Covert Modality in Non-finite Contexts

Rajesh Bhatt, University of Texas at Austin, Texas, USA.

• ContentsAcknowledgements iv1 Introduction 11.1 Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Dissertation Outline and Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.2.1 Chapter 2: The Syntax of Infinitival Relatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.2.2 Chapter 3: Non-Modal Infinitival Relative Clauses . . . . . . . . . . . 41.2.3 Chapter 4: The Distribution and Interpretation of Infinitival Questions 61.2.4 Chapter 5: Ability Modals and their Actuality Entailments . . . . . . 82 The syntax of Infinitival Relatives 92.1 Subject infinitival relatives as Reduced Relatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.2 Non-subject Infinitival Relatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.3 The Modality of Infinitival Relatives and Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142.3.1 Proposal for Object Infinitival Relatives and Infinitival Questions . . 152.3.2 Proposal for Subject Infinitival Relatives and Infinitival Questions . . 162.4 Structures for Reduced Relatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172.4.1 Kayne (1994)’s proposal for Reduced Relatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172.4.1.1 Kayne (1994)’s general proposal for Relative Clauses . . . . 172.4.1.2 Kayne (1994)’s proposal for Reduced Relatives . . . . . . . 182.5 Arguments for a Raising Analysis of Relative Clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212.5.1 The Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212.5.2 The Argument from ‘Idioms’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22x2.5.2.1 A related argument from Subcategorization . . . . . . . . . 232.5.3 The argument from Binding Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242.5.4 Amount Relatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252.5.5 Scope Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262.5.6 Lower Readings of Adjectival Modifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272.6 My proposal for Reduced Relatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282.6.1 Version 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282.6.2 On the nature of Direct Predication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302.6.3 Version 2: Accommodating Reconstruction into Reduced and FiniteRelatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322.6.3.1 A comparison with Sauerland (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372.6.4 Reduced Relatives and Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382.6.5 Interpreting the New Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413 Non-Modal Subject Infinitival Relatives 423.1 Properties of Non-modal Infinitival Relatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423.1.1 Non-Modal Infinitival Relatives allow for Modal Readings too . . . . 463.2 A Raising Relative Clause analysis of Non-modal Infinitival Relatives . . . . 473.2.1 Raising Analysis of Relative Clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473.2.2 Interpreting the Raising Analysis (for Reduced Relatives) . . . . . . . 493.2.3 Raising Analysis applied to Non-modal Infinitival Relatives . . . . . 503.3 Motivations for the Movement of Superlative est/Ordinals/only . . . . . . . 513.3.1 A semantics for Superlatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543.3.2 Ordinals and Nominal only: Focus Sensitivity and Analysis . . . . . 563.4 More on the Raising Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593.4.1 Structural Characterization of Superlatives, Ordinals, and only . . . . 593.4.2 Licensing from inside the infinitival clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613.5 A prediction: Loss of Association with Focus with Non-modal InfinitivalRelatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633.5.1 Loss of Focus-sensitivity of Superlatives, only, ordinals . . . . . . . . 64xi3.5.2 A Further Prediction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673.6 Lower Readings: Further evidence for the Raising Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 693.6.1 Evidence for Reconstruction from NPI licensing . . . . . . . . . . . . 713.6.2 Evidence for Reconstruction from the behavior of Numeral Modifiers 723.6.3 Low Readings and Negative Island Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 733.6.4 Parentheticals: a potential alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743.7 Interpretation of the non-modal infinitival clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753.7.1 A first semantics for first . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753.7.1.1 first with possessive NPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763.7.1.2 Digression: Larson & Cho (1998)’s Analysis of former . . . . 773.7.1.3 Back from the Digression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 773.7.2 first with Non-modal Infinitival Relatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 793.7.3 Simultaneity between ‘head’ NP and Relative Clause . . . . . . . . . 803.7.3.1 Simultaneity effects with Finite Relative Clauses and first . 823.7.3.2 On why there is Reconstruction with first . . . . . . . . . . . 843.7.4 A Prediction: Locus of Change of State is Undetermined . . . . . . . 873.7.5 Temporal Properties of the Infinitival Clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883.7.5.1 When is first(P) evaluated? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893.7.5.2 Aspectual Characterization of the Infinitival Clause . . . . 913.7.5.3 A covert Perfect? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923.7.5.4 A problem with assuming a Covert Perfect and a solution . 933.7.5.5 A Difference between the Covert and the Overt Perfect . . 963.7.5.6 Perfective Aspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 973.7.5.7 A Minimal Crosslinguistic Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993.7.6 Future interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003.8 Appendix A: A semantics for Raising Analysis of Relative Clauses . . . . . 1023.9 Appendix B: Semantics of only and first . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083.9.1 only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083.9.2 Ordinals (‘first’, ‘second’, : : :, ‘last’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1093.10 Appendix C: An in situ licensor analysis of Non-modal Infinitival Relatives 1103.11 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112xii4 The Distribution and Interpretation of Wh-infinitivals 1144.1 Infinitival Question Complements: Distribution and Subcategorization . . . 1154.1.1 The Distribution of Infinitival Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1154.1.1.1 A Classification of Predicates that take Finite InterrogativeComplements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1154.1.1.2 Infinitival Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1164.1.2 Infinitival Questions and Subcategorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1204.1.2.1 Non-interrogative Infinitival Complements of Predicates thattake Infinitival Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1204.1.2.2 Some Subcategorizational Generalizations . . . . . . . . . . 1214.1.2.3 One Predicate or Many . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1244.2 Modality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1274.2.1 Nature of Infinitival Modality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1274.2.2 Force of Infinitival Modality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1324.2.2.1 The effect of the wh-word . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1334.2.2.2 The effect of the embedding predicate . . . . . . . . . . . . 1344.2.2.3 The effect of the infinitival question predicate . . . . . . . . 1354.2.2.4 The effect of the context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1354.3 The Modality in Infinitival Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1364.3.1 Could Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .