Universal #1293

Legacy number: 1293

 Number  1289
 Original  Hierarchy of the auxiliarization of modality:
possibility > necessity > impossibility > non-necessity
 Standardized  IF non-necessity is expressed by an auxiliary, THEN so is impossibility;
IF impossibility is expressed by an auxiliary, THEN so is necessity;
IF necessity is expressed by an auxiliary, THEN so is possibility.
 Formula  possibility > necessity > impossibility > non-necessity
 Keywords  modality, auxiliary
 Domain  syntax, semantics, lexicon
 Type  implication
 Status  diachronic
 Quality  absolute
 Basis  Slavonic, Germanic (both Indo-European)
 Source  Hansen 1999: 5.3

← Back to Universals Archive

Discussion
Notes
Read literally, the claim is not that this hierarchy is universal, but only that it is not language-particular.Referring to Löbner 1990, Hansen suggests that the hierarchy is not only valid for auxiliaries, but for all kinds of lexemes expressing modality.The context of Hansen’s discussion is diachronic: the hierarchy specifies the relative historical order in which lexical expressions (esp. verbs and nouns) are grammaticalized as modal auxiliaries.
Comment
Frans Plank · 3 Aug 2006
Read literally, the claim is not that this hierarchy is universal, but only that it is not language-particular. Referring to Löbner 1990, Hansen suggests that the hierarchy is not only valid for auxiliaries, but for all kinds of lexemes expressing modality.
The context of Hansen's discussion is diachronic: the hierarchy specifies the relative historical order in which lexical expressions (esp. verbs and nouns) are grammaticalized as modal auxiliaries.