Non-finiteness in Latin Marius L. Jøhndal Trinity Hall University of Cambridge This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy June 2012 This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome ofwork done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text. The dissertation does not exceed the word limit of 80,000 words. Abstract Non-finiteness in Latin Marius L. Jøhndal This dissertation offers a description of a selection of syntactic phenomena concerning non-finite complements, non-finite purpose clauses and binding into non-finite clauses. The analysis is set within Lexical Functional Grammar and is based on data from Early and Classical Latin. The syntax of complements in Latin revolves around a contrast between subjects that arecon- trolled and subjects that are not. One type of infinitival complement has a subject that is oblig- atorily identified with a matrix argument, with which it shares all features including case. This type of complement is found in raising and obligatory control. Another type of infinitival com- plement has a subject that cannot be controlled and is assigned accusative case by the infinitive. Non-obligatory control, in contrast, is not realised in infinitival complementation, and its closest correlate is in finite complements. This means that infinitival complements are used when there is no strong semantic dependency between a matrix verb and its complement. In infinitival complements, the reflexive sē can be a local anaphor or a logophoric reflexive. More generally, the reflexive can also express empathy. The domain of the logophoric reflexive tends to correspond to complement clauses expressing an indirect report. Verbs that select such com- plements can also designate one of their arguments as the antecedent for the logophoric reflexive. The logophoric reflexive is therefore largely lexically licensed. Non-finite purpose clauses can be realised as infinitival clauses but then require a distinct non- finite verb form. Greater flexibility is shown by purpose clauses headed by the gerundive, a participle-like verb form. Such clauses have a distribution that is comparable to that of English purpose clauses but their control properties differ. The gerundive has passivised argument struc- ture, but its demoted subject still shows the same pattern of coreference that the obligatory null subject of an infinitive does in English purpose clauses. Contents Acknowledgements ix Abbreviations xi 1 Introduction 1 2 Background 5 2.1 Sources . 5 2.2 Theoretical assumptions . 8 2.2.1 C-structure . 8 2.2.1.1 Exocentricity . 9 2.2.1.2 Structure in the clausal domain . 10 2.2.1.3 Structure in the nominal domain . 13 2.2.1.4 Long-distance dependencies . 14 2.2.1.5 Pro-drop . 15 2.2.2 Case and grammatical functions . 17 2.2.2.1 Idiosyncratic and semantic case . 20 2.2.3 Subjecthood . 22 2.2.3.1 Subject-predicate agreement . 22 2.2.3.2 Subject tests . 23 2.2.3.3 Non-canonical subjects and default agreement . 23 2.2.4 The passive . 27 2.2.4.1 Agent phrases . 28 2.2.4.2 Subjectless passives . 28 2.2.4.3 Deponents . 30 2.2.5 Lexical Mapping Theory . 31 2.2.5.1 Morphosemantic and morphosyntactic operations . 33 2.2.5.2 Subjectless passives . 34 2.2.5.3 Ditransitives and secondary objects . 35 2.2.5.4 Complementation . 37 2.2.6 Control and raising . 38 2.2.6.1 The control relation . 38 2.2.6.2 Split, exhaustive and partial control . 39 2.2.6.3 Discourse and arbitrary control . 39 2.2.6.4 Controller choice and variable control . 40 v Contents 2.2.6.5 Obligatory and non-obligatory control . 40 2.2.6.6 Functional and anaphoric control . 42 2.2.6.7 The control/raising distinction . 43 2.2.6.8 Identifying functional control . 44 2.2.7 The verbal system . 45 2.2.7.1 The infinitives . 46 2.2.7.2 The auxiliary . 47 2.2.7.3 Complement-taking predicates . 48 3 Non-finite complements 51 3.1 Raising and control . 51 3.1.1 Distinguishing raising and control . 51 3.1.2 Object control . 54 3.1.3 Formalising raising and control . 56 3.2 The accusative and infinitive . 61 3.2.1 Syntactic properties . 61 3.2.1.1 Tense . 62 3.2.1.2 Subject properties . 63 3.2.1.3 Subcategorisation . 64 3.2.1.4 Passivisation . 66 3.2.1.5 Word order . 67 3.2.2 Previous work . 68 3.2.2.1 The traditional explanation . 68 3.2.2.2 Raising to object . 69 3.2.2.3 Exceptional Case Marking . 71 3.2.2.4 Clause-internal analyses . 71 3.2.3 Discussion . 76 3.2.4 A clause-internal account . 79 3.2.5 Passivisation . 81 3.3 Control complements and AcIs . 83 3.3.1 Finite complements . 83 3.3.1.1 Quod, quia and quoniam-complements . 83 3.3.1.2 Quīn and quōminus-complements . 84 3.3.1.3 Ut and nē-complements . 85 3.3.1.4 Wh-complements . 88 3.3.2 Previous work . 89 3.3.3 Discussion . 90 3.3.3.1 Control and coreference . 93 3.3.3.2 Object control and the AcI . 94 3.3.3.3 Obligatory and non-obligatory control . 95 3.4 Conclusion . 96 vi Contents 4 Binding into non-finite clauses 99 4.1 Local and long-distance reflexives . 100 4.1.1 Local sē ..................................... 100 4.1.1.1 Obliques and adjuncts . 103 4.1.1.2 NP-internal binding . 104 4.1.1.3 Infinitival complements . 104 4.1.1.4 Appositions . 105 4.1.1.5 Reciprocal interpretation . 105 4.1.1.6 Intensifiers . 106 4.1.2 Long-distance sē ................................ 107 4.1.2.1 Multiple embedding . 108 4.1.2.2 Mood and finiteness . 109 4.1.2.3 Lack of subject orientation and complementarity . 111 4.1.3 Reported speech . 112 4.2 Previous work . 113 4.2.1 Syntactic approaches . 113 4.2.2 Non-syntactic approaches . 116 4.2.3 Summary . 117 4.3 A binding theory . 118 4.4 Logophoricity . 121 4.4.1 Lexicalised logophoricity . 122 4.4.2 An implementation . 125 4.4.3 Non-complementarity . 130 4.4.4 Non-argument logocentres . 131 4.4.5 Reported speech . 134 4.5 Point of view . 136 4.6 Conclusion . 139 5 Purpose clauses 141 5.1 Theoretical background . 142 5.1.1 Typological properties . 142 5.1.2 Non-finite purpose clauses in English . 143 5.1.2.1 Purpose clauses . 144 5.1.2.2 Control of OPCs . 146 5.1.2.3 Control of SPCs . 148 5.1.2.4 In order-clauses . 149 5.2 Clauses with an um-supine . 150 5.2.1 The data . 150 5.2.2 Nominalisation or clause . 151 5.2.3 Control and controller choice . 154 5.2.4 Argumenthood . ..