Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification in an Iranian modal verb: A paradox resolved by Dutch

References

• Boyce, M. (1975). A reader in Manichaean middle Persian and Parthian: Texts with notes. Brill.
   Google Scholar
• Bybee, J. L., & Pagliuca, W. (1987). The evolution of future meaning. In A. G. Ramat, O. Carruba, & G. Bernini (Eds.), Papers from the 7th international conference on historical linguistics (pp. 109–122). Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. D., & Pagliuca, W. (1991). Back to the future. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (Vol. 2, pp. 17–58). Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. D., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Byloo, P., & Nuyts, J. (2014). Meaning change in the Dutch core modals: (Inter)subjectification in a grammatical paradigm. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 46(1), 85–116. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2014.955978
   Google Scholar
• Bynon, T. (1980). From passive to active in Kurdish via the ergative construction. In E. C. Traugott, R. Labrum, & S. Shepherd (Eds.), Papers from the 4th international conference on historical linguistics (pp. 151–163). Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Cheung, J. (2007). Etymological dictionary of the Iranian verb. Brill.
   Google Scholar
• Dabir-moghaddam, M. (2013). The typology of Iranian languages [ræde ʃenasije zæbanhaje irani]. Samt.
   Google Scholar
• Dabir-Moghaddam, M. (2018). Non-canonical subject construction in endangered Iranian languages: Further investigation into the debates on the genesis of ergativity. In S. Gholami (Ed.), Endangered Iranian languages (pp. 9–40). Reichert Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L., & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.). (2010). Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization. de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Durkin-Meisterernst, D. (2004). Dictionary of Manichaean texts, Vol. III, pt. 1. Brepols.
   Google Scholar
• Goossens, L. (1983). Can and kunnen: Dutch and English potential compared. In F. Daems & L. Goossens (Eds.), Een spyeghel voor G. Jo Steenbergen (pp. 147–158). Acco.
   Google Scholar
• Haig, G. L. J. (2008). Alignment change in Iranian languages. Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Heine, B. (1993). Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hsu, T.-T. C. (2016). From volition to obligation: A force-involved change through subjectification. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 42, 65–97. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.6241/concentric.ling.42.2.03
   Google Scholar
• Humbach, H. (1974). Methodologische Variationen zur arischen Religionsgeschichte. In M. Mayrhofer, Wolfgang Meid [u.a] (eds.), Antiquitates Indogermanicae. Studien zur indogerman. Altertumskunde und zur Sprach- u. Kulturgeschichte d. indogerman (pp. 193–200). Sprachwissenschaftliches Institut der Universität Innsbruck.
   Google Scholar
• Jügel, T. (2009). Ergative remnants in Sorani Kurdish? Orientalia Suecana, 58, 142–158.
   Google Scholar
• Kellens, J., & Pirart, É. (1990). Les textes vieil-Avestiques, Volume II: Répertoires grammaticaux et lexique. L. Reichert.
   Google Scholar
• Koohkan, S. (2019). The typology of modality in New West Iranian languages [PhD thesis, Tarbiat Modares University and University of Antwerp]. https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docman/irua/6358ea/14574.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Krug, M. G. (2000). Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Krug, M. G. (2011). Auxiliaries and grammaticalization. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 547–598). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moradi, R. (2012). Modality and mood in the Sorani dialect of Kurdish: A syntactic-semantic perspective [PhD thesis, Allameh Tabatabaei University]. https://d-lib.atu.ac.ir/faces/search/bibliographic/biblioFullView.jspx?_afPfm=-1c30o359hp
   Google Scholar
• Norde, M. (2009). Degrammaticalization. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Norde, M. (2011). Degrammaticalization. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 475–490). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nuyts, J. (2005). The modal confusion: On terminology and the concepts behind it. In A. Klinge & H. H. Müller (Eds.), Modality: Studies in form and function (pp. 5–38). Equinox.
   Google Scholar
• Nuyts, J. (2006). Modality. Overview and linguistic issues. In W. Frawley (Ed.), The expression of modality (pp. 1–26). de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Nuyts, J. (2008). Qualificational meanings, illocutionary signals, and the cognitive planning of language use. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 185–207. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.6.09nuy
   Google Scholar
• Nuyts, J. (2013). De-auxiliarization without de-modalization in the Dutch core modals: A case of collective degrammaticalization? Language Sciences, 36, 124–133. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nuyts, J. (2016). Analyses of the modal meanings. In J. Nuyts & J. van der Auwera (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of modality and mood (pp. 31–49). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nuyts, J., & Byloo, P. (2015). Competing modals: Beyond (inter)subjectification. Diachronica, 32(1), 34–68. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.32.1.02nuy
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nuyts, J., Byloo, P., & Diepeveen, J. (2010). On deontic modality, directivity, and mood: The case of Dutch mogen and moeten. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(1), 16–34. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nuyts, J., Goelen, H.-J., & Caers, W. (2018). Hoeven diachroon. Taal en Tongval, 70(1), 17–46. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5117/TET2018.1.NUYT
   Google Scholar
• Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Plank, F. (1984). The modals story retold. Studies in Language, 8(3), 305–364. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.8.3.02pla
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rezai Baghbidi, H. (2006). A manual to Parthian [rɑhnæmɑje zæbɑnh Pɑrti]. Ghoghnoos.
   Google Scholar
• Rezai Baghbidi, H. (2009). The history of Iranian languages [tArixe z{bAnhAje irAni]. Daeratolma’aref-e Bozorg-e Eslami.
   Google Scholar
• Skjærvø, O. P. (1989). Modern east Iranian languages. In R. Schmitt (Ed.), Compendium Linguarum iranicarum (pp. 370–383). Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Stilo, D. (1981). The Tatil languages group in the sociolinguistic context of northwestern Iran and Transcaucasia. Iranian Studies, 14(3–4), 137–187. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00210868108701585
   Google Scholar
• Taleghani, A. H. (2008). Modality, aspect and negation in Persian. Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Traugott, E. C. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65(1), 31–55. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/414841
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traugott, E. C. (1995). Subjectification in grammaticalization. In D. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation (pp. 31–54). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Traugott, E. C. (2010). (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp. 29–71). de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Traugott, E. C. (2011). Grammaticalization and mechanisms of change. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 19–30). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• van der Auwera, J., & Plungian, V. A. (1998). Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology, 2(1), 79–124. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79
   Google Scholar
• Vander Klok, J. (2012). Tense, aspect, and modality in Paciran Javanese [PhD dissertation, McGill University]. https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/tools-at-lingboard/questionnaire/cross-linguistic-use.php
   Google Scholar
• Vander Klok, J. (2014). Modal questionnaire for cross-linguistic use. https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/tools-at-lingboard/pdf/Modal_Questionnaire_CrossLing_JVK.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Warner, A. (1993). English auxiliaries: Structure and history. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Windfuhr, G. L. (1989). New West Iranian. In R. Schmitt (Ed.), Compendium Linguarum iranicarum (pp. 251–262). Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Windfuhr, G. L. (2009). The Iranian languages. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Zarshenas, Z. (2017). A manual of Sogdiana [dæstnɑme soɢdi]. Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies.
   Google Scholar