: Foris.
Muysken, Pieter and Norval Smith
1995 The study of pidgin and Creole languages. In: J. Arends, P. Muy-
sken and N. Smith (eds.), Pidgin and Creoles-an Introduction·.
Muysken, Pieter and Tonjes Veenstra
1995 Universalist approaches. In: J. Arends, P. Muysken and N. Smith
(eds.), Pidgin and Creoles-an Introduction'. 121-134. Amster-
dam: Benjamins.
Name, Addison van
1869-70 Contributions to Creole Grammar. Transactions of the American
Philological Association 1: 123-67.
Negärd, Anne-Gro
2001 En moder hvis hjerte vil briste. En syntaktisk studie av hv-
relativer og hv-ords funksjon. Grammatiske studiar i norsk sprak
5, Institutt for nordistikk og litteraturvitskap (INL), Norges na-
turvetskaplege universitet (NTNU), Trondheim.
Newmeyer, Frederick J.
1969 English Aspectual Verbs. Studies in Linguistics and Language
Learning 6, University of Washington, Seattle.
1975 English aspectual verbs. The Hague: Mouton.
1998 Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Nordgärd, Torbjorn and Tor A. Äfarli
1990 Generativ syntaks. Ei innforing via norsk. Oslo: Novus forlag.
Palmer, Frank R.
1979 Modality and the English Modals. New York: Longman.
1986 Mood and Modality. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
446 References
1995 Negation and the Modals of Possibility and Necessity. In: J.

Bybee and S. Fleischman (eds.), Modality in Grammar and Dis-
course: 453-472. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
2001 Mood and Modality (2nd edition). Cambridge Textbooks in
Liguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Papafragou, Anna
1998 Inference and word meaning: The case of modal auxiliaries.
Lingua 105: 1-47.
Partee, Barbara
1973 Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in Eng-
lish. The Journal of Philosophy 70: 601 - 609.
Perlmutter, David
1970 The Two Verbs begin. In R.A. Jacobs and P.S. Rosenbaum
(eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar'. 1 ΟΤ-
Ι 19. Waltham: Ginn.
Picallo, M. Carme
1984 Opaque Domains. Ph. D. Dissertation, New York University.
1990 Modal verbs in Catalan. Natural language and Linguistic Theory
8: 285-312. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Plank, Frans
1981 Modalitätsausdruck zwischen Autonomie und Auxiliarität. In: I.
Rosengren (ed.), Sprache und Pragmatik, Lunder Symposium
1980: 51-71. Lund: University of Lund.
1984 The modals story retold. Studies in Language 8: 305-364.
Platzack, Christer
1979 The Semantic Interpretation of Aspect and Aktionsarten: A Study
of Internal Time Reference in Swedish. Dordrecht: Foris.
1986a The Position of the Finite Verb in Swedish. In: H. Haider and M.
Prinzhorn (eds.), Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Lan-
guages: 27-47. Dordrecht: Foris.
1986b The Structure of Infintive Clauses in Danish and Swedish. In: Ö.
Dahl and A. Holmberg (eds.), Scandinavian Syntax: 123-137.
Stockholm: Institute of Linguistics, University of Stockholm.
Platzack, Christer and Inger Rosengren
1998 On the subject of imperatives: A minimalist account of the im-
perative clause. The Journal of Comparative Linguistics 1: 177-
224. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Pollock, Jean-Yves
1989 Verb Movement, UG and the Structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry
20: 365-424.
References 447
Prince, Ellen
1978 A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in Discourse. Language
54: 883-906.
Prior, Arthur
1967 Past, Present and Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pullum, Geoffrey and Deirdre Wilson
1977 Autonomous syntax and the analysis of auxiliaries. Language 53:
741-788.
Pustejovsky, James
1995 The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Quer, Josep
1998 Mood at the Interface. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik
1985 A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London:
Longman.
Radford, Andrew
1997 Syntax. A minimalist introduction. Cambridge: Cabridge Univer-
sity Press.
Reichenbach, Hans
1947 Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan.
Reinhart, Tanya and Eric Reuland
1993 Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24 (4): 657-720.
Reiten, Hävard
1990 Tysk Grammatikk. Oslo: Aschehoug.
Riemsdijk, Henk van
2002a The Unbearable Lightness of GOing. The Projection Parameter
as a Pure Parameter Governing the Distribution of Elliptic Mo-
tion Verbs in Germanic. In: J. Bobaljik and S. Wurmbrand (eds.),
The Proceedings of the 16th Comparative Germanic Syntax
Works hop, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics.
2002b The morphology of nothingness: Some properties of elliptic
verbs, [to appear in: S. Haraguchi, O. Fujimura, B. Palek, and A.
Watanabe (eds.), Proceedings of LP2002. Prague: The Karo-
linum Press.]
Rizzi, Luigi
1978 A Restructuring Rule in Italian Syntax. In: S.J. Keyser (ed.),
Recent Transformational Studies in European Languages: 1 Π -
Ι 58. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. In: L. Haegeman (ed.),
Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax: 281-
337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
448 References
Roberts, Ian
1985 Agreement Parameters and the Development of English Modal
Auxiliaries. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 21-58.
1993 Verbs and Diachronic Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Roberts, Ian and Anna Roussou
2002 The History of the Future. In: D. Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic Ef-
fects of Morphological Change: 23-56. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
2003 Syntactic Change. A Minimalist Appraoch to Grammaticaliza-
tion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenbaum, Peter S.
1967 The grammar of English predicate complement constructions.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ross, John R.
1969 Auxiliaries as main verbs. In: W.Todd (ed.), Studies in Philoso-
phical Linguistics·. 77-102. Evanston, IL: Great Expectations.
1997 The source of pseudo-cleft sentences. Paper presented at the
University of Pennsylvania.
Ruwet, N.
1991 Syntax and Human Experience. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Sauerland, Uli
1998 Scope reconstruction without reconstruction. In: K. Shahin, S.
Blake and E. Kim (eds.), Proceedings of the 17th West Coast
Conference on Formal Linguistics: 582-596. Stanford: CSLI
Publications.
Schlenker, Philippe
1998 Pseudocleft connectivity and the structure of noun phrases. MS.
MIT.
Schuchardt, Hugo
1882 Kreolen Studien. I. Über das Negerportugiesische von S. Thome
(Westafrika). Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu Wien 101(2): 889-917.
Schutter, Georges de
1994 Dutch. In: E. König and J. van der Auwera (eds.), The Germanic
Languages: 439-477. London: Routledge.
Scur, G.S.
1968 On the non-finite forms of the verb can in Scottish. Acta Linguis-
tica Hafniensia 11: 211-218.
Sharvit, Y.
1997 A semantic approach to connectedness in specificational pseudo-
clefts. MS. University of Pennsylvania.
References 449
Sigurösson, Halldör Ärmann

1991 Icelandic case-marked Pro and the licensing of lexical arguments.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 327-363.
2004 Auxiliary verbs. MS. University of Lund.
Singler, John V.
1990 Introduction. In: Singler (ed.), Pidgin and Creole Tense-Mood-
Aspect Systems'. vii-xvi. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Sola, Jaume
1994 Morphology and word order in Germanic languages. Groninger
Arbeiten zur germanischen Linguistik 37: 209-225.
Starke, Michal
1993 En deuxieme position en Europe Centrale. Memoire, University
of Geneva.
1995 On the Format for Small Clauses. In: A. Cardinaletti & M.T.
Guasti (eds.), Small Clauses. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 28: 237-
269. New York: Academic Press.
Steele, Susan
1975 Is it possible? Stanford Working Papers in Language Universals
18: 35-58.
Stenius, Erik
1967 Mood and language game. Synthese 17: 254-274.
Stephany, Ursula
1986 Modality. In: P. Fletcher and M. Garman (eds.), Language Ac-
quisition: 375-400. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stowell, Tim
1981 Origins of Phrase Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
1982 The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 561-570.
1983 Subjects across Categories. The Lingustic Review 2: 285-312.
1995 What is the meaning of the present and past tenses? In: P. M.
Bertinetto, V. Bianchi, J. Higginbotham, and M. Squartini (eds.),
Temporal reference, aspect and actionality. Semantic and syn-
tactic perspectives, vol. 1: 381-396. Turin: Rosenberg and Sel-
lier.
1996 The phrase structure of tense. In: J. Rooryck and L. Zaring (eds.),
Phrase Structure and the lexicon: 277-291 (Studies in Natural
language & Linguistic Theory 33.) Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
2004 Tense and Modals. In: J. Gueron and J. Lecarme (eds.), The
Syntax of Time: 621-635. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Sveen, Andreas
1990 Transitivitetsvekslinger i norsk: Pseudointransitiver og ergativer.
Magistergradsavhandling, University of Oslo.
450 References
Sweetser, Eve
1990 From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Sorensen, Finn
2000 A Comparative Perspective on Danish and Swedish Modals.
Paper presented at the 18th Scandinavian Conference of Linguis-
tics, Lund University, May 19th.
Talmy, Leonard
1981 Force dynamics. Paper presented at the conference on Language
and Mental Imagery, May 1981, University of California at
Berkeley.
1988 Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 2:
49-100.
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald
1984 Some phrase structure dependent differences between Swedish
and Norwegian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 9.
Teleman, Ulf, Staffan Hellberg and Erik Andersson
1999 Svenska Akademiens grammatik. Stockholm: Norstedts.
Taylor, Douglas
1971 Grammatical and Lexical Affinities of Creoles. In: D. Hymes
(ed.), Pidginization and Creolization of Languages: 293-296.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, R. W.
1961 A Note on Some Possible Affinities Between Creole Dialects of
the Old World and Those of the New. R.B. In: LePage (ed.),
Proceedings of the 1959 Conference on Creole Language Stud-
ies, 107-113. London: Macmillan.
Thräinsson, Höskuldur
1986 On Auxiliaries, AUX and VPs in Icelandic. In: L. Hellan and K.
Koch Christensen (eds.), Topics in Scandinavian Syntax: 235-
265. Dordrecht: Reidel.
1996 On the (Non-)Universality of Functional Categories. In: W.
Abraham, S. D. Epstein, H. Thräinsson and C. J-W. Zwart (eds.),
Minimal Ideas-Syntactic Studies in the Minimalist Framework.
Thräinsson, Höskuldur and Sten Vikner
1995 Modals and Double Modals in the Scandinavian Languages.
Working papers in Scandinavian Syntax 55: 51-88. Dept. of
Scandinavian Linguistics, Lund University.
Thräinsson, Höskuldur, Hjalmar P. Petersen, Jogvan I Lon Jacobsen and Za-
karis Svabo Hansen
References 451
2004 Faroese. An overview and Reference Grammar. Torshavn: F0-

roya Froöskaparfelag.
Vangsnes, 0 y s t e i n Alexander
2002 Icelandic expletive constructions and the distribution of subject
types. In: P. Svenonius (ed.), Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP.
Oxford studies in comparative syntax 20: 43-70. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Vendler, Zeno
1967 Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, N Y : Cornell University Press.
Vikner, Sten
1985 Reichenbach revisited: one, two or three temporal relations. Acta
Linguistica Hafniensia 19: 81-98.
1988 Modals in Danish and Event Expressions. Working papers in
Scandinavian Syntax 39: 1-33. Dept. of Scandinavian Linguis-
tics, Lund University.
1995 Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Lan-
guages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Warner, Anthony.
1993 English Auxilliaries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wells, Gordon
1985 Language Development in the Pre-school years. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Westmoreland, Robert R.
1998 Information and Intonation in Natural Language Modality. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Indiana University.
Wiklund, Anna-Lena
1998 Morphosyntactic Parasites as Underspecified heads. On the Dou-
ble Supine Construction. Thesis, University of Umeä.
Williams, Edwin
1980 Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 203-238.
1994 Thematic structure in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Woisetschlaeger, Erich
1977 A semantic theory of the English Auxiliary System. Thesis. MIT.
Wouden, Ton van der
1996 Three Modal Verbs. Paper presented at the conference The Ger-
manic Verb, Dublin, March 16-19.
Wright, Georg Η. von
1951a An Essay in Modal Logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
1951b Deontic Logic. Mind 60: 1-15. [Reprinted in Logical Studies (by
G. H. von Wright): 58-74. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.]
452 References
Wunderlich, Dieter
1981 Schlussbemerkungen. In I. Rosengren (ed.), Sprache und Prag-
matik. Lunder Symposium 1980: 109-121. Lund: University of
Lund.
Wurmbrand, Susi
1999 Modal verbs must be raising verbs. In: S. Bird, A. Carnie, J. D.
Haugen and P. Nordquest (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th West
Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL18): 599-612.
2001 Infinitives. Restructuring and Clause Structure. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Wyngaerd, Guido J. vanden
1994 Pro-Legomena: Distribution and Reference of Infinitival Sub-
jects. Linguistic Models: 19. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wärnsby, Anna
2004 Constraints on the interpretation of epistemic modality in English
and Swedish. In: Faccinetti, R. & F.R. Palmer (eds.), English
Modality in Perspective. Genre Analysis and Contrastive Studies:
163-190. [English Corpus Linguistics 1, General Editors:
Kohnen, T. & J. Mukherjee]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang
Verlag.
Forthcoming (De)coding modality - the case of must, may, mäste and kan.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Lund.
Zagona, Karen
1990 Times as Temporal Argument Structure. Unpublished MS.
1995 Temporal argument structure: Nonfigurational elements of con-
strual. In: P. M. Bertinetto, V. Bianchi, J. Higginbotham, and M.
Squartini (eds.), Temporal Reference, Aspect and Actionality, vol
1, Semantic and Syntactic Perspectives'. 397-410. Torino: Rosen-
berg & Sellier.
Zanuttini, Raffaella
1996 On the Relevance of Tense for Sentential Negation. A. Belletti &
L. Rizzi (eds.), Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in
Comparative Syntax: 181-207. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zubizarreta, Maria L.
1982 On the Relationship of the Lexicon to Syntax. Ph.D. Dissertation,
MIT.
Öhlschläger, Günther
1989 Zur Syntax und Semantik der Modalverben des Deutshcen. Tü-
bingen: Niemeyer Verlag.
Index
acquisition of modality, 38 counterfactuals, 23

affix-hopping, 338 Creoles, 286, 312 ff.
agent-oriented adverbs, 105 Danish modals, 84-5, 121, 124
agent-oriented modality, de diclo, 220 (fn.)
249 (fn.) default and override, 9, 407, 376,
agreement systems, 106 421
Aktionsart, 292 deictic modality, 33
alethic modality, 26, 33, 39, deontic modality, 25, 26, 42, 47
116 directed, 48, 132, 269
anaphoric clitics, 165 non-directed, 48, 132
aspect, 290, 321 de re, 220 (fn.)
assertion, 386 descriptively adequate, 15
belief system, 225, 406 diachronic development, 17,
binding, 258, 260 36-8, 103 ff, 311 (fn.)
Bokmäl, 22, 150, 327 directional small clauses, 60,
bouletic modality, 25, 26 71, 135,267, 299,384,411
Burzio's generalization, 126, dispositional modality, 132
193 distal form, 374
Capp Verde Creole, 286, 348 distinct lexemes, 149
Catalan modals, 165 Doppelgänger, 2, 82, 229
clausal operator, 169 double entries, 253
clause, 347 double modals,
coercion, 292 (fn.) in English, 128, 163
complements of modals, 57 in Scandinavian, 128
conceptual domain, 34, 37 in Old Norse, 129 (fn.)
connectedness effect, 201 (fn.) doxastic modality, 26
connectivity effects, 201 (fn.) durative aspect, 291
construction grammar, 93 Dutch modals, 55-6, 60, 89-90,
context, 28, 250 329, 336
controllability, 245 dyadic modal predicates, 7, 10,
control verbs, 96 47, 52, 173-4
control vs. raising analyses, 5, dyadic temporal predicates, 288
96, 125, 135, 143, 161, 172- dynamic aspect, 290, 296
190 dynamic modality, 26, 42, 47, 156
predictions of, 175, 416 impersonal reading, 50-1
conversational background, 29 dynamic predicate, 8, 296 ff.
copula, 213 egressive aspect, 291
counterfactual reading, 59, 375 ellipsis, 63, 413
454 Index
empty expletive, 221, 230, 234 Germanic modals, 17, 151, 167,
endo-skeletal, 94 392
English modals, 54-5, 60, 87, grammaticalization, 113-5,239
161,411 (fn.)
epistemic modality, 4, 16, 25, Greek modals, 324 (fn.)
26, 47, 116 ha
subjective epistemic, 31-3 function of, 367
objective epistemic, 31-3 omission of, 59, 61, 371 ff.
weak epistemic, 27, 42, 50 semantics of, 323, 367
EPP, 142, 179 (fn.), 259-60 habitual adverbial, 334 (fn.)
equative structures, 201, 213 hierarchy of modalities, 118
etymological description, 43-5 Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy,
event modality, 39, 50 377 (fn.)
eventive aspect, 290 HPSG, 148
events vs. states, 292 Hungarian modals, 336
evidential modality, 6, 21, 26, hybrid analyses, 415
32-3, 42, 47, 420 Hypothesis of Semantic
existential constructions Transparency, 315
and relativization, 195 Icelandic modals, 85-6, 124
existential modality, 27 imperative, 19, 20-21
existential operator, 27, 157 imperfective aspect, 291
existential quantifier, 202 indefinites
existential subjects, 159 ambiguity of, 220 ff.
exo-skeletal, 94 INFL, 104, 164
explanatory adequate, 15 indicative, 17
fa (Norwegian), 75-77 individual anchor
Faroese modals, 58, 86-7 of propositions, 226
finiteness, 385-6 infinitival marker ä, 56-7, 78,
finiteness requirement, 7, 21, 203-4
24, 289,390,411 infinitive, 348, 350, 355
Finnish-Swedish, 328 irrealis, 373
Force, 269 informant tests,
force-dynamic analyses, 34-5 ville, 45
formalist orientation, 12 tags and subject scope, 235
free relative, 202 (fn.) ingressive aspect, 290
functional projection, 92, 97- innateness, 11
102 intensional context, 220
functionalist orientation, 12 intensional predicates, 220
future, 296, 378, 395 intentional subject, 181
generics, 402 ff. internal periphery, 160, 352
German modals, 54, 55, 60, 87- intransitive modal, 173 (fn.)
88, 155-6, 158 (fn.) inventory of Norwegian modals
Index 455
preliminary, 16, 46, 74 expletive, 130, 175-6

final, 83,414 weather-/?, 130, 177-9
invisible verb analyses, 61,71, idiom-chunk, 130, 178-9
134 non-root modality, 5, 8,
irrealis, 380 (fn.), 387 (fn.) null case, 173, 203 (fn.)
iterative, 292, 306 ff. Nynorsk, 22, 150, 327
Konjunktiv, 385 (fn.) observational adequacy, 15
Language Bioprogram originator, 95
Hypothesis, 313 paradigm of modal forms, 19
lexical content, 53 past,
LF-affix, 232 immidiate, 302, (fn.) 368
LFG, 93, 148,209 remote, 302 (fn.) 368
Limited Diversity Hyptohesis, past participle, 22, 58-9, 350,
320, 323 359 ff.
lowering, 258 perfect, 22, 163, 301 ff. 331, ff.,
Mainland Scandinavian, 337, 359 ff.
347 (fn.), 348 perfective aspect, 291
male nipples, 330 (fn.) phase, 156, 243
measurer, 95 philosophical fallacy, 31
mental model, 40, 403 pidgin, 313-314
merge, 92, 170 polarity transition, 132, 137
metaphorical, 182 possibility operator, 28
metaphysical modality, 21, 26, potential modality, 27
3 3 , 3 9 , 4 1 , 4 7 , 297 prediction, 45, 283
mirror effect, 119 premodals, 111
mirror principle, 116, 316 present, 59, 295, 350, 354
modal auxiliaries, 1-2, 5-6, 53, present participles, 19-20
70 presupposition of existence,
modal base, 30 222 ff.
modality vs. mood, 318 preterite, 58, 350, 353
modality head, 115 preterite-presents, 17, 411
modal main verbs, 1-2, 5-6, 53, primary meaning, 42
70, 80 Principle of Relevance, 315
monadic modal predicates, 7, PRO
10, 47,52, 173-4 (non-) obligatory control of,
mood, 115,318,385 255 ff.
necessity operator, 28 proform det, 65 (fn.), 196 (fn.),
negated modal, 80-1 209 (fn.), 214
negation, 58 (fn.), 117, 160, proform dette, 196
233 (fn.) progressive, 57 (fn.), 163, 291, 294
NICE properties, 63 (fn.), 305 ff., 312
non-argument subject, projection principle, 96
456 Index
proposition scope readings, 48, source of modality, 90, 140, 268 ff.
63, 159, 197, 200,211-2 Spanish, 328-9
PRO theorem, 168 speaker tags, 40
prototypical readings, 43-5 specific/non-specific
pro-verb gjere, 66-8 distinction, 222 ff.
proxy head, 336 speech event S, 344
pseudoclefts, 62, 126, 192 f f , statistical approaches, 294
201 ff. 417 stative
quantificational adverbials, aspect, 291
391,395,402 adverbial, 300
quantificational modality, 27, predicate, 8, 296 ff., 304 ff.
33,42 statives, 186, 295
quantifiers subject-oriented readings, 49,
nobody/somebody, 217 132, 200,212,214, 231,
some/every, 218, 238 248
quasi-agentive, 24 (fn.), 394 subject scope, 153, 183-4, 199,
quasi-modals, 33 205 ff.
quirky subjects, 106, 125, 152, subjunctive, 226, 318-9
179-181 subjunctive readings of modals,
quotative modality, 118 matte, 44 (also fn. 15)
raising verb, 96-7 skulle, 44 (also fn. 15)
reanalysis verbs, 91, 236 ff. Swedish modals, 83-4
reconstruction, 206, 209 (fn.), symmetric predicates, 158, 248
233,330,419 tags, 63, 66-8
redefinition of argument tautology, 277
structure, 252 telic aspect, 291
reference time R, 345, 351 tendency, 51, 174
relative pronouns, 196 tense, 288 ff.
restructuring verbs, 164 absolute, 343
root modality, 4, 8, 16, 25 anaphoric, 389
root vs. non-root, chains, 342, 352 ff.
formal differences, 9, 144 distinctions, 349 ff., 423
alleged differences, 125, element, 288
295 heads, 115, 342 ff.
selectional requirements, 9 misplaced, 122, 333
communicative functions, operator, 288,321,385
377 particle, 312
rule-giver, 269, 420 relative, 343
Scandinavian modals, 54, 127 shell, 351
semi-modals, 33, 326 Theta-criterion, 96
sequence of tenses, 399 Theta-role, 92, 173, 265 (fn.),
shopping linguistics, 12 272 (fn.)
Index 457
additional, 121, 127 universal quantifier, 27, 157

adjunct, 105, 249 (fn.) universalist approaches, 312 ff.,
external, 169, 247, 255 329
individual, 94 unmarked settings, 313 (fn.)
internal, 168 UTAH (Uniformity of Theta
secondary, 167 Assignment Hypothesis), 93
TMA systems, 312 veridicality, 226
TMA markers, 319 ff. VP-pronominalization, 66, 71,
Uniformity Hypotheses, 320 ff. 145,413
Universal Grammar, 11 weak obligation, 280
universal hierarchy, 98, 115,
312 ff., 332

5 6167846510508638255

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

5 6167846510508638255

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Norwegian Modais

The series Studies in Generative Grammar was formerly published by

© Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Eide, Kristin M„ 1965 —

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek

© Copyright 2005 by Walter de Gruyter G m b H & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin.

There are numerous w a y s to separate one group o f linguists from another.

DEF definite article (suffix)

1. Norwegian modals: main verbs and auxiliaries 1

Chapter 2: Norwegian Modals: the Facts

Chapter 3: Analyzing Modals: a Survey of Recent Proposals

1. Two central notions 92

2.1. Roberts (1985) 103

Chapter 4: Norwegian Modals: Argument Structure

4.2. Occational redefinition of argument structure 252

Chapter 5: Norwegian Modals, Aspect and Tense

6.1.Default and overrride 376

1. Norwegian modals: main verbs and auxiliaries

Modals with DP/finite clausal Modals with bare

When discussing modals, most authors aim to describe modal auxiliaries.

analyses thus requires a careful m a p of the entire landscape of modals; be-

2. The central subjects of this investigation

T h e literature on modals in Germanic languages is comprehensive: it covers

Chapter 6 offers a brief summary of what I consider the major achieve-

3. The root-epistemic distinction

(1) a. Jon mä vcere pä kontoret.

(I) 'Jon is obligated to be in his office.'

Cross-linguistically, modals and similar elements often display these two

Modals with DP/finite clausal Modals with bare

A recurring question in the literature on Germanic modals, however, has

Modals with DP/finite clausal Modals with bare

= Main verbs? = Auxiliaries?

referred to as epistemic in many works. 4 Hence, my version of Figure 3 is

Modals with DP/finite clausal Modals with bare

Root modals: Non-root modals:

many decades. However, the English compound be supposed to has an

ist. However, different types of non-root modals (epistemic, evidential, and

(2) a. Jon mä virkelig like pannekaker.

c. The water must be boiling.

d. Jon mä virkelig like pannekaker

'Jon must really like pancakes

e. Jon mä ha spist fer han kommer.

f. The water must be boiling

The analysis exploiting an 'opposite selectional requirements' approach can

(3) a. Only root modals take directional complements.

I argue in Chapter 5, section 6.2, that (3a) is explained on the assumption

(4) a. Jeg mä dette.

b. Det du skal, er a sove.

However, non-root modals can never be construed as two-place predicates

The general framework of this book is the (Chomskyan, generativist, struc-

H o w e v e r , the principles and generalizations proposed in this book are not

It is also not a goal of this book to employ an extensive formalism to ex-

an excessive preoccupation with formal technology can overwhelm the

ism can set up... barriers to communication with researchers in other

There is a tendency within the P & P f r a m e w o r k for what J a c k e n d o f f consid-

I quote a number of functionalist works in this book. O n e important reason

formal properties cannot be characterized independently of their semantic

(1) burde 'should' skulle 'will'

(2) Jon mä vcere pä kontoret.

In sections 2 through 4 , 1 consider the morphological, semantic, and syntac-

In English grammars, modals are characterized as morphologically distinct

might quite justifiably claim that the m o r e tangible consequences of this