Narrog (2010): (Inter)subjectification in Modality and Mood

@cite{narrog-2010}

Study file connecting @cite{narrog-2010}'s theoretical claims to the cross-linguistic data in Core.Modality.DeonticNecessity. The chapter argues that strong obligation markers are cross-linguistically uncommon because obligation is inherently face-threatening and socially costly, so languages tend not to grammaticalize it — or to do so only indirectly.

@cite{narrog-2012} ch. 2 decomposes the face-threatening potential of obligation into three independent dimensions — performativity, volitivity, and speaker-orientation. Face-threat is derived from this decomposition (see NarrogPosition.isFaceThreatening), not stipulated per deontic necessity type.

Key Empirical Claims

1. Strong obligation (must-type) markers exist in only 60/200 languages, barely more than weak obligation (should-type) at 62/200.
2. Japanese avoids strong obligation with 2nd-person subjects entirely (0 instances of -(a)nakereba naranai with 2nd-person subject).
3. The deontic-to-epistemic polyfunctionality (English must) is cross-linguistically rare: only 3 of 42 changes in Bybee et al.'s sample involve this shift.

Bridges

• Core.Modality.DeonticNecessity: provides the 200-language data.
• Semantics.Modality.Narrog: provides the theoretical framework (volitivity, speaker-orientation, performativity, directionality).

def Phenomena.Modality.Studies.Narrog2010.toNarrogPosition : Core.Modality.DeonticNecessity.DeonticNecessityType → Semantics.Modality.Narrog.NarrogPosition

Map deontic necessity type to its position in Narrog's 3D space.

Strong obligation is performative + volitive + speaker-oriented: the speaker creates the obligation by uttering it. Weak obligation is descriptive: the speaker reports an existing norm. This difference explains the cross-linguistic asymmetry in grammaticalization.

Equations

• Phenomena.Modality.Studies.Narrog2010.toNarrogPosition Core.Modality.DeonticNecessity.DeonticNecessityType.strong = Semantics.Modality.Narrog.strongObligation
• Phenomena.Modality.Studies.Narrog2010.toNarrogPosition Core.Modality.DeonticNecessity.DeonticNecessityType.weak = Semantics.Modality.Narrog.weakObligation
• Phenomena.Modality.Studies.Narrog2010.toNarrogPosition Core.Modality.DeonticNecessity.DeonticNecessityType.neutral = Semantics.Modality.Narrog.weakObligation
• Phenomena.Modality.Studies.Narrog2010.toNarrogPosition Core.Modality.DeonticNecessity.DeonticNecessityType.indeterminate = Semantics.Modality.Narrog.dynamicAbility

theorem Phenomena.Modality.Studies.Narrog2010.strong_face_threatening : (toNarrogPosition Core.Modality.DeonticNecessity.DeonticNecessityType.strong).isFaceThreatening = true

Strong obligation is face-threatening (derived from 3D position).

theorem Phenomena.Modality.Studies.Narrog2010.weak_not_face_threatening : (toNarrogPosition Core.Modality.DeonticNecessity.DeonticNecessityType.weak).isFaceThreatening = false

Weak obligation is NOT face-threatening (descriptive, not performative).

theorem Phenomena.Modality.Studies.Narrog2010.face_threat_from_performativity : (toNarrogPosition Core.Modality.DeonticNecessity.DeonticNecessityType.strong).performativity ≠ (toNarrogPosition Core.Modality.DeonticNecessity.DeonticNecessityType.weak).performativity ∧ (toNarrogPosition Core.Modality.DeonticNecessity.DeonticNecessityType.strong).toRegion = (toNarrogPosition Core.Modality.DeonticNecessity.DeonticNecessityType.weak).toRegion

The face-threat asymmetry between strong and weak obligation is structurally explained: they differ only in performativity.

theorem Phenomena.Modality.Studies.Narrog2010.strong_obligation_minority : Core.Modality.DeonticNecessity.countOf Core.Modality.DeonticNecessity.DeonticNecessityType.strong < Core.Modality.DeonticNecessity.sampleSize / 2

Strong obligation is a minority pattern: only 60/200 languages.

theorem Phenomena.Modality.Studies.Narrog2010.weak_ge_strong : Core.Modality.DeonticNecessity.countOf Core.Modality.DeonticNecessity.DeonticNecessityType.weak ≥ Core.Modality.DeonticNecessity.countOf Core.Modality.DeonticNecessity.DeonticNecessityType.strong

Weak obligation (should-type) is at least as common as strong (must-type).

theorem Phenomena.Modality.Studies.Narrog2010.deontic_epistemic_shift_uncommon : (List.filter (fun (c : Diachronic.ModalChange.Change) => c.source.volitivity == Semantics.Modality.Narrog.Volitivity.volitive && c.target.volitivity == Semantics.Modality.Narrog.Volitivity.nonVolitive) Diachronic.ModalChange.commonChanges).length = 2

The deontic → epistemic shift is uncommon cross-linguistically.

Of the 8 most common modal changes (Bybee et al. 1994), only changes #6 and #7 go from volitive (deontic) to non-volitive (epistemic), and these are among the least frequent (3 and 2 grams respectively).

structure Phenomena.Modality.Studies.Narrog2010.PersonDistribution : Type

Person distribution for Japanese strong necessity -(a)nakereba naranai.

@cite{narrog-2010} Table 5 (Chiang 2007: 72): of 115 tokens, 0 have a 2nd-person subject. This avoidance reflects the face-threatening nature of strong obligation directed at the addressee.

• construction : String
• firstPerson : ℕ
• secondPerson : ℕ
• thirdPerson : ℕ

def Phenomena.Modality.Studies.Narrog2010.instReprPersonDistribution.repr : PersonDistribution → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

• One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

instance Phenomena.Modality.Studies.Narrog2010.instReprPersonDistribution : Repr PersonDistribution

Equations

• Phenomena.Modality.Studies.Narrog2010.instReprPersonDistribution = { reprPrec := Phenomena.Modality.Studies.Narrog2010.instReprPersonDistribution.repr }

def Phenomena.Modality.Studies.Narrog2010.japaneseStrongNecessity : PersonDistribution

Equations

• Phenomena.Modality.Studies.Narrog2010.japaneseStrongNecessity = { construction := "-(a)nakereba naranai", firstPerson := 52, secondPerson := 0, thirdPerson := 63 }

def Phenomena.Modality.Studies.Narrog2010.japaneseAbbreviated : PersonDistribution

Equations

• Phenomena.Modality.Studies.Narrog2010.japaneseAbbreviated = { construction := "-(a)nakya/naktya", firstPerson := 35, secondPerson := 13, thirdPerson := 4 }

theorem Phenomena.Modality.Studies.Narrog2010.strong_avoids_second_person : japaneseStrongNecessity.secondPerson = 0

Strong necessity completely avoids 2nd-person subjects.

theorem Phenomena.Modality.Studies.Narrog2010.abbreviated_allows_second_person : japaneseAbbreviated.secondPerson > 0

The abbreviated form allows 2nd-person (mitigated by omitting the negative consequent).

theorem Phenomena.Modality.Studies.Narrog2010.strong_total : japaneseStrongNecessity.firstPerson + japaneseStrongNecessity.secondPerson + japaneseStrongNecessity.thirdPerson = 115

Total tokens for strong necessity.

theorem Phenomena.Modality.Studies.Narrog2010.abbreviated_total : japaneseAbbreviated.firstPerson + japaneseAbbreviated.secondPerson + japaneseAbbreviated.thirdPerson = 52

Total tokens for abbreviated form.

theorem Phenomena.Modality.Studies.Narrog2010.face_threat_predicts_avoidance : (toNarrogPosition Core.Modality.DeonticNecessity.DeonticNecessityType.strong).isFaceThreatening = true ∧ japaneseStrongNecessity.secondPerson = 0

The 2nd-person avoidance pattern is predicted by face-threat: strong necessity (face-threatening) avoids 2nd-person, while the abbreviated form (mitigated → less face-threatening) allows it.

This connects the pragmatic dimension (face-threat from performativity) to the distributional observation (person restrictions).