The Syntax of Tenselessness: Tense/Mood/Aspect-agreeing Infinitivals 9783110197839, 9783110190434

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Properties of TMA-copying and participle copying
Chapter 3 Copying and tense
Chapter 4 Copying as a restructuring effect
Chapter 5 Pseudocoordination is TMA-copying
Chapter 6 Pseudocoordinating verbs are light verbs
Chapter 7 Copying
Chapter 8 The syntax of tenselessness
Backmatter

Citation preview

The Syntax of Tenselessness

≥

Studies in Generative Grammar 92

Editors

Jan Koster Harry van der Hulst Henk van Riemsdijk

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

The Syntax of Tenselessness Tense/Mood/Aspect-agreeing Infinitivals

by

Anna-Lena Wiklund

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin.

The series Studies in Generative Grammar was formerly published by Foris Publications Holland.

앝 Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines 앪 of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Wiklund, Anna-Lena. The syntax of tenselessness : tense/mood/aspect-agreeing infinitivals / by Anna-Lena Wiklund p. cm. ⫺ (Studies in generative grammar ; 92) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-3-11-019043-4 1. Swedish language ⫺ Verb. 2. Swedish language ⫺ Tense. I. Title. PD5301.W55 2007 439.75162⫺dc22 2006039481

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

ISBN 978-3-11-019043-4 ISSN 0167-4331 쑔 Copyright 2007 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin. All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

This book is dedicated to my infinite source of inspiration, Tycho.

Acknowledgements This book is a slightly revised version of my doctoral dissertation. I am indebted to Jan-Wouter Zwart for suggesting that I submit my work for publication and for insightful comments and discussion. I take the opportunity to reiterate my thanks to everyone who have supported me during my thesis writing. I owe special thanks to Görel Sandström and Michal Starke for scrutinizing my work both contentwise and formwise. Helpful discussions with these two persons have had a great influence on the material that has resulted in this book. I wish to thank Lars-Olof Delsing and Anders Holmberg for valuable comments and suggestions at various stages in my work with this book. For helpful comments on an early outline, I thank Idan Landau. I am indebted to Gillian Ramchand for reading and commenting on an earlier version of Chaper 6. Needless to say, none of the above persons can be held responsible for any shortcomings. I am grateful to many fellow linguists and friends for inspiring discussions, fruitful comments, and native language intuitions. To mention but a few: Mark Baltin, Kristine Bentzen, Marcel den Dikken, Elisabet Engdahl, Vivienne Fong, Stephanie Harves, Þorbjörg Hróarsdóttir, Aniek IJbema, Jógvan í Lon Jacobsen, Gunlög Josefsson, Marit Julien, Richard Kayne, Martha Larson, Thomas Leu, Line Mikkelsen, Max Muzi, Gunnar Nyström, Hjalmar Páll Petersen, Carmen Picallo, Christer Platzack, Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson, Peter Svenonius, Anna Szabolcsi, Knut Tarald Taraldsen, Bo Westling, Mikael Vinka, Hedde Zeijlstra, Mark de Vos, and an anonymous reviewer (who later became onymous, thank you). Parts of this work were presented at the Workshop Syntactic Doubling in European Dialects, Meertens Institute, Amsterdam, Department of Linguistics/CASTL, University of Tromsø, Département de Linguistique, Université de Genève, Institutionen för nordiska språk, Lunds Universitet. I thank the audiences there for fruitful comments. Jag är oändligt tacksam för all hjälp och all uppmuntran jag fått under de mest hektiska månaderna i mitt arbete med denna bok från mina föräldrar Håkan och Birgitta, mina bröder Lars och Hans och sist men inte minst Gunnar Hrafn som också hjälpt mig med bokens formatering. Jag vill också tacka Tycho för välbehövda pauser från skrivbordet. Den här boken är till dig.

Contents Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 TMA-copying constructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Participle copying constructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Pseudocoordinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Overview of book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Properties of TMA-copying and participle copying . . . 1 TMA-copying does not involve coordination . . . . . . 2 TMA-copied morphology is vacuous . . . . . . . . . . 3 Participle copied morphology is vacuous . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Participle copying can not be reduced to ha-drop . . . . 3.2 Copied participles are not counterfactuals . . . . . . . . 3.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Copying is top-down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Copying is not phonological . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Copying is local . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Relativized minimality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Copying is island sensitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 Non-canonical complements and adjuncts . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 Subject infinitivals and extraposed infinitivals . . . . . . 6.2.3 Subparts of complements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Copying survives movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Copying and tense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Properties of infinitival complements . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Tensedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Propositionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Factivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Raising, ECM, subject-, object control . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Non-bare vs. bare infinitivals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Infinitivals in Swedish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 The påstå/anse class [+Tns, +Prop, −Su/ObC, +B] . . 2.2 The skämmas över class [+Tns, +Fact, +SuC, −B] . . 2.3 The förvänta class [+Tns, −Prop, −Fact, −Su/ObC, +B] 2.4 The besluta class [+Tns, −Prop, −Fact, +SuC, −B] . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii 1 3 6 8 11 15 16 18 20 20 21 24 24 26 27 27 28 28 29 30 32 35 37 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 47

x 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3 4 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 6

Contents

The övertala class [+Tns, −Prop, −Fact, +ObC, −B] The sluta/kunna class [−Tns, +Rais, +/−B] . . . . . . The få/låta class [−Tns, +ECM, +/−B] . . . . . . . . The glömma/töras class [−Tns, +SuC, +/−B] . . . . . The hjälpa/låta class [−Tns, +ObC, +/−B] . . . . . . Copying is restricted to tenseless infinitivals . . . . . . Predictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Apparent counterexamples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Desideratives – the vilja class . . . . . . . . . . . . . Absence of copying – the se class . . . . . . . . . . . Partial copying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

48 49 53 54 56 57 59 61 61 63 64 66

4 Copying as a restructuring effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The C-domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 The complementizer att . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 The complementizer o(ch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Copying C-features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 The T-domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Copying T-features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 T-Adverbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Asp-domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 The structure of copying infinitivals . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 The copying dependency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Desideratives revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Perception verbs revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Partial copying revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Copying is a restructuring effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Restructuring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Arguments in favour of restructuring . . . . . . . . . . . . . Restructuring is not restricted to mono-clausal configurations 5.3 6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

67 68 69 71 74 74 77 78 79 81 81 83 83 84 86 86 87 89 91

5 Pseudocoordination is TMA-copying 1 Towards a unified analysis . . . . 1.1 Aspectual properties . . . . . . . . 1.2 Inflectional forms shared . . . . . 1.3 T-adverbs are impossible . . . . . 2 Properties of pseudocoordination

. . . . . .

93 94 94 95 96 96

. . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

Contents

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3 4 4.1 4.2 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 6

Restricted set of verbs . . . . . . . . . . . Prosody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anaphoric reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commutativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . One overt subject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Negation placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adverb placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The linking element . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intermediate conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . Vacuous inflection – infinitival counterparts Progressive pseudocoordinations . . . . . . Inceptive pseudocoordinations . . . . . . . Restrictions on copying . . . . . . . . . . . Top-down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Locality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tense sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xi

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

98 100 101 103 107 109 110 111 111 112 113 113 117 120 120 120 121 122

6 Pseudocoordinating verbs are light verbs . . . . . . 1 Semantic classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 The progressive reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 The inceptive reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 The distal reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Classification arrived at . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Pseudocoordinating verbs and event structure . . . 2.1 The lightness of the matrix verb . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Event structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Posture verbs in progressive pseudocoordination . . 3.1 Simple position (locative) vs. maintain position SIT 3.2 Progressive pseudocoordination . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Bleaching manner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Posture verbs in inceptive pseudocoordination . . . 4.1 Assume position vs. transitive causative SIT . . . . 4.2 Inceptive pseudocoordination . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Intermediate conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

125 125 126 127 127 129 129 130 131 134 135 138 141 142 142 142 144 151 151

xii

Contents

6 Pseudocoordinating verbs as light verbs . . . . . . 6.1 Light verbs do not coordinate . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Coordination → pseudocoordination . . . . . . . . 7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Copying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Copying as Agree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Restructuring revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Unvalued functional heads do not license modifiers 4 O(ch)- vs. att-infinitivals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 The syntax of tenselessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Tenselessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Tenselessness does not imply absence of T . . . . . 1.2 Two types of tenseless T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A typology of tenseless infinitivals . . . . . . . . . Appendix I: Less clear-cut cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix II: Copying in Scandinavian . . . . . . . . . Appendix III: Selectional restrictions . . . . . . . . . . Appendix IV: Spelling out copied inflection . . . . . . . Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

151 151 153 155 157 157 164 165 170 174 175 176 178 179 180 183 187 193 195 197 213 223

Chapter 1 Introduction

This book investigates the construction-types exemplified by the Swedish sentences (1a-c) below. (1)

a.

b.

c.

Han försökte o skrev ett brev. he try.PAST & write.PAST a letter ‘He tried to write a letter.’ Han hade kunnat skrivit. he had can.PPC write.PPC ‘He had been able to write.’ Han satt o skrev dikter. he sit.PAST & write.PAST poem.PL ‘He was writing poems (in a sitting position).’

The above sentences share three basic properties. First, the verbs involved display identical inflectional morphology. The morphology on the second verb depends on that of the first, and as is evident from the translation, it appears not to have the same semantic properties as the inflection on the first verb. I will pretheoretically refer to this phenomenon as copying. Secondly, only one overt subject is licensed, restricted to the matrix clause. Less evident from the surface appearance is the third property; the class of first (matrix) verbs that may participate in these constructions is restricted. Despite these similarities, (1a-c) also differ with respect to three properties. (1a) and (1b) differ from (1c) in alternating with infinitival constructions; i.e. the second verb may be replaced by an infinitival form of the verb. (1b) differs from (1a) and (1c) in two ways. First, copying in (1b) is restricted to the past participial form, contrasting with copying in (1a) and (1c), where also the present, past, and imperative forms can copy. Secondly, whereas the verbs sharing inflection in (1a) and (1c) are separated by an element o(ch) (homophonous to the conjunction element och ‘and’), this element may not appear in (1b). The above differences would appear to justify analyzing (1a-c) as exemplifying three different phenomena, a common claim in the literature. To give a few examples, Josefsson (1991) claims that sentences like (1c) exemplify VPcoordinations. de Vos (2005) proposes that the English counterpart of (1c)

2

Introduction

Table 1. Copying constructions

1a 1b 1c

Infinitival alt. + + −

Copy all forms + − +

Linking element + − +

exemplifies a complex head, contrasting with the English try & V construction (they try and read), related to (1a), which is taken to involve a special type of infinitival complementation. Wiklund (1996), following the approach of Anward (1988) to (1c) and (1b), is an early attempt to unify all three under a subordination/agreement approach, whereas Julien (2003) argues that (1b) is unrelated to (1a) and (1c) and involves an expression of counterfactuality. The main claim of the present book is that the three copying constructions exemplified in (1) instantiate three surface variants of one and the same phenomenon. They all involve involve complementation and semantically vacuous tense/mood/aspect inflection on the embedded verb(s). Thus, they all merit the label of Tense/Mood/Aspect-agreeing infinitivals. To distinguish between them, I will use the following labels: – TMA-copying constructions (TMA: Tense/Mood/Aspect) (1a) – Participle copying constructions (1b) – Pseudocoordinations (1c) The differences between these will be argued to be derivable from independent factors. (1a) and (1c) will be shown to differ from (1b) with respect to amount of functional structure present in the embedded clause. Matrix verbs in (1c) will be shown to involve light verb uses of otherwise lexical verbs. Copying, I will argue, is a surface reflection of (Agree-type) dependencies between functional heads of the same label; features of the embedded functional heads copy values from the corresponding functional heads in the matrix clause. The possibility of copying a particular morphosyntactic form is thus contingent on the presence of the corresponding functional projection in the embedded clause. I will claim that the relevant infinitivals involve subtypes of tenseless infinitivals (infinitivals whose tense orientation fully overlaps with that of the matrix clause), characterized by an underspecified functional domain. Arguments in favour of taking all agreeing infinitivals to involve restructuring will

TMA-copying constructions

3

be presented. The principal arguments are based on their distribution and evidence of deficiency in the functional domain of the infinitival. The set of restructuring verbs and the set of copying verbs are identical. Both phenomena display tense sensitivity. Neither restructuring nor copying turn up in finite environments. Agreeing infinitivals, just like restructuring infinitivals, show a limitation in capability of licensing sentential adverbs (and other material) in both clauses. It will be argued that the facts regarding copying suggest that restructuring may involve bi-clausal configurations (even two CPs) and that the category selected by the matrix verb may remain constant regardless of whether restructuring is present or not. I will put forth the hypothesis that agreeing infinitivals differ from the corresponding standard infinitivals in being subject to external valuation (from the matrix functional domain). If this is correct, an important aspect of (possibility of) restructuring is alternation between unmarked (negatively specified) features and unvalued varieties of the same features, capturing properties such as “finitelessness”, “tenselessness”, etc., of restructuring infinitivals. I will be led to conclude that there are three ways of being tenseless (or finiteless, etc.): (i) the relevant domain (the T-domain in case of tenselessness) is missing; (ii) the domain is externally valued (tense restructuring); the domain is internally valued (no tense restructuring). This book offers a detailed case study of agreeing infinitivals in Swedish and although other languages displaying the phenomenon are not discussed in detail, the spirit of the present work is that the crucial properties extend to these as well. An overview of the distribution of copying in the other Scandinavian languages is provided in Appendix II. Below, the three construction types are introduced in more detail, followed by a brief overview of the book. 1.

TMA-copying constructions

In variants of spoken Swedish, verbs like börja ‘start’, sluta ‘stop’, and fortsätta ‘continue’ participate in a construction type characterized by what looks like spreading of inflectional morphology: (2)

a.

b.

Han börjar o skriver dikter. he start.PRES & write.PRES poem.PL ‘He starts writing poems.’ Han började o skrev dikter. he start.PAST & write.PAST poem.PL ‘He started writing poems.’

4

Introduction

c.

d.

e.

Börja o skriv dikter! start.IMP & write.IMP poem.PL ‘Start writing poems!’ Han hade börjat o skrivit dikter. he had start.PPC & write.PPC poem.PL ‘He had started writing poems.’ Han skulle börja o skriva dikter. he would start.INF & write.INF poem.PL ‘He would start writing poems.’

Use of the construction type is widespread, found in northern as well as in southern parts of Sweden. The full range of verbal forms may copy. (2a) illustrates copying of the present tense (PRES), (2b) the past tense (PAST), (2c) the imperative mood (IMP), and (2d) the past participle (PPC).1 Verbs do not inflect for person and number in Swedish.2 Since we can not tell a (vacuously) copied infinitival form (INF), (2e), from its standard infinitival counterpart, we disregard the potential existence of infinitival copying for now. This construction has never been investigated in detail. It is often mentioned in passing as related to or belonging to pseudocoordination (Teleman 1976; Josefsson 1991; Wiklund 1996; Teleman et al. 1999), see §3 below. In Teleman et al. (1999) different TMA-forms are discussed in separate sections and are partially treated as separate phenomena. It is suggested that examples like (2a-e) can be treated as pseudocoordination (pseudosamordning), which is taken to be a special type of coordination (Teleman et al. 1999: III; 902909). However, in the absence of the element o, examples like (2c) and (2d) are referred to as double imperatives (dubbelimperativ) and double participles (dubbelsupinum), respectively (Teleman et al. 1999: IV; 707-709; 273-274).3 I will here refer to the phenomenon as TMA-copying, where TMA stands for tense (present and past), mood (imperative), and aspect (perfect, in this case the participial form of the main verb in the perfect construction). TMA-copying is subject to some variation. Part of the variation concerns the class of verbs that may copy, another part concerns forms that may copy. Since the construction type has not been studied in detail before, we will for the most part not be concerned with this variation here. TMA-copying data are based on my own intuition (Jämtland Swedish) and consultations with speakers that are from the same area or from Västerbotten. I refer the reader to Hagren (2005) for a preliminary picture of the geographic distribution of the phenomenon.

TMA-copying constructions

5

Despite the presence of tense morphology, the second clause in the TMAcopying construction is unable to license an overt subject:4 (3)

Lars började o (*han) skrev dikter. Lars start.PAST & he write.PAST poem.PL

The element linking the agreeing verbs is homophonous to the conjunction element och ‘and’, the reduced form of which is pronounced /O/ (used in casual speech). In the written examples of this book, this element will be rendered as o, translated as &. It can be dropped in the context exemplified in (2) in my variant. Standard Swedish has infinitives in all cases: (4)

a. b. c. d.

Han börjar att/o skriva dikter. he start.PRES to/& write.INF poem.PL Han började att/o skriva dikter. he start.PAST to/& write.INF poem.PL Börja att/o skriva dikter! start.IMP to/& write.INF poem.PL Han hade börjat att/o skriva dikter. he had started.PPC to/& write.INF poem.PL

Infinitival counterparts come with either the infinitival marker att, pronounced /At/ (characteristic of more careful registers) or the element o(ch) mentioned above. Thus, o is not a marker of copying. Att, however, is impossible in copying environments.5 Since TMA-copying belongs to non-standard Swedish, it rarely occurs in printed text, where it is considered incorrect language and the standard infinitival forms are used, as in (4). It is not unattested, however, as the following examples from Swedish newspapers show:6 (5)

... har Madonna nu också lyckats förolämpat hinduer. has Madonna now also manage.PPC offend.PPC Hindus ‘... Madonna has now also managed to offend Hindus.’

(6)

... samtidigt som hon själv börjar får värkar. while as she self start.PRES get.PRES contractions ‘... while she in turn is starting to have contractions.’

Variants of Danish, Faroese, and Norwegian display TMA-copying as well although appear more restricted regarding forms that may copy (see Ap-

6

Introduction

pendix II). We find imperative copying in Danish (Line Hove Mikkelsen, Sten Vikner, Bodil Kappel Schmidt, p.c.), see (7), imperative and participial copying in Faroese (Hjalmar Páll Petersen and Jógvan í Lon Jacobsen, p.c.), see (8) (from Lockwood 1964), imperative and participle copying in Solør Norwegian (see Julien 2003), and copying of all forms in Gudbrandsdalen and Romsdal Norwegian (Helge Sandøy, p.c.), see (9), exemplifying copying of present tense. (7)

Begynd og læs! start.IMP & read.IMP ‘Start reading!’

(Da.)

(8)

Teir hava altíð dugað at arbeitt væl ... They have always be-able.PPC to work.PPC well ‘They have always been able to work well ...’

(Fa.)

(9)

Jeg begynner og leser. I begin.PRES & read.PRES ‘I start reading.’

(Gudbr./Roms.-No.)

Also outside of the Scandinavian languages, we find constructions that seem related; e.g. double imperatives in Frisian (Wiklund 1998: 75), the try & V construction in English (see e.g. Pullum 1990; Yuasa and Sadock 2002; de Vos 2005), and preterital assimilation in Afrikaans (Robbers 1997). 2.

Participle copying constructions

At first sight, the construction in (10a) looks similar to the TMA-copying construction presented above. (10)

a. b.

Han hade kunnat läst. he had can.PPC read.PPC Han hade kunnat läsa. he had can.PPC read.INF ‘He had been able to read.’

However, it differs from it in two respects. Other forms than the participial form can not copy, see (11), and the conjunction-like element is impossible, see (12). (11)

a. *Han kunde läste. he can.PAST read.PAST

Participle copying constructions

b.

(12)

7

Han kunde läsa. he can.PAST read.INF ‘He could read.’

Han hade kunnat (*o) läst. he had can.PPC & read.PPC ‘He had been able to read.’

I will refer to this construction as the participle copying construction. Like TMA-copying, participle copying is not frequent in printed text. For a corpus based study, see Nordberg (2001). Although this copying is studied in more detail, no principled distinction is made in the literature between constructions where copying of the participial form is the only possibility and constructions where copying may involve other forms (TMA-copying) as well in many variants. The traditional Swedish name for the construction is dubbelsupinum ‘double supine’, see e.g. Ljunggren (1934), Teleman et al. (1999: III: 273-274), and Wiklund (2001a). Detailed overviews of earlier analyses can be found in Ljunggren (1934) and Julien (2003) and will not be reviewed here. Hagren (2005) presents a preliminary picture of the geopgraphic distribution of the phenomenon. Participle copying is not a recent phenomenon in the Swedish language. In Wiklund (2001b: 308) I give examples of participle copying from as early as the 14th century. The example below is from The revelations of Birgitta.7 (13)

... vm thu hafde mat mote standit minne pino ... if you had be-able.PPC against stand.PPC my paine ‘...if you had been able to endure my suffering...’

According to the investigation, the construction increases in frequency in Early Modern Swedish texts until it suddenly ceases to exist in the 18th century texts. This disappearence is arguably correlated with the standardisation of written language, visible in other contexts during that period, see e.g. Larsson (1988) on number agreement on verbs. Participle copying is also widespread in variants of Norwegian, see Julien (2003), and Faroese, see (14) (from Lockwood 1964: 141), cf. Appendix II. The phenomenon is also attested in Fenno-Swedish, see Ivars (to appear). (14)

Hann hevði viljað lisið bókina. he had want.PPC read.PPC book.DEF ‘He had wanted/would have wanted to read the book.’

(Fa.)

8

Introduction

Copying of the participial form in similar environments is also attested in Dutch, Frisian (den Dikken and Hoekstra 1997), and Serbo-Croatian (Boškovi´c 1999). 3.

Pseudocoordinations

The posture verb sitta ‘sit’ and other verbs of (manner of) posture are frequent first verbs in a construction referred to as pseudocoordination in the literature, see e.g. Josefsson (1991) and Teleman et al. (1999: III: 902-909): (15)

a.

b.

c.

d.

Han sitter o skriver dikter. he sit.PRES & write.PRES poem.PL ‘He sits and writes poems.’ Han satt o skrev dikter. he sit.PAST & write.PAST poem.PL ‘He sat and wrote poems.’ Sitt o skriv dikter! sit.IMP & write.IMP poem.PL ‘Sit and write poems!’ Han hade suttit o skrivit dikter. he had sit.PPC & write.PPC poem.PL ‘He had been sitting and writing poems.’

In parallel with TMA-copying, the second verb may appear in the full range of verbal forms (present, past, imperative, and participial) and an element homophonous to the conjunction element separates the verbs involved. This element can not be dropped. Also in parallel with TMA-copying, an overt subject is not licensed in the second clause: (16)

Vad satt han o (*han) läste (*han) _? what sit.PAST he & (he) read.PAST (he) _

Pseudocoordination, however, differs from TMA-copying in being part of standard Swedish. The construction does not alternate with infinitival complementation: (17)

a. *Han sitter att skriva dikter. he sit.PRES to write.INF poem.PL b. *Han satt att skriva dikter. he sit.PAST to write.INF poem.PL

Pseudocoordinations

9

c. *Sitt att skriva dikter! sit.IMP to write.INF poem.PL d. *Han hade suttit att skriva dikter. he had sit.PPC to write.INF poem.PL Pseudocoordination is a construction with many and varied uses. This and the above fact concerning lack of infinitival counterparts contribute to the difficulty in determining whether pseudocoordinations share basic structural properties with TMA-copying constructions or not, and hence in deciding between coordination and subordination analyses, see e.g. Josefsson (1991) and Wiklund (1996) for a coordination and a subordination analysis, respectively. Other names than pseudocoordination for these and what appear to be related construction types in various languages include double verb construction, fake coordination (Carden and Pesetsky 1977), subcoordination (Johnsen 1988), verb-verb agreement, agreeing complements (Anward 1988), quasiserial verb construction (Pullum 1990), asymmetric coordination (Déchaine 1993), verbal hendiadys (Donaldson 1993), the inflected construction (Cardinaletti and Giusti 2001), and contiguous coordination (de Vos 2005). In this book, I focus on aspectual pseudocoordinations involving posture verbs like sitta ‘sit’, stå ‘stand’, and ligga ‘lie’ (exemplified above by sitta), motion verbs like gå ‘walk’, and springa ‘run’, see (18a), the verb vara (be), and the verb ta ‘take’, exemplified in (18b) below. (18)

a.

b.

Vad gick han o handlade? what go.PAST he & buy.PAST ‘What did he go and buy?’ Hon tog och läste en bok. she take.PAST & read.PAST a book ‘He read a book.’

These yield various types of aspects depending on properties of the matrix verb, including progressive-like and inceptive-like aspects. Pseudocoordinations involving politeness phrases, (19a), and verbs of communication, (19b), see Teleman et al. (1999: III: 908-909), share some properties with aspectual pseudocoordinations but will not be dealt with here. (19)

a.

Hon var snäll och gav mig en glass. she be.PAST kind & give.PAST me an ice-cream ‘She was kind and gave me an ice-cream.’

10

Introduction

b.

Hon ringde och berättade om operationen. she call.PAST & tell.PAST about operation.DEF ‘She called and told me about he operation.’

The pseudocoordinations relevant here are also found in standard Norwegian, see (20a) from Lødrup (2002: 122) (see also Johnsen 1988; Johannessen 1998; Tonne 2000; Vannebo 2003), Danish (see Josefsson 1991; Lødrup 2002), and Faroese (Hjalmar Páll Petersen, p.c.), see (20b). Contra Josefsson (1991), the construction is also attested in Icelandic, see Appendix II. (20)

a.

Hva sitter han og skriver? what sit.PRES he & write.PRES

(No.)

b.

Hvat liggur hann og lesur? what lie.PRES he & read.PRES ‘What is he reading?’

(Fa.)

Outside of the Scandinavian languages, we find related constructions in English (see e.g. Shopen 1971; Schmerling 1975; Carden and Pesetsky 1977; Quirk et al. 1985: 507-508, 978-979; Pullum 1990; Déchaine 1993: 184-197; Jaeggli and Hyams 1993; de Vos 2005), Afrikaans (Donaldson 1993: 220221; Robbers 1997; de Vos 2005), the Italian dialect of Marsalese (Cardinaletti and Giusti 2001), Bulgarian (Kuteva 1999), and Manam (Lichtenberk 1983). Ta ‘take’ (together with some other verbs) is used also in another construction in variants of the Scandinavian languages, which will not be dealt with here. It differs from the pseudocoordinations discussed here in that it may involve object sharing between the conjuncts involved; the object of the verb in the first conjunct is coreferential with a phonologically empty object of the verb in the second conjunct, see Åfarli and Creider (1987), Johnsen (1988), and the more recent work by Larson (2005) for overviews of the properties of that construction:8 (21)

Hon tog bollen och kastade _ i korgen. she take.PAST ball.DEF & throw.PAST _ in basket.DEF

Another seemingly related construction that I will leave aside here is exemplified in (22) from Nordberg (1977: 118) (see also Anward 1988). (22)

Var hade du cykeln stod? where have.PAST you bike stand.PAST

Overview of book

11

The construction is limited to a few central Swedish dialects and the first verb is restricted to ha ‘have’. In contrast with TMA-copying, no conjunction element is present and the choice of embedded verb is restricted; only posture verbs plus some other stative verbs are possible.

4.

Overview of book

Step by step, I will show that the TMA-copying construction, the participle copying construction, and the pseudocoordination construction can be reduced to one and the same phenomenon. In Chapter 2, I argue that some surface differences between TMA-copying constructions and participle copying constructions (some of which have been used to argue for their being two distinct phenomena) are only apparent. I show that TMA-copying involves complementation, just like participle copying, thus is not a special type of coordination. I present evidence that the morphology of the embedded verb is semantically vacuous in both construction types. In particular, I show that participle copying can not be reduced to dropping of the auxiliary ha ‘have’, nor to an expression of counterfactuality. The relation behind copying is identified as being syntactic, top-down, and local in both construction types. The only two differences between the two constructions are those noted in Table 1 above: TMA-copying infinitivals copy the full range of verbal forms, whereas participle copying infinitivals restrict copying to participial form (aspect copying only). The former, but not the latter, involves the conjunction-like element o(ch). In Chapter 3, I examine which of the infinitive selecting verbs are capable of selecting TMA-copying and/or participle-copying infinitivals. The investigation leads to three conclusions. First, TMA-copying infinitivals and participle copying infinitivals are tenseless. There can be no mismatch in temporal properties between the matrix clause and a copying infinitival. Secondly, the class of verbs that select TMA-copying infinitivals is distinct from the class of verbs that select participle copying infinitivals. Thirdly, TMA-copying infinitivals correspond to tenseless infinitivals that are introduced by an infinitival marker, whereas participle copying infinitivals correspond to tenseless bare infinitivals in standard language. In Chapter 4, I show that the last two findings of Chapter 3 ultimately lead to an explanation of the two differences between TMA-copying and participle copying complements that we were left with in Chapter 2. At this point,

12

Introduction

our default expectation is that the conjunction-like element o(ch) introducing a TMA-copying infinitival should be of the same category as att/o(ch) introducing the corresponding standard infinitival. I present evidence in favour of taking both to be complementizers. If I am correct, the category selected by the matrix verb remains constant between copying (agreeing) infinitivals and the corresponding standard non-copying infinitivals. TMA-copying infinitivals are introduced by a complementizer, just like their non-copying counterparts. Participle copying infinitivals are bare, just like their non-copying counterparts. I propose that copying of a given form is possible only in case the embedded clause contains the corresponding functional projection. That is, copying is proportional to the number of functional projections present in the embedded clause. On this hypothesis, the difference between the two types of copying infinitival with regard to number of forms copied follows. This finding suggests that copying is a reflex of dependencies between functional heads of the same label. In the remaining part of the chapter, I present arguments in favour of taking copying to be a surface reflex of restructuring/clause union. If this hypothesis is correct, restructuring is not restricted to mono-clausal configurations, but may also involve bi-clausal configurations, even two CPs. In Chapter 5, I put forth the hypothesis that pseudocoordinations involve TMA-copying infinitivals. On this hypothesis, the pseudocoordinating element o(ch) is a complementizer and we correctly predict all forms to copy between the verbs involved. I present extensive arguments in favour of taking the “second conjunct” in the relevant pseudocoordinations to be selected by the first verb. Thus, pseudocoordinations do not involve a special type of coordination, nor adjunction, nor complex heads. Conforming to our expectations, pseudocoordination involves semantically vacuous inflection in the embedded clause. The relation behind pseudocoordination is demonstrated to be top-down, local, and sensitive to tense. Thus, in all relevant respects, pseudocoordination behaves like TMA-copying. In Chapter 6, I investigate more closely the matrix verbs involved in pseudocoordination (TMA-copying with motion/posture verbs). I present evidence in favour of taking pseudocoordinating verbs to involve light verb uses of (otherwise) lexical verbs. In addition to ridding us of an apparent support in favour of a coordination analysis, these findings throw light on the semantic properties of this particular type of copying construction. Using the framework of Ramchand (in press), I propose that pseudocoordination involves the following two characteristic traits. First, the matrix verb associates to struc-

Overview of book

13

ture via only a subset of the features in its lexical specification (underassociation). Secondly, the pseudocoordinate clause is merged within the event structure of the matrix predicate (as rhematic material). In Chapter 7, I sketch an approach to derive the results obtained. I present arguments in favour of taking the dependency behind the surface reflex of copying to be Agree and I briefly discuss the theoretical implications of this proposal for Agree, for restructuring, and for infinitivals. In the context of restructuring, my proposal is essentially a resurrection and extension of analyses of restructuring in terms of INFL (or tense) raising. In the remainder of the chapter, I present an analysis of Swedish o(ch)-infinitivals and att-infinitivals that captures the properties described. Chapter 8 is a concluding chapter that attempts to focus on the property of tenselessness found to be characteristic of all three types of copying infinitivals. The data presented in this book, I will demonstrate, suggest a typology of tenseless infinitivals that includes two major classes, one of which subdivides with regard to restructuring: 1.

T-domain is missing. (trivially tense restructuring)

2.

T-domain is present: a. T is internally valued (no tense-restructuring) b. T is externally valued (tense restructuring)

Chapter 2 Properties of TMA-copying and participle copying

In this chapter, I show that TMA-copying and participle copying constructions are underlyingly similar and can be unified under this scheme:

Subject...Verb-INFLECTIONi ...Verb-INFLECTIONi... First, I argue that some surface differences between the two constructions (some of which have been used to argue for their being two distinct phenomena) are only apparent. I show that: – – – –

TMA-copying constructions do not involve coordination. The copied morphology of TMA-copying complements is vacuous. Participle copying cannot be reduced to auxiliary ha-drop. Copied participial morphology does not express counterfactuality.

Thus, the only two differences between the two are the ones noted in Chapter 1, see table 2 below. These will later on be shown to follow from independent factors. Table 2. TMA-copying and Participle Copying

Restriction on forms Linking element Infinitival counterparts

TMA-copying − + +

Participle copying + − +

Then, we go on to identify the relation behind the copying phenomenon itself. I show that restrictions on copying are the same in TMA-copying and participle copying constructions, the relation behind being top-down, syntactic, and local.

16

Properties of TMA-copying and participle copying

1.

TMA-copying does not involve coordination

The fact that the TMA-copying construction involves inflectional parallelism between the verbs involved and an element homophonous to the conjunction element has led to its being treated as a special type of coordination in some of the literature, see e.g. Teleman et al. (1999: III: 902-909). The clearest argument that the construction does not involve coordination comes from extraction tests. Conjuncts in coordination structures are strong islands: An argument can not be extracted from one conjunct, unless coindexed with an extracted argument in the other conjunct(s), cf. (1) below. This is the Across-The-Board (ATB) extraction exception to the so-called Coordinate Structure Constraint, see Ross (1967). (1)

*Vad sov han och skrev _? what sleep.PAST he and write.PAST _

In contrast, nothing prevents arguments from being extracted out of complements. The extraction out of the TMA-copying complement in (2a) below is thus an argument for the construction type involving complementation, just like the infinitival counterpart in (2b). Notice that (2a) does not involve ATBextraction. (2)

a. b.

Vad började han o skrev _? what start.PAST he & write.PAST Vad började han att skriva _? what start.PAST he to write.INF ‘What did he start writing?’

The second argument concerns fronting of the second conjunct itself, impossible in coordination structures (3) (see Ross 1967) but allowed in TMAcopying structures (4a), where the second clause can be fronted, just like the standard infinitival counterpart (4b), modulo insertion of a dummy verb. This fact follows from a complementation analysis of TMA-copying structures but not from a coordination analysis without additional stipulations. (3) (4)

*Skrev brev sov han och gjorde. write.PAST letter sleep.PAST he and did a.

[Skrev brev] började han o gjorde i lördags. write.PAST letter start.PAST he & did last Saturday

TMA-copying does not involve coordination

b.

17

[Skriva brev] började han att göra i lördags. write.INF letter start.PAST he to do last Saturday

The third argument concerns dropping of the conjunction element. In ordinary coordinations involving more than two conjuncts, the element linking the conjuncts can be dropped in all but the last coordination, see (5a). Dropping of the conjunction element in all but the first coordination results in ungrammaticality, see (5b). (5)

a.

Han målar skriver och läser. he paint.PRES write.PRES and read.PRES b. *Han målar och skriver läser. he paint.PRES and write.PRES read.PRES ‘He paints, writes, and reads.’

In the variants where the conjunction element can be dropped in TMA-copying complements, on the other hand, the distribution of the non-overt element patterns with the null infinitive marker and not with the null conjunction element in coordinations like the one above. All but the first element can be dropped: (6)

a. *Han prövar börjar o läser. he try.PRES start.PRES & read.PRES b. *Han prövar börja att läsa. he try.PRES start.INF to read.INF c. Han prövar o börjar läser. he try.PRES & start.PRES read.PRES d. Han prövar att börja läsa. he try.PRES to start.INF read.INF ‘He tries to start reading.’

Based on these three arguments, (7a) below involves complementation, just like (7b). (7)

a. b.

Han prövade o sjöng högt. he try.PAST & sing.PAST high Han prövade att sjunga högt. he try.PAST to sing.INF high ‘He tried to sing high.’

18

Properties of TMA-copying and participle copying

Nor can we analyze TMA-copying constructions as involving adjunction, witness (8a). Adjuncts do not allow free extraction in Swedish, cf. (9). (8)

a. b.

(9)

Hur högt prövade han o sjöng _? how high try.PAST he & sing.PAST _ Hur högt prövade han att sjunga _? how high try.PAST he to sing.INF _ ‘How high did he try to sing?’

*Hur högt övade han för att kunna sjunga _? how high practice.PAST he for to can.INF sing.INF _ Intended reading: ‘He practiced in order to be able to sing how high?’

Participle copying constructions involve complementation by the same tests; they allow extraction, (10a), and fronting, (10b) (conjunction test obviously not applicable). (10)

a.

b.

2.

Hur högt har Lars kunnat sjungit _? how high has Lars can.PPC sing.PPC _ ‘How high has Lars been able to sing?’ [Sjungit] har Lars kunnat gjort. sing.PPC has Lars can.PPC do.PPC

TMA-copied morphology is vacuous

Although a literal translation may lead one to suppose otherwise, the presence of tense inflection on the embedded verb in TMA-copying constructions does not affect the interpretations of the complement; (11a) like (11b) carries no implication that the frying event was completed. The two sentences have identical truth conditions, cf. Carden and Pesetsky (1977) for a similar obervation with regard to the try & V construction in English. (11)

a. b.

Han prövade o stekte en fisk. he try.PAST & fry.PAST a fish Han prövade att steka en fisk. he try.PAST to fry.INF a fish ‘He tried to fry a fish.’

Thus, in both cases the subject referent has to engage in actions associated with that of frying a fish; e.g. taking out the frying pan, adding butter, turning

TMA-copied morphology is vacuous

19

on the stove, and placing the fish in the pan, etc. Despite the presence of past tense inflection in the complement of pröva (try) in (11a), however, there is no implication that the subject referent actually succeeded in frying the fish. The sentence only implies that he tried to do so, just like in the infinitival counterpart. Another way of showing this is to add the tag men han lyckades inte ‘but he did not succeed’ to the sentences. Whenever the inflection is interpreted, this tag yields a bad result, as in (12). (12)

Han stekte en fisk #men lyckades inte. he fry.PAST a fish but succeed.PAST not ‘He fried a fish #but did not succeed.’

As shown in (13a), adding the tag to the TMA-copying construction in (11a) yields a fully acceptable result. The sentence has a meaning identical to the infinitival counterpart in (13b). This is an additional argument against a coordination analysis of TMA-copying constructions. (13)

a. b.

Han prövade o stekte en fisk men lyckades inte. he try.PAST & fry.PAST a fish but suceeded not Han prövade att steka en fisk men lyckades inte. he try.PAST to fry.INF a fish but suceeded not ‘He tried to fry a fish but didn’t suceed.’

An example involving the verb forget below shows the same point. Both the TMA-copying complement in (14a) and the standard infinitive in (14b) imply that the subject referent did not write the letter (since he forgot to do so), hence the pragmatic oddity of the sentence ‘It (the letter) was mailed immediately’ following the examples:9 (14)

a.

b.

Han glömde o skrev brevet. #Det skickades he forget.PAST & write.PAST letter.DEF. It mail.PAST.PASS omedelbart. immediately. Han glömde att skriva brevet. #Det skickades he forget.PAST to write.INF letter.DEF. It mail.PAST.PASS omedelbart. immediately. ‘He forgot to write the letter. #It was mailed immediately.’

20

Properties of TMA-copying and participle copying

TMA-copying complements therefore involve semantically vacuous inflectional morphology. They are “agreeing” complements in the terminology of Anward (1988). 3. 3.1.

Participle copied morphology is vacuous Participle copying can not be reduced to ha-drop

In Swedish, under some circumstances, the auxiliary ha ‘have’ of an embedded clause can be dropped (see e.g. Platzack 1986; Holmberg 1986; Hedlund 1992; and more recently Julien 2000 and references cited there): (15)

a. b.

Lars skulle ha läst boken. Lars would have read.PPC book.DEF Lars skulle läst boken. Lars would read.PPC book.DEF ‘Lars would have read the book.’

As a result, copied participles such as the one exemplified by the TMAcopying complement in (16a) are prima facie ambiguous between an underlying ha-drop structure, analogous to (16b), and an underlying infinitival structure, analogous to (16c).10 (16)

a. b. c.

Lars hade börjat o läst boken. Lars had start.PPC o read.PPC book.DEF Lars hade börjat o ha läst boken. Lars had start.PPC o have read.PPC book.DEF Lars hade börjat o läsa boken. Lars had start.PPC o read.INF book.DEF

There is straightforward evidence that copied participles cannot be reduced to ha-drop structures (see also Anward 1988 and Julien 2003 for the same conclusion). The interpretation of (16b), literally ‘Lars had started having read the book’, is that he was getting close to finishing the book (i.e. to the point where it would be possible to say that he had read it). Let us refer to this reading as the perfect state reading. This reading is different from the infinitival reading present in (16c): ‘Lars had started reading the book’. The copied participle in (16a) can only have the meaning of the infinitival (16c). Since (15b), which has no copying analysis (since only one past participle is present), does not introduce an infinitival reading but rather inherits (some

Participle copied morphology is vacuous

21

of) its interpretation from the ha-source, the embedded participle in (16a) cannot be derived from (16b) by ha-drop. It can only be derived from (16c) by copying. The same argument can be replicated for a copied participle in a participle copying complement, exemplified in (17a): (17)

a.

Lars har kunnat skrivit. Lars has can.PPC write.PPC b. ??Lars har kunnat ha skrivit. Lars has can.PPC have write.PPC c. Lars har kunnat skriva. Lars has can.PPC write.INF ‘Lars has been able to write.’

In the example above, insertion of an auxiliary in front of the embedded participle yields a pretty bad result, cf. (17b), making the argument still sharper. The copied participle in (17a) has the same interpretation as the infinitive in (17c).11 We may safely conclude that sequences of participles cannot be reduced to ha-drop structures. 3.2.

Copied participles are not counterfactuals

The active past participial inflection (supine inflection) in Swedish can be used to express counterfactuality (for similar facts concerning its Norwegian counterpart, see Eide 2006; Julien 2003; for cross-linguistic observations, see Iatridou 2000).12 Thus, the difference between (18a) and (18b) below is that the former sentence implicates that you will not come tomorrow (counterfactual to the future), whereas the latter sentence does not (the same difference in interpretation is found in the English counterparts). Thus, (18a) is possible in a context like: ... and I am so sad that you changed your plans. (18)

a.

b.

Du skulle kommit imorgon. you should come.PPC tomorrow ‘You should have come tomorrow.’ Du skulle komma imorgon. You should come.INF tomorrow ‘You should come tomorrow.’

The counterfactual use of the past participle merits a discussion for the following reason. Julien (2003) reports variants of Swedish and Norwegian where participle copying is restricted to counterfactual environments. Since the par-

22

Properties of TMA-copying and participle copying

ticipial form can express counterfactuality in environments where copying is absent, as in (18a), she proposes that the participial inflection of what we here refer to as copied participles is not semantically vacuous but expresses counterfactuality. Thus, semantically vacuous participles do not exist. However, this does not follow. First, the participle and the infinitive are not interchangeable in environments like (18). The participle in (18a) expresses - as mentioned - a meaning different from the infinitive in the same environment, cf. (18b), which is expected given that the participle is not copied in that context. It is a contentful participle in the sense that it expresses a meaning associated with the participial form (relevantly counterfactuality to the future), not merely agreeing with another participle in form. Like most (if not all) contentful participles in Swedish, it can be selected by an auxiliary ha ‘have’. Thus, (18a) shares one reading with (19) below (contra Julien 2003), namely the counterfactual reading, and it is therefor reasonable to analyze the former example as an instance of ha-drop, cf. (15) above.13 (19)

Du skulle ha kommit imorgon. you should have come.PPC tomorrow ‘You should have come tomorrow.’

Participles in the environment exemplified above contrast with participles in copying environments in that the latter participles are dependent in form on another participle, cf. the contrast between (20a) and (20b) below. (20)

a. *Han vill kommit hit. he want.PRES come.PPC here Intended meaning: ‘He wants to come here.’ b. Han hade velat kommit hit. he had want.PPC come.PPC here c. Han hade velat komma hit. he had want.PPC come.INF here ‘He had wanted to come here.’

Secondly, the latter participles can be replaced by infinitives without a change of meaning. Thus, there is one reading of (20b) above that equals that of the non-counterfactual infinitive in (20c) where it is not implicated that the subject referent did not or will not come here (so you can go on to say: ...and he finally did come). From the fact that (20b) shares one reading with the non-

Participle copied morphology is vacuous

23

counterfactual infinitive in (20c), we may infer that the embedded participle in (20b) need not express counterfactuality. Therefore, participle copying complements cannot be reduced to counterfactuality and semantically vacuous participles are in evidence. Notice further that another definition of the licensing context - irrealis instead of counterfactuality - also makes the wrong predictions. If an irrealis environment would be all that is needed to license participles, we predict the sentence in (20a) above to be possible, contrary to fact. The irrealis environment is created by the verb vilja ‘want’. But even though the sentence implies that the subject referent does not come at the time of his wanting to come, participial morphology is clearly not licensed.14 A third piece of evidence against the counterfactuality approach to participle copying complements includes examples like (21), where – at least in Swedish – a counterfactual reading of either of the two participles is impossible to arrive at. (21)

Jag har hunnit läst hela boken. I have manage.PPC read.PPC whole book.DEF ‘I have managed to read the whole book.’

The situation turns delicate when the matrix participle (as in one reading of (20b) does express counterfactuality. This is an expected possibility given that the matrix participle is not copied but contentful and given that participles can express counterfactuality. This reading is best translated as ‘He would have wanted to come’ and carries the implicature that he does/did not want to come. On this reading, the embedded event inherits the counterfactual implicature by being in the scope of the matrix counterfactual participle. But even this does not imply that the embedded participle expresses counterfactuality. The decisive fact is that it is still possible to replace the embedded participle by an infinitive without any change in meaning. Therefore the counterfactuality of the embedded event is not derived from the participial morphology of the embedded verb in such cases, but instead from the fact that the embedded event is in the scope of a counterfactual feature in the matrix clause. The embedded participial inflection may thus be copied from the first (counterfactual) participle also in counterfactual environments, instantiating what we here call a participle copying complement. Thus, even variants that restrict participle copying complements like (20b) to counterfactual environments may exhibit semantically vacuous participles.

24 3.3.

Properties of TMA-copying and participle copying

Conclusion

TMA-copying and participle copying constructions both involve complementation structures where the embedded verb carries semantically vacuous inflection. The embedded verb agrees with the matrix verb, cf. Anward (1988) and Sells (2000). Thus, so far there are no more than the two differences illustrated in Table 2 above between the two construction types. These will be shown to follow from independent factors. We now turn to restrictions on the copy-relation itself. 4.

Copying is top-down

There are three arguments in favour of taking the relation behind copying to be top-down and not bottom-up. The first argument builds on a conclusion to be drawn in Chapter 5, where I show that the infinitival form may be copied. Consider (22) and (23). (22)

a.

Jag har försökt att läsa. I have try.PPC to read.INF b. *Jag har försöka o läsa. I have try.INF & read.INF ‘I have tried to read.’

(23)

a.

Jag har velat läsa. I have want.PPC read.INF b. *Jag har vilja läsa. I have want.INF read.INF ‘I have wanted to read.’

If inflection could be determined by the embedded verb and consequently be copied onto the matrix verb in a bottom-up fashion, we would expect to find double infinitives of the type exemplified in the b-examples above, contrary to fact.15 We have, in fact, already become familiar with semantic facts that indicate top-down directionality of copying (§3.1 above), even if the argument was not made explicit. Since we concluded that copied inflection is semantically vacuous in both TMA-copying complements and participle copying complements, the matrix clause must host the contentful (or interpretable) variety of the relevant feature. It follows that copying is top-down in the sense that the inflection is determined by the matrix verb.

Copying is top-down

25

The third argument comes from selectional restrictions. (24a) and (24b) below are minimal pairs in that the matrix verbs pröva ‘try’ and besluta ‘decide’ both select infinitival complements and nothing more than the infinitive marker intervenes between the matrix verb and the embedded verb in the two sentences. As seen in (25), however, only pröva may select a TMA-copying complement. (24)

a.

b.

(25)

Han prövade att steka en fisk. he try.PAST to fry.INF a fish ‘He tried to fry a fish.’ Han beslutade att steka en fisk. he decide.PAST to fry.INF a fish ‘He decided to fry a fish.’

a.

Han prövade o stekte en fisk. he try.PAST & fry.PAST a fish ‘He tried to fry a fish.’ b. *Han beslutade o stekte en fisk. he decide.PAST & fry.PAST a fish ‘He decided to fry a fish.’

This is an argument against a bottom-up directionality of copying. It is the nature of the matrix verb that determines the nature of the complement, and not vice versa.The same argument can be replicated for participle copying complements. Whereas låta ‘let’ and anse ‘consider’ both select (ECM-)infinitival complements (26), only the former may select a participle copying complement, cf. (27).16 (26)

a.

b.

(27)

Han hade låtit henne vara hemma själv. he had let.PPC. her be.INF home alone ‘He had let her be home alone.’ Han hade ansett henne vara vacker. he had consider.PPC. her be.INF beautiful ‘He had considered her to be beautiful.’

henne varit hemma själv. Han hade låtit he had let.PPC. her be.PPC home alone ‘He had let her be home alone.’ b. *Han hade ansett henne varit vacker. he had consider.PPC. her be.PPC beautiful ‘He had considered her to be beautiful.’

a.

26

Properties of TMA-copying and participle copying

5.

Copying is not phonological

The above contrasts are by themselves conclusive arguments against a phonological approach to copying. If the copying mechanism targeted a phonologically defined affix, we would expect copying to be possible into any type of infinitival complement. For the sake of completeness, we provide two more pieces of evidence that copying is syntactic. If copying were phonological, we would expect the verbs involved to display phonologically similar inflectional forms. Phonological similarity, however, is not required. An embedded verb with irregular or strong inflection takes on the expected form from its paradigm, and not a form that is phonologically similar to the matrix verb (P - AFX stands for phonological affix). Copying can thus not be explained by some kind of phonological affixhopping: (28)

a.

Han prövade o sprang hem. he try.PAST & run.PAST home b. *Han prövade o springde hem. he try.P-AFX & run.P-AFX home ‘He tried to run home.’

(29)

a.

Han hade vågat sprungit hem. he had dare.PPC run.PPC home b. *Han hade vågat springt hem. he had dare.P-AFX run.P-AFX home ‘He had dared to run home.’

Moreover, if copying were phonological, we would not expect the mechanism to be selective with respect to forms copied. In the following examples, passive inflection is not shared between the verbs, although the participial form is: (30)

a.

b.

Låten hade börjat o spelats. song.DEF had start.PPC & play.PPC.PASS ‘The song had started being played.’ Han hade hunnit antagits 13 gånger. he had manage-in-time.PPC accept.PPC.PASS 13 times ‘He had managed to be accepted 13 times.’

Copying is local

27

The next section provides additional evidence that copying is syntactic. Copying is subject to syntactic locality constraints. 6. 6.1.

Copying is local Relativized minimality

Syntactic locality effects are in evidence in both TMA-copying complements and participle copying complements. In multiple embeddings, either all verbs agree in inflectional morphology (a-sentences below) or all but the most embedded verb(s) (b-sentences). Long-distance copying leads to ungrammaticality; an intervening verb in infinitival form breaks the copy relation (csentences).17 (31)

a.

Jag prövade o fortsatte o gick längs stigen. I try.PAST & continue.PAST & go.PAST along path.DEF b. Jag prövade o fortsatte att gå längs stigen. I try.PAST & continue.PAST to go.INF along path.DEF c. *Jag prövade att fortsätta o gick längs stigen. I try.PAST to continue.INF & go.PAST along path.DEF d. Jag prövade att fortsätta att gå längs stigen. I try.PAST to continue.INF to go.INF along path.DEF ‘I tried to continue walking along the path.’

(32)

a.

Han hade velat hunnit kommit hit. he had want.PPC manage.PPC come.PPC here b. Han hade velat hunnit komma hit. he had want.PPC manage.PPC come.INF here kommit hit. c. *Han hade velat hinna he had want.PPC manage.INF come.PPC here d. Han hade velat hinna komma hit. he had want.PPC manage.INF come.INF here ‘He had wanted to come here.’

Notice that the conjunction-like element o may intervene between the verbs involved in TMA-copying. Thus, the locality can not correspond to a rigid Head Movement Constraint, as defined in Travis (1984). Instead it looks like a minimality condition of the Rizzian type (Rizzi 1990), relativized with respect to feature/head type (see Chapter 7 for a discussion of the complementizers o(ch) and att).

28

Properties of TMA-copying and participle copying

6.2.

Copying is island sensitive

This section investigates the configurational distribution of copying complements in Swedish in more detail. We have seen that copying of inflectional features is possible into the complement of certain verbs. To get the full picture of the distribution, we need to know whether spreading of features occurs into non-complement positions. As we will see, copying is disallowed wherever the corresponding standard infinitive shows island effects. In the examples that follow, I restrict copying to participial form for the following reasons. Apart from the imperative, the participial form is the most widely accepted form to copy. If a speaker rejects copying of participial inflection, that speaker also rejects copying of tensed forms (present and past forms), making examples of the latter sort superfluous. 6.2.1.

Non-canonical complements and adjuncts

Non-canonical direct objects – often corresponding to non-accusative case in case-languages – are frequently expressed by prepositional phrases in Swedish.18 Some of these can involve infinitives. In these cases, availability of copying goes hand in hand with ease of extraction. Where adjunct extraction is bad or deviant out of the infinitive, copying yields a bad result:19 (33)

a.

Hon hade läst om att resa incognito. she had read.PPC about to travel.INF away incognito ‘She had read about travelling incognito.’ b. *Hur hade hon läst om att resa _? how had she read.PPC about to travel.INF _? c. *Hon hade läst om o rest incognito. she had read.PPC about & travel.PPC incognito

Where adjunct extraction is possible, copying is possible: (34)

a.

Hon hade känt för att resa incognito. she had feel.PPC for to travel.INF incognito ‘She had felt like travelling incognito.’ b. Hur hade hon känt för att resa _?. how had she feel.PPC for to travel.INF _? c. ?Hon hade känt för o rest incognito. she had feel.PPC for & travel.PPC incognito

Copying is local

29

Purpose clauses pattern with (33):20 (35)

a.

Han hade kommit för att bete sig illa. he had come.PPC for to behave.INF REFL badly ‘He had come in order to behave badly’ b. *Hur hade han kommit för att bete sig _? how had he come.PPC for to behave.INF REFL _? c. *Han hade kommit för o betett sig illa. he had come.PPC for & behave.PPC REFL badly ‘He had come in order to behave badly.’

Infinitives constructed with auxiliary-adjective predicates, on the other hand, pattern with (34):21 (36)

a.

Hon hade varit rädd för att bete sig konstigt. she had be.PPC afraid for to behave.INF REFL weirdly ‘She had been afraid of behaving weirdly.’ b. Hur hade hon varit rädd för att bete sig _? how had she be.PPC afraid for to behave.INF REFL _? c. ?Hon hade varit rädd för o betett sig konstigt. she had be.PPC afraid for & behave.PPC REFL weirdly

I conclude that copying into non-canonical complement infinitivals and adjunct infinitivals is limited to cases where adjunct extraction is possible. 6.2.2.

Subject infinitivals and extraposed infinitivals

Copying into the subject position of the matrix verb yields a bad result. Verbs which allow copying into their complements rarely take infinitival subjects. But examples can be constructed with få ‘get (causative)’ and lär ‘teach’. Thus, (37b) below yields a bad result, contrasting with copying into complement position, cf. (37c).22 (37)

a.

O bo i tält hade fått’na att meditera. & live.INF in tent had get.PPC’her to meditate.INF b. *O bott i tält hade fått’na o meditera. & live.PPC in tent had get.PPC’her & meditate.INF c. O bo i tält hade fått’na o mediterat. & live.PPC in tent had get.PPC’her & meditate.PPC ‘To live in a tent had made her meditate.’

30

Properties of TMA-copying and participle copying

Copying into an extraposed position yields a better result but is less good than copying into complement position: (38)

a.

Det hade fått’na o meditera o bo i tält. EXPL had get.PPC’her & meditate.INF & live.INF in tent b. ??Det hade fått’na o meditera o bott i tält. EXPL had get.PPC’her & meditate.INF & live.PPC in tent c. Det hade fått’na o mediterat o bo i tält. EXPL had get.PPC’her & meditate.PPC & live.INF in tent ‘It had made her meditate to live in a tent.’

Again, copying and extraction go hand in hand:23 (39)

a. *Hur hade att bo _ fått’na att meditera? how had to live.INF _ get.PPC’her to meditate.INF b. ??Hur hade det fått’na att meditera att bo _? how had EXPL get.PPC’her to meditate.INF to live.INF _

6.2.3.

Subparts of complements

Copying is thus limited to (verbs inside the) complement of the predicate from which the inflection is copied. However, being ‘inside the complement’ is not enough. An infinitival subject inside the complement is unreachable for copying. An example with a matrix verb that otherwise allows copying into complement position can be constructed with the verb corresponding to causative få ‘get’. Whereas copying into the complement infinitive is possible, witness (40b), copying into the subject infinitive of the complement clause selected by the causative yields a bad result cf. (40c):24 (40)

a.

Han hade fått att röka att bli olagligt. he had get.PPC to smoke.INF to become.INF illegal

b. ?Han hade fått att röka o blivit olagligt. he had get.PPC to smoke.INF & become.PPC illegal c. *Han hade fått o rökt att bli olagligt. he had get.PPC & smoke.PPC to become.INF illegal ‘He had made to smoke to become illegal.’ The infinitival complement of an object noun is also unreachable, see (41b). Glömma ‘forget’ can otherwise copy, cf. (14a) above.25

Copying is local

(41)

a.

31

Han hade glömt rådet att åka hem. he had forget.PPC advice.DEF to go.INF home

b. *Han hade glömt rådet o åkt hem. he had forget.PPC advice.DEF & go.PPC home ‘He had forgotten the advice to go home.’ Likewise, an infinitival relative inside the object is unreachable:26 (42)

a.

Jag har hyrt en film att se ikväll. I have rent.PPC a film to see.INF tonight

b. *Jag har hyrt en film o sett ikväll. I have rent.PPC a film & see.PPC tonight ‘I have rented a movie to watch tonight.’ (43)

a.

Jag har fått en soffa att ha i köket. I have get.PPC a sofa to have.INF in kitchen.DEF

b. *Jag har fått en soffa o haft i köket. I have get.PPC a sofa & have.PPC in kitchen.DEF ‘I have got a sofa to have in the kitchen.’ There are however apparent counterexamples, brought to my attention by Marit Julien (p.c.):27 (44)

?Han hade väl inte tagit sig tid o sett efter. he had probably not take.PPC REFL time & see.PPC after ‘He had probably not taken the time to look.’

Additonal examples are: (45)

a. ?Han hade haft lust o åkt hem. he had have.PPC lust & go.PPC home ‘He had felt like going home.’ b. ?Han hade fått tillstånd o åkt hem. he had get.PPC permission & go.PPC home ‘He had got permission to go home.’

Two crucial requirements seem to be met in (44), (45a) and (45b) that are not met in examples like (41b), (42b), and (43b) above: (i) The nouns embedding the copying complement are bare, i.e. they do not involve a determiner. (ii) The matrix participles are functional or semantically "light" (have, take, get,

32

Properties of TMA-copying and participle copying

and similar verbs), a fact also reflected in prosody. I follow Delsing (1998) in analyzing the bare noun as part of the matrix predicate in these cases, thus not an argument DP. Therefore these do not constitute examples of copying into subparts of complements. On that analysis, we predict extraction out of the embedded clause in (45a) to yield a better result than extraction out of the embedded clause in (43b). This is borne out, cf. (46a) and (46b).28 I conclude that copying is island sensitive. (46)

7.

a.

Vart hade han haft lust att åka _? where had he have.PPC lust to go.INF _ b. *Var har du fått en soffa att ha _? where have you get.PPC a sofa to have.INF _

Copying survives movement

Fronting (topic or focus) of an infinitive along with its arguments is possible in Swedish, see (47a) and (47b). Fronting of a TMA-copied complement is likewise possible, with the proviso (for some speakers) that a dummy verb is inserted in the position of the trace, see (48a) and (48b). The same facts hold for participle copying complements, cf. (49). (47)

a.

b.

(48)

a.

b.

(49)

a. b.

[Skriva brev] glömde jag (att göra). write.INF letters forget.PAST I to do.INF ‘Write letters, I forgot to do.’ [Läsa] lärde jag mig (att göra) i ettan. read.INF learn.PAST I REFL to do.INF in first-grade I ‘Read, I learnt to do in first grade.’ [Skrev brev] glömde jag *(o gjorde). write.PAST letters forget.PAST I & do.PAST ‘Write letters, I forgot to do.’ [Läste] lärde jag mig *(o gjorde) i ettan. läste.PAST learn.PAST I REFL & do.PAST in first-grade ‘Read, I learnt to do in first grade.’ [Läsa] har jag kunnat (göra) sedan i ettan. read.INF have I can.PPC do.INF since in first-grade [Läst] har jag kunnat *(gjort) sedan i ettan. read.PPC have I can.PPC do.PPC since in first-grade ‘Read, I have been able to do since first-grade.’

Copying survives movement

33

Facts concerning A-movement are difficult to access since judgements here are very subtle. As far as we can test this, judgements seem to follow the general pattern described here. There are at least two relevant contexts: Infinitives under adjectives and infinitives in the context of object experiencer psych predicates. Infinitives that are arguments of adjectives (50a) pattern with object infinitives w.r.t. copying, see (50b), and extraction, cf. (51):29 (50)

a.

Det hade varit kul att springa långt. it had be.PPC fun to run.INF far b. ?Det hade varit kul o sprungit långt. it had be.PPC fun & run.PPC far ‘It had been fun to run far.’

(51)

Hur långt hade det varit kul att springa _? how far had it be.PPC fun to run.INF _

Moving the copied infinitive to the subject position of the matrix yields a more deviant structure (52b), again correlating with the bad status of extraction out of subject position (52c). (52)

a.

Att springa långt hade varit kul. to run.INF far had be.PPC fun b. ??O sprungit långt hade varit kul. & run.PPC far had be.PPC fun ‘To run far had been fun.’ c. *Hur långt hade att springa _ varit kul? how far had to run.INF _ be.PPC fun

Embedding the copy-sentences under the raising verb verka ‘seem’, does not change their grammatical status, cf. (50b) vs. (53a) and (52b) vs. (53b). Thus, A-movement of a copied verb does not cause any degradation. (53)

a. ?Det verkar ha varit kul o sprungit långt. it seem.PRES have be.PPC fun & run.PPC far ‘It seemed to have been fun to run far.’ b. ??O sprungit långt verkar ha varit kul. & run.PPC far seem.PPC ha be.PPC fun ‘To run far seemed to have been fun.’

In a similar fashion, copying in contexts with object experiencer psych predicates is possible. Relevant predicates include roa ‘amuse’, skrämma ‘scare’,

34

Properties of TMA-copying and participle copying

and glädja ‘make-happy’. Copying into extraposed position is relatively acceptable (54a), whereas copying into subject position is deviant but not impossible (54b). Thus, there is a subtle contrast between sentences like (54a) and (55a) on the one hand, and between sentences like (54b) and (55b) on the other – (54) contrasting with (55) in involving psych predicates. (54)

a. ?Det har roat många människor o bott i tält. it has amuse.PPC many people & live.PPC in tent ‘It has amused many people to live in a tent.’ b. ??O bott i tält har roat många människor. & live.PPC in tent has amuse.PPC many people ‘To live in a tent has amused many people.’

(55)

a. ??Det har dödat många människor o bott i tält. it has kill.PPC many people & live.PPC in tent b. *O bott i tält har dödat många människor. & live.PPC in tent has kill.PPC many people

If the subject of object experiencer psych-predicates in examples such as (54b) is derived, originating in the object position of the psych-verb, as proposed by Belletti and Rizzi (1988), these data follow the expected pattern. Embedding the sentences in (54) under a raising verb does not change their status, which enables us to conclude that copying survives movement. (56)

a. ?Det verkade ha roat många o bott i tält. it seem.PAST have amuse.PPC many & live.PPC in tent i tält verkade ha roat många. b. ??O bott & live.PPC in tent seem.PAST have amuse.PPC many

We have seen that inflectional heads copy in the construction types under investigation. Before we go on in Chapter 3 to investigate the class of matrix verbs involved in the construction type, we will note, for the sake of completeness, that these are the only elements that may copy. Non-head constituents like subjects (57a) or adverbs (57b) do not copy, nor do other heads like whole verbs, as in (57c) and (57d), or complementizers (57e). Thus, copying targets inflectional heads exclusively. (57)

a.

Han fortsatte [o (*han) sa sin åsikt]. he continue.PAST & he say.PAST his opinion Intended reading: ‘He continued to tell his opinion.’

Conclusion

35

b.

Han fortsatte alltid [o (*alltid) sa sin åsikt]. he continue.PAST always & always say.PAST his opinion Intended reading ‘He always continued to tell his opinion.’ c. *Han började [o började läste boken]. he start.PAST & start.PAST read.PAST book.DEF Intended reading: ‘He started reading the book.’ d. *Han har kunnat [kunnat läst boken]. he has can.PPC can.PPC read.PPC book.DEF Intended reading: ‘He has been able to read the book.’ e. ...att han hade fortsatt [*att/o sagt sin åsikt]. ...that he had continue.PPC to/& say.PPC his opinion ‘...that he had continued to tell his opinion.’ 8.

Conclusion

I have shown that some alledged differences between TMA-copying constructions and participle copying constructions do not exist. Thus, the differences between the two are limited to the presence/absence of the conjunctionlike element o and the range of forms that may copy; TMA-copying affects the full range of verbal forms, participle copying limits copying to participial form. We have seen that: – Copying constructions involve complementation. – Copied inflection is semantically vacuous. The relation behind the copying phenomenon has been identified as topdown, syntactic, and local (respects RM and strong islands).

Chapter 3 Copying and tense

The aim of this chapter is to investigate which of the verbs selecting infinitival complements are capable of selecting TMA-copying and participle-copying infinitivals. From the result of the investigation we will be able to conclude three things. First, the two construction types have one more property in common: there can be no mismatch in temporal properties between the matrix clause and a copying infinitival. In this sense, TMA-copying and participle copying infinitivals are tenseless. Secondly, the class of verbs that TMA-copy is distinct from the class of verbs that select participle copying infinitivals. Thirdly, TMA-copying infinitivals correspond to tenseless non-bare infinitivals, participle copying infinitivals to tenseless bare infinitivals in standard language. This generalization will ultimately lead to an explanation of the differences between the two construction types. 1.

Properties of infinitival complements

We have observed that copying complements have a restricted distribution in the sense that the set of verbs that may select a copying complement is limited (§4). Thus, whereas some Swedish variants, including mine, allow copying with matrix verbs such as börja ‘start’, (1b), a similar copying into the complement of besluta ‘decide’ is impossible, cf. (2b). (1)

a. b.

(2)

Han började att steka en fisk. he start.PAST to fry.INF a fish Han började o stekte en fisk. he start.PAST & fry.PAST a fish ‘He started frying a fish.’

a.

Han beslutade att resa hem. he decide.PAST to travel.INF home b. *Han beslutade o reste hem. he decide.PAST & travel.PAST home ‘He decided to go home.’

We need to determine what property of börja versus besluta creates the contrast. The literature on infinitival clauses provides a number of candidates.

38

Copying and tense

Each of the following properties have been shown to distinguish natural classes of infinitival clauses (see e.g. Wurmbrand 2001; Landau 2000, and references cited there): – Whether or not the infinitival clause can be past- or future-oriented with respect to the matrix (tensedness). – Whether or not it is propositional. – Whether or not it is factive. – Whether or not it is introduced by a complementiser/infinitival marker. – Whether it is a raising, ECM, subject-, or object control infinitive. In what follows I will introduce the the tests that distinguish infinitivals w.r.t. the above properties. I will then present the classes of infinitivals that emerge when the tests are applied to a large sample of Swedish infinitival-selecting verbs. One property, tensedness, will turn out to be the key to the contrast between verbs which license copying infinitivals and verbs which do not. 1.1. Tensedness Consider the sentences in (3) below: (3)

a. *Igår började han att steka en fisk imorgon. yesterday start.PAST he to fry.INF a fish tomorrow ‘Yesterday he started frying a fish tomorrow.’ b. Igår beslutade han att resa hem imorgon. yesterday decide.PAST he to travel.INF home tomorrow ‘Yesterday he decided to go home tomorrow.’

(3a) shows that the event referred to by an infinitival embedded under börja ‘start’ cannot be located in the future with respect to the time of the event referred to by the matrix predicate, contrasting with infinitivals embedded under besluta ‘decide’, cf. (3b). In other words, tense mismatches between the matrix and the embedded clause of the sort yesterday-tomorrow, yesterday-today, or last thursday-the day after etc. are impossible in the context of börja, but possible with besluta.30 Similarly, the event referred to by an infinitive embedded under börja cannot be located in the past with respect to the time of the event referred to by the matrix predicate:31 (4)

*Han börjar att ha stekt en fisk igår. he start.PRES to have fry.PPC a fish yesterday ‘He is starting to have fried a fish yesterday.’

Properties of infinitival complements

39

Infinitives selected by börja contrast with infinitives selected by verbs such as påstå ‘claim’ which allow this (PASS stands for passive): (5)

Han påstås ha stekt en fisk igår. he claim.PRES.PASS have fry.PPC a fish yesterday ‘He is claimed to have fried a fish yesterday.’

Notice that besluta is more restricted than påstå in that it allows only futureoriented mismatches, cf. (6), whereas the latter allows both past-oriented and future-oriented mismatches, cf. (7). (6)

(7)

*Han beslutar att ha rest hem igår. he decide.PRES to have travel.PPC home yesterday ‘He is deciding to have gone home yesterday.’ Han påstås komma hem imorgon. he claim.PRES.PASS come.INF home tomorrow ‘He is claimed to come home tomorrow.’

Infinitives that may carry temporal reference non-overlapping with the matrix will henceforth be referred to as tensed infinitives, those that may not will be referred to as tenseless infinitives.32 The term tenseless is borrowed from Stowell (1982) and Wurmbrand (2001). Tensed infinitives may thus be past- or future-oriented. This class further subdivides into independently tensed infinitivals (unselected tense) and dependently tensed infintivals (selected tense), see Landau (2004). In the former, tense is not constrained by the matrix (selected by e.g. declarative verbs like påstå ‘claim’), whereas in the latter, tense is constrained (selected by e.g. besluta ‘decide’ and factive predicates).33 We will revisit tenselessness in Chapter 8 below. 1.2.

Propositionality

If truth or falsity can be predicated of the embedded clause, independently of the matrix clause, the infinitive expresses a proposition, see Pesetsky (1992). This can be tested by attaching tags like vilket är sant ‘which is true’, vilket han gjorde ‘which he did’, etc.: (8)

a.

[Han påstås [ha stekt en fisk igår]j ]i , och he claim.PRES.PASS have fry.PPC a fish yesterday, and deti /j är sant. that is true. ‘He is claimed to have fried a fish yesterday, and that is true.’

40

Copying and tense

b.

[Han började [att steka en fisk igår]j ]i , och deti /∗ j är he start.PAST to fry.INF a fish yesterday, and that is sant. true ‘He started frying a fish yesterday, and that is true.’

Attaching the tag to (8a) allows both a reading where it modifies the whole sentence (It is true that it is claimed that...) and a reading where it modifies only the embedded infinitival (It is true that he fried the fish yesterday). Attaching the same tag to (8b) however only allows the whole-sentence reading (i.e. It is true that he started frying a fish yesterday). It is impossible to assert the truth of the embedded infinitival alone. In this sense, påstås ‘is claimed’ selects a propositional complement, whereas börja ‘start’ does not. 1.3.

Factivity

If the existence of the event expressed by the infinitival complement is presupposed, the complement expresses a fact (cf. Kiparsky and Kiparsky 1970). Factive status is evidenced by the inability of matrix negation to cancel this presupposition. Predicates that may select infinitives that arguably qualify as factive in Swedish include vara ledsen (över) ‘be sorry (about)’, vara stolt (över) ‘be proud (of)’, skämmas (över) ‘be ashamed (of)’. Both sentences below presuppose that the subject referent killed the fish yesterday. (9)

a.

b.

Han var ledsen (över) att ha dödat en fisk igår. he was sorry (over) to have kill.PPC a fish yesterday ‘He was sorry to have killed a fish yesterday.’ Han var inte ledsen (över) att ha dödat en fisk igår. he was not sorry (over) to have kill.PPC a fish yesterday ‘He was not sorry to have killed a fish yesterday.’

The above sentences differ from (10a) and (10b) below involving the verb börja ‘start’, which does not presuppose the the existence of the complement event. As a consequence, the existence of the embedded event is sensitive to matrix assertion/negation. Whereas (10a) implies that the subject referent did some book-reading, (10b) implies that he did not read anything in the book at the relevant time. (10)

a.

Han började att läsa boken. he start.PAST to read.INF book.DEF ‘He started reading the book.’

Properties of infinitival complements

b.

41

Han började inte att läsa boken. he start.PAST not to read.INF book.DEF ‘He did not start reading the book.’

In this sense, vara ledsen (över) ‘be sorry (about)’ selects a factive complement, whereas börja ‘start’ does not. 1.4.

Raising, ECM, subject-, object control

Two tests to distinguish raising from control are the presence or absence of selectional restrictions imposed by the matrix verb, and the possibility of splitting idioms. By these tests, verka ‘seem’ is a raising verb while besluta ‘decide’ is a subject control verb: (11)

a.

Boken verkade ramla ner. book.DEF seem.PAST fall.INF down ‘The book seemed to fall down.’ b. *Boken beslutade att ramla ner. book.DEF decide.PAST to fall.INF down

(12)

a.

(13)

a.

Måttet verkade vara rågat. measure.DEF seem.PAST be.INF full I. (lit.) ‘The measure seemed to be full.’ II. (idiom.) ‘They seemed to have had enough.’ b. *Måttet beslutade att vara rågat. measure.DEF decide.PAST to be.INF full In mine and other variants of Swedish, some verbs which are control verbs by the diagnostics above still allow expletive constructions, see (13a). Notice that the animacy restriction on the expletive-associate remains, cf. (13b) (see also Holmberg 2002). I restrict the term raising to those verbs that pass the animacy and idiom tests and will refer to verbs like försöka ‘try’ as control verbs. Det försökte komma in någon i källaren. EXPL try.PAST come.INF in somebody in basement.DEF ‘Somebody tried to enter the basement.’ b. *Det försökte komma in vatten i källaren. EXPL try.PAST come.INF in water in basement.DEF

To distinguish ECM-verbs from object control verbs either the idiom-test or the expletive test can be used. Thus, whereas anse ‘consider’ is an ECM-verb,

42

Copying and tense

witness (14a), övertala ‘persuade’ is an object control verb, which means that idiom splitting is impossible. (14)

1.5.

a.

Hon ansåg måttet vara rågat. she consider.PAST measure.DEF be.INF full I. (lit.) ‘She considered the measure full.’ II. (idiom.) ‘She considered the situation untenable.’ b. *Hon övertalade måttet att vara rågat. she persuade.PAST measure.DEF to be full

Non-bare vs. bare infinitivals

Infinitivals in Swedish are either non-bare (introduced by an infinitival marker) or bare (not introduced by an infinitival marker). This dichotomy is orthogonal to the partition tensed vs. tenseless infinitives. Tensed infinitives, as well as tenseless infinitives, can be non-bare or bare: (15)

a.

b.

c.

d.

Igår beslutade han (att) resa hem imorgon. yesterday decide.PAST he to travel.INF home tomorrow ‘Yesterday he decided to go home tomorrow.’ Han påstods (*att) ha kommit hem i fredags. he claim.PAST.PASS to have come.PPC home in Friday ‘He was claimed to have come home last Friday.’ Han glömde (att) skriva brevet. he forget.PAST to write.INF letter.DEF ‘He forgot to write the letter.’ Hon hade låtit honom (*att) kyssa henne. she had let.PPC him to kiss.INF her ‘She had let him kiss her.

Table 3. Infinitives

Non-bare Bare

Tensed (15a) (15b)

Tenseless (15c) (15d)

Notice that by bare infinitives, I refer to infinitives where the infinitival marker is ungrammatical and not simply phonologically null as in contexts like e.g. (15c) where the marker is optional in my variant. Thus, if the infinitival

Infinitivals in Swedish

43

marker can be inserted, the infinitive counts as non-bare even if the marker need not be spelled out in some contexts. If it cannot be inserted, the infinitive counts as bare. In the next section we examine which of the above properties (if any) correlates with copying. 2.

Infinitivals in Swedish

The present section presents the result of investigating a sample of more than 80 infinitive-selecting verbs and their complements in Swedish with respect to the properties described above. We arrive at 16 classes of infinitivals, each one of which is described below. The classes are named after one prototypical verb selecting the relevant infinitive. For each class, we examine whether the relevant matrix verbs are compatible with a copying infinitival or not, and if so, whether they may select a TMA-copying infinitival or a participle copying infinitival.34 The primary variant investigated here is my own (Jämtland), other variants consulted mainly from Jämtland and Västerbotten. Two pieces of additional information are noteworthy. Firstly, copying infinitivals are subject to some inter-speaker variation, an issue that lies outside the scope of the present work. Thus, there is variation regarding the class of verbs that allow copying and some speakers are more restricted than others with respect to number of forms copied. The latter phenomenon, I will refer to as partial copying (see §5.3 below). The overall pattern, however, remains the same across speakers and therefore I abstract away from fine-grained differences here. Secondly, even (self-described) non-copy speakers of Swedish have some intuitions on copying. Several of the contrasts found here have been confirmed also by speakers that report not making use of copying infinitivals in their language. This section presents 14 out of the 16 classes of the infinitivals identified, a description of the remaining two being deferred until §5 below. Space does not allow me to illustrate all properties described in the above section for each of these infinitives. Examples from each class will mainly be restricted to data determining whether copying is possible or not in the relevant type, other properties being illustrated in table format (Tables 4 and 5). I will use of the following labels for the properties introduced above: F EATURE LABELS: Tns: Tensed infinitive Prop: Propositional infinitive

44

Copying and tense

Fact: Factive infinitive Rais: Raising ECM: Exceptional Case Marking SuC: Subject Control ObC: Object Control B: Bare infinitive Copy: Copying infinitival PPC: (Past) participle copying TMA: TMA-copying

2.1.

The påstå/anse class [+Tns, +Prop, −Su/ObC, +B]

Verbs that select propositional infinitivals divide into two subclasses. One class, the påstå ‘claim’ class, only select an infinitival when the subject of the infinitival is a trace. This happens either when the main verb is a passive and the subject of the infinitival raises (cf. Pesetsky 1992; Teleman et al. 1999: III: 575ff.), (16b), or (marginally) when the main verb is active but the subject of the infinitival has been wh-moved or topicalised (cf. Pesetsky 1992; Kayne 1984), (16c). In the former case, these verbs instantiate a raising configuration; in the latter case, an ECM configuration. However, they are neither fully raising verbs, since they disallow raising in the active form, nor fully ECM verbs, since they disallow ECM if the subject does not move, (16a) (to indicate this, the relevant columns in Table 4 and 5 below have a parenthesised ‘+’). (16)

a. *Du påstår henne vara intelligent. you claim.PRES her be.INF intelligent ‘You claim her to be intelligent’ b. Han påstås ha stekt en fisk igår. he claim.PRES.PASS have fry.PPC a fish yesterday ‘He is claimed to have fried a fish yesterday.’ c. ?Vem påstår du vara intelligent? who claim.PRES you be.INF intelligent ‘Who do you claim to be intelligent?’

In addition to påstå, the class includes anta ‘assume’, bedyra ‘avow’, försäkra ‘assure’, misstänka ‘suspect’, säga ‘say’, and tro ‘believe’. A subset of these verbs may also select an infinitive if used reflexively:

Infinitivals in Swedish

(17)

45

Han påstod sig vara intelligent. he claim.PAST REFL be.INF intelligent ‘He claimed to be intelligent.’

The other class of verbs that select a propositional infinitive take ECM complements. Anse ‘consider’ and bedöma ‘judge’ belong to this class:35 (18)

De hade ansett honom vara oartig. they had consider.PPC. him be.INF impolite ‘They had considered him to be impolite.’

No verbs of the påstå/anse class select copying infinitivals in the variants consulted:36 , 37 (19)

a.

Han påstods springa snabbt. he claim.PAST.PASS run.INF fast b. *Han påstods sprang snabbt. he claim.PAST run.PAST fast ‘he was claimed to run fast.’

(20)

a.

(21)

a.

Tro dig vara vacker och du blir believe.IMP REFL be.INF beautiful and you become.PRES vacker! beautiful b. *Tro dig var vacker och du blir believe.IMP REFL be.IMP beautiful and you become.PRES vacker! beautiful ‘Believe yourself to be beautiful and you become beautiful! De hade ansett honom bli oartig. they had consider.PPC. him become.INF impolite b. *De hade ansett honom blivit oartig. they had consider.PPC. him become.PPC impolite ‘They had considered him to become inpolite.

Since these two classes are very similar, we can conclude little as to what correlates with copying. We do however have a first hint that ECM and raising are not correlated with copying, since the two classes differ both with their capacity to raise and to ECM while not differing in copying.

46 2.2.

Copying and tense

The skämmas över class [+Tns, +Fact, +SuC, −B]

Vara ledsen (över) ‘be sorry (about)’, vara stolt (över) ‘be proud (of)’, skämmas (över) ‘be ashamed (of)’ and similar expressions may select infinitives that arguably qualify as factive in Swedish. These are tensed, subject-control, and non-bare: (22)

a.

b.

Han var ledsen över att såra dig (*på fredag). he be.PAST sorry over to hurt.INF you next Friday ‘He was sorry to hurt you (*next Friday).’ Han är ledsen över att ha sårat dig igår. he be.PRES sorry over to have hurt.PPC you yesterday ‘He is sorry to have hurt you yesterday.’

They do not support copying:38 (23)

a.

Han var ledsen över att mista jobbet. he be.PAST sorry over to lose.INF job.DEF b. *Han var ledsen över o miste jobbet. he be.PAST sorry over & lose.PAST job.DEF ‘He was sorry to lose his job.’

(24)

a.

(25)

a.

Var stolt över att komma först! be.IMP proud over to come.INF first b. *Var stolt över o kom först! be.IMP proud over & come.IMP first ‘Be proud of arriving first.’ Han hade skämts över att ge upp. he had be-ashame.PPC over to give.INF up b. *Han hade skämts över o gett upp. he had be-ashame.PPC over & give.PPC up ‘He had been ashamed about giving up.’

Interestingly, this small sample already gives us minimal pairs with respect to almost every property: none of these verbs copy, but they vary in propositionality, factivity, raising, ECM, control and necessity of an overt complementizer. The only aspect they all share is their being tensed.

Infinitivals in Swedish

2.3.

47

The förvänta class [+Tns, −Prop, −Fact, −Su/ObC, +B]

The verbs förvänta ‘expect’ and befara ‘fear’ are like påstå ‘claim’ in that they only select an infinitive if passivized, or in active form if the subject of the infinitive is fronted. In addition, förvänta may do so if the verb is used reflexively. They differ from verbs from the påstå-class in selecting futureoriented bare infinitives. Copying is ungrammatical:39 (26)

a.

Han förväntar sig att kunna komma nästa vecka. he expect.PRES REFL to can.INF come.INF next week b. *Han förväntar sig o kan komma nästa vecka he expect.PRES REFL & can.PRES come.INF next week ‘He expects to be able to come next week.’

(27)

a.

(28)

a.

Förvänta dig att höra från honom nästa vecka! expect.IMP REFL to hear.INF from him next week b. *Förvänta dig o hör från honom nästa vecka! expect.IMP REFL & hear.IMP from him next week ‘Expect to hear from him next week! Han hade förväntats komma hem nästa vecka. he had expect.PPC.PASS come.INF home next week b. *Han hade förväntats kommit hem nästa vecka. he had expect.PPC.PASS come.PPC home next week ‘He had been expected to come home next week.’

This new information enables us to discard the [+/−Prop] distinction among tensed infinitives as a predictor for copying. A limited set of Swedish and Norwegian variants display what we will refer to as partial copying with verbs selecting future-oriented complements. For these speakers copying of imperative and/or participial form is possible or marginally possible with the above verbs and/or with some of the verbs from the besluta class and the övertala class presented below. A discussion of these variants is postponed to §5.3 below. 2.4.

The besluta class [+Tns, −Prop, −Fact, +SuC, −B]

Besluta ‘decide’ selects a non-bare, future-oriented infinitive, where the understood subject is controlled by the matrix subject. Other verbs that belong to the same class include avse ‘intend’, planera ‘plan’, kräva ‘require’, lova

48

Copying and tense

‘promise’, hota med ‘threaten’, riskera ‘risk’, svära ‘swear’, and överväga ‘consider’.40 Copying is ungrammatical with these:41 (29)

a.

(30)

a.

(31)

a.

2.5.

Han överväger att skriva brevet nästa vecka. he consider.PRES to write.INF letter.DEF next week b. *Han överväger o skriver brevet nästa vecka. he consider.PRES & write.PRES letter.DEF next week ‘He considers writing the letter next week.’ Besluta (dig för) att komma hem nästa vecka! decide.IMP (REFL for) to come.INF home next week b. *Besluta (dig för) o kom hem nästa vecka! decide.IMP (REFL for) & come.IMP home next week ‘Make a decision to come home next week.’ Han hade svurit att komma nästa vecka. he had swear.PPC to come.INF next week b. *Han hade svurit o kommit nästa vecka. he had swore.PPC & come.PPC next week ‘He had sworn to come next week.’

The övertala class [+Tns, −Prop, −Fact, +ObC, −B]

Övertala ‘persuade’ patterns with besluta ‘decide’ above in selecting a futureoriented non-bare infinitive. It differs from besluta in that the understood subject is controlled, not by the matrix subject, but by the matrix object. Other verbs in the same class are be ‘ask’, befalla ‘order’, rekommendera ‘recommend’, säga till/åt ‘tell’, uppmuntra ‘encourage’, erbjuda ‘offer’, and uppmana ‘request’, ‘urge’.42 An object control reading is also possible with lova ‘promise’ when certain modals are present in the complement. The verbs in this class do not allow copying: (32)

a.

Han övertalade henne att komma nästa vecka. he persuade.PAST her to come.INF next week b. *Han övertalade henne o kom nästa vecka. he persuade.PAST her & come.PAST next week ‘He persuaded her to come next week.’

(33)

a.

Befall henne att skriva på imorgon! order.IMP her to write.INF on tomorrow

Infinitivals in Swedish

49

b. *Befall henne o skriv på imorgon! order.IMP her & write.IMP on tomorrow ‘Order her to sign tomorrow!’ (34)

a.

Han hade uppmuntrat henne att komma nästa vecka. he had persuade.PPC her to come.INF next week b. *Han hade uppmuntrat henne o kommit nästa vecka. he had persuade.PPC her & come.PPC next week ’He had persuaded her to come next week.’

We are now in a position to conclude that copying seems insensitive to the distinction between subject and object control. Table 4 below illustrates the classes arrived at so far. Table 4. Tensed infinitives

påstå claim anse consider skämmas ashamed förvänta expect besluta decide övertala persuade

2.6.

Copy

Tns

Prop

Fact

Rais

ECM

Su C

ObC

B

− − − − − −

+ + + + + +

+ + − − − −

− − + − − −

(+) − − (+) − −

(+) + − (+) − −

− − + − + −

− − − − − +

+ + − + − −

The sluta/kunna class [−Tns, +Rais, +/−B]

Raising verbs such as sluta ‘stop’ are the first verbs that select tenseless complements in this overview: (35)

a.

Jag slutade att spela (*imorgon). I stop.PAST to play.INF tomorrow ‘I stopped playing (*tomorrow).’ b. *Jag slutar att ha spelat igår. I stop.PRES to have play.PPC yesterday ‘I stop to have played yesterday.’

This (large) set of verbs divides into two subclasses, those that never have an infinitive marker in the infinitival (bare), and those that can have such a marker (non-bare). The non-bare subclass contains aspectual verbs such as sluta ‘stop’, börja ‘start’, fortsätta ‘continue’, hålla på lit. ‘hold on’ (yield-

50

Copying and tense

ing either a progressive reading, or a reading corresponding to nearly doing something), sätta igång lit. ‘set in-motion’ (yielding an ingressive reading closely corresponding to start), vara på väg lit. ‘be on way’ (yielding a reading corresponding to be about to), and raising hota ‘threaten’. This class of verbs is by far the most commonly accepted one to embed TMA-copying infinitivals.43 Thus, the full range of forms may be copied, illustrated by the past, the imperative, and the participial form below:44 (36)

a. b.

(37)

a. b.

(38)

a. b.

Jag fortsatte att skriva brev till henne. I continue.PAST to write.INF letters to her Jag fortsatte o skrev brev till henne. I continue.PAST & write.PAST letters to her ‘I contined to write letters to her.’ Börja att läsa! Start.IMP to read.INF Börja o läs! Start.IMP & read.IMP ‘Start reading!’ Jag hade hållit på att skriva till henne i två dar. I had hold.PPC on to write.INF to her in two days Jag hade hållit på o skrivit till henne i två dar. I had hold.PPC on & write.PPC to her in two days ‘I had been writing to her for two days.’

The second class of raising verbs selecting tenseless infinitivals contrasts with the sluta-class above in selecting bare infinitives. The class contains modal and evidential verbs such as måsta ‘must’, kunna ‘can’, böra ‘ought’ (on both root and epistemic readings), lär expressing hearsay evidentiality,45 behöva ‘need’, ska ‘shall’/‘will’, komma lit. ‘come’ (meaning will), råka ‘happen’, verka ‘seem’, and förefalla ‘appear’.46 The aspectual verb bruka ‘be in the habit of’ also belongs to this class. (39)

a.

b.

Han brukade läsa tidningen (*imorgon) he use.PAST read.INF newspaper.DEF tomorrow ‘He used to read the newspaper (*tomorrow) Han brukar ha läst tidningen (*igår) he use.PRES have read.PPC newspaper.DEF yesterday ‘Usually he has read the paper (*yesterday).’

Infinitivals in Swedish

51

An example like (40) may appear to cast doubt on the classification of modals as selecting tenseless infinitivals. (40)

Han borde skriva ett brev imorgon. he ought.PAST write.INF a letter tomorrow ‘He ought to write a letter tomorrow

However, the “past” form of borde is not a form expressing a temporal relation but a form that serves to express modality. Insertion of a mismatching temporal adverb in the matrix results in ungrammaticality. (41)

*Igår borde han skriva ett brev imorgon. yesterday ought.PAST he write.INF a letter tomorrow

More problematic appear examples like (42a), where adding a temporal adverb does not lead to ungrammaticality; (42b) is acceptable, although pragmatically restricted. (42)

a.

Han kunde resa imorgon. he can.PAST travel.INF tomorrow ‘He could travel tomorrow.’ b. #Igår kunde han resa imorgon. yesterday can.PAST he travel.INF tomorrow

The pragmatic restriction on (42b) is that the context must support adding an understood speech event (or other attitudinal event) which took place yesterday.47 (42b) when acceptable is thus equivalent to (43) (or a similar sentence with a reporting event in the matrix). It is this reporting event which is located by the adverb igår ‘yesterday’. The apparent mismatch in (42b) is between a (covert) reporting event and the reported fact, not between the overt matrix and its complement.48 (43)

Igår sade han att han kunde resa imorgon. yesterday say.PAST he that he can.PAST travel tomorrow ‘Yesterday he said that he could travel tomorrow.’

Epistemic modals differ from root modals in being capable of selecting what appears to be past-oriented infinitivals, see (44). This is also true in English and Dutch (Jan-Wouter Zwart, p.c.). In this case, the matrix clause does not tolerate the addition of a temporal adverbial, cf. (45)

52 (44)

(45)

Copying and tense

Jag måste ha sovit igår. I must have sleep.PPC yesterday ‘I must have been asleep yesterday.’ *Idag måste jag ha sovit igår. today must I have sleep.PPC yesterday

However, tense may still be included within the complement of the modal, if epistemic modals are merged above tense, cf. Cinque (1999). Although epistemic modals will not be discussed separately in the discussion that follows, the important point – for the predictions that we will make concerning copying – is that there is just one tense, shared between the modal and the infinitival. Most Swedish modals can occur with proper expletives, weather-it, and idiomatic subjects on both epistemic and root readings, see Eide and Nordgård (2000) and Eide (2006) for discussion of Norwegian modals. As opposed to English modals, most Scandinavian modals have participial and infinitival forms. The notable exceptions in Swedish are: – ska ‘shall’/‘will’), which in present-day Swedish is used in the finite forms alone (present and preterite).49 – komma lit. ‘come’ (meaning will), which is restricted to present form when expressing the future (cf. Christensen 1997). – lär expressing hearsay evidentiality, restricted to the present form. Copying of participial form is possible – in fact very common – with these verbs. Imperative copying is impossible to test since these verbs lack imperative forms in their paradigms. Present and past forms, however, do not copy. The relevant verbs therefore select participle copying infinitivals:50 (46)

a.

Han kunde skriva. he can.PAST write.INF b. *Han kunde skrev. he can.PAST write.PAST ‘He knew how to write.’

(47)

a.

Han hade kunnat läsa. he had can.PPC read.INF

Infinitivals in Swedish

b.

(48)

a.

(49)

a.

53

Han hade kunnat läst. he had can.PPC read.PPC ‘He had been able to read.’

Han verkade bli sjuk. he seem.PAST become.INF ill b. *Han verkade blev sjuk. he seem.PAST become.PAST ill ‘He seemed to become ill.’

b.

Han har länge verkat vara sjuk. he has long seem.PPC be.INF ill Han har länge verkat varit sjuk. he has long seem.PPC be.PPC ill ‘For a long time he has seemed to be ill.’

This (sub)class thus contrasts minimally with the non-bare raising verbs of the preceding section, showing that the bare/non-bare distinction is not a predictor of the possibility of copying. On the other hand, we now see a correlation emerging in the sense that all +Tns verb classes investigated so far disallow copying, while the present −Tns class may select copying infinitivals. The following section will strengthen this correlation. If copying can only take place with verbs selecting tenseless infinitivals, we may ask whether the raising/ECM/control distinction still plays a role in that context in the variants investigated. The following sections introduces ECM-verbs and subject/object control verbs that select tenseless infinitivals.

2.7.

The få/låta class [−Tns, +ECM, +/−B]

Two verbs, the causative version of få ‘get’ and the verb låta ‘let’, select tenseless ECM infinitives. They differ in that the complement of få is introduced by a complementiser, whereas låta requires a bare infinitive. Copying is possible with both verbs. We may thus discard ECM as relevant to copying. They differ, however, in that få selects a TMA-copying infinitival (tense copying is marginally possible), whereas copying with låta is restricted to participial form: (50)

a.

Jag hade fått henne att skriva på kontraktet. I had get.PPC her to write.INF on contract

54

Copying and tense

b.

(51)

a.

(52)

a.

(53)

a.

(54)

a.

Jag fick henne att skriva på kontraktet. I get.PAST her to write.INF on contract b. ?Jag fick henne o skrev på kontraktet. I get.PAST her & write.PAST on contract ‘I made her sign the contract.’ Låt det ligga blommor där! let.IMP EXPL lie.INF flower.PL there b. *Låt det ligg blommor där! let.IMP EXPL lie.IMP flower.PL there ‘Let there be flowers there.’ Jag lät det komma fem personer. I let.PAST EXPL come.INF five person.PL b. *Jag lät det kom fem personer. I let.PAST EXPL come.PAST five person.PL ‘I let five persons come.’

b.

2.8.

Jag hade fått henne o skrivit på kontraktet. I had get.PPC her & write.PPC on contract ‘I had made her sign the contract.’

Jag hade låtit det komma fem personer. I had let.PPC EXPL come.INF five person.PL Jag hade låtit det kommit fem personer. I had let.PPC EXPL come.PPC five person.PL ‘I had let five persons come.’

The glömma/töras class [−Tns, +SuC, +/−B]

Tenseless subject-control infinitives again divide into two minimally differing subclasses: non-bare and bare. The non-bare version is selected by verbs such as glömma ‘forget’, strunta i ‘not bother about’, undvika ‘avoid’, pröva ‘try’, försöka ‘try’, låta bli lit. ‘let be’ (i.e. refrain from), komma ihåg ‘remember’, hinna med ‘manage (timewise)’, lära sig ‘learn’, passa på ‘take the opportunity’, skynda sig ‘hurry’, inte bry sig om ‘not care about’, ägna sig åt ‘devote oneself to’, rå med ‘cope with, manage (energy-wise)’, and finally vägra ‘refuse’ and välja ‘choose’ on one use.51 Copying of all forms is possible:

Infinitivals in Swedish

(55)

a. b.

(56)

a. b.

(57)

a. b.

(58)

a. b.

(59)

a. b.

55

Jag glömde att skriva brevet. I forget.PAST to write.INF letter.DEF Jag glömde o skrev brevet. I forget.PAST & write.PAST letter.DEF ‘I forgot to write the letter.’ Vi struntar i att gå dit. We bother-not.PRES to go.INF there Vi struntar i o går dit. We bother-not.PRES & go.PRES there ‘We don’t bother to go there.’ Vi försökte att gå dit. We try.PAST to go.INF there Vi försökte o gick dit. We try.PAST & go.PAST there ‘We tried to go there.’ Skynda dig att skriva! hurry.IMP REFL to write.INF Skynda dig o skriv! hurry.IMP REFL & write.IMP ‘Hurry to write!’ Jag hade undvikit att ringa henne. I had avoid.PPC to call.INF her Jag hade undvikit o ringt henne. I had avoid.PPC & call.PPC her ‘I had avoided to call her.’

Töras ‘dare’, and få lit. ‘get’ (be allowed) are also subject-control verbs selecting tenseless infinitives but they select bare complements. Again, this makes no difference to copying, which is possible, albeit limited to participial form. The relevant verbs may thus select participle copying infinitivals:52 (60)

a.

Jag fick läsa boken. I get.PAST read.INF book.DEF b. *Jag fick läste boken. I get.PAST read.PAST book.DEF ‘I was allowed to read the book.’

56

Copying and tense

(61)

a.

Få läsa boken! get.IMP read.INF book.DEF b. *Få läs boken! get.IMP read.IMP book.DEF ‘Let me read the book!’

(62)

a. b.

Jag hade fått läsa boken. I had get.PPC read.INF book.DEF Jag hade fått läst boken. I had get.PPC read.PPC book.DEF ‘I had been allowed to read the book.’

At this point we may conclude that the distinction between raising/ECM and subject control is irrelevant for copying. Raising verbs, ECM-verbs, and subject control verbs all allow copying (as long as their complements are tenseless). 2.9.

The hjälpa/låta class [−Tns, +ObC, +/−B]

Finally, tenseless object-control infinitives follow a similar pattern. They subdivide into non-bare and bare, with both subclasses allowing copying. Verbs selecting non-bare infinitivals include hjälpa ‘help’, tvinga ‘force’, and lära ‘teach’. These are compatible with TMA-copying: (63)

a. b.

(64)

a. b.

(65)

a. b.

Jag hjälpte henne att komma hem. I help.PAST her to come.INF home Jag hjälpte henne o kom hem. I help.PAST her & come.PAST home ‘I helped her to come home.’ Jag tvingar henne att köpa bananer. I force.PRES her to buy.INF bananas Jag tvingar henne o köper bananer. I force.PRES her & buy.PRES bananas ‘I force her to buy bananas.’ Tvinga henne att köpa bananer! force.IMP her to buy.INF bananas Tvinga henne o köp bananer! force.IMP her & buy.IMP bananas ‘Force her to buy bananas!’

Copying is restricted to tenseless infinitivals

(66)

a. b.

57

Jag hade lärt henne att skriva. I had teach.PPC her to write.INF Jag hade lärt henne o skrivit. I had teach.PPC her & write.PPC ‘I had taught her how to write.’

Låta lit. ‘let’ (meaning allow) contrasts with the above class, in two respects. It selects a bare infinitive and copying is restricted to participial form: (67)

a.

Jag lät henne köpa bananer. I let.PAST her buy.INF bananas b. *Jag lät henne köpte bananer. I let.PAST her buy.PAST bananas ‘I allowed her to buy bananas.’

(68)

a.

(69)

a.

Låt henne köpa bananer! let.IMP her buy.INF bananas b. *Låt henne köp bananer! let.IMP her buy.IMP bananas ‘Allow her to buy bananas!’

b.

Jag hade låtit henne köpa bananer. I had let.PPC her buy.INF bananas Jag hade låtit henne köpt bananer. I had let.PPC her buy.PPC bananas ‘I had allowed her buy bananas.’

We are now in a position to consider object control along with raising, subjectcontrol, and ECM as irrelevant to the “copy mechanism” in the variants investigated. 3.

Copying is restricted to tenseless infinitivals

At this point a clear generalization emerges. As can be seen from table 5 below, the Copy property (for the verb classes investigated thus far) goes hand in hand with the Tns property, in that verbs that select tensed infinitivals do not generally occur with copying infinitivals, whereas verbs selecting tenseless infinitivals do in the variants investigated. No other property comes close to this match: the raising/ECM/control status of infinitivals is clearly irrelevant as counterexamples exist in all directions (ie. ECM covers both verbs which do copy (få) and verbs which don’t (anse); within copying verbs, some

58

Copying and tense

are ECM some not (eg. få versus glömma); and likewise within non-copying verbs (anse versus besluta). The same holds for the bare/non-bare distinction. Finally, while propositional and factive verbs disallow copying, these classes are in fact subclasses of the class [+Tns]. Table 5. Tensed vs. tenseless infinitivals

påstå claim anse consider skämmas ashamed förvänta expect besluta decide övertala persuade sluta stop kunna can få get (causative) låta let glömma forget töras dare hjälpa help låta allow

Copy

Tns

Prop

Fact

Rais

ECM

Su C

ObC

B

− − − − − − TMA PPC TMA PPC TMA PPC TMA PPC

+ + + + + + − − − − − − − −

+ + − − − − − − − − − − − −

− − + − − − − − − − − − − −

(+) − − (+) − − + + − − − − − −

(+) + − (+) − − − − + + − − − −

− − + − + − − − − − + + − −

− − − − − + − − − − − − + +

+ + − + − − − + − + − + − +

Apart from the correlation between absence of tense and presence of copying, an additional piece of information that is relevant to us can be retrieved from the table. Within the classes of verbs that select copying complements, the choice between TMA-copying and PPC-copying is fully correlated with the Bare/Non-bare distinction, in that verbs that are [−Tns, −B] TMA-copy, while [−Tns, +B] verbs restrict copying to the participial form.53 This information will ultimately lead us to explain the two differences between TMAcopying complements and participle copying complements. This table also reveals other intriguing patterns, which we will not be concerned with here. For instance, the tenseless classes contrast with the tensed classes in being very regular, cleanly subdividing into raising, ECM, SC, OC and then subdividing into bare and non-bare. Secondly, all (two) tenseless ECM verbs are causatives verbs. Two classes are not discussed yet and thus missing in the table. One class (desideratives) appears to select a future-oriented infinitival, yet allows copying, the other class (perception verbs) selects a tenseless infinitival, yet disal-

Predictions

59

lows copying. I defer a discussion of these until §5 below. Disregarding – for the moment being – apparent exceptions to the general pattern, we may conclude that TMA-copying infinitivals and participle copying infinitivals again display identical effects; both seem sensitive to the tense of the complement clause into which copying takes place.

4.

Predictions

We are now in a position to make predictions about cases involving matrix verbs with multiple subcategorization frames. For a speaker who accepts copying under such verbs, copying should be fine when the verb selects a tenseless infinitival and bad when the verb selects a tensed infinitival. There are quite a few such verbs in Swedish. Pröva and försöka ‘try’ and the two causative verbs tvinga ‘force’ and få ‘get’ typically select tenseless infinitivals but can appear with future-oriented infinitivals on particular readings for some speakers (including me). The verb try to X on a future-oriented reading corresponds to something like try to make (unspecified) arrangements so as to make X happen or try to get permission to do X:54 (70)

Jag prövade att komma hem (nästa vecka). I try.PAST to come.INF home (next week) ‘I tried to (make arrangements to) come home (next week).’

The combination of a causative verb and a future-oriented infinitive yields a reading corresponding to something like cause somebody to agree to do something (at a later time): (71)

Jag fick henne att sitta barnvakt (nästa vecka). I get.PAST her to sit.INF babywatch (next week) ‘I made her (agree to) babysit (next week).’

(72)

Jag tvingade henne att skriva på (nästa vecka). I force.PAST her to sign.INF on (next week) ‘I forced her to (agree to) sign (next week).’

The prediction that the copying capacity is lost when the infinitival becomes tensed is borne out. Copying is fine in the tenseless, but bad in the tensed infinitivals, as evidenced by the impossibility of inserting a future-oriented adverbial in a TMA-copying infinitival under these verbs:

60 (73)

Copying and tense

a.

Jag prövade o kom hem (*nästa vecka). I try.PAST & come.PAST home (next week) b. ?Jag fick henne o satt barnvakt (*nästa vecka). I get.PAST her & sit.PAST babywatch (next week) c. Jag tvingade henne o skrev på (*nästa vecka). I force.PAST her & sign.PAST on (next week)

Note that the future-oriented readings are unavailable in the absence of the adverbials. Similar contrasts are found with the verbs vägra ‘refuse’ and välja ‘choose’ that may select future-oriented infinitivals on certain uses: (74)

Jag vägrade att skriva på (nästa vecka). I refuse.PAST to sign.INF on (next week) ‘I refused to (agree to) sign (next week).’

Whereas copying is marginally possible in the tenseless infinitival, copying leads to ungrammaticality in the tensed infinitival: (75)

?Jag vägrade o skrev på (*nästa vecka). I refuse.PAST & sign.PAST on (next week) ‘I refused to (agree to) sign (next week).’

The tense generalisation also predicts a contrast in spreading of inflection in multiple embeddings. Given a configuration such as (76), where both V1 and V2 select an infinitival complement, and V1 selects a tenseless infinitival, we predict that there will be a contrast in copying depending on the nature of V2: (76)

. . . V1 [infin, . . . V2 [infin . . . V3 . . . ]]

If V2 selects a tenseless infinitival, copying may spread all the way down to V3; if on the other hand V2 selects a tensed infinitival, spreading will be interrupted and will only reach V2. This prediction is correct. (77) involves the verb sluta ‘stop’, embedding an infinitival headed by råda ‘advice’, in turn embedding an infinitival headed by gå ‘go’. Whereas sluta selects a tenseless infinitival, the intermediate verb råda selects a tensed infinitival. As predicted, copying does not reach V3, only V2, cf. (77b) and (77c).55 (77)

a.

Han slutade [att råda henne [att gå till kyrkan]]. he stop.PAST to advice.INF her to go.INF to church

Apparent counterexamples

61

b. *Han slutade [o rådde henne [o gick till kyrkan]]. he stop.PAST & advice.PAST her & go.PAST to church c. Han slutade [o rådde henne [att gå till kyrkan]]. he stop.PAST & advice.PAST her to go.INF to church d. *Han slutade [att råda henne [o gick till kyrkan]]. he stop.PAST to advice.INF her & go.PAST to church ‘He stopped advicing her to go to church.’ (78) differs from (77) in that the intermediate verb (V2) selects a tenseless infinitival. As predicted, copying may spread all the way down to the most embeded verb (V3), see (78b). (78)

a.

Han slutade [att hjälpa henne [att gå till kyrkan]]. he stop.PAST to help.INF her to go.INF to church b. Han slutade [o hjälpte henne [o gick till kyrkan]]. he stop.PAST & help.PAST her & go.PAST to church c. Han slutade [o hjälpte henne [att gå till kyrkan]]. he stop.PAST & help.PAST her to go.INF to church d. *Han slutade [att hjälpa henne [o gick till kyrkan]]. he stop.PAST to help.INF her & go.PAST to church ‘He stopped helping her to go to church.’

These facts conform to our expectations based on the hypothesis that copying is restricted to tenseless infinitivals. Below, I introduce the prima facie counterexamples to this hypothesis. 5.

Apparent counterexamples

Two classes, not discussed yet, constitute exceptions to the general pattern. One class (desideratives) selects a future-oriented infinitival, yet allows copying, the other class (perception verbs) selects a tenseless infinitival, yet disallows copying. I present the two in turn below, followed by an introduction to the phenomenon of partial copying. These three classes of exceptions will all be accounted for in Chapter 4. 5.1.

Desideratives – the vilja class

Subject control verbs selecting bare future-oriented infinitives include vilja ‘want’, önska ‘wish’, hoppas ‘hope’, and tänka lit. ‘think’ (meaning roughly

62

Copying and tense

intend). These are often referred to as desideratives or volitionals in the literature. Some of these verbs differ from other subject control verbs selecting future-oriented infinitivals in being capable of selecting participle copying infinitivals. E.g., vilja may select a participle copying infinitival, even in the presence of a future-oriented adverbial (79b). The same is also true for tänka, cf. (80b). (79)

a. b.

(80)

a. b.

Han hade länge velat komma hem nästa vecka. he had long want.PPC come.INF home next week Han hade länge velat kommit hem nästa vecka. he had long want.PPC come.PPC home next week ‘He had long wanted to come home next week.’ Han hade tänkt läsa en bok ikväll. he had think.PPC read.INF a book tonight Han hade tänkt läst en bok ikväll. he had think.PPC read.PPC a book tonight ‘He was planning to read a book tonight.’

Other forms do not copy: (81)

a.

Han ville komma hem nästa vecka. he want.PAST come.INF home next week b. *Han ville kom hem nästa vecka. he want.PAST come.PAST home next week ‘He wanted to come home next week.’

(82)

a.

Han tänkte läsa en bok ikväll. he think.PAST read.INF a book tonight b. *Han tänkte läste en bok ikväll. he think.PAST read.PAST a book tonight ‘He planned to read a book tonight.’

Given that copying is otherwise restricted to tenseless infinitivals in the variants investigated, desideratives thus constitute an exceptional class of “copiers”.

Table 6. Desideratives

vilja want

Copy

Tns

Prop

Fact

Rais

ECM

SuC

O bC

B

PPC

+

−

−

−

−

+

−

+

Apparent counterexamples

63

Interestingly, desideratives have been observed to behave in unexpected ways with respect to a number of other phenomena cross-linguistically. Wurmbrand (2001) observes that the German counterpart of want has multiple subcategorization frames and is capable of selecting both a smaller type of infinitival (restructuring infinitive) in addition to a more elaborate infinitival clause. This also seems to be the case for the Italian counterpart of want, see Cinque (2004). Furthermore, despite imposing selectional restrictions on their subject, desideratives seem to share many properties with modal raising verbs crosslinguistically (see e.g. Picallo 1990) and the more prototypical exponents are in fact often reanalyzed to include a modal use. Restricting attention to close relatives of Swedish,the Norwegian and Danish cognate of Swedish vilja, ville, has developed a future auxiliary function in addition to its function as a volitional verb. Note, however, that (83) below that involves mismatching temporal adverbs in the matrix and embedded clause lacks the pragmatic restriction seen with the modal counterpart in (42b) and thus desideratives can not be treated on a par with modals, even though they share some properties with these. (83)

Igår ville han komma hem nästa vecka. yesterday want.PAST he come.INF home next week ‘Yesterday he wanted to come home next week.’

In Chapter 4 below, I provide an analysis of desiderative complements that captures the relevant properties. 5.2.

Absence of copying – the se class

Perception verbs such as höra ‘hear’, känna ‘feel’, and se ‘see’ are ECM verbs selecting tenseless bare infinitivals: (84)

a.

Jag såg henne springa i trappan (*på fredag). I see.PAST her run.INF in stairs.DEF (*next Friday)

b. *Jag ser henne ha sprungit i trappan igår. I see.PRES her have run.PPC in stairs.DEF yesterday These differ from the other verbs selecting tenseless infinitivals encountered here in not allowing copying of inflection in the variants consulted. The b-

64

Copying and tense

examples below are sharply ungrammatical; (87b), with participial copying, is less unacceptable in my variant but still quite deviant. (85)

a.

Jag såg henne springa i trappan. I see.PAST her run.INF in stairs.DEF

b. *Jag såg henne sprang i trappan. I see.PAST her run.PAST in stairs.DEF ‘I saw her run in the stairs.’ (86)

a.

Se henne springa i trappan! see.IMP her run.INF in stairs.DEF

b. *Se henne spring i trappan! see.IMP her run.IMP in stairs.DEF ‘Watch her run in the stairs!’ (87)

a.

Jag hade hört henne springa i trappan. I had hear.PPC her run.INF in stairs.DEF

b. *?Jag hade hört henne sprungit i trappan. I had hear.PPC her run.PPC in stairs.DEF ‘I had heard her run in the stairs.’ Table 7. Perception verbs

se see

Copy

Tns

Prop

Fact

Rais

ECM

SuC

O bC

B

−

−

−

−

−

+

−

−

+

Even if the absence of copying with these verbs does not falsify the hypothesis that copying is restricted to tenseless infinitivals, it constitutes an exception to the general pattern and thus requires an explanation, see Chapter 4 for a proposal.

5.3.

Partial copying

We have hitherto restricted attention to variants where the dichotomy TMAcopying vs. participle copying is fairly clean. However, there are variants where full TMA-copying is excluded, but which nevertheless display copying, although of a restricted set of forms. I will refer to the phenomenon as partial copying. Some speakers consistently disallow copying of tensed forms

Apparent counterexamples

65

(present and past), either with all, or with some infinitive selecting verbs. For the latter class of speakers, therefore, the class of infinitivals picked out by tests of participle/imperative copying will be a superset of the class of infinitivals picked out by tests of present/past copying. This is, I argue, one of the sources for the confusion in the literature regarding copying phenomena and the proposal that participle copying and imperative copying are phenomenona distinct from TMA-copying, see Julien (2003). For speakers that allow partial but not full copying with e.g. pröva ‘try’, the copying paradigm looks as follows: (88)

a. *Vi prövar o skriver. We try.PRES o write.PRES ‘We try to write.’ b. *Vi prövade o skrev. We try.PAST o write.PAST ‘We tried to write.’ c. Pröva o skriv! try.IMP o write.IMP ‘Try to write!’ d. Vi hade prövat o skrivit. We had try.PPC o write.PPC ‘We had tried to write.’

(Partial-copy var.)

If a speaker allows copying of tensed forms, the speaker also typically allows copying of imperative and participial forms, whereas the reverse implication obviously does not hold. Moreover, for a limited set of Norwegian and Swedish speakers, partial copying extends to seemingly future-oriented (thus tensed) infinitivals, cf. Julien (2003): (89) %Erbjud dig o gör det (%imorgon)! offer.IMP REFL o do.IMP it tomorrow ‘Offer to do it tomorrow!’ (90) %Han hade planerat o kommit hem (%imorgon). he had plan.PPC o come.PPC home tomorrow ‘He had planned to come home tomorrow.’ (91) %Han hade lovat (henne) o kommit hem (%imorgon). he had promise.PPC (her) o come.PPC home tomorrow ‘He had promised (her) to come home tomorrow.’

66

Copying and tense

Some of the speakers that allow partial copying with verbs selecting futureoriented infinitivals only allow copying in the absence of the adverbial in the embedded clause. These variants offer support for the correlation identified here; presence of tense implies absence of copying. For a limited set of speakers, however, partial copying is also possible in the presence of the adverbial with some verbs. For these speakers, therefore, tensedness still blocks copying of tensed forms, but does not block partial copying. In Chapter 4 below (see also Chapter 7), I offer an account for this phenomenon. 6.

Conclusion

In this chapter we were able to add one more property to the list characterizing copying infinitivals. Copying is sensitive to the tense of the complement into which copying occurs. The full list of properties now looks as follows: – – – –

Copying constructions involve complementation. Copied inflection is semantically vacuous. Copying is top-down, syntactic, and local. Copying is limited to tenseless complements.

Chapter 4 Copying as a restructuring effect

In the preceding chapter, we observed that TMA-copying infinitivals and participle copying infinitivals have distinct selectors and that the category selected by the two classes of verbs differ w.r.t. bareness. Verbs that select TMA-copying complements select non-bare infinitivals (containing an infinitival marker), whereas verbs that select participle copying complements select bare infinitivals (lacking an infinitival marker), see Table 8. Table 8. copying – non-bare/bare

Verb class sluta stop (Raising) få get (causative) (ECM) glömma forget (Subj. control) hjälpa help (Obj. control) kunna can (Raising) låta let (ECM) töras dare (Subj. control) låta allow (Obj. control)

Copying complement TMA TMA TMA TMA PPC PPC PPC PPC

Standard inf. non-bare non-bare non-bare non-bare bare bare bare bare

This finding will allow us to account for the differences between the two construction types: – TMA-copying complements are introduced by the conjunction-like element o(ch). Participle copying complements are not. – TMA-copying complements may copy the full range of verbal forms. Participle copying complements may not. As we examine the standard non-copying infinitivals selected by the relevant verbs in more detail, we will see that those selected by verbs that TMA-copy contain more functional structure than those selected by verbs that participle copy. On the assumption that the corresponding copying ininitivals display the same difference in number of functional projections present, copying can be taken to be proportional to the number of functional projections present in the complement clause.

68

Copying as a restructuring effect

I will be led to propose that: – Copying is a reflex of dependencies between functional heads of the same label. In the remaining part of the chapter, I present arguments in favour of taking copying to be a surface reflex of restructuring. If my hypothesis is correct, the data presented here suggest that restructuring can not be reudced to monoclausal configurations, as proposed in some of the literature on the topic. 1.

The C-domain

The copy paradigms for TMA-copying and participle copying infinitivals are repeated in Table 9 and exemplified in (1) and (2), respectively. Table 9. Copied forms

TMA-copying Participle copying

(1)

a.

b.

c.

d.

(2)

IMP + −

PRES + −

PAST + −

Börja o skriv! start.IMP o write.IMP ‘Start writing!’ Hon börjar o skriver. she start.PRES o write.PRES ‘She starts writing.’ Hon började o skrev. she start.PAST o write.PAST ‘She started writing.’ Hon hade börjat o skrivit. she had start.PPC o write.PPC ‘She had started writing.’

a. *Låt henne skriv ett brev! let.IMP her write.IMP a letter ‘Let her write a letter!’ b. *Vi låter henne skriver ett brev. we let.PRES her write.PRES a letter ‘We let her write a letter.’

PPC + +

The C-domain

69

c. *Vi lät henne skrev ett brev. we let.PAST her write.PAST a letter ‘We let her write a letter.’ d. Vi hade låtit henne skrivit ett brev. we had let.PPC her write.PPC a letter ‘We had let her write a letter.’ Given that verbs that TMA-copy select non-bare infinitivals, whereas verbs that participle copy select bare infinitivals, our default expectation is that the conjunction-like element o(ch) introducing TMA-copying infinitivals is of the same category as the infinitival marker att introducing the standard infinitival counterparts of these. That is, the (non-)bareness of standard infinitivals is preserved in the corresponding copying infinitivals. If we can also show that the non-bare vs. bare distinction goes hand in hand with more vs. less functional structure for the relevant class of infinitivals, copying can be taken to be proportional to the number of functional projections present in the complement clause: (3)

The more functional structure that is present in the embedded clause the more forms may copy.

More specifically, I propose that copying of a given form is only possible if the corresponding functional projection is present in the embedded clause. Below I present arguments in favour of deriving the two differences between TMA-copying complements and participle copying complements this way. In what follows, I will assume a full clause to consist of (minimally) the following domains: (4)

[CP... [TP... [AspP... [VP...]]]]

I take the C-domain to be split, along the lines of Rizzi (1997). The same holds for the T-domain (see Pollock 1989; Cinque 1999), the Asp-domain (see Cinque 1999), and the verb phrase (VP) (see Ramchand in press and Chapter 6 below).

1.1.

The complementizer att

I follow Holmberg (1986), Platzack (1986), and Holmberg (1990) in taking the infinitival marker att to be a complementizer (thus residing in the

70

Copying as a restructuring effect

C-domain of the clause), just like the homophonous element att introducing finite clauses in Swedish (both are pronounced /At/). (5)

a.

b.

Han sa [CP att hon hade skrivit till honom]. he say.PAST that she had write.PPC to him ‘He said that she had written to him.’ Hon började [CP att skriva till honom]. she start.PAST to write.INF to him ‘She started writing to him.’

Arguments include the fact that finite att and infinitival att behave in a very similar way with regard to deletion, see Holmberg (1990). Acceptability of the null version of att drops when the embedded clause is non-adjacent to the matrix verb in both finite and infinitival clauses. Likewise, neither att can be null after a preposition, nor after verbs corresponding to love, hate, dislike, and similar verbs. An additional argument comes from the possibility of inserting material between att and the infinitive. As opposed to German and Dutch, where nothing can intervene between the infinitive marker zu/te and the infinitive (see e.g. Wurmbrand 2001; Abraham 2004; IJbema 2002), Swedish allows intervening material. (6) and (7) below demonstrate that the floating quantifier alla ‘all’, the sentential adverb alltid ‘always’, and sentential negation may intervene between att and the infinitive (and must do so if narrow scope is to be achieved).56 This makes Swedish different from variants of Norwegian and Danish as well, where sentential adverbs may precede the infinitive marker on the relevant narrow scope reading. (6)

De prövade [CP att alla alltid jobba heltid]. they try.PAST to all always work.INF full-time

(7)

De prövade [CP att inte skrika]. they try.PAST to not yell.INF ‘They tried not to yell.’

The above facts support my claim that att-infinitivals are of the category CP: Infinitival att is a complementizer residing in the same C-head as finite att. I will assume that the impossibility of inserting the complementizer att indicates lack of a C-domain within the class of infinitivals relevant to us (tenseless infinitivals). On this assumption tenseless bare infinitivals are of a size “smaller” than CP. Additional arguments in favour of this claim will be presented as we proceed.

The C-domain

1.2.

71

The complementizer o(ch)

Turning to the marker o(ch), the traditional view in Scandinavian grammar is that the /O/ that we hear in sentences like (8a) is a less careful/colloquial pronunciation of the infinitive marker att (see e.g. Teleman et al. 1999: II: 745). This can not be correct, given that att is impossible in the copying counterparts of these infinitivals, o(ch) being the only option, see (8b).57 (8)

a. b.

Han började o/att skriva brev. he start.PAST &/to write.INF letter.PL Han började o/*att skrev brev. he start.PAST &/to write.PAST letter.PL ‘He started writing letters.’

On the traditional view, where furthermore (8b) is taken to be a special type of coordination (Teleman et al. 1999: III: 902-909), the fact that the infinitival marker o(ch) is otherwise the pronunciation of the coordinating o(ch) reduces to a coincidence; the two are homophones. This purported homophony seems to date back until at least the 14th century, on the evidence of scribal insecurity (writing ok/oc for at, and sometimes vice versa) documented by Jespersen (1895) for Danish/Norwegian and Östergren (1901) for Swedish. However, as argued convincingly by Endresen (1995), the series of phonological change which it is necessary to postulate in order to derive /O/ from /At/ is implausible; several steps in the chain have no independent support; the only reason they are postulated at all is because the starting and end point of the chain are taken for granted. Endresen (1995) argues that the o (å in Norwegian orthography) we hear before the infinitive in spoken Norwegian (and by extension, in Mainland Scandinavian in general) is in fact the same (polysemous) lexical item as the coordinating conjunction o(ch), and not (derived from) an alternative pronunciation of at/att. This is also the view taken here. In addition to the arguments presented by Endresen, a further indication that the sound changes postulated in the traditional account cannot explain the homophony with o(ch) are given in Eaker (1997). She demonstrates that the dialect of Gotland, which has no general transition from /A:/ to /o:/ (a change attested in most Scandinavian variants and making up one link in the chain of changes traditionally assumed), still has an infinitival marker which is not /A(t)/ but /u/, and homophonous to the conjunction /u/ ‘and’.58 Below I argue that att and o(ch) reside in the same C-head, although they differ in features. Thus both elements are complementizers. I defer a discus-

72

Copying as a restructuring effect

Table 10. Complementizers

Finite clauses Non-copying infinitivals Copying infinitivals

att + + −

o(ch) − + +

sion of the feature content of the two complementizers to Chapter 7 below. Setting copying context aside for a moment, note that att and o are interchangeable within the class of non-copying infinitivals in the variants consulted here. The classes of verbs that select tenseless non-bare infinitivals, listed in table 8, select either att or o. The same holds for tensed non-bare infinitivals. Both elements are possible, exemplified by factive (9a) and futureoriented (9b) below. (9)

a.

b.

Han skämdes över o/att ha skrivit. he be-ashame.PAST &/to have write.PPC ‘He was ashamed to have written.’ Han erbjöd sig o/att komma imorgon. he offer.PAST REFL &/to come.INF tomorrow ‘He offered to come tomorrow.’

The position of the infinitival is irrelevant. Both att and o are possible in clause-initial infinitivals, (10a), in extraposed infinitivals, (10b), in adjunct infinitivals embedded under a preposition, (10c), and in infinitivals in the complement position of nouns, (10d). (10)

a.

b.

c.

d.

[O/att skriva brev] glömde jag. &/to write.INF letters forget.PAST I ‘To write letters, I forgot.’ Det har förstört många semestrar [o/att bo i tält]. it has ruin.PPC many vacations &/to live.INF in tent ‘It has ruined many vacations to live in tent.’ Han gick [utan o/att förklara varför]. he go.PAST without &/to explain.INF why ‘He left without explaining why.’ Jag har fått en [soffa [o/att ha i köket]]. I have get.PPC a sofa &/to have.INF in kitchen.DEF ‘I have got a sofa to have in the kitchen.’

The C-domain

73

Like infinitival att, infinitival o can host the clitic form of the negation.59 (11)

Lars prövade o/att’nte säga ett ord. Lars try.PAST &/to-cl.NEG say.INF a word ‘Lars tried not to breathe a word.’

Just like floating quantifiers and sentential adverbs can be inserted between att and the infinitive, as in (6) and (7) above, such material can intervene between o and the infinitive, witness (12). (12)

De prövade [CP o alla alltid jobba heltid]. they try.PAST & all always work.INF full-time

Finally, wherever infinitival att can be phonologically null, infinitival o can be dropped as well. Thus, neither element needs to be overt in clause-initial infinitivals such as (10a), but whichever of the two is present, it has to be overt in extraposed infinitivals such as (10b), cf. Holmberg (1990). Also in (10c) and (10d), whichever of the two is present, it has to be overt. All of the above observations support the proposal made here that att and o reside in the same C-head in non-copying infinitival complements. Turning to o in copying complements, our expectation is that this element should be the same element as o in non-copying infinitivals, and, as suggested, that the element resides in the same head as att (or a C-head close by). On that hypothesis, we make the following prediction. In variants that allow phonologically null versions of att and o in both infinitival and copying environments, wherever non-finite att can be phonologically null, o should also have the possibility to drop in the corresponding TMA-copying infinitival. Likewise, wherever att needs to be overt, o in the corresponding TMAcopying complement should be obligatory. This prediction is borne out: (13)

a. b.

(14)

a.

Han började (att) skriva brev. he start.PAST to write.INF letter.PL Han började (o) skrev brev. he start.PAST & write.PAST letter.PL ‘He started writing letters.’ Han undvek *(att) skriva brev. he avoid.PAST to write.INF letter.PL

74

Copying as a restructuring effect

b.

Han undvek *(o) skrev brev. he avoid.PAST & write.PAST letter.PL ‘He avoided to write letters.’

I therefore propose that the complementizer att and the complementizer o express different features of the same head. We have now captured the first difference between TMA-copying infinitivals and participle copying infinitivals. The conjunction-like element o(ch) is a complementizer, present in the former but absent in the latter, see Carden and Pesetsky (1977) and more recently Aboh (2004) for similar proposals with regard to English and in related construction types).60 Therefore: – TMA-copying infinitivals contain a C-domain. – Participle copying infinitivals lack a C-domain. The complementizer status of o(ch) is thus an argument in favour of taking the category selected by the matrix verb to remain constant regardless of whether copying is present or not, see Wiklund (2006) and below for discussion. 1.3.

Copying C-features

I follow the proposal made in Rizzi (1997) that a head in the C-domain is responsible for licensing/checking of imperative features (the proposal is going back to May 1985). Rizzi labels the relevant head Force and takes it to be the topmost head of the clause (cf. Platzack and Rosengren 1998). On the hypothesis that copying of a given form is possible only if the corresponding functional projection is present in the complement, we correctly predict imperative copying to be possible where there is an embedded C-domain (TMA-copying infinitivals) but impossible in complements where this domain is missing (participle copying infinitivals), cf. Table 9. Moreover, we capture the fact that imperative copying is possible precisely in case the infinitival can be introduced by a complementizer (with the proviso that the infinitival is tenesless). Next we turn to the T(ense)-domain of the clause.61

2. The T-domain Non-bare and bare (relevantly tenseless) infinitivals also differ in a rather neat way with respect to licensing of adverbs quantifying over times, such as alltid

The T-domain

75

‘always’ and aldrig ‘never’. I will refer to these as T-adverbs in what follows. Whereas T-adverbs can be inserted in the former (a-examples below), they are bad in the latter on normal intonation (b-examples below). (15)

a.

Han har glömt att alltid andas lugnt. he has forget.PPC to always breathe.INF calmly b. *Hon har låtit honom alltid andas lugnt. she has let.PPC him always breathe.INF calmly

(16)

a.

(17)

a.

Han har slutat (med) att alltid visa sina känslor. he has stop.PPC (with) to always show.INF his feelings b. *Hon har kunnat alltid visa sina känslor. she has can.PPC always show.INF her feelings

Han hade försökt att aldrig skryta. he had try.PPC to never brag.INF b. *Hon hade verkat aldrig skryta. she had seem.PPC never brag.INF

To ensure that the adverbs are inside bare infinitivals (the b-sentences) where there is no infinitive marker to indicate the left-edge of the infinitive, the main predicate of the matrix clause is in participial form. Since only finite verbs move past these and other sentential adverbs (the V2 effect) and since the relevant adverbs cannot be clause-final on normal intonation, we thus make sure that the adverbs really are inside the infinitival. The obvious conclusion to draw from the contrasts above is that non-bare infinitivals project the domain licensing the relevant type of adverbs, whereas bare infinitivals do not. Since the relevant adverbs (alltid, aldrig) are quantifying over times, I propose that these and other temporal adverbs are licensed by a head in the T(ense)-domain. If this proposal is correct, then tenseless non-bare infinitivals contain a T-domain, whereas tenseless bare infinitivals lack a T-domain. An important thing to note at this point is that tenselessness of infinitivals, as defined in Chapter 3 above, does not preclude the projection of a T-domain. That is, if my hypothesis is correct, it is possible for an infinitival to be tenseless in the sense of not allowing a temporal orientation non-overlapping with the matrix clause and yet project a T-domain. See Chapter 8 for a discussion. My proposal that non-bare infinitivals differ from bare infinitivals in projecting a T-domain is also supported by facts pertaining to sentential negation.

76

Copying as a restructuring effect

The sentential negation inte can be reduced to ‘nt or ‘nte and encliticized onto the finite verb in V2 position, see (18), or alternatively onto the subject if it follows the finite verb (NEG stands for negation, cl:NEG for the clitic form of the negation).62 (18)

Lena ha(r)‘nte läst boken. Lena has-cl:NEG read.PPC book.DEF ‘Lena hasn’t read the book.’

The reduced form contrasts with the constituent negation, which requires the full form and a different intonation, see (19). (19)

Lena hade läst inte/*‘nte boken, men tidningen. Lena had read.PPC NEG/*cl:NEG book.DEF, but newspaper.DEF ‘Lena had read not the book, but the newspaper.’

On the assumption that sentential negation is licensed by the presence of T, as proposed by Zanuttini (1996), we expect it to be possible in tenseless nonbare infinitivals but impossible in tenseless bare infinitivals. This is borne out. Given the right context, the reduced form of the negation is possible in tenseless non-bare infinitivals, where it encliticizes onto the infinitive marker (argued above to be a complementizer), but not in tenseless bare infinitivals (PRT stands for particle): (20)

(21)

Jag kom ihåg att‘nte röka. I remember.PAST PRT to-cl:NEG smoke.INF ‘I remembered not to smoke.’ *Han hade kunna(t)‘nte tala franska. he had can.PPC‘cl:NEG speak.INF French

Marginal acceptability can be achieved for (21) with the full form of the negation if an element in its scope is contrastively focused. However, as illustrated, a negation originating in a bare infinitival cannot encliticize onto the matrix main verb.63 A very nice minimal pair, illustrating the difference between non-bare and bare infinitivals with respect to licensing of T-adverbs can be constructed with hinna ‘manage (time-wise)’. This verb selects a bare infinitival, see (22a). If combined with the particle med ‘with’, however, it selects a non-bare infinitival, cf. (22b). There is no semantic difference between the two constructions.

The T-domain

(22)

a. b.

77

Han hade hunnit (*att) svara snabbt. he had manage.PPC to reply.INF quickly Han hade hunnit med *(att) svara snabbt. he had manage.PPC with to reply.INF quickly ‘He had managed to reply quickly.’

Whereas the bare infinitival cannot host the adverb alltid ‘always’ (23a), the non-bare infinitival can host this adverb (23b). (23)

a. *Han hade hunnit alltid svara snabbt. he had manage.PPC always reply.INF quickly b. Han hade hunnit med att alltid svara snabbt. he had manage.PPC with to always reply.INF quickly ‘He had managed to always reply quickly.’

If I am correct in assuming the relevant adverbs to be licensed by a head in the T-domain and in assuming that bare infinitivals contrast with non-bare infinitivals in lacking the T-domain, the contrast in (23) follows. I propose that the corresponding copying infinitivals differ in the same manner with respect to presence of T, just as I have argued that they are like their non-copying counterparts in displaying a difference regarding presence of C. Thus: – TMA-copying infinitivals contain a T-domain. – Participle copying infinitivals lack a T-domain.

2.1.

Copying T-features

Returning to the hypothesis that copying is proportional to the number of functional projections present in the complement, we now make the following prediction concering verbs with double subcategorization frames, like hinna ‘manage’ introduced above. The copying counterpart of the bare infinitival should be incompatible with imperative copying and copying of tensed forms (present and past), since lacking the C- and T-domains. In contrast, the copying counterpart of the non-bare infinitival, should be compatible with copying of the same forms, in virtue of containing the C- and T-domains. This is borne out, cf. (24) and (25) below.

78

Copying as a restructuring effect

(24)

a. *Hinn läs boken! manage.IMP read.IMP book.DEF ‘Manage to read the book!’ b. *Jag hinner läser boken. I manage.PRES read.PRES book.DEF ‘I manage to read the book.’ c. *Jag hann läste boken. I manage.PAST read.PAST book.DEF ‘I managed to read the book.’ d. Jag hade hunnit läst boken. I had manage.PPC read.PPC book.DEF ‘I had managed to read the book.’

(25)

a.

b.

c.

d.

Hinn med o läs boken. manage.IMP with & read.IMP book.DEF ‘Manage to read the book!’ Jag hinner med o läser boken. I manage.PRES with & read.PRES book.DEF ‘I managed to read the book.’ Jag hann med o läste boken. I manage.PAST with & read.PAST book.DEF ‘I managed to read the book.’ Jag hade hunnit med o läst boken. I had manage.PPC with & read.PPC book.DEF ‘I had managed to read the book.’

These facts offer support in favour of my hypothesis. The more functional structure there is in the embedded clause, the more forms may copy.64 2.2.

T-Adverbs

We have captured the difference between non-bare and bare infinitivals with respect to possibility of inserting T-adverbs by assuming that the former but not the latter infinitivals contain a T-domain. On the hypothesis that the corresponding copying infinitivals display the same difference in size, we can capture the difference between TMA-copying infinitivals and participle copying infinitivals regarding tense copying. The former contain T, therefore can copy tense, the latter lack T, therefore are incompatible with tense copying. Our default expectation is that T-adverbs should also be possible in TMA-copying

The Asp-domain

79

complements. This expectation is not met. Whereas a T-adverb is possible in the matrix clause of both the standard infinitival construction (26a) and the copying construction (26b), the latter differs from the former in being incapable of hosting this type of adverb in the embedded clause. (26)

a. b.

Han prövade (alltid) [att (alltid) sluta tidigt]. he try.PAST always to always finish.INF early Han prövade (alltid) [o (*alltid) slutade tidigt]. he try.PAST always & always finish.PAST early ‘He (always) tried to always finish early.’

Thus, a T-adverb scoping over the embedded clause alone is possible in tenseless non-bare infinitivals, but impossible in the copying counterparts of these infinitivals. The unexpectedness of this difference will in part resolve in section §5 below. For now, we just state the observation: (27)

T-adverbs are licensed by non-copied T, but not by copied T.

We now turn to the aspectual domain and participial copying. 3.

The Asp-domain

Below the T-domain is the Asp(ectual)-domain (cf. Cinque 1999; Demirdache and Uribe-Extebarria 2000), which I take to be responsible for among other things licensing of participial features in perfect constructions (ha ‘have’ + past participle).65 Verbs selecting non-bare infinitivals and verbs selecting bare infinitivals of the relevant (tenseless) type can both embed the perfect:66 (28)

a.

b.

(29)

a.

b.

Hon undvek att ha läst läxorna. she avoid.PAST to have read.PPC homework.PL.DEF ‘She avoided having done her homework.’ Hon lär ha läst läxorna. she hear-say.PAST have read.PPC homework.PL.DEF ‘I heard/it is rumoured that she has done her homework.’ Han börjar att ha skrivit färdigt boken. he start.PRES to have write.PPC completely book.DEF ‘He is starting to have completed the book.’ Han verkade ha skrivit färdigt boken. he seem.PAST have write.PPC completely book.DEF ‘He seemed to have completed writing the book.’

80 (30)

Copying as a restructuring effect

a.

b.

Han försökte att ha ätit middagen i tid. he try.PAST to have eat.PPC dinner.DEF in time ‘He tried to have had dinner in time.’ Han kan ha ätit middagen i tid. he can.PRES have eat.PPC dinner.DEF in time ‘He may have had dinner in time.’

This fact suggests that both non-bare and bare infinitivals contain the Aspdomain of the clause. On the present proposal that the corresponding copying infinitivals contain the same amount of functional structure, we capture the fact that participial copying is possible in both types of copying infinitival: – TMA-copying infinitivals contain an Asp-domain. – Participle-copying infinitivals contain an Asp-domain. Thus, the perfect (ha ‘have’ + past participle) is marginally acceptable in a copying infinitival. (31)

?Han började [o hade läst boken]. he start.PAST & have.PAST read.PPC book.DEF ‘He was getting close to finishing the book.’

The auxiliary ha behaves as any verb in that it may carry vacuous inflection but not itself be vacuous (cf. Chapter 2).67 (32) shows that the infinitive selecting verb börja ‘start’ may not be copied, (33) that auxiliary ha may not be copied. (32)

Han började [o (*började) läste boken]. he start.PAST & start.PAST read.PAST book.DEF Intended reading: ‘He started reading the book.’

(33)

Han hade börjat [o (*hade) läst boken]. he have.PAST start.PPC & have.PAST read.PPC book.DEF Intended reading: ‘He had started reading the book.’

The same facts hold for the modal auxiliary skulle ‘would’/’should’, which selects an infinitival in Swedish. Whereas skulle itself does not copy, see (34), it may marginally carry vacuous inflection, as in (35).

The structure of copying infinitivals

(34)

(35)

4.

81

Han skulle hålla på [o (*skulle) läsa]. he will.PAST hold.INF on & will.PAST read.INF Intended reading: ‘He would be reading.’ ?Han höll på [o skulle läsa]. he hold.PAST on & will.PAST read.INF ‘He was about to read.’ The structure of copying infinitivals

We have arrived at the following structures: (36)

Tenseless non-bare infinitivals (non-copying and copying): [CP... [TP... [AspP... [vP...]]]]

(37)

Tenseless bare infinitivals (non-copying and copying): [AspP... [vP...]]

4.1.

The copying dependency

I have shown that the difference in number of forms copied between TMAcopying and participle copying infinitivals can be captured on the hypothesis that the former contains more structure than the latter, an hypothesis in favour of which we have found independent support. The more structure there is in the copying infinitival, the larger the set of forms that may be copied. Since the structure involved is constituted by functional projections, copying of a given form is possible when the corresponding functional projection is present. When copying of tensed forms takes place, there is a T(-domain) in each clause, one in the matrix and one in the embedded clause. When copying of imperative form is present, there is a C(-domain) in each clause, and so on. This is captured on the hypothesis that: (38)

Copying is a reflex of a dependency between two functional heads of the same label.

Inflectional features must in some sense be shared between the matrix and embedded clause, regardless of the particular implementation of this agreement in syntactic terms (see Anward 1988; Wiklund 2001a). We are now in a position to discard a bare VP approach to copying infinitivals, such as the one proposed by den Dikken and Hoekstra (1997) for a Frisian construction that appears to involve participle copying, exemplified in (39b) (from den Dikken and Hoekstra 1997: 1058).

82 (39)

Copying as a restructuring effect

a.

Hy soe it dwaan wollen ha. he would it do.INF want.PPC have

b.

Hy soe it dien wollen ha. he would it do.PPC want.PPC have ‘He would have liked to do it.’

(Frisian)

On the hypothesis that UG allows more than one verb to establish a dependency with the same functional head for checking purposes, a copying infinitival may prima facie be analyzed as a bare VP, which is the analysis proposed by den Dikken and Hoekstra (1997), see also Boškovi´c (1999) for a similar proposal on double participles in Serbo-Croatian. The copying verb (dwaan, PPC dien) and the matrix verb (wolle, PPC wollen) may both have the participial feature checked by a matrix functional head (participial head or auxiliary). The analysis accounts for the fact that the inflection of the copying verb is semantically vacuous and dependent on the specification of the matrix functional head for its form. (40)

One functional head (Ppc) – many participles: ...[Ppc1 ... [V1 participle ... [V2 participle ...]]]

Two facts make the bare VP-analysis inapplicable to copying infinitivals in Swedish. First, a bare VP-analysis is incompatible with the presence of a complementizer, o(ch), in TMA-copying infinitivals. Secondly, a generalized bare VP-analysis of copying infinitivals would fail to account for the difference between TMA-copying and participle copying infinitivals regarding forms/features that may copy from the matrix clause. If the embedded verb could check its features directly against one or more heads in the matrix clause, any feature of a copying verb should be checkable and thus copied. Therefore, there is no way to rule out tense copying in a participle copying infinitival as the analysis stands. The same problem seems to carry over to Frisian, where tense copying is impossible (Pytsje van der Veen, p.c.). The data presented here thus suggest that there is one head of the relevant type for each verb carrying the relevant inflection: (41)

One functional head (Ppc) – one participle: ...[Ppc1 ... [V1 participle ... [Ppc2 ... [V2 participle ...]]]]

I propose that the relevant dependency between the embedded functional heads and the corresponding functional heads in the matrix may be seen as an

The structure of copying infinitivals

83

antecedent-anaphor relation (see Chapter 7 for a discussion). For now, I indicate the dependency by coindexation between the feature [f] on an embedded anaphoric head F (F an arbitrary functional category) and the corresponding feature f on a matrix head of the same type: (42)

TMA-copying: C1 [f]i T1 [f]j Asp1 [f]k V1 [C2 [f]i T2 [f]j Asp2 [f]k V2 ]

(43)

Participle copying: C1 [f] T1 [f] Asp1 [f]i V1 [Asp2 [f]i V2 ]

4.2.

Desideratives revisited

Along with partial copying into future-oriented infinitivals, participial copying with desiderative verbs was shown to form an exeption to the correlation between presence of non-overlapping temporal reference and absence of copying. Complements of desideratives appear to be future-oriented and yet participial copying is possible with e.g. vilja ‘want’. I propose that the relevant desideratives select a TP complement. In cases of copying, the Aspdomain is anaphoric (in a dependency with the corresponding domain in the matrix clause), whereas the T-domain is not: (44)

Complements of desiderative verbs: C1 [f] T1 [f] Asp1 [f]i Vmatrix [T2 [f] Asp2 [f]i Vembedded ]

The presence of non-overlapping temporal orientation is now an expected possibility, as well as the presence of participial copying. My proposal also captures the fact that a complementizer is impossible under the relevant desiderative verbs, since the C-domain is missing in the infinitival clause.68

4.3.

Perception verbs revisited

In the preceding Chapter, we noted that copying is disallowed into complements of perception verbs in the variants consulted, exemplified by participial copying in (45b) below (yielding a relatively better result than the other copied forms in my variant). Since copying into tenseless infinitivals is otherwise allowed, the absence of copying under perception verbs calls for an explanation.

84 (45)

Copying as a restructuring effect

a.

Jag hade hört henne springa i trappan. I had hear.PPC her run.INF in stairs.DEF b. *?Jag hade hört henne sprungit i trappan. I had hear.PPC her run.PPC in stairs.DEF ‘I hade heard her run in the stairs.’

I propose that complements of perception verbs differ from other tenseless infinitivals in lacking the C-, T-, and Asp-domains altogether. Such an analysis is independently argued for in Lundin (2003), where it is claimed that the relevant infinitivals are vPs (vP licenses the external argument). (46)

Complements of perception verbs: [vP...]

Arguments in favour of a missing T-domain include the fact that T-adverbs are not licensed in these infinitivals, (47a), nor is sentential negation, see (47b). An indication that the Asp-domain is missing is provided by the fact that the relevant verbs can not embed the perfect, cf. (47c). (47)

a.

Jag hade hört henne (*alltid) springa i trappan. I had hear.PPC her always run.INF in stairs.DEF b. Jag hade hört henne (*’nte) springa i trappan. I had hear.PPC her cl:NEG run.INF in stairs.DEF c. *Jag hör henne ha sprungit i trappan. I hear.PRES her have run.PPC in stairs.DEF

On the proposal that copying of a given form is possible only if the corresponding functional projection is present in the embedded clause, we correctly predict none of the relevant inflectional forms (imperative, past, present, or participial) to copy under perception verbs.69

4.4.

Partial copying revisited

Recall that some speakers accept copying of imperative and participial form into non-bare infinitivals, but exclude copying of tensed forms, a phenomenon that I labelled partial copying. On the present hypothesis, partial copying of this kind may be taken to involve C-to-C dependencies and Asp-to-Aspdependencies, but not T-to-T dependencies.

The structure of copying infinitivals

(48)

85

Partial copying: C1 [f]i T1 [f] Asp1 [f]j V1 [C2 [ f]i T2 [f] Asp2 [f]j V2 ]

In part, the present proposal captures the observation that partial copying is allowed into future-oriented infinitivals for a limted set of speakers. Since embedded T is not in a dependency of the relevant kind with matrix T, embedded T can come with non-overlapping temporal reference, relevantly futureoriented with respect to matrix tense. Recall the observation that T-adverbs are licensed by non-copied T, but not by copied T, (27) above. Given the present analysis, we can formulate the following hypothesis: (49)

Non-anaphoric T licenses T-adverbs, anaphoric T does not.

Our prediction is that T-adverbs should be possible in the presence of partial copying of the type described above, because the T-domain is not anaphoric in these infinitivals. This is borne out. Solør Norwegian is a variant that disallows copying of tensed forms but allows copying of imperative and participial forms. As expected, T-adverbs are possible in the presence of imperative copying as well as in the presence of participial copying in this variant. I thank Marit Julien for providing me with data: (50)

a.

b.

Han hadde prøvd å støtt sagt frå i tie. he had try.PPC & always tell.PPC from in time No.) ‘He had tried to always object in time.’ Prøv å støtt sei frå i tie! try.IMP & always tell.IMP from in time ‘Try to always object in time!’

(Solør

Also to my ear, T-adverbs are better in the context of participial and imperative copying, see (51a) and (51b), in contrast to contexts involving copying of tensed forms where these are completely impossible, cf. (26b) above. (51)

a. ?Han hade prövat o alltid sagt ifrån i tid. he had try.PPC & always tell.PPC in-from in time ‘He had tried to always object in time.’ b. ?Pröva o alltid säg ifrån i tid! try.IMP & always tell.IMP in-from in time ‘Try to always object in time!’

86

Copying as a restructuring effect

5.

Copying is a restructuring effect

The presence of inflection that is copied in what appears to be a cross-clausal fashion makes the construction type a candidate for an analysis in terms of restructuring. In the present section, I argue that copying is a restructuring/ clause-union effect (following the proposal made in Wiklund 2001a). For a discussion of the theoretical consequences of this proposal, see also Wiklund (2006). 5.1.

Restructuring

Restructuring refers to phenomena that are otherwise clause-bound but span what appear to be two clauses in the context of certain matrix verbs. Much has been written about restructuring. For Romance, see e.g. Rizzi (1976, 1978), Kayne (1989), and Roberts (1997). For Germanic, see e.g. Hinterhölzl (1997), Koopman and Szabolcsi (2000), and Wurmbrand (2001), who also gives a good survey of the literature on restructuring. Tests to distinguish restructuring and non-restructuring infinitivals are to some extent language specific. Restructuring effects in Italian are long NPmovement, auxiliary change (change from avere ‘have’ to essere ‘be’), and movement of a clitic pronoun from the embedded infinitival clause to the matrix clause, a movement referred to as clitic-climbing in the literature. Clitic climbing is possible with volere ‘want’, but impossible with detestare ‘detest’ (from Cinque 2004): (52)

a.

Lo volevo [vedere _ subito]. him want.PAST see.INF _ immediately ‘I wanted to see him immediately.’ b. *Lo detesto [vedere _ in quello stato]. him detest.PAST see.INF _ in that state ‘I detest seeing him in that state.’

(It.)

Restructuring effects in German include long-distance (non-focus) scrambling and long passive. Long passive is exemplified in (53) (from Wurmbrand 2001) and is possible with versuchen ‘try’, but impossible with planen ‘plan’. (53)

a.

dass der Traktor zu reparieren versucht wurde. that the.NOM tractor to repair.INF try.PPC was ‘that they tried to repair the tractor.’

(Ge.)

Copying is a restructuring effect

87

b. *dass der Traktor zu reparieren geplant wurde. that the.NOM tractor to repair.INF plan.PPC was ‘that they planned to repair the tractor.’ The matrix domain is argued to be responsible for the structural case of the embedded object in German restructuring infinitives, see Wurmbrand (2001). Long passive is an argument in favour of that hypothesis. Since restructuring infinitives can not assign structural object case, the embedded object is dependent on a case position in the matrix clause. If the matrix (restructuring) verb is passivized, as in (53a), structural accusative case becomes unavailable and matrix T determines the case (nominative) for the embedded object. All of the above mentioned operations are restricted to occur with a limited set of infinitive selecting matrix verbs and are impossible out of finite clauses. This makes copying appear related to restructuring. Considering the fact that restructuring effects, not restructuring/clause union per se, are dependent on language specific factors, the absence of the above transparency effects in Swedish is not surprising. Swedish does not display have/be alternation, nor NP-scrambling. The operation that appears to be the closest counterpart to clitic movement is movement of weak pronouns, referred to as object shift. The latter operation can be shown to require a movement of the main verb that does not take place in embedded clauses (Holmberg 1986).70 Therefore object shift is found neither within infinitives, nor across infinitives. Likewise long passives are unavailable in Swedish, although may have candidate counterparts in a subtype of the Norwegian complex passive construction, see Christensen (1991), Taraldsen (2002), Holmberg (2002), and Wiklund (2006).71

5.2.

Arguments in favour of restructuring

The principal argument in favour of taking copying to involve restructuring concerns the identical distribution of the two phenomena. Based on five languages (German, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, and Japanese) Wurmbrand (2001: 7) proposes that the core restructuring predicates are modal verbs (must, may, can, want), aspectual verbs (begin, continue, finish), causatives (let, make), and motion verbs (come, go). The first three classes have been identified as involving copying predicates here (Chapter 3) and motion verbs will be shown to select TMA-copying infinitivals in Chapter 5 below. Factive and

88

Copying as a restructuring effect

propositional predicates are incapable of selecting restructuring infinitivals in the languages investigated by Wurmbrand. Likewise these predicates have been shown not to select copying infinitivals in the variants investigated here. Remaining predicates (including verbs like try, forget, manage, dare) are subject to variation according to Wurmbrand’s investigation. The same predicates have been shown to copy in the variants investigated here. Thus, we may conclude that copying shares with restructuring phenomena the classes of main predicates involved. A second argument concerns tense sensitivity. Just like the presence of non-overlapping tense in the embedded clause blocks copying (Chapter 3), the presence of non-overlapping tense has been shown to block restructuring, see Wurmbrand (2001) and Terzi (1996). The independence of the argument is visible in the context of verbs with double subcategorization frames. As I showed in the preceding chapter, certain verbs are compatible with both tenseless and tensed infinitivals. Copying is restricted to the former. A limited set of transparency effects (including focus scrambling) do however show up in the context of future-oriented infinitivals for a limited set of speakers of German according to Wurmbrand (2001). Thus, certain tensed infinitivals may display some amount of clause union. The phenomenon is referred to as reduced (non-)restructuring. I propose that partial copying is a surface reflex of the same phenomenon and therefore adds further strength to the above argument from the distribution of copying. Recall that for some speakers, the class of infinitivals picked out by the test of partial copying is a superset of the infinitives picked out by copying of the full range of forms. Furthermore, we have seen that some speakers allow partial copying into future-oriented infinitivals. Just as a limited set of transparency effects are in evidence in the context of future-oriented infinitivals in German, thus, a limited amount of copying may take place into the same class of infinitivals in Swedish. Evidence of structural/featural deficiency constitutes a third argument in favour of taking copying to be a restructuring effect. In §2.2 above, I showed that T-adverbs, although possible in the standard non-bare infinitivals, are impossible in the corresponding TMA-copying infinitivals. This fact is expected on the present analysis: since matrix tense and embedded tense are unified (coindexed) in TMA-copying constructions, T-adverbs cannot occur in both clauses. A similar effect is visible in Italian restructuring context. In Italian, movement of an object from an embedded infinitive to the matrix clause (long NP-movement) is possible with some matrix (transitive/unergative) verbs if the verb is in the impersonal(-passive) si form. The possibility of this move-

Copying is a restructuring effect

89

ment is a test for the presence of restructuring. In the absence of long NPmovement, the adverb sempre ‘always’ can occur both in the matrix and in the embedded clause in contexts with volere ‘want’, see (54a). In the presence of long NP-movement, however, this is not possible, cf. (54b) (examples from Cinque 2004). (54)

a.

Si vorrebbe sempre aver sempre esperienze come queste. one would-want always have always experiences like these b. *Esperienze come queste si vorrebbero sempre aver sempre. experiences like these one would-want always have always ‘One would (always) want to (always) have experiences like these.’

On the basis of the above facts, I propose that copying is a restructuring effect. If restucturing effects derive from the same basic underlying structural configurations cross-linguistically, our study of copying should thus provide new insight into the phenomenon of restructuring in natural language. The most interesting hypothesis to pursue is that the “restructuring” dependencies between the matrix and embedded clause (reflected morphologically in Swedish) are present also in other languages where restructuring is identified. How the features acquired in the course of the derivation is interpreted at the PF interface can be taken to be dependent on language specific morphological factors. These may either block or promote the surface appearance of copying. I leave this interesting hypothesis for future research. I refer the reader to Appendix IV for some notes on the mapping to phonological form. Next, I discuss one consequence of the present proposal for the analysis of restructuring infinitivals. 5.3.

Restructuring is not restricted to mono-clausal configurations

There are two traditions in approaches to restructuring; bi-clausal approaches (going back to Evers 1975 and Rizzi 1976), see e.g. Kayne (1989), Terzi (1996), Roberts (1997), and references cited in Wurmbrand 2001; and monoclausal approaches, see e.g. Cinque (2004) and references cited in Wurmbrand 2001. Bi-clausal approaches claim that restructuring infinitivals come as clausal CPs, but that the clausal status of these is altered by syntactic operations, such as e.g. head movement (Kayne 1989; Terzi 1996; Roberts 1997), rendering

90

Copying as a restructuring effect

the infinitive transparent for movements that are clause-bound. Mono-clausal approaches state that restructuring predicates select smaller categories, usually VPs (Wurmbrand 2001), or that restructuring predicates instantiate functional heads (Cinque 2004) and that the size of the category selected therefore depends on the position of the restructuring verb in the functional sequence.72 Characteristic of both is the suggestion that the presence of transparency effects follows trivially from a mono-clausal configuration. In §4.1 above, I argued that a bare VP-analysis is not applicable to copying infinitivals. More precisely, I argued in favour of size constancy between standard infinitivals and the copying counterparts of these. The two arguments concern the presence of a complementizer in TMA-copying infinitivals and the difference between TMA-copying and participle copying infinitivals regarding number of forms copied. A bare VP-analysis is commited to assume that the o-element introducing TMA-copying infinitivals is a head merged with VP. There are two immediate problems with this assumption. First, the similarities between the element o and the complementizer att, noted in §1.2 above, reduce to a coincidence. Second, it is not obvious how such an analysis would explain why o can merge with TMA-copying VPs, but not with participle copying VPs. Let us consider a variant of the VP approach that would seem to meet the second objection (difference in number of forms that can copy). Suppose that the feature set of the embedded verbal complex is determined by the matrix verb via selection (an assumption that may be necessary anyway) but that the corresponding functional heads are not present in infinitivals of the copying type. Moreover, suppose that there is variation in the set of features selected. If the matrix verb selects an AspP and is a potential restructuring verb, it has the option of merging with a VP that carries only aspectual features (restructuring on that analysis). If the matrix verb selects a CP and is a potential restructuring verb, it has the option of merging with a VP carrying the full set of features (Asp-features, T-features, and C-features). Under this scenario, the difference in size between non-bare and bare infinitivals would in the restructured VP-counterparts be preserved as a difference in number of features carried by the verbal complex, capturing the difference between the two types of copying infinitival in number of forms that copy. In addition to the problem, mentioned above, posed by the presence of a complementizer in TMA- copying infinitivals, the possibility of inserting T-adverbs in infinitivals displaying partial copying (§4.4) constitutes a problem for this analysis. One would have to say that T-adverbs are not dependent on the presence of a

Conclusion

91

T-domain but can be merged directly with VP. In order to prevent tense copying into a partial copying complement one would still have to assume that tense features are missing in the verbal complex. Such a proposal would raise questions concerning the possibility of merging T-adverbs in the absence of both T-domain and T-features. In particular, we would lose an account for why T-adverbs are possible in the bigger infinitivals (where T is present on my proposal) but not in the smaller infinitivals (where T is absent on my proposal). Note also that if copying is a reflex of a dependency between two functional heads of the same label, one in each clause, as I have argued, copying infinitivals can also not be explained by merely assuming a functional status of the matrix predicate, using the framework of Cinque (2004). If copying infinitivals are restructuring infinitivals, as I have argued here, then restructuring does not seem to be restricted to mono-clausal configurations in the sense that the category selected by a restructuring verb need be of a lower type in the functional hierarchy. Restructuring infinitivals can be big, even CPs. The vacuous nature of the copied inflection and the ban on T-adverbs in copying infinitivals, I propose, can be captured on the intuitive assumption that “anaphoric” functional heads are underspecified, see Chapter 7 below for the details of this proposal. I will have to leave further consequences of the present proposal for future research, but see Chapter 7 below and Wiklund (2006) for some discussion.

6.

Conclusion

The present chapter started from the observation that TMA-copying infinitivals and participle copying infinitivals are selected by distinct verbs. Verbs selecting the former select (tenseless) infinitivals introduced by an infinitive marker. Verbs selecting the latter select (tenseless) bare infinitivals. I presented facts suggesting that the conjunction-like element o(ch) present in TMA-copying infinitivals is a complementizer, just like att introducing the non-copying counterparts of these, capturing one of the two differences between TMA- and participle copying infinitivals. The latter are bare infinitivals in the same sense that their standard counterparts are bare. I presented evidence that non-bare infinitivals are bigger than bare infinitivals and proposed that size constancy hold between non-copying and (the corresponding) copying infinitivals. We arrived at the following structures:

92

Copying as a restructuring effect

– Tenseless non-bare infinitivals (non-copying and copying): [CP... [TP... [AspP... [vP...]]]] – Tenseless bare infinitivals (non-copying and copying): [AspP... [vP...]] I put forth the hypothesis that copying is proportional to the number of functional projections present in the embedded clause. More specifically, I proposed that copying of a given form should only be possible in case the corresponding functional projection is present in the embedded clause. The proposal was shown to capture the second and last difference between TMAand participle copying infinitivals. The former copy the full set of forms (Tense/Mood/Aspect-copying), the latter restrict copying to participial form (Aspect-copying only). Since more vs. less functional structure goes hand in hand with more vs. less copied forms, I proposed that: – Copying is a reflex of dependencies between functional heads of the same label. In the last section, I argued that copying is a restructuring effect and concluded that restructuring is not limited to mono-clausal configurations.

Chapter 5 Pseudocoordination is TMA-copying

The present chapter examines the third and last construction type; pseudocoordination. Like verbs in TMA- and participle copying constructions, pseudocoordinated verbs share subject and inflectional morphology: (1)

a.

b.

c.

d.

Han satt o (*han) läste en bok. he sit.PAST & he read.PAST a book ‘He was reading a book (in sitting position).’ Han gick o (*han) läste en bok. he go.PAST & he read.PAST a book ‘He went and read a book.’ Han var o (*han) läste en bok. he was.PAST & he read.PAST a book ‘He was away reading a book.’ o (*han) läste en bok. Han tog he take.PAST & he read.PAST a book ‘He read a book.’

Moreover, just like the class of copying verbs is restricted, the class of pseudocoordinating verbs is restricted. In Swedish, the principal classes of first verbs occuring in the pseudocoordinations relevant here are the following four: – – – –

Posture verbs (sitta ‘sit’, stå ‘stand’, and ligga ‘lie’), as in (1a). Motion verbs (gå ‘go’, komma ‘come’, springa ‘run’), as in (1b). Vara ‘be’, as in (1c). Ta ‘take’, as in (1d).

Given that the two phenomena share these (three) basic properties, we have reason to believe that they are related. Step by step, the present chapter demonstrates that pseudocoordination does in fact share all other properties characteristic of copying infinitivals. In fact, pseudocoordination will be shown to involve TMA-copying.

94

Pseudocoordination is TMA-copying

1.

Towards a unified analysis

Besides the properties given above, pseudocoordination exhibits three distinctive attributes that make the phenomenon appear related to TMA-copying. These attributes concern the semantic function of the first verb in pseudocoordination, the range of inflectional forms that may be shared between the pseudocoordinated verbs, and the impossibility of having T-adverbs in the second clause. I discuss the three in turn below. 1.1.

Aspectual properties

Verbs that pseudocoordinate primarily have other functions than that of pseudocoordinating. Thus, (1d) above, repeated in (2) below, seems to involve the same verb ta ‘take’ as the sentence in (3). Whereas the verb has a more concrete or lexical meaning in the latter sentence, however, it has a more abstract or functional meaning in the former.73 (2)

Han tog o läste en bok. he take.PAST & read.PAST a book ‘He read a book.’

(3)

Han tog en bok. he take.PAST a book ‘He took a book.’

(Pseudocoordination)

In (3), ta expresses a transfer of a concrete object (a book) to the subject referent. Such a transfer is not referred to in (2). In that sentence ta expresses initiation of the event denoted by the second predicate läste en bok ‘read a book’, see Ekberg (1993) and Vannebo (2003). Let us refer to the latter reading as inceptive aspect. Despite being capable of carrying a wider range of meanings, thus, pseudocoordinating verbs are similar to some of the verbs that select tenseless non-bare infinitivals. They are capable of modifying or expressing aspectual properties of the predicate with which the verb combines. Verbs that have similar aspectual functions include e.g. börja ‘start’. This verb restricts reference to the beginning of the process component of the event with which it combines, an aspect we may label ingressive, cf. (4) below. (4)

a.

Han började o läste en bok he start.PAST & read.PAST a book

(TMA-copying)

Towards a unified analysis

b.

Han började o läsa en bok he start.PAST & read.INF a book ‘He started reading a book.’

95

(standard infinitive)

It is the nature of the matrix predicate that determines the aspectual modification of the embedded event, regardless of whether the embedded verb agrees with the matrix verb, as in (4a), or not, as in (4b). Since pseudocoordinating verbs contrast with verbs that TMA-copy in displaying a wider usage, a more detailed classification of the semantics of pseudocoordinations is useful as a recognition tool. Such a classification will be given in Chapter 6, where I will claim that three basic readings are available in pseudocoordinations, all depending on the feature make-up of the first verb and its relation to syntactic structure. Apart from the inceptive reading briefly introduced above, pseudocoordination may yield a progressive (a process in progress) reading of the event expressed by the second predicate, as in (1a) and (1c), and a reading that I will refer to as the distal reading, present in (1b) and (1c). The latter reading co-occurs with the former readings in the relevant pseudocoordinations and roughly denotes a situation where the subject referent is away doing something. 1.2.

Inflectional forms shared

If pseudocoordination involves TMA-copying, we expect copying of any verbal form to be possible (a hallmark of non-bare copying infinitivals). This expectation is met, exemplified by sitta ‘sit’ below. (5)

a. b. c. d.

Sitt o ät! sit.IMP & eat.IMP Han sitter o äter. he sit.PRES & eat.PRES Han satt o åt. he sit.PAST & eat.PAST Han hade suttit o ätit. he had sit.PPC & eat.PPC

Like TMA-copying constructions. pseudocoordinations involve the conjunctionlike element o(ch) ‘and’, which I have argued is a complementizer. This element is obligatorily overt in Swedish pseudocoordinations:

96

Pseudocoordination is TMA-copying

(6)

Han satt *(o) åt. he sit.PAST & eat.PAST ‘He sat eating.’

Note that this is a property that pseudocoordinations share with a subset of the TMA-copying constructions. The element may not be dropped in TMAcopying infinitivals selected by e.g. välja ‘choose’ and undvika ‘avoid’ or their standard infinitival counterparts in my variant of Swedish: (7)

Han undvek *(o) skrev dikter. he avoid.PAST & write.PAST poem.PL ‘He avoided writing poems.’

The issue of why this element is obligatorily overt with some verbs but not others and the variation that we find in this respect will not be dealt with here. We may simply conclude that pseudocoordinations behave like some of the TMA-copying cases in this regard.74 1.3.

T-adverbs are impossible

Finally, just like TMA-copying infinitivals have been shown to be incompatible with adverbs quantifying over times, so are the “second conjuncts” in pseudocoordinations: (8)

*Han satt o alltid åt. he sit.PAST & always eat.PAST Intended meaning: ‘He sat always eating.’

We now have three arguments in favour of taking pseudocoordination to involve TMA-copying. If I am correct, pseudocoordination must involve: – Complementation (not coordination) – Copied inflection (semantically vacuous) In the next two sections, I show that these predictions are met. 2.

Properties of pseudocoordination

Both sentences below involve one overt subject, two verbs with identical inflection, and a conjunction o(ch) ‘and’ separating the verb phrases. Although not crucial, the second verb takes an internal argument in both:75

Properties of pseudocoordination

(9)

a.

b.

97

Lars sjöng o drack kaffe. Lars sing.PAST & drank.PAST coffee ‘Lars sang and had a coffee.’ Lars gick o drack kaffe. Lars go.PAST & drink.PAST coffee I. ‘Lars walked and had a coffee.’ II. ‘Lars went and had a coffee.’

Despite the surface similarities between the two sentences, however, (9b) is ambiguous between two readings, only one of which is similar in nature to the reading yielded by (9a). Whereas the two events in (9a) – singing and having a coffee – are perceived as independent from each other, this is not necessarily the case for the two events in (9b) – walking and having a coffee.76 In the latter example, the two events can be perceived as expressing one single complex event. On that reading the first verb expresses initiation of a complex event (inceptive aspect) of which another subevent is denoted by the second predicate. The location of the event denoted by the second predicate is interpreted as being distinct from the reference location (distal aspect) but non-distinct from the goal of the motion denoted by the first verb. I will refer to the two readings as the independent-event reading and the pseudocoordination reading in what follows. The latter is a cover name for all interpretations of the pseudocoordinations relevant here, regardless of aspectual ingredients; they are all interpreted as expressing one single albeit complex event. Thus, whereas (9a) is restricted to the independent-event reading, (9b) is ambiguous between an independent-event reading (reading I.) and a pseudocoordination reading (reading II.).77 At least since Ross (1967) it has been recognized that a distinction can be made between coordinations where the conjuncts stand in a more or less symmetric relation to each other and coordinations where an asymmetric relation between the conjuncts is indicated. Other references include Shopen (1971), Schmerling (1975), Carden and Pesetsky (1977), Goldsmith (1985), Déchaine (1993), Johannessen (1998), and Kehler (2002). The asymmetry of the latter coordinations is reflected by syntactic, semantic, and (in some cases) prosodic properties. The aspectual properties of the second reading of (9b) already give us a hint that pseudocoordination is not an ordinary coordination but instantiates one type of asymmetric coordination. Below I review the properties that go hand in hand with the relevant reading, the attributes that are responsible for the pseudo-part of of the term pseudocoordination

98

Pseudocoordination is TMA-copying

so to speak, leaving the possibility open that there are other asymmetric coordinations that share these properties. I demonstrate that each property that sets (9b) on the pseudocoordination reading apart from (9a) and (9b) on the independent-event reading are properties that aspectual pseudocoordinations share with TMA-copying constructions (10a) and their infinitival counterparts (10b). (10)

a.

Lars började o drack kaffe. Lars start.PAST & drink.PAST kaffe

b.

Lars började att dricka kaffe. Lars start.PAST to drink.INF kaffe ‘Lars started drinking coffee.’

This fact will enable us to conclude that the relevant pseudocoordinations do not exemplify a special type of coordination but involve a structure where the verb in what appears to be the first conjunct selects the clause introduced by o. For the same conclusion, see e.g. Jespersen (1895), Carden and Pesetsky (1977), Anward (1988), Wiklund (1996), Johannessen (1998), and Lødrup (2002).

2.1.

Restricted set of verbs

Replacing the first predicate in (9b) by e.g. städade ‘cleaned’ yields an unambiguous independent-event reading. Thus, (11) below is similar to (9a) and (9b) on reading (I.) above in that the first verb does not express initiation of the coffee-drinking event, nor relate the location of the event denoted by the second predicate to that of the event denoted by the first predicate. (11)

Lars städade o drack kaffe. Lars clean.PAST & drank.PAST coffee ‘Lars cleaned and had a coffee.’

Whereas almost any two main verbs can be combined to yield an independentevent reading, only a limited set of verbs can thus combine to yield a pseudocoordination reading (cf. de Vos 2005 on English). This restriction is a property that pseudocoordinations share with copying constructions and with infinitival constructions more generally. On the hypothesis that pseudocoordination involves complementation, this restriction naturally follows.

Properties of pseudocoordination

99

If pseudocoordinations were coordinations, on the other hand, we would not expect there to be such a restriction. Whereas coordinations are known to be subject to parallelism constraints between the conjuncts involved, restrictions on the first conjunct of this kind are unheard of. In order to defend a coordination analysis of pseudocoordination, one would have to claim that there is no restriction on first verbs at all in these constructions. This claim runs into problems explaining the aspectual properties of the construction type; the special readings would have to be said to arise as a bonus when specific verbs occur in the first conjunct. Although there may be examples of this kind, these typically differ from pseudocoordinations with regard to aspect shift. A comparison between Swedish and Icelandic sit-&−V constructions is illustrative, see (12) and (13), respectively.78 (12)

Paul sitter o läser. Paul sit.PRES & read.PRES

(13)

Palli situr og les. Palli sit.PRES and read.PRES

(Sw.) (Ic.)

The above sentences have similar readings. The subject referent is in the process of reading (while sitting); a progressive reading. However, there is a semantic difference between the Swedish construction and the Icelandic construction which becomes apparent when we consider other examples. The Swedish construction is capable of inducing the aspectual coercions typical of progressives, whereas the Icelandic construction is not. When combined with a non-activity predicate, a progressive will induce an activity reading of that predicate (if such a reading is pragmatically available; see e.g. Moens 1987 on this an other aspectual coercions). Thus for instance, a stative predicate like vara sur ‘be grumpy’ will shift into the associated activity (viz., the activity of displaying behaviour typical of a person who is grumpy), rendering a fully acceptable sentence in Swedish (cf. the English He was being grumpy): (14)

Paul satt o var sur. Paul sit.PAST & be.PAST grumpy Roughly: Paul was being grumpy.’

(Sw.)

The Icelandic construction, in contrast, while combining easily with activity predicates like lesa ‘read’ as in (13), fails to induce the relevant shift when combined with a stative predicate. (15), which is slightly degraded, means

100

Pseudocoordination is TMA-copying

that Palli sat, and he was grumpy, but there is no pseudocoordinate reading of associated activity.79 (15) ??Palli sat og var súr. Palli sit.PAST & be.PAST grumpy ‘Palli was sitting and was grumpy.’

(Ic.)

On the intuitive assumption that aspect shift is sensitive to locality (strong islands), this difference follows if we assume that the Swedish construction involves complementation, whereas the Icelandic construction involves coordination in the relevant varieties. It is difficult to see how a coordination analysis of both constructions would be able to account for this type of facts. 2.2.

Prosody

Pseudocoordinations differ from their coordinate counterparts with respect to prosodic properties. Verbs in ordinary coordination bear phrasal stress. In contrast, pseudocoordinating verbs may not bear phrasal stress, see Teleman et al. (1999), Josefsson (1991), and Wiklund (1996) for related observations. (9a) above, therefore has to involve the phrasing in (16a), whereas (9b) is compatible with two different phrasings. The phrasing in (17a) yields the independent-event reading and the phrasing in (17b) the pseudocoordination reading.80 (16)

a.

[Lars sjöng [o drack kaffe]]. Lars sing.PAST & drink.PAST coffee b. *[Lars [sjöng o drack kaffe]]. Lars sing.PAST & drink.PAST coffee ‘Lars sang and had a coffee.’

(17)

a.

b.

[Lars gick [o drack kaffe]]. Lars go.PAST & drink.PAST coffee ‘Lars walked and had a coffee.’ [Lars [gick o drack kaffe]]. Lars go.PAST & drink.PAST coffee ‘Lars went and had a coffee.’

(Independent events)

(Pseudocoordination)

The prosodic properties of pseudocoordination are expected on a complementation analysis of the construction type. They are identical in the relevant sense to those of TMA-copying infinitivals and their standard counterparts:

Properties of pseudocoordination

(18)

a. b.

101

[Lars började [o drack /*dricka kaffe]]. Lars start.PAST & drink.PAST /drink.INF coffee [Lars [började o drack /dricka kaffe]]. Lars start.PAST & drink.PAST /drink.INF coffee ‘Lars started drinking coffee.’

(18b) is the default phrasing associated with a complementation structure on a neutral intonation. The phrasing in (18a) can only be associated with a coordination structure and is limited to the case where the two verbs display identical inflection. On that reading a null complement selected by the first verb is understood (Lars started [something] and had coffee). A coordination analysis of pseudocoordination has to assume that the coordination structure associated with (17a) is different from the coordination structure associated with (17b) to derive this intonational difference. One option is to say that pseudocoordination is different from other coordinations in involving coordination of smaller (clausal) chunks – see e.g. the VPcoordination analysis of pseudocoordination in Josefsson (1991) – and that such a coordination has a special intonation. This proposal faces the problem of explaining why VP-coordination is restricted to certain types of predicates. The second option is to say that VP-coordination is compatible with two different phrasings. Such an assumption merely shifts the explanandum to the question of why only some VP-coordinations are compatible with the pseudocoordination phrasing. Moreover, the fact that the prosodic properties are shared with complementation structures remains a coincidence.

2.3.

Anaphoric reference

The intuition that the coordination in (9a) refers to two independent events, whereas (9b) – on the relevant second reading – refers to a single event is supported by facts pertaining to anaphoric reference, an observation due to Déchaine (1993). A coordination like (9a) introduces a discourse referent which can be viewed as either collective (hence singular), see (19a), or plural, see (19b). (19)

a.

Att sjunga o dricka kaffe är en rolig grej att göra. to sing.INF & drink.INF coffee is a fun.SG thing to do ‘To sing and have a coffee is a fun thing to do.’

102

Pseudocoordination is TMA-copying

b.

Att sjunga o dricka kaffe är roliga grejer att göra. to sing.INF & drink.INF coffee are fun.PL things to do ‘To sing and have a coffee are fun things to do.’

Crucially, the two events in (19a) are still perceived as autonomous in the sense that the first predicate does not express initiation of a complex event (of which a subevent is denoted by the second predicate). Nor is there necessarily any relation between the location of the event denoted by the second predicate and that denoted by the first predicate. Pseudocoordinations, in contrast, are only compatible with singular anaphoric expressions: (20)

a.

b.

[Att gå [o dricka kaffe]] är en rolig grej / är roliga to go.INF & drink.INF coffee is a fun.SG thing / are fun.PL grejer att göra. things to do ‘To walk and have a coffee is a fun thing/are fun things to do.’ [Att gå o dricka kaffe] är en rolig grej / *är roliga to go.INF & drink.INF coffee is a fun.SG thing / are fun.PL grejer att göra. things to do ‘To go and have a coffee is a fun thing (*are fun things) to do.’

The prosodic bracketing in (20a) yields an independent event reading. As expected, both singular and plural anaphoric expressions are possible. The bracketing in (20b) yields an unambiguous pseudocoordination reading. There, only the singular anaphoric expression is possible. This restriction is a property that pseudocoordination shares with infinitival constructions. These are also incompatible with plural anaphoric expressions, regardless of whether they involve copying (21) or not (22).81 The prosodic bracketing is meant to exclude independent-event readings and is used in the remainder of this section.82 (21)

a.

[Att ha börjat (o) druckit kaffe] känns som en dålig to have start.PPC & drink.PPC coffee feels like a bad grej att ha gjort. thing to have do.PPC ‘To have started drinking coffee feels like a bad thing to have done.’

Properties of pseudocoordination

103

b. *[Att ha börjat (o) druckit kaffe] känns som dåliga to have start.PPC & drink.PPC coffee feels like bad grejer att ha gjort. things to have do.PPC (22)

a.

[Att ha börjat (o) dricka kaffe] känns som en dålig to have start.PPC & drink.INF coffee feels like a bad grej att ha gjort. thing to have do.PPC ‘To have started drinking coffee feels like a bad thing to have done.’ b. *[Att ha börjat (o) dricka kaffe] känns som dåliga to have start.PPC & drink.INF coffee feels like bad grejer att ha gjort. things to have do.PPC

Whereas the above restriction follows from a complementation analysis of pseudocoordination (the event denoted by the second predicate is embedded in and thus part of that denoted by the first predicate), a VP-coordination analysis of the construction has to say something more to explain the facts; e.g. that an event-denoting phrase is projected above the first VP and thus shared between the coordinated verbs. This type of VP-coordination then has to be restricted to certain verbs in the first conjunct, an assumption that is problematic in the sense noted above.

2.4.

Non-islands

One of the most familiar hallmarks of pseudocoodinations is that they are systematic counterexamples to the Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC), as fomulated by Ross (1967). Thus, they can not involve strong islands. Whereas extraction of an argument out of the second conjunct of (9a) above yields a bad result, as predicted by the CSC, see (23a) below, extraction out of the second conjunct of (9b) produces a perfectly acceptable sentence in languages that allow pseudocoordination (for English, see e.g. Carden and Pesetsky 1977). Extraction yields an unambiguous pseudocoordination reading, see (23b).

104 (23)

Pseudocoordination is TMA-copying

a. *Kaffet som Lars sjöng o drack _ var gott. coffee.DEF that Lars sing.PAST & drink.PAST _ was good b. Kaffet som Lars gick o drack _ var gott. coffee.DEF that Lars go.PAST & drink.PAST _ was good ‘The coffee that Lars went and had was good.’

Similarly, whereas the second conjunct of ordinary coordinations can not be fronted, see (24a), it can be fronted in pseudocoordinations, modulo the insertion of a dummy verb, cf. (24b).83 (24)

a. *[Drack kaffe] sjöng Lars o (gjorde) i lördags. drink.PAST coffee sing.PAST Lars & do.PAST last Saturday b. [Drack kaffe] gick Lars o *(gjorde) i lördags. drink.PAST coffee go.PAST Lars & do.PAST last Saturday

We should now be able to test the possibility of extraction between the minimal pair (17a) and (17b) in §2.2. Recall that the prosody of the former signals an independent-event reading, whereas the prosody of the latter signals a pseudocoordination reading. We expect the possibility of extraction to be restricted to the latter phrasing. This is borne out, cf. (25a) and (25b) below. (25)

a. *Kaffet [som Lars gick [o drack _]] var gott. coffee.DEF that Lars go.PAST & drink.PAST _ was good b. Kaffet [som Lars [gick o drack _]] var gott. coffee.DEF that Lars go.PAST & drink.PAST _ was good

Absence of island effects is in principle unexpected in coordinations. As it stands, the VP-coordination analysis has to stipulate that all (or some) VPcoordinations can be extracted from and likewise that the second conjunct can be fronted in all (or some) VP-coordinations. Although this may be a theoretical possibility, it is unclear why this effect would be categorially restricted, i.e. why we do not seem to get a similar effect in e.g. NP-coordination. On a complementation analysis of pseudocoordination, on the other hand, the non-island status of the second clause is expected. Note that the Icelandic sit-&−V construction (introduced in §2.1 above) does not allow extraction in the variety examined. This is expected on the proposal that it differs from the Swedish sit-&−V construction in exemplifying a coordination, rather than a complementation structure:

Properties of pseudocoordination

(26)

*Hvað situr Palli og les _? What sit.PRES Palli & read.PRES _

105 (Ic.)

de Vos (2005) claims that English pseudocoordinations show weak island effects when the predicate of the first conjunct is modified by a prepositional phrase or a particle, but not in the absence of such modification of the first verb. Most of his examples of weak island effects involve a goal PP modifying a motion verb: (27)

*How carefully did John go to town and read his exam notes _?

As I will show below, such examples display weak island effects in Swedish too. Apart from these cases, however, pseudocoordinations do not involve weak islands, neither in Swedish, nor in all varieties of English. I take the possibility of extracting manner adjuncts to indicate absence of weak islandhood. A thorough description of the relevant classes of pseudocoordination is given in Chapter 6 below. Starting with progressive pseudocoordinations, the second conjunct is not a weak island in Swedish, even in the presence of a locative phrase/particle with the first verb:84 (28)

Hur högt gick Lars omkring i parken o sjöng _? how loudly go.PAST Lars around in park.DEF & sing.PAST _

Likewise progressive-distal pseudocoordinations do not involve weak islands: (29)

Hur högt var Lars i kyrkan o sjöng _? how loudly be.PAST Lars in church.DEF & sing.PAST _

Inceptive pseudocoordinations do not allow modification of the first verb, see Chapter 6 for discussion. Adjunct extraction is unproblematic: (30)

Hur högt tog du o sjöng _? how loudly go.PAST you & sing.PAST _

Finally, inceptive-distal pseudocoordinations allow adjunct extraction out of the second clause, even in the presence of one or more particles: (31)

Hur högt gick du iväg dit ner o sjöng _? how loudly go.PAST you away there down & sing.PAST _

Inserting a prepositional phrase denoting a goal of motion with the first verb, however, makes the adjunct extraction degrade:

106

Pseudocoordination is TMA-copying

(32) ??Hur högt gick John till stan o sjöng _? how loudly go.PAST John to town.DEF & sing.PAST _ Basing his argument on examples like (32), cf. (27) above, de Vos (2005) claims that we need to separate pseudocoordinations where the first verb is modified by a particle or a PP from pseudocoordinations where such modification is absent. The former are referred to as scene-setting coordinations, the latter as contiguous coordinations (analyzed as involving a complex predicate head). Note that scene-setting coordinations allow argument extraction in both Swedish (33) and English (34), thus are not strong islands. (33)

Vad gick John till stan o läste _? what go.PAST John to town.DEF & read.PAST _ ‘What did John go to town and read?’

(34)

What did John go to town and read _ ?

Interestingly, insertion of away with the motion verb does not induce a weak island effect, neither in English (35) (from de Vos 2005), nor in Swedish, cf. (31) above. (35)

How carefully did you go away and read the notes I gave you _?

Rather than constituting an exception to the claim that English pseudocoordinations are weak islands in the presence of particles/prepositional phrases with the first verb, (35) is arguably an indication that English and Swedish pseudocoordinations are subject to partly the same restrictions. They do not involve weak islands in the presence of particles and PPs, with the exception goal denoting PPs.85 An additional piece of evidence that English pseudocoordinations may be like their Swedish counterparts is given in (36) below. The example involves adjunct extraction out of a progressive pseudocoordination involving locative modification of the first verb. The sentence is fine in American English (Martha Larson p.c., dialect of Wisconsin), cf. Swedish (28) above. (36)

How loudly did Lars walk around in the office and sing _?

The blocking effect of a goal denoting PP, exemplified in (32) and (27) above, remains to be understood (see Chapter 6 for a preliminary proposal) but is in fact an additional property that the construction type shares with restructuring phenomena. In Italian, restructuring in the context of motion verbs is blocked

Properties of pseudocoordination

107

in the presence of a goal denoting PP. An example involving clitic climbing is given in (37) (from Cinque 2004: fn.30, citing Fresina 1981: 164ff).86 (37)

Li andiamo (*alla stazione) a ricevere. them go.1PL to station.DEF to receive ‘We go to the station and get them.’

(It.)

Apart from constituting an additional argument against a coordination approach to the pseudocoordinations relevant here, the above facts provide us with an argument against two other analyses; the adjunction analysis, see Déchaine (1993); and the complex predicate head analysis, see de Vos (2005). If the relevant pseudocoordinations were to involve adjunction, we would expect island effects to be present, contrary to fact.87 If pseudocoordinated verbs were to form a complex head, we would not expect modification of the first verb to be possible. As we have seen, however, locative and directional modification (with the exception of goal denoting PPs) does not affect extraction possibilities in Swedish, nor in variants of English. Restricting the complex head analysis to cases where there is no such modification would fail to account for why pseudocoordinations with modification of the first verb and pseudocoordinations without such modification share all other properties.88 I conclude that the second clause in aspectual pseudocoordinations is not a weak island (except in the presence of a goal denoting PP) in the variants examined. This follows naturally if pseudocoordination involves TMAcopying, as proposed here. Infinitival clauses allow argument and adjunct extraction, regardless of whether copying is present or not (cf. Chapter 2).

2.5.

Commutativity

Many coordinations allow a reversal of the order of the conjuncts without modifying the truth conditions of the sentence. The truth conditions of (38a) and (38b) below are identical on at least one reading. (38)

a.

b.

Lars sjöng o drack kaffe. Lars sing.PAST & drank.PAST coffee ‘Lars sang and had a coffee.’ Lars drack kaffe o sjöng. Lars drank.PAST coffee & sing.PAST ‘Lars had a coffee and sang.’

108

Pseudocoordination is TMA-copying

Note that there is a reading of (38a) where the singing event temporally precedes the dancing event. On that reading, of course, a reversal of the order of the conjuncts changes the truth conditions of the sentence. The coordination is nevertheless subject to the Coordinate Structure Constraint, cf. (39), thus not a pseudocoordination. (39)

*Kaffet som Lars sjöng o (sedan) drack _ var gott. coffee.DEF that Lars sing.PAST & (then) drink.PAST _ was good

Pseudocoordinations, on the other hand, do not display the commutativity property (see Déchaine 1993; de Vos 2005). The truth conditions of (40a) – on the relevant pseudocoordination reading – are necessarily different from those of (40b) below, where the order of the conjuncts is switched. (40)

a.

b.

Lars gick o drack kaffe. Lars go.PAST & drink.PAST coffee ‘Lars went and had a coffee.’ Lars drack kaffe o gick. Lars drink.PAST coffee & go.PAST ‘Lars had a coffee and left.’

The only reading available for (40b) is the independent-event reading. As expected, extraction is impossible: (41)

*Vad drack Lars _ o gick? what drink.PAST Lars _ & go.PAST

The absence of the commutativity property is yet another attribute that pseudocoordinations share with copying infinitivals and their standard counterparts, thus follows naturally on a complementation analysis of pseudocoordination: (42)

a. *Lars drack kaffe o började. Lars drink.PAST coffee & start.PAST b. *Lars drack kaffe att börja. Lars drink.PAST coffee to start.INF c. *Lars dricka kaffe att började. Lars drink.INF coffee to start.PAST

Properties of pseudocoordination

109

(42a) is only fine on the coordination reading, where the second conjunct involves a null complement; Lars had a coffee and started [something]. Although the absence of the commutativity property is not a conclusive argument against a coordination approach to the phenomenon, as noted above, a coordination approach has to say something more about these particular cases. Adhering to a sub-temporal ordering between the events involved fails to account for progressive pseudocoordinations, where there is no temporal order but rather strict overlap implied between the two (sub-)events (cf. He sat and read). 2.6.

One overt subject

The subject is normally left out in the second conjunct of an ordinary coordination but can be repeated in the form of a pronoun (or even the full DP): (43)

a.

b.

Lars sjöng o han drack kaffe. Lars sing.PAST & he drink.PAST coffee ‘Lars sang and he drank coffee.’ [Lars gick [o han drack kaffe]]. Lars go.PAST & he drink.PAST coffee ‘Lars walked and he had a coffee.’

In pseudocoordinations, however, only one overt subject is possible (for English, see Schmerling 1975 and Déchaine 1993): (44)

*[Lars [gick o han drack kaffe]]. Lars go.PAST & he drink.PAST coffee ‘Lars walked and he had a coffee.’

A VP-coordination analysis is consistent with the the two predicates sharing one overt subject (see Josefsson 1991) but faces the problems noted earlier (e.g. the absence of island effects). If pseudocoordination involves TMAcopying (a restructuring infinitival), on the other hand, as proposed here, the subject restriction is expected, given that it holds of infinitival clauses (copying or not) as well:89 (45)

a. *[Lars [började o han drack kaffe]]. Lars start.PAST & he drink.PAST coffee b. *[Lars [började & han dricka kaffe]]. Lars start.PAST o he drink.INF coffee

110

Pseudocoordination is TMA-copying

2.7.

Negation placement

For a reading where both conjuncts are false, ordinary coordinations have two options. Either the negation is repeated in each conjunct, as in (46a), or the negation follows the coordinated verbs (that are in the V2 position), as in (46b). (46)

a.

b.

Lars sjöng inte o drack inte hela tiden. Lars sing.PAST NEG & drink.PAST NEG whole time ‘Lars did not sing and did not drink the whole time.’ Lars sjöng o drack inte hela tiden. Lars sing.PAST & drink.PAST NEG whole time ‘Lars did not sing and drink the whole time.’

Pseudocoordination, however, is incompatible with both options: (47)

a. *Lars [gick inte o drack inte hela tiden]. Lars go.PAST NEG & drink.PAST NEG whole time b. *Lars [gick o drack inte hela tiden]. Lars go.PAST & drink.PAST NEG whole time To negate the whole complex event, the negation must be placed with the first verb (in the matrix clause) and can not be repeated with the second verb, a fact noted already by Jespersen (1895), see also Vannebo (2003):90 (48)

Lars [gick inte o drack]. Lars go.PAST NEG & drink.PAST ‘Lars did not go and drink.’

Again, pseudocoordinations behave like infinitival constructions (copying or not) rather than coordinations: (49)

a. *Lars [började o drack inte]. Lars start.PAST & drink.PAST NEG b. Lars [började inte o drack]. Lars start.PAST NEG & drink.PAST ‘Lars did not start drinking.’

(50)

a. *Lars [började o dricka inte]. Lars start.PAST & drink.INF NEG b. Lars [började inte o dricka]. Lars start.PAST NEG & drink.INF ‘Lars did not start drinking.’

Properties of pseudocoordination

2.8.

111

Adverb placement

Insertion of an adverb inside the second conjunct yields an unambiguous narrow scope reading of the adverb in ordinary coordinations. Only the event expressed by the second predicate is modified. This is also true for pseudocoordinations, where a restricted set of adverbs are possible (see Chapter 7). Nevertheless, the two constructions differ regarding possible orders between the main verb and the adverb. In the ordinary coordinations, the adverb nästan ‘almost’ can either precede or follow the main verb: (51)

Lars sjöng o (nästan) kysste (nästan) henne (nästan). Lars sing.PAST & (almost) kiss.PAST (almost) her (almost) ‘Lars sang and (almost) kissed her (almost).’

In pseudocoordinations, however, the adverb has to precede the main verb: (52)

Lars gick o (nästan) kysste (*nästan) henne (*nästan). Lars go.PAST & (almost) kiss.PAST (almost) her (almost) ‘Lars went and (almost) kissed her (*almost).’

The order where the adverb follows the main verb is only fine on the independentevent reading, or on the irrelevant wide-scope reading (available when the adverb is in sentence-final position). Once again, pseudocoordinations behave like infinitival constructions rather than coordinations: (53)

a. b.

Lars började o (nästan) kysste (*nästan) henne (*nästan). Lars go.PAST & (almost) kiss.PAST (almost) her (almost) Lars började o (nästan) kyssa (*nästan) henne (*nästan). Lars go.PAST & (almost) kiss.INF (almost) her (almost) ‘Lars started (almost) kissing her (almost).’

The order where the adverb follows the main verb is possible under two irrelevant readings. The first is restricted to (53a) and is the coordination reading involving a null complement in the first conjunct. The second is the wide scope reading (available when the adverb is in sentence-final position).91 2.9.

The linking element

The linking element is restricted to o(ch) ‘and’ in pseudocoordination. Ordinary coordinations, in contrast, are compatible with other conjunctions. Thus, whereas the ordinary coordination in our examples is compatible with the ex-

112

Pseudocoordination is TMA-copying

pression både x o(ch) y ‘both x and y’, the pseudocoordination is not (cf. Schmerling 1975; Déchaine 1993; de Vos 2005): (54)

a.

b.

Lars både sjöng o drack kaffe. Lars both sing.PAST & drink.PAST coffee ‘Lars both sang and had a coffee.’ Lars (*både) gick o drack kaffe. Lars both go.PAST & drink.PAST coffee ‘Lars went and had a coffee.’

A VP-coordination analysis of pseudocoordination has to stipulate that such coordinations are restricted to involve but one type of conjunction, or that some but not other VP-coordinations are restricted in this way. On a complementation analysis, on the other hand, this property is expected, given that o(ch) contrasts with både x o(ch) y in being capable of serving as a complementizer in Swedish (Chapter 4). As I have shown earlier, o(ch) is possible in both copying and standard infinitivals, see (55).92 An (overt) inflectional parallelism between the verbs involved is thus not required for this element to be licensed in the relevant contexts.93 (55)

a. b.

3.

Lars (*både) började o drack kaffe. Lars (both) start.PAST & drink.PAST coffee Lars (*både) började o dricka kaffe. Lars (both) start.PAST & drink.INF coffee ‘Lars started drinking coffee.’

Intermediate conclusion

I have reviewed eight properties that set pseudocoordinations apart from their coordinate counterparts but unite them with infinitival constructions, see Table 11. (1) Whereas pseudocordinations display a first verb restriction, coordinations do not. (2) Whereas pseudocoordinated verbs are in the same intonational phrase, coordinated verbs are not. (3) Pseudocoordinations can only refer to one event, coordinations do not display this restriction. (4) Pseudocoordinations are not islands, coordinations are. (5) Pseudocoordinations do not display the commutativity property, many coordinations do. (6) An overt subject is impossible in the second clause of a pseudocoordination, but possible in the second conjunct of a coordination. (7) The whole complex may not precede the negation in pseudocoordinations, but can do so in coordina-

Vacuous inflection – infinitival counterparts

113

tions. (8) The main verb has to follow an adverb in the second conjunct in pseudocoordinations, not in coordinations. Table 11. Coordination vs. complementation

Properties Any first verb Two inton. phrases Plural anaphoric ref. Island status Commutativity Subj. with 2nd pred. V&V > NEG Main verb > adverb

Coord. + + + + + + + +

Pseudo. − − − − − − − −

Copy. inf. − − − − − − − −

Stand. inf. − − − − − − − −

On the basis of the fact that all properties that set the relevant pseudocoordinations apart from ordinary coordinations unite them with copying infinitivals and their standard (non-copying) counterparts, I conclude that pseudocoordination is not coordination but involves (TMA-copying) complementation. The verb in what appears to be the first conjunct selects the clause introduced by o. For the same conclusion, see e.g. Jespersen (1895), Carden and Pesetsky (1977), Anward (1988), Wiklund (1996), Johannessen (1998), Cardinaletti and Giusti (2001), and Lødrup (2002):94 (56)

Lars [gick [CP o drack kaffe]]. Lars go.PAST & drink.PAST coffee ‘Lars went and had a coffee.’

As hinted at above, there are also semantic arguments against a coordination analysis. These will be elaborated in Chapter 6. Below, I show that the embedded clause in pseudocoordinations involves vacuous inflection. 4.

Vacuous inflection – infinitival counterparts

In Chapter 1, I showed that pseudocoordinations and copying constructions differ in that the former lack infinitival counterparts. Below, this difference is examined in more detail. 4.1. Progressive pseudocoordinations Replacing the second verb in the sentences in (5) above by an infinitival form of the verb leads to ungrammaticality:95

114 (57)

Pseudocoordination is TMA-copying

a. *Sitt att äta! sit.IMP to eat.INF b. *Han sitter att äta. he sit.PRES to eat.INF c. *Han satt att äta. he sit.PAST to eat.INF d. *Han hade suttit att äta. he had sit.PPC to eat.INF

At first sight, the unavailability of infinitival counterparts seems to make pseudocoordination less similar to TMA-copying and infinitival constructions in general. However, (at least) one variant of Swedish has an infinitive construction in place of pseudocoordination with the relevant verbs; also in standard Dutch, the corresponding verbs select infinitives. Consider the verb vara ‘be’ that may pseudocoordinate in standard Swedish to yield a progressivedistal reading: (58)

Han var o köpte mat. he is.PAST & buy.PAST food ‘He was away buying food.’

(Standard Swedish)

The buying event is interpreted as being in progress and located in a place that is distinct from the reference location (roughly being away doing something). Although the infinitival counterpart of (58) is impossible in standard Swedish, it is fine in Fenno-Swedish, see (59).96 The construction is restricted to the o-complementizer, thus excluding att (Anders Holmberg, p.c.). (59)

Han var o köpa mat. he is.PAST & buy.INF food ‘He was away buying food.’

(Fenno-Sw./*Standard Sw.)

Attaching the tag men affären var stängd ‘but the shop was closed’ to the Fenno-Swedish construction results in a pragmatic oddity (60a), just like it does in the standard Swedish pseudocoordinate counterpart (60b). Since the food-buying event is interpreted as being in progress at the relevant point in time in both sentences, it is at odds with a situation where the shop is closed.97 (60)

a.

Han var o köpa mat, #men affären var stängd. he is.PAST & buy.INF food, but shop.DEf was closed

Vacuous inflection – infinitival counterparts

b.

115

Han var o köpte mat, #men affären var stängd. he is.PAST & buy.PAST food, but shop.DEF was closed ‘He was away buying food, #but the shop was closed.’

Going back to the sentences in (57), note that these are all fine in standard Dutch (see Geerts et al. 1984: 537ff.). (61a) below is the counterpart of (57b) above. It yields the same in-progress reading of the eating event as the Swedish pseudocoordinate counterpart in (61b).98 (61)

a.

Hij zit te eten. he sit.PRES to eat.INF

(Du.)

b.

Han sitter o äter. he sit.PRES & eat.PRES ‘~He is eating.’

(Sw.)

There are at least two ways to illustrate that the interpretations are identical. First, attaching the tag men han har inte börjat äta än ‘but he hasn’t started eating yet’ to the sentence yields a pragmatic oddity in both the Dutch infinitival and the Swedish pseudocoordination. Since the eating-event is interpreted as being in progress in both sentences, it is at odds with a situation where subject referent has not yet started eating: (62)

a.

Hij zit te eten, #maar hij is nog niet begonnen met he sit.PRES to eat.INF, but he is yet not start.PPC with eten. (Du.) eat

b.

Han sitter o äter, #men han har inte börjat äta he sit.PRES o eat.PRES, but he has not start.PPC eat.INF än. (Sw.) yet ‘~He is eating, #but he hasn’t started eating yet.’

Secondly, the infinitival construction yields aspect shifts identical to those present in the pseudocoordination. Replacing the embedded verb in (61a) by niezen ‘sneeze’ (a point type of event in Moens 1987), as in (63a), yields a reading where the sneezing-event is interpreted as iterated. This is expected when the progressive is applied to a predicate of that kind (cf. He is sneezing). On this and other aspectual transitions, see e.g. Moens (1987). The relevant aspect shift is present in the pseudocoordinate counterpart (63b) as well.

116 (63)

Pseudocoordination is TMA-copying

a.

Hij zit te niezen. he sit.PRES to sneeze.INF

(Du.)

b.

Han sitter o nyser. he sit.PRES o sneeze.PRES ‘~He is sneezing.’

(Sw.)

Replacing the embedded predicate by the verb corresponding to fall asleep (an achievement in the classification of Vendler 1967) yields a reading where the subject referent is about to fall asleep (nodding off) in both the infinitival construction and the pseudocoordination (the pre-inceptive reading): (64)

a.

Hij zit in slaap te vallen. he sit.PRES in sleep to fall.INF

(Du.)

b.

Han sitter o somnar. he sit.PRES o fall-asleep.PRES ‘~He is falling asleep.’

(Sw.)

Data from Fenno-Swedish and Dutch thus show that the meaning conveyed by progressive(-distal) pseudocoordinations in standard Swedish can be conveyed by infinitival constructions involving the same verbs be and sit, respectively. The fact that infinitival alternatives are missing in standard Swedish can thus not be used as an argument in favour of treating pseudocoordination and copying infinitivals differently. Both constructions belong to a subtype of infinitival constructions where the embedded verb, instead of turning up in the infinitival form, agrees with the matrix verb.99 Note that the Dutch construction is like the corresponding pseudocoordination in Swedish in that it allows adjunct extraction (65) but not T-adverbs (66). The adverb altijd ‘always’ can only have the wide scope reading in (66), which I take to indicate that it can not be inside the infinitival (nothing may intervene between te and the infinitive). (66) thus contrasts with (67), where the scope of the same adverb is ambiguous. (65)

Hoe hard zat hij te zingen _? how loud sit.PAST he to sing.INF _ Intended meaning: ‘How loudly was he singing _?’

(66)

Hij zit altijd te zingen. he sit.PAST always to sing.INF _ I. ‘He always sits and sings.’ II. *‘He sits and always sings.’

(Du.)

Vacuous inflection – infinitival counterparts

(67)

117

Hij probeert altijd te zingen. he try.PRES always to sing.INF I. ‘He always tries to sing.’ II. ‘He tries to always sing.’

The explanandum is now shifted from the issue of why the readings of pseudocoordinations can not be conveyed by infinitival constructions with the same verbs (they can) to the issue of why the relevant verbs obligatorily copy in Swedish when they combine with a verbal predicate, in contrast to other verbs that we have seen may select TMA-copying infinitivals. Part of the explanation will be claimed to lie in the property briefly mentioned above. The relevant verbs contrast with other copying verbs that in having other uses. In Chapter 6 below, I propose that pseudocoordinations are reanalyzed coordinations. From the above data, we can conclude that the inflection of the second verb in progressive(-distal) pseudocoordinations is semantically vacuous. If the various aspectual interpretations of these were dependent on the inflectional form of the second verb, we would not expect to find the same meaning conveyed by infinitival constructions. We thus have another argument in favour of taking pseudocoordination to involve copying. 4.2.

Inceptive pseudocoordinations

Motion verbs can also be construed with infinitivals. However, the infinitival construction differs truth-conditionally from pseudocoordination with the same verb. Consider (68a) and (68b), both involving gå ‘go’. (68)

a.

b.

Han gick o sjöng, #men fick inte fram ett ljud. he go.PAST & sing.PAST, but get.PAST not out a sound ‘He went and sang, #but did not produce a sound.’ Han gick för att sjunga, men fick inte fram ett he go.PAST for to sing.INF, but get.PAST not out a ljud. sound ‘He went to sing, but did not produce a sound.’

The pseudocoordination in (68a) implies that the subject referent went away and succeeded in doing some singing, contrasting with the infinitival construction in (68b), where the implication is that the subject referent went away

118

Pseudocoordination is TMA-copying

with the intention of singing at the relevant point in time, but where no reference is made as to whether he actually did some singing or not. Predictably, the tag men han fick inte fram ett ljud ‘but he did not produce a sound’ results in pragmatic oddity in (68a), contrasting with (68b) where the tag is perfectly acceptable. The motion verb expresses initiation of the singing event in (68a) (the inceptive aspect) but not in (68b). At first sight, the above described semantic differences between the pseudocoordination and the infinitival construction look problematic for proposing that the pseudocoordination is an infinitival construction with copied inflectional morphology, cf. de Vos (2005). On a closer scrutiny, however, (68b) is not an infinitival counterpart of (68a) in the sense that the underlying structures are similar. The infinitival clause in (68b) is a mild weak island, whereas the second clause in (68a) is not. Extracting an adjunct out of (68b) yields a deviant but not fully ungrammatical result (69a). As seen is (69b), in contrast, the same extraction out of the pseudocoordination is perfectly fine. (69)

a. ??Hur noggrannt gick han iväg för att leta den _? how carefully go.PAST he away for to search.INF it _ ‘How carefully did he go away to look for it _?’ b. Hur noggrannt gick han iväg o letade den _? how carefully go.PAST he away & search.PAST it _ ‘How carefully did he go away and look for it _?’

Therefore, the semantic contrast between (68a) and (68b) can not be taken as an indication that the surface inflection of the second verb in the former is responsible for the interpretation of that sentence. The underlying structures associated with the two sentences are simply different. That true infinitival counterparts of inceptive pseudocoordinations involving motion verbs are absent in Swedish is an interesting issue per se but not an argument against the claim that pseudocoordination involves copying, just like the absence of infinitival counterparts of progressive pseudocoordinations in Swedish is not an argument against the same claim. In principle, an infinitival construction should be capable of conveying the relevant meaning components. That this expectation is met can be illustrated with the verb ta ‘take’. (2) above, repeated in (70a), does not have an infinitival counterpart, cf. (70b). (70)

a.

Han tog o läste en bok. he take.PAST & read.PAST a book

Vacuous inflection – infinitival counterparts

b.

119

Han tog att läsa en bok. he take.PAST to read.INF a book ‘He read a book.’

When combined with a reflexive pronoun (REFL) and the prepositions för/till med ‘for/to with’, however, ta can either pseudocoordinate (71a) or select an infinitive (71b) in my variant. Crucially, both sentences yield an inceptive-like aspect. (71)

a. b.

Han tog sig för med o sjöng. he take.PAST REFL for with & sing.PAST Han tog sig för med att sjunga. he take.PAST REFL for with to sing.INF ~‘He took and sang.’

Here, thus, the infinitival construction does not yield a purpose reading but preserves the single event reading where the first verb expresses initiation of the (complex) event. Thus, attaching the tag men han fick inte fram ett ljud ‘but he did not produce a sound’ results in pragmatic oddity in both the pseudocoordination, (72a), and the infinitival construction, (72b). (72)

a.

b.

Han tog sig för med o sjöng, #men he take.PAST REFL for with & sing.PAST, but inte fram ett ljud. not forth a sound Han tog sig för med att sjunga, #men he take.PAST REFL for with to sing.INF, but inte fram ett ljud. not forth a sound ~‘He took and sang, #but did not produce a sound.’

fick get.PAST

fick get.PAST

This fact enables us to discard the phenomenon of pseudocoordination per se as responsible for the relevant aspect, which provides us with an additional argument in favour of taking pseudocoordination to be a special type of infinitival construction (involving copying of inflectional features). A pseudocoordinate complement is – to use the words of Jespersen (1895: 170) – an infinitive in disguise (en forklædt infinitiv).

120 5.

Pseudocoordination is TMA-copying

Restrictions on copying

It remains to be shown that the syntactic relation behind pseudocoordination is top-down, local, and sensitive to tense, just like copying.

5.1.

Top-down

Given that pseudocoordination involves complementation (the first verb selects the clause introduced by o), we already have an argument in favour of taking the relevant relation to be top-down. A second argument runs as follows. If the embedded verb were capable of determining the inflection of the matrix verb, we would predict (73) to be acceptable, contrary to fact. That the infinitival form can be copied is evidenced by (74). (73)

*Han har gå o äta. he has go.INF & eat.INF ‘He has gone and eaten.’

(74)

Han ska gå o äta. he will sit.INF & eat.INF ‘He will go and eat.’

The embedded infinitival form of äta in (74) must be copied from the matrix clause, since, as we know, the construction type does not have an infinitival counterpart in (standard) Swedish, cf. (75a). (75)

5.2.

a. *Han går o äta. he go.PRES & eat.INF b. Han går o äter. he go.PRES & eat.PRES ‘He goes and eats.’ Locality

We have already seen that pseudocoordination does not involve islands (§2.4). That the spreading of inflection respects Relativized Minimality is shown in (76), where the inceptive ta ‘take’ (+ REFL for with) selects a clause headed by hjälpa ‘help’, which in turn selects a clause headed by skriva ‘write’.

Restrictions on copying

(76)

121

a.

Han hade tagit sig för med o hjälpt henne o skrivit he had take.PPC REFL for with & help.PPC her & write.PPC boken. book.DEF b. Han hade tagit sig för med o hjälpt henne o skriva he had take.PPC REFL for with & help.PPC her & write.INF boken. book.DEF c. *Han hade tagit sig för med o hjälpa henne o skrivit he had take.PPC REFL for with & help.INF her & write.PPC boken. book.DEF d. Han hade tagit sig för med o hjälpa henne o skriva he had take.PPC REFL for with & help.INF her & write.INF boken. book.DEF Approximately: ‘He had helped her to write the book.’

Ta can either pseudocoordinate, as in (76a) and (76b), or select a standard infinitival, as in (76d). Hjälpa can either TMA-copy, as in (76a), or select a standard infinitival as in (76b) and (76d). On the present proposal that pseudocoordination involves TMA-copying, hence involve local "spreading" of inflectional features, we correctly predict (76c) to be impossible. The participial features of ta can not reach skriva past the infinitive hjälpa. 5.3.

Tense sensitivity

If pseudocoordination involves copying, pseudocoordination should also be sensitive to the tense of the complement clause. This is borne out. None of the pseudocoordinations investigated here allow non-overlapping temporal properties between the clauses involved. Consider (77). (77)

a. *Idag går Lars iväg o läser en bok på fredag. today go.PRES Lars away & read.PRES a book on Friday b. Lars går iväg o läser en bok idag. Lars go.PRES away & read.PRES a book today c. Lars går iväg o läser en bok på fredag. Lars go.PRES away & read.PRES a book on Friday

122

Pseudocoordination is TMA-copying

If surface inflectional parallelism between the verbs involved were the relevant restriction, we would expect (77a) above to be acceptable, since the non-past (present) form in Swedish is ambiguous between expressing present and future tense. However, pseudocoordination is unavailable in the presence of a complement that is future-oriented with respect to the matrix clause, just like TMA-copying is unavailable in that context. Thus, the whole complex event has to be either present-oriented, as in (77b), or future-oriented, as in (77c).100 Thus, a temporal mismatch like (77a) is unavailable despite the fact that the walking away has to precede the book-reading in these pseudocoordinations. Any precedence relation between pseudocoordinated events is therefore sub-temporal. Nor can the complement be past-oriented with respect to the matrix clause, see (78), even if the inflectional morphology is otherwise compatible with the temporal frame of the adverbials in the example. (78)

*Igår gick Lars o läste en bok i förrgår. yesterday go.PAST Lars & read.PAST a book in before-yesterday

Finally, note that the inflection of the embedded verb survives movement, just like TMA-copied inflection (Chapter 2): (79)

6.

kaffe] gick Lars o gjorde i lördags. [Drack drink.PAST coffee go.PAST Lars & do.PAST last Saturday Conclusion

I have argued that pseudocoordinations involve copying infinitivals, because like these: – Pseudocoordination involves complementation. – The inflection of the second clause is semantically vacuous (copied). More specifically, I have argued that the relevant pseudocoordinations involve TMA-copying infinitivals, because: – The embedded clause is non-bare (is introduced by the complementizer och, the reduced form of which is o). – All forms may copy. – Aspectual modification is present. – T-adverbs are impossible in the embedded clause.

Conclusion

123

– The relation behind the inflectional sharing is syntactic, local, and sensitive to tense. If copying is a restructuring effect as I have argued in Chapter 4, then: – Pseudocoordination involves restructuring.

Chapter 6 Pseudocoordinating verbs are light verbs

If we abstract away from prosody (as in written text), the example in (1) below is ambiguous between a reading that involves two coordinated events (the independent-event reading) and a reading where the two events form a single complex event (the pseudocoordination reading).101 (1)

Han satt o sov. he sit.PAST & sleep.PAST I. ‘He was sitting and (was) sleeping.’ II. ‘He was sleeping (in a sitting position).’

The fact that many pseudocoordinations are ambiguous this way still looks like a piece of support in favour of the coordination analysis of pseudocoordination that I discarded in the preceding chapter. A closer examination of the first verb involved, however, will reveal that on the pseudocoordination use (reading II.), this verb can not coordinate in the first place. I will present evidence in favour of taking pseudocoordinating verbs to involve light verb uses of (otherwise) lexical verbs. This finding will do two things. In addition to ridding us of the apparent support in favour of a coordination analysis, it will throw light on the semantic properties of copying constructions involving these verbs. 1.

Semantic classification

Recall the principal classes of matrix verbs occuring in the pseudocoordinations relevant here:102 – – – –

Posture verbs (sitta ‘sit’, stå ‘stand’, and ligga ‘lie’) Motion verbs (gå ‘go’, komma ‘come’, springa ‘run’) Vara ‘be’ Ta ‘take’

The basic aspectual properties of pseudocoordinations depend on the nature of the matrix predicate. However, as a first note of caution, it is not possible

126

Pseudocoordinating verbs are light verbs

to propose one-to-one relations between the classes of matrix verbs involved and aspectual interpretations. One and the same verb may turn up in different syntactic environments, yielding different aspectual properties. If taken out of context, one and the same sentence can therefore be ambiguous between aspectual interpretations. Below I claim that two basic classes of readings are available with the above pseudocoordinating verbs. I will refer to them as the progressive and the inceptive readings, respectively. These two, in turn, are subdivided between non-distal and distal readings. 1.1.

The progressive reading

On the progressive reading, the event denoted by the embedded predicate is interpreted as being in progress at a certain point in time, a reading that is near-identical to the one yielded by the verb be plus a gerund in English; he was reading. The most inclusive discussion of the semantics of progressive pseudocoordinations can be found in Tonne (2000).103 (2)

Han satt o läste en bok. he sit.PAST & read.PAST a book ‘He was reading a book (in a sitting position).’

(Progressive)

The Swedish present and preterite tenses are ambiguous (or vague) between perfective and imperfective readings. Pseudocoordinations can be used to disambiguate the two. On the relevant pseudocoordination reading of (2), thus, the book-reading event can only be interpreted as a process in progress at a past time. In contrast, the book-reading event in the non-pseudocoordinated counterpart (3) is ambiguous between an imperfective and a perfective reading. (3)

Han läste en bok. he read.PAST a book I. ‘He was reading a book.’ II. ‘He read a book.’

Posture verbs frequently pseudocoordinate to yield the progressive reading, as do motion verbs, see (4), and the verb BE (discussed below), but not TAKE. (4)

Han gick omkring o läste en bok. he go.PAST around & read.PAST a book ‘He went around reading a book.’

(Progressive)

Semantic classification

1.2.

127

The inceptive reading

On the inceptive reading, in turn, the matrix predicate is roughly interpreted as expressing initiation of the event denoted by the embedded predicate. The embedded event may be bounded or unbounded. The whole complex event has a bounded (perfective) reading (as a function of the matrix predicate). This reading is described in Ekberg (1993) and Teleman et al. (1999: IV: 907), examining pseudocoordinations involving the verb TAKE, as in (5) below (see alsoVannebo 2003). (5)

Han tog o läste en bok. he take.PAST & read.PAST a book (Irish English:) ‘He took and read a book.’

(Inceptive)

Motion verbs and posture verbs (on their directional use), cf. (6), are also capable of expressing initiation, but not BE. (6)

Han satte sig o läste en bok. he sit:DIR.PAST REFL & read.PAST a book ~‘He sat down and read a book.’

(Inceptive)

TAKE and the motion verb gå ‘go’ can also pseudocoordinate to yield a touch of unexpectedness to the event denoted by the embedded predicate, as in (7). That reading has been referred to as the unexpected-event reading or the surprise reading in the literature (see e.g. Carden and Pesetsky 1977; Déchaine 1993; de Vos 2005).

(7)

Han gick o vann en miljon. he go.PAST & win.PAST a million ‘He went and won a million.’

(Surprise)

I take the surprise reading to be a special version of the class of inceptive readings for reasons that will become clear as we proceed.

1.3.

The distal reading

Progressive and inceptive pseudocoordinations can be divided further with respect to whether or not the location of the event denoted by the embedded predicate is interpreted as distinct from the reference location.104 I will refer

128

Pseudocoordinating verbs are light verbs

to the former reading, denoting a situation where the subject referent is away doing something (cf. Ekberg 1983), as the distal reading. Within the class of progressive pseudocoordinations, the distal reading is only available with the verb BE, see (8) below. (8)

Han var o läste en bok. he was.PAST & read.PAST a book ‘He was away reading a book.’

(Progressive-distal)

The interpretation of (8) thus involves two components. The book-reading event is interpreted as being in progress (progressive) at a time preceding the utterance time and as located in a place that is distinct from the reference location (distal). Motion verbs can also participate in pseudocoordinations to yield a distal reading, see (9), whereas the verb TAKE can not. (9)

Han gick o läste en bok. he go.PAST & read.PAST a book ‘He went and read a book.’

(Inceptive-distal)

In (9) above, the motion verb expresses initiation of the embedded event (inceptive) and the motion is interpreted as directed away from the reference location (distal). The location of the embedded event is interpreted as identical to the goal of the motion.105 In the presence of a verb particle expressing the final location of the motion, as in (10), a reading that comes close to a purely distal interpretation is available. The location of the embedded event is indentical to the goal of the motion (DIR stands for directional). (10)

Han gick dit o läste en bok. he go.PAST there.DIR & read.PAST a book ‘He went there and read a book.’

(Distal)

As shown in the preceding chapter, however, a prepositional phrase specifying the goal induces a mild weak island effect, thus yields a subtly different construction. Distal aspect seems related to the distantive (or andative) aspect referred to in Cinque (1999) and Cinque (2004). Note however that my label distal does not imply directed motion, thus can also be expressed by pseudocoordinations involving the stative verb BE, as in (8), to yield a progressive-distal reading.

Pseudocoordinating verbs and event structure

1.4.

129

Classification arrived at

If the above descriptions are correct, we arrive at the following four basic readings (disregarding for the moment being the purely distal reading): A. the progressive reading, B. the progressive-distal reading, C. the inceptive reading, and D. the inceptive-distal reading. For brief notes on which matrix predicates impose selectional restrictions on the subject, I refer the reader to Appendix III. Table 12. Classes of aspectual pseudocoordination

−DISTAL +DISTAL

PROGRESSIVE

INCEPTIVE

A. as in (2) and (4) B. as in (8)

C. as in (5) and (6) D. as in (9)

Related types of pseudocoordination are found also outside of the Scandinavian languages. Hebrew displays pseudocoordination with the motion verb corresponding to go (Idan Landau, p.c.). Pseudocoordinations that yield progressive-like readings are found in English with posture and motion verbs, see e.g. de Vos (2005). In Bulgarian, posture verbs can pseudocoordinate to yield a related (durative) reading, see Kuteva (1999). Pseudocoordinations with TAKE that yield interpretations related to the inceptive reading described above are attested in Romance, Slavic, Baltic, and Finno-Ugric languages according to Ekberg (1993). According to the same study, the literal translation of (5) above is fine in Irish English and in certain American dialects. Finally, pseudocoordination with motion verbs to yield interpretations that seem related to the inceptive-distal reading is possible in the Marsalese dialect of Italian, see Cardinaletti and Giusti (2001), and in English, see e.g. Carden and Pesetsky (1977) and de Vos (2005).

2.

Pseudocoordinating verbs and event structure

TAKE , BE , and verbs of posture and motion thus frequently yield readings that are identical or related to those described here crosslinguistically. In this sense, there is something intuitively basic about these verbs from the point of view of Universal Grammar. These verbs must be available for encodings of primitive notions from which the relevant aspectual properties can be derived.

130

Pseudocoordinating verbs are light verbs

2.1.

The lightness of the matrix verb

There is also another sense in which these verbs are basic. They are in a certain sense less specified than other verbs from the same domains. Whereas verbs like e.g. sitta ‘sit’, stå ‘stand’, ligga ‘lie’, and gå ‘go’ can pseudocoordinate to yield aspectual readings, as in the a-examples below, other verbs from the domains of posture and motion – e.g. luta sig ‘lean REFL’, halvsitta ‘half-sit’ (be in a position between sitting and lying), lufsa ‘lumber’, and hoppa ‘jump’ – can not do so, cf. the b-examples. The extraction test is used to identify possibility of pseudocoordinating:106 (11)

a.

Vad satt han o spelade? what sit.PAST he & play.PAST b. *Vad halvsatt han och spelade? what half-sit.PAST he o play.PAST

(12)

a.

Vad gick han o spelade? what go.PAST he o play.PAST b. *Vad lufsade han & spelade ? what lumber.PAST he o play.PAST

(11a) and (11b) both involve flavours of the posture verb sitta ‘sit’. However, only in (11a) do we get a progressive reading and the possibility of extracting. Similarly, (12a) and (12b) both involve motion verbs denoting a walking event. But only in (12a) do we get an inceptive-distal reading and the possibility of extracting. The relevant difference between the a- and the b-examples seems to be that the a-examples involve matrix verbs that are less specified for manner of posture and motion, respectively. There are various descriptive labels of the latter sense of basic in grammaticalization frameworks (see e.g. Hopper and Closs Traugott 1993), including notions like genericity and bleaching. In a study of Zulu, Mkhatshwa (1991) (cited in Heine 1993: 29) shows that the verb -hlala ‘sit/stay’ has grammaticalized into a habitual auxiliary -hlale ‘do always’, whereas other verbs of the same domain have not; -qoshama ‘sit on haunches’, -qhiyama ‘sit leaning back’, and -dangalaza ‘sit with legs astride’. Part of the explanation is claimed to derive from the fact that -hlala ‘sit/stay’ is the generic member of the relevant domain by (i) being the semantically least constrained member of that domain, (ii) exhibiting the widest scope of usage, and by (iii) being substitutable for other members of the domain, while the opposite does not

Pseudocoordinating verbs and event structure

131

hold true. Closely related to genericity is the loss of lexical semantics, which is seen as a (historic) process through which a verb (or any other category) loses lexical properties, the final stage being one where the verb (or what once was a verb) is bleached enough to be available as a grammatical marker. The Swedish verb sitta ‘sit’ may thus be described as contrasting with halv-sitta ‘half-sit’ in being the generic member of the domain that includes both. Or sitta ‘sit’ may be described as more bleached than halv-sitta ‘halfsit’ and therefore the former but not the latter is capable of serving as an aspect marker. While notions like genericity and bleaching seem to serve a descriptive purpose, they are, however, not particularly explanatory. Does the bleaching referred to necessarily come about through absence of lexical properties, and if so, what does absence of lexical properties mean? Why is the verb sit more likely to serve as an aspect marker than half-sit or sit-with-legsastride? Although space does not allow us to give detailed answers to this type of questions, I will show what an explanation may look like from the point of view of syntax. For this purpose, I adopt the essential ingredients of the framework of Ramchand (in press), briefly introduced below. 2.2.

Event structure

Ramchand (in press) is concerned with identifying the syntactic components of event structure building in natural language. She takes lexical items to carry category features (or tags) through which they may associate with nodes in the syntactic structure. The relevant features in the verbal domain are three in number and are labelled init (causation/initiation), proc (process), and res (result), respectively. Each one of these features has a corresponding projection in the verb phrase syntax to which the feature may associate; a causation/initiation projection (initP), a process projection (procP), and a result projection (resP). These projections are instantiations of (possible) subparts of the whole event. InitP introduces the causation event and licenses the external argument. ProcP specifies the nature of the change or process and licenses the entity undergoing this change (or process).107 Finally, ResP provides the result state of the event and licenses the entity of which the result state holds: (13)

[initP [procP [resP ]]]

The process (proc head) is the nucleus and is the only component that is obligatory in a dynamic verbal event. Thus, [initP] and [resP], alone or together,

132

Pseudocoordinating verbs are light verbs

do not form legitimate events, whereas all other combinations do, provided that the fixed order in between the subevents involved is respected: (14)

Legitimate event structures: a. [procP] b. [initP [procP]] c. [procP [resP]] d. [initP [procP [resP]]]

If the lexical entry of a verb contains init and res features, the relevant verb may associate with the proc-node and the res-node in the verb phrase built up, but with no other nodes. As a result of this association, the eventive content of procP and resP in the structure is semantically identified. An example of a verb that has rich enough lexical encyclopedic content to identify all possible parts of the event and hence carries all three features in its lexical specification is defuse: (15)

Lexical entry for defuse: [init, proci , resi ]

The undergoer (DP that undergoes the defusing) will be the same as the resultee (DP that acheives the state of being defused), which is indicated by coindexing in the entry above. In virtue of carrying the maximal set of features, the item will be able to associate in structures that yield accomplishments/result transitive verbs: (16)

a. b.

[initP subj1 defuse [procP subj2 [resP subj2 ]]] John defused a bomb.

A stative use of a verb may arise when init selects rhematic material (material that is part of the description of the predicate), instead of the process projection procP: (17)

[initP vinit [XPrheme ]]

When init hosts encyclopaedically impoverished verbs like be, rhematic material is necessary to fully describe the state, cf. (18) below, where the rhematic material can be e.g. a prepositional phrase, or and adjectival phrase: (18)

He was *(in the park/happy).

Pseudocoordinating verbs and event structure

133

Rhemes are according to Ramchand not limited to stative contexts but exist in dynamic predication as well. A rheme of process and a rheme of result is exemplified in (19a) and (19b), respectively. (19)

a. b.

Karena jogged 2 miles. He entered the room.

2 miles in (19a) is not subject to a change as a result of the running event but merely describes the process portion by measuring the path traversed by the undergoer. Likewise, the room in (19b) is not a resultee in the sense that it comes to hold the result state of the entering, but instead further describes the result of that event by expressing the final location. The framework provides two loci of flexibility. First, a verb (read verbal lexical item) in one language and what appears to be its counterpart in another language may be subtly different in not carrying the same number of category tags. Ramchand proposes that English run differs from its Italian counterpart correre in not carrying a res-feature, accounting for a difference between the two languages w.r.t. the interpretation of locative PPs in the context of this verb. Whereas a goal reading is available in Italian (20a), it is not in English (20b). (20)

a.

b.

Gianni è corso a casa di Maria. Gianni is run.PPC at/to house of Maria ‘Gianni has run to Mary’s house.’ He ran in the woods. Can not mean: ‘He ran to the woods.’

(It.)

On the assumption that the Italian motion verb contrasts with the English counterpart in carrying the res-tag, the locative PP may merge as a rheme of result in syntax, accounting for the goal reading of the PP. English, in turn, must make use of “result augmentation” where the added PP identifying the resP has to come with a res feature itself (carried by a directional preposition) in order for the goal reading to be available. In this sense, the English lexical item run can be said to be lighter, or bleached, as compared to its Italian counterpart correre. The latter has a res feature in its lexical specification, whereas the former does not. A verb need not lack features in the lexical specification in order to be bleached, however. Under certain circumstances, a verb may leave features unassociated in syntax. A lexical item may have e.g. an init feature and a

134

Pseudocoordinating verbs are light verbs

proc feature in its lexical specification but in the verb phrase with which the item associates, the procP may be identified by another item. The lexical item is then linked to structure via its init tag alone and therefore does not take part in identifying the process portion of the event structure. If this is correct, Universal Grammar makes available (at least) two types of “bleaching”:108 – A category feature is missing in the lexical specification. – A category feature in the lexical specification remains unassociated. The latter scenario, Ramchand (in press) labels underassociation. We now have at least the beginning of an answer to one of the two questions posed above. Bleaching does not necessarily mean radical absence of lexical properties, because absence of lexical properties may translate into two things. It may refer to absence of a category feature in the lexical specification or absence of association of a category feature in the lexical specification to syntactic structure. In the latter type of bleaching, the bleached component is thus not missing from the lexical entry of an item, but merely left unlinked to structure. Below, I will propose that pseudocoordinating verbs are bleached in the latter sense. Using the tools introduced above, I examine properties of pseudocoordinating verbs in more detail. Posture verbs are useful for this purpose, since these can pseudocoordinate to yield both progressive and inceptive readings. My investigation will provide us with two pieces of information. First, the relevant notions encoded to yield the two classes of readings are location and directed motion (change of location), respectively. Secondly, verbs that pseudocoordinate to yield the relevant readings instantiate light verb uses of these verbs in the sense of underassociation to syntax, as described above. The latter finding will ultimately rid us of the apparent piece of support in favour of a coordination analysis of pseudocoordination that was noted in the introduction above.

3.

Posture verbs in progressive pseudocoordination

Outside of the domain of pseudocoordination, posture verbs have (at least) four different uses in Swedish and can therefore associate to different types of event structure. Using the classification of Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2000), these uses are the simple position use, the maintain position use, the

Posture verbs in progressive pseudocoordination

135

assume position use, and the transitive causative use, respectively. Taking sitta ‘sit’ (referred to as SIT in what follows) to be an illustrative example, I will show that only two out of the four uses are relevant to pseudocoordination, one to the progressive reading, the other to the class of inceptive readings. 3.1.

Simple position (locative) vs. maintain position SIT

In the simple position use, SIT describes the spatial configuration of the subject referent with respect to a location, see Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2000): (21)

Han satt i soffan. he sit.PAST in sofa.DEF ‘He was sitting in the sofa.’

(Locative)

On the relevant reading, the crucial message conveyed by (21) is that the subject referent is located in the sofa at a past time. (21) is thus a felicitous anwer to the question ‘Where was he?’. That the subject referent is sitting, as opposed to lying or standing, is a piece of information that is felt to be subordinate, even if manner of posture counts for the truth conditions of the sentence. I will henceforth refer to this use of SIT as the locative use, which is a more transparent label for the present purpose. That manner of posture cannot be prominent on the locative use of the verb is reflected by the fact that the locative reading disappears when we insert an adverb that further describes the manner of sitting (22a), or replace SIT with a verb from the same domain that is more specific regarding manner (22b). (22)

a.

b.

Han satt avslappnat i soffan.’ he sit.PAST relaxedly in sofa.DEF ‘He was sitting relaxedly in the sofa. Han halvsatt i soffan. he half-sit.PAST in sofa.DEF ‘He was half-sitting in the sofa.’

(Maintain pos.)

(Maintain pos.)

The above two sentences can only have readings where manner of posture is interpreted as prominent and therefore form less natural answers to the question ‘Where was he?’. These sentences exemplify the maintain position use of SIT; the posture verb describes the maintenance of a particular spatial configuration of the subject referent (Rappaport Hovav and Levin 2000). In

136

Pseudocoordinating verbs are light verbs

the maintain position use of SIT, the locative PP is optional; in the locative use, it is required:109 (23)

a.

b.

Han satt (i soffan).’ he sit.PAST in sofa.DEF ‘He was sitting in the sofa. Han satt *(i soffan). he sit.PAST (in sofa.DEF) ‘He was sitting in the sofa.’

(Maintain pos.)

(Locative)

Taking this similarity between the locative version of SIT and the more impoverished BE seriously (they both require additional material), cf. (18), I assume along with Hoekstra and Mulder (1990) that locative SIT is a kind of copula. The locative argument is required in (23b) to fully describe the state. Using the framework of Ramchand (in press), I therefore propose that SIT, in the locative use, associates to init selecting rhematic material rather than a procP process . The locative argument provides the rhematic material. In this use then, SIT associates to the verb phrase via its init feature alone, leaving potential eventive features unlinked to structure (underassociation): (24)

Locative use: ...[initP subj1 SIT [PPrheme subj1 Ploc DP]]

I will refer to locative init, selecting rhematic material, as initloc in order to facilitate discrimination between this stative-like init and init selecting a process complement (which is part of an eventive verb phrase). Notice that the rheme may be followed by another PP: (25)

Han satt i en soffa i sitt nya hus he sit.PAST in a sofa in his new house ‘He was sitting in a sofa in his new house.’

(Locative)

The order of the PPs does not appear to be fixed:110 (26)

Han satt i sitt nya hus i en soffa. he sit.PAST in his new house in a sofa ‘He was sitting in his new house in a sofa.’

I will make the following assumption: (27)

Manner is tied to procP in the event structure.

(Locative)

Posture verbs in progressive pseudocoordination

137

Intuitively, manner describes the process portion of the event structure. On my assumption, a verbal lexical item needs to associate its proc feature when linking to verb phrase syntax in order for the manner component of the verb to be prominent in the interpretation and in order for further modification of this component to be possible. I thus take manner adverbs to merge within procP. It follows that manner of posture is felt to be “bleached” in the locative use of the relevant verbs. Only to the extent that the process portion can be described by the encyclopaedic content of the lexical item SIT itself does manner of posture survive in the interpretation.111 It also follows that locative SIT can not be further modified with respect to manner of posture, accounting for the unavailability of a locative reading of (22a) and (22b) above. Since the proc feature has to remain unlinked to structure in the locative use, a process portion is not identified, hence can not be further specified. In contrast to the locative use of SIT, the maintain position use of the same verb involves eventive predication. Reference is made to an initiation component and a process component of the event (but not a result component). The subject of initP and procP is shared: (28)

Maintain position use: ...[initP subj1 SIT [procP subj1 < SIT >]]

Since no additional material is required to identify the process portion in Swedish, the lexical item SIT must have both init and proc in its lexical specification. In this use, then, SIT associates to both init and proc in the structure. Manner of posture is prominent in the interpretation and can be further described by manner adverbs, as in (22a). According to Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2000), inanimate subjects are restricted to the locative (simple position) use of posture verbs. This seems confirmed by Swedish, at first sight, by the Swedish data in (29) and (30) below. These sentences only have locative readings and the locative argument (rhematic material) is therefore required.112 (29)

Hatten sitter *(på huvudet). hat.DEF sit.PRES on head.DEF

(30)

Inköpslistan satt *(på väggen). shopping-list.DEF sit.PAST on wall.DEF

(Locative)

138

Pseudocoordinating verbs are light verbs

In the presence of a manner adverb, however, a maintain position reading is, not only possible, but the only reading available: (31)

Hatten sitter bra på henne. hat.DEF sit.PRES well on her

(32)

Inköpslistan satt löst på väggen. shopping-list.DEF sit.PAST loosely on wall.DEF

(Maintain pos.)

(31) and (32), involving inanimate subjects, contrast with e.g. (23a), involving an animate subject, in that a manner adverb is necessary for identification of the process portion of the event.113 I take the locative phrase to be adjoined to the macro-event (initP) in the maintain position use. In this position it is optional: (33)

Hatten sitter bra. hat.DEF sit.PRES well

(34)

Inköpslistan satt löst. shopping-list.DEF sit.PAST loosely

3.2.

(Maintain pos.)

Progressive pseudocoordination

We can now go on to examine whether any of the above two described uses of SIT pseudocoordinate. Manner modification is used to discriminate between the locative and the maintain position uses and the extraction test is applied to discriminate between coordination and pseudocoordination: (35)

a.

b. (36)

a.

Han satt i soffan o sjöng. he sit.PAST in sofa.DEF & sing.PAST ‘He sat singing in the sofa.’ Hur satt han i soffan o sjöng _? how sit.PAST he in sofa.DEF & sing.PAST _

(Locative)

Han satt skönt o sjöng. (Maintain pos.) he sit.PAST comfortably & sing.PAST ‘He was sitting comfortably and was singing.’ han skönt o sjöng _? b. *Hur satt how sit.PAST he comfortably & sing.PAST _

Posture verbs in progressive pseudocoordination

139

Whereas locative SIT can pseudocoordinate to yield a progressive reading of the event denoted by the embedded predicate, witness (35), the maintain position use of the same verb can not. (36a) can only have an independentevent reading and since extraction is disallowed (36b), we may conclude that the example involves coordination.114 In the same sense that locative SIT is felt to have a bleached manner component in contexts outside of pseudocoordination, pseudocoordinating locative SIT is bleached. Manner gets through in the interpretation only in so far as the encyclopaedic content of SIT allows its survival.115 I propose that the pseudocoordinate complement in (35) provides the rheme of initloc to which SIT associates in the locative use:116 (37)

...[initPloc SIT [CPrheme = pseudocoordinate complement]

We correctly predict the locative PP in (35) to be optional. In (38) below, the pseudocoordinate complement alone provides the rheme required. (38)

a.

b.

Han satt [CP o sjöng]. he sit.PAST & sing.PAST ‘He sat singing.’ Hur satt han [CP o sjöng _]? how sit.PAST he & sing.PAST _

Likewise, since the order between XPs is not fixed in (25) above, cf. (26), we expect the reverse order of (35) to be possible. This expectation is met: (39)

a.

b.

[CP o sjöng] [PP i soffan]. Han satt he sit.PAST & sing.PAST in sofa.DEF ‘He sat singing in the sofa.’ Hur satt han [CP o sjöng _] [PP i soffan]? how sit.PAST he & sing.PAST _ in sofa.DEF

An apparent problem for the present analysis is the fact that the pseudocoordinate complement projects its own clausal domain. However, recall that pseudocoordination is TMA-copying on the present proposal and that TMAcopying, in turn, instantiates restructuring. In addition to anaphoric C-, T-, and Asp-domains, the pseudocoordinate clause may involve anaphoric init. I will assume this to be the case. Embedded init will thus stand in a dependency relation with matrix init in the aspectual pseudocoordinations of concern here:117

140 (40)

Pseudocoordinating verbs are light verbs

... [initPmatrix initi [CPrheme ... [initPembedded initi [procP...]]]]

It is well-known that progressives are historically developed from locative constructions crosslinguistically, see e.g. Bybee and Dahl (1989) and Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994). For an account of why verbs of stance and posture are used to form progressives, see in particular Demirdache and UribeExtebarria (2000). That location is the relevant notion can also be illustrated by the motion verb gå ‘go’. Out of context, (41) below is ambiguous between a progressive reading (I.) and an inceptive reading (II.) (on the relevant pseudocoordination interpretation of the sentence). (41)

Han gick o skrek. he go.PAST & scream.PAST I. ‘He went around screaming.’ II.‘He went and screamed.’

Verb particles can be used to disambiguate between the two readings. Insertion of runt or omkring ‘around’ with the matrix verb yields an unambiguous progressive reading: (42)

Han gick omkring o skrek. he go.PAST around & scream.PAST ‘He went around screaming.’

This is so because this particle denotes a symmetric relation between the source and goal regions of a movement and therefore does not refer to a change of location. The particle helps identify a locative (non-directional) use of the motion verb, where the pseudocoordinate complement is interpreted as a rheme of initloc . I will not have much to say on progressive-distal pseudocoordinations. I take a phonologically null rheme of initloc , headed by a particle corresponding to iväg ‘away’, to be a possibility. This particle would precede the CPrheme and be responsible for the distal component: (43)

Han var [iväg] o skrev ett brev. he be.PAST away & write.PAST a letter ‘He was away writing a letter.’

Posture verbs in progressive pseudocoordination

141

3.3. Bleaching manner We should now have at least a beginning of an explanation for the fact that we do not find SIT-with-legs-astride and other flavours of sit as progressive markers, having found out that such markers arise from a locative use of the relevant verbs. I tentatively propose that a verbal lexical item that involves a heavy description of the process component associates its proc feature to syntactic structure by default, thus disallows a light verb use of the relevant kind. It follows that SIT-with-legs-astride can not have a locative use. That is, we do not expect to find a language where the counterpart of (44) below has a locative reading (a reading where manner of posture is not prominent in the interpretation). And since the verb can not have a locative use, it can not be used as an aspect marker. (44)

He sits-with-legs-astride in the bar. Intended meaning: ‘He is in the bar’

On the above proposal, however, pseudocoordinations like the following are unexpected: (45)

a.

b.

Han lufsade runt o spelade flöjt. he lumber.PAST around & play.PRES flute ‘He lumbered around and played the flute.’ Hur lufsade han runt o spelade flöjt _? how lumber.PAST he around & play.PAST flute

(45) yields a progressive reading of the event denoted by the embedded predicate and the manner component of the matrix verb (mode of walking) is felt to be bleached. The possibility of adjunct extraction shows that it does indeed exemplify a true pseudocoordination, despite the presence of a matrix verb involving a more elaborate process description. The phenomenon was (to my knowledge) first observed by Andersson (1979), who noted that the presence of a verb particle is a crucial ingredient in these. Thus in the absence of a verb particle, (45a) can only have an independent-event reading, where the manner component is prominent, see (46a). Likewise non-Across-The-Board extraction becomes impossible, cf. (46b). (46)

a.

Han lufsade o spelade flöjt. he lumber.PAST & play.PAST flute ‘He lumbered and played the flute.’

142

Pseudocoordinating verbs are light verbs

b. *Hur lufsade han o spelade flöjt _? how lumber.PAST he & play.PAST flute My suggestion that verbs with an elaborate manner component can not have a light verb use thus needs some refinement. Particles appear capable of forcing a light verb use (underassociation) of verbs with a heavy process description in these contexts. If the lexical item chosen has an elaborate manner component, a particle can be used to prevent the verb from linking its proc feature, either by (i) identifying a structure that does not involve the process portion (procP), as in (45) above, or by (ii) associating to proc itself. The latter option should be possible only with directional particles and should yield a different reading of the pseudocoordination. In §4.2 below, I show that this is indeed what we find. My proposal captures the intuition of Josefsson (1991) that particles can be used to withdraw focus from the verb action itself.

3.4.

Summary

– Progressive pseudocoordinations involve locative matrix verbs. – In these, the complement clause merges as a rheme of initloc . – Posture and motion verbs which do not involve an elaborate manner description have locative uses in virtue of the possibility of underassociating to syntactic structure (light verb use). – Particles can be used to force underassociation. 4.

Posture verbs in inceptive pseudocoordination

Two uses of SIT have not been discussed yet, the assume position use and the transitive causative use. 4.1.

Assume position vs. transitive causative SIT

The assume position use and the transitive causative use contrast with the locative and maintain position uses of posture verbs in making referece to directed motion. In these uses, posture verbs have distinct, though related, stems in Swedish (indicated by DIR in the glosses below). E.g. ‘sit’: sitta (INF), satt (PAST), suttit (PPC) vs. ‘sit down’: sätta (INF), satte (PAST), satt (PPC). (47) denotes the assumption of a position on the part of the subject referent. (48) denotes the deposition of an object in a place.118

Posture verbs in inceptive pseudocoordination

(47)

Han satte sig (på stolen). he sit:DIR.PAST REFL on chair.DEF ‘He sat down (on the chair).’

(48)

Han satte stolen *(i källaren). he sit:DIR.PAST chair.DEF in basement.DEF ‘He put the chair in the basement.’

143

(Assume pos.)

(Trans.)

All three possible subparts of a dynamic event are referred to and thus represented in the event structure; a causation/initiation component (initP), a process component (procP), and a result component (resP). In the assume position use, the subject of the casuation/initiation is the same as both the undergoer of the event and the resultee: (49)

Assume position use: ...[initP subj1 SIT [procP subj1 < SIT > [resP subj1 < SIT > ]]]

In the transitive causative use, the subject of the causation/initiation is distinct from the undergoer (the chair) of the event, while the undergoer is nondistinct from the resultee: (50)

Transitive causative use: ...[initP subj1 SIT [procP subj2 < SIT > [resP subj2 < SIT > ]]]

In both directional uses, I take SIT to link to structure via init, proc, and res. If I am correct, Swedish has only one lexical item SIT that is capable of associating either via init alone (the locative use), via init and proc (the maintain position use), or via the full set of features (the assume position and transitive causative uses). The latter use is reflected by a different stem, as noted above. On the hypothesis that manner adverbs merge within procP, we correctly predict manner adverbs to be possible in the assume position use, as well as in the transitive causative use:119 , 120 (51)

Han satte sig försiktigt. he sit:DIR.PAST REFL carefully ‘He sat down carefully.’

(Assume pos.)

(52)

Han satte stolen försiktigt i källaren. he sit:DIR.PAST chair.DEF carefully in basement.DEF ‘He put down the chair carefully in the basement.’

(Trans.)

144

Pseudocoordinating verbs are light verbs

4.2.

Inceptive pseudocoordination

As seen by the contrast between (53) and (54) below, posture verbs pseudocoordinate in the assume position use but not in the transitive causative use. The former but not the latter has an inceptive reading and allows extraction. (53)

a.

b. (54)

Han satte sig o sjöng. (Assume pos.) he sit:DIR.PAST REFL & sing.PAST ‘He sat down and sang.’ Hur satte han sig o sjöng _? how sit:DIR.PAST he REFL & sing.PAST _

a.

Han satte ner stolen o sjöng. (Trans.) he sit:DIR.PAST down chair.DEF & sing.PAST ‘He put down the chair and sang.’ b. *Hur satte han ner stolen o sjöng _? how sit:DIR.PAST he down chair.DEF & sing.PAST _

I conclude that directed motion is relevant to the class of inceptive readings. Furthermore, the undergoer must be identical to the subject of the initiation/causation in pseudocoordinations of this kind. A closer look at the properties of (53), however, reveals that the pseudocoordinating use of SIT must in some sense be different from the assume position use of the same verb. First, a PP specifying the final location of the motion makes adjunct extraction deviant and prevents the inceptive reading, cf. (47) above vs. (55) below. (55)

Hur satte han sig (??på stolen) o sjöng _? how sit:DIR.PAST he REFL (on chair.DEF) & sing.PAST _ ‘How did he sit down on the chair and sing?’

The effect is familiar from Chapter 5 above. A goal PP induces mild a weak island effect for reasons yet to be explored. Note, however, that a particle specifying the final location does not interfere with extraction but weakens the inceptive reading, see (56). See de Vos (2005) for similar observations on English pseudocoordinations with motion verbs. (56)

Hur satte han sig ned o sjöng _? how sit:DIR.PAST he REFL down & sing.PAST _ ‘How did he sit down and sing?’

Posture verbs in inceptive pseudocoordination

145

Furthermore manner adverbs are impossible with the pseudocoordinating verb cf. (51) above vs. (57) below. The ban on manner adverbs is thus a distinctive trait, not only of progressive pseudocoordination, but of pseudocoordination in general (cf. Vannebo 2003). (57)

Hur satte han sig (*försiktigt) o sjöng _? how sit:DIR.PAST he REFL slowly & sing.PAST _

I propose that the matrix verb associates to structure via the v-feature alone also in inceptive pseudocoordination. I thus take the light verb use (underassociation) to be a characteristic feature of pseudocoordination in general, (cf. Aboh 2004). From this assumption, the ban on manner adverbs follows. Since the proc feature of the posture verb remains unlinked (underassociation), a further specification of the manner of doing something (e.g. assuming a position) is impossible. If my proposal is correct, the eventive heads proc and res must be identified by other material. I take verb particles and the pseudocoordinate complement to be capable of filling that function. Evidence that particles can identify eventive heads without help from a verb exist both within the domain of pseudocoordination and outside of it. (58) and (59) exemplify inceptive-distal pseudocoordinations where the motion verb is, not only bleached, but entirely missing.121 (58)

...och han iväg o spelade flöjt. ...and he away & play.PAST flute ‘...and he [went] away and played the flute.’

(59)

Vad ska han iväg o spela _? what will he away & play.INF _ ‘What will he [go] away and play?’

(60) demonstrates the same phenomenon outside the domain of pseudocoordination, the example being a less polite way of ordering someone to come with a book. (60)

Hit med boken! here:DIR. with book.DEF ‘[Come] here with the book!’ / ‘Give me the book!’

Suppose that there are two options as to where the pseudocoordinate complement merges, depending on the amount of structure present in the matrix verb

146

Pseudocoordinating verbs are light verbs

phrase. The pseudocoordinate complement may merge as a rheme of process, or as a rheme of result:122 (61)

a. b.

... [initP SIT [procP [CPrheme = pseudocoord. compl.]]] ... [initP SIT [procP [resP [CPrheme = pseudocoord. compl.]]]]

We now have a partial explanation for the inceptive reading. Recall that the pseudocoordinating verb is (roughly) interpreted as expressing initiation of the embedded event in the relevant type of pseudocoordination. The inceptive reading now follows from the assumption that the init head (that the pseudocoordinating verb links to) selects an eventive complement in combination with the proposal that these particular TMA-copying infinitivals (pseudocoordinate complements) involve a restructured init. Embedded init is in a dependency with matrix init, just like embedded Asp, T, and C are in dependencies with the corresponding heads in the matrix. Intuitively, directed motion or a subpart of this notion (perhaps source of directional force) must in some sense be translateable into the instigational force leading up to the process component of an event. That verbs of motion frequently develop ingressive/inceptive-type aspectual functions is well-known in studies of grammaticalization, see e.g. Lichtenberk (1991). My analysis correctly makes the following prediction. The more material there is between matrix init and the pseudocoordinate complement, the less force the inceptive reading will have. The structure in (61a) will yield a purely inceptive reading. This is so since (eventive material of) the pseudocoordinate complement identifies (and further specifies) the process portion of the matrix event structure.123 The matrix verb will thereby come to express initation of the event denoted by the embedded predicate. We may ask whether or not (61a) can also yield a distal reading (inceptive-distal). Consider (62) and (63) below, both of which I propose are associated with the structure in (61a). Whereas (62) has a purely inceptive reading, (63) yields an inceptive-distal reading where the subject referent has to walk somewhere to do the singing. (62)

Han tog o sjöng. he take.PAST & sing.PAST ‘He took and sang.’

(63)

Han gick o sjöng. he go.PAST & sing.PAST ‘He went and sang.’

(Inceptive)

(Inceptive-distal)

Posture verbs in inceptive pseudocoordination

147

Suppose that the distal reading in the latter case merely derives from the survival of encyclopaedic content of gå ‘go’, just like the manner component may survive this way, and that any such content is suspended in the former case involving ta ‘take’. Note that the process description of gå ‘go’ is more elaborate than its English cognate. The subject referent has to walk away, rather than say drive or ride away, in order for the truth conditions of (63) to be met. We want to know under what circumstances encyclopaedic content regarding manner (relevantly mode of locomotion) and distality may survive in a motion verb associated to init alone. Suppose such content survives only in the context of a path/process that refers to more than one transition (e.g. accomplishments and activities). Such a process is provided by the embedded event in (63). If so, it should be possible to suspend the manner component and the distal reading by having an achievement predicate in the embedded clause, since achievement predicates specify a process portion that is not extended. This seems borne out. (64) below, involves the same matrix verb gå ‘go’ but has a non-distal reading available, where the manner component is also suspended: (64)

Han gick o gifte sig. he go.PAST & marry.PAST REFL’ ‘He went and married.’

(Surprise)

This is the so-called surprise reading mentioned in §1.2 above. (64) can only involve a distal component (an inceptive-distal reading) to the extent that we can interpret the matrix event as involving an extended process, as in (65). (65)

Han gick [in] o gifte sig. he go.PAST in & marry.PAST REFL’ ‘He went in and married.’

(Inceptive-distal)

If I am correct, the touch of unexpectedness in (64) derives from a combination of two factors; the expression of initiation and the absence of an extended process component. To conclude my line of reasoning, thus, pseudocoordinations of the type depicted in (61a) can have an inceptive-distal reading only to the extent that the encyclopaedic process description of the matrix verb survives. The embedded process component may help such content survive, provided it is of the extended type. The structure in (61b), in turn, will yield either an inceptive-distal reading or a purely distal reading. If the resP is identified by (eventive material of)

148

Pseudocoordinating verbs are light verbs

the embedded clause, the inceptive-distal reading is available. There is an initiation of directed motion, a path, and a goal (identified and specified by the embedded event). The location of the embedded event will be interpreted as identical to the goal of the motion expressed by the matrix verb. At the same time the embedded predicate will be interpreted as specifying the result of a complex event, the initiation of which is expressed by a verb of directed motion. If the resP is identified by a verb particle, the inceptive reading will be either weak, as in (56) above, or entirely suspended (as in the purely distal reading). Whether it will be weak or suspended is subject to speaker variation and seems to depend on the nature of the particles involved and on the number of particles present. Space does not allow me to explore these factors here. The present proposal captures the mild weak island effect seen in pseudocoordinations involving a PP specifying the final location of directed motion, exemplified in (55). The event structure of the matrix is complete in such cases, the goal PP being a rheme of resP. (66)

... [initP SIT [procP [resP [PPrheme = goal]]]]

On the present proposal, the goal PP and the pseudocoordinate CP compete for the same position. There is independent evidence in favour of this proposal. The goal PP and the pseudocoordinate CP are both compatible with goal particles, cf. (56) and (67). (67)

Han gick dit ut till stugan. he go.PAST there:DIR out:DIR to cottage ‘He went out there to the cottage.’

Furthermore the goal PP and the pseudocoordinate CP both have to follow all particles: (68)

a. *Han gick till stugan ut. he go.PAST to cottage out:DIR b. *Han gick o sjöng ut. he go.PAST & sing.PAST out:DIR

Whereas more than one particle may be involved in specifying the final location of directed motion, as in (67), however, only one goal PP is possible (unless an intonational break is added after the first PP):

Posture verbs in inceptive pseudocoordination

(69)

149

Han gick ut till stugan (??till sovrummet). he go.PAST out:DIR to cottage.DEf (to bed-room.DEF) ‘He went out to the cottage to the bed-room.’

If both PP and CP can be rhemes of res and if there can be only one rheme of that type in a verb phrase, then the pseudocoordinate CP has to be in an adjoined position in examples like (55), repeated below as (70), from which the deviance of the adjunct extraction follows. (70)

Hur satte han sig (??på stolen) o sjöng _? how sit:DIR.PAST he REFL (on chair.DEF) & sing.PAST _ ‘How did he sit down on the chair and sing?’

Finally, recall our expectation that there should be two ways of forcing underassociation of a verb involving a more specific manner description (§3.3). A particle can be used to prevent the verb from linking its proc feature, either by (i) identifying a structure that does not involve the process portion (procP) yielding a progressive reading, as in (45) above, or by (ii) associating to proc itself. The latter option, we expected to be possible only with directional particles and the result should yield a non-progressive reading. (71) below exemplifies this option. (71)

Hur lufsade han *(iväg) o spelade flöjt_? How lumber.PAST he away & play.PAST flute ‘How did he lumber away and play the flute?’

The particle iväg ‘away’ identifies proc and the reading yielded is inceptivedistal. The manner description of lufsa ‘lumber’ is bleached in the sense of unlinked. Evidence in favour of taking verb particles to be capable of identifying eventive heads this way was demonstrated above. My analysis is also extendable to the go & V construction in English (see e.g. Carden and Pesetsky 1977; Pullum 1990; Aboh 2004), which I take to involve an inceptive-distal pseudocoordination: (72)

a. b. c.

He went away [and read a book]. What did he go away [and read _]? ... [initP GO [procP away [resP [CPrheme and read a book]]]]

150

Pseudocoordinating verbs are light verbs

The above construction differs from the so-called go V construction (see e.g. Carden and Pesetsky 1977; Pullum 1990; Jaeggli and Hyams 1993; Pollock 1994; Aboh 2004) in that the latter does not allow modification of the matrix verb (see Cardinaletti and Giusti 2001 for a similar restriction on pseudocoordination in Marsalese), and in not involving a conjunction element: (73)

a. b.

He’ll go (*away) [sing]. What will he go (*away) [sing _]?

The go V construction is also subject to an inflection condition:124 (74)

*He went [sang/sing].

I propose that go is used as a light verb in the above sense also in (73), linking to v alone, but that this construction is not a pseudocoordination, thus not a clause-union phenomenon of the kind seen with pseudocoordinations, see Jaeggli and Hyams (1993) for a similar proposal. Instead, the embedded verb sing in (73) directly identifies the process portion of the event structure by associating via its V-feature: (75)

... [initP GO [procP sing]]

It follows that a particle specifying the final location is impossible with go in this structure. The absence of a conjunction element and the fact that inflectional features can not be copied onto the embedded verb follow from the absence of clause-union; and is a complementizer and copying of inflectional features requires two heads of the same label (Chapter 4). That the first verb may not carry inflectional morphology is not immediately captured by this analysis, see Pollock (1994) for an analysis in terms of incorporation of the lower verb to the higher verb (which relies on the assumption that excorporation is impossible in the relevant case). In Jaeggli and Hyams (1993) the inflection condition is claimed to have an explanation based on the fact that the relevant verbs are (secondary) theta-assigners on this use. My proposal that inceptive pseudocoordination involves a matrix light verb bears similarities to the analyses put forth by Cardinaletti and Giusti (2003) and Aboh (2004). It differs from the former in taking the relevant construction type to involve two clauses rather than one. Thus, along with Aboh (2004) I take the embedded clause to come with a more articulated functional domain. Likewise, along with Aboh (2004), I take the conjunction element to be a head in the C-domain. This assumption captures the presence of full

Pseudocoordinating verbs as light verbs

151

TMA-copying in the embedded clause, as Aboh independently argues. My proposal differs from the above works in two relevant respects. First, I have provided evidence that copying is top-down, not bottom-up; the inflection of the embedded verb is semantically vacuous, not vice versa. In addition, I have argued that the construction type involves restructuring in terms of dependencies between functional heads of the same label. 4.3.

Summary

– Inceptive/distal pseudocoordinations involve verbs of directed motion. – In these, the pseudocoordinate complement is merged as a rheme of proc or res. – The matrix verb is subject to underassociation – light verb use. – Verb particles can be used to force underassociation. 5.

Intermediate conclusion

Pseudocoordinating verbs instantiate light verb uses of (otherwise) lexical verbs. In this use, these verbs associate to structure via the init feature (in their lexical specification) alone. If the pseudocoordinate complement is merged as a rheme of initloc , the reading will be progressive or progressive-distal (76a). If the pseudocoordinate complement is merged as a rheme of an eventive head, the reading will be inceptive (76b) or inceptive-distal (76b) and (76c). (76)

6.

a. b. c.

... [initP [CPrheme = pseudocoord. compl.]] ... [initP [procP [CPrheme = pseudocoord. compl.]]] ... [initP [procP [resP [CPrheme = pseudocoord. compl.]]]]

Pseudocoordinating verbs as light verbs

We are now in a position to remove the apparent piece of support in favour of a coordination approach to pseudocoordination.

6.1.

Light verbs do not coordinate

We have identified the pseudocoordination reading of (77) below, associated with the prosodic bracketing in (77a) as opposed to (77b), as involving a

152

Pseudocoordinating verbs are light verbs

locative use of the posture verb. In this use, eventive category features of the lexical item sitta ‘sit’ are left unassociated to structure. (77)

a.

b.

[Han satt o sov]. he sit.PAST & sleep.PAST ‘He was sleeping (in a sitting position).’ [Han satt [o sov]. he sit.PAST & sleep.PAST ‘He was sitting and (was) sleeping.’

Locative verbs, we have seen, require a rheme (locative argument). A locative PP or a pseudocoordinate CP may provide this rheme (bracketing is prosodic): (78)

a.

b.

*(i soffan)]. [Han satt he sit.PAST in sofa.DEF ‘He sat in the sofa.’ [Han satt *(o sov)]. he sit.PAST & sleep.PAST ‘He sat sleeping.’

In the absence of rhematic material, (78a) and (78b) can only have the maintain position reading. Thus the locative argument can not be interpreted as understood. From these facts it follows that (77a) above can not involve VPcoordination. A locative verb, in the sense developed here, can not form a verb phrase on its own in the first place. The embedded clause is in fact part of the matrix verb phrase on that reading, in virtue of providing the locative v with its required rheme. In other words, in the locative use of the posture verb, (77a) can not have an independent event reading at all. Only in the presence of a locative argument do we get an ambiguity between the independent event reading (associated with a coordination structure) and the pseudocoordination reading (associated with a complementation structure) in the locative use. Sine a pseudocoordination that involves a locative argument behaves like a pseudocoordination that lacks the locative argument (extraction-wise, interpretation-wise, and prosodically), there is no reason to assume that it should differ from the latter in being a coordination. It follows that the independent-event reading, associated with the bracketing in (77b), must involve the maintain position use of SIT. As expected, the reading is limited to a context in which it is felicitous to associate prominence

Pseudocoordinating verbs as light verbs

153

to manner of posture. If such a context is missing and a pseudocoordination reading is unavailable, we predict the sentence to be degraded or unacceptable as it stands. That this is borne out can be illustrated by a language like Swiss German, where SIT does not pseudocoordinate:125 (79)

a.

Er sizt ?(da) und list. he sit.PRES there and read.PRES ‘He is sitting and reading.’ b. *Was sizt er da und list _? what sit.PRES he there and read.PRES _

(Swi-Ge.)

(79a) sounds strange in the absence of a context where posture is prominent. A locative particle or prepositional phrase saves the coordination by providing the rheme required for a locative use of the verb.126 A similar argument can be construed for inceptive pseudocoordinations. In these, the pseudocoordinate complement identifies the process portion of the matrix event on my proposal. (80)

... [initP [procP [CPrheme = pseudocoordinate complement]]]

In the absence of the pseudocoordinate complement, the matrix verb phrase does not form a legitimate event structure in the first place, the process portion not being identified. Therefore the pseudocoordinating verb can not participate in a VP-coordination. A pseudocoordinating verb is thus like any infinitive selecting verb in that it obligatorily selects a complement. Complements of infinitive-selecting verbs differ from complements of pseudocoordinating verbs, however, in that the former but not the latter can be non-overt: (81)

6.2.

a.

Han började (o gjorde något). he start.PAST & do.PAST something ‘He started (doing something).’

b.

Han satt *(o gjorde något). he sit.PAST & do.PAST something ‘He sat *(doing something).’

Coordination → pseudocoordination

Returning to the context of copying constructions in general, we are left with the question of why pseudocoordinating verbs obligatorily copy, as opposed

154

Pseudocoordinating verbs are light verbs

to other TMA-copying verbs, which can select infinitives. A possible part of the explanation may be that TMA-copying with pseudocoordinating verbs contrasts with TMA-copying with other verbs in deriving from a coordination structure diachronically. For related proposals, see Kuteva 1999 on progressive pseudocoordinations and Vannebo 2003 on pseudocoordinations involving TAKE.127 One argument in favour of such a reanalysis is the fact that pseudocoordinating verbs can be modified by locative PPs and locative/directional particles, as shown above. In those cases the intonational difference between coordination and pseudocoordination is obscured, making the sentences ambiguous between two structures. If the hypothesis is correct, the progressive type must derive from a reanalysis of the second conjunct as rhematic material selected by the first verb:128 (82)

[CP... [initPlocative SIT [PPrheme ]]] & [CP...] → [CP... [initPlocative SIT (PP) [CPrheme &...]]]

One prerequisite for such a reanalysis should be a bleached use of the posture verb in other contexts, such as an unmarked locative use with inanimate subjects (cf. Kuteva 1999): (83)

Tavlan satt på väggen. Picture.DEF sit.PAST on wall.DEF ‘The picture was sitting on the wall.’

The inceptive type, in turn, should derive from a reanalysis of the second conjunct as a specification of a process (or a result) component of an event structure where the verb of motion/transfer expresses initiation alone: (84)

[CP... [initP GO [procP < GO > ]]] & [CP...] → [CP... [initP GO [procP [CPrheme &...]]]]

As with the progressive type, a prerequisite for the reanalysis should be a bleached use of the relevant verb in other contexts, as in (85). (85)

Vasen gick i golvet. vase.DEF go.PAST in floor.DEF ‘The vase fell on the floor.’

Conclusion

7.

155

Conclusion

I have argued that pseudocoordinating verbs instantiate light verb uses of otherwise lexical verbs. Adopting the framework of Ramchand (in press), I have proposed that light verbs are verbs that are subject to underassociation. Pseudocoordination, I have claimed, involves the following characteristic traits: – The matrix verb associates to structure via its init feature alone. – The pseudocoordinate clause is part of the event structure of the matrix predicate in that it is selected as a rheme of init, proc, or res. – Restructuring reaches embedded init in TMA-copying infinitivals selected by light verbs of the relevant kind (pseuocoordinating verbs). From the above assumptions, the central semantic properties of the various types of pseudocoordination was shown to follow and it became evident that an apparent piece of support in favour of a coordination analysis of pseudocoordination does not bear closer scrutiny.

Chapter 7 Copying

In this chapter, I sketch an approach to derive the results we have obtained so far. From a theoretical angle, we have arrived at two main results: (1)

a. b.

The more structure there is in the copying infinitival, the more forms copy. The form of the embedded verb is determined by the form of the matrix.

Since the structure involved is functional, (1a) means that copying is proportional to the amount of functional structure in the copying infinitival. For each functional head (that copies) in the embedded clause, there is a corresponding functional head in the (selecting) superordinate clause. Temporarily calling the lower and the higher functional projection a “matching pair”, the above generalization means that “the more matching pairs, the more copying”. This naturally translates into the hypothesis outlined in Chapter 4: (2)

Copying is a reflex of a dependency between two functional heads of the same label.

(1b), in turn, tells us that one of the two heads – the downstairs one – is systematically underdetermined, copying the value of the matching head upstairs. I propose that this “matching of the value” of the other head is an instance of Agree (Chomsky 2000, 2001) and will briefly discuss the theoretical implications of this proposal for Agree, for restructuring, and for infinitivals. 1.

Copying as Agree

There are three prima facie arguments for my proposal that copying is Agree: (3)

a. b. c.

Copying operates under C-command; so does Agree. Copying is subject to locality; so is Agree. Copying involves some kind of feature sharing; so does Agree.

Agree is precisely an operation relating two syntactic objects with the same feature type, where one has a value and the other does not (Chomsky 2000,

158

Copying

2001), with the outcome that the features are matched and the value is copied from the valued element onto the unvalued element. On this view, what was called an antecedent-anaphor dependency in Chapter 4 is thus an instance of Agree, and an anaphoric head amounts to a functional head that is underspecified with respect to feature value. Representative copying structures are illustrated below. (4) demonstrates full copying into non-bare infinitivals (TMA-copying). Agree dependencies are represented by coindexation. For some notes on the mapping to Phonological Form, see Appendix IV.

(4)

TMA-copying: CP C[value]i

TP

T[value]j

AspP

Asp[value]k

VP

Vmatrix C[

CP TP

]i

T[

]j

Asp[

AspP ]k

Vembedded

VP

Copying as Agree

159

(5) illustrates copying into bare infinitivals, which will yield participle copying in case the matrix verb participates in the perfect construction (i.e. there is one or more marked features in the aspectual domain of the clause).

(5)

Participle copying: CP C[value]

TP T[value]

AspP

Asp[value]i

VP

Vmatrix Asp[

AspP ]i

Vembedded

VP

160

Copying

(6) demonstrates partial copying. The embedded C- and Asp-domains are unvalued, thus trigger external valuation from the matrix clause.

(6)

Partial copying: CP C[value]i

TP

T[value]

AspP

Asp[value]j

VP

Vmatrix C[

CP TP

]i

T[value] Asp[

AspP ]j

Vembedded

VP

Copying as Agree

161

I take standard (non-copying) infinitivals to differ from their copying counterparts in being internally valued:

(7)

Standard non-copying (non-bare): CP C[value]

TP T[value]

AspP

Asp[value]

VP

Vmatrix

CP C[value]

TP T[value]

AspP

Asp[value]

VP

Vembedded

To capture the difference between infinitivals where no copying is possible, and infinitivals where copying is a possibility, I make the following assumption: (8)

A valued CFin blocks external valuation of lower heads.

162

Copying

CPFin (a projection encoding a finiteness feature) is assumed to relate to tense and mood in the IP-domain, see Rizzi (1997), and is also taken to be the projection where the predication relation between the subject and the rest of the clause is established, cf. Platzack and Rosengren (1998). I propose that the presence of a valued CFin defines the clausal status of a CP (perhaps corresponding to a strong phase in phase-based frameworks like Chomsky 2001). A finite clause will thus carry the feature [fin: +], whereas a non-finite clause will be [fin: −]. An unvalued (anaphoric) CFin will trigger Agree with matrix CFin , which alters the clausal status of the embedded CP.129 As a consequence, operations that are otherwise sensitive to the presence of CFin may span two “clauses”, yielding transparency effects.130 Copying is in this sense dependent on a Finiteness head (CFin ) that is itself unvalued (or missing as in the case of non-CP infinitivals). The structures in (4), (5), and (6) above show the close match between Agree and the generalizations made here, but they also bring out one fundamental difference: Agree is bottom-up, while copying is top-down. Agree is bottom-up in the sense that the unvalued feature which triggers Agree is upstairs (the probe) and the value is downstairs (the goal). In a successful instance of Agree, the value is copied from downstairs to upstairs. There can be other matchings involved in that operation, and some of them can be from upstairs to downstairs (leading to mutual valuation of probe and goal), but the trigger is a need for the element upstairs to copy a value from downstairs. Copying, however, instantiates the opposite scenario. Copying of values takes place top-down. Let us call this Inverse agree (iAgree). We need to ask how to reconcile Agree and iAgree (copying). I will consider three possibilities: (i) the problem is apparent: the triggering unvalued feature is really upstairs, (ii) the problem is apparent: there is another feature which is upstairs and unvalued, (iii) the problem is real. In the remainder of this section I will argue that (i) and (ii) are not plausible and therefore that the problem is real. The first solution to be considered is that we are subject to an illusion: underlyingly, the unvalued feature is upstairs and the valued feature is downstairs. After all, we only see two copies, we do not see which is originally valued and which is not. Recall, however, that the interpretive component has to recognize that one of the two copies was originally unvalued.131 Hence, the interpretation of a sentence involving copying betrays which of the two was originally unvalued. I have already presented extensive arguments in favour of the lower inflection being vacuous (Chapter 2). Given that one of the two features in a dependency has to be interpreted (some version of Full Inter-

Copying as Agree

163

pretation, Chomsky 1995), it follows that the higher (matrix) inflection can not be vacuous. This is easy to show. The TMA-copying construction in (9a) is like its non-copying counterpart (9b) in that it carries no implication that the frying event expressed by the embedded predicate was completed. Both contrast with the finite sentence in (9c), which asserts that some actual frying took place. From this, we may conclude that the lower tense inflection in (9a) is vacuous and therefore that the unvalued variety of the relevant feature is downstairs. (9)

a.

b.

c.

Han prövade o stekte en fisk. he try.PAST & fry.PAST a fish ‘He tried to fry a fish.’ Han prövade att steka en fisk. he try.PAST to fry.INF a fish ‘He tried to fry a fish.’ Han stekte en fisk. he fry.PAST a fish ‘He fried/was frying a fish.’

Since (9a) is like (9b) in that it asserts that there was an attempt to fry a fish, we can conclude that the tense inflection of the matrix verb prövade ‘tried’ in (9a) is indeed interpreted and therefore that the upstairs variety of the relevant feature must be valued. The illusion approach is thus untenable. Let us consider a more subtle form of the illusion approach. Suppose that the valued feature is indeed upstairs, and the unvalued feature downstairs. But suppose also that there is another feature – let us call it [stip] as in stipulation – that resides in the same functional head. That feature [stip] is unvalued upstairs and valued downstairs. It is thus [stip] that triggers Agree, probing for a value downstairs. The top-down valuation yielding copied inflectional morhology is only a side-effect of this Agree relation. Under this story, Agree is still initiated by a bottom-up feature-sharing and copying is still top-down. Note that [stip] must occur on every functional head: it occurs on T giving the appearance of a top-down sharing of T-features, it occurs on Asp, giving the appearance of top-down sharing of Asp-features, and so on. The problem with [stip] comes out when copying infinitivals are compared to standards infinitivals and above all finite embedded clauses. Since the upstairs clause is for all purposes the same in those cases, there is an unvalued [stip] on each functional projection upstairs in those cases too. The question is how [stip]

164

Copying

gets valued. In finite complements – They decided[stip] [that they would[stip] leave] – the embedded CP, being a phase, prevents [stip] upstairs to probe into the embedded clause, preventing the operation Agree to apply. Furthermore, the embedded functional domain is now also part of a finite clause, and thus must be unvalued. Hence, even if an Agree relation was possible, it would not help. Both [stip] features would remain unvalued. More generally, not only does this approach need the assumption that [stip] resides in every functional projection (valued in infinitives and unvalued in finite clauses), but the presence of [stip] is just stipulated to save the current definition of Agree. In the absence of an independent need for [stip], I discard this option. Note that the problem does not disappear if we replace our assumption that tense is valued on T and not on V by the assumption that tense is unvalued on T and valued on V, as proposed by Pesetsky and Torrego (2004). We would then have to stipulate that matrix T probes the embedded clause (disregarding tense on matrix V) and enters an Agree relation with embedded T before matrix T gets valued by matrix V. If not, matrix T would be unable to trigger Agree with embedded T (due to its being valued). I am led to propose that the problem is real and I leave a reconciliation of iAgree and Agree for future research. One possibility to explore is that valued features systematically probe for unvalued features of the same type downstairs. Another is to abandon the probe-goal (bottom-up) mechanism, see e.g. Zwart (2006) for a proposal.

2.

Restructuring revisited

Bringing the above to bear on my previous proposal that copying is a restructuring effect, we can state that an unvalued functional head in the extended projection of the verb, plus Agree with a higher head of the same label, yields restructuring. I am essentially resurrecting, and extending, the idea that restructuring arises via tense (or INFL) raising, see e.g. Kayne (1989), Terzi (1996), Roberts (1997), and references cited in Wurmbrand (2001). The proposal that restructuring infinitivals are underdetermined in one way or another is not new. The idea of tense deficiency goes back to Guéron and Hoekstra (1988) and Rochette (1988), according to Wurmbrand (2001), and is a recurrent ingredient in analyses of restructuring infinitivals, see Wurmbrand (2001: 15) for a survey. What I am doing is expanding the general idea to include all portions of the functional domain, leaving the possibility open

Unvalued functional heads do not license modifiers

165

that languages may vary with respect to how much of the functional domain is deficient in the relevant sense (cf. partial copying/reduced non-restructuring). The data presented in this book suggest that the relevant deficiency does not universally reduce to a down-sizing of the structure of the infinitival (see e.g. Wurmbrand 2001 on German), but rather that the structure is there but made up from deficient material. The main objection to approaches adhering to underspecification concerns the appearance of a vacuous structure that has no semantic, syntactic, or phonological correspondence, see Wurmbrand (2001) for a critical discussion. On the approach sketched above, however, the empty structure problem is only apparent. Moreover, a phonological correspondence exist; TMA-agreement. Deficient heads are unvalued heads, therefore by no means empty (albeit in need of external valuation by a head of the same label).132 The phonological correspondence is the copied inflection itself, given the observation that copying is proportional to the number of functional projections present in the complement clause. If copying and other restructuring phenomena have the same basic underlying structure, involving deficient functional heads that motivate dependencies between the matrix and embedded clause, copying is the phonological reflex of this restructuring. The explanandum is rather why restructuring infinitivals do not surface with copied inflection in all languages where restructuring can be identified. I have taken this to be dependent on language specific factors (arguably morphological in nature), as with other transparency phenomena.

3.

Unvalued functional heads do not license modifiers

I will make the following intuitive assumption: (10)

Unvalued functional heads do not license modifiers.

Another way to put this is to say that Merge of a specifier results in valuation. Taking T-adverbs to be illustrative; if a T-adverb is merged in the specifier of a T-head of a particular type, that T is not unvalued anymore and thus will fail to trigger restructuring. The assumption captures two important observations discussed in Chapter 4. Whereas T-adverbs are impossible in TMA-copying infinitivals (11a), these are possible in partial copying infinitivals (11b):133

166

Copying

(11)

a.

b.

c.

Han prövade [o (*alltid) slutade tidigt]. he try.PAST & always finish.PAST early ‘He tried to (*always) finish early.’ Han prövade [att alltid sluta tidigt]. he try.PAST to always finish.INF early ‘He tried to always finish early.’ Han hadde prøvd [å støtt sagt frå i tie]. (Solør No.) he had try.PPC & always tell.PPC from in time ‘He had tried to always object in time.’

Since the T-domain of a TMA-copying infinitival is constituted by unvalued heads (evidenced by tense copying), it will not license T-adverbs (11a). Since the T-domain of non-copying and partial copying infinitivals is constituted by internally valued heads (evidenced by absence of tense copying), it will license T-adverbs, as in (11b) and (11c). The prediction is that no vP-external adverb (initP-external adverb, applying the terminology of Ramchand in press) is licensed in infinitivals displaying full copying. This prediction is borne out. I adopt the proposal that adverbs occupy designated specifier positions in hierarchically ordered functional projections (Cinque 1999). Manner adverbs, I have assumed, are VPinternal (procP-internal in the terminology of Ramchand in press). For the present purpose, adverbs can be grouped in three classes: – Impossible in non-copying as well as in copying infinitivals – Possible in non-copying as well as in copying infinitivals – Possible in non-copying but impossible in copying infinitivals Belonging to the first class are adverbs that are not possible in standard infinitivals and therefore, less surprisingly, are excluded also from the copying counterparts. These include modal and evidential adverbs such as nödvändigtvis ’necessarily’, möjligen ‘possibly’, säkert ‘certainly’, kanske ‘maybe’, and tydligen ‘evidently’. Adverbs that are possible in both standard and copying infinitivals include focus particles like bara ‘only’, verkligen ‘really’, and nästan ‘almost’: (12)

a.

Han prövar att verkligen/bara springa. he try.PRES to really/only run.INF

Unvalued functional heads do not license modifiers

b.

167

Han prövar o verkligen/bara springer. he try.PRES & really/only run.PRES ‘He is trying to really/only sing.’

While these seem possible in all types of infinitival clauses regardless of presence/absence of copying, they have three properties which set them apart from other sentential adverbs: (i) They seem to require focal stress on the verb. (ii) They may disrupt V2 (occur immediately before the finite verb in the C-domain). (iii) They modify other categories as well (nouns, adjectives, and prepositional phrases). Given these properties, I do not consider these sentential adverbs in the usual sense.134 The second class also includes event/procPrelated adverbs. Examples are igen ‘again’, klart, helt ‘completely’, and manner adverbs:135 (13)

a. b.

(14)

a. b.

(15)

a. b.

Han prövar igen att skriva ett brev igen. he try.PRES again to write.INF again Han prövar igen o skriver ett brev igen. he try.PRES again & write.PRES again ‘He is trying again to write again.’ Han prövar att skriva klart brevet. he try.PRES to write.INF completely letter Han prövar o skriver klart brevet. he try.PRES & write.PRES completely letter ‘He is trying to write the letter completely.’ meaning: ‘He is trying to finish the letter.’ Han prövar att sjunga högt. he try.PRES to sing.INF loudly Han prövar o sjunger högt. he try.PRES & sing.PRES loudly ‘He is trying to sing loudly.’

Finally, adverbs that are possible in standard infinitives, but impossible in the copying counterparts of those (third class above) include T-adverbs like alltid ‘always’ and aldrig ‘never’, ibland ‘sometimes’, and ofta ‘often’. In the presence of copying, the latter adverbs are acceptable in sentence-final position only on the irrelevant wide scope reading:

168

Copying

(16)

a. b.

Han hann med att (ofta) skriva (ofta). he manage-in-time.PAST with to often write.INF often Han hann med o (*ofta) skrev (*ofta). he manage-in-time.PAST with & often write.PAST often ‘He managed to often write.’

In this class, we also find non-quantificational T-adverbs, such as nu ‘now’ and då ‘then’, and the adverb redan ‘already’:136 (17)

a. b.

(18)

a. b.

Han prövar att (nu) skriva ett längre brev. he try.PRES to now write.INF a longer letter Han prövar o (*nu) skriver ett längre brev. he try.PRES & now write.PRES a longer letter ‘He tries to write a longer letter now.’ Han undviker att (redan) anmäla sig (redan). he avoid.PRES to already sign-up.INF REFL already Han undviker o (*redan) anmäler sig (*redan). he avoid.PRES & already sign-up.PRES REFL already ‘He avoids signing up already.’

Speakers vary regarding sentential negation, which I took to be licensed by (and thus indicating the presence of) the T-domain. In my variant, sentential negation is possible, although non-optimal, under some matrix verbs in the presence of copying, where it may encliticize onto the complementizer: (19)

a.

Han prövar att’nte röka. he try.PRES to-cl:NEG smoke.INF b. ?Han prövar o’nte röker. he try.PRES &-cl:NEG smoke.PRES ‘He tries not to smoke.’

(20)

a.

Jag kom ihåg att‘nte röka. I remember.PAST PRT to-cl:NEG smoke.INF b. ?Jag kom ihåg o‘nte rökte. I remember.PAST PRT &-cl:NEG smoke.PAST ‘I remembered not to smoke.’

I have nothing to say about this fact here but simply note that it seems to pose a problem for mine and other approaches to restructuring phenomena. A similar variation is present in Italian restructuring context, see Cinque (2004).

Unvalued functional heads do not license modifiers

169

Leaving the domain of adverbs, the present proposal captures the fact that an overt subject is impossible in a copying infinitival, despite the presence of tense morphology:137 (21)

Lars prövade [o (*han) slutade tidigt]. Lars try.PAST & he finish.PAST early ‘Lars tried to (*he) finish early.’

In fact the prediction is that PRO-subjects should be impossible as well (at least external to the verb phrase). Although I need to leave issues regarding the infinitival subject for future research, it is noteworthy that subjectdependent floating quantifiers are possible in controlled infinitivals like (22a) and (23a), but sharply ungrammatical in the copying counterparts of these, cf. (22b) and (23b).138 (22)

a. b.

(23)

a. b.

De prövade (alla) [att (alla) sjunga opera]. they try.PAST (all) to (all) sing.INF opera De prövade (alla) [o (*alla) sjöng opera]. they try.PAST (all) & (all) sing.PAST opera ‘They (all) tried to (all) sing opera.’ De hann (alla) med [att (alla) sjunga opera]. they manage.PAST (all) with to (all) sing.INF opera De hann (alla) med [o (*alla) sjöng opera]. they manage.PAST (all) with & (all) sing.PAST opera ‘They (all) managed in time to (all) sing opera.’

Likewise, the present proposal captures the ban on wh-specifiers in restructuring context. Although this cannot be shown for Swedish, which disallows whinfinitives in the first place, it can be shown for other languages, see Wurmbrand (2001) for a discussion. Turning to verb phrase material, I have already provided a number of examples showing that copying infinitivals may include objects, see e.g. (14) above. Added to the fact that event-related adverbs (including manner adverbs) are possible, we may conclude that underspecification does not reach VP (ProcP). If we disregard sentential negation (which seems to display variation cross-linguistically in restructuring contexts), and the complementizer o (which I will argue is underspecified), copying infinitivals may contain (i) focus particles and (ii) lower/event-related adverbs and other verb phrase material (main verb plus objects).

170

Copying

This finding supports the analysis of copying infinitivals as involving underspecified functional heads. In a (full copying) TMA-agreeing infinitival, restructuring reaches all the way down to the verb phrase and in some cases into the verb phrase (if selected by a pseudocoordinating verb, cf. Chapter 6). I leave for future research the possibiliy that the latter is also the case with some of the other verbs examined. 4.

O(ch)- vs. att-infinitivals

So far, we lack an account of the blocking effect of the complementizer att: (24)

Han struntade i o/*att skrev på. he not-bother.PAST in &/att write.PAST on ‘He did not bother to sign.’

I have implicitly adopted the essential ingredients of the analysis proposed by Rizzi (1997) for the structure of the C-domain. Since topicalization as well as focus movement is impossible in Swedish infinitivals, I disregard Topic and Focus phrases in what follows. CP-infinitivals in Swedish, I propose, contain a Finiteness Phrase and a Force Phrase: (25)

[CPFin [CPForce ]]...

CFin encodes a value for finiteness (see §1 above) and CForce determines sentence type (declarative, interrogative, imperative). The order between CPFin and CPForce is the reverse in Rizzi (1997). Given my assumption that (a valued) CFin defines the clausal status of a CP and is the principal blocking category for copying/restructuring, I take CPFin to be the topmost projection in the C-domain.139 Note that Swedish does not allow wh-infinitives, see (26). (26)

*Jag undrade vad att/o göra. I wonder.PAST what att/& do.INF ‘I wondered what to do.’

I leave it open whether this implies lack of a force head of the wh-type, which presupposes a more fine-grained structure, or whether this impossibility follows from something else. For the present purpose, thus, embedded CForce will reduce to [imperative: +], [imperative: −], or [imperative: ]. The unvalued feature will trigger external valuation and therefore a restructured CForce . Note that true (non-copied) imperatives typically can not be embedded, see Platzack and Rosengren (1998) for a discussion:

O(ch)- vs. att-infinitivals

(27)

171

*Jag ber dig att skriv. I beg you to write.IMP ‘I beg you to write.’

An embedded imperative can thus only be the result of external valuation. In languages like Swedish, where external valuation is reflected morphologically, copied imperative inflection will thus turn up in the context of a superordinate CForce [imperative: +]: (28)

Fortsätt o skriv! continue.IMP & write.IMP ‘Continue to write!’

Now, recall the distribution of the complementisers att and o, repeated in Table 13 below: Table 13. Complementizers

Finite clauses Non-copying infinitivals Copying infinitivals

att + + −

o − + +

Given the following: 1. att is found in both finite and non-finite clauses (Table 13), 2. att blocks copying, exemplified in (24), 3. A valued CFin blocks restructuring, assumption (8), I propose that att spells out a valued CFin , either positive (as in finite clauses) or negative (as in non-finite clauses). This captures the observation that this complementizer blocks copying/restructuring: Since att can only be the spellout of a valued CFin in Swedish, and since a valued CFin by assumption blocks restructuring, copying can never take place into an att-infinitival. The complementiser o, I propose, spells out either a negatively valued CFin or an anaphoric (unvalued) CFin . This yields two types of CP-infinitivals differing minimally with respect to the value of CFin : (29)

a. b.

Att-infinitivals are always C[fin: −] O-infinitivals are either C[fin: −] or C[fin: ]

172

Copying

If I am correct in assuming that att and o are realizations of (potentially different contents of) the same head CFin , their similarity with respect to conditions on deletion (Chapter 4) is expected. The ban on a complementizer in restructuring infinitivals, displayed in many languages, now potentially derive from the lack of a lexical item that spells out anaphoric CFin in these languages.140 I tentatively propose that the C-, T-, and Asp-domains of the clause form units with respect to restructuring so that either all or no heads of the relevant domains are restructured. That is, if CFin is restructured, so is CForce . For CP-infinitivals, we have eight logical possibilities regarding restructuring domains, see Table 14. Table 14. CP-infinitivals

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

C-domain valued valued valued valued unvalued unvalued unvalued unvalued

T-domain valued valued unvalued unvalued valued valued unvalued unvalued

Asp-domain valued unvalued valued unvalued valued unvalued valued unvalued

Class (1.) corresponds to internally valued (non-copying) att- and o-infinitivals: (30)

Jag försökte att göra det. I try.PAST att do.INF it ‘I tried to do it.’

Classes (2.), (3.), and (4.) would correspond to att- and o-infinitivals that are C[fin: −] and despite this displaying partial copying. These types are unattested, which is captured by the assumption that a valued C-domain blocks restructuring: (31)

*Jag försökte att gjorde det. I try.PAST att do.PAST it ‘I tried to do it.’

O(ch)- vs. att-infinitivals

173

Class (5.) corresponds to o-infinitivals where restructuring affects the C-domain alone. The complementiser o itself is the only visible indication of (potential) restructuring, except in the context of a matrix imperative, where vacuous imperative morphology will appear on the embedded verb in languages that reflect copying: (32)

Försök o gör det! start.IMP & do.IMP it ‘Try to do it!’

Class (6.) corresponds to o-infinitivals displaying partial restructuring: a restructured C- and Asp-domain, but an internally valued T-domain (licensing T-adverbs): (33)

Han hade försökt o alltid gjort det. he had try.PPC & always do.PPC it ‘He had tried to always do it!’

Class (7.) corresponds to o-infinitivals displaying another variant of partial copying/restructuring; a restructured C- and T-domain, but an internally valued Asp-domain. Examples of this type were provided in Chapter 4 and involve copied tense morphology in combination with a non-copied perfect; the auxiliary ha + past participle spells out an internally valued Asp-domain: (34)

(35)

?Han började o hade läst boken. he start.PAST & have.PAST read.PPC book.DEF ‘He was getting close to finishing the book.’ Han satt o hade spillt öl. he sit.PAST & have.PAST spill.PPC beer roughly: ‘He was in the state of having spilled beer.’

Class (8.) corresponds to TMA-copying infinitivals; infinitivals whose functional domain is fully restructured: (36)

Han försökte o (*alltid) gjorde det. he try.PAST & (always) do.PAST it ‘He tried to (*always) do it!’

The possibility of partial copying into o-infinitivals that are future-oriented is expcted. Since the T-domain in these infinitivals is not in a dependency

174

Copying

with matrix T, it can be future-oriented and thereby non-overlapping. That partial copying is more commonly accepted into infinitivals where T has the same temporal reference as matrix T (see Chapter 8 for a discussion of this T) than into future-oriented infinitivals is a fact that remains unaccounted for. I am commited to assume that independently tensed infinitivals never have an unvalued CFin , since these infinitivals do not allow copying in the variants investigated here. Dependently tensed past-oriented infinitivals, in turn, correspond to factive infinitivals. I propose that factivity is dependent on a valued CFin , which accounts for the ban on copying/restructuring in factive infinitivals. 5.

Conclusion

I have suggested an analysis along the following lines: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Functional heads in non-copying infinitivals are internally valued. Functional heads in copying infinitivals are unvalued. Unvalued functional heads yield (Inverse) Agree. Unvalued functional heads do not license modifiers. A valued CFin blocks Agree. Att-infinitivals are are always C[fin: −]. o-infinitivals may be C[fin: ].

(4.) captures the observation that sentential adverbs, floating quantifiers, and overt subjects are impossible in TMA-agreeing infinitivals. (5.) and (6.) capture the blocking effect of the complementiser att. On the present proposal that copying is restructuring: Restructuring = Funvalued + Agree with Fvalued (F is an arbitrary functional category).

Chapter 8 The syntax of tenselessness

I have unified three seemingly different phenomena under the following scheme: Subject...Verb-INFLECTIONi ...Verb-INFLECTIONi... The construction types investigated have been demonstrated to reduce to a special type of infinitival complementation involving copying of feature values from the matrix clause onto the embedded clause. Differences between the construction types have been shown to be derivable from independent factors. In essence, the construction types investigated may all go under the name of: Tense/Mood/Aspect-agreeing infinitivals I have presented arguments in favour of taking the category selected by the matrix verb to remain constant regardless of whether the relevant agreement is present or not: – Non-bare infinitivals are CPs (agreeing or non-agreeing) – Bare infinitivals are AspPs (agreeing or non-agreeing) Hence, verbs that select “bigger” complements do so regardless of whether agreement is present or not. Likewise, verbs that select “smaller” complements do so regardless of whether agreement is present or not. This hypothesis has been shown to capture the difference in number of forms that may agree in the two types of infinitival (non-bare vs. bare): – Where there is an embedded C, there may be imperative agreement. – Where there is an embedded T, there may be present/past agreement. – Where there is an embedded Asp, there may be participial agreement. Given that agreement is proportional to the number of functional projections present in the infinitival, I have suggested that TMA-agreement (copying) is a reflex of dependencies between functional heads of the same label. I have furthermore proposed that the relevant dependencies are instances of

176

The syntax of tenselessness

Agree where the lower heads are unvalued, copying values from upstairs. In connection with that proposal, a problem was noted that is left for future research: Agree is bottom-up, whereas copying is top-down (inverse Agree). I have provided arguments in favour of taking TMA-agreeing infinitivals to involve restructuring infinitivals. If, as I have claimed, full TMA-agreement requires a CP-infinitival, then restructuring configurations are not restricted to mono-clausal configurations (but may also involve two CPs). I have demonstrated that (full) TMA-agreement is limited to structures where the temporal reference of the embedded clause overlaps with that of the matrix. Thus, we have examined a subtype of tenseless infinitivals in this book. This final chapter is an attempt to focus on this property of tenselessness found to be characteristic of TMA-agreeing infinitivals. The data presented here, I will demonstrate, suggest a typology of tenseless infinitivals that includes two major classes, one of which subdivides with respect to restructuring. 1.

Tenselessness

In examining tenselessness, I will focus on CP-infinitivals displaying full TMA-agreement with the matrix clause. In these, all heads of the embedded functional domain Agree with the corresponding heads of the matrix. The result is an embedded functional domain that is non-distinct from that of the matrix clause. The analysis that I have proposed in this book captures the tenselessness property of TMA-agreeing/restructuring infinitivals. Not only are these infinitivals tenseless, they have to be “finiteless”, “aspectless”, and so on. This expectation is met in Swedish and seems to be met in other languages where restructuring is identified as well (see Wurmbrand 2001 on German). Finite clauses do not restructure, nor do factive clauses, tensed clauses, or clauses containing the perfect (setting the possibility of partial copying/restructuring aside). In view of the present proposal that copying involves unvalued functional heads, we may formulate the following hypothesis: (1)

Hypothesis: Unvalued features alternate with unmarked (negatively specified) varieties of the same features in the functional domain.

If I am correct, this alternation, made available by the system, is one important aspect of restructuring in natural language. I am led to conclude that

Tenselessness

177

there are three ways to be non-finite, tenseless, aspectless, and so on. I will illustrate this conclusion with regard to the tense domain. Recall our point of departure in Chapter 3, where I borrowed the main ingredients of the classification of tense in infinitivals assumed in Landau (2004). Infinitives that may carry temporal reference non-overlapping with the matrix have been referred to as tensed infinitivals. Infinitivals that may not have been referred to as tenseless infinitivals. So far, tensed infinitivals have been taken to come in two types: past-oriented or future-oriented. Although not discussed in detail, tensed infinitivals were assumed to subdivide between independently tensed infinitivals (unselected tense) and dependently tensed infintivals (selected tense). The former class is coextensional with the class of propositional infinitivals; the claim-class. The latter includes the class of factive infinitivals (past-oriented/tenseless), namely the ashamed-class, and irrealis (future-oriented) infinitivals of the expect-, decide-, and persuadeclasses. I have used conflicting temporal adverbials in the matrix and embedded clause to identify tense mismatches. By this test, infinitivals selected by the verb lova ‘promise’ are tensed, (2), whereas infinitivals selected by undvika ‘avoid’ qualify as tenseless, cf. (3). (2)

Igår lovade han att skriva brev på fredag. yesterday promise.PAST he to write.INF letter.PL on Friday ‘Yesterday he promised to write letters on Friday.’

(3)

a. *Igår undvek han att skriva brev på fredag yesterday avoid.PAST he to write.INF letter.PL on Friday b. *Idag undviker han att ha skrivit brev igår today avoid.PRES he to have write.PPC letter.PL yesterday c.

Han undviker att skriva brev idag ’he avoid.PRES to write.INF letter.PL today ‘He avoids writing letters today.’

Note that it is necessary to separate the criterion for the tensed/tenseless dichotomy, which is is syntactico-semantic, from morphological tense. This separation is independently argued for in Landau (2004). There are tensed infinitival clauses without tense morphology, as in (2), as well as tenseless infinitival clauses with tense morphology, e.g. TMA-agreeing infinitivals in Swedish.

178

The syntax of tenselessness

Moreover, different tenses must correspond to values of one or more grammatical features that are relevant to Agree, contra Pesetsky and Torrego (2004). On their proposal, different tenses may constitute different sorts of encyclopaedic information that is associated with T when positively valued. If the only tense values relevant to Agree were +T and −T, we would predict tense copying of the kind described here to be impossible, contrary to fact. I have taken the possibility of a tense mismatch between the matrix and the infinitival to imply presence of a T-domain in both clauses. Although the test used may need some refinement, the facts concerning Tense/Mood/Aspectagreeing infinitivals presented in this book strongly suggest that some infinitivals have tense, contra Wurmbrand to appear.141 The situation turns delicate when we consider tenseless infinitivals. We first need to ask whether or not tenselessness implies absence of a T-domain. The answer is going to be negative, which leads us to wonder about the nature of tenseless T.

1.1.

Tenselessness does not imply absence of T

There are at least three classes of counterexamples to the hypothesis that tenselessness implies absence of a T-domain. First, we have seen that some tenseless infinitivals are CPs, namely those that contain a complementiser (att or o), see (4). Their full clausal CP-status suggest that they also contain a TP. (4)

Han undviker [CP att skriva brev]. he avoid.PRES to write.INF letter.PL ‘He avoids writing letters.’

The second argument is based on T-adverbs. I have assumed that temporal adverbs are licenced by heads in the T-domain. This assumption captures the difference between “bigger” vs. “smaller” infinitivals regarding capability of licensing T-adverbs. Since a subclass of the tenseless CP-infinitivals (those that do not TMA-copy) license T-adverbs, see (5), we have another argument in favour of the T-domain being present in these infinitivals. (5)

Han undviker [CP att {alltid, nu, idag} skriva många he avoid.PRES to {always, now, today} write.INF many brev]. letter.PL ‘He avoids (always) writing many letters (now) (today).’

Tenselessness

179

Thirdly, we have seen that another subclass of tenseless CP-infinitivals (TMAagreeing infinitivals), copy tense values from the matrix clause, see (6). On the proposal that copying is a reflex of Agree between two heads of the same label (a proposal in favor of which we have independent support), the Tdomain must be present in this type of infinitival. The dependency must be established between two heads of the T-type: (6)

Han undviker [CP o skriver brev]. he avoid.PRES & write.PRES letter.PL ‘He avoids writing letters.’

The main generalizations arrived at in this book constitute an argument against approaches that take TP (or any other functional projection) to be present only when there is a “need” for it in the sense that its features are marked; for instance T in the context of a temporal non-overlap (or T-adverb), suggested as a possibility in Wurmbrand (2001). The selected category (“bigger” vs. “smaller”) seems to remain constant regardless of the context.142 Tenselessness thus does not imply absence of a T-domain. The T-domain can be missing or be present in a tenseless infinitival. Given this, we need to worry about the nature of tenseless T, referred to as anaphoric tense and represented as [−T] in Landau (2004).

1.2.

Two types of tenseless T

My findings suggest that tenseless T heads must come in two guises. One type (non-restructured) does not copy and licenses T-adverbs, exemplified in (5). The other type (restructured) does copy but does not license T-adverbs, cf. (7). (7)

Han undviker [CP o (*alltid/*idag) skriver brev]. he avoid.PRES & (always/today) write.PRES letter ‘He avoids (always) writing letters (today).’

I have proposed that the two types differ with respect to feature value. Tenseless T that does not copy is internally valued and therefore licenses T-adverbs. Tenseless T that copies is unvalued (subject to external valuation from matrix T) and therefore does not license T-adverbs. It is the latter type that I have referred to as anaphoric. Given that the value of T in the first type will need

180

The syntax of tenselessness

to correspond to whatever representation we give present-oriented tense, I am led to conclude that embedded T can be present-oriented with respect to matrix T.143 Our original class of tenseless infinitivals is now seen to include not only complements that lack tense specification, and hence may receive an external tense specification via Agree (provided the T-domain is present), but also complements that have internally specified tense, which is present-oriented with respect to the matrix. The latter type does not restructure.

2.

A typology of tenseless infinitivals

The typology thus divides tenseless infinitivals into three classes with regard to the T-domain: 1. T-domain is valued (no tense restructuring): [Past: −] [Fut: −] 2. T-domain is unvalued (tense restructuring): [Past: ] [Fut: ] 3. T-domain is absent (trivially tense restructuring) Class (1.) includes standard non-bare infinitivals as well as infinitivals involving partial copying (restructuring of at least C, but not T). Class (2.) corresponds to TMA-agreeing infinitivals (fully restructured in case the aspectual domain is also unvalued). Class (3.) includes AspP-infinitivals. These may be internally valued or externally valued (in which case there is aspectual agreement between the clauses with the possibility of participial copying). In (1.), the temporal reference of embedded T will be interpreted as overlapping with that of matrix T in virtue of being present-oriented.144 In (2.) and (3.), tense will be interpreted as identical to that of the matrix; in (2) in virtue of Agree dependencies between heads in the embedded T-domain and the corresponding heads in the matrix; in (3) in virtue of the lack of a T-domain. The typology becomes the one in Table 15 below. The classes in boldface correspond to the three classes of infinitivals that do not come with a non-overlapping temporal orientation (tenseless by the

A typology of tenseless infinitivals

181

Table 15. Infinitival tense

(I N ) DEPENDENTLY TENSED +TP Past Present Future

T ENSELESS +TP −TP Anaphoric 0

definition I have assumed). However, it is now possible to restrict the term tenseless to tense that is identical to/shared with matrix tense, as opposed to internally valued. Features encoding present-orientation alternate with the unvalued (anaphoric) varieties of the same features, yielding the possibility of restructuring.

Appendix I: Less clear-cut cases Våga ‘dare’ selects a bare infinitival in my variant but the infinitival marker is not quite as bad as it is in the infinitival selected by e.g. kunna ‘can’, cf. (1a) and (1b). (1)

a.

b.

Han hade vågat (?att) säga sin mening. he had dare.PPC to say.INF his opinion ‘He had dared to tell his opinion.’ Han hade kunnat (*att) säga sin mening. he had can.PPC to say.INF his opinion ‘He had been able to tell his opinion.’

Inserting the adverb alltid ‘always’ in the infinitival yields the same judgement, possible in (2a), as opposed to (2b). (2)

a. ?Han hade vågat (att) alltid säga sin mening. he had dare.PPC to always say.INF his opinion ‘He had dared to always tell his opinion.’ b. *Han hade kunnat (att) alltid säga sin mening. he had can.PPC to always sy.INF his opinion ‘He had been able to always tell his opinion.’

Given that the complement of våga oscillates with respect to bareness, we expect it to be less clear-cut regarding copying as well. This is borne out. Even though copied tensed forms yield a rather bad result with this verb in my variant, copying of the imperative form is fine, witness (3) (cf. Anward 1988). (3)

Våga (o) skriv! dare.IMP & write.IMP ‘Dare to write!’

Other verbs that seem compatible with bigger complements are orka ‘manage (energy-wise)’, lyckas ‘succeed’, and låtsas ‘pretend’. Orka and lyckas share with hinna ‘manage (time-wise)’ the property of being compatible with a non-bare infinitival if combined with the particle med ‘with’. I allow imperative copying with the first two verbs, even in the absence of a particle:

184

Appendices

(4)

Orka läs boken! manage.IMP read.IMP book.DEF ‘Manage to read the book!’

The reason why I do not take (3) or (4) and similar cases to be indicative of the imperative form spreading into a bare complement is precisely the fact that these verbs seem compatible with both non-bare and bare infinitivals.145 Låtsas ‘pretend’ also displays conflicting properties at first glance. The verb selects a bare infinitival but the full range of forms may be copied in mine and other variants: (5)

a.

b.

c.

d.

Låtsas skriv! pretend.IMP write.IMP ‘Pretend to write!’ Han låtsas skriver. he pretend.PRES write.PRES ‘He pretends to write.’ Han låtsades skrev. he pretend.PAST write.PAST ‘He pretended to write.’ skrivit. Han hade låtsats he had pretend.PPC write.PPC ‘He had pretended to write.’

Conforming to our expectations, the complement of låtsas ‘pretend’ contrasts with the complement of e.g. kunna ‘can’ in being marginally compatible with an infinitival marker and an adverb quantifying over times: (6)

?Han hade låtsats (??att) aldrig vara ledsen. he had pretend.PPC (to) never be.INF sad ‘He had pretended to never be sad’

Turning to non-bare infinitivals, oscillating cases seem to belong to either of two classes. In the first class, the infinitival is embedded under a noun forming what seems to be an idiomatic expression with the matrix verb. The presence of a complementizer is obligatory in these cases. Only partial copying is possible with these in my variant and is furthermore restricted to participial form. In Chapter 2, I gave two such examples, involving få tid ‘get time’ and få tillstånd ‘get permission’, respectively.

Appendix I: Less clear-cut cases

185

The second class involves psych predicates and has two subclasses. The first subclass involves predicates corresponding to love, like, and similar verbs. These verbs may select tenseless non-bare infinitivals and marginally allow partial copying in mine and other variants variants, but not tensed forms: (7)

a. ?Han hade älskat o läst. he had love.PPC & read.PPC ‘He had loved to read.’ b. *Han älskar o läser. he love.PRES & read.PRES ‘He loves to read.’

Expressions like känna för ‘feel like’ and vara rädd för ‘be afraid of’ (exemplified in Chapter 2.) also belong to this class. With these, partial copying is marginally possible in my variant. Like infinitivals embedded under nouns, infinitivals embedded under för requires the presence of a complementizer, cf. Holmberg (1990). The above expressions contrast with e.g. älska ‘love’ in being compatible with a future-oriented infinitival. In the presence of a future-oriented adverbial, copying deteriorates in my variant. Summing up, most cases where the complement wavers between non-bare and bare status can be taken to conform to the generalization arrived at here; more structure licenses more forms. A couple of classes remain to be understood in more detail, e.g. psych predicates.

Appendix II: Copying in Scandinavian The appendix presents a preliminary overview of the distribution of copying infinitivals within the other Scandinavian languages. The overview may serve as a starting point for future research on the topic. I am grateful to the following people for help with data: Gunnar Nyström and Bo Westling (Älvdalsmålet), Marit Julien, Helge Lødrup, and Helge Sandøy (Norwegian), Line Hove Mikkelsen, Bodil Kappel Schmidt, and Sten Vikner (Danish), Hjalmar Páll Petersen and Jógvan í Lon Jacobsen (Faroese), Þorbjörg Hróarsdóttir, Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson (Icelandic). The examples are evaluated on the copy readings. The extraction test has been used to factor out the irrelevant coordination readings that are sometimes available when a sentence is taken out of context. Icelandic and Älvdalsmålet-Swedish (a dialect spoken in Darlecarlia) are standardly referred to as differing from the other Scandinavian languages in displaying obligatory verb movement to the inflectional domain in non-V2 clauses, see e.g. Holmberg and Platzack (1995).146 This assumption combined with the purported absence of copying in verb moving languages has led to proposals that correlate possibility of copying/pseudocoordinating with absence of verb movement to the inflectional domain, see e.g. Josefsson (1991) and Wiklund (1998). The hypothesis is not unproblematic. As we will see, some amount of copying is attested in all Scandinavian languages; including Icelandic and Älvdalsmålet-Swedish. Another group of dialects where copying and verb movement seem to coexist is Regional Northern Norwegian. Verb movement to the inflectional domain of the clause is optional in these dialects, see Bentzen (2005). To the extent that participles can move past sentential adverbs, this movement does not affect possibility of copying (Kristine Bentzen, p.c.). Likewise, the Italian dialect of Marsalese displays TMAcopying with motion verbs (pseudocoordination), yet exhibits verb movement of the non-V2 type, see Cardinaletti and Giusti (2001).

Älvdalsmålet-Swedish Full TMA-copying is restricted to light verbs in Älvdalsmålet, see (1) exemplifying pseudocoordination with the verb corresponding to sit (yielding a progressive reading of the event referred to by the embedded predicate).

188

Appendices

(1)

a.

b.

Wenn sit an og les? what sit.PRES he & read.PRES ‘What is he reading?’ Wenn såt o og var liessn yvyr? what sit.PAST she & be.PAST sad about ‘What was she being sad about?’

(Älv-Sw.)

With infinitive selecting verbs. however, Älvdalsmålet displays partial copying (like many other variants of Swedish). In Älvdalsmålet, copying seems restricted to imperative form, see (2a).147 Tense copying is impossible, cf. (3a), as is participial copying, cf. (4a) involving a bare infinitival. (2)

a. b.

Byr å og kåjte! begin.IMP on & run.IMP Byr å kåjta! begin.IMP on run.INF ‘Start running!’

(Älv-Sw.)

(3)

a. *O byrd å og kwadh. she begin.PAST on & sing.PAST b. O byrd å kwedhå. she begin.PAST on sing.INF ‘She started singing.’

(Älv-Sw.)

(4)

a. *An edd a kunnadh lesidh buotsje. he would have can.PPC read.PPC book.DEF b. An edd a kunnadh leså buotsje. he would have can.PPC read.INF book.DEF ‘He would have been able to read the book.’

(Älv-Sw.)

Norwegian Full TMA-copying with light verbs (pseudocoordination) is part of standard Norwegian. (5) (from Lødrup 2002: 122) yields a progressive reading of the event referred to by the embedded predicate (see also Johnsen 1988; Johannessen 1998; Vannebo 2003). (5)

Hva sitter han og skriver? what sit.PRES he & write.PRES ‘What is he sitting and reading?’

(No.)

Appendix II: Copying in Scandinavian

189

As far as my investigations go, copying is for the most part restricted to imperative and participial form with infinitive selecting verbs in the Norwegian variants that make use of copying. (6a), from Julien (2003), exemplifies participial copying into a bare infinitival, see also Sandøy (1991) and Lødrup (2002). (7a) and (8a) exemplify participial and imperative copying into nonbare infinitivals, respectively. (6)

a. b.

(7)

a. b.

(8)

a. b.

Ho hadde kunna gjort det. she had can.PPC do.PPC it Ho hadde kunna gjera det. She had can.PPC do.INF it ‘She would have been able to do it.’

(No. var.)

Han hadde prøvd å støtt sagt frå i tie. (Solør No.) he had try.PPC & always tell.PPC from in time Han hadde prøvd å støtt seia frå i tie. he had try.PPC & always tell.INF from in time ‘He had tried to always object in time.’ Prøv å støtt sei frå i tie! try.IMP & always tell.IMP from in time frå i tie! Prøv å støtt seia try.IMP & always tell.INF from in time ‘Try to always object in time!’

(Solør No.)

Full TMA-copying is attested in a couple of Norwegian dialects spoken in Romsdal and Gudbrandsdalen (Helge Sandøy p.c.) with the verbs begynne ‘start’ and slutte ‘stop, see (9) exemplifying copying of present tense. Lødrup (2002) reports full copying to be possible with vere åt/holde på ‘carry on’ (see also Sandøy 1986) and førsøke/prøve ‘try’ in some Norwegian variants. (9)

Jeg begynner og leser. I start.PRES & read.PRES ‘I start reading.’

(Romsdal/Gudbrandsdalen No.)

Danish Full TMA-copying is restricted to light verbs in Danish; pseudocoordinations like (10) (example from Josefsson 1991: 130) are part of standard Danish.

190

Appendices

(10)

Jens sidder og fisker nede ved åen. Jens sit.PRES & fish.PRES down by river.DEF ‘Jens is fishing down by the river.’

(Da.)

With infinitive selecting verbs, copying is restricted to the imperative form, cf. (11a). (11)

a. b.

Begynd og læs! begin.IMP & read.IMP Begynd at læse! begin.IMP to read.INF ‘Start reading!’

(Da. var.)

Examples of participial copying into bare and non-bare infinitivals are provided in Mikkelsen (1911), however are rejected by all speakers consulted. (12) (from Mikkelsen 1911: 420) exemplifies participial copying into a bare infinitival. (12)

Det har jeg hele Tiden villet spurgt om. that have I whole time.DEF want.PPC ask.PPC about ‘That, I have wanted to ask about the whole time.’

(Da. var.)

As shown in (13a) and (14a), participial and tense copying into non-bare infinitivals seem impossible in present-day Danish. (13)

a. *Jeg er begyndt og læst bogen. I am begin.PPC & read.PPC book.DEF b. Jeg er begyndt at læse bogen. I am begin.PPC to read.INF book.DEF ‘I have started reading the book.’

(Da. var.)

(14)

a. *Jeg begynder og læser. I begin.PRES & read.PRES b. Jeg begynder at læse. I begin.PRES to read.INF ‘I started reading.’

(Da. var.)

Faroese Full copying with light verbs is possible in Faroese (pseudocoordination with posture verbs):

Appendix II: Copying in Scandinavian

(15)

Hvat liggur hann og lesur? what lie.PRES he & read.PRES ‘What is he reading?’

191 (Fa.)

Copying with infinitive selecting verbs is limited to the imperative and the participial forms. (16a) exemplifies participial copying into a bare infinitival (see Lockwood 1964 and Sandøy 1991), (17a) participial copying into a nonbare infinitival and (18a) imperative copying into a non-bare infinitival.148 As shown in (19a), tense copying is impossible. (16)

a. b.

(17)

a. b.

(18)

a. b.

(19)

Han hevði viljað lisið bókina. he had want.PPC read.PPC book.DEF Han hevði viljað lesa bókina. he had want.PPC read.INF book.DEF ‘He would have wanted to read the book.’

(Fa. var.)

Eg havi røynt at gjørt nakað gott. I have try.PPC to do.PPC something good Eg havi røynt at gera nakað gott. I have try.PPC to do.INF something good ‘I have tried to do something good.’

(Fa. var.)

Byrja og les! start.IMP & read.IMP Byrja at lesa! start.IMP to read.IMP ‘Start reading!’

(Fa. var.)

a. *Eg røyni at/og lesi. I try.PRES to/& read.PRES b. Eg røyni at lesa. I try.PRES to read.INF ‘I try to read.’

(Fa. var.)

Icelandic Icelandic appears to be the most restrictive among the Scandinavian languages with regard to possibility of copying. The phenomenon is for the most part limited to light verbs (e.g. the posture verb sit), and is not accepted by all speakers (Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson p.c.). The subject is preferrably cliticized to the verb (glossed as CL below):149

192

Appendices

(20)

a.

Hvað siturðu og lest? what sit.PRES.2SG.CL & read.PRES.2SG b. ?Hvað situr þú og lest? what sit.PRES.2SG you & read.PRES.2SG ‘What are you reading?’

(Ic. var.)

(21)

a.

(Ic. var.)

Hvað sastu og last? what sit.PAST.2SG.CL & read.PAST.2SG b. ?Hvað sast þú og last? what sit.PAST.2SG you & read.PAST.2SG ‘What were you reading?’

Non-bare infinitivals do not copy, see (22)-(24), but bare infinitivals may copy the participial form in variants of Icelandic under certain verbs (Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, p.c.), cf. (25a). (22)

a. *Byrja þú og les! start.IMP you & read.IMP b. Byrja þú að lesa! start.IMP you to read.INF ‘Start reading!’

(Ic.)

(23)

a. *Ég hef byrjað og lesið. I have start.PPC & read.PPC b. Ég hef byrjað að lesa. I have start.PPC to read.INF ‘I have started reading.’

(Ic.)

(24)

a. *Hann byrjar og les. he start.PRES & read.PRES b. Han byrjar að lesa. he start.PRES to read.INF ‘He starts reading.’

(Ic.)

(25)

a. %Ég hefði viljað lesið bókina. I had.SBJ want.PPC read.PPC book.DEF b. Ég hefði viljað lesa bókina. I had.SBJ want.PPC read.INF book.DEF ‘I would have wanted to read the book.’

(Ic.)

Appendix III: Selectional restrictions There is some language variation with respect to whether or not pseudocoordinating verbs are compatible with an inanimate subject (see Cardinaletti and Giusti 2001 for a discussion based on motion verbs). In Swedish, an inanimate subject is possible in progressive pseudocoordinations involving posture verbs, (1a), but not in inceptive pseudocoordinations with these verbs, cf. (1b). (1)

a.

Stenen låg o glänste i solen. stone.DEF lie.PAST & glimmer.PAST in sun.DEF ‘The stone was glimmering in the sun.’ b. *Stenen lade sig o glänste i solen. stone.DEF lie:DIR.PAST REFL & glimmer.PAST in sun.DEF

The motion verb gå ‘go’ requires an animate subject in Swedish regardless of the aspectual reading, whereas the motion verb fara ‘go’ is compatible with an inanimate subject on both progressive (I.) and inceptive (II.) readings: (2)

a. *Flygplanet gick o gjorde looper. airplane.DEF go.PAST & make.PAST loop.PL I. ‘The airplane went around making loops.’ II.‘The airplane went and made loops’. b. Flygplanet for o gjorde looper. airplane.DEF go.PAST & make.PAST loop.PL I. ‘The airplane went around making loops.’ II.‘The airplane went and made loops’.

Finally, vara ‘be’ requires an animate subject, (3a), whereas ta ‘take’ is subject to variation (contra Ekberg 1993). Thus, (3b) is fine in my variant (yielding a surprise reading).150 (3)

a. *Stenen var o glänste i solen. stone.DEF be.PAST & glimmer.PAST in sun.DEF b. %Stenen tog o rullade ner. stone.DEF take.PAST & roll.PAST down ‘The stone rolled down.’

Appendix IV: Spelling out copied inflection In order to account for the fact that verbs can be inflected, it is often assumed that features of functional heads are duplicated on the verbal complex (abbreviated V) and that these features on V need to enter Agree relations with the corresponding features in the functional domain of the clause, cf. Adger (2003). Thus, V carries at least [f] (an arbitrary inflectional feature), which is also present on the functional head F (a head of the [f]-type) of the same clause. [f]-F is valued, whereas [f]-V is unvalued (but see Pesetsky and Torrego 2004 for a different view): (1)

...[FP F[f: value]i ... [VP V[f: ]i ...]]

Theoretical issues are e.g. whether head movement is a necessary ingredient or not, whether the full set or a subset of the inflectional features of the clause are carried by V, whether [f] is present in heads other than F and V, and whether there is another feature [fv ] on F that is unvalued and a trigger for Agree. Suppose features are indeed duplicated this way within a clause. Then, an Agree dependency between a functional head F carrying [f] and a head in the same clause carrying [f] (e.g. V) does not result in F and V both reflecting [f] phonologically, witness (2). (2)

Han (*de)-rita-de. he PAST-try-PAST ‘He drew.’

In contrast, an Agree dependency between a functional head F and a head of the same label, apparently, can result in the feature being reflected on two items (relevantly verbs), cf. (3). (3)

Han pröva-de [o rita-de]. he try-PAST & draw-PAST ‘He tried to draw.’

Feature deletion may take care of the former case but is not applicable to the latter. I will not discuss this matter here, but consider it noteworthy to state the observation: (4)

a.

[f]-V copies the value of [f]-F: [f] is phonologically reflected only once.

196

Appendices b.

[f]-F1 copies the value of [f]-F2 : [f] can be phonologically reflected twice.

Although the details of the mappings to Phonological Form will not be dealt with here, the following dependencies seem crucial to the surface appearance of copied imperative, present, past, and participial form (assuming, for the sake of simplicity, that all other heads copy unmarked/negative values):151 – Imperative form in the complement:152 C1 Fin [Fin: +]i C1 Force [Imp: +]j ... C2 Fin [Fin: ]i C2 Force [Imp: ]j (5)

Pröva o skriv! try.IMP & write.IMP ‘Try to write!’

– Present form in the complement:153 C1 Fin [Fin: +]i T1 Past [Past: −]j ... C2 Fin [Fin: ]i T2 Past [Past: ]j (6)

Han prövar o skriver. he try.PRES & write.PRES ‘He is trying to write.’

– Past form in the complement:154 C1 Fin [Fin: +]i T1 Past [Past: +]j ... C2 Fin [Fin: ]i T2 Past [Past: ]j (7)

Han prövade o skrev. he try.PAST & write.PAST ‘He tried to write.’

– Participial form in the complement:155 Asp1 Perf [Perf: +]i ... Asp2 Perf [Perf: ]i (8)

Han hade prövat o skrivit. he had try.PPC & write.PPC ‘He had tried to write.’

Notes 1. Swedish has two participle forms, one of which can only be used adjectivally (modifying the noun in a noun phrase or as a predicative adjective) and which agrees with its subject nominal like an adjective, and one non-agreeing form, the supine, used in the formation of the perfect, see e.g. Platzack (1989). It is the latter, always ending in -t, which appears in the construction under discussion. 2. Mainland Scandinavian languages (Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish) differ from Insular Scandinavian languages (Faroese and Icelandic) in this respect, see e.g. Holmberg and Platzack (1995). 3. That there is no systematic treatement of the phenomenon in Teleman et al. (1999) is also pointed out in Anward (2000). 4. There is an irrelevant coordination reading of (3) where the first verb selects a non-overt complement: (i)

Lars började ... o han skrev dikter. Lars start.PAST ... & he write.PAST poem.PL ‘Lars started [something] and he wrote poems.’

5. Traditional descriptions would have it that the infinitival marker (orthographic att) has two pronunciations: either /At/ (in more careful speech) or /O/ (in casual speech). However, the facts concerning copying constructions furnish a strong case for rejecting this analysis. I will argue in Chapter 4 that the /At/ and /O/ pronunciations in fact reflect two distinct complementizers (see also Chapter 7). 6. (5) is from Svenska Dagbladet, Sep 9, and (6) from Dagens Nyheter, May 27, 1998. 7. BU 1-3 Birgittas uppenbarelser, Bok 1-3. SSFS 9:1, ed. G.E. Klemming, original from the end of the 14th century, hand writing from the middle of the 15th century (file containing around 106 600 words). 8. Object sharing has been identified as a hallmark of serial verb constructions (SVCs) and is required under some definitions of that construction type, see e.g. Baker (1989), thus excluding the pseudocoordinations relevant here from the set of SVCs (cf. Cardinaletti and Giusti 2001), see Aboh (2004) for a critical discussion. Another property distinguishing pseudocoordinations from SVCs is the presence of a conjunction element; traditional definitions of SVCs exclude multi-verb constructions involving a connecting element (subordinating or coordinating), cf. Stahlke (1970). The latter property may be challenged by languages like Igbo and Fe’Fe’ though, discussed in Hyman (1971), see also Aboh (2004) for discussion. I will not take a stand here on the issue of what the relation may be between pseudocoordination and SVCs. See Pullum (1990), Déchaine (1993), Bodomo (1997), and in particular Aboh (2004) for discussion. 9. TMA-copying complements in Swedish thus differ from a construction type present in Èdó (belonging to the Kwa group of the Niger-Congo family of languages), referred to as the Modal-aspectual verb construction in Stewart (1999). Alongside the infinitival constructions exemplified in (ia) and (iia), sharing the basic semantics of Swedish (13) and (14), Èdó exhibits the construction type exemplified in (ib) and (iib) that differs from the former in two ways: (i) The marker yá introducing the infinitive is absent. (ii) Whereas there is no implication that the embedded event took place in (ia) and (iia), there is such an implication in (ib) and (iib). Stewart (1999) proposes that yá is an irrealis marker

198

Notes and that a null head in (ib) and (iib) conveys a realis interpretation. Both construction types are argued to be infinitival on the basis of the distribution of tones (tense is realized supra-segmentally on verbs in Èdó). (i)

a.

b.

(ii)

a.

b.

Òzó hìá yá rrí èvbàré. Òzó try.PAST to eat.INF food ‘Òzo tried to eat the food.’ Òzó hìá rrí èvbàré. Òzó try.PAST eat.INF food ‘Òzo made an effort and ate the food.’ Òzó miànmiàn yá kpó!ló ówá. Òzó forget.PAST to sweep.INF stall ‘Òzo forgot to sweep the stall.’ Òzó miànmiàn kpó!ló ówá. Òzó forget.PAST sweep.INF stall ‘Òzó forgot and (inadvertently) swept the stall.’

10. Not all speakers allow stative predicates under börja ‘start’. These speakers will therefore not accept (16b) and similar examples. 11. To the extent that (17b) is possible at all, the ha + participle can only get a reading where the result state of the embedded event holds at a particular point in time (a perfect state reading), thus crucially distinct from the copy-reading. 12. This property of the supine should probably be related to its function as a relative past. The Swedish past tense has clear modal uses, see e.g. (i), where the past inflection on the modal does not serve to express tense but modality. (i)

Han borde skriva ett brev imorgon. he ought.PAST write.INF a letter tomorrow ‘He ought to write a letter tomorrow.’

13. (19) has an additional reading that (18a) lacks; a future perfect state reading on which the temporal adverbial modifies the result state of the embedded event and not the event itself. Ha-drop eliminates the perfect-state reading in this context, restricting available readings to the relative past/counterfactual. 14. Placing an auxiliary ha ‘have’ in front of the participle renders the sentence grammatical. In that case the participle cannot be replaced by an infinitive, thus is not vacuous. It gets a perfect state reading: (i)

Du vill ha kommit hit. You want.PRES have come.PPC here ‘You want to have come here.’

15. The counterparts of (22b) and (23b) are grammatical in languages like German and Dutch. The phenomenon is referred to as the IPP-effect (Infinitivus Pro Participio), see e.g. Vanden Wyngaerd (1996), Wurmbrand (2001), and references cited there. We leave for future research the relation between copying complements and the IPP-effect. 16. An irrelevant ha-drop reading is marginally possible for (27b). 17. (31c) has an irrelevant coordination reading with a null complement in the first conjunct (selected by fortsätta): I tried to continue... and walked along the path.

Notes

199

18. Prepositionsobjekt in traditional Swedish grammar terminology, see Hellberg (2003) and references cited there. 19. In (33b), we are interested in the reading where the adverbial takes narrow scope. The sentence has an irrelevant reading where the manner of the matrix event (i.e. the reading event) is questioned. Note also that if we replace the matrix predicate with prata ‘talk’ to induce subject control, we get the same result. 20. (35b) is possible only on an echo-question reading. 21. It is noteworthy that the predicates that allow copying involve desiderative or psychsemantics. Another example of copying in the context of auxiliary-adjective predicates involves so-called politeness phrases, cf. Chapter 1 (§3) above. 22. The status of (37b) and (38b) does not change if meditera ‘meditate’ is replaced by the participle mediterat ‘meditated’. 23. Julien (2003) provides the Norwegian counterpart of (i) (from Sandøy 1991), reported to be fine in some Swedish and Norwegian variants. The sentence is deviant in my variant. To the extent that it is possible, the reading is that of an infinitival perfect, thus seems to instantiate ha-drop. (i)

%O sprungit 60 meter på 10 sekunder hade inte varit någon konst på en sådan & run.PPC 60 meter on 10 seconds had not been any trick on a such bana track ‘To run 60 meters on 10 seconds would have been easy (lit. would not have been a trick) on such a track.’

24. As expected, copying into extraposed position yields a marginally better result: (i)

det o blivit olagligt o rökt. ??Han hade fått he had get.PPC EXPL & become.PPC illegal & smoke.PPC ‘He had made to smoke to become illegal.’

25. The definiteness of the object is irrelevant, see (ib) below. The example is fine on the irrelevant coordination reading: He had gotten an impulse and gone home. The same is true for (41b) in the text: He had forgotten the advice and gone home. (i)

a.

Han hade fått en impuls att åka hem. he had get.PPC an impulse to go.INF home

b.

*Han hade fått en impuls o åkt hem. he had get.PPC an impulse & go.PPC home

26. (42b) is marginally fine on the irrelevant coordination reading: I have rented a movie and watched [it] tonight. The same is true for (43b). 27. There are also similar examples in Lockwood (1964: 141) from Faroese, all involving the matrix verb have: (i)

Tygum hava havt tíð at gjørt tað. You have have.PPC time to do.PPC it ‘You have had time to do it.’

(Fa.)

28. Julien (2003) provides the following Norwegian example of copying into the complement of a noun:

200

Notes (i)

Det ville vori fint å hatt nokon til å hjelpt seg. it would be.PPC nice & have.PPC somebody to & help.PPC SE ‘It would have been nice to have somebody to get help from.’

The Swedish counterpart is possible but slightly degraded in my variant. As expected, copying goes hand in hand with extraction: (ii)

a.

b.

?Det skulle ha varit fint o haft någon o hjälpt en. it would have be.PPC nice & have.PPC somebody o help.PPC one ‘It would have been nice to have somebody to get help from.’ ?Var skulle det ha varit fint o haft någon o hjälpt en where would it have be.PPC nice & have.PPC somebody o help.PPC one _? _

Thus, the object noun in (iia) is a very mild island, in contrast with the object noun in e.g. (42a) in the text, cf. (iii), for reasons that are not clear to me. The important correlation remains; wherever copying is possible, the infinitival is not an island. (iii)

_? *När har du hyrt en film att se when have you rent.PPC a film to see.INF _

29. Similar examples are found in Faroese, see Lockwood (1964: p.141): (i)

Tað hevði verið stuttligt at sæð hana ... it would-have be.PPC nice to see.PPC her ‘It would have been nice to see her ...’

(Fa.)

30. When checking for the possibility of a future-oriented infinitive, one has to make sure that the matrix verb is inflected for past rather than present tense, since, in Swedish, present inflection can also express the future. In case the present inflection refers to the future, the adverb following the infinitive can have matrix scope. Thus, the grammaticality of a sentence like (i) below does not indicate the possibility of a tense mismatch, since there is a reading of the sentence where the future-oriented adverbial has matrix scope: (i)

Han börjar att skriva brev imorgon. he start.PRES to write.INF letter.PL tomorrow ‘He will start to write letters tomorrow.’

Narrow scope of tomorrow can of course be forced by the insertion of now in the matrix. As predicted, the sentence becomes ungrammatical: (ii)

*Nu börjar han att skriva brev imorgon. now start.PRES he to write.INF letter.PL tomorrow ‘Now he is starting to write letters tomorrow.’

31. Removing the past-oriented adverbial in (4) yields a sentence which is grammatical for some speakers and means that the subject referent is now getting close to finishing frying the fish, cf. Chapter 2 (§3.1) above. 32. It is important to stress that the criterion for the tensed/tenseless dichotomy is syntacticosemantic and not morphological. As demonstrated in Landau (2004), there are tensed clauses without tense morphology – e.g. infinitives embedded under decide-type verbs (cf. above) – as well as tenseless clauses with tense morphology – e.g. controlled sub-

Notes

201

junctives in Greek (and TMA-copying infinitivals in Swedish, anticipating conclusions to be drawn as we proceed). 33. By not constrained, I mean that the infinitival embedded under these verbs can have any temporal orientation; past-, present-, or future-oriented. The tense is unselected or free (Landau 2004). The temporal location of a past-oriented infinitive embedded under e.g. påstå ‘claim’ is still interpreted w.r.t. that of the matrix verb, cf. (i). (i)

*Han påstods i förrgår ha stekt en fisk igår. he claim.PAST.PASS in before-yesterday have fry.PPC a fish yesterday ‘The day before yesterday he was claimed to have fried a fish yesterday.’

34. As far as my investigations go, all speakers allowing copying allow the infinitival form as well. Thus copy-speakers typically switch between two registers; one with copying and another without copying. 35. Both classes of verbs select tensed bare infinitives. However, whereas infinitives embedded under the påstå-class are independently tensed, verbs from the anse-class select present- or past-oriented infinitives. 36. There is an irrelevant reading of (21b), marginally available, where an auxiliary ha ‘have’ is dropped in the embedded clause. Interestingly, dropping of ha seems conditioned by the presence of an auxiliary ha in the matrix clause. 37. The unacceptability of copying remains if passive inflection is spread, cf. (i). See Chapter 4 (§5) and Wiklund (2006) for a note on complex passives. (i)

*Han påstods sprangs snabbt. he claim.PAST.PASS run.PAST.PASS fast ‘he was claimed to run fast.’

38. An irrelevant ha-drop reading is (with difficulty) available in (25b). 39. An irrelevant ha-drop reading is marginally possible for (28b); He had been expected to have come home by next week. 40. Some of the verbs selecting future-oriented infinitives can select a past-oriented complement in certain uses that appear to shift their meaning slightly (this is noted by Wurmbrand 2001 and Landau 2004). In (i) below, the subject referent makes up his mind about how to view a past situation. I abstract away from such coercions here. (i)

Igår beslutade han att ha blivit lurad dagen innan. yesterday decide.PAST he to have be.PPC cheated day-the before ‘Yesterday he decided to have been cheated the day before.’

41. Planera ‘plan’ and lova ‘promise’ allow partial copying in my variant, see §5.3 below. 42. Tvinga ‘force’ is also compatible with a future-oriented infinitive, see §4. 43. Tendera ‘tend’ also belongs to this class but is less commonly accepted in copy context, most probably due to stilistic factors. The verb belongs to more formal registers, whereas copying belongs to casual speech. It can select a TMA-copying infinitival in my variant: (i)

Det tenderar o regnar. EXPL tend.PRS & rain.PRS ‘It tends to rain.’ 44. Notice that copying is insensitive to the complexity of the matrix verb with respect to the presence of particles/prepositions. In this sense copying differs from the phenomenon of verb clustering in Dutch, as pointed out by Marcel den Dikken (p.c.).

202

Notes

45. E.g. Han lär vara intelligent. ‘I have heard that he is intelligent.’ Lär can also have a reading meaning ‘be probable’ for some speakers: Jag lär komma hem vid sju. ‘I’ll probably come home around seven.’ 46. Verka ‘seem’ and förefalla ‘appear’ may select non-bare infinitives for some speakers, thus are less clear-cut with respect to the bare/non-bare distinction, see Appendix I for some notes on verbs of this kind. 47. Carme Picallo (p.c.) reports similar judgements for Catalan and Spanish. According to Vivienne Fong (p.c.) sentences like these improve in Singapore English if the adverbial in the embedded clause is replaced by a relational adverbial, e.g. the next day. 48. The same effect can in fact be achieved with the non-bare verbs of this class. Thus, to the extent that (i) below is possible, it can only have an interpretation of the type Yesterday he said that he started reading the book last Friday. (i)

49.

50.

51. 52. 53. 54. 55.

56. 57.

?Igår började han att läsa boken i fredags. yesterday start.PAST he to read.INF book.DEF last Friday ‘Yesterday he started reading the book last Friday.’

Also in this case the infinitival complement is tenseless, i.e. not mismatching with the superordinate clause in temporal properties (the mismatch being between the covert reporting event and the tense of börja ‘start’). The paradigms in Christensen (1997) include non-finite forms of ska, viz. the infinitive skola and the participle skolat, respectively. These forms are exceedingly rare, confined to written language and dwindling even there; three cases of infinitive skola are contained in the Press 65 corpus of Swedish newspaper texts from 1965 (990 989 words running text); in the 1995 Press 95 corpus (6 769 649 words), there are no occurences. The supine skolat is lacking in both corpora. (http://spraakbanken.gu.se/lb/konk/) Since the verbs ska ‘shall’/‘will’, komma ‘will’, and lär (expressing hearsay evidentiality) lack the participial form, we do not see copying with these verbs. Note that (47b) has an epistemic reading (equivalent to He may have read) in addition to the root reading given. On that reading, however, the sentence arguably involves an auxiliary ha-drop structure and not a copy structure. Ha is in some variants (including mine) possible in this context. Some speakers allow pröva ‘try’, försöka ‘try’, vägra ‘refuse’, and välja ‘choose’ to select future-oriented infinitives, see §4 below. (62b) has an irrelevant reading ‘I had gotten the book read’, see Hedlund (1992). On våga ‘dare’, orka ‘manage (energy-wise)’, and låtsas ‘pretend’, see Appendix I. This correlation does not hold for variants displaying partial copying, see §5.3. The former reading is also available for German versuchen ‘try’, see Wurmbrand (2001). The status of (77b) does not change if the object of råda is encliticized. The ungrammaticality of (78d) follows from locality constraints (Chapter 2). The latter sentence has an irrelevant coordination reading: He stopped advicing her and went to church. Some variants of Dutch also allow material to intervene between te and the infinitive, see IJbema (2002). In my variant, the difference between the full form och and the reduced form o reduces to a difference in style; the former is used in more careful registers. There may be variants where the two differ in distribution and therefore also must differ in feature make-up. I leave that possibility for future research. See de Vos (2005) for some notes on the full vs. reduced form of English and.

Notes

203

58. This means that the traditional view (reflected in Jespersen 1895; Östergren 1901) of the direction of causation in the development of copying constructions must be reversed; rather than a phonological accident (the homophony between att and o(ch)) leading to a grammatical development (the emergence of copying constructions), we have instead a grammatical development, one facet of which being that what was previously only a coordinating conjunction acquires a new function, leading to a situation which can be interpreted as homophony by speakers. 59. This is also true for finite att: (i)

Lars sa att’nte det var sant. Lars say.PAST to-cl.NEG that was true ‘Lars said that that was not true.’

60. Another often cited reference is Faraci (1970). 61. I refer the reader to Portner (2005) for a discussion of the semantics of imperative clauses. While Portner is critical of the postulation of a Force feature to derive syntactic properties of imperatives, he proposes an analysis in terms of a variable binding operator, which resides high in the clausal structure (he speculates). For the purpose of the present proposal, it is enough to assume that whatever licenses the imperative verb form resides in the C-domain of the clause, thereby restricting imperative copying to infinitivals where this domain is present. 62. In embedded finite clauses, negation occurs encliticized onto the complementizer or onto the subject. 63. There is no verb movement past negation in embedded clauses in Swedish. Thus, the negation is impossible in post-verbal position in both examples. 64. On cases that seem less clear-cut regarding the correlation between amount of structure and amount of copying, see Appendix I. 65. Nothing in what follows hinges on the label Asp. Inner or lower tense are other possible labels. 66. Many verbs selecting non-bare infinitivals are themselves aspectual, containing features that are less easily applied to the perfect. With a suitable context, however, the perfect is fine in these contexts as well, cf. (i) in the following context: During her first years in school, Lisa always arrived well prepared to classes. But after having changed school three times in five years... (i)

...slutade hon att ha läst läxorna. ...stop.PAST she to have read.PPC homework.PL.DEF ‘...she stopped having done her homework.’

67. Auxiliary ha may not carry copied participial inflection, see (i) below (disregarding the irrelevant main verb reading of ha, corresponding to he could have had the book read). This fact has a natural explanation. As opposed to lexical ha the paradigm of auxiliary ha lacks the participial form. The latter fact, in turn, should follow from independent factors, presumably related to the position of the verb in the functional sequence, an issue that I will leave aside here. (i)

kunnat [haft läst boken]. *Han hade he have.PAST can.PPC have.PPC read.PPC book.DEF ‘He could have read the book.’

204

Notes

68. Possibly, desiderative complements do not contain a full-blown TP but restrict projection either to TFut , immediately below TPast , or to Moodirrealis , immediately below TFut in Cinque (1999). On the latter alternative, T is never present without C. 69. Lockwood (1964: 141) provides an example of participial copying into the complement of a perception verb in Faroese: (i)

Eg havi hoyrt hann sagt tað. I have hear.PPC him say.PPC it ‘I have heard him say it.’

(Fa.)

The impeccable status of the sentence is confirmed by Jógvan í Lon Jacobsen (p.c.). It is possible that the size of these complements is subject to some variation; the relevant verbs may be capable of selecting an AspP in some variants. My judgement of (45b) above as slightly better than other copied forms may be an indication of this possibility. 70. Object shift is impossible across any phonologically visible non-adjunct category ccommanding the object position in the verb phrase, see Holmberg (1999). 71. Complex passives of the kind in (i), from Holmberg (2002), are available in variants of Scandinavian where passive past participles do not display gender/number agreement, like Danish and varieties of Norwegian (including the bokmål standard). (i)

Bilen ble førsøkt reparert. car.DEF was try.PPC repair.PPC ‘They tried to repair the car.’

(No. Bokmål)

With a couple of aspectual verbs, double s-passives are marginally possible in variants of Swedish, including mine, see (ii). The embedded verb may not be replaced by an active verb form. Space does not allow us to investigate this construction here. (ii)

?Medicinen slutas o säljs. medication.DEF stop.PRES.PASS o sell.PRES.PASS ‘They stop selling the medication.’

(Sw.)

72. Wurmbrand (2001) proposes that some of the German restructuring verbs are functional. 73. According to Ekberg (1993) the literal translation of (2), He took and read a book, is fine in Irish English and certain American dialects. 74. That the ban on dropping the linking element/complementiser is not absolute for pseudocoordinations is shown by the Norwegian variant displayed in the writings of Tarjei Vesaas. There the element is dropped in pseudocoordinations involving posture verbs, see (i) from Vesaas (1974: 25). I thank Torodd Kinn (p.c.) for the observation. (i)

Mattis satt venta nære på andelaus. Mattis sit.PAST wait.PAST close to breathless ‘Mattis sat waiting almost breathlessly.’

(Norwegian var.)

75. To keep uniformity, I refer to the conjunction element orthographic och by the short form o throughout. 76. In contrast to the English motion verb go, its Swedish cognate gå can only mean walk in the relevant context. Nothing in what follows hinges on this difference. 77. (9b) is in fact ambiguous on the pseudocoordination reading as well in Swedish. It is ambiguous between the inceptive-distal reading given and a progressive reading roughly

Notes

205

corresponding to Lars went around drinking coffee. I abstract away from this ambiguity in what follows since pseudocoordinations behave in the same way with respect to the properties reviewed here, regardless of interpretation. 78. I am indebted to Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson for discussion of Icelandic data. Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson (p.c.) reports varieties of Icelandic where sit-&−V constructions seem to behave like their Swedish counterparts with regard to extraction and aspectual properties, see Appendix II for a brief note. 79. (15) requires a context where manner of posture is prominent. Insertion of a locative adverbial renders the sentence perfectly acceptable, see (i). The interpretation of the event expressed by the second conjunct is the same as in (15). See Chapter 6 for a discussion of these and related facts. (i)

Palli sat úti í horni og var súr. Palli sit.PAST out in corner.DEF & be.PAST grumpy ‘Palli sat in the corner and was grumpy.’

(Ic.)

80. Phrasal stress is on the final phonological word before a phrase boundary. Thus, in (16a) sjöng ‘sang’ and kaffe ‘coffee’ bear phrasal stress. 81. I abstract away from the possibility of using a plural expression to refer to a single event in a context like: Att du klarade tentamen var inga dåliga grejer (That you passed the exam was no bad things). This reading is not available with the above examples. 82. The prosodic bracketing excludes the possibility of a coordinate structure with a null complement in the first conjunct in (21b), which would be bracketed [Att ha börjat [o druckit kaffe]]. 83. The obligatoriness of a dummy verb in position of the fronted verb is a property that pseudocoordinations share with some raising infinitives. 84. The extraction facts are not changed if hur högt (how loudly) is replaced by hur (how) in the examples that follow. The former phrase is chosen here to disambiguate between potential extraction sites. That a locative phrase is possible with the first verb in progressive pseudocoordination is also noted by Josefsson (1991) for Swedish and by Tonne (2000), and Lødrup (2002) for Norwegian. 85. The corresponding Marsalese pseudocoordinations do not allow any modification of the first verb according to Cardinaletti and Giusti (2001). 86. In the presence of a goal phrase, the infinitival is argued to constitute an adjunct clause. 87. Déchaine (1993) proposes that pseudocoordinations (and other asymmetric coordinations) involve leftward adjunction of the first verb phrase, contained in a conjunction phrase, to the second verb phrase. The conjunction phrase constitutes a barrier. The possibility of extraction out of the second verb phrase follows from the fact that VP is not a barrier. Her analysis predicts non-ATB extraction out of the first verb phrase to be impossible. As seen in (i) though, the Swedish construction allows extraction. (i)

kaffe varje dag. [Till skolan] gick Lars _ och drack to school go.PAST Lars _ & drink.PAST coffee every day.

88. The complex predicate head analysis proposed in de Vos (2005) (for pseudocoordinations where modification of the first verb is absent) involves coordination at the (sub-) head level. The presence of inflectional morphology on both verbs in the complex head is an additional problem for that analysis.

206

Notes

89. The present analysis still has to explain why the tense inflection fails to license a subject in (45a), see Chapter 7. 90. In Afrikaans pseudocoordinations the whole complex V & V has the option of behaving as a unit with respect to verb second. Sentences like (47b) are therefore fine in Afrikaans, see e.g. Donaldson (1993). 91. A coordination analysis of pseudocoordination can be made compatible with these facts. The conjuncts can be said to lack the structure required for a movement of the verb past the adverb (relevantly the CP domain, Swedish being a verb second language). The proposal is commited to saying that the ordinary coordination in (51) involves a coordination of bigger clausal chunks on the verb>adverb order. 92. In the presence of både ‘both’, (55a) can only have an independent-event (coordination) reading, involving a null complement selected by the first verb. 93. In many Norwegian dialects også ’also’ – pronounced [oso] - can serve as an infinitival marker (replacing å), see (i) below from Endresen (1992: p.269): (i)

Eg skal ut [oso] fiske i natt. I will out also fish.INF in night ‘I am going out fishing tonight.’

(No. var.)

94. One question which is left unanswered is how the pseudocoordinations discussed here relate to other constructions that appear to involve coordination but where an asymmetry between the conjuncts is in evidence. Although an investigation of these is outside the scope of the present book, the hypothesis I would pursue is that an asymmetric coordination that passes all the pseudocoordination tests reviewed here involves complementation, rather than coordination, and is likely to involve TMA-copying. Many consecutive coordinations involving the right kind of matrix/first verb, like (9b), undoubtedly belong to this class in many languages. Resultative coordinations seem subtly different. Although in the context of a directional intransitive matrix verb in combination with a particle (these enable light verb uses, see Chapter 6), also these coordinations are candidates for an analysis in terms of TMA-copying: (i)

a.

b.

Han föll ner och bröt benet. he fall.PAST down and break.PAST leg.DEF ‘He fell down and broke his leg.’ Vad föll han ner och bröt _? what fall.PAST he down and break.PAST

The extraction in (ib), may disturb the cause-effect reading (see Kehler 2002 for discussion), thus (ib) may not merit the label resultative coordination, but the point remains. Certain syntactic contexts allow extraction, whereas others do not. It is in the spirit of the present work to suggest that those that do allow extractions may be something else than coordinations in terms of syntactic structure, thus not counterexamples to syntactic constraints on coordination. 95. Neither may the first verb be replaced by an infinitive in the relevant sentences, as in (i) below. (i)

dikter. *Han sitta o skrev he sit.INF & write.PAST poem.PL

96. Fenno-Swedish is a cover name for the Swedish variants spoken in Finland. I am indebted to Anders Holmberg for Fenno-Swedish data.

Notes

207

97. The counterpart of (59), but not (58), is fine also in Icelandic. It yields a progressive reading of the embedded event and is thus subject to the effect illustrated in (60) (Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson, p.c.). 98. I am indebted to Aniek IJbema and Hedde Zeijlstra for discussion of Dutch data. ‘~’ in front of the translation indicates that we abstract away from the manner of posture. The closer literal translation ‘He sits eating’ is not idiomatic in English. Note that the counterpart of (57d) involves the IPP-effect. The participle is replaced by the infinitival form of the verb: (i)

Hij heeft zitten (te) eten. he had sit.INF to eat.INF

(Du.)

99. Note that the issue of whether the Fenno-Swedish and Dutch constructions involve restructuring or not is immaterial to our argument. They may share the essential ingredients of a pseudocoordinating structure, in which case the relevant dependencies between the matrix and embedded clause are not reflected morphologically. Or the matrix verb may be analyzed as a functional predicate selecting a small type of complement. 100. The temporal adverbial can be either in sentence-initial position, or in sentence-final position (as in the examples). 101. I will continue to refer to verbs that TMA-copy but that do not have the option of selecting an infinitive in Swedish as pseudocoordinating verbs and to the resulting construction as pseudocoordination. 102. I will refer to the last two verbs as BE and TAKE in running text to facilitate comprehension. The examples of this section all allow adjunct extraction out of the second clause. Space does not allow me to show this here. 103. Her thesis concerns Norwegian progressives but the main facts carry over to Swedish. 104. The reference location may but need not be identical to the utterance location. 105. Using the motion verb komma ‘come’ instead of gå ‘go’ yields a non-distal reading, cf. (i) below. The motion is interpreted as directed towards the reference location. (i)

Han kom o läste en bok. he come.PAST & read.PAST a book ‘He came and read a book.’

106. On the interaction of verb particles and pseudocoordination, see §3.3 below. 107. The process component may be extended (consisting of more than one transition), or correspond to a single minimal transition. 108. A third type may be the result of movement of an element from a lower position to a higher position in the functional domain, see e.g. IJbema (2002) and references cited there. 109. The prosodic bracketings associated with the two readings are distinct, cf. (ib) and (ia): (i)

a.

b.

[Han satt [(i soffan)]]. he sit.PAST (in sofa.DEF) ‘He was sitting in the sofa.’ *(i soffan)]. [Han satt he sit.PAST (in sofa.DEF) ‘He was sitting in the sofa.’

(Maintain pos.)

(Locative)

110. There are two possible analyses. Either multiple rhemes are allowed or one of the two PPs is adjoined to matrix initP. Note that particles must precede PPs.

208

Notes

111. Encyclopaedic content corresponds to lexical information that is not relevant to syntax. Syntactic tagging (category features) allows syntax to connect to encyclopaedic and phonetic content, see Ramchand (in press). 112. Choice of manner of posture with inanimates depends either on the subject or on the locative phrase. Whereas manner of posture is more or less transparent in the former case, it tends to be opaque in the latter. E.g. a vase is standing if in vertical position, but lying if in horizontal position. Things on the wall (e.g. pictures) typically sit in Swedish, whereas things in a text or a book (e.g. paragraphs or sentences) stand. 113. This requirement is not absolute for maintain position uses with inanimate subjects, though. The determining factor seems to be whether choice of manner of posture depends on the subject or on the locative phrase. In contrast to (31) and (32), (i) below is fine in the absence of a manner adverb in a context where manner of posture is focalized. In the former sentences, choice of manner of posture depends on the locative phrase, in the latter sentence on the spatial configuration of the subject referent. (i)

Vasen står inte (den ligger). vase.DEF stand.PRES not (it lie.PRES) ‘The vase is not standing (it is lying).’

(Maintain pos.)

114. If the Dutch progressive SIT + te-infinitive construction (discussed in the preceding chapter) has the same basic underlying structure as the Swedish pseudocoordination involving the same verb, as we have proposed, we expect it to involve a locative use of the posture verb. Our prediction is that the presence of an adverb that further describes the manner component should affect the possibility of extraction (and aspect shift). This is borne out: (i)

*Hoe hard zat hij makkelijk te zingen? how loudly sit.PAST he comfortably to sing.INF

(Du.)

115. In Swedish, manner of posture still counts for the truth conditions of most pseudocoordinations. In Bulgarian, in contrast, it seems possible to suspend the manner component of locative/pseudocoordinating SIT , see Kuteva (1999). The same holds true for the Dutch SIT + te-infinitive, see Geerts et al. (1984: 537ff.). See also de Vos (2005) for examples of English pseudocoordinations where the semantics of posture seems entirely absent. 116. That the specific interpretations available with pseudocoordinations depend on the nature of the matrix verb and the semantic role of the complement is also noted in Anward (1988). 117. It has been observed in the literature that progressive pseudocoordinations are compatible with the existential construction, see e.g. Josefsson (1991), Wiklund (1996), and Lødrup (2002). In this case, the pseudocoordinate clause can not satisfy the locative argument position; a locative particle or PP is required, cf. (ia). I take this to indicate that the apparent pseudocoordinate clause is in a non-complement position in this construction. Support for this analysis comes from extraction facts and facts concerning aspectual coercion. Adjunct extraction from the pseudocoordinate clause yields a slightly deviant result, cf. (ib), and there is a limitation as to what type of predicate may occur in the pseudocoordinate clause. For instance achievements yield a deviant result, cf. (ic). (i)

a.

Det satt en man o skrek *(i parken). EXPL sit.PAST a man & cry.PAST in park.DEF roughly: ‘There was a man crying in the park.’

Notes b. c.

209

?(?)Hur satt det en man o skrek _ i parken? how sit.PAST EXPL a man & cry.PAST _ in park.DEF ?(?)Det satt en man o somnade i parken EXPL sit.PAST a man & fall-asleep.PAST in park.DEF

118. Swedish does not require the particle corresponding to down in the assume position use. However, a reflexive pronoun is obligatory. 119. The manner adverb can occur in three positions in (52). I take the order undergoer>manner adverb (2 and 3 below) to be relevant here. On that order, the adverb is most certainly merged in the verb phrase. (i)

Han satte [ADV]-1 stolen [ADV]-2 i källaren [ADV]-3. he sit:DIR.PAST (ADV) chair.DEF (ADV) in basement.DEF (ADV)

120. Another example of manner modification is tvär-sätta sig ‘quickly-sit:DIR.INF REFL’ (to sit down quickly/suddenly), which is possible in northern variants of Swedish: (i)

Han tvär-satte sig. he quickly-sit:DIR.PAST REFL ‘He sat down quickly/suddenly.’

121. A parallel phenomenon may be the English example below (from Quirk et al. 1985: 979). There the particle has taken on the verbal inflectional morphology: (i)

122. 123.

124.

125. 126. 127. 128.

She upped and left him.

(59) is marginally possible also in the absence of a verb particle for some speakers. I have no account for this fact. I am indebted to Gillian Ramchand for suggesting that I explore this possibility. I take the matrix process portion to involve only one transition in this case. This does not mean that the embedded event can not involve an extended process, since the embedded proc is distinct from matrix proc (the former is a further specification of the latter). The go & V construction is claimed to display an inflection condition when not involving the surprise reading in Carden and Pesetsky (1977). The try & V construction is subject to variation. Whereas Carden and Pesetsky (1977) and Quirk et al. (1985) note that the construction is subject to an inflection condition, Chris Johns (p.c.) reports variants of British English that allow sentences like He tries and does that. The Italian dialect of Marsalese displays an inflection condition with pseudocoordinations involving motion verbs, see Cardinaletti and Giusti (2001). Only the less marked forms are allowed; present but not past, indicative but not subjunctive, singular but not plural, 3rd but ot 1st and 2nd person. However, the imperative form is allowed. I have no account for the presence of inflection conditions of this kind here. They do not seem to reduce to the phenomenon of partial copying. I thank Thomas Leu (p.c.) for discussion of Swiss German data. Similar facts are reported for German (Klaus Abels, Ute Bonacker, p.c.). Note that (79b) is fine on the irrelevant reading where was is interpreted as why or how come. The fact that the infinitival form and other verb forms are indistinguishable in certain conjugations in many variants of Swedish may be an important factor. Even in Dutch, we do not find the present-day POSTURE VERB + te-infinitive construction in earlier stages; instead we find constructions with Vfin ende ‘and’ Vfin , according to Stoett (1923: 12) (see also Kuteva 1999):

210

Notes (i)

129.

130. 131. 132.

133. 134. 135. 136. 137.

138.

Hij stond ende dachte. he stand.PAST and think.PAST ‘He was thinking.’

(Mi-Du.)

According to IJbema (2002), the Dutch infinitival marker te was originally an irrealis mood marker. Thus, te-infinitives are not expected to occur in the above context at earlier stages. The proposal raises questions about the relation between CFin and T. I need to leave many of these unanswered. Note however that the existence of partial copying forces a distinction between features of C and features of T. Therefore, it does not suffice to say that copying takes place whenever features of T are unvalued; copying may affect the C-domain alone, as in some future-oriented infinitivals (reported to allow imperative but not tense copying in some variants). I will continue to refer to the embedded clause even in case the CP involves a restructured CFin . In Chomsky (2000) and Chomsky (2001) unvalued features are uninterpretable and must delete when valued. It may make sense to compare underspecified heads with certain types of anaphors in the nominal domain, which are arguably underspecified with respect to phi-features (cf. Burzio 1992). I thank Marit Julien for the example from Solør Norwegian. The nature of these remains to be understood, see Nilsen (2003) for discussion. The sentences in (13) are fine in a context where the subject referent has written a letter in the past and is now trying to write another letter, which he has tried at least once before. As with ibland ‘sometimes’ and ofta ‘often’, redan ‘already’ is fine in sentence-final position on the irrelevant wide-scope reading. The presence of tense morphology on the second verb in a pseudocoordination is in de Vos (2005) presented as evidence that pseudocoordination is not a type of infinitival construction and therefore that a subordination analysis is excluded (favouring the complex predicate head analysis that he proposes). Taking the facts presented here into consideration, that line of reasoning is untenable. Note that in the presence of att or o, which I have claimed are complementizers, the subject of an ECM infinitival can only appear to the left of this element, regardless of whether copying is present or not. Thus, the subject of the ECM infinitival is not licensed within the clause (contra Lundin 2003), cf. Lasnik and Saito (1991). (i)

Han hade fått henne att skriva på/ o skrivit på . he had get.PPC her to write.INF on/ & write.PPC on ‘He had made her sign.’

139. Nothing crucial hinges on this assumption but the reverse order may require additional assumptions to block imperative copying into a clause containing a valued CFin (e.g. the assumption that the finiteness feature obligatorily moves to CForce ). 140. For instance remnant extraposition in Dutch is incompatible with the complementatizer om (Broekhuis et al. 1995). 141. Wurmbrand (to appear) examines future-oriented infinitivals and argues that these lack tense on the basis of the facts that infinitival future is relative and does not block sequence of tense. The argument relies on the assumption that future tense is a combination of

Notes

142. 143. 144. 145.

211

present tense (which is absolute in English) plus an abstract modal (see e.g. Abusch 1985). It is not clear to me that it is not absence of finiteness that is responsible for the relevant properties of the infinitival future (assuming the basic analysis of the future to be correct). The fact that some infinitive selecting verbs may select either the “bigger” or the “smaller” type of complement is irrelevant to the argument. As far as the present proposal is concerned, nothing hinges on whether we represent different tenses as tense features, as tense operators, or as before/within/after relations. That embedded present is interpreted as relative to matrix tense in infinitives, I propose, is a function of the absence of finiteness. Orka contrasts with kunna ‘can’ in not being completely incompatible with a complementizer, even in the absence of the particle med, cf. (1b) above and (i) below: (i)

??Han orkade att/o läsa boken. he manage.PAST att/& read.INF book.DEF ‘He managed to read the book.’

146. The claim that Icelandic displays obligatory verb movement to the inflectional domain in non-V2 context has recently been questioned. Wiklund et al. (2006) provides evidence that the relevant movement is of the verb second type, thus targets the CP-domain rather than the IP-domain of the clause. Concerning verb placement in Älvdalsmålet, most claims about this dialect are based on Levander (1909) (cf. Vikner 1995 and Bobaljik 2002) describing a variant that displays the verb-adverb order in embedded clauses. According to Bo Westling (p.c.) though, the order where the verb follows sentential adverbs is possible (ia), in fact prevailing, in present-day Älvdalsmålet. There seems to be no difference between elder and younger speakers in this respect. (i)

a.

so an add older sagt för. An sagd nodh he said something that he had never said before

b.

An sagd nodh so an older add sagt för. he said something that he never had said before ‘He said something that he had never said before’

(Älv-Sw.)

147. Å following byrd in (3) is a preposition. 148. Note that the infinitive marker at is used in (18a), whereas the conjunction-like element og is used in (17a). I have no explanation for this fact. 149. Vannebo (2003: fn.17) reports pseudocoordinations involving TAKE in Old Icelandic. 150. On the admissibility of non-agentive predicates in pseudocoordinations with TAKE in Lithuanian, see Vannebo (2003: fn.6). 151. I abstract away from the feature [Future] in what follows. 152. CForce [Imp: −]i ... CForce [Imp: ]i will yield an infinitival form of the embedded verb, in case all other heads take on unmarked (negative) values: (i)

Han beslutade [att pröva [o skriva]]. he decide.PAST to try.INF & write.INF ‘He decided to try to write.’

153. C[Fin: −]i T[Past: −]j ... C[Fin: ]i T[Past: ]j will yield an infinitival form of the embedded verb, in case all other heads take on unmarked (negative) values.

212

Notes

154. C[Fin: −]i T[Past: +]j ... C[Fin: ]i T[Past: ]j will correspond to cases where the superordinate clause is a past-oriented infinitival (e.g. itself a complement of a factive verb). Since a past-oriented infinitival is an infinitival perfect, involving infinitival ha + participle, the embedded clause, in this case, will come out with copied participial form (auxiliaries do not copy): (i)

Han var stolt över [att ha prövat [o skrivit]]. he was proud over to have try.PPC & write.PPC ‘He was proud to have tried to write.’

155. If the complement is a CP-infinitival, the C-domain must of course be unvalued in order for copying to take place. AspPerf [Perf: −]i ... AspPerf [Perf: ]i will yield an infinitival form of the embedded verb, in case all other heads take on unmarked (negative) values. (i)

Han beslutade [att pröva [o skriva]]. he decide.PAST to try.INF & write.INF ‘He decided to try to write.’

References Aboh, Enoch Oladé 2004 Object shift, EPP and verbal complexes. Ms., University of Amsterdam. Abraham, Werner 2004 The grammaticalization of the infinitival preposition – Toward a theory of ‘grammaticalizing reanalysis’. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 7: 111–170. Abusch, Dorit 1985 On verbs and time. Ph.D. thesis, UMass, Amherst. Adger, David 2003 Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Andersson, Lars-Gunnar 1979 Några V-V-konstruktioner. Gothenburg Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, 40. Anward, Jan 1988

2000

Verb-verb agreement in Swedish. In D. Fekete and Z. Laubitz, (eds.), McGill Working Papers in Linguistics: Special Issue on Comparative Germanic Syntax, 1–34. Montréal. Allt du önskar kan du få? Språk och stil, 10: 197–220.

Baker, Mark C. 1989 Object Sharing and Projection in Serial Verb Constructions. Linguistic Inquiry, 20: 513–553. Belletti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi 1988 Psych-verbs and theta-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6.3: 291–352. Bentzen, Kristine 2005 What’s the better move? On verb placement in Standard and Northern Norwegian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 28(2): 153–188. Bobaljik, Jonathan David 2002 Realizing Germanic inflection: Why morphology does not drive syntax. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 6: 129–167. Bodomo, Adams B. 1997 Paths and pathfinders: Exploring the syntax and semantics of complex verbal predicates in Dagaare and other languages. Ph.D. thesis, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim. Boškovi´c, Željko 1999 On Multiple feature checking: Multiple wh-fronting and multiple head movement. In S. D. Epstein and N. Hornstein, (eds.), Working Minimalism, 159– 187. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Broekhuis, Hans, Hans den Besten, Kees Hoekstra, and Jean Rutten 1995 Infinitival complementation in Dutch: On remnant extraposition. The Linguistic Review, 12: 93–122.

214

References

Burzio, Luigi 1992 On the morphology of reflexives and impersonals. In C. Lauefer and T. Morgan, (eds.), Theoretical analyses in Romance linguistics, 399–414. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Bybee, Joan and Östen Dahl 1989 The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language, 13: 51–103. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca 1994 The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Carden, Guy and David Pesetsky 1977 Double-verb constructions, markedness, and a fake co-ordination. In Papers from the 13th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 82–92. Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago. Cardinaletti, Anna and Giuliana Giusti 2001 ‘Semi-lexical’ motion verbs in Romance and Germanic. In N. Corver and H. van Riemsdijk, (eds.), Semi-lexical categories: On the function of content words and the content of function words, 371–414. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. 2003 Motion verbs as functional heads. In C. Tortora, (ed.), The syntax of Italian dialects, pp. 31–49. Oxford University Press, New York. Chomsky, Noam 1995 The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 2000 Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michels, and J. Uriagereka, (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, pp. 89–155. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 2001 Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz, (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, pp. 1–52. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Christensen, Kirsti Koch 1991 Complex passives reanalyzed. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 48: 45–76. Christensen, Lisa 1997 Framtidsuttrycken i svenskans temporala system. Lundastudier i nordisk språkvetenskap A:52. Lund University Press, Lund. Cinque, Guglielmo 1999 Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 2004 ‘Restructuring’ and functional structure. In L. Rizzi, (ed.), The structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, volume 2. Oxford University Press, New York. de Vos, Mark 2005 The syntax of pseudo-coordination in English and Afrikaans. LOT Dissertation Series 114. LOT, Utrecht. Delsing, Lars-Olof 1998 Support verbs and the argument rule. In K. van Durme and L. Schløser, (eds.), Studies in valency IV: Valency and verb typology, 63–88. Odense University Press, Odense.

References

215

Demirdache, Hamida and Myriam Uribe-Extebarria 2000 The primitives of temporal relations. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka, (eds.), Step by step: Essays in minimalist syntax in honour of Howard Lasnik, pp. 157–186. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. den Dikken, Marcel and Eric Hoekstra 1997 Parasitic participles. Linguistics, 35: 1057–1089. Donaldson, Bruce C. 1993 A grammar of Afrikaans. Mouton de Gruyer, Berlin. Déchaine, Rose-Marie 1993 Predicates across categories: Towards a category-neutral syntax. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts. Eaker, Birgit 1997 Infinitivmärket ‘att’ i dialektalt perspektiv. Studier i svensk språkhistoria, 4: 45–54. Eide, Kristin Melum 2006 Norwegian modals. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Eide, Kristin Melum and Torbjørn Nordgård 2000 Modals and the syntax/semantics interface: The Scandinavian challenge. Paper presented at the 18th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, May 18-20, 2000, Lund. Ekberg, Lena 1983 Vara och - en markör för subjektets icke-plats. Nordlund, 1: 1–8. 1993 The cognitive basis of the meaning and function of cross-linguistic ‘take and V’. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 8: 21–42. Endresen, Rolf Theil 1992 ’Og’ og ’å’- homonymi eller polysemi. Ms. Department of Linguistics, University of Oslo. 1995 Norwegian ‘og’ and ‘å’ - A cognitive view. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 18: 201–218. Evers, Arnold 1975 The tranformational cycle of Dutch and German. Ph.D. thesis, University of Utrecht. Faraci, Robert 1970 ’And’ as a verb complementizer. 1st NELS. Fresina, Claudio 1981 Aspects de la grammaire transformationnelle de l’italien. Thèse de troisième cycle, Université de Paris VIII. Geerts, G., W. Haeseryn, J. de Rooij, and M. C. van den Toorn, (eds.) 1984 Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen. Goldsmith, John A. 1985 A principled exception to the coordinate structure constraint. In Papers from the parasession on pragmatics and grammatical theory, 152–167. Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago. Guéron, Jacqueline and Teun Hoekstra 1988 T-chains and the constituent structure of auxiliaries. In Constituent Structure: Papers from the 1987 GLOW Conference. Foris, Dordrecht.

216

References

Hagren, Kristina 2005 Samordning av hjälpverb och huvudverb i svenska dialekter. In G. Byrman, J. Einarsson, S. Hammarbäck, M. Lindgren, and P. Stille, (eds.), Svenskans Beskrivning 27. Förhandlingar vid Tjugosjunde sammankomsten för svenskans beskrivning. Växjö den 14 och 15 maj 2004, 105–113. Växjö University Press, Växjö. Hedlund, Cecilia 1992 On participles. Ph.D. thesis, University of Stockholm. Heine, Bernd 1993 Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hellberg, Staffan 2003 Varför inte prepositionsobjekt? In L-O Delsing, C. Falk, G. Josefsson, and H. Á. Sigurðsson, (eds.), Grammatik i fokus: Festschrift till Christer Platzack, 18 November 2003, volume 1, 47–53. Department of Scandinavian Languages, Lund University, Lund. Hinterhölzl, Roland 1997 An XP-movement account of restructuring. Ms. University of Southern California. Hoekstra, Teun and René Mulder 1990 Unergatives as copular verbs; locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review, 7: 1–79. Holmberg, Anders 1986 Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian languages and English. Ph.D. thesis, University of Stockholm. 1990 On bare infinitivals in Swedish. In J. Mascaró and M. Nespor, (eds.), Grammar in progress: GLOW essays for Henk van Riemsdijk, 237–245. Foris, Dordrecht. 1999 Remarks on Holmberg’s generalization. Studia Linguistica, 53: 1–39. 2002 Expletives and agreement in Scandinavian passives. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 4: 85–128. Holmberg, Anders and Christer Platzack 1995 The role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott 1993 Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hyman, Larry 1971 Consecutivization in Fe’fe’. Journal of African Languages, 10: 29–43. Iatridou, Sabine 2000 The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry, 31: 231– 270. IJbema, Aniek 2002 Grammaticalization and infinitival complements in Dutch. LOT Dissertation Series 54. LOT, Utrecht. Ivars, Anne-Marie to appear Dubbelsupinum i Finland. Svenska landsmål.

References

217

Jaeggli, Osvaldo A. and Nina M. Hyams 1993 On the independence and interdependence of syntactic and morphological properties: English aspectual ’come’ and ’go’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 11: 313–346. Jespersen, Otto 1895 En sproglig værdiforskydning. Og = at. In O. Jespersen and K. Nyrop, (eds.), Dania. Tidsskrift for Folkemål og Folkeminder, volume 3, 145–182. Det Schubotheske Forlag, Lybecker & Hirschsprung, Copenhagen. Johannessen, Janne Bondi 1998 Coordination. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Johnsen, Lars 1988 A note on subcoordination. Trondheim Working Papers in Linguistics, 6: 195– 201. Josefsson, Gunlög 1991 Pseudocoordination - A VP + VP coordination. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 47: 130–156. Julien, Marit 2000 Optional ‘ha’ in Swedish and Norwegian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 66: 33–74. 2003 Dobbelsupinum og irreal modus. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidskrift, 21: 135–161. Kayne, Richard 1984 Connectedness and Binary Branching. Foris, Dordrecht. 1989 Null subjects and clitic climbing. In O. Jaeggli and K.J. Safir, (eds.), The Null Subject Parameter, 239–261. Kluwer, Dordrecht. Kehler, Andrew 2002 Coherence, reference and the theory of grammar. CSLI publications [distributed by University of Chicago Press], Stanford. Kiparsky, Paul and Carol Kiparsky 1970 Fact. In M. Bierwisch and K.E. Heidolph, (eds.), Progress in linguistics, 143– 173. Mouton, The Hague. Koopman, Hilda and Anna Szabolcsi 2000 Verbal complexes. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Kuteva, Tanya 1999 On sit/stand/lie auxiliation. Linguistics, 37: 191–213. Landau, Idan 2000 Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. 2004 The Scale of Finiteness and the Calculus of Control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22: 811–877. Larson, Martha 2005 The empty object construction and related phenomena. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University. Larsson, Kent 1988 Den plurala verbböjningen i äldre svenska. Studier i en språklig förändringsprocess. Institutionen för nordiska språk, Uppsala University, Uppsala.

218

References

Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito 1991 On the subject of infinitives. Papers from the 27th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 324–343. Levander, Lars 1909 Älvdalsmålet i Dalarna. Ordböjning och syntax. P.A. Nordstedt och söner, Stockholm. Lichtenberk, Frantisek 1983 A grammar of Manam. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. 1991 Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization. Language, 67: 475– 509. Ljunggren, Ragnar 1934 Supinum och dubbelsupinum: Syntaktiska studier. Uppsala universitets årsskrift, Uppsala. Lockwood, William B. 1964 An introduction to Modern Faroese. Munksgaard, Copenhagen. Lundin, Katarina 2003 Small clauses in Swedish. Towards a unified account. Ph.D. thesis, Lund University. Lødrup, Helge 2002 The syntactic structures of Norwegian pseudocoordinations. Studia Linguistica, 56: 121–143. May, Robert 1985 Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Mikkelsen, Kristian 1911 Dansk ordföjningslære. Lehman & Stage, Copenhagen. Republished 1975 by Hans Reitzels Forlag, Copenhagen. Mkhatshwa, Simon Nyana Leon 1991 Metaphorical extensions as a basis for grammaticalization. With special reference to Zulu auxiliary verbs. M.A. Thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria. Moens, Marc 1987 Tense, aspect and temporal reference. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh. Nilsen, Øystein 2003 Eliminating Positions: Syntax and semantics of sentence modification. LOT Dissertation Series 73. LOT, Utrecht. Nordberg, Bengt 1977 ‘Har du Dahlstedt ligger på nattduksbordet?’ En syntaktisk egendomlighet i mellansvenskt talspråk. In C-C. Elert, S. Eliasson, S. Fries, and S. Ureland, (eds.), Dialectology and Sociolinguistics. Essays in honour of Karl-Hampus Dahlstedt, 113–136. Acta Universitatis Umensis, Umeå. 2001 Om dubbelsupinum - några spridda iakttagelser. In Marianne Blomqvist, Mirja Saari, and Peter Slotte, (eds.), Våra språk i tid och rum. Meddelanden från Iinstitutionen för nordiska språk och nordisk litteratur vid Helsingfors universitet B: 21, 113–122. Institutionen för nordiska språk, Helsingfors Universitet.

References

219

Pesetsky, David 1992 Zero syntax II: An essay on infinitives. Ms. Department of Philosophy and Linguistics, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/www/pesetsky/. Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego 2004 The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In S. Karimi, V. Samiian, and W. Wilkins, (eds.), Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Picallo, Carme 1990 Modal verbs in Catalan. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 8: 285– 312. Platzack, Christer 1986 Comp, Infl, and Germanic word order. In L. Hellan and K. Koch Christensen, (eds.), Topics in Scandinavian Syntax, 185–234. Reidel, Dordrecht. 1989 The Swedish supine: An active verb form or the non-agreeing form of the past participle? In D. Jaspers, W. Klooster, Y. Putseys, and P. Seuren, (eds.), Sentential complementation and the lexicon. Studies in honour of Wim de Geest, 305–319. Foris, Dordrecht. Platzack, Christer and Inger Rosengren 1998 On the subject of imperatives: A minimalist account of the imperative clause. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 1: 177–224. Pollock, Jean-Yves 1989 Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20: 365–424. 1994 Checking theory and bare verbs. In G. Cinque, J. Koster, J-Y. Pollock, L. Rizzi, and R. Zanuttini, (eds.), Paths towards Universal Grammar. Studies in honor of Richard Kayne, 293–310. Georgetown University Press., Washington D.C. Portner, Paul 2005 The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. In K. Watanabe and R. B. Young, (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14. CLC Publications, Ithaca, NY. Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1990 Constraints on intransitive quasi-serial verb constructions in modern colloquial English. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, 39: 218– 239. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik, (eds.) 1985 A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman, London and New York. Ramchand, Gillian in press Verb meaning and the lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin 2000 Classifying single argument verbs. In M. Everaert, P. Coopmans, and J. Grimshaw, (eds.), Lexical specification and insertion, 269–304. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

220

References

Rizzi, Luigi 1976 1978

1990 1997

Ristrutturazione. Rivista di grammatica generativa, 1: 1–54. A restructuring rule in Italian syntax. In S. J. Keyser, (ed.), Recent transformational studies in European languages, 113–158. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Relativized Minimality. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman, (ed.), Elements of Grammar: A Handbook of Generative Syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Robbers, Karin 1997 Non-finite verbal complements in Afrikaans: A comparative approach. HIL Dissertations 33. Holland Academic Graphics (HIL), Leiden. Roberts, Ian 1997 Restructuring, head movement, and locality. Linguistic Inquiry, 28: 423–460. Rochette, Anne 1988 Semantic and syntactic aspects of Romance sentential complementation. Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. [Distributed by: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, Mass.]. Ross, John Robert 1967 Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington. Sandøy, Knut Helge 1986 ‘Han er åt og kjem seg’: Om ein vestnordisk aspektkonstruksjon. Department of Scandinavian Studies, University of Bergen. 1991 Attraksjon av supinum i farøysk og norsk. Danske folkemål, 33: 251–262. Schmerling, Susan F. 1975 Asymmetric conjunction and rules of conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan, (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, 211–231. Academic Press, New York. Sells, Peter 2000 The morphological expression of syntactic information. Paper presented at LAGB, Durham, Sep. 7, 2000. Shopen, Timothy 1971 Caught in the act. Papers from the 7th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 254–263. Stahlke, Herbert 1970 Serial Verbs. Studies in African Linguistics, 1: 60–99. Stewart, Òsàmúyìmèn Thompson 1999 Infinitival clauses, restructuring, and the modal-aspectual verb construction. Linguistic Analysis, 29: 86–136. Stoett, Frederik A., (ed.) 1923 Middelnederlandsche Spraakkunst. Martinus Nijhoff, ’s-Gravenhage. Stowell, Tim 1982 The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry, 13: 561–570.

References

221

Taraldsen, Knut Tarald 2002 Complex passives in Germanic and Romance. Paper presented at GLOW, 2002, Amsterdam. Teleman, Ulf 1976 Manual för grammatisk beskrivning av talad och skriven svenska. Department of Scandinavian Languages, Lund University. Teleman, Ulf, Staffan Hellberg, and Erik Andersson, (eds.) 1999 Svenska Akademiens Grammatik. Nordstedts, Stockholm. Terzi, Arhonto 1996 Clitic climbing from finite clauses and tense raising. Probus, 8: 273–295. Tonne, Ingebjørg 2000 Progressives in Norwegian and the theory of aspectuality. Ph.D. thesis, University of Olso. Travis, Lisa 1984 Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido 1996 Participles and bare argument structure. In W. Abraham, S. D. Epstein, H. Thráinsson, and C. J-W. Zwart, (eds.), Minimal ideas. Syntactic studies in the Minimalist Framework, 283–304. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Vannebo, Kjell Ivar 2003 ‘Ta og ro deg ned noen hakk’: on pseudocoordination with the verb "ta" (take) in a grammaticalization perspective. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 26: 165– 193. Vendler, Zeno 1967 Linguistics in Philosophy. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. Vesaas, Tarjei 1974 Fuglane, 8th edn. Gyldendal, Oslo. Vikner, Sten 1995 Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Wiklund, Anna-Lena 1996 Pseudocoordination is subordination. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 58: 29–54. 1998 Morphosyntactic parasites as underspecified heads; on the double supine construction. Licentiate thesis, Umeå University. 2001a Dressing up for Vocabulary Insertion: The parasitic supine. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19: 199–228. 2001b Dubbelsupinum och dess eventuella föregångare [the double supine and its possible predecessor]. In L. Jönsson, V. Adelswärd, A. Cederberg, P. A. Pettersson, and C. Kelly, (eds.), Svenskans beskrivning 24. Förhandlingar vid tjugofjärde sammankomsten för svenskans beskrivning. Linköping den 22-23 oktober 1999 / Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 6. Linköping University Electronic Press. http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp/006/026/. 2006 Restructuring and size constancy. Ms., under review for publication. Wiklund, Anna-Lena, G. Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, Kristine Bentzen, and Þorbjörg Hróarsdóttir 2006 Rethinking Scandinavian Verb Movement. Ms., under review for publication.

222

References

Wurmbrand, Susi 2001 Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Studies in Generative Grammar 55. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. to appear Infinitives are tenseless. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 13(1). Yuasa, Etsuyo and Jerry M. Sadock 2002 Pseudo-subordination: a mismatch between syntax and semantics. Journal of Linguistics, 38: 87–111. Zanuttini, Raffaella 1996 On the relevance of tense for sentential negation. In A. Belletti and L. Rizzi, (eds.), Parameters and functional heads, 181–207. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter 2006 Local agreement. In Cedric Boeckx, (ed.), Agreement systems, 317–339. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Åfarli, Tor and Chet Creider 1987 Nonsubject pro-drop in Norwegian. Linguistic Inquiry, 18: 339–345. Östergren, Olof 1901 Är sammanfallet af ‘och’ och ‘att’ att hänföra till fornsvensk tid? In B. Hesselman, Östergren O., and R. G:son Berg, (eds.), Språk och Stil, 82–108. Upsala Nya Tidnings Aktiebolag, Uppsala.

Index Aboh, 74, 145, 149, 150, 197 Abraham, 70 Abusch, 211 Adger, 195 adjuncts, 28–29 Adverbs in pseudocoordination, 111 in TMA-copying infinitivals, 165–169 Åfarli and Creider, 10 Afrikaans, 6, 10, 206 Agree vs. Inverse Agree, 157–164 Älvdalsmålet-Swedish, 187–188, 211 American English, 106, 129, 204 Andersson, 141 Anward, 2, 9, 10, 20, 24, 81, 98, 113, 183, 197, 208 aspect shift, 99–100 aspectual verbs, 49, 87 auxiliary-drop, 20–21 Baker, 197 bare infinitivals, 42–43 bare VP-analysis, 82, 90 Belletti and Rizzi, 34 Bentzen, 187 bleaching, 131, 133, 134, 141 Bobaljik, 211 Bodomo, 197 Boškovi´c, 8, 82 Broekhuis et al., 210 Bulgarian, 10, 129, 208 Burzio, 210 Bybee and Dahl, 140 Bybee et al., 140 Carden and Pesetsky, 9, 10, 18, 74, 97, 98, 103, 113, 127, 129, 149, 150, 209 Cardinaletti and Giusti, 9, 10, 113, 129, 150, 187, 193, 197, 205, 209 Catalan, 202 causative verbs, 53–54, 59, 87

Chomsky, 157, 162, 163, 210 Christensen, 52, 202 Christensen, K, 87 Cinque, 52, 63, 69, 79, 86, 89–91, 107, 128, 166, 168, 204 complementizers, 34, 69–74, 95, 112, 170– 210 complex passive, 87 Conjunction/linking element in coordination, 17 in non-copying infinitivals, 5, 71–74, 170–210 in pseudocoordination, 8, 95, 111– 112 in TMA-copying infinitivals, 5, 16– 17, 69, 71–74, 90, 96, 170–210 control infinitivals, 41–42, 47–49, 54–57 Coordination and pseudocoordination, 96–113 and TMA-copying, 16–17, 71 Copying and verb movement, 187 definition, 1 dependency, 81–83, 157–164, 195 distribution in Scandinavian, 187–192 imperative/C-features, 74 infinitival (vacuous), 120 paradigms, 68 participial/Asp-features, 80 spell-out, 195–196 tense/T-features, 77–78 verbs, 37–66 counterfactuality, 21–23, 198 Déchaine, 9, 10, 97, 101, 107–109, 112, 127, 197, 205 Danish, 5, 10, 63, 70, 71, 187, 189–190, 197, 204 de Vos, 1, 6, 9, 10, 98, 105–108, 112, 118, 127, 129, 144, 202, 205, 208, 210 deficiency, 88, 165

224

Index

Delsing, 32 Demirdache and Uribe-Extebarria, 79, 140 den Dikken and Hoekstra, 8, 81, 82 dependently tensed, 39, 177 desiderative verbs, 61–63, 83–204 distal reading, 97, 127, 146, 148 Donaldson, 9, 10, 206 Dutch, 8, 70, 87, 115, 116, 198, 201, 202, 208–210 Eaker, 71 ECM infinitivals, 41–42, 45, 53, 210 Èdó, 197 Eide, 21 Eide and Nordgård, 52 Ekberg, 94, 127–129, 193, 204 Endresen, 71, 206 English, 2, 6, 10, 18, 52, 105, 106, 126, 129, 133, 144, 149, 150, 202, 204, 208, 209 event structure, 131 Evers, 89 evidential verbs, 50 external valuation, 157–165 extraposed infinitivals, 29–30 factive infinitivals, 40–41, 46, 87, 177 Faraci, 203 Faroese, 5, 7, 10, 187, 190–191, 197, 199, 204 Fe’Fe’, 197 Fenno-Swedish, 7, 114 floating quantifiers, 169 Fresina, 107 Frisian, 6, 8, 81, 82 fronting of infinitival clause, 32 future-oriented, 38 Geerts et al., 115, 208 German, 63, 70, 86–88, 198, 202, 204 Goldsmith, 97 Guéron and Hoekstra, 164 Hagren, 4, 7 Hebrew, 129 Hedlund, 20, 202 Heine, 130

Hellberg, 199 Hinterhölzl, 86 Hoekstra and Mulder, 136 Holmberg, 20, 41, 69, 70, 73, 87, 185, 204 Holmberg and Platzack, 187, 197 Hopper and Traugott, 130 Hyman, 197 Iatridou, 21 Icelandic, 99, 104, 187, 191–192, 197, 205, 207, 211 Igbo, 197 IJbema, 70, 202, 207, 210 inceptive reading, 94, 97, 127, 146, 151 inceptive-distal reading, 128, 146, 147, 151 independent event reading, 97 independently tensed, 39, 177 infinitival marker, 5, 17, 42, 69–70, 170– 210 infinitival relatives, 31 internal valuation, 157–164 Irish English, 129, 204 island sensitivity, 28–32 Italian, 10, 63, 86–88, 106, 129, 133, 187, 205 Ivars, 7 Jaeggli and Hyams, 10, 150 Japanese, 87 Jespersen, 71, 98, 110, 113, 119, 203 Johannessen, 10, 97, 98, 113, 188 Johnsen, 9, 10, 188 Josefsson, 1, 4, 8–10, 100, 109, 142, 187, 205, 208 Julien, 2, 6, 7, 20–22, 65, 189, 199 Kayne, 44, 86, 89, 164 Kehler, 97, 206 Kiparsky and Kiparsky, 40 Koopman and Szabolcsi, 86 Kuteva, 10, 129, 154, 208, 209 Lødrup, 10, 98, 113, 188, 189, 205, 208 Landau, 38, 39, 177, 179, 200, 201 Larson, 10 Larsson, 7 Lasnik and Saito, 210

Index Levander, 211 Lichtenberk, 10, 146 light verb, 134, 151 Lithuanian, 211 Ljunggren, 7 Locality and pseudocoordination, 103–107, 120 and TMA-/participle copying, 27–32 Lockwood, 6, 7, 191, 199, 204 Lundin, 84, 210 Manam, 10 manner adverbs, 166 May, 74 Mikkelsen, 190 Mkhatshwa, 130 modal verbs, 50–52, 87 Moens, 99, 115 motion verbs, 87, 125–155 multiple embeddings, 60 multiple subcategorization, 59 negation, 75–76, 110, 168 Nilsen, 210 non-bare infinitivals, 42–43 non-canonical complements, 28–29 Nordberg, 7, 10 Norwegian, 5, 7, 10, 21, 52, 63, 65, 70, 71, 85, 87, 165, 187–189, 197, 199, 204–207, 210 Östergren, 71, 203 partial copying, 43, 47, 64–66, 84–85, 165, 173 partial copying and reduced restructuring, 88 participle copying, 6–8 particle/PP modification, 105, 106, 128, 140, 142, 144, 148 past-oriented, 38 perception verbs, 63–64, 83–84 Pesetsky, 39, 44 Pesetsky and Torrego, 164, 178, 195 Picallo, 63 Platzack, 20, 69, 197 Platzack and Rosengren, 74, 162, 170

225

Pollock, 69, 150 Portner, 203 posture verbs, 125–155 present-oriented, 180 progressive reading, 126, 140, 151 progressive-distal reading, 128, 151 propositional infinitivals, 39–40, 44–45, 87, 177 prosody, 100–101 pseudocoordination, 8–10 pseudocoordination reading, 97 Pullum, 6, 9, 10, 149, 150, 197 purpose clauses, 28 Quirk et al., 10, 209 raising infinitivals, 41–42, 49–53 Ramchand, 69, 131, 133, 134, 136, 155, 166, 208 Rappaport Hovav and Levin, 134, 135, 137 restructuring, 86–91, 164–165, 172–174, 176–177 Rizzi, 27, 69, 74, 86, 89, 162, 170 Robbers, 6, 10 Roberts, 86, 89, 164 Rochette, 164 Ross, 16, 97, 103 Sandøy, 189, 191, 199 Schmerling, 10, 97, 109, 112 selectional restrictions, 193 Sells, 24 Serbo-Croatian, 8, 82 serial verb constructions, 197 Shopen, 10, 97 Singapore English, 202 Spanish, 87, 202 Stahlke, 197 Stewart, 197 Stoett, 209 Stowell, 39 Subject in non-copying infinitival, 109 in pseudocoordination, 109 in TMA-copying infinitival, 5, 109, 169 subject infinitivals, 29–30

226

Index

supine form, 197 surprise reading, 127, 147 T-adverbs, 75, 76, 78–79, 85, 88, 90, 96, 116, 165–167, 178 Taraldsen, 87 Teleman, 4 Teleman et al., 4, 7–9, 16, 44, 71, 100, 127 Tense/Mood/Aspect-agreeing infinitivals, 175 tensed infinitivals, 44–49 tensed/tenseless, 38–39, 57–61, 175–181 tenseless infinitivals, 49–57, 121–122 Terzi, 88, 89, 164 TMA-copying, 3–6 Tonne, 10, 126, 205 Travis, 27

valuation, 157–164 Vanden Wyngaerd, 198 Vannebo, 10, 94, 110, 127, 145, 154, 188, 211 variation, 43 Vendler, 116 verb movement, 187, 211 Vesaas, 204 Vikner, 211 Wiklund, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 74, 81, 87, 91, 98, 100, 113, 187, 208 Wiklund et al., 211 Wurmbrand, 38, 39, 63, 70, 86–90, 164, 165, 169, 176, 178, 179, 198, 201, 202, 204 Yuasa and Sadock, 6

underassociation, 134, 142, 145, 149, 151, 155 underspecified heads, 165 unexpected event reading, 127, 147 unvalued features, 157, 176 Vacuous inflection in participle copying, 20–23 in pseudocoordination, 113–119 in TMA-copying, 18–20

Zanuttini, 76 Zwart, 164