# On apprehensives as bi-propositionals conditionals: an Australianist perspective

Patrick Caudal

► To cite this version:

Patrick Caudal. On apprehensives as bi-propositionals conditionals: an Australianist perspective. Conditional Constructs Across World Languages, Ghanshyam Sharma (INALCO, PLIDAM, inIdEx-EFL), Oct 2025, Paris, France. hal-05527934

HAL Id: hal-05527934

https://hal.science/hal-05527934v1

Submitted on 26 Feb 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# On apprehensives as bi-propositionals conditionals: an Australianist perspective

## Conditional Constructs Across World Languages
INALCO, 29. October 2025

Patrick Caudal, CNRS & U. Paris-Cité

patrick.caudal@cnrs.fr
Introducing apprehensives

* So-called apprehensives identified at over 50 years ago in Australia (Dixon 1972); attested in numerous Oz languages, and elsewhere in the world (esp. Indigenous languages of the Americas)

* Remains understudied, typologically and formally speaking

* Faller et al. (2025) first step, but not language typology *per se*

* A few formal analyses on specific languages, with pre-typological claims:

1. **Francez** (to appear) (Biblical Hebrew complementizer *pen*)

2. **AnderBois & Dąbkowski** (2020, 2025), Dąbkowski & AnderBois (2023, to appear) (*A'ingae* =*sa'ne* clitic)

3. **Phillips** (2021) (*Kriol bambai* apprehensive particle)

4. Tahar (2021) (*French craindre que P 'fear that P'*)
Introducing apprehensives

* Apprehensives (**or lest** clauses, evitatives, aversises...):

* Involve undesirable possibility; predictive (doxastic/epistemic) flavour

* Often associates with expressive intonation

* ⚠ **Clearly Implicative if monoclausal:** (1) = directive (don't canoe)

* Periphrastic morphology in (1), but can be synthetic too

(1) k-ini-majpungku-n, marnti kurruni-wu-n. (Mawng)
PR-3MA/3MA-lift.up-NP APPR 3MA/2PL-kill-NP
'It [the sea] is rough and it might kill you.' (Singer 2006: 171)
(implicated: 'you shouldn't canoe / don't canoe')
Introducing apprehensives

• Most common type: ‘double modal’ constructions

• Biclausal constructions, with two modal meanings involved:

• Priority modal (deontic) or plain directive (imperative, prohibitive)

• Predictive modal (undesirable possibility)

• ⚠ **Assumption:** some sort of modal dependency (Roberts 1989)

• ‘Do A-antecedent, otherwise B-consequent’

(2) Kana-ya-njing, that naki (Iwaidja)
2SG>3OBJ.RMOD-look-RMOD that dog
**DIRECTIVE/PRIORITY MODAL CLAUSE – ANTECEDENT P**

angkad ri-mambu-Ø ba arijumardan!
APPR 3SG>3OBJ.OPT-bite-OPT the child!
**PREDICTIVE MODAL CLAUSE – CONSEQUENT Q**

‘Mind/watch that dog, it might bite the child!’
(TAIM190603MM_Modality_1, 00:47:15)
Introducing apprehensives

• AnderBois & Dąbkowski’s typological inventory (2025:2):

(3)

a. APPREHENSIVE PROPER Ese Ejja (Takanan; Vuillermet 2018)
   B'iya b'iya b'iya b'iya! Kekwa-ka-chana miya!
   bee bee bee bee pierce-3A-APPR 2SG.ABS
   "Bee, bee, bee, bee! Watch out it might sting you!"

b. TIMITIVE Ese Ejja (Takanan; Vuillermet 2018)
Iñawewa kwaji-kwaji-ani b'iya=yajjajo.
dog run~RED-PRS bee=TIM
"The dog is running for fear of the bees."

c. AVERTIVE PRECAUTIONING Ese Ejja (Takanan; Vuillermet 2018)
Owaya ekowijji shijja-ka-ani [e-jja-saja-ki kwajejje.]
3ERG rifle clean-3A-PRS AVERT-MID-block-MID AVERT
"He cleans his rifle lest it get blocked."

d. IN-CASE PRECAUTIONING A'ingae (Dąbkowski and AnderBois 2024a)
Vasûi=ngi tsûi [iyu khûi-sa'ne.]
slowly=1 walk snake lie-APPR
"I walked slowly in case there are snakes."

e. FEAR-COMPLEMENTIZER A'ingae (Dąbkowski and AnderBois 2024b)
[Thesi ña=ma an-sa'ne] dyuju.
jaguar 1SG=ACC eat-APPR be afraid
"I fear the jaguar might eat me."
Introducing apprehensives

• Dąbkowski & AnderBois (2023)

(3)

a. APPREHENSIVE PROPER Ese Ejja (Takanan; Vuillermet 2018)
   B'iya b'iya b'iya b'iya! Kekwa-ka-chana miya!
   bee bee bee bee pierce-3A-APPR 2SG.ABS
   "Bee, bee, bee, bee! Watch out it might sting you!"

b. TIMITIVE Ese Ejja (Takanan; Vuillermet 2018)
Iñawewa kwaji-kwaji-ani b'iya=yajjajo.
dog run~RED-PRS bee=TIM
"The dog is running for fear of the bees."

C. AVERTIVE PRECAUTIONING Ese Ejja (Takanan; Vuillermet 2018)
Owaya ekowijji shijja-ka-ani [e-ija-saja-ki kwajejje.]
3ERG rifle clean-3A-PRS AVERT-MID-block-MID AVERT
"He cleans his rifle lest it get blocked."

Mixed modal-indicative uses

d. IN-CASE PRECAUTIONING A'ingae (Dąbkowski and AnderBois 2024a)
Vasûi=ngi tsûi [iyu khûi-sa'ne.]
slowly=1 walk snake lie-APPR
"I walked slowly in case there are snakes."

e. FEAR-COMPLEMENTIZER A'ingae (Dąbkowski and AnderBois 2024b)
[Thesi ña=ma an-sa'ne] dyuju.
jaguar 1SG=ACC eat-APPR be afraid
"I fear the jaguar might eat me."

Subordinate single clause modal uses
Introducing apprehensives

• AnderBois & Dąbkowski (2020:44):

(3')

a. APPREHENSIVE PROPER

Ese Ejja (Vuillermet 2018)

[b'iya b'iya b'iya b'iya kekwa-ka-chana miya]

bee bee bee bee pierce-3A-APPR 2SG.ABS

'Bee, bee, bee, bee! Watch out, it might sting you.'

Single clause modal uses

b. PRECAUTIONING AVERTIVE

Don't move [lest the bee sting you.]

English?

Biclausal, 'double modal' uses

c. PRECAUTIONING IN-CASE

Wear long sleeves [lest there be bees.]

English?

d. TIMITIVE

Ese Ejja (Vuillermet 2018)

iñawewa kwaji~kwaji-ani [b'iya=yajjajo]

dog run~RDP-PRS bee=TIM

'The dog is running for fear of bees.'

Nominal uses (case marking)

e. FEAR COMPLEMENTIZER Early Modern English (López-Couso 2007)

For therunto I had said to them, that I ferid [lest the Kinges Highnes
wolde as they saide take displeasure inough towarde me for the only
refusal of the other.]
Introducing apprehensives

* Many accounts see apprehensives as context-sensitive, as can have an implicative content: *Apprehensive(P) ⇒ Directive(Q)* (cf. ‘don’t canoe..’)

* Question: how is Q identified/connected to P?

* Dąbkowski & AnderBois (2023): Q is related to P *via* a ‘rationale’ operator (P is the reason behind Q); contextually inferred,

* Q is determined through conversational implicatures (François, to appear)

* Q is contextually determined by means of the QuD (Phillips 2021)

* + P is modally dependent upon Q; no discourse relation involved

* Identification of Q not discussed in Francez (to appear)

* Q related to P *via Explanation* discourse relation (Asher & Lascarides 2003)

* *Explanation*: coherence effect of parataxis; apprehensive function is ‘parasitic’ on it

* Existing accounts do not ascribe discourse structural contribution to apprehensives
Introducing apprehensives

* Main points to improve upon:

* Inventory of structures

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

should be revised

* Some types of structures found in Australia are missing

* ...and they are potentially problematic for existing analyses

* Semantics/pragmatics interface

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

should be revised

* Fairer spread of the analytical burden at the sem/prag interface

* Apprehensives contribute discourse relations (not just ‘parasitic’ on discourse relations contextually triggered by other means)
Research questions

* Objectives of this talk:

1. Provide an **empirical portrait of apprehensivity** in Australian languages as **verbal morphology**
   **(fieldwork + typological inventory)**

1. Capitilazing on existing works, sketch a **tentative**
**theoretical & formal account of the category in**
**Australian languages, as a type of conditional**
**morphology**

(analysis & implementation)
Research questions

* Nominal apprehensives (case marking, clitics, or derivational affixes) also exist in Australian languages, but I'll leave them aside for want of time

(4) (a) [context: Mom to kids when about to roll up car window]

*Fingers=nukun!* (Murrinhpatha)

*Fingers=APPR*

‘Mind your fingers!’ (R. Nordlinger, p.c.)

(implicit directive content ‘do something about your fingers’ +
implicit ‘or else’ Q clause: ‘your fingers could get broken’)

(b) *ambi-ya guwa -wultharri-ya*   *gan duknganan-fang*

NEG-Pst 3sSR-stand-returnPst here policeman-APPR

‘He never returned here, for fear of the policeman.’

(Marrithiyel) (Green 1989:58)

(implicit apprehensive predictive predicate: ‘he was afraid the policeman might do something’; indicative clause ‘actualizes’ deontic/preference implication P: ‘he had to always stay away’))
Roadmap

1. Empirical portrait of apprehensives (APPR) in Australia
(fieldwork + typological sample)

2. Discussion: can existing accounts for this portrait?

3. A novel discursive semantic account
Empirical portrait of apprehensives in Oz

• Two methods

- Qualitative fieldwork on Iwaidja (Minjilang, Croker Island, N.T.)

- Typological sample: grammar mining on 31 languages

* Pama-Nyungan: Pilbara: *Martuthunira*, *Panyjima*, *Nyangumarta*;
  Western Desert: *Pintupi-Luritja*; *Ngumpin-Yapa*: *Warlpiri*, *Bilinarra*,
  *Ngarinyman*, *Ngardi*; *Garrwan*: *Garrwa*; *Karnic*: *Diyari*,
  *Yandruwandha*; *Dyirbalic*: *Wargamay*, *Dyirbal*; *Tangkic*: *Kayardild*

* Non-Pama-Nyungan: Iwaidjan: Iwaidja, Mawng; Mirndi: Jaminjung, Wambaya; Gunwinyguan: Dalabon, Anindilyakwa, Bininj Gun-wok, Kuninjku, Rembarrngga, Wubuy; Daly River: Murrinhpatha, Marrithiyel; Wororan: Worrorra; Bunuban: Gooniyandi; Maningrida: Gurr-goni, Nakkara, Burarra

- Grammaticalized apprehensives found in 28 languages out of 31
Empirical portrait of apprehensives in Oz

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
Empirical portrait of apprehensives in Oz

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
Empirical portrait of apprehensives - results

* **Type 1: biclausal mixed modal directive (P)+predictive (Q)**

* ‘Do P, or else Q’ / ‘don’t do P, or else Q & Q has undesirable outcomes’

* Directive antecedent – Lichtenberk (1995), Vuillermet (2018): ‘precautioning’

* Similar to ‘pseudo-imperatives’ (Fraser 1969, Clark 1993)

* Starr (2020): **negative conditional** ('Realize P or else suffer Q')

(6) *ŋinda*          *balan*          *buni*          *muymba* (Dyirbal)
you-SA              THERE-NOM-II      fire-NOM       put.out-IMP

DIRECTIVE MODAL CLAUSE

baijgun          dambundu          bural-bila
there-ERG-II     dambun-ERG        see-APPR

PREDICTIVE MODAL CLAUSE

‘You put out the fire lest the Dambun spirit sees it (i.e. and comes to torment us).’ (Dixon 1972: 113)
# Empirical portrait of apprehensives - results

* 'Pseudo-imperatives' have negative conditional operator ('or else')

* Antecedent must not hold for consequent to hold ('negative precondition')

* Form depends on whether antecedent P is desirable (imperative) or not (prohibitive)

<table><caption>Table 1: Desirable antecedent P (imperative) ('do P, otherwise Q')</caption><thead><tr><th>Antecedent</th><th>OR-ELSE</th><th>Consequent</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>DIRECT(P)</strong><br>(imperative <em>do P</em>)<br><strong>P: desirable</strong></td><td>OR-ELSE</td><td><strong>PREDICT(Q<sub>undes</sub>)</strong><br>(<em>bad stuff Q will happen</em>)<br><strong>Q: undesirable</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>IF(¬P)</strong><br>(<em>if P is not realized</em>)<br><strong>P: desirable</strong></td><td>THEN</td><td><strong>PREDICT(Q<sub>undes</sub>)</strong><br>(<em>bad stuff Q will happen</em>)<br><strong>Q: undesirable</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 2: Undesirable antecedent P (prohibitive) ('don't do P/prevent P, otherwise Q')</caption><thead><tr><th>Antecedent</th><th>OR-ELSE</th><th>Consequent</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>DIRECT(¬P)</strong><br>(prohibitive <em>prevent P/don't do P</em>)<br><strong>P: undesirable</strong></td><td>OR-ELSE</td><td><strong>PREDICT(Q<sub>undes</sub>)</strong><br>(<em>bad stuff Q will happen</em>)<br><strong>Q: undesirable</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>IF(P)</strong><br>(<em>if P is realized</em>)<br><strong>P: undesirable</strong></td><td>THEN</td><td><strong>PREDICT(Q<sub>undes</sub>)</strong><br>(<em>prediction <em>bad stuff Q will happen</em></em>)<br><strong>Q: undesirable</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>
Empirical portrait of apprehensives - results

* **Type 1 often exhibits **asymmetric** marking on P vs. Q**

* Directive clause generally has run-of-the-mill deontic/imperative morphology

* ⚠ **and it can be positive** (imperative/deontic) **or negative** (prohibitive/negative deontic)

(7) kudn-uka-Ø ngartung (Iwaidja)
1sg>2pl.RMOD-peep-RMOD OBL.1SG.
mana angkad birta nganba-ya-njing
maybe APPR otherwise 3pl>1sg APPR-see-APPR
‘Keep a lookout for me, otherwise they might see me.’
(Iwaidja Dictionary)
Empirical portrait of apprehensives - results

* **Hypothesis:** APPR conveys **negative modal conditional** between **antecedent P** and **consequent Q**

* As Oz langs generally are weakly or non configurational languages + clause chaining rather than syntactic subordination; so both (7) and (8) are typically fine

(8) Hold his hand (P) – otherwise that child is going to fall (Q)
['This child is going to fall *if you don't hold his hand*']

(8') That child is going to fall (Q) unless you hold his hand (P)!
['*if you don't hold this child's hand*, he's going to fall']
Empirical portrait of apprehensives - results

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

So-called ‘in case’ uses: Q may not be undesirable *per se*

* Propositional content of Q does not always offer undesirable possibility Q' – it is contextually inferred from Q+world knowledge

* P does not aim at preventing Q, but some implication Q' of Q

* Q'=Q iff P directly aims at preventing Q (Q itself is undesirable)

* Assuming that undesirable Q' is contextually infered, we can maintain a uniform analysis of ‘in case’ uses with type 1

(9) *Take an umbrella in case it rains/*otherwise it might rain.*

(10) *Take an umbrella, or you might get soaked* (as it might rain).

*Q'*

*Q*
Empirical portrait of apprehensives - results

* **NEW Type 1': biclausal mixed modal + symmetric marking**

* APPR inflection can mark priority/directive/deontic and/or predictive clauses

* APPR not just about predictions in Oz – conditional modal

(11) **Ka-rdaya-njing**
2SG>3OBJ.OPT-look-OPT
**PRIORITY/DIRECTIVE MODAL CLAUSE**

**baraka**
that
**mirrnayaj**
crocodile

(Iwaidja)

angkad
APPR
**PREDICTIVE MODAL CLAUSE**

ri-mambu-Ø
3MSG>3SG.OPT-bite-OPT

ba
the
**naki.**
**dog**

'You'd better look!/Watch out! That crocodile might bite the dog!'
Empirical portrait of apprehensives - results

* **2nd type biclausal use: hypothetical** (warnings/threats – cf. e.g. Rooij & Franke (2012))

* **No directive clause in this type; bona fide conditional**

* (12) is an instance of **asymmetric APPR marking**

* **General constraint? Not clear**

(12) *ŋinda* *ŋaygu* *bulgugu* (Dyirbal)
you-SA-I-GEN wife-DAT swive-*ŋay*-REL-NOM

wadilŋaŋu *ŋada* *ŋinuna maŋa* *gunbal-*bila
I-SA you-O ear-NOM cut-*APPR*

‘If you swive my wife, I’ll cut off your ears.’ (Dixon 1972: 362)
Empirical portrait of apprehensives - results

• 3rd type of biclausal APPR: mixed indicative/modal

1. Counterfactuals with postmodal flavour (actuality-entailment of directive: ‘I had to do this, otherwise…’)

2. **Assumption:** mixed indicative APPR involve implicit directive clause **NEW**

(13) *Ngayu murnta-lalha wirra-a ngarti-l* (Martuthunira)
1SG.NOM take.from-PAST boomerang-ACC again-THEN
*patharri-wirri-la ngurnu-ngalyarnta-lwa.*
fight-LEST-LOC that.ACC-CAUSAL-ID (Dench 1995:130)
‘I took away that boomerang otherwise [you’d] be fighting over it again.’
(Implied preference: ‘I had to take it away…’; actualized by IND)

(14) (we built a huge fire ...) (Nakkara)
*korla minja namunja ya-bburba-ma*
lest flies 3>3.IRR+follow.food-PCT
‘...otherwise the flies would have hung around’ (Eather 1990: 347)
(Implied preference: ‘we had to build a huge fire’; actualized by IND)
Empirical portrait of apprehensives - results

* Monoclausal uses: matrix predictive APPR well-known case

* Implied modal directive clause, cf. (15)

* +Modal dependency ⇒ APPR akin to a conditional structure

* Cf. also Kratzer's (1986, 1991) treatment of modals as conditional-like

* ⚠ Key idea: APPR generally involve bipropositionnal content

* ...can even do so in (at least some) mono-clausal uses

(15) k-ini-majpungku-n, marnti kurruni-wu-n. (Mawng)
PR-3MA/3MA-lift.up-NP APPR 3MA/2PL-kill-NP

'It [the sea] is rough and it might kill you.' (Singer 2006: 171)

(implicated directive: 'you shouldn't canoe / don't canoe')
Empirical portrait of apprehensives - results

* **NEW** Monoclausal directive/priority APPR + implied predictive

* Found in languages with symmetric marking of biclausal APPR

* APPR marker can have both a directive-apprehensive and predictive-apprehensive meaning

* **Caveat:** takes overt negation (prohibitive modal) for APPR

(16) a. mere na-ngi-mathputh-nukun=thurru (Murrinhpatha)

NEG 2SGS.HANDS(8).FUTIRR-ISGO-interrupt-APPR=2SGS.GO(6)[KEEP.ON].FUTIRR

'Don't you continually interrupt me.' (⇒ **Implied threat: 'or I'll punish you'**)
(Nordlinger & Caudal 2012:104)

b. mere=nukun

thurru

(Murrinhpatha)

NEG=APPR

2SG.GO(6).FUTIRR

(Mansfield 2014:446)

'you better not go!'

(⇒ **Implied prediction: 'or you'll regret it'**)
Empirical portrait of apprehensives - results

* NEW **Monoclausal directive/priority APPR + implied predictive**

- More examples:

(17)

nhinhi-ka mere thurru-nukun ngarra da
2SG-TOP NEG 2SG.GO(6).APPR LOC PL/T
nigunu kem-yu
3SG.F 3SG.SIT(1).EXIST-CLS

‘You are not to go to where she is staying.’ (Murrinhpatha legal dic.)

- **Puzzling fact:** Murrinhpatha monoclausal directives = NEG APPR morphology, whereas Iwaidja = (*NEG) APPR morphology,
Empirical portrait of apprehensives - results

Monoclausal directive/priority APPR + implied predictive

* Similar data points found in some Slavic languages (Wiemer, to appear):

(18) *(Smotr-i,)* *ne poskol'zn-*i*-s'!* (Russian)
look.IPFV-IMP.SG NEG slip.PFV-IMP.SG-REFL

“(Be careful,) don’t slip!” (Wiemer, to appear)

* Monoclausal deontic with apprehensive undertones

* Can also be threatening in some contexts
Empirical portrait of apprehensives - results

* **Also:** 'threatening prohibitives / comparative deontics':

* With expressive intonation

(19) *Don't you dare* P (or else Q)

(20) *T'as* pas intérêt à P (sinon Q)
You.have-2sg.PR NEG interest to P (or else Q)
'Don't you dare P! '

* **Complex, semantically hybrid deontic/warning expressions**

* Warning meaning is part of the at-issue content of such expressions

* Negative possibility clause generally remains covert (or else/sinon Q)
Empirical portrait of apprehensives - results

* APPR clauses in clause chaining or subordinates clauses of fear verbs

* With clause chaining, *Explanation* discourse relation seems to be involved

(21) *wuugarra=rnayinangulu* garra, (Bilinarra)

frightened=1AUG.EXC.S>3AUG.O be.PR

*ngaja=ngandibangulu* *baya-wu*

APPR=3AUG.S>1AUG.EXC.O bite-POT

‘We’re frightened of them (because) they might bite us (referring to dogs).’
(Meakins & Nordlinger 2013: 241)

(22) *Rayin=pa=rna* karrarda=karri-nyanta,(Ngardi)

afraid=EP=1SG.S afraid=BE-PRS

ngarda=yi=lu pi-ngi.

HYP=1SG.O=3PL.S hit-IRR

‘Fearful, I am afraid, (that/because) they might attack me.’ ≠ ‘I am afraid, if/when they attack.’ (Ennever 2021:686)
Empirical portrait of apprehensives - results

* **Postmodal, 'actuality entailment' uses found** – undesirable events

* Rarely found in data – and specifically ruled out in some languages (e.g. Marrithiyel, Green 1989:168, or Murrinhpatha)

* Seems to be limited to predictive-only, asymmetric APPR morphology

* Probably requires a specific treatment....

(23) ngayu bama wawa:l wandandinggu. (Yidiny)
I-SA person-ABS see-PAST fall-APPR-ERG

'I saw the person as I was **(unfortunately)** falling over'.
(Dixon 1977:352)
Empirical portrait of apprehensives - results

* Also possible ‘apprehensive strategies’ (typically with IRR marking)

* Undesirability then contextually determined, not simply semantically encoded
  **Underspecified vs. ambiguous forms? (if ambiguous, then semantic!)**

* Yama=lhangwa: optional warning expression, NOT an apprehensive particle)

(24)(a) (yama=lhangwa!) n-ak *nenəŋkwarba* (Anindilyakwa)
(watch.out=ABL) 3M-that 3M.man
kənə-wənyamba-dhu-Ø=ma
IRR.3M-angry-INCH-USP=MUT
‘Watch out! The man might become angry!’ (Bednall 2020: 328)

(b) Nanj *deraf* gumu-inggi -tharr -srut -Ø -Ø
2sPRO quietly 3sS.Irr.paint-1IO stop float I dl Imp
a -wurrumbun *ambi* ga-inggi -sjang -Ø -wa
CA crocodile NEG 3sS Ir Ø 1IG hear I dl Fut
(Marrithiyel) (Green 1989:183)
‘You(sg) float quietly with me - the crocodile won’t hear us.’
Empirical portrait of apprehensives - results

* Summary of findings: 6 broad form/meaning types of APPR

* ...plus apprehensive strategies...

1. Mixed modal directive-predictive (negative) conditional ('do P, or else Q')

1. Overt mixed modal conditional: directive antecedent, predictive consequent

2. Elliptic apprehensive denoted by monoclausal structure

1. Monoclausal predictive, implied directive ('do something!' / 'pay attention!')

2. Monoclausal directive, implied predictive (cf. negative prediction with 'careful!'))

3. Conditional hypothetical (positive, bona fide conditional)

1. Overt biclausal hypothetical APPR ('If P, then Q')

4. Mixed indicative/modal sequence: 'X did P, otherwise Z would have Q'

1. Reduced hypothetical conditional: implied antecedent clause 'If X hadn't done P'

2. Reduced mixed modal structure: implied antecedent clause 'X had to/was compelled to do P'

5. APPR clauses as adjuncts/complement of clauses with fear predicates

6. Postmodal monoclausal uses: 'X did P (unfortunately)'}

1. Implied admonition/regret: 'Y should have prevented P/I wish P hadn't happened'
Empirical portrait of apprehensives - results

* Summary of findings: 6 broad form/meaning types of APPR

* ...plus apprehensive strategies...

1. Mixed modal directive-predictive (negative) conditional ('do P, or else Q')

1. Overt mixed modal conditional: directive antecedent, predictive consequent

2. Reduced apprehensive denoted by monoclausal structure

1. Monoclausal predictive, implied directive ('do something!' / 'pay attention!')

2. Monoclausal directive, implied predictive (cf. negative prediction with 'careful!'))

3. Conditional hypothetical (positive, bona fide conditional)

1. Overt biclausal hypothetical APPR ('If P, then Q')

4. Mixed indicative/modal sequence: 'X did P, otherwise Z would have Q'

1. Reduced hypothetical conditional: implied antecedent clause 'If X hadn't done P'

2. Reduced mixed modal structure: implied antecedent clause 'X had to/was compelled to do P'

5. APPR clauses as adjuncts/complement of clauses with fear predicates

6. Postmodal monoclausal uses: 'X did P (unfortunately)'}

1. Implied admonition/regret: 'Y should have prevented P/I wish P hadn't happened'
Discussion of results & existing literature

* Question #1: what's implied by single modal APPR structures?

1. Mono-clausal APPR<sub>DIR</sub>

2. Mono-clausal APPR<sub>PRED</sub>

3. Mixed indicative + modal-APPR<sub>PRED</sub> structures

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

* Is the implied content semantic or pragmatic?

* How does it obtain / relate to its other propositional content? (P/Q)

* Existing works: implied content is contextually inferred
Discussion: mono-clausal directives

* Treating implied prediction in (25) as purely pragmatic is unsatisfying

(25) Watch your step! (⇒ or you might fall)

* Conveys *command conventionnaly* associated with implied warning; ‘double speech act’ (*command & implied warning*) (Clapp 2009)

* Observation carries over to monoclausal PRED APPR; ‘double speech act’ with conventional *warning* + implied *deontic/directive*

* Therefore: monoclausal APP do not exclusively rest on speaker's meaning pragmatic enrichment
Discussion: connection between P and Q

* Question #2: how are predictive P and directive Q related?

* Phillips (2021): modal dependency, but no discourse relation

* Francez (2025): causal dependency + *Explanation* discourse relation contributed by parataxis – APPR is parasitic on it; **APPR does not contribute a discourse relation itself**

* AnderBois & Dąbkowski : ‘rationale’ semantic relation; no explicit contextual treatment...But can be recast as Francez (2025), and is in AnderBois & Dąbkowski (2025)
# Discussion of results – Phillips (2021)

* Phillips (2021:64) meaning of Kriol APPR *bambai* = $\ominus$ (DRS operator)
  with $K_{isub}$ is a negative precondition for $K_j$, stemming from part of $K_i$ in (26)

(26) **PROPOSAL.** A dynamic semantics for *bambai*

$$K_i \ominus K_j \Leftrightarrow (K_i) \wedge (\neg K_{isub} \diamond K_j)$$

In words: $K_i \ominus K_j$ is satisfiable iff both $C_{K_i}$ and $(\neg K_{isub} \diamond K_j)$ are satisfiable, where $K_{isub}$ is some DRS that is contained within $K_i$.⁵⁴
Discussion of results – Phillips (2021)

* Phillips (2021:66):

* Modal dependency à la Roberts (1989, 2012) with QuD-derived antecedent

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

NEW

⚠️ Move to justify K1 > should stress necessity of K1 ('I had to have a coffee') in (27)

(27)

[K1 aibin dringgi kofi ] bambai aibina silip
1sg.PST.have drink coffee APPR 1sg.PST.be asleep
‘I had a coffee, otherwise I might’ve slept.’ (Phillips 2021:66)

$K_1$. DRS first clause

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

$K_2$. DRS full sentence

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>
Discussion – Phillips (2021)

* Phillips’s (2021): *bambai’s* prejacent offers answer to question raised by antecedent of apprehensive / prior discourse context

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

prejacent of *bambai*
(= consequent content)
Discussion: connection between P and Q

• ⚠️ How do we get Q' (when Q itself is not undesirable)?

(29) *Take some sunscreen, it might be sunny today!*

Q not undesirable

Q' = ‘you might get sunburnt’

• Dąbkowski & AnderBois (2023:393):
Q' is '[contextually] recoverable'

* Francez (2024)
Q' is ‘causally dependent [on Q]’
Discussion: connection between P and Q

* Pace Francez (2024), implicit Q' not a causal dependent of Q

* Scriptal chain: typical sequences of events, weakly causal or not causal

• $s_1$ and $s_2$ are not causally related; scriptal world-knowledge based inference

(30) yangan-ara-ng gana-ma-Ø ba
2SG.SIT APPR-go APPR 2SG>3SG.RMOD-get-RMOD DET
jirradad angkad ardirrang ngabi abulang
meat APPR 3SG.Appr-come APPR my son
‘go get some meat in case my child comes’
(TAIM20240625-IL-apprehensives#1+avertives -- TC 00:12:36.373 -
00:12:41.806)

(31) a. #cause(s₁:'come my child', s₂:'request meat my child')
b. cause(s₂:'request meat & no meat', s₃:'ashamed mother')

(32) a. [s₁:come my child'] ⇒script [s₂:'request meat my child']
b. [s₂:'request meat & no meat'] ⇒script [s₃:'ashamed mother']
Discussion: connection between P and Q

* Pace Francez (2024), implicit Q' not a causal dependent of Q

* Scriptal chain: typical sequences of events, weakly causal or not causal

• s₁ and s₂ are not causally related; scriptal world-knowledge based inference

(30) yangan-ara-ng gana-ma-Ø ba
2SG.SIT.APPR-go-APPR 2SG>3SG.RMOD-get-RMOD DET
jirradad angkad ardirrang ngabi abulang
meat APPR 3SG.APPR-come-APPR my son

'go get some meat in case my child comes'
(TAIM20240625-IL-apprehensives#1+avertives -- TC 00:12:36.373 -
00:12:41.806)

Problem here...not causally related

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

(31) a. #cause(s₁:'come my child', s₂:'request meat my child')
b. cause(s₂:'request meat & no meat', s₃:'ashamed mother')

(32) a. [s₁:come my child'] ⇒script [s₂:'request meat my child']
b. [s₂:'request meat & no meat'] ⇒script [s₃:'ashamed mother']
Discussion: connection between P and Q

* Mixed indicative APPR also involve (covert) priority/directive

(33) ‘I P<sub>PST</sub> in case Q<sub>APPR</sub>’

(34) *amirrijany* ba jirradad (P<sub>PST</sub>)

1SG>3SG.ANT-hide-ANT DET meat

angkad ardirrang ba warrkbi (Q<sub>APPR</sub>)

APPR 3SG.OPT-come-OPT DET man.SG

‘I hid the meat in case the man [neighbor] comes.’ (humbugging)
(TAIM20240625-IL-apprehensives#1+avertives -- 00:15:18.254 -
00:15:21.806)

* **NEW!** Implied deontic/priority modal ≈ ‘I had to/needed to P’

* Postmodal priority with 'I P<sub>PST</sub>' = actuality entailment, Q<sub>APPR</sub> = modal dependent

* ...Implicit priority modal discourse referent + modal dependency
Discussion: connection between P and Q

* **Additional potential issues for Francez's (2025) analysis:**

* *Pen* fixed syntactic ordering of P-directive and Q-predictive

* In Australian languages, Q can precede P in discourse, cf. (35)

* *Explanation* cannot be involved in such cases....

(35)

<table><tr><td>angkad</td><td>ardirrang</td><td>ngabi</td><td>abulang</td></tr><tr><td>APPR</td><td>3SG.OPT-come-OPT</td><td>my</td><td>son</td></tr><tr><td>yangan-ara-ng</td><td>gana-ma -</td><td></td><td>jirradad</td></tr><tr><td>2SG.SIT.OPT-go-OPT</td><td>2SG>3SG.RMOD-get-RMOD</td><td></td><td>meat</td></tr></table>

‘The man might come [and I don’t have any meat]. Go get some meat.’

* And *rtionale/explanation*’ analysis does not apply to bona fide conditional threats (‘if you swive my wife. I’ll cut off your hears’)
Discussion: connection between P and Q

* More straightforward example:

* Obviously, *Explanation* cannot introduce Q and relate it with P...

(36) gudin-nimbi-Ø-fang (Marrithiyel) (Q-predictive)
3nsS.R.see-2sO-pl-APPR

masri nginjsji warri-batj-Ø (P-directive)
belly=other side one 2sS.Ir.go-lie.down-Imp

'They might see you! Go camp on the other side!'
(Green 1989:164)
(Marrithiyel)

* Interestingly, Green claims that –*fang* clauses are subordinated...

* ....but can be found in what seems to be isolated matrix clauses
Discussion: connection between P and Q

* Further potential issues for Francez's (to appear) analysis:

* SDRT never claimed that parataxis conventionally involves *Explanation*

* Only *Narration*, very much the discursive opposition of *Explanation*, was argued in Asher (1993) to attach by default with parataxis

* Parataxis does not encode any DR *per se* (Asher & Lascarides 2003)

* *pen*: has been argued to be a subordinator: cf. Sjörs (2018)

* In which case deriving *Explanation* from parataxis is not an option

* Not clear that mere parataxis is involved in the case of *pen*

* *Pen* appears to lexicalize a inter-clausal relation

* Clause chaining, with semantic subordination?

* **Solution:** treating conjunctions/connectives as denoting a discourse relation very frequent move in the SDRT literature)
Discussion: connection between P and Q

* Main issues with generalizing Phillips's (2021) analysis:

1. Analysis of ‘elliptic’ forms is essentially pragmatic

1. No discoure relation involved

2. Does not apply to hypothetical biclausal APPR

3. Does not capture well cases where Q itself is not undesirable
Summary of discussion

* Theoretical generalization: at least some APPR markers semantically encode directive/deontic AND predictive mods, even if monoclausal

• Monoclausal uses semantically imply covert type of modal

Overt PREDICTIVE → covert DIRECTIVE/DEONTIC/PRIORITY

Overt DIRECTIVE/... → covert PREDICTIVE (some lgs only)

* Typologically speaking, one should regard APPR morphology as **modal morphology associated with overt OR covert conditional structures**

• Conventional bi-propositional semantics

• **Inherently complex semantic expressions even in matrix uses**

• Implicative meaning is **conventional** (not just pragmatic, not contingent)

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

NEW
An alternative semantic discursive account

* **Common place idea:** conditionals can be treated as *discursive* expressions; cf. Kitis (2004), or SDRT-based works (Asher & Lascarides 2003)

⇒ APPR structures, as conditionals, should also be treated as discursive expressions, involving discourse relations

* Jayez & Dargnat (2008) argue that ‘pseudo-imperatives’ involve a *conditional* discourse relation

* Conditional and *Negative Conditional* relations in Sanders et al. (2021)

* Modal + causal dependency in SDRT – *Dep* DR: McCready (2008)

(37) 〈α, β, γ〉 ∧ Epist_mod(α) ∧ occasion(α, β) > Dep(α, β)
An alternative semantic discursive account

* APPR constructions involve a conditional discourse relation

* Both overt and covert APPR with mixed modal meaning introduce a **negative conditional discourse relation, *NegConditional***

• do *P*, otherwise *Q*

• OR *do P, otherwise Q' & Script(Q, Q') if Q itself is not undesirable*

• Hypothetical apprehensives involve a ‘normal’ conditional

* Discourse relation often **redundantly lexified** by
  connective/conjunction: Iwaidja *birta* ‘otherwise’ (+ cf. Hebrew *pen*)

* Covert modal APPR content realized as TCL underspecified, context-
sensitive propositional content φ̄_{-ε} (Asher 2011)

• Nature of φ̄-ε identified in LIP: *Common Sense Entailment* reasoning
Sketching a TCL+SDRT Implementation

• (38)-(39): LIP rules for languages with symmetric APPR marking

• Implicit speech act referent γ (?γ)

• μ(K) extracts main predicative propositional content from DRS K

• **Key point:** contextual resolution for ?γ/γ': y'=β if (39) applies before (38);
γ=β' if (38) applies before (39); REL/REL' can vary

(38) **LIP rule #1 for NegCond<sub>DIR</sub> (β directive):** ?REL(α,β) ∧ Dir<sub>APPR</sub>(μ(K<sub>β</sub>)) >
?γ ∧ NegCond<sub>FWD</sub>(β,γ) ∧ Pred<sub>APPR</sub>(μ(K<sub>γ</sub>)) ∧ μ(K<sub>γ</sub>) = φ<sub>∈-PRED</sub>

(39) LIP rule #2 for NegCond (β predictive): ?REL'(α',β') ∧ Pred<sub>APPR</sub>(μ(K<sub>β'</sub>)) > ?γ' ∧ NegCond<sub>BCK</sub>(β',γ') ∧ Dir<sub>APPR</sub>(μ(K<sub>γ'</sub>)) ∧ μ(K<sub>γ'</sub>) = φ<sub>∈-DIR</sub>

(40) LIC axiom on NegCond:
NegCond<sub>FWD</sub>(β,γ) → ¬μ(K<sub>β</sub>)◊μ(K<sub>γ</sub>)
NegCond<sub>BACK</sub>(β,γ) → ¬μ(K<sub>γ</sub>)◊μ(K<sub>β</sub>)
NegCond<sub>BCK</sub>(β,γ) ↔ NegCond<sub>FWD</sub>(β,γ)
Conclusion

* ‘Implicit’ content of (at least some) monoclausal APPR is **not** **purely pragmatic**

* Monoclausal DIR: ‘threat/warning’ meaning though (vague) is real (very much like with Engl. ‘don’t you!’)

* Monoclausal PRED: semantically prompts agent (addressee) to (re)act (cf. ‘watch out!’ ‘beware!’))

* APPR can encode specific discourse relations

* But also involve contextual DRs...

* ⚠ Not always based on a ‘parasitic’ *Explanation* (Francez 2025) – *Explanation* not always involved
Conclusion

* Better trade-off at the semantics/pragmatics interface

* Several context-sensitive variables and functions are semantically introduced – **partly reflects on implicative nature of APPR**

* LIP (discourse coherence principles + common sense entailments) help us binding and specifying all of the **above** (e.g. free variables ?y and underspecified functions φ̄_{-ε} (e.g. for Q'))
Conclusion

* Does the analysis apply to all types of APPR structures?

* ‘Bona fide’ conditional uses: YES (implicit directive)

* Mixed indicative uses: maybe YES (implicit directive/preference, actualized by IND)

* Fear predicate clause chaining / subordination: maybe NO...

* Nominal structures: depends on subtype (like monoclausal directive 'fingers=nukun!', or like fear clause chaining '[He never came back] policeman-fang')
Conclusion

• ⚠️ How to compute contextual undesirable expectation Q'?

• We must complexify LIC axioms on *NegCond*:

(41) a. [$\text{NegCond}_{\text{FWD}}(\beta, \gamma) \wedge \text{Undes}(\mu(K_\gamma))$] $\rightarrow$ $\neg\mu(K_\beta)\diamond\mu(K_\gamma)$

b. [$\text{NegCond}_{\text{FWD}}(\beta, \gamma) \wedge \neg \text{Undes}(\mu(K_\gamma))$] $\rightarrow$
$[\text{Script}(\mu(K_\gamma), \boldsymbol{\varphi}_{-\epsilon.\text{UNDCONS}}) \wedge \boldsymbol{\varphi}_{-\epsilon.\text{UNDCONS}} \diamond \mu(K_\gamma)]$

- $\boldsymbol{\varphi}_{-\epsilon.\text{UNDCONS}}$: undesirable scriptal (WK-based) consequence of $\mu(K_\gamma)$; free variable, interpreted in the LIP (common sense reasoning)

- *Undes*: negative preference modal function
Conclusion

* Still work in progress...

* Modal force and types of predictive apprehensives: e.g.
  FUT vs. OPT in Iwaidja

* Bona fide APPR conditionals: how extent are they?
* Maybe some non-implicative uses of APPR-PRED? No directive implied:

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

* A lot of similar 'I was afraid that' uses...
• But problematic...

p. 148

4-3) mani ambi -fang gu -iningin -fup -Ø
money NEG APP 3nsS R Ø 1sG give pl

I'm afraid they (pl) might never give me the money.

4-4) duknganan -fang gidin -gidi -fini
policeman APP 3sS R see 1EO dl

...lest the policeman see us (exc, 2).

p.165

4-48.a) gidin'gi -warrk -nanga -Ø -ya wudi nang yuwa /
1ES R see hide 3msABL pl Pst liquid 3msPRO there

gi -wanggal -fang
3sS R Ø finish APP

We (exc, pl) hid the liquid [alcohol] from that bloke for fear
that he would finish it off.

4-48.b) gudin -nimbi -Ø -fang / masri nginjsji warri -batj -Ø
3nsS R see 2sO pl APP belly one 2sS Ir go lie Imp
=other side down

To avoid them (pl) seeing you (sg),
you (sg) camp on the other side.
Conclusion

* APPR, like all modals (Kratzer), are essentially **conditional modals** over two propositions, one overt, one covert

* Monoclausal uses: either DIR or PRED is covert

* Biclausal uses = two monoclausal uses + cross-referencing of discourse referents and contextual enrichment of underspecified 'elliptic' (modal) propositional content (**clause chaining+discourse coherence management**)•

* Conditional is generally a negative conditional ('Do A, otherwise B' / 'B might happen, unless you do A' / 'if you don't do A, then B')

* But positive conditional uses are also attested (though rarer)
Conclusion

* Modal semantics of undesirability (priority modal content of APPR) needs to be further investigated

* Tentative hypothesis: apprehensive predictive meaning = « negative priority/preference » modals

• Negative scale of preference, cf. e.g. Portner & Rubinstein (2016)
Conclusion

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

Bartuwa!

*That's it!*

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>
References

* AnderBois, Scott & Maksymilian Dąbkowski. 2020. A'ingae =sa'ne “APPR” and the semantic typology of apprehensional adjuncts. *Semantics and Linguistic Theory* 30. 43–62. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v30i0.4804.

* Asher, Nicholas. 2011. *Lexical Meaning in Context: A Web of Words*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

* Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides. 2003. *Logics of Conversation*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

* Bednall, James. 2020. *Temporal, aspectual and modal expression in Anindilyakwa, the language of the Groote Eylandt archipelago, Australia*. Canberra / Paris: ANU & Université de Paris PhD Thesis.

* Bowler, Margit & John Gluckman. 2021. Gradability across grammatical domains. *Linguistic Variation* 21(2). 281–321. https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.20003.bow.

* Breen, Gavan. 2004. *Innamincka Talk: A grammar of the Innamincka dialect of Yandruwandha with notes on other dialects*. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Australian National University.

* Caudal, Patrick. 2023. Avertive/frustrative markers in Australian languages: blurring the boundaries between aspectuo-temporal and modal meanings. In Kasia M. Jaszczolt (ed.), *Understanding Human Time* (Oxford Studies of Time in Language and Thought), 107–173. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

* Condoravdi, Cleo & Sven Lauer. 2012. Imperatives: meaning and illocutionary force. In Christopher Piñón (ed.), *Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics* 9, 37–58. Paris: CSSP. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss9/.

* Condoravdi, Cleo & Sven Lauer. 2011. Performative Verbs and Performative Acts. In Ingo Reich, Eva Horch & Dennis Pauly (eds.), *Sinn und Bedeutung 15 - Proceedings of the 2010 Annual Conference of the Gesellschaft für Semantik*, 1–15. Universaar-Universitätsverlag des Saarlandes. Saarbrücken.
References

* Clark, Billy. 1993. Relevance and “Pseudo-Imperatives.” *Linguistics and Philosophy* 16(1). 79–121.

* Dąbkowski, Maksymilian & Scott Anderbois. 2025. The apprehensional domain in A'ingae (Cofán). In Martina Faller, Eva Schultze-Berndt & Marine Vuillermet (eds.), *Apprehensional Constructions in a CrossLinguistic Perspective* (Studies in Diversity Linguistics). Berlin: Language Science Press. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/006450. (31 May, 2025).

* Dench, Alan. 1995. *Martuthunira: A Language of the Pilbara Region of Western Australia* (Pacific Linguistics C: 125). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Australian National University.

* Dixon, R. M. W. 1977. *A Grammar of Yidiny* (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139085045.

* Dixon, Robert M.W. 1972. *The Dyirbal language of North Queensland* (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 9). Cambridge / New York: Cambridge University Press.

* Eather, Bronwyn. 1990. *A Grammar of Nakkara (Central Arnhem Land Coast)*. Canberra: Australian National University Ph.D. Thesis.

* Evans, Nicholas. 2022. Beyond fear: the grammar of negative emotions in Australian languages. Presented at the FEMIDAL 2022 (1st international workshop of the FEMIDAL project), Station d'écologie forestière, Fontainebleau.

* Evans, Nicholas. 2003. *Bininj Gun-wok: a pan-dialectal grammar of Mayali, Kunwinjku and Kune*. Australian National University, Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

* Evans, Nicholas. 1995. *A Grammar of Kayardild. With Historical-Comparative Notes on Tangkic*. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
References

* Faller, Martina, Marine Vuillermet & Eva Schultze-Berndt (eds.). 2025. *Apprehensional constructions in a cross-linguistic perspective*. *Language Science Press*. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/530. (29 October, 2025).

* François, Alexandre (2025). Explicit apprehensions, implicit instructions. In Faller et al. (eds.), *Apprehensional constructions in a cross-linguistic perspective*. Berlin: Language Science Press.

* Fraser, Bruce. 1969. An Analysis of Concessive Conditionals. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 5(1). 66–75.

* Green, Ian. 1989. *Marrithiyel: A Language of the Daly River Region of Australia's Northern Territory*. Australian National University, Canberra PhD Thesis.

* Lassiter, Daniel. 2017. *Graded Modality: Qualitative and Quantitative Perspectives* (Oxford Studies in Semantics and Pragmatics). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

* Lassiter, Daniel. 2014. Modality, Scale Structure, and Scalar Reasoning. *Pacific Philosophical Quarterly* 95(4). 461–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12045.

* Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1995. Apprehensional epistemics. In Joan Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman (eds.), *Modality in grammar and discourse*, 293–327. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

* McCready, Eric. 2008. Particles, Modality and Coherence. *Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung* 12. 430–441. https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2008.v12i0.698.
References

* McGregor, William B. 2023. On the expression of mistaken beliefs in Australian languages. Linguistic Typology. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2022-0023.

* Mansfield, John. 2020. *Murrinhpatha Morphology and Phonology. Murrinhpatha Morphology and Phonology*. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

* Mansfield, John. 2014. *Polysynthetic sociolinguistics: The language and culture of Murrinh Patha youth (PhD thesis)*. Canberra: Australian National University PhD Thesis.

* Nishiyama, Atsuko & Jean-Pierre Koenig. 2010. What is a perfect state? *Language* 86(3). 611–646.

* Phillips, Joshua. 2021. *At the Intersection of Temporal + Modal interpretation (essays on irreality)*. New Haven: Yale PhD Thesis.

* Phillips, Josh & Hadas Kotek. 2020. Discourse anaphoric otherwise: Information structure & modal subordination. LingBuzz.

* Portner, Paul. 2018. Commitment to Priorities. In Daniel Fogal, Daniel W. Harris & Matt Moss (eds.), *New Work on Speech Acts*, 296–316. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

* Portner, Paul & Aynat Rubinstein. 2016. Extreme and Non-Extreme Deontic Modals. In Nate Charlow & Matthew Chrisman (eds.), *Deontic Modality*, 256–282. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
References

* Rooij, Robert Van & Michael Franke. 2012. Promises and Threats with Conditionals and Disjunctions. In Günther Grewendorf & Thomas Ede Zimmermann (eds.), *Discourse and Grammar: From Sentence Types to Lexical Categories*, 69–88. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

* Sanders, Ted J. M., Vera Demberg, Jet Hoek, Merel C. J. Scholman, Fatemeh Torabi Asr, Sandrine Zufferey & Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul. 2021. Unifying dimensions in coherence relations: How various annotation frameworks are related. *Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory* 17(1). 1–71. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0078.

* Singer, Ruth. 2006. *Agreement in Mawng: Productive and lexicalised uses of agreement in an Australian language*. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne PhD Thesis.

* Starr, William B. 2020. A preference semantics for imperatives. *Semantics and Pragmatics* 13(6):1-60. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.13.6.

* Starr, William B. 2010. *Conditionals, meaning and mood*. Rutgers University - Graduate School - New Brunswick. https://doi.org/10.7282/T3FF3S3M.

* Tahar, Chloé. 2021. Apprehensive and frustrative uses of “before.” In Nicole Dreier, Chloe Kwon, Thomas Darnell & John Starr (eds.), *Proceedings of the 31st Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference*, vol. 31, 606–628. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America.

* Vuillermet, Marine. 2018. Grammatical fear morphemes in Ese Ejja: Making the case for a morphosemantic apprehensional domain. *Studies in Language* 42(1). 256–293. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.00010.vui.
An alternative semantic discursive account

* At least three different sets of modal *constructions* in langs
with predictive+directive APPR marker

* **Hypothesis:** we should treat 2 and 3 using the same machinery

1. Overt hypothetical APPR structures ('overt hypothetical APPR')

2. Double modal structures without covert directive or predictive meanings ('overt biclausal APPR conditionals')

3. Constructions with covert directive or predictive meanings ('covert mixed APPR conditionals') (≈ monoclausal APPR)

* Monoclausal predictive OR directive APPR

* ...including indicative + monoclausal APPR

* **Implicit APPR meaning** = **underspecified, contextually determined-propositional content**
Sketching a TCL+SDRT Implementation

* If directive APPR prejacent: consequence comprises φ̄-ε underspecified propositional content under predictive modal

* vague, and hinges on contextual information, e.g.

* Implied threat ('don't you dare do this!') ⇒ impeding retribution

* Mere warning ('you might not want to do this') ⇒ vague impeding consequences

* If predictive APPR prejacent: consequent comprises φ̄-ε underspecified propositional content under priority/directive modal

* Strength of modal is contextually dependent (normal in Oz)

* φ̄-ε should constitute an action potentially blocking prejacent's propositional content (e.g.: « X might hurt Y! » => φ̄-ε « remove Y from X », « disable X », etc.)