sle 31 call for papers , sle 31 , st andrews , scotland , 26-30 august 1998 workshop on modality in generative grammar the description and analysis of modality is of central interest to the study of human language . modality interacts with many subsystems of syntax and a better understanding of modality would further our understanding of these subsystems greatly . the relevant subsystems play a role in the existing analyses of the epistemic-deontic dichotomy . this has been attributed to : ( i ) argument structure ( e . g . ross 1969 ) : epistemic modals are one-place predicates ( corresponding to raising verbs syntactically ) , whereas deontic modals are two-place predicates ( corresponding to control verbs syntactically ) . ( ii ) insertion position : epistemic modals are generated in i , deontic modals in v ( e . g . picallo 1990 ) . ( iii ) lf position : epistemic modals are in c , deontic modals in vp ( e . g . mcdowell 1987 ) . ( iv ) nature of the complement of a modal : a definite verbal complement with epistemic modals and an indefinite verbal complement with deontic modals ( e . g . barbiers 1995 ) . v ) pragmatics : the dichotomy is contextually determined and does not correspond to a syntactic difference ( kratzer 1989 ) . many questions still need to be answered before a sufficiently adequate analysis can be developed . as for argument structure , it should be asked what evidence we have that each modal has two different argument structures . if such evidence exists , are these argument structures represented in the lexicon , as in theta-theoretic accounts , or only syntactically ? related questions concern the categorial status of modals ( a special category aux in english , but main verbs in german and dutch ) , the selectional restrictions they impose on their complement ( semantically uniform , but not syntactically : only verbal complements in english , no categorial restrictions in dutch , verbal and certain prepositional complements in german and afrikaans ) . as for their syntactic position at surface structure or lf , we need to know more about the ( scopal ) interaction of modals with negation . it is clear that there is a tight connection between modality and negation / affirmation : many languages have a modal that behaves as an negative polarity item ( english ` need ' , german ` brauchen ' , dutch ` hoeven ' ) . a related issue is the interaction of modals with focus particles , especially those that have a negative or affirmative import , such as english ` only ' or french ` bien ' . it seems that such focus particles can alter the syntactic and semantic behaviour of modals . the ( scopal ) interaction of modals with other quantifiers and modals with question operators is also in need of a better description and analysis . it has been claimed that question formation and epistemic modality exclude each other . although this does not seem to hold in general , question formation and epistemic modality do seem to restrict each other in ways that are poorly understood . the interaction of modal verbs with modal adverbials is also relevant for the determination of the syntactic position of modals , particulary in view of cinque 's ( 1997 ) hypothesis that every sentence contains two modal projections that must be either filled by a modal adverbial in the specifier or by a modal verb in the head . many languages have a construction with ` have to ' or ` be to ' that involves a modal interpretation . such constructions do not generally have an epistemic interpretation ( but consider english ` he was never to see her again ' , dutch ` het is te verwachten dat . . . ' ` it is to be expected that . . . ' ) . there are a great many cross-linguistic peculiarities on this point , which are worth exploring . for example , one question is how this type of construction , lacking a visible modal element , yields a modal interpretation . there is a more general question concerning modality : which properties of modals are necessary for modality and which are accidental ? cross - linguistically , modals often have a irregular present tense inflection paradigm . it is unclear whether this is a necessary property of modals and if so , why . the fact that english modals are auxilaries but modals in other languages are not is presumably an accidental property , and so is the fact that english modals lack infinitives and participles in their paradigm , whereas dutch modals do have infinitival and participial forms ( except for the verb ` zullen ' ` will ' ) . as it seems that the bulk of generative studies of modality involves germanic languages , we particularly invite papers on modality in romance and central european languages . organizers : sjef barbiers ( leiden ) , frits beukema ( leiden ) , olga tomic ( novi sad ) , milena milojevic sheppard ( ljubljana ) , marija golden ( ljubljana ) . please submit abstract ( 1 a4 max ) to : professor olga miseska tomic bulevar avnoja 109 / iii , stan 16 beograd yu 11070 yugoslavija e - mail : efilb01 @ yubgss21 . bg . ac . yu & dr sjef barbiers hil / department of dutch studies p . n . van eyckhof 3 leiden , nl 2300 ra the netherlands e - mail : barbiers @ rullet . leidenuniv . nl & dr frits beukema hil / department of english p . n . van eyckhof 4 leiden , nl 2300 ra the netherlands e - mail : beukema @ rullet . leidenuniv . nl closing date for submission of abstract : 15 may 1998 date of acceptance / rejection of abstract : 1 july 1998