Linguistic Modality and Mood

Dear Colleagues,

In the past few decades, and since Kratzer’s seminar work in the later 70s Kratzer (1977, 1981, 1991), the phenomenon of modality has received substantial attention in linguistic theory—especially in formal semantics and the syntax- semantics interface, and recently also in experimental semantics-pragmatics (e.g., Phillips and Knobe (2017); Liu et al. (2021)). Modality generally refers to the expression of a speaker’s reduced commitment towards to the truth of the propositional content (De Haan (1999); Aikhenvald and Dixon (2014); Matthewson (2013); Giannakidou and Mari (2016); Krifka (2024)), and common types include epistemic and deontic modality, but also teleological and bouletic modality, called jointly directive modality Giannakidou and Mari (2021, 2026), as well as ability modality (Portner (2008) uses the label ‘priority modality’).

The truth of modal sentences relies on establishing conditions under which the sentential content could, would, should or must be true (see e.g., Von Fintel and Iatridou (2007)). Per definition, since modal sentences are not factual, they are nonveridical, which means that modal sentences convey, to varying degree, uncertainty about the propositional content, as has been recognized in recent work, for instance in the form of the Nonveridicality Axiom (Giannakidou (1998); Giannakidou and Mari (2018b, 2021), see also the Diversity Condition of Condoravdi (2002)). For this reason, Karttunen (1972) called modal verbs, ‘weak’. The Nonveridicality Axiom has been proposed as a presupposition of linguistic modality, and it says that when a modal expression is used, the speaker entertains two possibilities: p and its negation. In other words, when a speaker chooses to modalize a sentence, the hearer is entitled to conclude that the speaker does not know that the prejacent proposition p is true.

There are various ways languages encode modality: with modal verbs, adverbs, particles, or mood morphemes. The phenomenon of mood choice—typically a choice between the subjunctive and the indicative—is a case in point. Various theories have been proposed through the years, from realis vs. irrealis to preferential ordering and (non)veridicality to explain it (see Giannakidou and Mari (2021) for the most recent articulation of the latter; also Farkas (1985); Giorgi and Pianesi (1997); Godard (2012); Portner (2018); Bove (2020); Baunaz and Pusk´as (2022); Marques (2024)).

The subjunctive/indicative divide characterizes many European languages, and tells us a lot about the nature of the propositional attitude verbs (Anand and Hacquard, 2008; Grano, 2017; Giannakidou and Mari, 2021). However, it is by no means confined to those. Matthewson (2010) is a landmark work on the subjunctive of Salish languages, and mood distinctions do occur in almost all of the world’s languages, often interacting with the tense, aspect, and evidential systems of individual languages.

Mood morphemes can come in the form of verbal suffixes but also as independent particles or adverbs, and typically manifest a dependency on the higher verb, or other element, that selects them. The use of subjunctive morphemes in unselected positions (e.g., in questions, with modal verbs) exhibits the property often recognized as modal spread Giannakidou and Mari (2018a); Liu et al. (2021); Krifka (2024); Mari (2024)), i.e., a manifestation of multiple exponents of modality in the same clause.

For this volume, we welcome contrastive and comparative analyses of languages or language varieties on the issues of mood, modality and the role of particles, adverbs and mood morphemes. Topics include, but are not restricted to:

• Foundational issues such as mood selection patterns, flexible mood
• Interactions between mood morphemes and the tense/aspect system of
• Interactions between mood, modality and
• The role of modal adverbs in modal spread and
• Crosslinguistic variation in the types of marking involved for mood and
• Non-canonical uses of modal and mood elements such as appearing in
• The role of the QUD in mood

We request that, prior to submitting a manuscript, interested authors ini- tially submit a proposed title and an abstract of 400–600 words summarizing their intended contribution to alda.mari@cnrs.fr and giannaki@uchicago.edu

Abstracts will be reviewed by the Guest Editors for the purposes of ensuring proper fit within the scope of the Special Issue. Full manuscripts will undergo double-blind peer-review.

Tentative completion schedule:

Abstract submission deadline: 15 February 2026
Notification of abstract acceptance: 30 February 2026
Paper submission: 15 September 2026

References

Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. (2014). The grammar of knowledge: a cross linguistic typology. Oxford University Press.

Anand, P. and Hacquard, V. (2008). Epistemics with attitude. In Semantics and linguistic theory, pages 37–54.

Baunaz, L. and Pusk ́as, G. (2022). Subjunctive and complementizers. In A Cross-linguistic Approach to the Syntax of Subjunctive Mood, pages 163–193. Springer.

Bove, K. P. (2020). Mood selection in yucatec Spanish: Veridicality as the trigger. Lingua, 240:102858.

Condoravdi, C. (2002). Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past. In The construction of meaning. D. Beaver, Luis D. Cassillas Maritinez, Brady Z. Clark, S. Kaufmann (eds.).

De Haan, F. (1999). Evidentiality and epistemic modality: setting boundaries.

Southwets Journal of Linguistics.
Farkas, D. (1985). Intensional descriptions and the Romance subjunctive mood.

Garland Pub, New York.

Giannakidou, A. (1998). Polarity sensitivity as (non) veridical dependency. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Giannakidou, A. and Mari, A. (2016). Epistemic future and epistemic must: Nonveridicality, evidence, and partial knowledge. In Mood, Aspect, Modality Revisited. New answers to old questions, ed. by Blaszack, J. et al., University of Chicago Press, pages 75–124.

Giannakidou, A. and Mari, A. (2018a). The semantic roots of positive polarity: epistemic modal verbs and adverbs in English, Greek and Italian. Linguistics and Philosophy, 41(6):623–664.

Giannakidou, A. and Mari, A. (2018b). A unified analysis of the future as epistemic modality: The view from Greek and Italian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 36:85–129.

Giannakidou, A. and Mari, A. (2021). Truth and veridicality in grammar and thought: Mood, modality, and propositional attitudes. University of Chicago Press.

Giannakidou, A. and Mari, A. (2026). Modal Sentences. Cambridge University Press.

Giorgi, A. and Pianesi, F. (1997). Tense and Aspect. From Semantics to Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Godard, D. (2012). Indicative and subjunctive mood in complement clauses: from formal semantics to grammar writing. Empirical issues in syntax and semantics, 9:129–148.

Grano, T. (2017). The logic of intention reports. Journal of Semantics, 34(4):587–632.

Karttunen, L. (1972). Possible and must. In Syntax and Semantics Volume 1, pages 1–20.

Kratzer, A. (1977). What ”must” and ”can” must and can mean. Linguistics and philosophy, 1:337–355.

Kratzer, A. (1981). The notional category of modality. In H. J. Eikmeyer H. Rieser (eds.) Words, Worlds, and Contexts. New Approaches in Word Semantics, pages 38–74. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. In von Stechow, A. and Wunderlich, D., editors, Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research.

Krifka, M. (2024). Structure and interpretation of declarative sentences. Journal of Pragmatics, 226:51–63.

Liu, M., Rotter, S., and Giannakidou, A. (2021). Bias and modality in conditionals: Experimental evidence and theoretical implications. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 50(6).

Mari, A. (2024). Scope ambiguities in future questions: reflection and queclamative with Italian mica. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 28.

Marques, R. (2024). Explaining the subjunctive in factive contexts. Isogloss, 10(2):1–27.

Matthewson, L. (2010). Cross-linguistic variation in modality systems: The role of mood. Semantics and Pragmatics, 3:1–74.

Matthewson, L. (2013). Gitksan modals. International Journal of American Linguistics, 79(3).

Phillips, J. and Knobe, J. (2017). The psychological representation of modality. Mind & Language, 32(3):256–279.

Portner, P. (2008). Modality. OUP Oxford.

Portner, P. (2018). Mood. Oxford University Press.

Von Fintel, K. and Iatridou, S. (2007). Anatomy of a modal construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 38(3):445–483.

Prof. Dr. Anastasia Giannakidou
Prof. Dr. Alda Mari
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 250 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for assessment.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Languages is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.