The paper presents and examines a previously undescribed puzzle concerning the syntactic distribution of Russian mandative verbs (
Starting from the first papers on non-finite complementation, the difference between obligatory control sentences with an embedded
The present paper examines Russian mandative verbs
(1)
a.
Maša
Maša.
velela
ordered
Anna.
[
sdelat’
do.
vmeste
together
zadanije].
task.
‘Maša ordered Anna to do the task together.’
b.
Anna.
nado
necessary
[
sdelat’
do.
vmeste
together
zadanije].
task.
‘For Anna it is necessary to do the task together.’
c.
Maša
Maša.
velela
ordered
[
project.
zakončit’sja
complete.
k
by
srede].
Wednesday
‘Maša ordered for the project to be complete by Wednesday.’
d.
Nado
necessary
[
project.
zakončit’sja
complete.
k
by
srede].
Wednesday
‘It is necessary for the project to be complete by Wednesday.’
In (1a) and (1b) the
Focusing on the
(2)
a.
*Maša
Maša.
velela
ordered
Anna.
[
project.
zakončit’sja
complete.
k
by
srede].
Wednesday
Intended: ‘Maša ordered Anna for the project to be complete by Wednesday.’
b.
*
Anna.
nado
necessary
[
project.
zakončit’sja
complete.
k
by
srede].
Wednesday
Intended: ‘For Anna it is necessary for the project to be complete by Wednesday.’
Thus, the following questions arise: (i) What is the structure of sentences with mandatives and modals and why is their distribution so similar? and (ii) How is the
First, I propose that mandative verbs are overt realizations of a verb of communication that embeds a silent deontic modal; the latter, in turn, belongs to the class of ordinary modal predicates that select a propositional clause as an argument.
(3)
a.
b.
Second, I propose to regulate the
Although
(4)
a.
b.
The Russian data complement the known cases of cross-clausal A-dependencies (
A few words should be said about the assumptions at the core of this paper. First, I adopt the general
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 describes the general properties of sentences with a matrix mandative verb or a deontic modal in Russian. Section 3 shows that mandatives and deontic modals are ambiguous in their behavior allowing embedded non-finite clauses with overt referential/
Let us start by describing the syntactic distribution of Russian mandative verbs in comparison to that of deontic modals. Mandative verbs include the following:
Mandative verbs and deontic modals usually co-occur with a dative
(5)
a.
Vrač
doctor.
velel
ordered
(Maše)
Maša.
jest’
eat.
ovošči.
vegetables
‘The doctor ordered Maša/someone to eat vegetables.’
b.
(Maše)
Maša.
bylo
was.
nužno
necessary
jest’
eat.
ovošči.
vegetables
‘For Maša/someone it was necessary to eat vegetables.’
Aside from a non-finite clause, mandative verbs and deontic modals can also embed finite subjunctive clauses.
(6)
a.
Maša
Maša.
velela
ordered
Pete,
Petja.
čtoby
so that
Anna
Anna.
ostalas’.
stay.
‘Mary ordered Petja that Anna should stay.’
b.
Pete
Pete.
bylo
was.
neobxodimo /
necessary
možno,
allowed
čtoby
so that
Anna
Anna.
ostalas’.
stay.
‘For Petja it was necessary/allowed that Anna would stay.’
In sentences with a matrix mandative verb or a deontic modal and an embedded non-finite clause, when an overt dative
(7)
a.
Ivank
Ivan.
skazal,
said
čto
that
Petja
Petja.
velel
ordered
[druzjam
friends.
Mašij]i
Maša.
pojti
go.
odnimi /
alone.
* odnojj /
alone.
* odnomuk.
alone.
‘Ivan said that Petja had ordered Maša’s friends to go alone.’
b.
Učitel’
teacher.
velel
ordered
Maše
Maša.
ujti,
leave.
i
and
direktor
director.
Ivanu
Ivan.
tože.
too
‘The teacher ordered Maša to leave and the director ordered Ivan to leave.’
Not available: ‘… the director ordered Ivan for Maša to leave.’
(8)
a.
Ivank
Ivan.
skazal,
said
čto
that
[druzjam
friends.
Mašij]i
Maša.
nužno /
necessary
možno
allowed
pojti
go.
odnimi /
alone.
* odnojj /
alone.
* odnomuk.
alone.
‘Ivan said that for Maša’s friends it is necessary/allowed to go alone.’
b.
Maše
Maša.
nužno /
necessary
možno
allowed
ujti,
leave.
i
and
Ivanu
Ivan.
tože.
too
‘For Maša it is necessary/allowed to leave and for Ivan it is necessary/allowed to leave.’
Not available: ‘… for Ivan it is necessary/allowed for Maša to leave.’
The properties of mandative verbs and deontic modals discussed so far are summarized in Table
Properties of sentences with a matrix mandative/deontic modal predicate.
Implicit Holder possible | Embedded | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Mandative verbs | Obligation Holder | + | Non-finite/finite subjunctive clause | Obligatory |
Deontic modals | Obligation Holder | + | Non-finite/finite subjunctive clause | Obligatory |
The following two options are potentially available to analyze the relation between the overt dative
In the next sections I will demonstrate that sentences with mandatives and deontic modals pass both tests for overt embedded subjects and obligatory control diagnostics; thus, the subject position of an embedded non-finite clause can be occupied either by a referential
There are contexts in which the dative
(9)
a.
Vrač
doctor.
velel
ordered
medsestre,
nurse.
čtoby
so that
Maša
Maša.
jela
eat.
ovošči.
vegetables
‘The doctor ordered the nurse that Maša eat vegetables.’
b.
Medsestre
nurse.
nel’zja,
not.allowed
čtoby
so that
Maša
Maša.
jela
eat.
ovošči.
vegetables
‘For the nurse it is not allowed that Maša eat vegetables.’
Second, partial coreference is allowed between the dative
(10)
a.
Ivan
Ivan.
velel
ordered
Petru
Petja.
razojtis’
disperse.
ne
pozže
later
šesti.
six
‘Ivan ordered Petja to disperse by six.’
b.
Pete
Petja.
nužno /
necessary
nado
necessary
razojtis’
disperse.
ne
pozže
later
šesti.
six
‘For Petja it is necessary to disperse by six.’
(11)
a.
Marina
Marina.
velela
ordered
Anne
Anna.
pojti
go.
vmeste
together
v
into
kino.
cinema
‘Marina ordered Anna to go to the cinema together.’
b.
Marina
Marina.
znala,
knew
čto
that
Anne
Anna.
nado /
necessary
možno
allowed
pojti
go.
vmeste
together
v
into
kino.
cinema
‘Marina knew that for Anna it is necessary/allowed to go to the cinema together.’
I follow Wurmbrand (
The
First, embedded under a mandative/deontic modal predicate, the idiom
(12)
a.
Ja
I
ne
velel
ordered
čёrnoj
black
koške
cat.
probegat’
run.
meždu
between
nimi.
them
Literally: ‘I did not order the black cat to run between them.’
Idiomatic reading available: ‘I did not order them to quarrel.’
b.
Čёrnoj
black
koške
cat.
bylo
was.
nel’zja
not.allowed
probegat’
run.
meždu
between
nimi.
them
Literally: ‘For a black cat it is not allowed to run between them.’
Idiomatic reading available: ‘It is not allowed for them to quarrel.’
c.
Ja
I
vynudil
forced
čёrnuju
black
košku
cat.
probežat’
run.
meždu
between
nimi.
them
Literally: ‘I forced a black cat to run between them.’
Idiomatic reading not available: ‘I forced them to quarrel.’
Second, sentences with a matrix mandative verb or a deontic modal and an embedded passive construction can get the same interpretation as parallel sentences with an embedded active construction. Assuming that passivization of a predicate does not result in a truth-conditional difference between the active and the passive constructions, it follows that the
(13)
a.
Direktor
director.
prikazal
ordered
mal’čiku
boy.
byt’
be.
ubitym
kill.
Voldemortom.
Voldemort.
(i) ‘The director ordered the boy that he should be killed by Voldemort.’ (≠ b)
(ii) ‘The director ordered that the boy should be killed by Voldemort.’ (= b)
b.
Direktor
director.
prikazal
ordered
Voldemortu
Voldemort.
ubit’
kill.
mal’čika.
boy.
(i) ‘The director ordered Voldemort that he should kill the boy.’ (≠ a)
(ii) ‘The director ordered that Voldemort should kill the boy.’ (= a)
c.
Mal’čiku
boy.
neobxodimo /
necessary
nado
necessary
byt’
be.
ubitym
kill.
Voldemortom.
Voldemort.
(i) ‘For the boy it is necessary that he be killed by Voldemort.’ (≠ d)
(ii) ‘It is necessary that the boy be killed by Voldemort.’ (= d)
d.
Voldemortu
Voldemort.
neobxodimo /
necessary
nado
necessary
ubit’
kill.
mal’čika.
boy.
(i) ‘For Voldemort it is necessary that he kill the boy.’ (≠ c)
(ii) ‘It is necessary that Voldemort kill the boy.’ (= c)
As further illustrated in (14), semantic equivalency under voice transformations is not allowed in case of an ordinary object control verb.
(14)
a.
Direktor
director.
zastavil
forced
mal’čika
boy.
byt’
be.
ubitym
kill.
Voldemortom.
Voldemort.
‘The director forced the boy to be killed by Voldemort.’ (≠ b)
b.
Direktor
director.
zastavil
forced
Voldemorta
Voldemort.
ubit’
kill.
mal’čika.
boy.
‘The director forced Voldemort to kill the boy.’ (≠ a)
Finally and most importantly, a dative
(15)
a.
Direktor
director.
razrešil
permitted
večerinke
party.
prodolžat’sja
continue.
do
until
polunoči.
midnight
‘The director permitted that the party continue until midnight.’
b.
Nado
necessary
stroitel’stvu
construction.
zakončit’sja
complete.
k martu.
by March
‘It is necessary for the construction to be complete by March.’
Again, as shown in (16), this property distinguishes the predicates under discussion from ordinary object control verbs.
(16)
*Direktor
director.
zastavil
forced
večerinku
party.
prodolžat’sja
continue.
do
until
polunoči.
midnight
Intended: ‘The director forced the party to continue until midnight.’
The results for these three diagnostics show that the dative
The syntactic properties of constructions with a matrix mandative/deontic modal predicate with regard to the overt embedded subject tests and the control diagnostics are summarized in Table
Overt embedded subjects vs. control diagnostics.
Embedded | Overt embedded S | Obligatory control | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mandative verbs | Non-finite, finite subjunctive | Obligatory | + | + | |
Deontic modals | Non-finite, finite subjunctive | Obligatory | + | + | |
Implicative verbs | Non-finite | Obligatory | – | + |
The data bring us to the conclusion that, while implicative verbs support only the obligatory control configuration, mandative verbs and deontic modals pattern together and embed non-finite clauses with either controlled
For instance, Barrie & Pittman (
In what follows I will consider the
To explain the distributional similarity between mandatives and deontic modals, I propose a novel analysis in terms of decomposition. I consider mandative verbs to be ditransitive verbs of communication (verbs of information transfer): an order or a permission denoted by an embedded proposition is transmitted to an obligation holder/addressee, similar to factual information; compare (17a) to (17b).
(17)
a.
Maša
Maša.
velela
ordered
Anne,
Anna.
čtoby
so that
ona
she.
pomyla
wash.
posudu.
dishes
‘Maša ordered Anna to wash the dishes.’
b.
Maša
Maša.
skazala
said
Anne,
Anna.
čto
that
Vanja
Ivan.
pomyl
washed
posudu.
dishes
‘Maša said to Anna that Ivan had washed the dishes.’
Verbs of communication are, by their nature, ditransitive predicates, for which I adopt a structural representation in line with Pylkkänen’s (
(18)
Under the assumption that mandative verbs belong to the class of communication verbs, the structure in (18) accommodates cases of an embedded finite subjunctive/non-finite clause together with a matrix
To answer these questions, I propose that mandative verbs are overt realizations of a verb of communication that embeds a proposition enclosed in a larger constituent headed by a structurally present although silent deontic modal head. I further argue that an applied object related by the applicative head to a saturated modal constituent (which, in turn, embeds a proposition) always gets interpreted as a Holder, both in root and embedded contexts, including those cases where a deontic modal phrase is embedded under a verb of communication. The ultimate structure is given in (19).
(19)
The silent modal in (19) belongs to the class of deontic modal predicates. The structure for the latter is given in (20).
(20)
I consider deontic modals to be lexical heads that require a single argument (a finite subjunctive clause or a non-finite clause with a
I further adopt Pylkkänen’s (
(21)
a.
Pjanymi
drunk.
Petei
Petja.
nel’zja,
not.allowed
čtoby
so that
Anna
Anna.
ostavalas’.
stay.
‘When Petja is drunk it is not allowed for him for Anna to stay.’
b.
Petjai
Petja.
udaril
hit
Ivanaj
Ivan.
iz-za
because.of
Borisak
Boris.
pjanymi/j/*k.
drunk.
‘When Petja was drunk he hit Ivan because of Boris.’
‘When Ivan was drunk Petja hit him because of Boris.’
Not available: ‘When Boris was drunk Petja hit Ivan because of him.’
Second, Holders can control into active gerundial constructions (22a), which is also characteristic of arguments (22b).
(22)
a.
uxodja
leaving
iz
from
doma,
house
Petei
Petja.
nel’zja,
not.allowed
čtoby
so that
Anna
Anna.
ostavalas’.
stay.
‘When Petja leaves the house, it is not allowed for him for Anna to stay.’
b.
uxodja
leaving
iz
from
doma,
house
Petjai
Petja.
opazdyval
was.late
iz-za
because.of
Annyk.
Anna.
‘When Petja was leaving the house, he was late because of Anna.’
The proposed decomposition analysis captures the distributional similarities between mandative verbs and deontic modals. The next section provides additional support for decomposing constructions with mandative verbs.
At least two properties of sentences with a matrix mandative verb that may posit a problem under a different approach are straightforwardly accounted for by the decomposition analysis presented in this paper.
The first is the possibility of ambiguous interpretations of examples with a sentential negation. Let us take a look at mandative and modal predicates in general. The fact that universal
(23)
a.
Ivan
Ivan.
ne
dolžen
must
delat’
do.
zadanije.
task.
(i) ‘Ivan does not have to do the task.’
(ii) ‘Ivan must not do the task.’
b.
Ivan
Ivan.
ne
možet
can
delat’
do.
zadanije.
task.
(i) ‘Ivan is not able to do the task.’
(ii) Not available: ‘Ivan is able not to do the task.’ *
Consider now (24), accompanied by a literal translation, which involves the mandative verb of permission
(24)
Direktor
director.
ne
razrešal
allowed
večerinke
party.
prodolžat’sja
continue.
do
till
polunoči.
midnight
Literally: ‘The director did not allow the party to continue till midnight.’
Assuming that
However, (24) has another possible interpretation unpredicted by the straightforward single-lexical-item analysis. Imagine that the director, in fact, did not say anything to the party goers; that is, he did not prohibit or permit anything specific with regard to the party. In this case, (24) is true and receives the reading ‘The director did not say that it is possible for the party to continue till midnight.’ Crucially,
As schematized in (25), there are now three potential positions for the negation to be interpreted in and only two of them are licit, as negation cannot scope under
(25)
Direktor
director.
ne
razrešal
allowed
večerinke
party.
prodolžat’sja
continue.
do
till
polunoči.
midnight
Literally: ‘The director did not allow the party to continue till midnight.’
a.
Not available: ‘According to the director, it is possible for the party not to continue till midnight.’ *
b.
Available: ‘According to the director, it is not possible for the party to continue till midnight.’
c.
Available: ‘The director did not say that it is possible for the party to continue till midnight.’
Thus, unlike the single-lexical-item analysis, the decomposition approach correctly predicts both (25b) and (25c) to be available and rules out (25a).
The second piece of support for the decomposition analysis comes from the fact that predicates denoting information transfer can be used as mandative verbs, at least in colloquial Russian. Consider the verbs in (26a): these are interpreted as ordinary verbs of communication, require an embedded finite indicative clause, and can optionally have an overt dative Goal. However, as illustrated in (26b) and (26c), they can also appear with a non-finite or a finite subjunctive embedded clause. In this case, they get a mandative (modal) interpretation and the dative
(26)
a.
Petja
Petja.
skazal /
said
napisal /
wrote
šepnul
whispered
Maše,
Maša.
čto
that
Vanja
Vanja.
ujdёt.
leave.
‘Petja said/wrote/whispered to Maša that Ivan would leave.’
b.
Petja
Petja.
skazal /
said
napisal /
wrote
šepnul
whispered
Maše
Maša.
ujti.
leave.
‘Petja said/wrote/whispered Maša to leave.’
c.
Petja
Petja.
skazal /
said
napisal /
wrote
šepnul
whispered
Maše,
Maša.
čtoby
so that
ona
she.
ušla.
leave.
‘Petja said/wrote/whispered to Maša that she should leave.’
The contrast between (26a), on the one hand, and (26b) and (26c), on the other hand, might be explained by postulating two morphologically identical lexical entries for each of the verbs of information transfer. However, encoding modality in a structurally independent modal head eradicates the conceptually unattractive lexical duplication and, at the same time, helps to explain the distribution of indicative and subjunctive mood in the embedded clause. Under the proposed analysis there is always one lexical entry for a verb of communication which denotes a simple transfer of information usually encoded in an embedded indicative clause. Only when the constituent referring to this piece of information contains a deontic modal does a mandative interpretation appear and an embedded non-finite or finite subjunctive clause becomes available. The connection between deontic modality and subjunctive mood has been thoroughly studied for many Indo-European languages, including, for instance, Romance (
The claim that silent lexical modals are attested in Russian has been independently made to account for the behavior of so called root infinitives (
(27)
a.
Maše
Maša.
Ø
necessary
[zavtra
tomorrow
rano
early
vstavat’].
wake.up.
‘Maša should wake up early tomorrow.’
b.
Mašine
car.
Ø
possible
[zdes’
here
ne
projexat].
pass.
‘The car cannot pass here.’
Considering examples similar to those in (27), one might ask if sentences with a matrix mandative predicate embed a main clause infinitive type direct speech. In other words, could (28a) be structurally parallel to (28b)?
(28)
a.
Petja
Petja.
skazal
said
Maše
Maša.
(*budet)
be.
rano
early
vstavat’.
wake.up.
‘Petja said to Maša to wake up early.’
b.
Petja
Petja.
skazal:
said
“Maše
Maša.
(budet)
be.
rano
early
vstavat’.”
wake.up.
‘Petja said: “Maša should wake up early”’.
At least three facts speak against analyzing (28a) as a structural equivalent to (28b). First, the prosody is different; in particular, direct speech is normally separated from the matrix part by a pause. Second, in the case of direct speech, a finite clause is embedded, which is visible in past/future tense when an overt copula is present. Third, direct speech requires indexical shift; thus, an embedded first person pronoun will be interpreted as referring to the logophoric center not the actual
As argued in this paper, Russian mandative verbs and deontic modals can embed non-finite clauses with covert/overt subjects. The data thus complement the known cases of
At the same time, several researchers embrace the idea that
What makes Russian different from all these cases is that the
(29)
a.
Petja
Petja.
velel
ordered
Maše
Maša.
pojti
go.
zavtra
tomorrow
vmeste
together
v
in
kino.
cinema
‘Petja ordered Maša to go to the cinema together tomorrow.’
b.
Marine
Marina.
bylo
was.
možno
allowed
pojti
go.
zavtra
tomorrow
vmeste
together
v
into
kino.
cinema
‘For Marina it was allowed to go to the cinema together tomorrow.’
c.
Direktor
director.
velel
ordered
projektu
project.
byt’
be.
zakončennym
finish.
zavtra.
tomorrow
‘The director ordered for the project to be finished tomorrow.’
d.
Bylo
was.
neobxodimo
necessary
projektu
project.
byt’
be.
zakončennym
finish.
zavtra.
tomorrow
‘It was necessary for the project to be finished tomorrow.’
Furthermore, the
The structure in (19), repeated in (30), straightforwardly represents sentences with a mandative predicate embedding a non-finite clause with a controlled
(30)
(31)
a.
Maša
Maša.
velela
ordered
Annei
Anna.
[
pomyt’
wash.
vmeste
together
posudu].
dishes.
‘Maša ordered Anna to wash the dishes together.’
b.
Maša
Maša.
velela
ordered
[proektu
project.
zakončit’sja
complete.
k
by
martu].
March
‘Maša ordered for the project to be complete by March.’
Crucially, based on the structure in (19/30) we could expect sentences with both an overt obligation holder and an overt embedded subject to be grammatical. However, it turns out that overt realization of these two dative
(32)
a.
*Maša
Maša.
velela
ordered
Anne
Anna.
[projektu
project.
zakončit’sja
complete.
k
by
Martu].
March
Intended: ‘Maša ordered Anna for the project to be complete by March.’
b.
*Anne
Anna.
nado
necessary
[projektu
project.
zakončit’sja
complete.
k
by
Martu].
March
Intended: ‘For Anna it is necessary for the project to be complete by March.’
(33)
Maša
Maša.
velela
ordered
Anne
Anna.
[Pete
Petja.
kupit’
buy.
podarki].
presents
‘Maša ordered Anna to buy presents for Petja.’ (‘Petja’ = an embedded beneficiary)
Thus, the
(34)
To account for the generalization we need to find a feature/property that will allow us to distinguish between
(35)
Following Landau’s (
(36)
a.
Maša
Maša.
velela
ordered
[
spasat’
save.
pand].
pandas.
‘Maša ordered to save pandas.’
b.
neobxodimo
necessary
[
spasat’
save.
pand].
pandas.
‘It is necessary to save pandas.’
Obligatory control between the two covert elements becomes evident when the implicit Holder refers to a specified being. Compare the basic sentence in (37a) with the test sentence in (37b).
(37)
a.
Načal’nikam
bosses.
nado,
necessary
čtoby
so that
sotrudniki
employees.
rabotali
work.
kak možno bol’še.
as much as possible
‘For the bosses it is necessary that the employees work as much as possible.’
b.
Sotrudniki
employees.
uznali,
learned
čto
that
nado
necessary
[
rabotat’
work.
kak možno bol’še].
as much as possible
(i) ‘The employees learned that for them it is necessary to work as much as possible.’
(ii) ‘… that for the bosses it is necessary to work as much as possible.’
Not available: ‘… that for the bosses it is necessary for them (the employees) to work as much as possible.’
Within the given context (37a), the bosses believe that the employees should work as much as possible, while the employees themselves may have a completely different opinion on the issue. Taking this into account and assuming that the reference of implicit Holders and covert embedded subjects is established independently, we would expect (37b) to be interpreted as ‘The employees have learned that to their bosses it is necessary that they (the employees) would work as much as possible’. This reading, however, turns out to be unavailable and in (37b) the silent Holder and the silent embedded subject must refer to the same group of people – only the bosses or only the employees. Based on these data I argue that an implicit Holder, similarly to an explicit one, is syntactically present in sentences with a covert embedded subject and, by extension, in sentences with an overt referential embedded subject.
The correlation between the availability of an overt subject in the embedded non-finite clause and the presence of a matrix Appl0 further manifests itself in sentences with a matrix epistemic modal, such as
(38)
(* Maše)
Maša.
vozmožno
possible
vstretit’
meet
znakomyx /
friends.
čto
that
Anna
Anna.
vstretit
meet.
znakomyx.
friends.
‘It is probable to meet friends/that Anna will meet her friends.’
As shown in (39), overt referential subjects are also unavailable in infinitival clauses embedded under such a predicate.
(39)
*Vozmožno
possible
stroitel’stvu
construction.
zakončit’sja
complete.
k
by
martu.
March
Intended: ‘It is possible that the construction will be complete by March.’
This can easily be accounted for by the present analysis: no applicative head is projected in the matrix clause with an epistemic modal and there is no accessible external source for Case that would be able to license the embedded overt
Returning to the proposed Case licensing analysis, I argue that Case assignment happens by establishing a long-distance cross-clausal A-dependency between Appl0 and the embedded subject (
The dative
First, licensing of negative concord items (
(40)
a.
*Nikto
nobody.
velel
ordered
Ivanu
Ivan.
ne
prixodit’.
come.
Intended: ‘Nobody ordered Ivan not to come.’
b.
*Dlja
for
nikogo
nobody.
nužno
necessary
ne
prixodit’.
come.
Intended: ‘For nobody it is necessary not to come.’
However, in sentences with a matrix mandative/deontic modal predicate, a dative
(41)
a.
Ivan
Ivan.
velel
ordered
nikomu
nobody.
ne
prixodit’.
come.
‘Ivan ordered that nobody would come.’
b.
Nado
necessary
nikomu
nobody.
ne
prixodit’.
come.
‘It is necessary that nobody come.’
In sentences similar to (41), there must be a negation in the subordinate clause; it is this embedded negation that licenses an
(42)
*Ivan
Ivan.
vynudil
forced
nikogo
nobody.
ne
prixodit’.
come.
Intended: ‘Ivan forced nobody to come.’
It is not an easy task to demonstrate that an
(43)
a.
Xoloda
cold.weather.
mogut
can.
ne
isportit’
damage.
posevy.
crops.
‘It is possible for cold weather not to damage crops.’
b.
Xoloda
cold.weather.
ne
mogut
can.
isportit’
damage.
posevy.
crops.
‘It is not possible for cold weather to damage crops.’
The lower negation can license a negative concord item in the lower structural position; however, it cannot license the subject, which, according to Stepanov (
(44)
a.
Xoloda
cold.weather.pl.
mogut
can.
ne
isportit’
damage.
ničego.
nothing.
‘It is possible for cold weather not to damage anything.’
b.
*Ničto
nothing.
možet
can.
ne
isportit’
damage.
posevy.
crops.
Intended: ‘It is possible for anything not to damage crops.’
I argue that this behavior supports the claim that a negative concord item cannot undergo A-movement out of its local licensing domain.
Second, let us consider the positioning of various adjuncts modifying matrix and embedded events. In Russian, relatively unrestricted adjunct scrambling is attested within a clause (45a), even though adjunct movement across a clausal boundary is allowed only to a focus/topic position at the left periphery (45b) (
(45)
a.
(včera)
yesterday
Maša
Maša.
(včera)
yesterday
pročitala
read.
(včera)
yesterday
etu
this
knigu
book.
(včera).
yesterday
‘Maša read this book yesterday.’
b.
(
tomorrow
Maša
Maša.
(*zavtra)
tomorrow
zastavila
forced
(* zavtra)
tomorrow
Petju
Petja.
[(zavtra)
tomorrow
poexat’]
go.
‘Maša forced Petja to go there tomorrow.’
In sentences with a matrix mandative/deontic modal predicate and an embedded non-finite clause, an adjunct inserted between a
(46)
a.
Maša
Maša.
velit
order.
projektu
project.
v ponedel’nik
on Monday
byt’
be.
zakončennym.
finish.
‘Maša will order that the project be finished on Monday.’
Not available: ‘On Monday Maša will order that the project be finished.’
b.
Nužno /
necessary
nado
necessary
bylo
was.
rane
wound.
ešče
already
včera
yesterday
zažit’.
heal.
‘It was necessary that the wound would have healed already yesterday.’
Not available: ‘Already yesterday it was necessary that the wound would heal.’
In contrast, if the dative
(47)
a.
Maša
Maša.
velit
order.
Pete
Petja.
v ponedel’nik
on Monday
pomyt’
wash.
posudu.
dishes
(i) ‘Maša will order Petja to wash the dishes on Monday.’
(ii) ‘On Monday Maša will order Petja to wash the dishes.’
b.
Nado
necessary
bylo
was.
Pete
Petja.
včera
yesterday
zakončit’
finish.
projekt.
project.
(i) ‘Yesterday, for Petja it was necessary to finish the project.’
(ii) ‘For Petja it was necessary to finish the project yesterday.’
(48)
a.
Maša
Maša.
velit
order.
v ponedel’nik
on Monday
projektu
project.
byt’
be.
zakončennym.
finish.
(i) ‘Maša will order that the project be finished on Monday.’
(ii) ‘On Monday Maša will order that the project be finished.’
b.
Nužno /
necessary
nado
necessary
bylo
was
ešče
already
včera
yesterday
rane
wound.
zažit’.
heal.
(i) ‘It was necessary that the wound would have healed already yesterday.’
(ii) ‘Already yesterday it was necessary that the wound would heal.’
Taking these data into account, I conclude that the dative
As argued in the previous subsection, overt embedded subjects in the sentences under discussion do not undergo A-movement to a matrix position. Furthermore, they appear to stay relatively low within the embedded clause, presumably in Spec,
(49)
%Neobxodimo
necessary
[k
by
martu-to
March-
sroitel’stvu
construction.
(*k
by
martu-to)
March-
zakončit’sja]?
complete.
‘As for the construction, is it important for it to be complete by March?’
In such cases, the overt embedded subject can still get licensed by the matrix Appl0; to account for this I propose that long-distance Case assignment proceeds across the clausal boundary. Cases of cross-clausal A-dependencies have been argued to exist in several other languages, including, for instance, hyper raising in Brazilian Portuguese (
To overcome the apparent violation of the Phase Impenetrability Condition (
The idea of cyclic Case assignment is straightforward: instead of postulating direct feature sharing between a matrix head and the embedded
(50)
I assume that a non-finite C0 can participate in Case licensing; see similar ideas that C0 exhibits both A-bar and A properties put forward in Landau’s (
This assumption leaves open the following question: How could such an operation be restricted? One possible answer is that long-distance Case licensing is restricted by interfering factors unrelated to the status of C0. For example, under the proposed analysis, a free Case must be available for long-distance Case licensing to happen. Thus, if Case is always taken by a matrix argument that cannot be a φP, we expect it to be impossible for an overt embedded subject to get licensed. This is what happens in sentences with a matrix implicative verb, such as
(51)
*Direktor
director.
zastavil
forced
[večerinku
party.
prodolžat’sja
continue.
do
until
polunoči].
midnight
Intended: ‘The director forced the party to continue until midnight.’
Implicatives differ from mandatives in that they do not necessarily involve an act of direct communication and do not entail deontic modality; thus, the proposed decompositional analysis is not applicable to them. Instead, I adopt Landau’s (
(52)
A detailed discussion of the structure lies beyond the limits of this paper; however, the following property is crucial. As shown in (53), implicatives prohibit covert φP controllers, which can be explained by adopting Landau’s (
(53)
Direktor
director.
zastavil
forced
*(Mašui)
Maša.
[
ujti].
leave.
‘The director forced Maša to leave.’
As a
In this section I will expand the data-set by presenting two constructions that allow a kind of
As mentioned in Section 4.2, in main clause infinitives a non-finite clause combines with a dative
(54)
a.
Maše
Maša.
(budet)
be.
rano
early
vstavat’.
wake.up.
‘Maša should/will have to wake up early.’
b.
Pete
Petja.
bylo
existed
ne
rešit’
solve.
ètu
this
zadaču.
task.
‘Petja could not solve this task.’
There is an ongoing debate on whether a control relation is established between the dative
On the one hand, main clause infinitives exhibit a crucial obligatory control property: partial coreference between the dative
(55)
Petja
Petja.
sčitaet,
believes
čto
that
Mašei
Maše.
ne
pojti
go.
vmeste
together
v
into
kino.
cinema
‘Petja believes that Maša cannot go to the cinema together.’
On the other hand, the construction shows positive results for the overt embedded subject diagnostics, such as the non-sentience test (56); see Jung (
(56)
Petja
Petja.
sčitaet,
believes
čto
that
gruzovikam
trucks.
zdes’
here
ne
projexat’.
pass.
‘Petja believes that the trucks cannot pass here.’
A detailed examination of all the peculiar properties of this construction is beyond the limits of this paper, and, for the present discussion, it suffices to conclude that main clause infinitives allow the
Furthermore, main clause infinitives fall under the proposed generalization (34): the matrix dative
(57)
*Pete
Petja.
bylo
was
gruzovikam
trucks.
ne
projexat’.
pass
Intended: ‘For Petja for the trucks it was impossible to pass.’
Building upon Fleisher (
(58)
I argue that the traditional descriptions should further be revised to account for the possibility, illustrated in (56), of an overt embedded subject being licensed by the higher functional head when the matrix participant is an implicit φP, as schematized in (59).
(59)
As in the case of sentences with a matrix mandative/deontic modal predicate and an embedded non-finite clause, the Case assignment analysis might be not the only way to account for the control vs. no control ambiguity of main clause infinitives. However, the proposed approach straightforwardly captures the relevant properties noted by the two competitive lines of research.
Cases of
(60)
a.
János-nak
János-
fontos /
important
kellemetlen
unpleasant
[megjelen-ni(-?e)
appear-
az
ünnepélyen].
ceremony.at
‘It is important/unpleasant for János to appear at the ceremony.
b.
János-nak
John-
fontos /
important
kellemetlen
unpleasant
(az),
(it)
[hogy
that
Kati
Kate
későn
late
érkezett].
arrived
‘It is important/unpleasant for John that Kate arrived late.’
Furthermore, the embedded subject position can also be occupied by an overt referential
(61)
Fontos
important
volt
was
[a
szög-nek
nail-
ki-búj-ni(-?a)
out-get-
a
the
zsákból].
bag.in
Literally: ‘It was important for the nail to get out of the bag.’
Idiomatic: ‘It was important for the truth to be revealed.’
Although further examination of the constructions is required, the availability of overt/covert subjects does not appear to correlate with the feature specification of an embedded non-finite clause.
(62)
The subject position of an embedded non-finite clause can be occupied either by
(63)
a.
*János-nak
János-
kellemetlen
unpleasant
[Péter-nek
Péter-
ilyet
such.
kér-ni(-e)].
ask-
Intended: ‘It is unpleasant for János for Péter to ask such a thing.’
b.
*János-nak
János-
fontos
important
volt
was
[a
szög-nek
nail-
ki-bújni(-a)
out-get-
a
the
zsákból].
bag.in
Intended: ‘It was important for János for the truth to be revealed.’
I suggest that a Case licensing analysis similar to the one developed for Russian can account for the Hungarian puzzle as well: the Holder and the embedded subject get licensed by the same functional head, namely, the matrix Appl0. There remain many questions about particular properties of the Hungarian sentences that I have not touched upon in this brief discussion; further investigation of the parallels between Russian, Hungarian, and (potentially) other languages will contribute to the discussion of distribution and licensing of nominal elements.
This paper has focused on mandative verbs and deontic modals in Russian and presented two previously unnoticed puzzles: first, the syntactic distribution of these two groups of predicates is almost identical and, second, they support both obligatory control and an ECM-type configuration, embedding non-finite clauses with
To account for the first puzzle, I developed a single analysis arguing that constructions with a matrix mandative verb should be syntactically decomposed: mandative verbs are, essentially, lexical realizations of a verb of communication that embeds a silent deontic modal head. The data under consideration open the door to further investigation of functional vs. lexical and overt vs. covert modal items.
As for the second puzzle, the reported
I argued that the Case licensing approach (
An alternative for the
Wurmbrand (
The term
(i)
a.
John forced Bill to wash the dishes. (#but Bill didn’t)
b.
John made Bill wash the dishes. (#but Bill didn’t)
c.
John ordered Bill to wash the dishes. (but Bill didn’t)
As demonstrated in this paper, implicatives do not pass raising tests and should be considered control predicates; the structure of such constructions is discussed in more detail in Section 5, where I follow Landau (
All examples presented in the paper were elicited with 10 native speakers of Russian (25–35 y.o.).
In this paper, I am using the term “ECM” for purely classificatory purposes. As was initially proposed by Chomsky (
Adopting the Distributed Morphology framework, I assume that lexical choice happens post-syntactically, presumably after movement of the deontic modal head to the communication head.
The paper does not consider predicates that co-occur with a dative
(i) a. Mašai Maša. obeščala promised Petek Petja. [ sdat’ pass. ekzamen]. exam. ‘Maša promised Petja that she/he would pass the exam.’ b. Maryi promised Peterk [ c. Maryi promised Peterk [
The peculiar properties of
Adjectival modals are morphologically identical to the
(i) a. Soobščenije message. bylo was. nužnoje / necessary. nužno. necessary. ‘The message was necessary.’ b. Prišlo arrived nužnoje / necessary. *nužno necessary. soobščenije. message. ‘A necessary message arrived.’
I follow Bonch-Osmolovskaja (
I follow Landau (
This property distinguishes Russian deontic modals from modals found, for instance, in many Germanic languages that can only co-occur with a non-finite lexical predicate (
In sentences similar to (9), the matrix dative
Another commonly used diagnostic – insertion of an expletive pronoun – cannot be applied since there are no overt expletive pronouns in Russian. See Franks (
Another idiom that can be used for this test is
(i) V in takoj such semje family nel’zja not.allowed jabloku apple. padat’ fall. nedaleko close ot from jabloni. apple tree Idiomatic reading available: ‘In such a family the children should not be like their parents.’
Barrie & Pittman (
(i)
a.
Ivan ordered/commanded/permitted there to be fruit available at the reception.
b.
Ivan ordered/permitted/commanded tabs to be kept on Kenji.
c.
The chief medical officer ordered an ophthalmologist to examine the patient.
= The chief medical officer ordered the patient to be examined by an ophthalmologist.
An alternative approach to ditransitive predicates is the Small Clause analysis: the dative Goal is considered a
(i)
[vP Subject [v’ v0 [
As for now, I refrain from entering into a detailed discussion of verbs of communication in Russian in general and I consider both analyses viable. For the sake of simplicity, in this paper I adopt an applicative analysis and Pylkkänen’s basic semantics and represent the functional head that relates a Goal/Holder and an embedded clause as Appl0.
Given the structures for verbs of communication and deontic modals, one might expect that the combination of the two would result in a construction with simultaneously present referentially different Goal and Obligation Holder; however, sentences similar to (i) are unacceptable for all native speakers of Russian.
(i) *Vrač doctor. skazal said Pete Petja. medsestrei nurse. [ dat’ give. Maše Maša. lekarstvo]. medicine. Intended: ‘The doctor said to Petja that for the nurse it is necessary to give Maša the medicine.’
I assume that such examples are ruled out because of an independent restriction on recursion: an applicative phrase cannot be selected as the complement of another applicative head. The precise nature of this restriction remains to be further investigated (
(ii) *Ivan Ivan. Maše Maša. Petru Petja. razbil broke vazu. vase. Intended: ‘Ivan broke Petja’s vase for Maša.’
To introduce both a Goal and an obligation holder additional layers should be inserted between the two applicative phrases: for example, a modal part can be embedded within a finite clause (iii) or introduced as direct speech.
(iii) Vrač doctor. skazal said Pete, Petja. čto that medsestre nurse. nužno necessary dat’ give. Maše Maša. lekarstvo. medicine. ‘The doctor said to Petja that for the nurse it is necessary to give Maša the medicine.’
As suggested by Meltzer-Asscher (
It might be suggested instead that Holders are merged as lower internal arguments in the Spec, ModP; for instance, a dyadic unaccusative approach has been adopted by Baker (
The proposed analysis is built upon the idea of the Null Case assigning non-finite T0/C0. It has been argued, however, that in Russian a proper structural subject case is assigned within non-finite clauses. Support for this claim usually comes from the availability of dative-marked embedded subject-oriented semi-predicatives (
(i) Petja Petja. rešil decided sdelat’ do. *odnomu / alone. samomu himself. zadanije. task. ‘Petja decided to do the task alone/himself.’
The most popular account for these data is developed along the following line: the antecedent for a subject oriented semi-predicative embedded in a non-finite clause is the silent
The data turn out to be more complex, and there are, clearly, other factors yet to be examined that influence speakers’ judgments and lead to apparent inconsistency of evaluations (consider, for instance, the difference between
(ii) Petja Petja. rešil decided ne prixodit’ come. bol’še anymore pjanym / drunk. pjanyj / drunk. * pjanomu drunk. domoj. home ‘Petja decided not to come home drunk anymore.’
Madariaga (
The analysis relies on the idea that downward Head-Spec Case assignment is available in Russian together with the Spec-Head one. Within the minimalist theory, this discrepancy is well-known in languages where ECM-type phenomena are attested. Within a more recent Agree framework (
The distance of Case licensing in Russian is discussed in the next section.
I assume that multiple Case assignment to
A mechanism of multiple “Case agreement” by a single functional head has been adopted by Bailyn (
(i) a. Petja Petja. prišel came pjanyj. drunk. ‘Petja came drunk.’ b. Petja Petja. uvidel saw Vasju Vasja. trezvogo. sober. ‘Petja saw Vasja when Vasja was sober.’
Note, however, that the authors themselves consider secondary predicates to be adjuncts on the clausal spine related to an antecedent
The idea that pronouns come in different sizes can be traced back to Cardinaletti (
Landau (
(i) a. *(Nami) we. samim po sebe ourselves/themselves nado necessary [ spasat’ save. pand] pandas. Only: ‘It is necessary for us ourselves to save pandas.’ b. Pjanymii drunk. *(nami) we. neobxodimo necessary [ vernut’sja return. domoj home kak možno ran’še]. as soon as possible Only: ‘Drunk, it is important for us to return home as soon as possible.’
This behavior of implicit Holders suggests that they are, in Landau’s (
This does not imply that the embedded subject cannot move at all; for example, it can undergo A-bar movement under topicalization, etc. What I argue for throughout this paper is that, for Russian, there is no evidence for obligatory subject-to-subject/object raising and that the embedded subject does not have to end up in a matrix A-position.
See Bobaljik & Wurmbrand (
Fleisher’s (
That the covert embedded subject is
(i) János-nak János- fontos important megjelen-ni appear- az ünnepélyen, ceremony.at és and Mari-nak Mari- is. too Only: ‘For János it is important to appear at the ceremony and for Mari it is also important that she will appear at the ceremony.’
Rákosi (
I am grateful to Marcel den Dikken, Krisztina Szécsényi, Maria Polinsky, Éva Dékány, and Mark Newson for their invaluable feedback on earlier versions of the proposal. My special thanks go to the audiences at FASL28 and the DGfS41 workshop “Cross-linguistic variation in control phenomena” and to the reviewers for their comments and suggestions. I would also like to thank my Russian and Hungarian consultants for their judgments. All errors are mine.
The author has no competing interests to declare.