r~!ffl~,jijf~~ ~ 16 i!i-(2014 if) pp. 20-46© 2014 ::¥B ::¢:~ffl~"f:~Modality Packaging in Japanese:
The Encoding of Modal Meanings and Subjectivity*

Lars Larm
Lund University

This paper focuses on the grammatical expression or 'packaging' of modality in Japanese. I consider two aspects: (1) the grammatical encoding of epistemic, deontic, and evidential notions withEnglish as a point of comparison, and (2) the co-encoding of modality and subjectivity. As forthe former aspect, the comparison between Japanese and English exemplifies how languages cantake different strategies for grammatical modality packaging, linking and encoding cognitive categories in language-specific ways. Regarding the latter aspect, I discuss how modal markers exhibit different degrees of subjectivity. Not only epistemic modality, whose subjective character isoften mentioned in the literature, but also deontic and evidential modality can be subjective or
objective. I also consider the broader implications for linguistic theory.
Keywords: modality packaging, epistemic, deontic, evidential, subjectivity

1.

Introduction

This paper builds on my previous works (Larm 2006 and 2009) and focuses on thegrammatical expression or 'packaging' of modality in Japanese. 1 I consider two aspects: (1) the grammatical encoding of epistemic, deontic, and evidential notions withEnglish as a point of comparison, and (2) the co-encoding of modality and subjectivity.
The organisation of the paper is as follows. In section 2, general aspects of modality* A manuscript of this article was presented at the Modality Workshop funded via Grant-in-Aid for
Scientific Research: the Semantic and Pragmatic Study of Modality held at Kansai Gaidai University inOsaka in 2012. I wish to express my gratitude to Harumi Sawada, who invited me to the workshop,
for providing me with the opportunity to present my work. Thanks are also due to the participants fortheir valuable comments and a stimulating discussion. I have also received helpful feedback from Anthony Backhouse, Heiko Narrog, and Axel Svahn, for which I am very grateful. In preparing the final
version, I have received excellent and detailed comments, both on the data and on theoretical aspects,
from three anonymous reviewers. I have not been able to integrate all suggestions, but I am, ofcourse, alone responsible for the remaining shortcomings of this article.
1 Larm (2009) is a condensed version presenting the main arguments of my doctoral thesis (Larm2006). When making reference to the 2009 work, which is published as a book chapter, I shall cite itin the normal way. However, large portions of the 2006 thesis have never been published. I shall use
such material freely.
20

Modality Packaging in Japanese: The Encoding of Modal Meanings and Subjectivity

21

packaging are discussed, and section 3 deals with grammatical encoding in Japanese.
This is followed by a section where I discuss the issue of subjectivity and make clear
my theoretical affinity with scholars such as Kindaichi, Sawada, and Lyons. In the final
section, I conclude with some remarks on the wider implications for linguistic theory.

2.

Modality packaging

I use the term 'modality packaging' to refer to the various ways in which the typological and cognitive category of modality manifests itself linguistically. This section
touches upon some general aspects of these coding strategies, which will, in the next
section, be discussed with reference to Japanese. 2
First, I assume that all modal notions are expressible or communicable in all languages. This may be put in a general context by considering Carston's (2002: 33) two
possible principles of effability.

First principle of effability: 'Each proposition or thought can be expressed (=conveyed) by some utterance of some sentence in any natural language.'
Second principle of effability: 'Each proposition or thought can be expressed(=encoded) by some sentence in any natural language.'
As Carston points out, the first formulation is "quite weak and seems largely unobjectionable". The crucial distinction here is that between 'conveyed' and 'encoded'. For
modality this means that all languages can convey an array of epistemic, deontic, andevidential notions, but these may or may not be encoded. If no overt marker is available, the 'modal thought' can instead be communicated pragmatically or by means of
prosodic features such as intonation. 3 The second formulation of the principle, however,does not hold true as the notions, although always expressible in some way, may not be
overtly encoded in the lexicon or grammar.
Second, two languages that overtly encode the same category may differ in coding
strategies; the same notional dimension may be grammaticalized in one language, but
expressed lexically or syntactically in another. The following passage from Lyons(1995: 331) about epistemic modality, further clarifies these points:
All natural spoken languages provide their users with prosodic resources-stressand intonation-with which to express the several distinguishable kinds of qualified epistemic commitment. Some, but by no means all, grammaticalize themin the category of mood; and some languages, such as English, lexicalize or
semi-lexicalize them by means of modal verbs ('may', 'must', etc.), modal ad-

2

For a typological account of modality and its expression, see de Haan (2006).

3 Although intonation could also be viewed as overt encoding.

22

jectives ('possible', etc.), modal adverbs ('possibly', etc.) and modal particles('perhaps', etc.).
Third, within a single language there may be several means to express the same modal
meaning. For example, in the following English sentences, epistemic possibility is encoded, respectively, by a noun, an adjective, a sentential adverb, and a modal auxiliary:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

The possibility of Peter being married.
It is possible that Peter is married.
Possibly, Peter is married.
Peter may be married.

Another possibility is the use of parenthetical verbs, or, in de Haan's terminology, 'modal tags' (de Haan 2006: 38), as in:(5)

I guess Peter is married.

There are also cases where two markers interact to express one modality, as shown below:(6)(7)

Peter may possibly be married.
I guess Peter may be married.

The phenomenon in (6) and (7) has been called 'modal harmony' or 'modal concord'(see Larm, 2012, and the references cited therein).
Modality packaging, broadly construed, refers to any expressive strategy, regardlessof whether the modality is grammaticalized, expressed lexically, syntactically, pragmatically or by means of intonation. In this paper, however, the term is used in a more narrow sense for grammaticalized markers, such as the modal auxiliary in (4). From across-linguistic point of view, Palmer states that "basically there are three types of[grammatical] marker" (2001: 19):
a.
b.
c.

individual suffixes, clitics, particles
inflection
modal verb

Fourth, various notions can be co-encoded or linked by the same marker. For example,
some languages employ the same markers to express both epistemic and deontic meanings. As de Haan (2006: 33) notes, "ambiguity of modal verbs is found, among others,in the Germanic, Slavic, and Romance language families in Europe, as well as in certain languages outside Europe". Consider the following English examples, taken from
Palmer (2001: 89), of which the first two instances of 'may' and 'must' are epistemic
and the last two are deontic. 4
4'Must' can also express evidentiality as in 'Evidently, the thief must have jumped out of the win-Modality Packaging in Japanese: The Encoding of Modal Meanings and Subjectivity

(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)

23

John may be in his office.
= It is epistemically possible that John is in his office.
John must be in his office.
=It is epistemically necessary that John is in his office.
You may/can go now.
=It is deontically possible for you to go now.
You must go now= It is deontically necessary for you to go now.

However, Narrog (2012: 221) points out that "it seems beyond doubt that deontic-epistemic polysemy (1) is far from being universal, and (2) can be called a European areal
phenomenon, in the sense that it is found most prolifically in Europe." I shall return tothis point with reference to Japanese in the next section.
Fifth, modality may be subjective or objective (see section 4). Note that I use theword 'subjectivity' to refer to the linguistic encoding, not the pragmatic conveyance, ofthe here-and-now of the speaker. Not only epistemic modality, whose subjective character is often mentioned in the literature, but also deontic and evidential modality canbe subjective or objective.

3.

Grammatical modality packaging in JapaneseThis section is concerned with how epistemic, evidential, and deontic modality are
structurally expressed in Japanese in comparison with English. However, before going
any further, it should be pointed out that Japan has, both theoretically and descriptively,a solid research tradition in modality. Due to the language barrier (most works havebeen published in Japanese) many Japanese scholars have not, outside of Japan, received the attention their efforts deserve. My research is heavily indebted to these linguists and their accounts of modal markers. In the last decade, some works in English
have also appeared, for example Johnson (2003), Larm (2006), Narrog (2009), and Pizziconi and Kizu (2009). The last one is the first collection of studies on Japanese modality written in English. Thus, the aim of the current section, and indeed of this article, is not to present new data, but to consider some features of Japanese from the perspective of modality packaging. Furthermore, the observations are from an entirely
synchronic point of view. Diachronic aspects of the modal system are, of course, equally important, but as they are outside the realm of this paper the reader is referred to
Takayama (2002).

dow.' As de Haan points out, "many scholars would consider the English modal verb 'must' to haveevidential readings as a possible interpretation" (de Haan 1999: 8).

24

What are the 'mays' and 'musts' of Japanese?
Palmer (2001: 6) notes that the three typological categories Speculative ("a possible conclusion", Deductive ("the only possible conclusion"), and Assumptive ("a reasonable conclusion") are expressed in English by the modal auxiliary verbs 'may','must', and 'will', respectively. He presents the following examples (Palmer 2001: 6):

3.1.

(12)
(13)
(14)

Kate may be at home now. (speculative)
Kate must be at home now. (deductive)
Kate will be at home now. (assumptive)

In Japanese, the packaging is different. Narrog explains (2007: 273-274):
Unlike English, with its modal verbs, Japanese has no closed set of modal markers with specific morphosyntactic properties. The most common modal markers
and constructions in Modern Japanese are morphologically extremely diverse,
ranging from particles to nouns to conditional constructions. Thus, they can
only be defined semantically.
Instead of using modal verbs to express epistemic notions, Japanese employs the periphrastic expressions ka mo shirenai 'may', ni chigai nai 'must', and the structural noun
hazu da (which roughly translates as '(what matches) the general expectation' (Martin(1988: 736)). These markers follow finite forms of verbs, adjectives and nominal adjectives and thus "take a clause as their complement" (Takubo 2009: 152): 5
(15)

(16)

(17)

kamoshirena-i.
Kare wa kuru
TOP come.NPAST SPEC-NPASThe'He may come.'nichigaina-i.
Kare wa kuru
TOP come.NPAST DED-NPAST
he'There is no doubt that he will come.'
da.
hazu
ar-u
botan ga
soba ni
Doa nodoor GEN next LOC button NOM exist-NPAST ASSUM COP.NPAST'(It is reasonable to assume that) there is a button next to the door.'

5 Inspired by Palmer's terminology, I have labelled these markers, respectively, speculative, deductive and assumptive. However, Heiko Narrog rightly points out (personal communication) that thisdoes not correctly capture the relationship between ni chigai nai and hazu da (for a discussion of thedifferences between these two forms, see Narrog (2009: 100-103) and the references cited therein).
Furthermore, both Heiko Narrog and Yoshiyuki Takayama (personal communication) remind me thatni chigai nai is stylistically restricted, rarely occuring in spoken language. Although my descriptionsof these markers are, admittedly, somewhat sweeping, the main point here is still valid: that English
and Japanese code epistemic meanings in different ways.

Modality Packaging in Japanese: The Encoding of Modal Meanings and Subjectivity

25

Ka mo shirenai is made up of the complementizer ka followed by the particle mo 'even'and the negative potential form of the verb, shiru 'know' (or possibly the negative formof the verb shireru 'be known') (see Martin 1988: 935). Martin (1988: 935) provides
the literal translations 'it is not known whether (= there's no telling whether)' and 'we
can't know whether'. Note that shirenai can be replaced by the negative form of another verb, wakaru 'understand', yielding the construction ka mo wakaranai with the same
meaning. The construction ni chigai nai consists of the dative particle ni, the noun chigai 'difference, discrepancy' and the negative nai. Furthermore, Narrog (2009: 100)
notes that ni chigai nai "has the stylistic (formal) variant ni sooi nai, in which the Japanese noun tigai is replaced by the Sino-Japanese synonym sooi." Both ka mo shirenai
and ni chigai nai are thus at least to some extent transparent. However, as Narrog(2007: 274) explains, constructions like ka mo shirenai "can be identified as "chunks",that is, multi-morpheme sequences stored by speakers as one exemplar". (In the example sentences, I have also glossed them as single units). Hazu da, then, is a structural
noun followed by the copula da. Martin (1988: 736) states that "the word hazu originally meant 'the (bowstring) notch of a bow' and later the 'notch of an arrow' (nowusually ya-hazu)". As for the modal marker hazu da, Martin suggests the following
translations: '(what matches) the general expectation', 'what one has every reason tothink', 'what ought naturally to be true', 'what stands to reason', '(what is known to be)likely, the likelyhood', 'what one would normally assume/presume', 'I assume/presume'and 'I feel sure that'.
A further difference relates to the point noted in the previous section that languages can differ in how they co-encode and link categories. As exemplified in (8)-(11),English co-encodes epistemic and deontic modality in the auxiliaries 'must' and 'may'.
Matters are different in Japanese, which is, as Narrog (2012: 233) points out "a language without any systematic deontic-epistemic polysemy". For example, the speculative ka mo shirenai 'may', in example (15) above, is exclusively used as a marker of
epistemic modality (Johnson 2003: 4). The permissive in Japanese is instead expressedby the analytic expression -te mo ii.
(18)

It-te
mo n.
go-GER even good.NPAST'(You) may go.''(lit.) Even going is fine.'

In (18) the verb in the gerund form is followed by the focus particle mo 'even', whichis in turn followed by the adjective ii 'good'. This yields the literal meaning 'Even going is fine', which amounts to '(You) may go'. A perhaps better description is found in
Narrog (2009: 80), who calls -te mo ii a "periphrastic (conditional) construction" andprovides the literal meaning "it is good, even if'. The same situation is observed whencomparing the deductive ni chigai nai in (16) to the English 'must'. Ni chigai nai is
not ambiguous; the notion of obligation is expressed by the periphrastic construction

26-nakute wa ikenai:(19)

Tabe-na-kute wa ik-e-na-i.
eat-NEG-GER TOP go-POT-NEG-NPAST'(One) must eat.''(lit.) Not eating won't do.'This construction consists of the negative gerund form, followed by the topic marker wa
and the evaluative word ikenai 'it won't do'. Thus, what we have here is a double negative with the literal meaning of 'not doing p won't do', which is the approximate
equivalent of the English deontic 'must' .6 There is, however, a less transparent form,
used in informal, colloquial language, which could be viewed as a grammaticalized inflection:(20)

Tabe-nakucha.
eat-NEG-EMPH.TOP' (One) must eat.'

So, as seen above, English uses the modal auxiliaries 'may' and 'must' to express both
epistemic and deontic notions, while the Japanese periphrastic constructions ka moshirenai and ni chigai nai, and the structural noun hazu da, are specialized for themarking of epistemic modality. Deontic meanings, then, are expressed by -te mo ii and-nakute wa ikenai. A periphrastic strategy is also available for expressing the notion of aprohibition, as in:(21)

Tabe-te wa ik-e-na-i.
eat-GER TOP go-POT-NEG-NPAST'(One) must not eat.''(lit.) Eating won't do.'

The deontic subsystem also has the marker beki da, expressing the notion of a 'moral
obligation':
(22)

da.
beki
ik-u
Kimi wa sugu
COP.NPAST
MOBL
go-NPAST
you TOP immediately'You should go immediately.'

However, as for the link between deontic and epistemic modality, the situation is more
involved than the data above suggest. Adachi et al. (2003: 109) notes that the permissive -te mo ii 'may' and the obligative -nakute wa ikenai 'must' may take on epistemic
nuances. They provide a sentence where -te mo ii denotes "logical possibility". Thus,
the meaning borders on the epistemic ka mo shirenai, and in their example either mark-6-tewa can also be regarded a conditional form (see Akatsuka (1997)).

Modality Packaging in Japanese: The Encoding of Modal Meanings and Subjectivity

27

er can be used (Adachi et al. 2003: 119):
(23)

soo
i-ru
de-te
o
mae ni ie
Tanaka san wa, nijikan
Mr Tanaka TOP two hours before house ACC leave-GER be-NPAST HEAR
toochaku
dakara, sorosoro kochira ni
arrival
DAT
here
soon
thereforekamoshirena-i.
suru
mo ii/
shi-tedo-GER even good.NPAST/ do.NPAST SPEC-NPAST'I hear that Mr Tanaka left the house two hours ago, so he may be here soon.'

Adachi et al. (2003: 109) also observe that the meaning expressed by the obligative -nakute wa ikenai, as used in (24) below, resembles the assumptive hazu da:(24)

toochaku shi-tenara, moono
Nijikan mae ni shuppatsu shi-ta
do-GER
arrivalalreadyif
NML
do-PAST
departure
two hours before
wa ik-e-na-i.
i-na-kute
be-NEG-GER TOP go-POT-NEG-NPAST'If (s/he) departed two hours ago, then (slhe) must have arrived by now.'

Narrog (2009) discusses epistemic uses of -nakereba naranai 'must' (a more formal
version of -nakutewa ikenai) and remarks that "since they belong to the domain of written language, the possibility of calque from English 'must' cannot be excluded" (Narrog
2009: 128). Furthermore, in his 2012 work, Narrog states that although these uses arerare -nakereba naranai "could become the first Japanese deontic modal marker to acquire a full-fledged epistemic use in historical times; however, if this happens, a strong
influence from English and translation-Japanese can be suspected" (Narrog 2012: 124).
It is worth noting here, as Adachi et al. show in their example below, that the more colloquial alternative -nakutewa dame da 'must' is not felicitous in the above context(Adachi et al. 2003: 109):
toochaku si-tenara, moono(25) ?Nijikan mae ni shuppatsu shi-ta
do-GER
arrivalalreadyif
NML
do-PAST
departure
beforetwo hours
wa dame da.
i-na-kute
be-NEG-GER TOP bad COP.NPAST'If (s/he) departed two hours ago, then (s/he) must have arrived by now.'

The conjectural daroo and the negative conjectural mai
Japanese also has two epistemic particles: the conjectural daroo (or its polite
equivalent: deshoo) and the negative conjectural particle mai: 7

3.2.

7 Here, too, Yoshiyuki Takayama (personal communication) points out the importance of style andregister. Mai is rarely used in spoken language.

(26)

(27)

Osoraku Ken wa pabu ni ik-u
daroo.
probably Ken TOP pub to go-NPAST CONI
'Probably Ken will go to the pub.'Osoraku Ken wa pabu ni ik-u
mai.
probably Ken TOP pub to go-NPAST NCONI'Probably Ken will not go to the pub.'Particularly, daroo has attracted interest in the literature (see Larm 2009 and the references cited therein). In terms of modal flavour it is unambiguously epistemic, but regarding modal force it has a versatile range of meaning. In some situations it can berendered into English with modal tags such as 'I suppose/I guess!I think', while in others by the adverb 'probably'. 8 Akatsuka (1990: 68) argues that "daroo shares its semantic domain, at least partially, with English will, would, and must". In some cases
the meaning of daroo is specified by a co-occuring modal adverb, making it relevant forthe phenomenon of modal concord, as seen in both examples above, where the adverb
osoraku 'probably' harmonizes with daroo and mai respectively. However, as I havediscussed modal concord elsewhere, I shall not pursue it here (see Larm, 2012).
While daroo is exclusively epistemic, mai has a dual character. When used with anegative conjectural meaning, as in (27), it is the negative counterpart of daroo, as further illustrated in (28), where daroo preceded by a negated verb and mai express thesame meaning:(28)

Osoraku Ken wa Pari ni ika-na-idaroo I ik-u
mai.
probably Ken TOP Paris to go-NEG-NPAST CONI I go-NPAST NCONI'Probably Ken will not go to Paris.'

In addition to the negative conjectural interpretation, mai can also be used to express'negative volition', as in:(29)

Watashi wa tabako o
su-u
mai.
I
TOP tobacco ACC inhale-NPAST NVOL
'I will not smoke.'

Basically, third person subjects trigger the negative conjectural interpretation and first
person subjects the negative volitional reading. However, Nakau (1976: 468-469) observes that the interpretation in utterances with first person subjects also has to do withwhether the predicates are dynamic or stative. With stative verbs the interpretation isalways negative conjectural, even when the subject is first person, as in the following
example with a potential verb (examples (30) and (31) are slightly modified from
Nakau (1976: 468-469)):

8

Daroo can also be used intersubjectively, as in Iku daroo? 'You will go, won't you?'Modality Packaging in Japanese: The Encoding of Modal Meanings and Subjectivity

(30)

29

Watashi wa ronbun wa kak-e-(ru)mai.
ITOP thesis TOP write-POT-(NPAST) NCONJ'I guess I will not be able to write a thesis.'On the other hand, sentences with dynamic predicates with first person subjects are ambiguous between the negative conjectural and the negative volitional reading:(31)

Watashi wa ronbun wa kak-umai.
ITOP thesis TOP write-NPAST NVOL/NCONJ(i) 'I guess I will not write a thesis.'(ii) 'I will not write a thesis.'

Furthermore, daroo and mai are prime examples of the co-encoding of subjectivity andmodality. While encoding the lexical meanings of 'conjecture' and 'negative conjecture', they are also intrinsically linked with the here and now of the speaker. I shall return to this issue in section 4.1.

3.3.

Evidentiality
While being rather peripheral in English, evidentiality plays a central role in theJapanese modal system, which contains markers such as the adjectival rashii (external
evidence), the nominal adjectival yoo da (inferential) and its colloquial counterpart mitaida, the suffix -soo da (sensory evidential) that forms nominal adjectives, and the nominal adjectival soo da (hearsay). In English such notions have to be expressed lexically.
Depending on the context, rashii can be translated as 'it seems that p' or 'it is said thatp', and the approximate meaning of the inferential yoo da and mitai da is 'it appears
that p'. The sensory evidential -soo da means 'it looks as if p' and the hearsay soo datranslates best as 'I hear that p' or 'it is said that p'. Note that the resemblance between the sensory evidential -soo da and the hearsay soo da is deceiving. The former
attaches to the renyookei 'infinitive' form of verbs and to the stem of adjectives while
the latter follows finite forms of verbs and adjectives. This difference is reflected inthat hearsay soo da, which is similar to sentence final expressions, has a higher degreeof subjectivity than the sensory evidential -soo da, as will be shown in section 4.2.
Each marker is exemplified below:

(32)

(33)

Kare wa weitotoreeningu oyat-tei-ru
rashi-i.
TOP weight training ACC do-GER be-NPAST EXEV-NPASThe'I hear that he does weight training' I 'It seems that he does weight training.'
Arne gafur-u
yoo da/mitaida.
rain NOM fall-NPAST INF COP.NPAST !INFINF COP.NPAST'It appears that it will rain.'

(34)

(35)

da.
soo
kekkon suru
Ken gaKen NOM marriage do.NPAST HEAR COP.NPAST'I hear Ken is getting married.'ne.
daUma-soodelicious-SENSEV COP.NPAST FP'(That) looks delicious, doesn't it?'As Takubo (2006) points out, these markers can be distinguished from epistemic modals
from which they differ in their scopal properties and in their collocational patterns withmodal adverbs. They do not, for example, co-occur with epistemic adverbs such as kitto 'certainly', osoraku 'probably', and tabun 'perhaps'. The literature on the meaningof these markers is extensive, but in this paper they are first and foremost relevant to
the discussion of subjectivity in section 4.
This concludes the discussion of the configurations of the sub-systems of epistemic, deontic and evidential modality. The main point has been to show examples of how
languages can take different strategies for grammatical 'modality-packaging', linking
and encoding cognitive categories in language-specific ways. This does not mean that
language-specific expressions are ineffable or untranslatable into other languages. Any
modal notion encoded in language A is also expressible in language B, although thecoding strategies may differ. However, one important aspect remains to be addressed,
namely, the co-encoding of modality and subjectivity, to which we now turn.

4.

The issue of subjectivity

The subjective/objective dichotomy, and the degree of subjectivity of modal markers, is the major theme of my previous works (Larm 2006 and 2009). My view of subjectivity and its relation to modality can be summarised in five points. First, modality
cannot be equated with subjectivity. This is evident in that there are both subjective
and objective modals, and, conversely, in that there are expressions that are highly subjective though not being modal. I am thus in line with the standard view that modality
is best defined in terms of factivity or possible worlds. Nevertheless, subjectivity is still
an important aspect of modality packaging as some modal markers co-encode modality
and subjectivity. Second, the term 'subjectivity' is here used in the sense understood by
Kindaichi, who states that subjective markers "express the speaker's state of mind at thetime of the utterance" (Kindaichi 1953: 213). Third, the concern in this paper is the
linguistic encoding, not the pragmatic conveyance of the here-and-now of the speaker.
Any expression can be used subjectively when uttered by a speaker on a certain occasion. If I exclaim "Fire!" (as a warning) I am expressing my psychological attitude atthat particular moment. But there is nothing inherently subjective in the word 'fire'; thesubjectivity is entirely pragmatic. On the other hand, there are expressions, for example
interjections such as 'Ouch!', where the subjectivity is so strongly engraved in the form

Modality Packaging in Japanese: The Encoding of Modal Meanings and Subjectivity

31that they can only be used in utterances deictically centred to the speaker at the time ofutterance. The importance of making this distinction between pragmatically expressedand encoded subjectivity has also been pointed out by Traugott (2010) and De Smet andVerstraete (2006). Note also that even if we restrict the attention to markers that overtly
code this feature, subjectivity is a matter of degree, and expressions, including modals,
fall in different places on the objective/subjective continuum. Fourth, not only epistemic modality, whose subjective character is often mentioned in the literature, but also deontic and evidential modality can be subjective or objective; and, fifth, the degree ofsubjectivity of a modal marker can be determined by tests that have been proposed inboth the general and the Japanese literature.
These theoretical assumptions underlay my 2006 and 2009 works, where I presented a three-way analysis consisting of a morphological taxonomy, a semantic taxonomy,
and a subjectivity-degree taxonomy of the Japanese modal system. As was noted then,my research is inspired by the "conceptual framework developed by Haruhiko Kindaichiand subsequent Japanese grammarians taking the same theoretical approach" (Larm
2009: 57) and also by the works of John Lyons. I also pointed out that "my conceptionof the structural representation of subjectivity is close to that of the Japanese linguist[Harumi] Sawada (1975, 1978, 1993)" (Larm 2009: 77). It is therefore appropriate here
to remark upon some aspects of his research. 9 Sawada's important work on modal auxiliaries and sentence adverbials, which contain abundant data from both Japanese andEnglish, unifies the ideas of Japanese scholars and those of, for example, Searle (1969),
Austin (1975), and Ross (1970). Sawada is faithful to the Kindaichian tradition in analysing expressions along the dimensions of subjectivity and objectivity, and notes "that'subjective auxiliaries' are under five syntactic and semantic constraints concerning negation, tense, question, sentential subordination, and sentential pronominalization" (Sawada 1975: 103, emphasis in original) of which the first four have been used systematically in my own research. Sawada also proposes "a universal 'deep structure' to explain the above constraints naturally by applying Ross's 'performative analysis"' (Sawada 1975: 103).
It is important to note that Sawada does not equate modality with subjectivity.
What he does is to demonstrate that the distinction between subjective and objective
modal markers can be empirically justified by the tests mentioned above. Thus, Sawada's methodology is similar to that of Kindaichi, as he himself makes clear in his writings, but he also resembles Watanabe (1953) in recognizing markers with an intermediate degree of subjectivity. Sawada explains the conceptual structure of a sentence asfollows (1978: 35):

The passages on Harumi Sawada's work are recycled in an improved form from a previously unpublished part of my doctoral thesis.
932

An utterance (or sentence) consists of three strata: a 'performative stratum'(highest), an 'attitudinal stratum' (middle), and a 'propositional stratum' (lowest). The first and the second ones both indicate 'illocutionary force', and thelast one, 'propositional content'.
Accordingly, the following example (Sawada 1993: 213):
(36)

daroo
tabe-te i-ru
Tabun karera wa imagoro yuushoku o
ACC eat-GER be-NPAST CONJ
perhaps they TOP about now dinnerne.
FP'I guess they are now having supper.'is represented as (Sawada 1993: 214):

Karera ga imagoro yuushoku o tabete iru
The modal adverb tabun 'probably' and the conjectural particle daroo belong to the attitudinal stratum (F/3), and Sawada explains that the above-mentioned syntactic and semantic constraints apply to such markers. For example, past tense and negation cannot
take scope over the conjectural daroo, as we shall see in the next sub-section. Sawada(1993: 214) points out that the 'performative stratum' (Fa) and the 'attitudinal stratum'(FS) can be seen as the equivalents of Raga's (1954) 'transmissional' and 'content oriented' chinjutsu. I would also point out the resonance with the ideas of philosopher Richard Hare. Sawada's propositional, attitudinal, and performative strata seem to correspond to Hare's phrastic-tropic-neustic trichotomy (Hare 1970: 20-21, see also Lyons
1977: 749-751). Sawada emphasises that the borderlines between the three levels are
fuzzy. For instance, the difference between the conjectural daroo (here in its polite
form de shoo) and the evidential rashii in:(37)

deshoo/rashi-i.
Ake-nakat-ta
open-NEG-PAST CONJ.POLIEXEV-NPAST'I guess/It seems that (he) did not open (the box).'is illustrated as (Sawada 1993: 62):

(Sawada 1993: 59)

Modality Packaging in Japanese: The Encoding of Modal Meanings and Subjectivity

deshoorashii33

subjective
intermediate

ta
Ake-

nakat-

objective

Thus, the clause is layered: the higher up in the structure, the higher the degree of subjectivity.
Sawada represents a combination of traditional Japanese linguistics and generalsyntactic theory. His account of modal markers includes discussions of their degree ofsubjectivity. The analysis is guided by syntactic tests to ensure that the theoretical distinction rests on empirical foundations. The last aspect was central in my 2006 and2009 works where I used criteria, borrowed from both the general and the Japanese literature, pertaining to tense, negation, questions, ordering of modals, embedding (adnominalization, conditionals), causal connectives, and propositional attitude verbs to test
the degree of subjectivity. In the next sub-section I shall discuss these criteria with reference to epistemic, evidential and deontic modality. However, due to the brief natureof this paper, the discussion will be restricted to some representative examples. Furthermore, the examples presented here should be considered in conjunction with thosepresented in Narrog (2009). Narrog's work contains a wealth of corpus data and discussion of possible combinations of modals and their interactions with other categories
such as tense.

4.1.

Subjective and objective epistemic modality
I shall start with epistemic modality and the conjectural daroo, whose subjective
character, beginning with Kindaichi (1953), has often been noted. The examples (38)(43) below are from Larm (2009), in which reference is made to other scholars. The
subjectivity of daroo is reflected in the following properties (Larm 2009: 69-72). It
cannot be modified by pastness or negation, as shown in examples (38) and (39) from
Kato and Fukuchi (1989: 115); it cannot occur in the antecedent of a conditional sentence, as in Takayama's (2002: 42) example (40); it cannot precede the causal connective node, which has been observed by Nagano (1952: 37), Minami (1993: 88, 97;
1997; 38), Kinsui (personal communication), and which is exemplified in (41). Further,daroo cannot be followed by other modal markers, as shown in (42) and (43) :(38) *Kanojo wa ronbun okakiage-ta
daroo dat-ta.
she
TOP thesis ACC write up-PAST CONJ COP-PAST(Presumably intended to mean) 'It was probable that she wrote up her thesis.'

34

daroo (de) na-i.
(39) *Kare wa shiken ni toot-ta
He TOP exam in pass-PAST CONJ (COP).NEG-NPAST(Probably intended to mean something like) 'I do not suppose that he passed
the exam.'haikingu wanodaroo nara ashita
fur-u(40) *Moshi arne gaTOPtomorrow GEN hiking
rain NOM fall-NPAST CONJ if
ifda.
chuushicancellation COP.NPAST(Presumably intended to mean) 'If it is probable that it will rain tomorrow,then the hiking will be called off.'hayaku kaer-u.
daroo nodekuru(41) *Haha ga
early go home-NPAST
becausemother NOM come.NPAST CONJ
'I'll leave early because I think my mother is coming (to visit me).'da.
daroo soofur-u(42) *Arne ga
COP.NPASTHEAR
CONJ
Rain NOM fall-NPAST(Intended to mean) 'I hear that it will probably rain.'daroo rashi-i.
fur-u(43) *Arne ga
rain NOM rain~NPAST CONJ seem-NPAST(Intended to mean) 'It seems that it is probably going to rain.'
The negative conjectural mai is similar to daroo with regards to subjectivity (see also
Kindaichi (1953)). Mai does not have a past tense form, or any other inflected form; itcannot be followed by other modal expressions; and it cannot occur in the antecedent ofconditional clauses. Thus, we can modify Takayama's (2002: 42) sentence (40), andapply it on mai:haikingu ononara ashita
mai
fur-u
(44) *Moshi arne ga
rain NOM fall-NPAST NCONJ if tomorrow GEN hiking ACC
ifsuru.
kekkooexecution do.NPAST(Intended to mean) 'If it is not probable that it will rain tomorrow, then thehiking will be carried out.'
Note also that mai cannot precede the causal connective node:
haikingu onoashita
node
mai
fur-u
(45) *Arne ga
rain NOM fall-NPAST NCONJ because tomorrow GEN hiking ACC
suru.
kekkooexecution do.NPAST(Intended to mean) 'The hiking will be carried out because it will probably
not rain tomorrow.'
The subjective character of daroo and mai is further seen when considering adnominali-

Modality Packaging in Japanese: The Encoding of Modal Meanings and Subjectivity

35

zation. Although examples can be found where daroo modifies the structural noun koto,or even an ordinary noun (see Larm 2009: 70), this is not natural in present-day spoken
Japanese.
(46) ??kuru
daroo hito
come.NPAST CONJ person(Intended to mean) 'the person who will probably come'As expected, the same situation obtains for the negative conjectural mai:(47)??kuru
hi to
mai
come.NPAST CONJ person(Intended to mean) 'the person who will probably not come'
Curiously, however, de aroo, which is the literary, formal, counterpart of daroo is finein this position. 10
(48)

kuru
de aroohi tocome.NPAST LIT.CONJ person'the person who will probably come'Thus, the data above suggest that daroo and mai are subjective. On the other side ofthe epistemic subjective-objective continuum is hazu da, which is objective. Distributional features pointing to an objective character are: it has a past tense form as in (49);
it may appear in the antecedent of a conditional sentence (50) 11 ; it can precede thecausal connective node (51); and it can modify nouns (52):
(49)

(50)

Kimi wa ik-u
hazu
dat-ta.
you TOP go-NPAST ASSUM COP-PAST'You were expected to go.' 12
Modot-te
1-ru
hazu
0
nara akari ga
come back-GER be-NPAST ASSUM COP.NPAST if
lights NOM
tsui-te
i-ru
hazu
da.
go on-GER be-NPAST ASSUM COP.NPAST'If (s/he) had been back, then the lights would have been on.'10 Axel Svahn (personal communication) suggests that this is due to de aroo being an inflection of
de aru. As such it shares the properties of de aru.
11 Adachi et al. (2003: 139) list hazu da among the expressions that cannot occur in this position.
However, my informant accepts this sentence.
12 The meaning of this sentence in actual usage would be that the addressee was expected to go, but
in fact did not. This additional nuance in meaning can possibly be regarded as a conventionalized implicature.

36

(51)

(52)

hayaku
node
na
hazu
kuru
Haha gamother NOM come.NPAST ASSUM COP.ADN because earlykaer-u.
go home-NPAST'I'll leave early because my mother is expected to come (to visit me).'
hito
no
hazu
kuru
come.NPAST ASSUM COP.ADN person'the person who is expected to come'Considering these data, the objective character of hazu da seems beyond doubt. It is tobe noted, though, that the issue of whether negation can take scope over the modality isless clear. At least the past negative form hazu dewa nakatta is possible, as pointed out
by Teramura (1984: 266) and Adachi et al. (2003: 160-161):(53)

dewa nakat-ta, shippai shi-ta.
Konna hazu
ASSUM COP.NEG-PAST mistake do-NPAST
this'Things were not supposed to turn out like this, (I) made a mistake.'(Teramura 1984: 266)

The nonpast negative form does not seem to work here. Moriyama (2000: 30) puts forward the following ungrammatical example:
dewa na-i.
hazu
kuru
(54) *Kare ga
NOM come.NPAST ASSUM COP.NEG-NPAST
he(Intended to mean) 'There is no expectation that he will come.'
The degree of subjectivity of the speculative ka mo shirenai 'may' and the deductive nichigai nai 'must' is low, albeit higher than that of hazu da. Both ka mo shirenai and nichiga nai have past tense forms. Ka mo shirenakatta is noted by Sawada (1975: 97),
and Teramura (1984: 235), and ni chigai nakatta by Sawada (1975: 97), Teramura(1984: 235), Martin (1988: 905), and Johnson (2003:48). However, the negative forms,
which would be ka mo shirenaku nai and ni chigai naku nai, are unnatural, as pointed
out by Sawada (1975: 96) and Sugimura (2003: 269). Both markers can precede thecausal connective node, as in (55), and, they can fall within the scope of other modal
markers, such as the hearsay soo da, as in (56) from Sugimura (2003: 262) and (57)from Shirota (1998: 335):(55)

hayakukamoshirena-i/nichigaina-i node
kuru
Haha gamother NOM come.NPAST SPEC-NPAST/DED-NPAST because earlykaer-u.
go home-NPAST'I'll leave early because my mother may/will without doubt come (to visitme).'Modality Packaging in Japanese: The Encoding of Modal Meanings and Subjectivity

(56)

(57)

37

Arne gafur-ukamoshirena-i sooda.
rain NOM fall-NPAST SPEC-NPAST HEAR COP.NPAST'I hear that it may rain tomorrow.'
Kodomo ga
nak-u
nichigaina-i soo
da.
child
NOM cry-NPAST DED-NPAST HEAR COP.NPAST'I hear that the child most likely will cry.'As expected, considering the objective nature of these markers, they can appear in adnominal position, as in:
(58)

kuru
kamoshirena-i/nichigaina-i hito
come.NPAST SPEC-NPAST/DED-NPAST person'the person who may/will without doubt come'However, as shown in Takayama's (2002: 42) example below, both ka mo shirenai andni chigai nai resist embedding in conditional sentences:(59) *Moshi arne ga
fur-u
kamoshirena-ilnichigaina-i nara ashitaifrain NOM fall-NPAST SPEC-NPAST/DED-NPAST if
tomorrownohaikingu wa chuushida.
GEN hiking TOP cancellation COP.NPAST(Presumably intended to mean) 'If it may/will without doubt rain tomorrow,then the hiking will be called off.'Thus it seems that daroo and mai constitute clear examples of epistemic markers with ahigh degree of subjectivity while hazu da, on the other hand, is objective. The degreeof subjectivity of ka mo shirenai and ni chigai nai is low. But, as we have seen above,the modal expressions do not necessarily behave consistently across the tests. For example, ka mo shirenai and ni chigai nai can be modified by pastness and precede thecausal connective node. But they resist being negated, and, as shown in Takayama's
example above, they do not embed in conditional sentences.
It should also be pointed out that, in addition to the criteria exemplified above,
one also needs to consider the possibility of questioning the modality and whether themarkers can be embedded under propositional attitude verbs. However, I shall not go
into all the details here. For a discussion of questioning and embedding under the verb
omou 'think', with reference to daroo, see Larm (2009).

4.2.

Subjective and objective evidential modality
In the general literature the distinction between subjective and objective modality
is mainly discussed with reference to episternic or deontic modality. However, evidential markers in Japanese also exhibit different degrees of subjectivity, and Japanese linguists have tested their scopal and embedding properties. The most objective marker isthe sensory evidential -soo da (derivational suffix). It can be in the scope of past tense38(60) and negation (61), be in an adnominal position (62), be within the scope of othermodals (63), appear in the antecedent of a conditional sentence (64), and it can precede
the causal connective node (65):
(60)

(61)

(62)

(63)

(64)

(65)

dat-ta.
Kare wa takusan nom-e-soo
TOP much drink-POT-SENSEV COP-PASThe'He seemed to be able to drink a lot.'
ki-soomona-i/soonina-i/soonimona-i. 13
ni
Ken wa kekkonshiki
Ken TOP wedding ceremony DAT come-SENSEV.NEG-NPAST'It does not seem as if Ken will come to the wedding ceremony.'honnaomoshiro-soo
interesting-SENSEV COP.ADN book'a book that seems interesting'daroo. 14
Kare wa takusan nom-e-soo
0
TOP much drink-POT-SENSEV COP.NPAST CONJhe
'He seems to be able to drink a lot, doesn't he?'nara ika-na-i.
0furi-soo
Arne ga
go-NEG-NPAST
rain NOM fall-SENSEV COP.NPAST if'If it looks as if it is going to rain, then I won't go.'hayaku kaer-u.
nodena
ki-sooHaha gamother NOM come-SENSEV COP.ADN because early go home-NPAST'I'll leave early because it looks as if my mother will come (to visit me).'

McCready and Ogata state that inferential evidentials in Japanese "can be embedded in
conditionals and under certain sorts of negation", from which they draw the conclusionthat "the content of Japanese evidentials must be truth-conditional" (McCready andOgata 2007: 171). The properties of the sensory evidential suffix -sao da above, whichis included in their discussion and exemplification, support this point. It should also be
remarked that Kindaichi noted the objective character of -sao da, yoo da and rashii in
his 1953 paper. As for other inferential evidentials, McCready and Ogata give the following examples with yoo da and mitai da to show that "evidential content does notneed to scope out" (McCready and Ogata: 2007: 167, glosses and abbreviations modified, original translation).

13 When -sao da is attached to a verb, there are three alternative negative forms: -sao rna nai, -sao
ni nai and -sao ni rna nai.
14 Martin (1988: 991) says that daroo is rejected in this position. Possibly he has overlooked thecontext I have in mind here, namely, that the speaker wants to confirm that the addressee is of thesame opinion.

Modality Packaging in Japanese: The Encoding of Modal Meanings and Subjectivity

(66)

(67)

39

kudasai.
oshie-teyoo dat-tarakuru
Taroo ga
Taro NOM come.NPAST INF COP.PROV teach-GER please'If it looks like Taro will come, please tell me.'kudasai.
oshie-tedat-tara
mitai
kuru
Taroo ga
Taro NOM come.NPAST INFINF COP.PROV teach-GER please'If it looks like Taro will come, please tell me.'

They also say that "evidential content can embed even with hearsay evidentials" (2007:
167) and provide the following sentences (McCready and Ogata: 2007: 167-168, glosses and abbreviations modified, original translation).
(68)

(69)

kudasai.
oshie-tedat-tarasookuru
Taroo gapleaseteach-GER
Taro NOM come.NPAST HEAR COP.PROV'If you hear that Taro will come, please tell me.'kudasai.
oshie-te
nara
soo
kuru
Taroo gapleaseteach-GER
COND
HEAR
come.NPAST
Taro NOM'If you hear that Taro will come, please tell me.'Note, however, that McCready and Ogata emphasize that intuitions may differ when
adding that "It should be noted that some speakers find examples like these quite unnatural, and in fact cannot embed either hearsay soo-da or rashii in. sentences like these"(2007: 168). In my view, the truth-conditionality, or 'objectivity' in the terminology
used here, is a matter of degree. I shall not discuss all details here (for a more comprehensive discussion see Larm 2006, chapter 6), but some points may be observed. Similarly to epistemic modal markers, evidential markers, except the sensory evidential -saoda above, do not behave consistently across the tests. Rashii, yoo da and mitai da canbe outscoped by past tense, as in (70)-(72), which gives weight to McCready and Ogata's view. They can also precede the causal connective node (73):
(70)

(71)

(72)

rashikat-ta.
i-ru
Ken wa sudeni kekkon shi-te
Ken TOP already marriage do-GER be-NPAST EXEV-PAST'It seemed that Ken was already married.'yoo dat-ta.
Eri wa genki na
Eri TOP fine COP.ADN.NPAST INF COP-PAST'Eri appeared to be fine.'
dat-ta.
mitai
Eri wa genki 0
Eri TOP fine COP.ADN. INFINF COP-PAST'Eri appeared to be fine.'(73)Haha gakuru
yoo na/mitaina
mother NOM come.NPAST INF COP.ADN INFINF COP.ADN/rashi-i
nodehayaku kaer-u.
EXEV-NPAST because early go home-NPAST'I'll leave early because it appears/seems that my mother will come (to visitme).'

However, as McCready and Ogata are aware, the data on conditionals are less straightforward. Takayama (2002: 42) considers yoo da acceptable, but not mitai da and rashii:(74)

Moshi arne ga
fur-u
yoo 0
I * mitai
0
ifrain NOM fall-NPAST INF COP.NPASTINFINF COP.NPAST*rashi-i
naraashitanohaikingu wa chuushi
EXEV-NPAST COND tomorrow GEN hiking TOP cancellationda.
COP.NPAST(Presumably intended to mean) 'If it appears/seems that it will rain tomorrow,then the hiking will be called off.'

Consider also the hearsay marker sao da which, as McCready and Ogata hint at in thequote above, differs from the inferential evidentials with regards to embeddability. This
marker exhibits some subjective-like properties. First, it cannot be adnominalized, as
the following example from Mihara (1995: 285) illustrates:(75) *omoshiro-i

soo
na
eiga
interesting-NPAST HEAR COP.ADN film
(Probably intended to mean) 'a film that I have heard is interesting'

Second, McCready and Ogata's examples (68) and (69) of embedding in conditionalclauses are considered 'not ungrammatical, but difficult to understand' by my informant.
An anonymous reviewer also points out that s/he did not find any such examples in avery large corpus. Furthermore, Narrog's (2009) corpus investigation also shows thathearsay sao da resists embedding in conditional clauses. The following example is also
odd:(76) ??Ken ga
ik-u
soo
0
nara boku mo iki-ta-i.
Ken NOM go-NPAST HEAR COP.NPAST if
I
also go-DES-NPAST(Probably intended to mean) 'If it is said that Ken is going, then I want to go
too.'
Third, other modals cannot take scope over the hearsay sao da, as shown in:Modality Packaging in Japanese: The Encoding of Modal Meanings and Subjectivity

41(77) *Ken ga
kekkon suru
soo0
Ken NOM marriage do.NPAST HEAR COP.NPAST
daroo/kamoshirena-i/hazuda.
CONJ/SPEC-NPAST/ASSUM COP.NPAST'I suppose/Maybe/It is natural to assume that it is said that Ken is getting
married.'Martin (1988: 984) seems to imply that the deductive ni chigai nai can follow soo da.
However, my informant rejects the following sentence:(78) *Ken ga
kekkon suru
soo0nichigainai-i.
Ken NOM marriage do.NPAST HEAR COP.NPAST DED-NPAST(Intended to mean) 'I'm sure that it is said that Ken is getting married.'
Sawada (2011: xxix) also presents examples showing that the hearsay soo da cannot be
adnominalized, cannot be outscoped by past tense or epistemic modality, and that it
does not occur in conditional clauses. These are characteristics of subjective markers.
Note, however, that the data found in the literature are contradictory as to whether pasttense can take scope over the hearsay soo da. First, Teramura (1984: 255), Kato and
Fukuchi (1989: 120), and Adachi et al. (2003: 174) all state that this is not possible andprovide examples which they mark as ungrammatical. On the other hand, Martin(1988: 984) says that the following example is possible:(79)

Haha mo genki dasoo
dat-ta.
mother also vigour COP.NPAST HEAR COP-PAST'They said mother was well too.'

It is very important to point out here that N arrog (2009) presents corpus data showingthat hearsay soo da can take past tense. He states (2009: 203): "It is surprising to seethat the highest-ranking evidential soo (2), [hearsay soo da] [... ], does take tense, although with a relatively low frequency. The speaker/writer indicates that the evidence
itself is a matter of the past."
Further aspects that could have been considered in this section are the possibility of negating or questioning the evidentiality and whether the markers can be embedded under propositional attitude verbs (see Larm 2006). Still, the data presented here
are sufficient to show that evidential markers fall on a scale from 'entirely objective'(the sensory evidential suffix -soo da) to 'intermediately subjective' (the hearsay sooda).

Subjective and objective deontic modality
Before concluding this paper, I shall briefly comment on subjective and objective
deontic modality. Consider the plain imperative -e (ro ), the polite imperative -nasai andthe prohibitive final particle na below. I take the position that these imperative markers
express subjective deontic modality in the same way as subjective epistemic modality is
encoded by daroo and mai. 15
4.3.

(80)

(81)

(82)

Sassa to de-ro!
quickly get out-IMP'Get out quickly (without wasting my time)!'Tabecnasai!
eat-POLIMP'Eat!'
na!
Kik~u
ask-NPAST PRB'Don't ask!'

This view is inspired by Kindaichi (1953: 224), who considers the imperative -e (ro) as
the subjective version of objective deontic modal expressions such as beki da and nakereba naranai. He says (Kindaichi 1953: 224):
A command expressed by the imperative form is truly subjective. It is the command of the speaker, and moreover, it can only express a present command. If
one wants to express a command-like meaning objectively, one would probably
have to say shinakereba naranai [must do] or subeki da [should do]?
Lyons, too, talks about the imperative as a marker of subjective deontic modality. He
states (Lyons 1983: 101): "in many languages, including English, there is one moodwhich is specialized for the expression of the speaker's will in utterances with subjective-deontic modality, namely the imperative". This essentially performative characteris reflected in the grammatical behaviour of the form; it does not have tense, it cannot
be negated, questioned, or adnominalized; and, it cannot occur in the antecedent of aconditional sentence. Nor can it be combined with other kinds of modality.

Concluding remarks

5.

This paper has focused on two aspects of modality. First, although the categories

As both Heiko Narrog and Axel Svahn have pointed out to me. there are other imperative or 'imperative-like' constructions in Japanese that merit attention. Svahn's forthcoming doctoral thesis will
provide an investigation into the whole directive system of Japanese. In my research, however, I have
only considered the three markers presented here.
15

Modality Packaging in Japanese: The Encoding of Modal Meanings and Subjectivity

43

of epistemic, deontic, and evidential modality are cross-linguistically valid, languages
can take different strategies for grammatical 'modality packaging', linking and encoding
these cognitive categories in language-specific ways. Languages may differ both inwhat notions they encode overtly and in how categories and features are co-encoded.
As von Fintel and Matthewson (2008: 171) put it:
In the area of modality, we again find evidence that languages may share funda-

mental aspects of meaning, while differing in the lexicalization of certain distinctions or in the syntactic means they use to achieve a similar semantics.
However, as I stated at the beginning of this paper, even if languages may differ in coding strategies, it can still be assumed that all. modal meanings can be conveyed in all
languages, and that they are translatable between languages.
The second aspect that has been considered is the co-encoding of subjectivity andmodality. This issue is of general relevance for theoretical linguistics and the philosophy of language. Interestingly, Papafragou, in her discussion of subjective and objective
epistemic modality, takes a view similar to Kindaichi. She states (Papafragou 2006:1695):
I now propose that the main difference between subjective and objective epistemic modality is that the former, but not the latter, is indexical, in the sense thatthe possible worlds in the conversational background are restricted to what thecurrent speaker knows as of the time of the utterance. By contrast, in the caseof objective epistemic modality, possible worlds in the conversational background include what is generally known to some community, or, in other words,
what the publicly available evidence is.
Compare this with Kindaichi's statement that markers such as daroo and mai "subjectively express the speaker's state of mind at the time of the utterance" (Kindaichi 1953:
213). Papafragou's paper concerns the much debated nature of epistemic modality
where a major issue is whether epistemic modality contributes to truth-conditions. In
Papafragou's paper, and elsewhere in the literature, tests pertaining to embedding, scopeand questioning are discussed. I believe this can be considered in the context of 'expressives', which, as shown by Potts, are 'nondisplaceable' (Potts 2007: 5). Potts
quotes Cruse (1986: 272), who explains that (emphasis added): "another characteristic
distinguishing expressive meaning from propositional meaning is that it is valid only forthe utterer, at the time and place of utterance".
Japanese has much to offer this discussion. As we saw in section 4, objective epistemic modal markers such as the speculative ka mo shirenai and the assumptive hazu
da can contribute to the proposition expressed, while the possibility of propositionalization is restricted for a subjective epistemic modal such as the conjectural daroo. Further, as discussed in sections 4.2 and 4.3, the issue extends to evidentials and deontic
modals. Thus, even if the study of Japanese modality is a well researched area, there44

are still contributions to be made to general linguistic theory, both by further investigations of data and by the incorporation of ideas from scholars such as Kindaichi.

References
Adachi, T. et al. (Nihongo Kijutsu Bunpoo Kenkyuukai (The Society of Descriptive Japanese
Grammar)) (eds). 2003. Gendai Nihongo Bunpoo 4: Dai 8 Bu Modaritii [Modem Japanese
Grammar 4: Part 8 Modality]. Tokyo: Kurosio.
Akatsuka, N. 1990. On the meaning of daroo. In Kamada, 0. & Jacobsen W.M. (eds), On Japanese and how to teach it. Tokyo: The Japan Times. 67-75.
Akatsuka, N. 1997. Negative conditionality, subjectification, and conditional reasoning. In Athanasiadou, A. & Dirven, R. (eds). On conditionals again. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John
Benjarnins. 323-354.
Austin, J. L. 1975. How to do things with words (2nd edn). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: the pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Smet, H. and Verstraete, J. C. 2006. Corning to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics
17 (3). 365-392.
von Fintel, K. and Matthewson, L. 2008. Universals in semantics. The Linguistic Review 25: (12). 139-201
de Haan, F. 1999. Evidentiality and episternic modality: setting boundaries. Southwest Journal of
Linguistics 18. 83-101.
de Haan, F. 2006.Typological approaches to modality. In Frawley, W., Eschenroeder, E., Mills, S.
and Nguyen, T. (eds). The expression of modality. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 27-69.
Haga, Y. 1954. Chinjutsu to wa nanimono? [What is chinjutsu?]. Kokugo Kokubun [National Language and Linguistics] 23(4). Reprinted in: Hattori, S. et al. (eds), Nihon no Gengogaku[Linguistics in Japan], vol. 3. Tokyo: Taishuukan. 284--303.
Hare, R. M. 1970. Meaning and speech acts. The Philosophical Review. 79 (1). 3-24.
Johnson, Y. 2003. Modality and the Japanese language (Michigan Monograph Series in JapaneseStudies 44). Ann Arbor: Center for Japanese Studies, The University of Michigan.
Kato, Y. and T. Fukuchi. 1989. Tensu, Asupekuto, Muudo [Tense, Aspect, Mood] (Gaikokujin notame no Nihongo Reibun, Mondai Shiriizu 15) [Japanese Example Sentences and Questions
for Foreigners 15]. Tokyo: Aratake Shuppan.
Kindaichi, H. 1953. Fuhenka jodooshi no honshitsu- shukanteki hyoogen to kyakkanteki hyoogen no betsu nitsuite [The nature of non-inflectional auxiliaries: on the distinction between
subjective and objective expressions]. Kokugo Kokubun [National Language and Linguistics]
22 (2-3). Reprinted in: Hattori, S. et al. (eds), Nihon no Gengogaku [Linguistics in Japan],
vol. 3. Tokyo: Taishuukan. 207-49.
Larm, L. 2006. Modality in Japanese. DPhil thesis. University of Oxford.
Larm, L. 2009. West meets East: a Kindaichian approach to subjective modality. In Pizziconi, B.
& Kizu, M. (eds), 56-86.
Larm, L. 2012. Modal concord in Japanese: some initial observations. Proceedings of the J4th
Conference of the Pragmatics Society of Japan. 159-165.
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics (vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Modality Packaging in Japanese: The Encoding of Modal Meanings and Subjectivity

45

Lyons, J. 1983. Deixis and modality. Sophia Linguistica: Working Papers in Linguistics 12. Tokyo: Sophia University. 77-117.
Lyons, J. 1995. Linguistic semantics: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, S. E. 1988. A reference grammar of Japanese. Rutland: Charles E. Tuttle Company.
McCready, E. and Ogata, N. 2007. Evidentiality, modality and probability. Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (2).147-206.
Mihara, K. 1995. Gaigen no muudohyoogen to rentaishuushoku [Epistemic and evidential modal
expressions in adnominal positions]. In Nitta, Y. (ed.), Fukubun no Kenkyuu [Research on
Complex Sentences]. Tokyo: Kuroshio. 285-307.
Minami, F. 1993. Gendai Nihongo Bunpoo no Rinkaku [An Outline of Modem Japanese Grammar]. Tokyo: Taishuukan.
Minami, F. 1997. Gendai Nihongo Kenkyuu [Research on Contemporary Japanese]. Tokyo: Sanseidoo.
Moriyama, T. 2000. Kihonjohoo to sentakukankei to shite no modaritii [Modality as basic moods
and selectional relations]. In Moriyama, T., Nitta, Y. & Kudo, H.(eds), Modaritii (Nihongo
no Bunpoo 3) [Modality (Japanese Grammar 3)]. Tokyo: Iwanamishoten.1-78.
Nagano, M. 1952. 'Kara' to 'node' to wa doo chigau ka [What is the difference between karaand node?]. Kokugo to Kokubungaku [National Language and Literature] 29(2). 30-41.
Nakau, M. 1976. Tense, aspect and modality. In Shibatani, M. (ed.), Japanese Generative Grammar (Syntax and Semantics 5). New York: Academic Press. 421-482.
Narrog, H. 2007. Modality and grarnmaticalization in Japanese. Journal of Historical Pragmatics
8 (2). 269-294.
Narrog, H. 2009. Modality in Japanese: the layered structure of the clause and hierarchies offunctional categories. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Narrog, H. 2012. Modality, subjectivity, and semantic change: a cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Palmer, F. R. 2001. Mood and modality (2nd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Papafragou, A. 2006. Epistemic modality and truth conditions. Lingua 116. 1688-1702.
Pizziconi, B. and Kizu, M. (eds). 2009. Japanese modality: exploring its scope and interpreta-tion. Palgrave Macmillan.
Potts, C. 2007. The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33 (2). 165-198.
Ross, J. R. 1970. On declarative sentences. In: Jacobs, R.A. and Rosenbaum, P.S. (eds), Readings
in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn. 222-72.
Sawada, H. 1975. Nichieigo shukanteki jodooshi no koobunronteki koosatsu - toku ni 'hyoogensei' o chuushin to shite [A syntactic consideration of Japanese and English subjective auxiliaries: with a special reference to their 'expressivity']. Gengo Kenkyu [Language Research]
68. 75-103.
Sawada, H. 1978. Nichieigo bunfukushirui no taishoo gengogakuteki kenkyuu: 'speech act' rironno shiten kara [A contrastive study of Japanese and English sentence adverbials: from theviewpoint of speech act theory]. Gengo Kenkyu [Language Research] 74. 1-36.
Sawada, H. 1993. Shiten to Shukansei: Nichieigo Jodooshi no Bunseki [Point of View and Subjectivity: an Analysis of Japanese and English Auxiliaries]. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Sawada, H. 2011. Dai-go-kan 'shukansei to shutaisei' joron. [Foreword to volume 5: Subjectivity]. In Sawada, H. (ed.), Shukansei to shutaisei (Hitsuji imiron kooza 5) [Subjectivity (Hituzi
semantics series 5)]. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo. iii-xl.

46

Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shirota, S. 1998. Nihongo Keitairon [Japanese Morphology]. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Sugimura, Y. 2003. Zoku: kamoshirenai to nichigainai no ishitsusei: koopasu no kekka kara [Sequel: the heterogeneous character of nichigainai and kamoshirenai: from the results of the
corpus]. Kotoba to Bunka [Language and Culture] 4. 261-276.
Takayama, Y. 2002. Nihongo Modaritii no Shiteki Kenkyuu [Historical Research on Japanese Modality]. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Takubo, Y. 2006. Conditional modality in Japanese. Handout presented at the International Conference on Revisiting Japanese Modality, held at SOAS, University of London, UK.
Takubo, Y. 2009. Conditional modality: two types of modal auxiliaries in Japanese. In Pizziconi,
B & Kizu, M. (eds), 150-182.
Teramura, H. 1984. Nihongo no Shintakusu to Imi [Japanese Syntax and Meaning], vol. 2. Tokyo:
Kurosio.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In
Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte, & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization (Topics in English Linguistics Series 66). 29-71. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Watanabe, M. 1953. Jojutsu to chinjutsu - jutsugo bunsetsu no koozoo [Description and illocutionary force - the structure of the predicate phrase]. Kokugogaku [National Linguistics] 1314. Reprinted in: Hattori, S. et al. (eds), Nihon no Gengogaku [Linguistics in Japan], vol. 3.
Tokyo: Taishukan. 261-283.