Advertisement

Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 59–81 | Cite as

A modal ambiguity in for-infinitival relative clauses

  • Martin HacklEmail author
  • Jon Nissenbaum
Article

Abstract

This squib presents two puzzles related to an ambiguity found in for-infinitival relative clauses (FIRs). FIRs invariably receive a modal interpretation even in the absence of any overt modal verb. The modal interpretation seems to come in two distinct types, which can be paraphrased by finite relative clauses employing the modal auxiliaries should and could. The two puzzles presented here arise because the availability of the two readings is constrained by factors that are not otherwise known to affect the interpretation of a relative clause. Specifically, we show, first, that “strong” determiners require the FIR to be interpreted as a SHOULD-relative while “weak” determiners allow both interpretations (the Determiner-Modal Generalization). Secondly, we observe that the COULD-interpretation requires a raising (internally headed) structure for the FIR, while the SHOULD-interpretation is compatible with either a raising or a more standard matching (externally headed) structure (the Raising/Matching Generalization).

Keywords

Relative clause Modality Infinitival clauses Quantification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bach, Emmon. 1982. Purpose clauses and control. In The Nature of syntactic representation, ed. P. Jacobson and G. K. Pullum, 35–57. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  2. Barss, Andrew. 1986. Chains and anaphoric dependence: on reconstruction and its implications. PhD diss., MIT: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  3. Bhatt Rajesh. (2002) The raising analysis of relative clauses: Evidence from adjectival modification. Natural Language Semantics 10: 43–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhatt, Rajesh. 1999/2006. Covert modality in non-finite contexts. 1999 PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania (Revised version published by de Gruyter, 2006).Google Scholar
  5. Bresnan, Joan. 1972. Theory of complementation in English Syntax. PhD diss., MIT: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  6. Carlson, Greg. 1977. Reference to kinds. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from Building 20, ed. Ken Hale and Samuel J. Keyser, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Deal, Amy Rose. 2010. Topics in the Nez Perce verb. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  9. Diesing Molly. (1992) Indefinites. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. Faraci, Robert. 1974. Aspects of the grammar of infinitives and for-phrases. PhD diss., MIT: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  11. Fiengo Robert., Robert May. (1994) Indices and identity. MIT Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  12. Fox Danny. (1999) Reconstruction, variable binding and the interpretations of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 157–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Freeze Ray. (1992) Existentials and other locatives. Language 68: 553–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grosu Alexander, Fred Landman. (1998) Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural Language Semantics 6: 125–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huettner, Alison. 1989. Adjunct infinitives in English. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  16. Hulsey Sarah., Uli Sauerland. (2006) Sorting out relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics 14: 111–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Iatridou, Sabine. 1996. To have and have not: on the deconstruction approach. In Proceedings of WCCFL 14, ed. J. Camacho, L. Choueiri, and M. Watanabe, 185–200. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Johnson, Kyle, and Satoshi Tomioka. 1998. Lowering and mid-size clauses. In Proceedings of the 1997 Tübingen workshop on reconstruction, ed. G. Katz, S.-S. Kim, and W. Haike, 185–206. Tübingen: Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen für die Computerlinguistik.Google Scholar
  19. Jones, Charles. 1985. Syntax and thematics of infinitival adjuncts. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst. GLSA, Amherst.Google Scholar
  20. Kayne Richard. (1994) The antisymmetry of syntax. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 25. MIT Press, CambridgeMAGoogle Scholar
  21. Kjellmer Göran. (1975) Are relative infinitives modal?. Studia Neophilologica 47(2): 323–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koster-Moeller, Jorie, and Martin Hackl. 2008. Quantifier scope constraints in ACD: Implications for the syntax of relative clauses. In Proceedings of WCCFL 27, ed. N. Abner and J. Bishop, 301–309. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
  23. Kratzer, Angelika. 1978. Semantik der Rede. Kontexttheorie, Modalwörter, Konditionale. Königstein: Scriptor.Google Scholar
  24. Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Words, worlds and context, ed. H. Eikmeyer and H. Rieser, 825–834. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  25. Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In The Generic Book, ed. G. Carlson and F. Pelletier, 125–175. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Matthewson, Lisa, Hotze Rullmann, and Henry Davis. 2006. Modality in St’át’imcets. In Studies in Salishan: MIT working papers on endangered and less familiar languages, ed. S.T. Bischoff et al. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  27. McNally, Louise, and Veerle Van Geenhoven. 1998. Redefining the weak/strong distinction. Paper presented at the 1997 Paris Syntax and Semantics Colloquium.Google Scholar
  28. Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential sentences in English. PhD diss., MIT.Google Scholar
  29. Milsark Gary. (1977) Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis 3: 1–29Google Scholar
  30. Pesetsky, David. 1992. Zero Syntax II. Manuscript, MIT. http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/pesetsky/infins.pdf
  31. Peterson, Tyler. 2010. Epistemic modality and evidentiality in Gitksan at the semantics-pragmatics interface. PhD diss., University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  32. Portner, Paul. 1992. Situation theory and the semantics of propositional expressions, PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst. GLSA, Amherst.Google Scholar
  33. Portner Paul. (1997) The semantics of mood, complementation and conversational force. Natural Language Semantics 5: 167–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Portner Paul. (2009) Modality. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  35. Rullmann Hotze., Lisa Matthewson., Henry Davis. (2008) Modals as distributive indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 16: 317–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sauerland, Uli. 1998. The meaning of chains. PhD diss., MIT: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  37. Tim Stowell (1982) The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 13(3): 561–570Google Scholar
  38. Van Geenhoven Veerle. (1998) Semantic incorporation and indefinite descriptions: Semantic and syntactic aspects of noun incorporation in West Greenlandic. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  39. Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1974. French relative clauses. PhD diss., MIT.Google Scholar
  40. von Fintel Kai, Sabine Iatridou. (2007) Anatomy of a modal construction. Linguistic Inquiry 38(3): 445–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Williams Edwin. (1983) Against small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 14(2): 287–308Google Scholar
  42. Williamson, Janis. 1987. An indefiniteness restriction for relative clauses in Lakhota. In The representation of (in)definiteness, ed. E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen, 168–190. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and PhilosophyMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Languages, Literatures, and LinguisticsSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations