1932
0

Annual Review of Linguistics

Volume 11, 2025

Actuality Entailments

  • Prerna Nadathur1,2
  • 1Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA; email: [email protected] 2Department of Linguistics, New York University, New York, NY, USA
  • Vol. 11:275-297 (Volume publication date February 2025)
  • First published as a Review in Advance on October 30, 2024
  • Copyright © 2025 by the author(s).
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See credit lines of images or other third-party material in this article for license information.

Abstract

In 1999, Rajesh Bhatt observed a curious interaction between modality and grammatical aspect: Under imperfective marking, ability modals describe “pure,” potentially unrealized abilities, but their perfectively marked counterparts instead describe actual events. These apparently nonmodal interpretations are known as actuality entailments. The effect has resisted straightforward explanation on standard semantic approaches to both aspect and modality: Perfective aspect is typically taken to introduce a bounded or episodic temporal perspective, and there is no obvious reason that this should erase the core contribution (i.e., hypotheticality) of a modal predicate. This article discusses the scope and distribution of actuality entailments, including their extension to nonabilitative and necessity modals. I survey a number of proposed accounts of the phenomenon, focusing in turn on the structural (compositional) interaction between modality and aspect and on the individual semantic contributions of the implicated elements. I conclude by noting some aspects of the phenomenon that—despite a wealth of literature—have yet to be thoroughly explored and may thus help to adjudicate between existing analyses.

Keyword(s): ability, coercion, grammatical aspect, implicativity, modality, perfectivity
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011724-121222
2025-02-03
2025-06-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/11/1/annurev-linguistics-011724-121222.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011724-121222&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Alonso-Ovalle L, Hsieh H. 2021.. Causes and expectations: on the interpretation of the Tagalog ability/involuntary action form. . J. Semant. 38::441–72
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alxatib S. 2019.. Actuality entailments and free choice. . J. Semant. 36::701–20
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  3. Alxatib S. 2021.. The ability root in Palestinian Arabic and its actuality entailment. . Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 39::657–85
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  4. Atkins A. 2015.. Actuality entailments and the argument from collapsed duality. Work. Pap. , Simon Fraser Univ., Vancouver, Can.:
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bary C. 2009.. Aspect in Ancient Greek: a semantic analysis of the aorist and imperfective. PhD Diss. , Radboud Univ., Nijmegen, Neth:.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Beaver D, Krahmer E. 2001.. A partial account of presupposition projection. . J. Logic Lang. Inform. 10::147–82
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  7. Belnap N. 1991.. Backwards and forwards in the modal logic of agency. . Philos. Phenomenol. Res. 51::777–807
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bhatt R. 1999.. Covert modality in non-finite contexts. PhD Diss. , Univ. Pa., Philadelphia:
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Borgonovo C, Cummins S. 2007.. Tensed modals. . In Coreference, Modality, and Focus: Studies on the Syntax-Semantics Interface, ed. L Eguren, O Fernández-Soriano , pp. 1–18. Amsterdam:: John Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Brennan V. 1993.. Root and epistemic modal auxiliary verbs. PhD Diss. , Univ. Mass., Amherst:
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Brown MA. 1988.. On the logic of ability. . J. Philos. Logic 17::1–26
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  12. Carlson G. 1995.. Truth conditions of generic sentences: two contrasting views. . In The Generic Book, ed. G Carlson, F Pelletier , pp. 176–223. Chicago:: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Cinque G. 1999.. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Davis H, Louie M, Matthewson L, Paul I, Peterson T, Reis Silva A. 2010.. Perfective aspect and actuality entailments: a cross-linguistic approach. . In Proceedings of SULA 5: Semantics of Under-Represented Languages in the Americas 5, ed. S Lima , pp. 17–32. Amherst, MA:: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Davis H, Matthewson L, Rullman H. 2009.. ` Out of control' marking as circumstantial modality in St'át'imcets. . In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 43, ed. M Elliot, J Kirby, O Sawada, E Staraki, S Yoon , pp. 19–28. Chicago:: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. de Swart H. 1998.. Aspect shift and coercion. . Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 16::347–85
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dieuleveut A. 2023.. Can you see? Actuality entailments in the present. . J. Semant. 40::503–22
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  18. Elgesem D. 1997.. The modal logic of agency. . Nord. J. Philos. Logic 2::1–46
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Fălăuş A, Laca B. 2020.. Modal-temporal interactions. . In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics, ed. D Gutzmann, L Matthewson, C Meier, H Rullman, T Zimmerman . Hoboken, NJ:: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118788516.sem073
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Fernald T. 1999.. Evidential coercion: using individual-level predicates in stage-level environments. . Stud. Linguist. Sci. 29::43–63
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Giannakidou A, Mari A. 2021.. Truth and Veridicality in Grammar and Thought. Chicago:: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Giannakidou A, Staraki E. 2013.. Ability, action, and causation: from pure ability to force. . In Genericity, ed. A Mari, C Beyssade, F Dei , pp. 250–75. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Goldsmith J, Woisetschlaeger E. 1982.. The logic of the English progressive. . Linguist. Inq. 13::79–89
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Hacquard V. 2005.. Aspects of too and enough constructions. . In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 15, ed. E Georgala, J Howell , pp. 80–97. Los Angeles:: Linguist. Soc. America
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hacquard V. 2006.. Aspects of modality. PhD Diss. , MIT, Cambridge, MA:
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Hacquard V. 2009.. On the interaction of aspect and modal auxiliaries. . Linguist. Philos. 32::279–312
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hacquard V. 2020.. Actuality entailments. . In The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Semantics, ed. D Gutzmann, L Matthewson, C Meier, H Rullman, T Zimmerman . Hoboken, NJ:: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118788516.sem052
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Homer V. 2011.. French modals and perfective. . In Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 28), ed. M Washburn, K McKinney-Bock, E Varis, A Sawyer, B Tomaszewicz , pp. 106–14. Somerville, MA:: Cascadilla
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Homer V. 2021.. Actualistic interpretations in French. . Semant. Pragmat. 14::12
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hsieh H. 2014.. Future-oriented actuality entailments: a puzzle from Tagalog. . In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 45), ed. T Bui, D Özyıldız , pp. 25–34. Amherst, MA:: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Karttunen L. 1971.. Implicative verbs. . Language 47::340–58
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kaufmann S. 2013.. Causal premise semantics. . Cogn. Sci. 37::1136–70
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  33. Klein W. 1994.. Time in Language. New York:: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Kratzer A. 1977.. What ``must'' and ``can'' must and can mean. . Linguist. Philos. 1::337–55
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  35. Kratzer A. 1981.. The notional category of modality. . In Words, Worlds, and Contexts: New Approaches in Word Semantics, ed. HJ Eikmeyer, H Rieser , pp. 38–74. Berlin:: de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Kratzer A. 1998.. More structural analogies between pronouns and tense. . In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 8, ed. D Strolovich, A Lawson , pp. 92–110. Ithaca, NY:: CLC
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Kratzer A. 2011.. What `can' can mean. Presented at the 21st Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 21), New Brunswick, NJ:, May 20–22
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Krifka M. 1989.. Nominal reference and quantification in event semantics. . In Semantics and Contextual Expression, ed. R Bartsch, J van Benthem, P van Emde Boas , pp. 75–115. Dordrecht, Neth:.: Foris
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Lewis D. 1968.. Counterpart theory and quantified modal logic. . J. Philos. 65::113–26
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  40. Louie M. 2015.. The temporal semantics of aspect and circumstance in Blackfoot. PhD Diss. , Univ. B.C., Vancouver, Can.:
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Malchukov A. 2009.. Incompatible categories: resolving the `present perfective paradox. .' In Cross-Linguistic Semantics of Tense, Aspect, and Modality, ed. L Hogeweg, H de Hoop, AL Malchukov , pp. 13–31. Amsterdam:: John Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Mandelkern M, Schultheis G, Boylan D. 2017.. Agentive modals. . Philos. Rev. 126::301–43
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  43. Mari A. 2015.. Actuality entailments: when the modality is in the presupposition. Work. Pap. , Inst. Jean Nicod, CNRS, Paris:
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Mari A. 2016.. Actuality entailments: when the modality is in the presupposition. . In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 10054: Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics: Celebrating 20 Years of LACL (1996–2016), ed. M Amblard, P de Groote, S Pogodalla, C Retoré , pp. 191–210. Berlin:: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Mari A, Martin F. 2007.. Tense, abilities, and actuality entailments. . In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. M Aloni, P Dekker, F Roelofsen , pp. 151–56. Amsterdam:: Inst. Logic Lang. Comput.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Martin F. 2019.. Non-culminating accomplishments. . Lang. Linguist. Compass 13::e12346
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  47. Martin F, Schäfer F. 2012.. The modality of offer and other defeasible causatives. . In Proceedings of the 30th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 30), ed. N Arnett, R Bennett , pp. 248–58. Somerville, MA:: Cascadilla
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Martin F, Schäfer F. 2017.. Sublexical modality in defeasible causative verbs. . In Modality Across Syntactic Categories, ed. A Arregui, ML Rivero, A Salanova , pp. 87–108. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Matthewson L. 2012.. On the (non-)future orientation of modals. . In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16, ed. A Aguilar Guevar, A Chernilovskaya, R Nouwen , pp. 431–46. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Moens M, Steedman M. 1988.. Temporal ontology and temporal reference. . Comput. Linguist. 14::15–28
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Nadathur P. 2019.. Causality, aspect, and modality in actuality inferences. PhD Diss. , Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA:
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Nadathur P. 2023a.. Studies in Semantics and Pragmatics, Vol. 15: Actuality Inferences: Causality, Aspect, and Modality. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Nadathur P. 2023b.. Variable implicativity in enough constructions: causation, coercion, and composition. Work. Pap. , Ohio State Univ., Columbus:
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Nadathur P, Filip H. 2021.. Telicity, teleological modality and (non-)culmination. Paper presented at the 39th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 39 (WCCFL 39), Online:, Apr. 8–11
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Partee B. 1973.. Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns. . J. Philos. 70::601–9
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  56. Paul I, Ralalaoherivony BS, de Swart H. 2016.. Malagasy maha at the crossroads of voice, causation, and modality. . In Proceedings of the Forty-Second Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. E Clem, V Dawson, A Shen, AH Skilton, G Bacon, et al. , pp. 353–69. Berkeley, CA:: Berkeley Linguist. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Pearl J. 2000.. Causality. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Piñón C. 2003.. Being able to. . In Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 22 (WCCFL 22), ed. G Garding, M Tsujimura , pp. 384–97. Somerville, MA:: Cascadilla
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Piñón C. 2009.. Another look at the actuality entailment of certain modals. Paper presented at Genericity: Interpretation and Uses, Paris:, May 11–13
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Portner P. 2009.. Modality. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Privoznov D. 2023.. On actuality entailments, causation, and telicity in Balkar. . Languages 8::178
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  62. Rubio Vallejo D. 2017.. Actuality effects as conversational implicatures. . J. Pragmat. 112::44–67
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  63. Schubert L, Pelletier F. 1989.. Generically speaking, or, using discourse representation theory to interpret generics. . In Properties, Types and Meaning, Vol. 2, ed. G Chierchia, B Partee, R Turner , pp. 193–268. Dordrecht, Neth:.: Kluwer/Reidel
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Singh M. 1998.. On the semantics of the perfective aspect. . Nat. Lang. Semant. 6::171–99
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  65. Thalberg I. 1972.. Enigmas of Agency: Studies in the Philosophy of Human Action. London:: George B. Allen Unwin
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Thomason R. 1984.. Combinations of tense and modality. . In Handbook of Philosophical Logic: Extension of Classical Logic, ed. D Gabbay, F Guenther , pp. 135–65. Dordrecht, Neth:.: Reidel
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Verkuyl H, Vet C, Borillo A, Bras M, Draoulec AL, et al. 2004.. Tense and aspect in sentences. . In Handbook of French Semantics, ed. F Corblin, H de Swart , pp. 233–70. Stanford:: CSLI Publ.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011724-121222
Loading
Actuality Entailments
Annual Review of Linguistics 11, 275 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011724-121222
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011724-121222
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011724-121222
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error