Covert modality in non-finite contexts
By Rajesh Bhatt Reviewed by Anastasia Giannakidou
Summary by the author We also discuss a case that is the inverse of the environments in (1): an environment where there is a modal word in the structure but not in the interpret- 1. Issues ation (cf. 2). This dissertation investigates the distribution and interpretation of Covert Modality. Covert Modality is (2) (from Thalberg, 1969) modality which we interpret but which is not asso- a. In those days, Brown was able to hit bulls-eyes ciated with any lexical item in the structure that we three times in a row. (modal) are interpreting. This dissertation investigates a class b. Brown was able to hit three bulls-eyes in a row. of environments that involve covert modality. Exam- (context: Yesterday, Brown hit three bulls-eyes ples of covert modality include wh-infinitival comple- in a row. Before he hit three bulls-eyes, he fired ments, infinitival relative clauses, purpose clauses, the 600 rounds, without coming close to the bulls- have to construction, and the is to construction (cf. 1): eye; and his subsequent tries were equally wild.) (non-modal) (1) a. Tim knows [how to solve the problem]. (¼ Tim knows how one/he could/should solve This environment is interesting for the same reason as the problem) the environments in (1) – it involves a non-trivial b. Jane found [a book to draw cartoons in] for mapping between the structure and interpretation. Sara. How is it possible that (2a) is modal when (2b) is non- (¼ Jane found a book for Sara one could/ modal (and vice-versa)? Our analysis of this environ- should draw cartoons in) ment (in Chapter 5) will analyze the difference c. [The man to fix the sink] is here. between (2a) and (2b) in terms of a covert modal, (¼ The man whose purpose is to fix the sink is which is identified as a generic operator. Crosslin- here. guistic evidence is provided for this proposal by d. Sue went to Torino [to buy a violin]. showing that in languages where the perfective/ (¼ Sue went to Torino so that she could buy a imperfective distinction reflects the absence/presence violin.) of genericity, the modal reading is available only in e. Bill has to reach Philadelphia before noon. the presence of imperfective aspect. In the presence of (¼ Bill must reach Philadelphia before noon.) perfective aspect, the ability modal behaves like an f. Will is to leave tomorrow. implicative verb (e.g. Bulgarian, Catalan, Hindi, (¼ Will is scheduled/supposed to leave Modern Greek etc.). tomorrow.) The interpretation of (1a–f) involves modality; how- 2. Dissertation Outline and Summary ever, there is no lexical item that seems to be the source of the modality. What (1a–f) have in common 2.1. Chapter 2: The syntax of infinitival relatives is that they involve infinitivals. Of the environments The goal of this chapter is to determine what kinds of in (1a–f), we will investigate infinitival relatives and structures best represent different kinds of infinitival infinitival questions in this dissertation. (The have to relative clauses. We begin with a discussion of the construction is discussed in Bhatt, 1997.) The follow- syntactic properties of different kinds of infinitival ing questions about covert modality are addressed: relative clauses. We argue that subject infinitival what is the source of this modality, what are its relatives (e.g. the man to fix the sink) differ structurally semantic properties, why are some but not all infin- from non-subject infinitival relatives (e.g. the book to itival relatives modal, and why are all infinitival questions modal? Rajesh Bhatt, Department of Linguistics, University of Texas, Austin, 78712, USA, [email protected] Title of the dissertation: Covert modality in non-finite contexts. Author: Rajesh Bhatt. Degree date: 1999. Institution: University Anastasia Giannakidou, Department of Linguistics, University th of Pennsylvania. Supervisors: S. Iatridou, A. Kroch. 196pp. of Chicago, 1010 E. 59 Street, Chicago, IL 60637, USA, Available from www.ircs.upenn.edu [email protected]
Glot International Vol. 7, No. 1/2, January/February 2003 (52–59) 52 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden MA 02148, USA Dissertations Glot International, Volume 7, Number 1/2, January/February 2003 53 read). Subject infinitival relatives, but not object infinitival relatives. The force of the covert modality in infinitival relatives, share the following properties of object infinitival relatives seems to depend upon the reduced relatives: (i) the relativized element is always determiner – the book to read vs. a book to read (cf. Hackl in subject position, (ii) the subject position does not & Nissenbaum 1999). The modality in subject infin- receive case, (iii) the relativization is very local- only itival relatives does not seem to display such a the matrix subject can be relativized, (iv) the clausal dependency – the man to fix the sink vs. a man to fix structure that functions as a reduced relative can the sink. appear as the complement of predicative be (cf. Embick 1997; Iatridou, Anagnostopoulou & Izvorski, 2000), (v) no complementizer is permitted, and (vi) no 2.2. Chapter 3: Non-modal infinitival relative clauses relative pronoun is permitted. Subject infinitival The infinitival clause in a subject infinitival relative relatives are therefore assimilated with reduced can also be interpreted non-modally in certain relative clauses while non-subject infinitival relatives environments. The precise characterization of such are assimilated with non-reduced relative clauses. A environments and the properties of such infinitival structure is proposed for reduced relative clauses that clauses are discussed in this chapter. The syntactic captures the properties of reduced relative clauses in proposal in Chapter 2 is able to explain why only general and subject infinitival relatives in particular. subject infinitival relatives can be non-modal. How- This structure differs from the structure proposed for ever, the non-modal interpretation is only available full relative clauses in that it does not involve a CP in the presence of a particular set of modifiers. This projection and A’-movement to the specifier of a CP class of modifiers is identified as consisting of super- for predicate-formation. It has the advantage that we latives, ordinals, and nominal only cf. ???*the/every/no do not have to postulate A’-movement of an operator man to walk on the moon vs. the first/tallest/only man to from a non-case marked position. walk on the moon (cf. Kjellmer 1975; Pesetsky and Non-subject infinitival relative clauses are analyzed Torrego, 1999). The infinitival clause that receives a as full relative clauses. They involve a CP projection non-modal interpretation is required to be licensed and movement of a relative operator to the specifier of locally at LF. We argue that the appropriate licensing this CP. Infinitival questions and non-subject infiniti- configuration is made available under reconstruction val relative clauses thus have essentially the same of the head NP into its relative clause-internal posi- syntax which involves A’-movement of a phrase to tion. The reconstruction option is available to us if we the specifier of a [+rel/wh] C0. Infinitival [+rel/wh] assume a version of the head-raising analysis of C0 is identified as the locus of the modality that relative clauses. Nominal modifiers like superlatives appears in non-subject infinitival relatives and infin- and ordinals are able to reconstruct back into the itival questions. Since infinitival questions and non- relative clause along with the noun phrase. This option subject relative clauses must involve the infinitival is not available to determiners, and this is why [+rel/wh] C0 and the infinitival [+rel/wh] C0 has determiners like the/every/no are unable to license the modal semantics, all infinitival questions and non- non-modal reading. subject relatives involve modality. Similarities in the The licensing configuration proposed requires that behavior of the modality in non-subject infinitival in addition to the relative clause-internal interpret- relatives and infinitival questions are captured by ation of the head NP, the licensing element (the assigning the same semantics to [+rel] C0 and [+wh] superlative -est, ordinals, nominal only etc.) move C0. The details of the semantics of the infinitival [+rel/ from its NP-internal position to a position where it wh] C^0 are discussed in Chapter 4. takes the infinitival clause as an argument. With the Some but not all subject infinitival relatives are licensing configuration in hand, we are able to explain interpreted as modal (cf. the modal the man to fix the why both nominal first/last and relative clause-inter- sink vs. the non-modal the first man to walk on the nal adverbial first/last are able to license a non-modal moon). Our proposal that subject infinitival relatives reading (cf. the first/last man to read that book vs. the man do not involve the modally interpreted infinitival to read that book first/last). This is so because at LF, [+rel] C0 is compatible with the fact that not all subject which is the point at which the licensing configuration infinitival relatives are modal. We relate the modality applies, nominal first/last and the relative clause- in the modal subject infinitival relatives to a modality internal adverbial first/last are in the same (relative that can independently appear in the infinitival clause-internal) position. clause. Thus the modality in the subject infinitival Further evidence is provided for the possibility of relative the book to be read for class has the same source reconstructed interpretations of nominal modifiers in as the modality in The book is to be read for class. This the form of the ambiguity of examples like the first source is internal to the infinitival clause; it is book that John said that Antonia wrote. These examples independent of the appearance of the infinitival permit a ‘high’ reading (first in saying) and a ‘low’ clause as part of a (reduced) relative clause. Evidence reading (the x s.t. John said that x was the first book for the difference in the nature of the modality in that Antonia wrote). The head-raising analysis of object infinitival relatives and subject infinitival rela- relative clauses is required to derive the ‘low’ reading. tives is provided by the presence of variable modality To explore the interpretive properties of the non- effects in object infinitival relatives, but not subject modally interpreted infinitival clause, the semantics Dissertations Glot International, Volume 7, Number 1/2, January/February 2003 54 of the ordinal first is used as a probe. A semantics for Review by Anastasia Giannakidou first is proposed and applied to non-modal infinitival relatives. We observe that a temporal simultaneity 1. Central claims and evaluation requirement holds between the head NP and the infinitival clause in a non-modal infinitival relative. In this thesis Bhatt investigates the distribution and The first 80 yr. old to walk on the moon must have been interpretation of structures with ‘‘covert’’ modality. 80 yrs. old when he/she walked on the moon. The Examples of such structures include wh-infinitival description cannot pick out the first person who is complements, infinitival relative clauses, purpose be to 80 yrs. old and who walked on the moon. The clauses, and constructions. The thesis concen- temporal simultaneity facts fall out of the fact that trates on the former two, illustrated in (1) and (2): the head NP and the infinitival clause are both (1) a Ariadne knows how to solve the problem. interpreted as predicates of times and individuals ¼ Ariadne know how she should/could solve the and that they combine via intersective modifica- problem. tion (Predicate Modification) causing their temporal b Ariadne is wondering where to go. variables to be simultaneous. ¼ Ariadne is wondering where she should/could go. (2) a The man to fix the sink is here. 2.3. Chapter 4: The distribution and interpretation ¼ The man who will/whose purpose is to fix the of infinitival questions sink is here. This chapter addresses two aspects of infinitival b The book to read is on the table. questions: (i) their distribution – what classes of ¼ The book that you should/could/must read is predicates take infinitival question complements and on the table. what generalizations hold of these classes of predi- cates, and (ii) the interpretation of the modality that As indicated in the paraphrases, these sentences appears in infinitival questions – what is the nature of receive modal interpretation although they do not the modality that appears in infinitival questions, and contain an overt modal verb– hence the term covert why does its force seem to vary depending upon the modality. The modality involved is directive, i.e. environment in which it appears. The infinitival [+wh] deontic (and variants thereof), or purpose related 0 C was identified in Chapter 2 as the source of the (especially with subjects), and never epistemic. modality in infinitival questions. We demonstrate that One of Bhatt’s central claims is that, in terms of with the exception of a limited set of environments the their syntactic and semantic properties, wh-infiniti- modality in an infinitival question is always inter- vals and object infinitival relatives (cases (1) and (2b)) preted as deontic/bouletic modality. It cannot be are distinct from the subject infinitival relatives in interpreted as circumstantial or epistemic modality. (2a). The syntactic arguments are quite convincingly The force of the modality that appears in infinitival presented in chapter 2. Infinitival wh-clauses and questions seems to vary depending upon the envi- object relative clauses are full CPs. A possibility ronment. A list is provided of the factors that modal operator is argued to reside in the C0 of these influence the force of the infinitival modality. We structures with the deontic semantics defined and argue that despite the seeming variability in the discussed in chapter 4. This semantics yields a family modality of infinitival questions, all infinitival ques- of readings that can be paraphrased with could, should, tions involve the same modality. The semantics of the or even would, depending on the contextually salient infinitival modality is formalized by the modal oper- goals, the nature of the wh-phrase, and the semantics ator D,fi. The variation between could and should of the embedding predicate; the latter is particularly readings of infinitival questions comes from the relevant for wh-infinitivals. The important point is contextually salient goals, the nature of the wh-phrase, that the modality is sematically identical in all cases: and the semantics of the embedding predicate. the variations are derived pragmatically, by suppres- Finally, the proposal made to explain the variability sing or making more salient certain aspects of the in the force of the modality in infinitival questions is meaning of a single operator. extended to non-subject infinitival relatives. It has Unlike wh-infinitivals and object infinitival rela- been noted by Hackl & Nissenbaum (1999) that the tives, subject infinitival relatives such as (2a) are force of the infinitival modality in a non-subject argued to lack a CP layer and exhibit properties of infinitival relative seems to depend upon the deter- reduced relatives. Lacking the CP layer, subject miner that appears with the head of the infinitival infinitival relatives cannot host the deontic modal relative clause: strong determiners permit only should that non-subject infinitivals do. Their modality must readings, while weak determiners permit both could thus be attributed elsewhere, and, crucially, is not and should readings. We show that the mechanism always present: with certain items, e.g. superlatives, developed for explaining the variation in the force of first, and only, modal readings of subject infinitival the modality in infinitival questions carries over relatives are excluded: straightforwardly to provide an explanation of the facts that Hackl & Nissenbaum (1999) observe for (3) a I took a picture of the *(first) person to climb infinitival relatives. Mt. Everest last year. Dissertations Glot International, Volume 7, Number 1/2, January/February 2003 55
b I took a picture of the *(only) person to climb designed for the covert modal of wh-infinitivals and Mt. Everest last year. object relative clauses, could actually form the basis c I took a picture of the *(tallest) person to climb for the analysis of the (as of yet, largely unexplored) Mt. Everest last year. overt modals could, would, and should. The orientation is consistently compositional, with The relative clause to climb Mt. Everest last year emphasis on the syntax-semantics interface, and this receives an episodic past interpretation: it makes makes the argumentation particularly clear. (One reference to an event of climbing Mt. Everest which exception is the discussion of ability modals in happened last year; the individual picked out by the Chapter 5, the least worked out part of the work, head of the relative clause has the property of being which however contains material that merits further the agent of that event. This is clearly not a modal attention, as we will see below). The syntactic argu- interpretation– and the reference to the past is ments for the existence of a CP layer hosting a covert dependent upon the past of the matrix verb, a modal operator in object infinitivals and wh-infiniti- dependency expected of infinitives, and their cross- vals are convincing; so are the arguments for the linguistic counterparts, the subjunctive (a point raising/matching analysis of relative clauses and the to which I return). Object infinitival relatives and need to assume a relative clause internal position for wh-infinitivals do not have such episodic non-modal the interpretation of the head NP of the relative clause interpretations. The reason is that in non-subject both in reduced and full relatives. Many of these infinitival relatives and wh-infinitivals, the covert arguments for full relatives are to be found scattered modal is always present in C0; subject infinitivals lack in the literature but are nicely put together here; a C0, hence they only optionally allow for a modal novel argument is added in 3.6 based on ambiguities interpretation. of first, only, and superlatives in embedded tensed Another important point is that without first, only, clauses. and superlatives the failure to ‘‘license’’ a non-modal Along the way, a number of issues not directly interpretation leads to ungrammaticality, as we see in related to modality receive attention, especially in (3). In Chapter 3 the author proposes an explanation Chapter 3, when the temporal ordering properties of invoking argumentation reminiscent of polarity items. first are analyzed, as well as the aspectual properties Though never stated explicitly, the non-modal read- of infinitival clauses and the interaction between the ing is treated as a polarity item (PI) which must be types of quantifiers (strong, weak) and the availability licensed by an appropriate c-commanding licensor, of non-modal readings. The discussion is always clear e.g. first, only, or the superlative. This is an interesting and quite extensive, and manages to handle a vast way of looking at the phenomenon: it seems to array of quite complex facts. provide an explanation for why only, first, and Some basic puzzles still remain a mystery, however superlatives move out of an NP-internal position to such as the syntactic fact that in infinitival relatives, a position where they take the infinitival clause as an unlike in finite relative clauses, overt material can be argument; it is in this configuration that the PI non- present in SpecCP only if it is a pied-piped PP (A knife modal reading can be licensed. (This movement does with which to cut the bread versus A knife (*which) to cut not leave a trace behind, and is assimilated to other bread with); and the semantic fact that the modality in cases argued to have the same property, see discus- both subject and object infinitivals is directive and not sion on pp. 58–59. In Appendix C, 3.10, it is further epistemic. One would like to have an explanation shown that an in-situ analysis affords comparable for at least the semantic fact; but the brief comments results.). It also predicts an interesting interaction on p. 142 are not very satisfying. An explanation is with matrix focus: if first, only, and superlatives indeed possible if we consider the possible modality associate with matrix focus they will not be able to of the to-infinitive itself, which seems to have received license a non-modal reading, since this would require less attention than it could have. them to move out of the relative clause. Relative There are also points in need of further refine- clauses are islands and such movement is impossible. ments; for example, in Chapter 4, the exclusive link As a whole, the dissertation is an insightful contri- between the uniqueness presupposition of a singular bution to the study of the syntax and semantics of wh-phrase and the should reading must be relaxed a relative clauses and modality. It provides detailed and little, in view of examples like (4b) below, indicating clear discussions of many central issues in these areas, that the matrix verb also plays a role: and is full of interesting ideas and analyses that are (4) a Mary knows which professor to talk to ¼ which worked out in remarkable detail; the semantics of the professor she should talk to modal operator which is interpreted as should, could, b Mary is wondering which professor to talk to or even would in chapter 4 is a case in point. The claim ¼ ... {should/could} talk to that we have a single operator in all cases, and that the switch from one meaning to the other is a function of It is uniqueness in conjunction with the factivity of the context and the semantics of the wh-phrase know that forces a should reading in (4a); should is not and the embedding predicate is successfully argued forced in (4b), with wonder. Additionally, it would be for, and gives the correct results in a large number nice to be able to predict which question-selecting of cases. Moreover, the general approach, though verbs will be compatible with wh-infinitivals and Dissertations Glot International, Volume 7, Number 1/2, January/February 2003 56 which not. The discussion in chapter 4 merely states it remains unclear why Greek allows for the latter the generalization that some verbs, e.g. guess, depend but not for the former: on, and matter, do not c-select wh-infinitival comple- (7) a * To krasi [ja na sinodepsi to fajito] ments; but, obviously, we would like this to follow the wine for SUBJUNCTIVE complement.3SG the meal from the analysis, for example as a mismatch between b To krasi ine [ja na sinodepsi to fajito] the semantics of these verbs and that of the modal The wine is for SUBJUNCTIVE complement.3SG the meal operator. Finally, the very brief comments in 4.3.5 on why embedded negation forces a should reading, as in These and similar concerns arise when we consider Bill knows where not to get gas, do not give an adequate the crosslinguistic dimension. In my comments below, explanation of why the switch takes place. As I said, I would like to add some more thoughts on certain the analysis is successful in many ways; we can thus details of the analyses that are worth looking at more hope that some of the residual issues can be accom- closely, specifically: (a) the role of the infinitive and modated in future developments. the compositional derivation of the modal readings in Another area for a possible productive extension subject infinitivals; (b) the restrictions of the types of concerns the consequences of the basic proposals in QPs subject infinitivals can modify (they seem to be the larger crosslinguistic picture. Languages that do able to only modify definites, unlike object infinitivals not have infinitives, e.g. Greek, naturally do not which have no such restriction); and (c) the connec- exhibit infinitival relatives or wh-questions. (Note tion between ability modals, veridicality, and perfec- that I use ‘‘Greek’’ here and not ‘‘Modern Greek’’, as tive aspect. the language is occasionally referred to in the text. The addition of ‘‘modern’’ was common in earlier linguistic works on Greek, which thought it neces- 2. The syntax of subject infinitivals and the modality sary to identify the current stage of the language as of to-infinitives opposed to earlier ones. Yet this distinction is Chapter 2 addresses the basic point of the thesis: that generally unnecessary for other languages, and most modal infinitival relatives and non-obligatorily modal linguists do not see a reason to keep it for Greek: ones are structurally distinct. It is argued that the unless there is explicit discussion and contrast with former are reduced relatives, whereas the latter are 0 earlier stages of Greek, the term Greek alone suffices full CPs, hosting a modal operator in C . In either to identify the language, just as is the case for other case, a ‘‘head raising’’ analysis is proposed, where the modern languages (e.g. English, Chinese, etc.)). head NP is moved out of an XP, but only full relatives Lacking infinitives, however, Greek employs other involve CP-internal A’-movement. The two structures forms that are used for functions the infinitive is are given below: used for in English– the subjunctive na (for argu- (8) Finite relative clauses, object infinitival relative clasues (Bhatt 1999: (53a)) ments that na is actually the subjunctive and ear- 0 0 D [NP [CP Rel-NP C [...Rel-NP...]]] lier references, see Giannakidou 1998). Interestingly, 0 the [book [CP [which book]j C [Bill likes [which book]j ]]] although na is fine as an equivalent to a wh-infini- (9) Reduced relative clauses, subject infinitival relatives tival, it cannot be used as an equivalent to a relative 0 D [NP [PrtP NP [Prt’...... ]]] clause infinitival, either subject or object, as the the [philosopher [PrtP philosopher reading Dworkin]] (Bhatt 1999: (53b)) examples below show; na may be preceded by the purpose complementizer ja: The structure in (9) is that for reduced relatives containing participles, gerunds, adjectives, and com- (5) a * O anthropos [(ja) na ftiaksi to neroxiti] parable categories, and is the one that Bhatt intends the man for SUBJUNCTIVE fix.3 SG the sink for reduced infinitival relatives. Interestingly, no b * to vivlio [(ja) na diavasis] illustration is provided with this category in Chapter the book for SUBJUNCTIVE read.2SG 2. Under standard assumptions infinitives are at least c * o protos anthropos [na perpatisi sto fegari] IPs, and in Chapter 3 PrtP is in fact replaced by IP the first man SUBJUNCTIVE walk.3SG on-the moon (6) I Ariadne {kseri/anarotiete} me pjon [na milisi]. for this case. With this proviso, in reduced PrtP/IP the Ariadne knows/is.wondering with whom [SUBJUNCTIVE talk.3SG] structures, PrtP/IP is a predicate, type
(by predicate modification) purpose ja in the Greek example (7b)) can be argued the (kx [man (x) fix (x, the sink)]) to host this modality (consistent with some comments (by iota) on p.16). But the implementation of this idea has an i (kx [man (x) fix (x, the sink)]) interesting consequence for the analysis of the non- modal reading in Chapter 3. If subject infinitival Besides direct predication, it is argued that the head relatives are inherently modal, then the non-modal NP originates inside the relative clause in both cases, readings must be reconsidered not in terms of allowing thereby interpretation of the NP-content in licensing but blocking: the modal reading, which either of two positions: externally or internally to the should be available because of the infinitival I0 is in relative clause. Depending on where we interpret NP, fact blocked in these cases. we get the effects of the head external analysis (the higher copy gets interpreted), or the head raising analysis (the lower, relative clause internal copy gets interpreted). We need to allow for the second option 3. Restrictions on the QP types because of the particular features of the non-modal Object and subject infinitival relatives differ in readings discussed in Chapter 3, most prominently another important way: in the types of QPs they can simultaneity– and for independent reasons, e.g. in modify. Object infinitival relatives modify various order to explain narrow scope readings with modals, kinds of QPs, weak and strong ones (with certain as in the student likely to win the race. differences discussed in chapter 4.4). Although direct predication does not require move- ment, the need to allow for a lower copy does; but this (12) a Every pen to write with is in the top drawer. forces a chain created by an, in the author’s own b Norman’s mother saw {many/few/some/two words, unorthodox movement– unorthodox in that it women} for him to marry at the party. is a movement where the moving phrase, and not the Subject infinitival relatives, however, can only modify target, projects. This seems a less attractive part of the definites. This difference escapes attention, but some analysis, especially if we consider that such move- relevant examples are given in Chapter 3 (ex. (63)), ments are not attested elsewhere. But, more seriously, where it is claimed that they are ‘‘either ungrammat- in the context of the syntactic analysis as it stands, a ical altogether or are only grammatical under a modal basic question seems to remain unanswered: how the reading’’ (Bhatt 1999:43). These, and similar, exam- modal interpretation in the infinitival IP is composi- ples were judged uniformly ungrammatical by my tionally derived. Direct predication and predicate informants: modification alone do not suffice to make the distinc- tion between a man fixing the sink, which is not modal, (13) *I took a picture of {every boy/most boys/three and a man to fix the sink, which is. In both cases direct boys/few boys/many boys/a boy} predication, predicate modification and iota would to climb Mt. Everest. give back the unique individual that is both a man and (14) * I just saw {a man/every man/most men/few has the property of fixing the sink now. But a man to fix men/some man/three men} the sink is a man whose purpose is to fix the sink (and he to fix the sink. might end up not fixing it after all). In other words, The difference does not follow readily from the there is obviously modality inside the infinitival relat- analysis as it stands, but the discussion in the relevant ive, and there seems to be no way to account compo- portions of Chapters 3 and 4 could give us, I believe, a sitionally for it without invoking the infinitival I0. context in which to address it. But note first some Going back to the general point, then, invoking further worries. In Chapter 3 it is observed that, ‘‘covert’’ modality– with the implication that there is unlike first, only and superlatives, weak quantifiers absolutely no overt expressor of modality – is not embedded under the are ‘‘degraded’’: entirely accurate. The relative and wh-clauses at hand involve to-infinitivals, and to-infinitivals are modal (15) ???I have met [the many/few/two people to forms: they can be used as complements to intensional climb Mt. Everest last year]. verbs, and in isolation, expressing future orientation, (Bhatt’s (67a–c) purpose, and the like: ‘Degraded’ here means not just lacking the non-modal (11) a John arrived early to talk to me first. reading, but ungrammatical. The proposed explan- b John left the room to leave me alone. ation for the unacceptability of these examples relies on the assumption that weak quantifiers are not real In unselected positions, to-infinitivals convey direct- quantifiers but predicate modifiers (type <
5. Ability modals and their veridicality entailments Finally, there seems to be a contrast between The proposal in Chapter 5 is an interesting one: it is implicative be able to and manage in terms of the argued that ability modals are ambiguous between a conventional implicature of effort. While was able to is purely modal reading, licensed by genericity, and an odd in a context out-of-the-blue, manage seems fine: implicative episodic reading which does not neces- sarily convey ability, but renders the ability modal (22) #A woman from Watertown was able to win 3 equivalent to manage: million in the lottery yesterday. (Bhatt’s (325)) (20) a (In those days) John was able to lift a 200 (23) A woman from Watertown managed to win 3 pound table. million in the lottery yesterday. b Last night at the contest, John was able to lift a (Bhatt’s (327)) 200 pound table. Conventionally implicates: It took some effort for ¼ John managed to lift a 200 pound table. the woman to win the lottery, e.g. she was buy- In the b sentence John actually lifted the table, so was ing tickets regularly for several years now. able allows what the author calls an ‘actuality’ entail- Bhatt assumes the same status # for both sentences; ment; but in (20a) John didn’t actually have to have but to the extent that the contrast is real, it suggests lifted the table even once, though he might have, so that with be able to the proposition of effort is a we have no ‘actuality’. The actuality contrast is presupposition that cannot be easily accommodated. reminiscent of Giannakidou’s (1998, 1999) (non)verid- icality: a truth entailment is available with a veridical implicative, but the ability modal is nonveridical. The difference can be further strengthened by the fact that 6. Conclusion PIs are licensed in the scope of nonveridical was able In sum, Bhatt’s thesis is an important contribution to but not in the scope of the veridical one (and manage, the study of the syntax and semantics of relative as shown in Giannakidou, 1998, 1999): clauses and modality. It provides great impetus for (21) a (In those days) John was able to lift any table. further explorations in this area, and people working b * Last night at the contest, John was able to lift in this and related areas will benefit greatly from any table. reading it. c * Last night at the contest, John managed to lift any table. So the intended equivalence to manage is confirmed References by, and fits nicely with the hypothesis that PIs are BHATT, R. (1997) Obligation and possession, in H. HARLEY (ed.) licensed by nonveridicality. The additional link to The Proceedings of the MIT Roundtable on Argument Structure, perfective and imperfective aspect also fits nicely, Cambridge. MA: MITWPL. DOWTY, D. (1979) Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. since we know that PIs are good in imperfective Dordrecht: Reidel. habitual and generic sentences but are bad in episodic EMBICK, D. (1997) Voice and the Interfaces of Syntax, PhD disserta- perfective sentences. tion, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania. However, the compositional derivation of implica- GIANNAKIDOU, A. (1998) Polarity Sensitivity as (Non) Veridical tive was able remains sketchy. The proposal is that the Dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, GIANNAKIDOU, A. (1999) Affective dependencies. Linguistics & two readings of be able to are ‘‘one predicate which Philosophy, 22, 367–421. combines with two different operators to yield the HACKL, M. NISSENBAUM, J. (1999) Variable modal force in two readings. I will call this predicate ABLE.’’ (Bhatt, 1 for-infinitival relative clauses, in A. GIORGI ET AL. (eds) The 1999:182). ABLE is further argued to be a non-stative Proceedings of the Bergamo Conference on the Syntax and Semantics of implicative verb, but no more details of its meaning Tense and Mood Selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press. IATRIDOU, S., ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, E. IZVORSKI, R. (2000) are formalized. As it stands, the proposal makes it Some observations about the form and meaning of the perfect, in hard to see how a stative form like ABLE turns out to M. KENSTOWICZ (ed.) Festschrift for Ken Hale (tentative). be a non-stative, unless we assume a perfectivization Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. on top of ABLE– similar to the way stative verbs are KAMP, H. and REYLE U. (1993) From Discourse to Logic, Dordrecht: perfectivized and coerced into eventive readings in Kluwer. KJELLMER, G. (1975) Are relative infinitives modal? Studia languages with perfective aspect. This may seem Neophilologica, 47, 323–332. desirable for the case at hand, but once we open up MUSAN, R. (1997) On the Temporal Interpretation of Noun Phrases. the possibility of a covert perfective with ABLE we NY: Garland. have to find a way to restrict it: we must explain why PESETSKY, D. TORREGO, E. (1999) Some consequences of T)to)C the operation is not generally available with other movement, in M. KENSTOWICZ, (ed.) Festschrift for Ken Hale (Tentative). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. modal verbs, or intensional predicates, in other THALBERG, I. (1969) Austin on abilities, in K. T. FANN (ed.) words, why we don’t generally have veridical and Symposium on J. L. Austin, New York: Humanities Press Inc, nonveridical pairings beyond be able to. pp. 182–205