Non-finite complements and modality in de-na ‘allow’ in Hindi-Urdu Alice Davison Abstract The meaning ‘to allow’ is expressed in Hindi-Urdu by the verb de-na ‘give’ with an oblique infinitive complement, which I argue is syntactically as well as semantically ambiguous. It has a biclausal control analysis, meaning ‘allow X to do A’, as well as an Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) complement with the meaning ‘allow A to happen’. The complements are smaller than finite CP and larger than the non-clausal causative complement, and the ECM complement is smaller than the control complement. I offer syntactic arguments for the syntactic ambiguity associated with the two meanings; where the control reading is unavailable, the ECM structure and meaning are available, sometimes by coercion by the context. The modal meaning associated with the control structure suggests that modals do not occur only in ECM/Raising constructions. The arguments are couched in minimalist syntactic terms, opening up a cross- theoretical dialogue with Butt’s (1995) analysis in Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) terms of the permissive as a complex predicate in argument structure. Keywords Hindi-Urdu - Permission - Modality - Argument structure - Control - ECM/Raising - Coercion - Complex Predicates - Lexical Case - Structural Case - Causatives 1 Introduction This paper discusses the ‘permissive’ construction, the term used by Butt (1995) for the combination of the verb de-na ‘give’ with an infinitive form but without a postposition. The combination has the meaning ‘allow’. Two examples are given below, one with a dative indirect object (1), one without (2): (1) mã =ne bɑccõ=ko kıtab-ẽ pɑṛh- ne dĩ mother=ERG child.m.pl=DAT book-F.PL.NOM read-INF. give.PF.F.PL 1 ‘Mother allowed/let (the) children to read (the) books.’ 1 Abbreviations: ABL - Ablative, ACC - accusative, CP - Conjunctive participle, DAT - dative, ERG - ergative, GEN - genitive, F - feminine, IMPER - imperative, IMPF - imperfective, INF - infinitive, M - masculine, NOM - 1 (2) pıta=ne peṛ kɑṭ-ne di-e father=ERG tree.M.PL[NOM] be.cut-INF.OBL give-PF.MPL ‘Father allowed the trees to be cut.’ (Bhatt 2005) I propose that the permissive is biclausal and actually has two distinct and coexisting sentence structures with non-finite complement clauses of different sizes, namely an object control TP/CP and an Exceptional Case Marking AspP/TP. The arguments for control are based on valence, lexical case marking, constraints on lexical case, and conditions on anaphor binding. The arguments for ECM are based on valence, structural case marking, the absence of a condition on lexical case and, most strikingly, on a semantic contrast with the control structure. The control version refers to a locus of permission, an individual, while the ECM version refers to an event; this version is preferred under conditions inconsistent with a locus of permission. These differences are correlated with some differences of modality with a circumstantial modal base. The syntactic and meaning properties of the permissive expressed here represent a different view from the monoclausal complex predicate analysis in Butt (1995), which is based on a different set of data from the data offered here. Nevertheless, the monoclausal analysis is consistent with some of the otherwise unexplained properties of the permissive. So one of the issues discussed here is whether a non-finite complement can be a separate clausal domain or not. 2 Is the de-na ‘allow’ construction syntactically ambiguous? A major question that I will discuss in this paper is whether the permissive is syntactically ambiguous–for example, are (1) and (2) syntactically different? Various possibilities for structure have been discussed, which are summarized in (3) and (4). The crucial differences are in the position of DP2, and the boundaries of the constituent containing the oblique infinitive. (3) Biclausal structures a. Object control DP1 DP2(i) [PRO(i) DP3 V-inf] DE b. ECM/Raising to Object DP1 [DP2 (DP3) V-inf] DE (Bhatt 2005) (4) Complex predicate (Butt 1995; 1998) a. C-structures: DP1 DP2 DP3 [V-inf + DE] (Butt 1995:87) DP1 DP2 [DP3 V-inf] DE (Miriam Butt, p.c.) b. Argument (a) structure (Miriam Butt, p.c.) <give AG GO EVt> | read <AG TH> (matrix GO is identified with embedded AG) The LFG monoclausal argument structure (4 a and b) is proposed by Butt nominative, OBL - oblique, PF - perfective, PL - plural. 2 (1995); the verb de- and the infinitive form a complex predicate, whose arguments are the subject, indirect object DP2, and a direct object DP3, as in (1). This ‘flat’ structure is achieved by argument identification at a-structure, whereas the c-structure can be realized as a complex predicate with an embedded verb (Miriam Butt, p.c.; see Butt, this volume, section 4). In minimalist syntactic terms, the structure (3a) is an instance of object control, in which the indirect object DP2 is a matrix constituent, controlling the null PRO subject of an embedded clause. This structure is similar to other clearly defined object control structures, such as ‘tell DP to do something’, ‘force DP to do something’, ‘compel, demand, require’, etc.2 The structure (3b) is also biclausal, an instance of an ECM structure (or Raising to Object) assumed for the permissive in Bhatt (2005). DP2 represents the subject of the embedded infinitive. The evidence for Butt’s LFG analysis of the permissive (4) includes agreement, adjunct control and reflexive versus pronoun interpretations (Butt 1995: 37-43); there are some speaker differences in these interpretations, as a reviewer points out. Butt’s LFG argument structure coindexes the matrix goal or indirect object with the embedded clause subject; see further discussion in section 7. Butt notes some syntactic similarities in c-structure between the complex predicate permissive described above and the instructive ‘tell’, which involves object control (3a). The similarities include scrambling, negation and coordination (Butt 1995: 44-51, Butt 1998. An anonymous reviewer, however, finds some differences in the construal of negation and negative polarity items, suggesting that there are differences of structure. The ECM structure (3b) is proposed in Bhatt (2005). DP2 is the subject of the embedded infinitive rather than the indirect object of the matrix verb. In my discussion of this structure, I will call it ECM rather than Raising to Object, in order to contrast the control/ECM structures in the clearest possible way, and also to avoid the controversy over the representation of control as raising (Hornstein 1999), which is not relevant to the issues of this paper. The proposal I will make in this paper is the following. The permissive is biclausal and has both the control structure (3a) as in (5) below and the ECM 2The permissive differs from other control complements because there is no postposition on the infinitive clause (see the following note). Postpositions are known to block agreement in HU. So the permissive construction also allows optional long distance agreement with the embedded clause nominative argument (cf. Bhatt 2005). Agreement is one of Butt’s (1995) arguments for monoclausality. Bhatt (2005) argues that this kind of agreement is associated with a reduced or restructured embedded clause, so the combination of infinitive and matrix is in effect one clause for the purposes of agreement. But note that the ECM structure (4b) has a projected subject, and is not a reduced clause. So I will represent (4b) ECM clauses as fully biclausal, pace Bhatt (2005), with a subject in the embedded clause, and optional agreement. 3 structure (3b) as in (6) below. I propose that the permissive structure is syntactically ambiguous between control and ECM, but the control analysis is the default choice, reflecting the ditransitive argument structure of de-na ‘give’. The ECM analysis requires special factors to be present. In addition, the meaning associated with the control structure implies the meaning associated with the ECM structure, but not the reverse. The control structure has the meaning ‘allow to do’, which implies ‘allow to happen’. The ECM analysis only conveys ‘allow to happen’. The ECM analysis comes to the fore under specific lexical and pragmatic circumstances, to be defined below. h (5) mã =ne bɑccõi=ko [PROi kıtab-ẽ pɑṛ -ne] dĩ mother=ERG child.m.pl=DAT book-F.PL read-INF.OBL give.PF.F.PL ‘Mother allowed (the) children to read (the) books.’ [Control] (6) pıta=ne [peṛ kɑṭ-ne ] di-e father=ERG tree.M.PL[NOM] be.cut-iNF.OBL give-PF.MPL Father allowed [the trees to be cut].’ (Bhatt 2005) [Exceptional Case Marking] The difference is that DP2 is a matrix indirect object coindexed with PRO in (5) (Control), and a structurally cased embedded subject in (6) (ECM). I will first argue for the control structure, then for the ECM structure, and then discuss various facets of the relationship between the two structures. I will return at the end of the paper to discuss some data that support Butt’s monoclausal complex predicate analysis (4) because they are not explained by the biclausal control analysis, perhaps because of the specific lexical properties of de-na ‘give’. 3 De-na ‘allow’ as a control construction In this section, I will make the case that the permissive is an object control construction. I will use three syntactic arguments, one based on the similarity of thematic roles and case to other object control predicates, another based on lexical case in control contexts, and the third argument based on reflexive binding, which is constrained by syntactic factors such as clause structure and grammatical functions (Gurtu 1992). I begin by showing the similarities of the permissive to a clear case of obligatory object control (7), the ‘instructive’ in Butt (1995).