The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that temporal-aspectual morphology can only be interpretable regarding root modals. It is not interpretable with epistemic modals. We will defend that this difference has its origin in the non-eventive nature of the latter. This proposal will take us, on the one hand, to support the hypothesis of the identity of haber (‘have’), i.e., the semantic equivalence between examples in which the main predicate of the periphrastic structure () and the epistemic modal () are construed with the auxiliary verb haber. On the other hand, we will maintain that epistemic modals are integrated into monoclausal structures. Conversely, the structures into which root modals are integrated would be biclausal
View in ORKG
DOI