Retour vers liste

Détail de la contribution

Auteur: Genoveva PUSKAS

Co-Auteur(s): Lena BAUNAZ, Université de Genève, Suisse Tomislav SOCANAC, Université de Genève, Suisse

Titre:
The left periphery of non-indicative clauses: a cross-linguistic study


Abstract/Résumé: In the literature, there is little agreement as to what constitutes subjunctive cross-linguistically and inside one given language. In this talk, we argue that, independently of the morphological marking, the subjunctive-infinitive distinctions are irrelevant, and the various properties associated with one or the other are the result of a scale in the size of the embedded clause. We also claim that the size depends on different verb classes. We use different verb types which, cross-linguistically, exhibit remarkably similar properties in their embedded clauses : (i) directives: a) license left-peripheral movement (topic, focus); b) select an embedded complement in which the predicate is restricted to a (future-referring) temporal interval; c) exhibit obligatory obviation; d) exhibit imperative-like properties. (ii) desideratives/purposives: a) license left-peripheral movement (topic, focus); b) select an embedded complement in which the predicate is restricted to a (future-referring) temporal interval; c) exhibit optional control; d) have no imperative-like properties. (iii) modals: a) exhibit restricted left-peripheral movement (topic is out, focus is marginal); b) select an embedded complement in which the predicate is restricted to a (future-referring) temporal interval; c) exhibit obligatory control; d) have no imperative-like properties. (iv) implicatives/aspectuals: a) ban left-peripheral movement; b) select embedded complements in which the predicate is restricted to simultaneous reading (see Wurmbrand 2007); c) exhibit obligatory control; d) have no imperative-like properties. We interpret the observations above as indications of structural differences. The four classes of verbs above select clauses with different properties. We assume that each property is encoded in a functional head in a strict syntax-semantic mapping in the clause (Cinque 1999 a.o). Therefore, we propose that the presence/absence of a property directly affects the size of the clause: non-indicative clauses across languages have different structures, with a more or less truncated left periphery determined by the matrix predicate. We conclude that all non-indicative complements can be analyzed in a unified way, despite their semantic diversity, if we do not view subjunctive as a closed mood category with a rigid meaning but view it instead in terms of a continuum, subsuming various subjunctive type and infinitive type complements. • Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP. • Wurmbrand, S. 2007. “Infinitives are Tenseless”. U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 13.1, 200.