Peripheral versus non-peripheral optative particles

1 Introduction

Discourse particles are often syntactically linked to the clause peripheries due to the fact that they are frequently placed at the left or at the right edge of the sentence. However, considering optative particles, for instance, it becomes immediately clear that their distribution can vary among languages in a significant way.^[1] Thus, e.g. German (and the Germanic languages in general) typically exhibits middle field particles, while, for example, Italian also has left peripheral particles; see (1) and (2):^[2]

German nur in (1) has been analyzed as belonging to a special class of middle-field particles in German, namely modal particles (MPs) (cf. Thurmair 1989: 182), which occupy the typical middle-field position of MPs in German and in most Germanic languages (cf. Coniglio 2005, 2011: 79; Thurmair 1989: 29). However, optative particles are placed in the left periphery in the Romance languages and are often not ascribed a special status but they are treated as adverbs.^[3]

Despite their similar distribution, optative particles distinguish themselves from MPs – beside the range of functions they can cover – on the interpretative level. The interpretation of MPs is known to vary depending on the clause type they appear in, while adverbs typically preserve their interpretation. Additionally, MPs are often challenging to interpret through paraphrasing, even in one and the same clause type, as their meaning can be subtle and context-dependent (Thurmair 1989: 97–98). In contrast, optative particles show no variable interpretation. They are linguistic elements that add the expression of wish, regret, hope, or desire to the sentence (Grosz 2011: 13).

In this paper, we intend to discuss the classification and syntactic properties of optative particles with special attention for their origin and syntactic distribution from a cross-linguistic perspective. In the next section, we will briefly introduce the classification of optatives following Grosz (2011: 185–190) to establish a framework for the discussion. Further, we will note a tendency for certain types of particles to occupy specific positions, so we will distinguish optative I-particles and C-particles regarding their sentential distribution. In Section 3, we will look into the origin of these elements, showing the possibility for two grammaticalization paths. The morphosyntactic properties of optative clauses will be discussed in Section 4, while a syntactic proposal for the licensing mechanism of optative particles will be offered in Section 5. Our analysis will draw on previous work by Grosz (2011) and Coniglio and Zegrean (2012), integrating insights from generative studies on the syntax of discourse and modal particles. By employing a comparative approach, we will examine data from different languages to illustrate the universal and language-specific aspects of optative constructions. Section 6 will summarize our findings.

2 Classification of optative particles

Grosz (2011: 13) points out that optative particles possess the following specific properties that distinguish them from other linguistic expressions. First, they convey a wish, regret, hope or desire without containing a (bouletic) modal or another overt lexeme expressing such feelings. This means that the expression of hope, desire, etc. is implicit in the particle itself, rather than being explicitly stated through other categories, e.g., by means of predicates such as ‘(I) wish’. Second, optative particles are uttered by a speaker who lacks control over the truth of the proposition being expressed. In other words, the speaker cannot influence or change the truth value of the proposition to make it true (cf. Grosz 2014: 89–90):

Furthermore, Grosz (2011: 185) distinguishes between two types of optative clauses, EX-Optatives and Adv-Optatives, the first ones involving an EX-operator, the second ones “bring[ing] about optativity by means of some idiosyncratic speech act adverbial.” These types of sentences thus differ according to the type of particles/adverbs used in them (Grosz 2011: 262). Based on his classification of optatives, we will distinguish two types of particles: (a) particles introducing EX-Optatives, such as English only, Italian solo ‘only’ or German nur ‘only’ and wenigstens ‘at least’; and, (b) particles in Adv-Optatives, such as Basque agian, Italian magari, or Spanish ojalá.

Grosz (2011: 263) defines the former as truth-conditionally vacuous elements that function as modulator of the exclamative property or expressiveness, which can be paraphrased as ‘I wish’ or ‘I hope’. In this paper, we will refer to this type as vacuous optative particles.

Also, we see that these usually appear in combination with other syntactic means, for instance, in combination with the conditional complementizer if. Since if-clauses are mainly conditionals, optative clauses and conditional ones are ambiguous; vacuous optative particles are a way to disambiguate them favoring the optative reading:

In addition to those particles, Grosz (2011: 185) mentions that some speech act adverbs can also mark optative clauses in some languages. In contrast to vacuous optative particles, these adverbs seem to have specialized in conveying desirability (Grosz 2011: 187) and share similar semantics with the EX-operator (see Section 5) proposed for the analysis of EX-Optatives, even if they operate at the propositional level (Grosz 2011: 188). Thus – unlike English only, Italian solo or German nur – Basque agian, Italian magari, or Spanish ojalá are closely related to the marking of optative clauses and have in themselves a semantic nuance signaling optativity. We will call them optative markers in this paper.

As in the case of vacuous optative particles, some of these are used in combination with other morphosyntactic means such as the subjunctive mood. Consequently, optative markers can be optional or obligatory since the other morphosyntactic means would be sufficient to mark desirability. For example, in Italian, the optative marker magari can – under certain circumstances – be elided without altering the interpretation of the optative sentence; see (5). This does not happen with Basque agian and Spanish ojalá. In the case of Basque agian, this particle is not used in combination with other morphosyntactic means, although it can combine with the epistemic marker ahal usually interpreted as ‘I hope’ (de Rijk 2008: 163); see (6):^[4]

A further differentiation of optative particles can be made based on their distribution within the clause. Specifically, some particles appear in the middle field, while others occur in the left periphery. The term I-particles (inflection-phrase-internal particles) will be used to refer to those particles that occupy a position in the middle field, while we will use the term C-particles (complementizer-phrase-internal particles) to refer to those located in the left periphery, as exemplified by (1) and (2), repeated here as (7) and (8).

When we compare the two groups of optative particles – I-particles and C-particles – we observe a tendency for a correlation between their type and their distribution within the sentence structure. Specifically, while exceptions can be found, we observe in general that particles located in the middle field are prototypically vacuous optative particles, while those situated in the left periphery are usually optative markers; see (7) and (8), respectively.

3 Diachronic paths

So far, we have dealt with two types of grammatical elements that mark optative clauses, and we have distinguished two types regarding their function and their distribution in the sentence. If we now look into their diachronic development, we can also identify two distinct major paths of grammaticalization (cf. Axel-Tober and Müller 2017; Axel-Tober et al. to appear; Coniglio 2022).

When examining the diachronic evolution of optative I-particles, it becomes evident that they predominantly originate from lower adverbs or particles (cf. Coniglio 2022; Grosz 2011). We notice such a development in the case of English only or German doch ‘however’. Also, for German nur ‘only’, Coniglio (2022: 27–28) argues that the MP – and thus also the optative particle – does not grammaticalize from the homophonous focus particle but possibly from an earlier adverbial element. In fact, the adverbial nur can still occur in the middle field as well as in the specifier position of CP; see (9). However, the particle counterpart seems to be restricted to the middle field; see (7):

Yet, not all optative I-particles seem to follow this grammaticalization process. Even though Italian solo and solamente ‘only’ are possible in a sentence internal position following the finite verb (see (10a)), they mostly occur in the C-domain (or at least in a position immediately following if) (see (10b)) and thus do not conform to the general trend, possibly indicating a grammaticalization process for these elements, which, starting from a lower position, ended up occupying a position in the left periphery of the clause:

Optative C-particles primarily emerge from sentences with a specific meaning such as ‘(it) may be’, ‘I wish’, ‘who knows’, etc. For instance, Italian magari traces its roots back to Byzantine Greek makari, denoting ‘happy or blessed’ (D’Antuono 2020: 72), whereas expressions like Italian chissà che lit. ‘who-knows that’ (Greco 2022: 13) and Spanish quizás (< quiçab(e) ‘who knows’, RAE 2014) further exemplify this trend, as they evolved from sentences expressing uncertainty or possibility.

Additionally, in Basque, agian seems to stem from **agi ‘appearance’ (Euskaltzaindia 2024) a noun not attested in any written Basque texts but found in the sentence (?)agi danean, which translates to ‘when it seems/looks like’, a sentential expression conveying epistemicity. Indeed, agian has two readings: (a) ‘perhaps’ and (b) an optative reading similar to ‘I wish’ (Euskaltzaindia 2024).

Beyond the aforementioned origins, other linguistic sources may contribute to the emergence of optative particles. As Alcázar (2016) points out, Basque and Spanish examples like aber/a ver ‘to see’ demonstrate how expressions related to inquiry contribute to the development of optative particles. Similarly, in Basque, ea functions as a marker of embedded questions, and current Spanish-Basque speakers can use it to mark sentences with optative reading:^[5]

As can be noted, optative particles derive from different sources either of adverbial or of clausal nature. This is in line with the observation in Axel-Tober and Müller (2017), Axel-Tober et al. (to appear), and Coniglio (2022) about the grammaticalization of sentence adverbs and MPs, in general. Below, after examining the morphosyntactic properties of the clauses hosting them, we will proceed to analyze their syntax.

4 Optative particles and morphosyntactic properties of the clause

In this section, we will discuss three properties of optative clauses: (a) their distribution in the sentence and their different interpretation; (b) their typical marking by means of the subjunctive mood; (c) the activation of CP by means of verb movement or special complementizers.

The first property under investigation concerns the distribution of optative particles in the sentence. Upon close investigation, it becomes evident that the position of these particles in a sentence is linked to their interpretation. Let us consider the distribution of the optative marker magari in (12):

When magari appears at the beginning of a sentence, i.e., in the left periphery, it conveys an optative reading. In the other positions, such as following the verb or in the right periphery, the optative interpretation seems to be more difficult or impossible. However, if magari is interpreted epistemically in the sense of ‘maybe’, it seems more flexible in terms of its positioning:

Similarly, we observe a comparable distribution for the Basque particle agian. It conveys an optative reading when situated in the left periphery, but if it appears in an inner position, it can only be understood as ‘maybe’:

1. agian ₁  = ‘I hope seeing you crying will soften her/him.’

2. agian ₂  = ‘Seeing you crying will perhaps soften her/him.’

Hence, at least for optative markers, there appears to be a correlation between the sentential position of these elements and their interpretation, as optative readings are mainly conveyed when particles are located in the left periphery, whereas epistemic readings are preferred when these particles occur in the middle field.

In addition to the presence and distribution of these obligatory or optional particles, the subjunctive mood plays a crucial role in optative clauses. In particular, the subjunctive mood appears to be a necessary and sufficient condition for licensing certain C-particles like magari in Italian and quizás in Spanish.^[6]

In fact, if we used the indicative mood in combination with magari, the sentence would be ungrammatical, at least in Standard Italian.

Regarding Spanish, Houle and Martínez-Gómez (2011) investigate the combination of quizás and the subjunctive, asserting that the use of the subjunctive mood in quizás-clauses has increased over time. Therefore, it appears to have become a necessary property.

However, not all languages require the presence of the subjunctive mood in optatives. In the case of Basque, the indicative mood alone is sufficient to license the optative reading of agian:

As can be seen in the previous examples, the use of agian with the non-indicative auxiliary verb **ezan renders the sentence ungrammatical, even when the context allows the use of **ezan, as in (17c).

This probably indicates that also C-particles alone are able to activate the left periphery of the clause and of marking the sentence as optative.

Turning our attention to I-particles, we find that the subjunctive mood alone is not sufficient for their licensing; instead, the activation of the C-domain seems to play a crucial role (also in this case). We observe that, in addition to employing the subjunctive mood, either the fronting of the verb to C or the use of complementizers is necessary; see (18) and (19) respectively:

In such cases, this additional fronting of the finite verb or the use of conditional complementizers (such as German wenn ‘if’ or Italian se ‘if’, etc.) are assumed to activate the left periphery of the clause, thereby licensing those I-particles. Table 1 illustrates the properties aforementioned.

These three fundamental syntactic properties are relevant for both types of optative particles, i.e., I-particles and C-particles have shown that syntax plays a role not only in the licensing of optative particles but also in their interpretation, particularly in cases where they also have an epistemic counterpart. With these considerations in mind, we will present our analysis for their syntactic licensing in the following section.

5 Syntactic licensing of optative particles and markers

So far, we have looked into the types and grammar properties of optative particles and markers. Now, we will sketch an analysis to explain how these elements (and optative clauses in general) are licensed in syntax. In order to do this, we will first introduce the works by Grosz (2011) and by Coniglio and Zegrean (2012), which serve as the starting point for our analysis.

6 Conclusions

To sum up, we observed two tendencies from a descriptive point of view. First, those optative particles that grammaticalized from adverbs usually stay in the middle field, but sometimes also in the left periphery (vacuous optative particles), whereas those derived from sentences are almost exclusively located in the left periphery (optative markers).

From a theoretical perspective, we proposed that vacuous optative particles, such as nur, as well as optative markers, such as magari or agian, enter the derivation with two uninterpretable features, one for the optative clause type [utype: optative] and the other for illocution/intentionality [uintent: EX]:

1. The feature [utype: optative] is checked against the interpretable feature on the head CT [itype: ], which, as a consequence, gets valued for optativity. In particular, we assume that the use of complementizers (such as Italian se, German wenn or English if, etc.), or alternatively the fronting of the subjunctive verbs or use of optative markers may activate the head CT and, therefore, the left periphery.

2. The feature [uintent: EX] is checked against the interpretable counterpart on ILL [iintent: ], which – in return – gets valued by the optative particle (and other illocutionary elements in the utterance).