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 Ó 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.