Anna-Lena Wiklund, The Syntax of Tenslessness. Tense, Mood, Aspect - Agreeing Infinitivals

The Syntax of Tenselessness
Studies in Generative Grammar 92

Editors
Jan Koster
Harry van der Hulst
Henk van Riemsdijk
Mouton de Gruyter
Berlin New York
The Syntax of Tenselessness
Tense/Mood/Aspect-agreeing Infinitivals
by
Anna-Lena Wiklund
Mouton de Gruyter
Berlin New York
Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague)
is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin.
The series Studies in Generative Grammar was formerly published by
Foris Publications Holland.
Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines
of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Wiklund, Anna-Lena.
The syntax of tenselessness : tense/mood/aspect-agreeing infinitivals /
by Anna-Lena Wiklund
p. cm. (Studies in generative grammar ; 92)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-3-11-019043-4
1. Swedish language Verb. 2. Swedish language Tense.
I. Title.
PD5301.W55 2007
439.75162dc22
2006039481
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
ISBN 978-3-11-019043-4
ISSN 0167-4331
Copyright 2007 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin.
All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this
book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission
in writing from the publisher.
Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin.
Printed in Germany.
This book is dedicated to my innite source of inspiration, Tycho.
Acknowledgements
This book is a slightly revised version of my doctoral dissertation. I am in-
debted to Jan-Wouter Zwart for suggesting that I submit my work for publi-
cation and for insightful comments and discussion.
I take the opportunity to reiterate my thanks to everyone who have sup-
ported me during my thesis writing. I owe special thanks to Grel Sandstrm
and Michal Starke for scrutinizing my work both contentwise and formwise.
Helpful discussions with these two persons have had a great inuence on the
material that has resulted in this book. I wish to thank Lars-Olof Delsing and
Anders Holmberg for valuable comments and suggestions at various stages
in my work with this book. For helpful comments on an early outline, I thank
Idan Landau. I am indebted to Gillian Ramchand for reading and commenting
on an earlier version of Chaper 6. Needless to say, none of the above persons
can be held responsible for any shortcomings.
I am grateful to many fellow linguists and friends for inspiring discus-
sions, fruitful comments, and native language intuitions. To mention but a
few: Mark Baltin, Kristine Bentzen, Marcel den Dikken, Elisabet Engdahl,
Vivienne Fong, Stephanie Harves, orbjrg Hrarsdttir, Aniek IJbema, Jg-
van Lon Jacobsen, Gunlg Josefsson, Marit Julien, Richard Kayne, Martha
Larson, Thomas Leu, Line Mikkelsen, Max Muzi, Gunnar Nystrm, Hjalmar
Pll Petersen, Carmen Picallo, Christer Platzack, Halldr rmann Sigurs-
son, Peter Svenonius, Anna Szabolcsi, Knut Tarald Taraldsen, Bo Westling,
Mikael Vinka, Hedde Zeijlstra, Mark de Vos, and an anonymous reviewer
(who later became onymous, thank you).
Parts of this work were presented at the Workshop Syntactic Doubling in
European Dialects, Meertens Institute, Amsterdam, Department of Linguis-
tics/CASTL, University of Troms, Dpartement de Linguistique, Universit
de Genve, Institutionen fr nordiska sprk, Lunds Universitet. I thank the
audiences there for fruitful comments.
Jag r ondligt tacksam fr all hjlp och all uppmuntran jag ftt under
de mest hektiska mnaderna i mitt arbete med denna bok frn mina frl-
drar Hkan och Birgitta, mina brder Lars och Hans och sist men inte minst
Gunnar Hrafn som ocks hjlpt mig med bokens formatering.
Jag vill ocks tacka Tycho fr vlbehvda pauser frn skrivbordet. Den
hr boken r till dig.
Contents
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1 TMA-copying constructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Participle copying constructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3 Pseudocoordinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4 Overview of book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2 Properties of TMA-copying and participle copying . . . . . . 15
1 TMA-copying does not involve coordination . . . . . . . . . 16
2 TMA-copied morphology is vacuous . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3 Participle copied morphology is vacuous . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.1 Participle copying can not be reduced to ha-drop . . . . . . . 20
3.2 Copied participles are not counterfactuals . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4 Copying is top-down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5 Copying is not phonological . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6 Copying is local . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.1 Relativized minimality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.2 Copying is island sensitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.2.1 Non-canonical complements and adjuncts . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.2.2 Subject innitivals and extraposed innitivals . . . . . . . . . 29
6.2.3 Subparts of complements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7 Copying survives movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3 Copying and tense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1 Properties of innitival complements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1.1 Tensedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
1.2 Propositionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1.3 Factivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
1.4 Raising, ECM, subject-, object control . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
1.5 Non-bare vs. bare innitivals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2 Innitivals in Swedish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.1 The pst/anse class [+Tns, +Prop, Su/ObC, +B] . . . . . 44
2.2 The skmmas ver class [+Tns, +Fact, +SuC, B] . . . . . 46
2.3 The frvnta class [+Tns, Prop, Fact, Su/ObC, +B] . . 47
2.4 The besluta class [+Tns, Prop, Fact, +SuC, B] . . . . . 47
x Contents
2.5 The vertala class [+Tns, Prop, Fact, +ObC, B] . . . . 48
2.6 The sluta/kunna class [Tns, +Rais, +/B] . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.7 The f/lta class [Tns, +ECM, +/B] . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.8 The glmma/tras class [Tns, +SuC, +/B] . . . . . . . . . 54
2.9 The hjlpa/lta class [Tns, +ObC, +/B] . . . . . . . . . . 56
3 Copying is restricted to tenseless innitivals . . . . . . . . . . 57
4 Predictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5 Apparent counterexamples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.1 Desideratives the vilja class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.2 Absence of copying the se class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.3 Partial copying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4 Copying as a restructuring effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
1 The C-domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
1.1 The complementizer att . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
1.2 The complementizer o(ch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
1.3 Copying C-features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2 The T-domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2.1 Copying T-features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
2.2 T-Adverbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
3 The Asp-domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4 The structure of copying innitivals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.1 The copying dependency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.2 Desideratives revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.3 Perception verbs revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.4 Partial copying revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5 Copying is a restructuring effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
5.1 Restructuring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
5.2 Arguments in favour of restructuring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.3 Restructuring is not restricted to mono-clausal congurations . 89
6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5 Pseudocoordination is TMA-copying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
1 Towards a unied analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
1.1 Aspectual properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
1.2 Inectional forms shared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
1.3 T-adverbs are impossible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
2 Properties of pseudocoordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Contents xi
2.1 Restricted set of verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
2.2 Prosody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
2.3 Anaphoric reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
2.4 Non-islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
2.5 Commutativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
2.6 One overt subject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
2.7 Negation placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
2.8 Adverb placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
2.9 The linking element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
3 Intermediate conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
4 Vacuous inection innitival counterparts . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.1 Progressive pseudocoordinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.2 Inceptive pseudocoordinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
5 Restrictions on copying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
5.1 Top-down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
5.2 Locality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
5.3 Tense sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
6 Pseudocoordinating verbs are light verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
1 Semantic classication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
1.1 The progressive reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
1.2 The inceptive reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
1.3 The distal reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
1.4 Classication arrived at . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
2 Pseudocoordinating verbs and event structure . . . . . . . . . 129
2.1 The lightness of the matrix verb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
2.2 Event structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
3 Posture verbs in progressive pseudocoordination . . . . . . . . 134
3.1 Simple position (locative) vs. maintain position SIT . . . . . . 135
3.2 Progressive pseudocoordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
3.3 Bleaching manner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
4 Posture verbs in inceptive pseudocoordination . . . . . . . . . 142
4.1 Assume position vs. transitive causative SIT . . . . . . . . . . 142
4.2 Inceptive pseudocoordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
4.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
5 Intermediate conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
xii Contents
6 Pseudocoordinating verbs as light verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
6.1 Light verbs do not coordinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
6.2 Coordination pseudocoordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
7 Copying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
1 Copying as Agree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
2 Restructuring revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
3 Unvalued functional heads do not license modiers . . . . . . 165
4 O(ch)- vs. att-innitivals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
8 The syntax of tenselessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
1 Tenselessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
1.1 Tenselessness does not imply absence of T . . . . . . . . . . . 178
1.2 Two types of tenseless T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
2 A typology of tenseless innitivals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Appendix I: Less clear-cut cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Appendix II: Copying in Scandinavian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Appendix III: Selectional restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Appendix IV: Spelling out copied inection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
Chapter 1
Introduction
This book investigates the construction-types exemplied by the Swedish
sentences (1a-c) below.
(1) a. Han
he
frskte
try.PAST
o
&
skrev
write.PAST
ett
a
brev.
letter
He tried to write a letter.
b. Han
he
hade
had
kunnat
can.PPC
skrivit.
write.PPC
He had been able to write.
c. Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
o
&
skrev
write.PAST
dikter.
poem.PL
He was writing poems (in a sitting position).
The above sentences share three basic properties. First, the verbs involved dis-
play identical inectional morphology. The morphology on the second verb
depends on that of the rst, and as is evident from the translation, it appears
not to have the same semantic properties as the inection on the rst verb. I
will pretheoretically refer to this phenomenon as copying. Secondly, only one
overt subject is licensed, restricted to the matrix clause. Less evident from the
surface appearance is the third property; the class of rst (matrix) verbs that
may participate in these constructions is restricted.
Despite these similarities, (1a-c) also differ with respect to three proper-
ties. (1a) and (1b) differ from (1c) in alternating with innitival constructions;
i.e. the second verb may be replaced by an innitival form of the verb. (1b)
differs from (1a) and (1c) in two ways. First, copying in (1b) is restricted to
the past participial form, contrasting with copying in (1a) and (1c), where
also the present, past, and imperative forms can copy. Secondly, whereas the
verbs sharing inection in (1a) and (1c) are separated by an element o(ch)
(homophonous to the conjunction element och and), this element may not
appear in (1b).
The above differences would appear to justify analyzing (1a-c) as exempli-
fying three different phenomena, a common claim in the literature. To give a
few examples, Josefsson (1991) claims that sentences like (1c) exemplify VP-
coordinations. de Vos (2005) proposes that the English counterpart of (1c)
2 Introduction
Table 1. Copying constructions
Innitival alt. Copy all forms Linking element
1a + + +
1b +
1c + +
exemplies a complex head, contrasting with the English try & V construc-
tion (they try and read), related to (1a), which is taken to involve a special
type of innitival complementation. Wiklund (1996), following the approach
of Anward (1988) to (1c) and (1b), is an early attempt to unify all three under
a subordination/agreement approach, whereas Julien (2003) argues that (1b)
is unrelated to (1a) and (1c) and involves an expression of counterfactuality.
The main claim of the present book is that the three copying constructions
exemplied in (1) instantiate three surface variants of one and the same phe-
nomenon. They all involve involve complementation and semantically vac-
uous tense/mood/aspect inection on the embedded verb(s). Thus, they all
merit the label of Tense/Mood/Aspect-agreeing innitivals. To distinguish be-
tween them, I will use the following labels:
TMA-copying constructions (TMA: Tense/Mood/Aspect) (1a)
Participle copying constructions (1b)
Pseudocoordinations (1c)
The differences between these will be argued to be derivable from indepen-
dent factors. (1a) and (1c) will be shown to differ from (1b) with respect to
amount of functional structure present in the embedded clause. Matrix verbs
in (1c) will be shown to involve light verb uses of otherwise lexical verbs.
Copying, I will argue, is a surface reection of (Agree-type) dependen-
cies between functional heads of the same label; features of the embedded
functional heads copy values from the corresponding functional heads in the
matrix clause. The possibility of copying a particular morphosyntactic form
is thus contingent on the presence of the corresponding functional projection
in the embedded clause.
I will claim that the relevant innitivals involve subtypes of tenseless in-
nitivals (innitivals whose tense orientation fully overlaps with that of the
matrix clause), characterized by an underspecied functional domain. Argu-
ments in favour of taking all agreeing innitivals to involve restructuring will
TMA-copying constructions 3
be presented. The principal arguments are based on their distribution and ev-
idence of deciency in the functional domain of the innitival. The set of re-
structuring verbs and the set of copying verbs are identical. Both phenomena
display tense sensitivity. Neither restructuring nor copying turn up in nite
environments. Agreeing innitivals, just like restructuring innitivals, show
a limitation in capability of licensing sentential adverbs (and other material)
in both clauses. It will be argued that the facts regarding copying suggest that
restructuring may involve bi-clausal congurations (even two CPs) and that
the category selected by the matrix verb may remain constant regardless of
whether restructuring is present or not.
I will put forth the hypothesis that agreeing innitivals differ from the cor-
responding standard innitivals in being subject to external valuation (from
the matrix functional domain). If this is correct, an important aspect of (possi-
bility of) restructuring is alternation between unmarked (negatively specied)
features and unvalued varieties of the same features, capturing properties such
as nitelessness, tenselessness, etc., of restructuring innitivals. I will be
led to conclude that there are three ways of being tenseless (or niteless, etc.):
(i) the relevant domain (the T-domain in case of tenselessness) is missing; (ii)
the domain is externally valued (tense restructuring); the domain is internally
valued (no tense restructuring).
This book offers a detailed case study of agreeing innitivals in Swedish
and although other languages displaying the phenomenon are not discussed
in detail, the spirit of the present work is that the crucial properties extend to
these as well. An overview of the distribution of copying in the other Scan-
dinavian languages is provided in Appendix II. Below, the three construction
types are introduced in more detail, followed by a brief overview of the book.
1. TMA-copying constructions
In variants of spoken Swedish, verbs like brja start, sluta stop, and fort-
stta continue participate in a construction type characterized by what looks
like spreading of inectional morphology:
(2) a. Han
he
brjar
start.PRES
o
&
skriver
write.PRES
dikter.
poem.PL
He starts writing poems.
b. Han
he
brjade
start.PAST
o
&
skrev
write.PAST
dikter.
poem.PL
He started writing poems.
4 Introduction
c. Brja
start.IMP
o
&
skriv
write.IMP
dikter!
poem.PL
Start writing poems!
d. Han
he
hade
had
brjat
start.PPC
o
&
skrivit
write.PPC
dikter.
poem.PL
He had started writing poems.
e. Han
he
skulle
would
brja
start.INF
o
&
skriva
write.INF
dikter.
poem.PL
He would start writing poems.
Use of the construction type is widespread, found in northern as well as in
southern parts of Sweden. The full range of verbal forms may copy. (2a)
illustrates copying of the present tense (PRES), (2b) the past tense (PAST),
(2c) the imperative mood (IMP), and (2d) the past participle (PPC).
1
Verbs
do not inect for person and number in Swedish.
2
Since we can not tell a
(vacuously) copied innitival form (INF), (2e), from its standard innitival
counterpart, we disregard the potential existence of innitival copying for
now.
This construction has never been investigated in detail. It is often men-
tioned in passing as related to or belonging to pseudocoordination (Teleman
1976; Josefsson 1991; Wiklund 1996; Teleman et al. 1999), see 3 below. In
Teleman et al. (1999) different TMA-forms are discussed in separate sections
and are partially treated as separate phenomena. It is suggested that examples
like (2a-e) can be treated as pseudocoordination (pseudosamordning), which
is taken to be a special type of coordination (Teleman et al. 1999: III; 902-
909). However, in the absence of the element o, examples like (2c) and (2d)
are referred to as double imperatives (dubbelimperativ) and double participles
(dubbelsupinum), respectively (Teleman et al. 1999: IV; 707-709; 273-274).
3
I will here refer to the phenomenon as TMA-copying, where TMA stands
for tense (present and past), mood (imperative), and aspect (perfect, in this
case the participial form of the main verb in the perfect construction).
TMA-copying is subject to some variation. Part of the variation concerns
the class of verbs that may copy, another part concerns forms that may copy.
Since the construction type has not been studied in detail before, we will for
the most part not be concerned with this variation here. TMA-copying data
are based on my own intuition (Jmtland Swedish) and consultations with
speakers that are from the same area or from Vsterbotten. I refer the reader
to Hagren (2005) for a preliminary picture of the geographic distribution of
the phenomenon.
TMA-copying constructions 5
Despite the presence of tense morphology, the second clause in the TMA-
copying construction is unable to license an overt subject:
4
(3) Lars
Lars
brjade
start.PAST
o
&
(*han)
he
skrev
write.PAST
dikter.
poem.PL
The element linking the agreeing verbs is homophonous to the conjunction
element och and, the reduced form of which is pronounced /O/ (used in
casual speech). In the written examples of this book, this element will be
rendered as o, translated as &. It can be dropped in the context exemplied in
(2) in my variant. Standard Swedish has innitives in all cases:
(4) a. Han
he
brjar
start.PRES
att/o
to/&
skriva
write.INF
dikter.
poem.PL
b. Han
he
brjade
start.PAST
att/o
to/&
skriva
write.INF
dikter.
poem.PL
c. Brja
start.IMP
att/o
to/&
skriva
write.INF
dikter!
poem.PL
d. Han
he
hade
had
brjat
started.PPC
att/o
to/&
skriva
write.INF
dikter.
poem.PL
Innitival counterparts come with either the innitival marker att, pronounced
/At/ (characteristic of more careful registers) or the element o(ch) mentioned
above. Thus, o is not a marker of copying. Att, however, is impossible in
copying environments.
5
Since TMA-copying belongs to non-standard Swedish, it rarely occurs in
printed text, where it is considered incorrect language and the standard inni-
tival forms are used, as in (4). It is not unattested, however, as the following
examples from Swedish newspapers show:
6
(5) ... har
has
Madonna
Madonna
nu
now
ocks
also
lyckats
manage.PPC
frolmpat
offend.PPC
hinduer.
Hindus
... Madonna has now also managed to offend Hindus.
(6) ... samtidigt
while
som
as
hon
she
sjlv
self
brjar
start.PRES
fr
get.PRES
vrkar.
contractions
... while she in turn is starting to have contractions.
Variants of Danish, Faroese, and Norwegian display TMA-copying as well
although appear more restricted regarding forms that may copy (see Ap-
6 Introduction
pendix II). We nd imperative copying in Danish (Line Hove Mikkelsen, Sten
Vikner, Bodil Kappel Schmidt, p.c.), see (7), imperative and participial copy-
ing in Faroese (Hjalmar Pll Petersen and Jgvan Lon Jacobsen, p.c.), see
(8) (from Lockwood 1964), imperative and participle copying in Solr Nor-
wegian (see Julien 2003), and copying of all forms in Gudbrandsdalen and
Romsdal Norwegian (Helge Sandy, p.c.), see (9), exemplifying copying of
present tense.
(7) Begynd
start.IMP
og
&
ls!
read.IMP
(Da.)
Start reading!
(8) Teir
They
hava
have
alt
always
duga
be-able.PPC
at
to
arbeitt
work.PPC
vl
well
... (Fa.)
They have always been able to work well ...
(9) Jeg
I
begynner
begin.PRES
og
&
leser.
read.PRES
(Gudbr./Roms.-No.)
I start reading.
Also outside of the Scandinavian languages, we nd constructions that seem
related; e.g. double imperatives in Frisian (Wiklund 1998: 75), the try &
V construction in English (see e.g. Pullum 1990; Yuasa and Sadock 2002;
de Vos 2005), and preterital assimilation in Afrikaans (Robbers 1997).
2. Participle copying constructions
At rst sight, the construction in (10a) looks similar to the TMA-copying
construction presented above.
(10) a. Han
he
hade
had
kunnat
can.PPC
lst.
read.PPC
b. Han
he
hade
had
kunnat
can.PPC
lsa.
read.INF
He had been able to read.
However, it differs from it in two respects. Other forms than the participial
form can not copy, see (11), and the conjunction-like element is impossible,
see (12).
(11) a. *Han
he
kunde
can.PAST
lste.
read.PAST
Participle copying constructions 7
b. Han
he
kunde
can.PAST
lsa.
read.INF
He could read.
(12) Han
he
hade
had
kunnat
can.PPC
(*o)
&
lst.
read.PPC
I will refer to this construction as the participle copying construction. Like
TMA-copying, participle copying is not frequent in printed text. For a corpus
based study, see Nordberg (2001). Although this copying is studied in more
detail, no principled distinction is made in the literature between construc-
tions where copying of the participial form is the only possibility and con-
structions where copying may involve other forms (TMA-copying) as well in
many variants. The traditional Swedish name for the construction is dubbel-
supinum double supine, see e.g. Ljunggren (1934), Teleman et al. (1999:
III: 273-274), and Wiklund (2001a). Detailed overviews of earlier analyses
can be found in Ljunggren (1934) and Julien (2003) and will not be reviewed
here. Hagren (2005) presents a preliminary picture of the geopgraphic distri-
bution of the phenomenon.
Participle copying is not a recent phenomenon in the Swedish language.
In Wiklund (2001b: 308) I give examples of participle copying from as early
as the 14th century. The example below is from The revelations of Birgitta.
7
(13) ... vm
if
thu
you
hafde
had
mat
be-able.PPC
mote
against
standit
stand.PPC
minne
my
pino
paine
...
...if you had been able to endure my suffering...
According to the investigation, the construction increases in frequency in
Early Modern Swedish texts until it suddenly ceases to exist in the 18th cen-
tury texts. This disappearence is arguably correlated with the standardisation
of written language, visible in other contexts during that period, see e.g. Lars-
son (1988) on number agreement on verbs.
Participle copying is also widespread in variants of Norwegian, see Julien
(2003), and Faroese, see (14) (from Lockwood 1964: 141), cf. Appendix II.
The phenomenon is also attested in Fenno-Swedish, see Ivars (to appear).
(14) Hann
he
hevi
had
vilja
want.PPC
lisi
read.PPC
bkina.
book.DEF
(Fa.)
He had wanted/would have wanted to read the book.
8 Introduction
Copying of the participial form in similar environments is also attested in
Dutch, Frisian (den Dikken and Hoekstra 1997), and Serbo-Croatian (Bokovi c
1999).
3. Pseudocoordinations
The posture verb sitta sit and other verbs of (manner of) posture are frequent
rst verbs in a construction referred to as pseudocoordination in the literature,
see e.g. Josefsson (1991) and Teleman et al. (1999: III: 902-909):
(15) a. Han
he
sitter
sit.PRES
o
&
skriver
write.PRES
dikter.
poem.PL
He sits and writes poems.
b. Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
o
&
skrev
write.PAST
dikter.
poem.PL
He sat and wrote poems.
c. Sitt
sit.IMP
o
&
skriv
write.IMP
dikter!
poem.PL
Sit and write poems!
d. Han
he
hade
had
suttit
sit.PPC
o
&
skrivit
write.PPC
dikter.
poem.PL
He had been sitting and writing poems.
In parallel with TMA-copying, the second verb may appear in the full range
of verbal forms (present, past, imperative, and participial) and an element
homophonous to the conjunction element separates the verbs involved. This
element can not be dropped. Also in parallel with TMA-copying, an overt
subject is not licensed in the second clause:
(16) Vad
what
satt
sit.PAST
han
he
o
&
(*han)
(he)
lste
read.PAST
(*han)
(he)
_?
_
Pseudocoordination, however, differs from TMA-copying in being part of
standard Swedish. The construction does not alternate with innitival com-
plementation:
(17) a. *Han
he
sitter
sit.PRES
att
to
skriva
write.INF
dikter.
poem.PL
b. *Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
att
to
skriva
write.INF
dikter.
poem.PL
Pseudocoordinations 9
c. *Sitt
sit.IMP
att
to
skriva
write.INF
dikter!
poem.PL
d. *Han
he
hade
had
suttit
sit.PPC
att
to
skriva
write.INF
dikter.
poem.PL
Pseudocoordination is a construction with many and varied uses. This and
the above fact concerning lack of innitival counterparts contribute to the
difculty in determining whether pseudocoordinations share basic structural
properties with TMA-copying constructions or not, and hence in deciding be-
tween coordination and subordination analyses, see e.g. Josefsson (1991) and
Wiklund (1996) for a coordination and a subordination analysis, respectively.
Other names than pseudocoordination for these and what appear to be
related construction types in various languages include double verb construc-
tion, fake coordination (Carden and Pesetsky 1977), subcoordination (Johnsen
1988), verb-verb agreement, agreeing complements (Anward 1988), quasi-
serial verb construction (Pullum 1990), asymmetric coordination (Dchaine
1993), verbal hendiadys (Donaldson 1993), the inected construction (Car-
dinaletti and Giusti 2001), and contiguous coordination (de Vos 2005).
In this book, I focus on aspectual pseudocoordinations involving posture
verbs like sitta sit, st stand, and ligga lie (exemplied above by sitta),
motion verbs like g walk, and springa run, see (18a), the verb vara (be),
and the verb ta take, exemplied in (18b) below.
(18) a. Vad
what
gick
go.PAST
han
he
o
&
handlade?
buy.PAST
What did he go and buy?
b. Hon
she
tog
take.PAST
och
&
lste
read.PAST
en
a
bok.
book
He read a book.
These yield various types of aspects depending on properties of the matrix
verb, including progressive-like and inceptive-like aspects. Pseudocoordina-
tions involving politeness phrases, (19a), and verbs of communication, (19b),
see Teleman et al. (1999: III: 908-909), share some properties with aspectual
pseudocoordinations but will not be dealt with here.
(19) a. Hon
she
var
be.PAST
snll
kind
och
&
gav
give.PAST
mig
me
en
an
glass.
ice-cream
She was kind and gave me an ice-cream.
10 Introduction
b. Hon
she
ringde
call.PAST
och
&
berttade
tell.PAST
om
about
operationen.
operation.DEF
She called and told me about he operation.
The pseudocoordinations relevant here are also found in standard Norwe-
gian, see (20a) from Ldrup (2002: 122) (see also Johnsen 1988; Johan-
nessen 1998; Tonne 2000; Vannebo 2003), Danish (see Josefsson 1991; L-
drup 2002), and Faroese (Hjalmar Pll Petersen, p.c.), see (20b). Contra Josef-
sson (1991), the construction is also attested in Icelandic, see Appendix II.
(20) a. Hva
what
sitter
sit.PRES
han
he
og
&
skriver?
write.PRES
(No.)
b. Hvat
what
liggur
lie.PRES
hann
he
og
&
lesur?
read.PRES
(Fa.)
What is he reading?
Outside of the Scandinavian languages, we nd related constructions in En-
glish (see e.g. Shopen 1971; Schmerling 1975; Carden and Pesetsky 1977;
Quirk et al. 1985: 507-508, 978-979; Pullum 1990; Dchaine 1993: 184-197;
Jaeggli and Hyams 1993; de Vos 2005), Afrikaans (Donaldson 1993: 220-
221; Robbers 1997; de Vos 2005), the Italian dialect of Marsalese (Cardi-
naletti and Giusti 2001), Bulgarian (Kuteva 1999), and Manam (Lichtenberk
1983).
Ta take (together with some other verbs) is used also in another construc-
tion in variants of the Scandinavian languages, which will not be dealt with
here. It differs from the pseudocoordinations discussed here in that it may
involve object sharing between the conjuncts involved; the object of the verb
in the rst conjunct is coreferential with a phonologically empty object of the
verb in the second conjunct, see farli and Creider (1987), Johnsen (1988),
and the more recent work by Larson (2005) for overviews of the properties
of that construction:
8
(21) Hon
she
tog
take.PAST
bollen
ball.DEF
och
&
kastade
throw.PAST
_
_
i
in
korgen.
basket.DEF
Another seemingly related construction that I will leave aside here is exem-
plied in (22) from Nordberg (1977: 118) (see also Anward 1988).
(22) Var
where
hade
have.PAST
du
you
cykeln
bike
stod?
stand.PAST
Overview of book 11
The construction is limited to a few central Swedish dialects and the rst
verb is restricted to ha have. In contrast with TMA-copying, no conjunction
element is present and the choice of embedded verb is restricted; only posture
verbs plus some other stative verbs are possible.
4. Overview of book
Step by step, I will show that the TMA-copying construction, the partici-
ple copying construction, and the pseudocoordination construction can be re-
duced to one and the same phenomenon.
In Chapter 2, I argue that some surface differences between TMA-copying
constructions and participle copying constructions (some of which have been
used to argue for their being two distinct phenomena) are only apparent. I
show that TMA-copying involves complementation, just like participle copy-
ing, thus is not a special type of coordination. I present evidence that the mor-
phology of the embedded verb is semantically vacuous in both construction
types. In particular, I show that participle copying can not be reduced to drop-
ping of the auxiliary ha have, nor to an expression of counterfactuality. The
relation behind copying is identied as being syntactic, top-down, and local
in both construction types. The only two differences between the two con-
structions are those noted in Table 1 above: TMA-copying innitivals copy
the full range of verbal forms, whereas participle copying innitivals restrict
copying to participial form (aspect copying only). The former, but not the
latter, involves the conjunction-like element o(ch).
In Chapter 3, I examine which of the innitive selecting verbs are capable
of selecting TMA-copying and/or participle-copying innitivals. The investi-
gation leads to three conclusions. First, TMA-copying innitivals and partici-
ple copying innitivals are tenseless. There can be no mismatch in temporal
properties between the matrix clause and a copying innitival. Secondly, the
class of verbs that select TMA-copying innitivals is distinct from the class of
verbs that select participle copying innitivals. Thirdly, TMA-copying inni-
tivals correspond to tenseless innitivals that are introduced by an innitival
marker, whereas participle copying innitivals correspond to tenseless bare
innitivals in standard language.
In Chapter 4, I show that the last two ndings of Chapter 3 ultimately lead
to an explanation of the two differences between TMA-copying and partici-
ple copying complements that we were left with in Chapter 2. At this point,
12 Introduction
our default expectation is that the conjunction-like element o(ch) introducing
a TMA-copying innitival should be of the same category as att/o(ch) intro-
ducing the corresponding standard innitival. I present evidence in favour of
taking both to be complementizers. If I am correct, the category selected by
the matrix verb remains constant between copying (agreeing) innitivals and
the corresponding standard non-copying innitivals. TMA-copying inniti-
vals are introduced by a complementizer, just like their non-copying coun-
terparts. Participle copying innitivals are bare, just like their non-copying
counterparts.
I propose that copying of a given form is possible only in case the embed-
ded clause contains the corresponding functional projection. That is, copying
is proportional to the number of functional projections present in the embed-
ded clause. On this hypothesis, the difference between the two types of copy-
ing innitival with regard to number of forms copied follows. This nding
suggests that copying is a reex of dependencies between functional heads of
the same label. In the remaining part of the chapter, I present arguments in
favour of taking copying to be a surface reex of restructuring/clause union.
If this hypothesis is correct, restructuring is not restricted to mono-clausal
congurations, but may also involve bi-clausal congurations, even two CPs.
In Chapter 5, I put forth the hypothesis that pseudocoordinations involve
TMA-copying innitivals. On this hypothesis, the pseudocoordinating ele-
ment o(ch) is a complementizer and we correctly predict all forms to copy
between the verbs involved. I present extensive arguments in favour of tak-
ing the second conjunct in the relevant pseudocoordinations to be selected
by the rst verb. Thus, pseudocoordinations do not involve a special type of
coordination, nor adjunction, nor complex heads. Conforming to our expec-
tations, pseudocoordination involves semantically vacuous inection in the
embedded clause. The relation behind pseudocoordination is demonstrated
to be top-down, local, and sensitive to tense. Thus, in all relevant respects,
pseudocoordination behaves like TMA-copying.
In Chapter 6, I investigate more closely the matrix verbs involved in pseu-
docoordination (TMA-copying with motion/posture verbs). I present evidence
in favour of taking pseudocoordinating verbs to involve light verb uses of
(otherwise) lexical verbs. In addition to ridding us of an apparent support in
favour of a coordination analysis, these ndings throw light on the semantic
properties of this particular type of copying construction. Using the frame-
work of Ramchand (in press), I propose that pseudocoordination involves the
following two characteristic traits. First, the matrix verb associates to struc-
Overview of book 13
ture via only a subset of the features in its lexical specication (underasso-
ciation). Secondly, the pseudocoordinate clause is merged within the event
structure of the matrix predicate (as rhematic material).
In Chapter 7, I sketch an approach to derive the results obtained. I present
arguments in favour of taking the dependency behind the surface reex of
copying to be Agree and I briey discuss the theoretical implications of this
proposal for Agree, for restructuring, and for innitivals. In the context of re-
structuring, my proposal is essentially a resurrection and extension of analy-
ses of restructuring in terms of INFL (or tense) raising. In the remainder of the
chapter, I present an analysis of Swedish o(ch)-innitivals and att-innitivals
that captures the properties described.
Chapter 8 is a concluding chapter that attempts to focus on the property of
tenselessness found to be characteristic of all three types of copying inniti-
vals. The data presented in this book, I will demonstrate, suggest a typology
of tenseless innitivals that includes two major classes, one of which subdi-
vides with regard to restructuring:
1. T-domain is missing. (trivially tense restructuring)
2. T-domain is present:
a. T is internally valued (no tense-restructuring)
b. T is externally valued (tense restructuring)
Chapter 2
Properties of TMA-copying and participle copying
In this chapter, I show that TMA-copying and participle copying constructions
are underlyingly similar and can be unied under this scheme:
Subject...Verb-INFLECTION
i
...Verb-INFLECTION
i
...
First, I argue that some surface differences between the two constructions
(some of which have been used to argue for their being two distinct phenom-
ena) are only apparent. I show that:
TMA-copying constructions do not involve coordination.
The copied morphology of TMA-copying complements is vacuous.
Participle copying cannot be reduced to auxiliary ha-drop.
Copied participial morphology does not express counterfactuality.
Thus, the only two differences between the two are the ones noted in Chapter
1, see table 2 below. These will later on be shown to follow from independent
factors.
Table 2. TMA-copying and Participle Copying
TMA-copying Participle copying
Restriction on forms +
Linking element +
Innitival counterparts + +
Then, we go on to identify the relation behind the copying phenomenon itself.
I show that restrictions on copying are the same in TMA-copying and partici-
ple copying constructions, the relation behind being top-down, syntactic, and
local.
16 Properties of TMA-copying and participle copying
1. TMA-copying does not involve coordination
The fact that the TMA-copying construction involves inectional parallelism
between the verbs involved and an element homophonous to the conjunction
element has led to its being treated as a special type of coordination in some
of the literature, see e.g. Teleman et al. (1999: III: 902-909).
The clearest argument that the construction does not involve coordination
comes from extraction tests. Conjuncts in coordination structures are strong
islands: An argument can not be extracted from one conjunct, unless coin-
dexed with an extracted argument in the other conjunct(s), cf. (1) below. This
is the Across-The-Board (ATB) extraction exception to the so-called Coordi-
nate Structure Constraint, see Ross (1967).
(1) *Vad
what
sov
sleep.PAST
han
he
och
and
skrev
write.PAST
_?
_
In contrast, nothing prevents arguments from being extracted out of comple-
ments. The extraction out of the TMA-copying complement in (2a) below is
thus an argument for the construction type involving complementation, just
like the innitival counterpart in (2b). Notice that (2a) does not involve ATB-
extraction.
(2) a. Vad
what
brjade
start.PAST
han
he
o
&
skrev
write.PAST
_?
b. Vad
what
brjade
start.PAST
han
he
att
to
skriva
write.INF
_?
What did he start writing?
The second argument concerns fronting of the second conjunct itself, impos-
sible in coordination structures (3) (see Ross 1967) but allowed in TMA-
copying structures (4a), where the second clause can be fronted, just like the
standard innitival counterpart (4b), modulo insertion of a dummy verb. This
fact follows from a complementation analysis of TMA-copying structures but
not from a coordination analysis without additional stipulations.
(3) *Skrev
write.PAST
brev
letter
sov
sleep.PAST
han
he
och
and
gjorde.
did
(4) a. [Skrev
write.PAST
brev]
letter
brjade
start.PAST
han
he
o
&
gjorde
did
i
last
lrdags.
Saturday
TMA-copying does not involve coordination 17
b. [Skriva
write.INF
brev]
letter
brjade
start.PAST
han
he
att
to
gra
do
i
last
lrdags.
Saturday
The third argument concerns dropping of the conjunction element. In ordi-
nary coordinations involving more than two conjuncts, the element linking
the conjuncts can be dropped in all but the last coordination, see (5a). Drop-
ping of the conjunction element in all but the rst coordination results in
ungrammaticality, see (5b).
(5) a. Han
he
mlar
paint.PRES
skriver
write.PRES
och
and
lser.
read.PRES
b. *Han
he
mlar
paint.PRES
och
and
skriver
write.PRES
lser.
read.PRES
He paints, writes, and reads.
In the variants where the conjunction element can be dropped in TMA-copying
complements, on the other hand, the distribution of the non-overt element pat-
terns with the null innitive marker and not with the null conjunction element
in coordinations like the one above. All but the rst element can be dropped:
(6) a. *Han
he
prvar
try.PRES
brjar
start.PRES
o
&
lser.
read.PRES
b. *Han
he
prvar
try.PRES
brja
start.INF
att
to
lsa.
read.INF
c. Han
he
prvar
try.PRES
o
&
brjar
start.PRES
lser.
read.PRES
d. Han
he
prvar
try.PRES
att
to
brja
start.INF
lsa.
read.INF
He tries to start reading.
Based on these three arguments, (7a) below involves complementation, just
like (7b).
(7) a. Han
he
prvade
try.PAST
o
&
sjng
sing.PAST
hgt.
high
b. Han
he
prvade
try.PAST
att
to
sjunga
sing.INF
hgt.
high
He tried to sing high.
Nor can we analyze TMA-copying constructions as involving adjunction,
witness (8a). Adjuncts do not allow free extraction in Swedish, cf. (9).
(8) a. Hur
how
hgt
high
prvade
try.PAST
han
he
o
&
sjng
sing.PAST
_?
_
b. Hur
how
hgt
high
prvade
try.PAST
han
he
att
to
sjunga
sing.INF
_?
_
How high did he try to sing?
(9) *Hur
how
hgt
high
vade
practice.PAST
han
he
fr
for
att
to
kunna
can.INF
sjunga
sing.INF
_?
_
Intended reading: He practiced in order to be able to sing how high?
Participle copying constructions involve complementation by the same tests;
they allow extraction, (10a), and fronting, (10b) (conjunction test obviously
not applicable).
(10) a. Hur
how
hgt
high
har
has
Lars
Lars
kunnat
can.PPC
sjungit
sing.PPC
_?
_
How high has Lars been able to sing?
b. [Sjungit]
sing.PPC
har
has
Lars
Lars
kunnat
can.PPC
gjort.
do.PPC
2. TMA-copied morphology is vacuous
Although a literal translation may lead one to suppose otherwise, the pres-
ence of tense inection on the embedded verb in TMA-copying constructions
does not affect the interpretations of the complement; (11a) like (11b) carries
no implication that the frying event was completed. The two sentences have
identical truth conditions, cf. Carden and Pesetsky (1977) for a similar ober-
vation with regard to the try & V construction in English.
(11) a. Han
he
prvade
try.PAST
o
&
stekte
fry.PAST
en
a
sk.
sh
b. Han
he
prvade
try.PAST
att
to
steka
fry.INF
en
a
sk.
sh
He tried to fry a sh.
Thus, in both cases the subject referent has to engage in actions associated
with that of frying a sh; e.g. taking out the frying pan, adding butter, turning
TMA-copied morphology is vacuous 19
on the stove, and placing the sh in the pan, etc. Despite the presence of past
tense inection in the complement of prva (try) in (11a), however, there is
no implication that the subject referent actually succeeded in frying the sh.
The sentence only implies that he tried to do so, just like in the innitival
counterpart.
Another way of showing this is to add the tag men han lyckades inte but
he did not succeed to the sentences. Whenever the inection is interpreted,
this tag yields a bad result, as in (12).
(12) Han
he
stekte
fry.PAST
en
a
sk
sh
#men
but
lyckades
succeed.PAST
inte.
not
He fried a sh #but did not succeed.
As shown in (13a), adding the tag to the TMA-copying construction in (11a)
yields a fully acceptable result. The sentence has a meaning identical to the
innitival counterpart in (13b). This is an additional argument against a coor-
dination analysis of TMA-copying constructions.
(13) a. Han
he
prvade
try.PAST
o
&
stekte
fry.PAST
en
a
sk
sh
men
but
lyckades
suceeded
inte.
not
b. Han
he
prvade
try.PAST
att
to
steka
fry.INF
en
a
sk
sh
men
but
lyckades
suceeded
inte.
not
He tried to fry a sh but didnt suceed.
An example involving the verb forget below shows the same point. Both the
TMA-copying complement in (14a) and the standard innitive in (14b) im-
ply that the subject referent did not write the letter (since he forgot to do so),
hence the pragmatic oddity of the sentence It (the letter) was mailed imme-
diately following the examples:
9
(14) a. Han
he
glmde
forget.PAST
o
&
skrev
write.PAST
brevet.
letter.DEF.
#Det
It
skickades
mail.PAST.PASS
omedelbart.
immediately.
b. Han
he
glmde
forget.PAST
att
to
skriva
write.INF
brevet.
letter.DEF.
#Det
It
skickades
mail.PAST.PASS
omedelbart.
immediately.
He forgot to write the letter. #It was mailed immediately.
TMA-copying complements therefore involve semantically vacuous inec-
tional morphology. They are agreeing complements in the terminology of
Anward (1988).
3. Participle copied morphology is vacuous
3.1. Participle copying can not be reduced to ha-drop
In Swedish, under some circumstances, the auxiliary ha have of an embed-
ded clause can be dropped (see e.g. Platzack 1986; Holmberg 1986; Hedlund
1992; and more recently Julien 2000 and references cited there):
(15) a. Lars
Lars
skulle
would
ha
have
lst
read.PPC
boken.
book.DEF
b. Lars
Lars
skulle
would
lst
read.PPC
boken.
book.DEF
Lars would have read the book.
As a result, copied participles such as the one exemplied by the TMA-
copying complement in (16a) are prima facie ambiguous between an un-
derlying ha-drop structure, analogous to (16b), and an underlying innitival
structure, analogous to (16c).
10
(16) a. Lars
Lars
hade
had
brjat
start.PPC
o
o
lst
read.PPC
boken.
book.DEF
b. Lars
Lars
hade
had
brjat
start.PPC
o
o
ha
have
lst
read.PPC
boken.
book.DEF
c. Lars
Lars
hade
had
brjat
start.PPC
o
o
lsa
read.INF
boken.
book.DEF
There is straightforward evidence that copied participles cannot be reduced
to ha-drop structures (see also Anward 1988 and Julien 2003 for the same
conclusion). The interpretation of (16b), literally Lars had started having
read the book, is that he was getting close to nishing the book (i.e. to the
point where it would be possible to say that he had read it). Let us refer to
this reading as the perfect state reading. This reading is different from the
innitival reading present in (16c): Lars had started reading the book. The
copied participle in (16a) can only have the meaning of the innitival (16c).
Since (15b), which has no copying analysis (since only one past participle
is present), does not introduce an innitival reading but rather inherits (some
Participle copied morphology is vacuous 21
of) its interpretation from the ha-source, the embedded participle in (16a)
cannot be derived from (16b) by ha-drop. It can only be derived from (16c)
by copying. The same argument can be replicated for a copied participle in a
participle copying complement, exemplied in (17a):
(17) a. Lars
Lars
har
has
kunnat
can.PPC
skrivit.
write.PPC
b. ??Lars
Lars
har
has
kunnat
can.PPC
ha
have
skrivit.
write.PPC
c. Lars
Lars
har
has
kunnat
can.PPC
skriva.
write.INF
Lars has been able to write.
In the example above, insertion of an auxiliary in front of the embedded par-
ticiple yields a pretty bad result, cf. (17b), making the argument still sharper.
The copied participle in (17a) has the same interpretation as the innitive
in (17c).
11
We may safely conclude that sequences of participles cannot be
reduced to ha-drop structures.
3.2. Copied participles are not counterfactuals
The active past participial inection (supine inection) in Swedish can be
used to express counterfactuality (for similar facts concerning its Norwegian
counterpart, see Eide 2006; Julien 2003; for cross-linguistic observations, see
Iatridou 2000).
12
Thus, the difference between (18a) and (18b) below is that
the former sentence implicates that you will not come tomorrow (counterfac-
tual to the future), whereas the latter sentence does not (the same difference
in interpretation is found in the English counterparts). Thus, (18a) is possible
in a context like: ... and I am so sad that you changed your plans.
(18) a. Du
you
skulle
should
kommit
come.PPC
imorgon.
tomorrow
You should have come tomorrow.
b. Du
You
skulle
should
komma
come.INF
imorgon.
tomorrow
You should come tomorrow.
The counterfactual use of the past participle merits a discussion for the fol-
lowing reason. Julien (2003) reports variants of Swedish and Norwegian where
participle copying is restricted to counterfactual environments. Since the par-
ticipial form can express counterfactuality in environments where copying is
absent, as in (18a), she proposes that the participial inection of what we here
refer to as copied participles is not semantically vacuous but expresses coun-
terfactuality. Thus, semantically vacuous participles do not exist. However,
this does not follow.
First, the participle and the innitive are not interchangeable in environ-
ments like (18). The participle in (18a) expresses - as mentioned - a meaning
different from the innitive in the same environment, cf. (18b), which is ex-
pected given that the participle is not copied in that context. It is a contentful
participle in the sense that it expresses a meaning associated with the par-
ticipial form (relevantly counterfactuality to the future), not merely agreeing
with another participle in form. Like most (if not all) contentful participles
in Swedish, it can be selected by an auxiliary ha have. Thus, (18a) shares
one reading with (19) below (contra Julien 2003), namely the counterfactual
reading, and it is therefor reasonable to analyze the former example as an
instance of ha-drop, cf. (15) above.
13
(19) Du
you
skulle
should
ha
have
kommit
come.PPC
imorgon.
tomorrow
You should have come tomorrow.
Participles in the environment exemplied above contrast with participles in
copying environments in that the latter participles are dependent in form on
another participle, cf. the contrast between (20a) and (20b) below.
(20) a. *Han
he
vill
want.PRES
kommit
come.PPC
hit.
here
Intended meaning: He wants to come here.
b. Han
he
hade
had
velat
want.PPC
kommit
come.PPC
hit.
here
c. Han
he
hade
had
velat
want.PPC
komma
come.INF
hit.
here
He had wanted to come here.
Secondly, the latter participles can be replaced by innitives without a change
of meaning. Thus, there is one reading of (20b) above that equals that of the
non-counterfactual innitive in (20c) where it is not implicated that the sub-
ject referent did not or will not come here (so you can go on to say: ...and he
nally did come). From the fact that (20b) shares one reading with the non-
Participle copied morphology is vacuous 23
counterfactual innitive in (20c), we may infer that the embedded partici-
ple in (20b) need not express counterfactuality. Therefore, participle copying
complements cannot be reduced to counterfactuality and semantically vacu-
ous participles are in evidence.
Notice further that another denition of the licensing context - irrealis
instead of counterfactuality - also makes the wrong predictions. If an irre-
alis environment would be all that is needed to license participles, we predict
the sentence in (20a) above to be possible, contrary to fact. The irrealis en-
vironment is created by the verb vilja want. But even though the sentence
implies that the subject referent does not come at the time of his wanting to
come, participial morphology is clearly not licensed.
14
A third piece of evidence against the counterfactuality approach to par-
ticiple copying complements includes examples like (21), where at least in
Swedish a counterfactual reading of either of the two participles is impos-
sible to arrive at.
(21) Jag
I
har
have
hunnit
manage.PPC
lst
read.PPC
hela
whole
boken.
book.DEF
I have managed to read the whole book.
The situation turns delicate when the matrix participle (as in one reading of
(20b) does express counterfactuality. This is an expected possibility given that
the matrix participle is not copied but contentful and given that participles
can express counterfactuality. This reading is best translated as He would
have wanted to come and carries the implicature that he does/did not want to
come. On this reading, the embedded event inherits the counterfactual impli-
cature by being in the scope of the matrix counterfactual participle. But even
this does not imply that the embedded participle expresses counterfactuality.
The decisive fact is that it is still possible to replace the embedded participle
by an innitive without any change in meaning. Therefore the counterfactu-
ality of the embedded event is not derived from the participial morphology of
the embedded verb in such cases, but instead from the fact that the embed-
ded event is in the scope of a counterfactual feature in the matrix clause. The
embedded participial inection may thus be copied from the rst (counter-
factual) participle also in counterfactual environments, instantiating what we
here call a participle copying complement. Thus, even variants that restrict
participle copying complements like (20b) to counterfactual environments
may exhibit semantically vacuous participles.
3.3. Conclusion
TMA-copying and participle copying constructions both involve complemen-
tation structures where the embedded verb carries semantically vacuous in-
ection. The embedded verb agrees with the matrix verb, cf. Anward (1988)
and Sells (2000). Thus, so far there are no more than the two differences il-
lustrated in Table 2 above between the two construction types. These will be
shown to follow from independent factors. We now turn to restrictions on the
copy-relation itself.
4. Copying is top-down
There are three arguments in favour of taking the relation behind copying to
be top-down and not bottom-up. The rst argument builds on a conclusion to
be drawn in Chapter 5, where I show that the innitival form may be copied.
Consider (22) and (23).
(22) a. Jag
I
har
have
frskt
try.PPC
att
to
lsa.
read.INF
b. *Jag
I
har
have
frska
try.INF
o
&
lsa.
read.INF
I have tried to read.
(23) a. Jag
I
har
have
velat
want.PPC
lsa.
read.INF
b. *Jag
I
har
have
vilja
want.INF
lsa.
read.INF
I have wanted to read.
If inection could be determined by the embedded verb and consequently be
copied onto the matrix verb in a bottom-up fashion, we would expect to nd
double innitives of the type exemplied in the b-examples above, contrary
to fact.
15
We have, in fact, already become familiar with semantic facts that indicate
top-down directionality of copying (3.1 above), even if the argument was
not made explicit. Since we concluded that copied inection is semantically
vacuous in both TMA-copying complements and participle copying comple-
ments, the matrix clause must host the contentful (or interpretable) variety of
the relevant feature. It follows that copying is top-down in the sense that the
inection is determined by the matrix verb.
Copying is top-down 25
The third argument comes from selectional restrictions. (24a) and (24b)
below are minimal pairs in that the matrix verbs prva try and besluta de-
cide both select innitival complements and nothing more than the innitive
marker intervenes between the matrix verb and the embedded verb in the two
sentences. As seen in (25), however, only prva may select a TMA-copying
complement.
(24) a. Han
he
prvade
try.PAST
att
to
steka
fry.INF
en
a
sk.
sh
b. Han
he
beslutade
decide.PAST
att
to
steka
fry.INF
en
a
sk.
sh
He decided to fry a sh.
(25) a. Han
he
prvade
try.PAST
o
&
stekte
fry.PAST
en
a
sk.
sh
b. *Han
he
beslutade
decide.PAST
o
&
stekte
fry.PAST
en
a
sk.
sh
He decided to fry a sh.
This is an argument against a bottom-up directionality of copying. It is the na-
ture of the matrix verb that determines the nature of the complement, and not
vice versa.The same argument can be replicated for participle copying com-
plements. Whereas lta let and anse consider both select (ECM-)innitival
complements (26), only the former may select a participle copying comple-
ment, cf. (27).
16
(26) a. Han
he
hade
had
ltit
let.PPC.
henne
her
vara
be.INF
hemma
home
sjlv.
alone
He had let her be home alone.
b. Han
he
hade
had
ansett
consider.PPC.
henne
her
vara
be.INF
vacker.
beautiful
He had considered her to be beautiful.
(27) a. Han
he
hade
had
ltit
let.PPC.
henne
her
varit
be.PPC
hemma
home
sjlv.
alone
He had let her be home alone.
b. *Han
he
hade
had
ansett
consider.PPC.
henne
her
varit
be.PPC
vacker.
beautiful
He had considered her to be beautiful.
5. Copying is not phonological
The above contrasts are by themselves conclusive arguments against a phono-
logical approach to copying. If the copying mechanism targeted a phonolog-
ically dened afx, we would expect copying to be possible into any type of
innitival complement. For the sake of completeness, we provide two more
pieces of evidence that copying is syntactic.
If copying were phonological, we would expect the verbs involved to
display phonologically similar inectional forms. Phonological similarity,
however, is not required. An embedded verb with irregular or strong inec-
tion takes on the expected form from its paradigm, and not a form that is
phonologically similar to the matrix verb (P-AFX stands for phonological af-
x). Copying can thus not be explained by some kind of phonological afx-
hopping:
(28) a. Han
he
prvade
try.PAST
o
&
sprang
run.PAST
hem.
home
b. *Han
he
prvade
try.P-AFX
o
&
springde
run.P-AFX
hem.
home
He tried to run home.
(29) a. Han
he
hade
had
vgat
dare.PPC
sprungit
run.PPC
hem.
home
b. *Han
he
hade
had
vgat
dare.P-AFX
springt
run.P-AFX
hem.
home
He had dared to run home.
Moreover, if copying were phonological, we would not expect the mechanism
to be selective with respect to forms copied. In the following examples, pas-
sive inection is not shared between the verbs, although the participial form
is:
(30) a. Lten
song.DEF
hade
had
brjat
start.PPC
o
&
spelats.
play.PPC.PASS
The song had started being played.
b. Han
he
hade
had
hunnit
manage-in-time.PPC
antagits
accept.PPC.PASS
13
13
gnger.
times
He had managed to be accepted 13 times.
Copying is local 27
The next section provides additional evidence that copying is syntactic. Copy-
ing is subject to syntactic locality constraints.
6. Copying is local
6.1. Relativized minimality
Syntactic locality effects are in evidence in both TMA-copying complements
and participle copying complements. In multiple embeddings, either all verbs
agree in inectional morphology (a-sentences below) or all but the most em-
bedded verb(s) (b-sentences). Long-distance copying leads to ungrammat-
icality; an intervening verb in innitival form breaks the copy relation (c-
sentences).
17
(31) a. Jag
I
prvade
try.PAST
o
&
fortsatte
continue.PAST
o
&
gick
go.PAST
lngs
along
stigen.
path.DEF
b. Jag
I
prvade
try.PAST
o
&
fortsatte
continue.PAST
att
to
g
go.INF
lngs
along
stigen.
path.DEF
c. *Jag
I
prvade
try.PAST
att
to
fortstta
continue.INF
o
&
gick
go.PAST
lngs
along
stigen.
path.DEF
d. Jag
I
prvade
try.PAST
att
to
fortstta
continue.INF
att
to
g
go.INF
lngs
along
stigen.
path.DEF
I tried to continue walking along the path.
(32) a. Han
he
hade
had
velat
want.PPC
hunnit
manage.PPC
kommit
come.PPC
hit.
here
b. Han
he
hade
had
velat
want.PPC
hunnit
manage.PPC
komma
come.INF
hit.
here
c. *Han
he
hade
had
velat
want.PPC
hinna
manage.INF
kommit
come.PPC
hit.
here
d. Han
he
hade
had
velat
want.PPC
hinna
manage.INF
komma
come.INF
hit.
here
He had wanted to come here.
Notice that the conjunction-like element o may intervene between the verbs
involved in TMA-copying. Thus, the locality can not correspond to a rigid
Head Movement Constraint, as dened in Travis (1984). Instead it looks like
a minimality condition of the Rizzian type (Rizzi 1990), relativized with re-
spect to feature/head type (see Chapter 7 for a discussion of the complemen-
tizers o(ch) and att).
6.2. Copying is island sensitive
This section investigates the congurational distribution of copying comple-
ments in Swedish in more detail. We have seen that copying of inectional
features is possible into the complement of certain verbs. To get the full pic-
ture of the distribution, we need to know whether spreading of features oc-
curs into non-complement positions. As we will see, copying is disallowed
wherever the corresponding standard innitive shows island effects. In the
examples that follow, I restrict copying to participial form for the following
reasons. Apart from the imperative, the participial form is the most widely
accepted form to copy. If a speaker rejects copying of participial inection,
that speaker also rejects copying of tensed forms (present and past forms),
making examples of the latter sort superuous.
6.2.1. Non-canonical complements and adjuncts
Non-canonical direct objects often corresponding to non-accusative case in
case-languages are frequently expressed by prepositional phrases in Swedish.
18
Some of these can involve innitives. In these cases, availability of copying
goes hand in hand with ease of extraction. Where adjunct extraction is bad or
deviant out of the innitive, copying yields a bad result:
19
(33) a. Hon
she
hade
had
lst
read.PPC
om
about
att
to
resa
travel.INF away
incognito.
incognito
She had read about travelling incognito.
b. *Hur
how
hade
had
hon
she
lst
read.PPC
om
about
att
to
resa
travel.INF
_?
_?
c. *Hon
she
hade
had
lst
read.PPC
om
about
o
&
rest
travel.PPC
incognito.
incognito
Where adjunct extraction is possible, copying is possible:
(34) a. Hon
she
hade
had
knt
feel.PPC
fr
for
att
to
resa
travel.INF
incognito.
incognito
She had felt like travelling incognito.
b. Hur
how
hade
had
hon
she
knt
feel.PPC
fr
for
att
to
resa
travel.INF
_?.
_?
c. ?Hon
she
hade
had
knt
feel.PPC
fr
for
o
&
rest
travel.PPC
incognito.
incognito
Copying is local 29
Purpose clauses pattern with (33):
20
(35) a. Han
he
hade
had
kommit
come.PPC
fr
for
att
to
bete
behave.INF
sig
REFL
illa.
badly
He had come in order to behave badly
b. *Hur
how
hade
had
han
he
kommit
come.PPC
fr
for
att
to
bete
behave.INF
sig
REFL
_?
_?
c. *Han
he
hade
had
kommit
come.PPC
fr
for
o
&
betett
behave.PPC
sig
REFL
illa.
badly
He had come in order to behave badly.
Innitives constructed with auxiliary-adjective predicates, on the other hand,
pattern with (34):
21
(36) a. Hon
she
hade
had
varit
be.PPC
rdd
afraid
fr
for
att
to
bete
behave.INF
sig
REFL
konstigt.
weirdly
She had been afraid of behaving weirdly.
b. Hur
how
hade
had
hon
she
varit
be.PPC
rdd
afraid
fr
for
att
to
bete
behave.INF
sig
REFL
_?
_?
c. ?Hon
she
hade
had
varit
be.PPC
rdd
afraid
fr
for
o
&
betett
behave.PPC
sig
REFL
konstigt.
weirdly
I conclude that copying into non-canonical complement innitivals and ad-
junct innitivals is limited to cases where adjunct extraction is possible.
6.2.2. Subject innitivals and extraposed innitivals
Copying into the subject position of the matrix verb yields a bad result. Verbs
which allow copying into their complements rarely take innitival subjects.
But examples can be constructed with f get (causative) and lr teach.
Thus, (37b) below yields a bad result, contrasting with copying into comple-
ment position, cf. (37c).
22
(37) a. O
&
bo
live.INF
i
in
tlt
tent
hade
had
fttna
get.PPCher
att
to
meditera.
meditate.INF
b. *O
&
bott
live.PPC
i
in
tlt
tent
hade
had
fttna
get.PPCher
o
&
meditera.
meditate.INF
c. O
&
bo
live.PPC
i
in
tlt
tent
hade
had
fttna
get.PPCher
o
&
mediterat.
meditate.PPC
To live in a tent had made her meditate.
Copying into an extraposed position yields a better result but is less good than
copying into complement position:
(38) a. Det
EXPL
hade
had
fttna
get.PPCher
o
&
meditera
meditate.INF
o
&
bo
live.INF
i
in
tlt.
tent
b. ??Det
EXPL
hade
had
fttna
get.PPCher
o
&
meditera
meditate.INF
o
&
bott
live.PPC
i
in
tlt.
tent
c. Det
EXPL
hade
had
fttna
get.PPCher
o
&
mediterat
meditate.PPC
o
&
bo
live.INF
i
in
tlt.
tent
It had made her meditate to live in a tent.
Again, copying and extraction go hand in hand:
23
(39) a. *Hur
how
hade
had
att
to
bo
live.INF
_
_
fttna
get.PPCher
att
to
meditera?
meditate.INF
b. ??Hur
how
hade
had
det
EXPL
fttna
get.PPCher
att
to
meditera
meditate.INF
att
to
bo
live.INF
_?
_
6.2.3. Subparts of complements
Copying is thus limited to (verbs inside the) complement of the predicate
from which the inection is copied. However, being inside the complement
is not enough. An innitival subject inside the complement is unreachable
for copying. An example with a matrix verb that otherwise allows copying
into complement position can be constructed with the verb corresponding to
causative f get. Whereas copying into the complement innitive is pos-
sible, witness (40b), copying into the subject innitive of the complement
clause selected by the causative yields a bad result cf. (40c):
24
(40) a. Han
he
hade
had
ftt
get.PPC
att
to
rka
smoke.INF
att
to
bli
become.INF
olagligt.
illegal
b. ?Han
he
hade
had
ftt
get.PPC
att
to
rka
smoke.INF
o
&
blivit
become.PPC
olagligt.
illegal
c. *Han
he
hade
had
ftt
get.PPC
o
&
rkt
smoke.PPC
att
to
bli
become.INF
olagligt.
illegal
He had made to smoke to become illegal.
The innitival complement of an object noun is also unreachable, see (41b).
Glmma forget can otherwise copy, cf. (14a) above.
25
Copying is local 31
(41) a. Han
he
hade
had
glmt
forget.PPC
rdet
advice.DEF
att
to
ka
go.INF
hem.
home
b. *Han
he
hade
had
glmt
forget.PPC
rdet
advice.DEF
o
&
kt
go.PPC
hem.
home
He had forgotten the advice to go home.
Likewise, an innitival relative inside the object is unreachable:
26
(42) a. Jag
I
har
have
hyrt
rent.PPC
en
a
lm
lm
att
to
se
see.INF
ikvll.
tonight
b. *Jag
I
har
have
hyrt
rent.PPC
en
a
lm
lm
o
&
sett
see.PPC
ikvll.
tonight
I have rented a movie to watch tonight.
(43) a. Jag
I
har
have
ftt
get.PPC
en
a
soffa
sofa
att
to
ha
have.INF
i
in
kket.
kitchen.DEF
b. *Jag
I
har
have
ftt
get.PPC
en
a
soffa
sofa
o
&
haft
have.PPC
i
in
kket.
kitchen.DEF
I have got a sofa to have in the kitchen.
There are however apparent counterexamples, brought to my attention by
Marit Julien (p.c.):
27
(44) ?Han
he
hade
had
vl
probably
inte
not
tagit
take.PPC
sig
REFL
tid
time
o
&
sett
see.PPC
efter.
after
He had probably not taken the time to look.
Additonal examples are:
(45) a. ?Han
he
hade
had
haft
have.PPC
lust
lust
o
&
kt
go.PPC
hem.
home
He had felt like going home.
b. ?Han
he
hade
had
ftt
get.PPC
tillstnd
permission
o
&
kt
go.PPC
hem.
home
He had got permission to go home.
Two crucial requirements seem to be met in (44), (45a) and (45b) that are not
met in examples like (41b), (42b), and (43b) above: (i) The nouns embedding
the copying complement are bare, i.e. they do not involve a determiner. (ii)
The matrix participles are functional or semantically "light" (have, take, get,
and similar verbs), a fact also reected in prosody. I follow Delsing (1998)
in analyzing the bare noun as part of the matrix predicate in these cases, thus
not an argument DP. Therefore these do not constitute examples of copying
into subparts of complements. On that analysis, we predict extraction out of
the embedded clause in (45a) to yield a better result than extraction out of the
embedded clause in (43b). This is borne out, cf. (46a) and (46b).
28
I conclude
that copying is island sensitive.
(46) a. Vart
where
hade
had
han
he
haft
have.PPC
lust
lust
att
to
ka
go.INF
_?
_
b. *Var
where
har
have
du
you
ftt
get.PPC
en
a
soffa
sofa
att
to
ha
have.INF
_?
_
7. Copying survives movement
Fronting (topic or focus) of an innitive along with its arguments is possible
in Swedish, see (47a) and (47b). Fronting of a TMA-copied complement is
likewise possible, with the proviso (for some speakers) that a dummy verb is
inserted in the position of the trace, see (48a) and (48b). The same facts hold
for participle copying complements, cf. (49).
(47) a. [Skriva
write.INF
brev]
letters
glmde
forget.PAST
jag
I
(att
to
gra).
do.INF
Write letters, I forgot to do.
b. [Lsa]
read.INF
lrde
learn.PAST
jag
I
mig
REFL
(att
to
gra)
do.INF
i
in
ettan.
rst-grade I
Read, I learnt to do in rst grade.
(48) a. [Skrev
write.PAST
brev]
letters
glmde
forget.PAST
jag
I
*(o
&
gjorde).
do.PAST
Write letters, I forgot to do.
b. [Lste]
lste.PAST
lrde
learn.PAST
jag
I
mig
REFL
*(o
&
gjorde)
do.PAST
i
in
ettan.
rst-grade
Read, I learnt to do in rst grade.
(49) a. [Lsa]
read.INF
har
have
jag
I
kunnat
can.PPC
(gra)
do.INF
sedan
since
i
in
ettan.
rst-grade
b. [Lst]
read.PPC
har
have
jag
I
kunnat
can.PPC
*(gjort)
do.PPC
sedan
since
i
in
ettan.
rst-grade
Read, I have been able to do since rst-grade.
Copying survives movement 33
Facts concerning A-movement are difcult to access since judgements here
are very subtle. As far as we can test this, judgements seem to follow the
general pattern described here. There are at least two relevant contexts: In-
nitives under adjectives and innitives in the context of object experiencer
psych predicates. Innitives that are arguments of adjectives (50a) pattern
with object innitives w.r.t. copying, see (50b), and extraction, cf. (51):
29
(50) a. Det
it
hade
had
varit
be.PPC
kul
fun
att
to
springa
run.INF
lngt.
far
b. ?Det
it
hade
had
varit
be.PPC
kul
fun
o
&
sprungit
run.PPC
lngt.
far
It had been fun to run far.
(51) Hur
how
lngt
far
hade
had
det
it
varit
be.PPC
kul
fun
att
to
springa
run.INF
_?
_
Moving the copied innitive to the subject position of the matrix yields a
more deviant structure (52b), again correlating with the bad status of extrac-
tion out of subject position (52c).
(52) a. Att
to
springa
run.INF
lngt
far
hade
had
varit
be.PPC
kul.
fun
b. ??O
&
sprungit
run.PPC
lngt
far
hade
had
varit
be.PPC
kul.
fun
To run far had been fun.
c. *Hur
how
lngt
far
hade
had
att
to
springa
run.INF
_
_
varit
be.PPC
kul?
fun
Embedding the copy-sentences under the raising verb verka seem, does not
change their grammatical status, cf. (50b) vs. (53a) and (52b) vs. (53b). Thus,
A-movement of a copied verb does not cause any degradation.
(53) a. ?Det
it
verkar
seem.PRES
ha
have
varit
be.PPC
kul
fun
o
&
sprungit
run.PPC
lngt.
far
It seemed to have been fun to run far.
b. ??O
&
sprungit
run.PPC
lngt
far
verkar
seem.PPC
ha
ha
varit
be.PPC
kul.
fun
To run far seemed to have been fun.
In a similar fashion, copying in contexts with object experiencer psych pred-
icates is possible. Relevant predicates include roa amuse, skrmma scare,
and gldja make-happy. Copying into extraposed position is relatively ac-
ceptable (54a), whereas copying into subject position is deviant but not im-
possible (54b). Thus, there is a subtle contrast between sentences like (54a)
and (55a) on the one hand, and between sentences like (54b) and (55b) on the
other (54) contrasting with (55) in involving psych predicates.
(54) a. ?Det
it
har
has
roat
amuse.PPC
mnga
many
mnniskor
people
o
&
bott
live.PPC
i
in
tlt.
tent
It has amused many people to live in a tent.
b. ??O
&
bott
live.PPC
i
in
tlt
tent
har
has
roat
amuse.PPC
mnga
many
mnniskor.
people
To live in a tent has amused many people.
(55) a. ??Det
it
har
has
ddat
kill.PPC
mnga
many
mnniskor
people
o
&
bott
live.PPC
i
in
tlt.
tent
b. *O
&
bott
live.PPC
i
in
tlt
tent
har
has
ddat
kill.PPC
mnga
many
mnniskor.
people
If the subject of object experiencer psych-predicates in examples such as
(54b) is derived, originating in the object position of the psych-verb, as pro-
posed by Belletti and Rizzi (1988), these data follow the expected pattern.
Embedding the sentences in (54) under a raising verb does not change their
status, which enables us to conclude that copying survives movement.
(56) a. ?Det
it
verkade
seem.PAST
ha
have
roat
amuse.PPC
mnga
many
o
&
bott
live.PPC
i
in
tlt.
tent
b. ??O
&
bott
live.PPC
i
in
tlt
tent
verkade
seem.PAST
ha
have
roat
amuse.PPC
mnga.
many
We have seen that inectional heads copy in the construction types under in-
vestigation. Before we go on in Chapter 3 to investigate the class of matrix
verbs involved in the construction type, we will note, for the sake of complete-
ness, that these are the only elements that may copy. Non-head constituents
like subjects (57a) or adverbs (57b) do not copy, nor do other heads like whole
verbs, as in (57c) and (57d), or complementizers (57e). Thus, copying targets
inectional heads exclusively.
(57) a. Han
he
fortsatte
continue.PAST
[o
&
(*han)
he
sa
say.PAST
sin
his
sikt].
opinion
Intended reading: He continued to tell his opinion.
Conclusion 35
b. Han
he
fortsatte
continue.PAST
alltid
always
[o
&
(*alltid)
always
sa
say.PAST
sin
his
sikt].
opinion
Intended reading He always continued to tell his opinion.
c. *Han
he
brjade
start.PAST
[o
&
brjade
start.PAST
lste
read.PAST
boken].
book.DEF
Intended reading: He started reading the book.
d. *Han
he
har
has
kunnat
can.PPC
[kunnat
can.PPC
lst
read.PPC
boken].
book.DEF
Intended reading: He has been able to read the book.
e. ...att
...that
han
he
hade
had
fortsatt
continue.PPC
[*att/o
to/&
sagt
say.PPC
sin
his
sikt].
opinion
...that he had continued to tell his opinion.
8. Conclusion
I have shown that some alledged differences between TMA-copying con-
structions and participle copying constructions do not exist. Thus, the differ-
ences between the two are limited to the presence/absence of the conjunction-
like element o and the range of forms that may copy; TMA-copying affects
the full range of verbal forms, participle copying limits copying to participial
form. We have seen that:
Copying constructions involve complementation.
Copied inection is semantically vacuous.
The relation behind the copying phenomenon has been identied as top-
down, syntactic, and local (respects RM and strong islands).
Chapter 3
Copying and tense
The aim of this chapter is to investigate which of the verbs selecting innitival
complements are capable of selecting TMA-copying and participle-copying
innitivals. From the result of the investigation we will be able to conclude
three things. First, the two construction types have one more property in com-
mon: there can be no mismatch in temporal properties between the matrix
clause and a copying innitival. In this sense, TMA-copying and participle
copying innitivals are tenseless. Secondly, the class of verbs that TMA-copy
is distinct from the class of verbs that select participle copying innitivals.
Thirdly, TMA-copying innitivals correspond to tenseless non-bare inniti-
vals, participle copying innitivals to tenseless bare innitivals in standard
language. This generalization will ultimately lead to an explanation of the
differences between the two construction types.
1. Properties of innitival complements
We have observed that copying complements have a restricted distribution
in the sense that the set of verbs that may select a copying complement is
limited (4). Thus, whereas some Swedish variants, including mine, allow
copying with matrix verbs such as brja start, (1b), a similar copying into
the complement of besluta decide is impossible, cf. (2b).
(1) a. Han
he
brjade
start.PAST
att
to
steka
fry.INF
en
a
sk.
sh
b. Han
he
brjade
start.PAST
o
&
stekte
fry.PAST
en
a
sk.
sh
He started frying a sh.
(2) a. Han
he
beslutade
decide.PAST
att
to
resa
travel.INF
hem.
home
b. *Han
he
beslutade
decide.PAST
o
&
reste
travel.PAST
hem.
home
He decided to go home.
We need to determine what property of brja versus besluta creates the con-
trast. The literature on innitival clauses provides a number of candidates.
38 Copying and tense
Each of the following properties have been shown to distinguish natural classes
of innitival clauses (see e.g. Wurmbrand 2001; Landau 2000, and references
cited there):
Whether or not the innitival clause can be past- or future-oriented with
respect to the matrix (tensedness).
Whether or not it is propositional.
Whether or not it is factive.
Whether or not it is introduced by a complementiser/innitival marker.
Whether it is a raising, ECM, subject-, or object control innitive.
In what follows I will introduce the the tests that distinguish innitivals w.r.t.
the above properties. I will then present the classes of innitivals that emerge
when the tests are applied to a large sample of Swedish innitival-selecting
verbs. One property, tensedness, will turn out to be the key to the contrast
between verbs which license copying innitivals and verbs which do not.
1.1. Tensedness
Consider the sentences in (3) below:
(3) a. *Igr
yesterday
brjade
start.PAST
han
he
att
to
steka
fry.INF
en
a
sk
sh
imorgon.
tomorrow
Yesterday he started frying a sh tomorrow.
b. Igr
yesterday
beslutade
decide.PAST
han
he
att
to
resa
travel.INF
hem
home
imorgon.
tomorrow
Yesterday he decided to go home tomorrow.
(3a) shows that the event referred to by an innitival embedded under brja
start cannot be located in the future with respect to the time of the event
referred to by the matrix predicate, contrasting with innitivals embedded
under besluta decide, cf. (3b). In other words, tense mismatches between
the matrix and the embedded clause of the sort yesterday-tomorrow, yester-
day-today, or last thursday-the day after etc. are impossible in the context
of brja, but possible with besluta.
30
Similarly, the event referred to by an
innitive embedded under brja cannot be located in the past with respect to
the time of the event referred to by the matrix predicate:
31
(4) *Han
he
brjar
start.PRES
att
to
ha
have
stekt
fry.PPC
en
a
sk
sh
igr.
yesterday
He is starting to have fried a sh yesterday.
Properties of innitival complements 39
Innitives selected by brja contrast with innitives selected by verbs such
as pst claim which allow this (PASS stands for passive):
(5) Han
he
psts
claim.PRES.PASS
ha
have
stekt
fry.PPC
en
a
sk
sh
igr.
yesterday
He is claimed to have fried a sh yesterday.
Notice that besluta is more restricted than pst in that it allows only future-
oriented mismatches, cf. (6), whereas the latter allows both past-oriented and
future-oriented mismatches, cf. (7).
(6) *Han
he
beslutar
decide.PRES
att
to
ha
have
rest
travel.PPC
hem
home
igr.
yesterday
He is deciding to have gone home yesterday.
(7) Han
he
psts
claim.PRES.PASS
komma
come.INF
hem
home
imorgon.
tomorrow
He is claimed to come home tomorrow.
Innitives that may carry temporal reference non-overlapping with the ma-
trix will henceforth be referred to as tensed innitives, those that may not
will be referred to as tenseless innitives.
32
The term tenseless is borrowed
from Stowell (1982) and Wurmbrand (2001). Tensed innitives may thus
be past- or future-oriented. This class further subdivides into independently
tensed innitivals (unselected tense) and dependently tensed inntivals (se-
lected tense), see Landau (2004). In the former, tense is not constrained by
the matrix (selected by e.g. declarative verbs like pst claim), whereas in
the latter, tense is constrained (selected by e.g. besluta decide and factive
predicates).
33
We will revisit tenselessness in Chapter 8 below.
1.2. Propositionality
If truth or falsity can be predicated of the embedded clause, independently of
the matrix clause, the innitive expresses a proposition, see Pesetsky (1992).
This can be tested by attaching tags like vilket r sant which is true, vilket
han gjorde which he did, etc.:
(8) a. [Han
he
psts
claim.PRES.PASS
[ha
have
stekt
fry.PPC
en
a
sk
sh
igr]
j
]
i
,
yesterday,
och
and
det
i
/
j
that
r
is
sant.
true.
He is claimed to have fried a sh yesterday, and that is true.
b. [Han
he
brjade
start.PAST
[att
to
steka
fry.INF
en
a
sk
sh
igr]
j
]
i
,
yesterday,
och
and
det
i
/
j
that
r
is
sant.
true
He started frying a sh yesterday, and that is true.
Attaching the tag to (8a) allows both a reading where it modies the whole
sentence (It is true that it is claimed that...) and a reading where it modies
only the embedded innitival (It is true that he fried the sh yesterday). At-
taching the same tag to (8b) however only allows the whole-sentence reading
(i.e. It is true that he started frying a sh yesterday). It is impossible to assert
the truth of the embedded innitival alone. In this sense, psts is claimed
selects a propositional complement, whereas brja start does not.
1.3. Factivity
If the existence of the event expressed by the innitival complement is pre-
supposed, the complement expresses a fact (cf. Kiparsky and Kiparsky 1970).
Factive status is evidenced by the inability of matrix negation to cancel this
presupposition. Predicates that may select innitives that arguably qualify as
factive in Swedish include vara ledsen (ver) be sorry (about), vara stolt
(ver) be proud (of), skmmas (ver) be ashamed (of). Both sentences
below presuppose that the subject referent killed the sh yesterday.
(9) a. Han
he
var
was
ledsen
sorry
(ver)
(over)
att
to
ha
have
ddat
kill.PPC
en
a
sk
sh
igr.
yesterday
He was sorry to have killed a sh yesterday.
b. Han
he
var
was
inte
not
ledsen
sorry
(ver)
(over)
att
to
ha
have
ddat
kill.PPC
en
a
sk
sh
igr.
yesterday
He was not sorry to have killed a sh yesterday.
The above sentences differ from (10a) and (10b) below involving the verb
brja start, which does not presuppose the the existence of the complement
event. As a consequence, the existence of the embedded event is sensitive to
matrix assertion/negation. Whereas (10a) implies that the subject referent did
some book-reading, (10b) implies that he did not read anything in the book
at the relevant time.
(10) a. Han
he
brjade
start.PAST
att
to
lsa
read.INF
boken.
book.DEF
He started reading the book.
Properties of innitival complements 41
b. Han
he
brjade
start.PAST
inte
not
att
to
lsa
read.INF
boken.
book.DEF
He did not start reading the book.
In this sense, vara ledsen (ver) be sorry (about) selects a factive comple-
ment, whereas brja start does not.
1.4. Raising, ECM, subject-, object control
Two tests to distinguish raising from control are the presence or absence
of selectional restrictions imposed by the matrix verb, and the possibility of
splitting idioms. By these tests, verka seem is a raising verb while besluta
decide is a subject control verb:
(11) a. Boken
book.DEF
verkade
seem.PAST
ramla
fall.INF
ner.
down
The book seemed to fall down.
b. *Boken
book.DEF
beslutade
decide.PAST
att
to
ramla
fall.INF
ner.
down
(12) a. Mttet
measure.DEF
verkade
seem.PAST
vara
be.INF
rgat.
full
I. (lit.) The measure seemed to be full.
II. (idiom.) They seemed to have had enough.
b. *Mttet
measure.DEF
beslutade
decide.PAST
att
to
vara
be.INF
rgat.
full
In mine and other variants of Swedish, some verbs which are control verbs
by the diagnostics above still allow expletive constructions, see (13a). Notice
that the animacy restriction on the expletive-associate remains, cf. (13b) (see
also Holmberg 2002). I restrict the term raising to those verbs that pass the
animacy and idiom tests and will refer to verbs like frska try as control
verbs.
(13) a. Det
EXPL
frskte
try.PAST
komma
come.INF
in
in
ngon
somebody
i
in
kllaren.
basement.DEF
Somebody tried to enter the basement.
b. *Det
EXPL
frskte
try.PAST
komma
come.INF
in
in
vatten
water
i
in
kllaren.
basement.DEF
To distinguish ECM-verbs from object control verbs either the idiom-test or
the expletive test can be used. Thus, whereas anse consider is an ECM-verb,
witness (14a), vertala persuade is an object control verb, which means that
idiom splitting is impossible.
(14) a. Hon
she
ansg
consider.PAST
mttet
measure.DEF
vara
be.INF
rgat.
full
I. (lit.) She considered the measure full.
II. (idiom.) She considered the situation untenable.
b. *Hon
she
vertalade
persuade.PAST
mttet
measure.DEF
att
to
vara
be
rgat.
full
1.5. Non-bare vs. bare innitivals
Innitivals in Swedish are either non-bare (introduced by an innitival marker)
or bare (not introduced by an innitival marker). This dichotomy is orthogo-
nal to the partition tensed vs. tenseless innitives. Tensed innitives, as well
as tenseless innitives, can be non-bare or bare:
(15) a. Igr
yesterday
beslutade
decide.PAST
han
he
(att)
to
resa
travel.INF
hem
home
imorgon.
tomorrow
Yesterday he decided to go home tomorrow.
b. Han
he
pstods
claim.PAST.PASS
(*att)
to
ha
have
kommit
come.PPC
hem
home
i
in
fredags.
Friday
He was claimed to have come home last Friday.
c. Han
he
glmde
forget.PAST
(att)
to
skriva
write.INF
brevet.
letter.DEF
He forgot to write the letter.
d. Hon
she
hade
had
ltit
let.PPC
honom
him
(*att)
to
kyssa
kiss.INF
henne.
her
She had let him kiss her.
Table 3. Innitives
Tensed Tenseless
Non-bare (15a) (15c)
Bare (15b) (15d)
Notice that by bare innitives, I refer to innitives where the innitival marker
is ungrammatical and not simply phonologically null as in contexts like e.g.
(15c) where the marker is optional in my variant. Thus, if the innitival
Innitivals in Swedish 43
marker can be inserted, the innitive counts as non-bare even if the marker
need not be spelled out in some contexts. If it cannot be inserted, the innitive
counts as bare. In the next section we examine which of the above properties
(if any) correlates with copying.
2. Innitivals in Swedish
The present section presents the result of investigating a sample of more than
80 innitive-selecting verbs and their complements in Swedish with respect
to the properties described above. We arrive at 16 classes of innitivals, each
one of which is described below. The classes are named after one prototypi-
cal verb selecting the relevant innitive. For each class, we examine whether
the relevant matrix verbs are compatible with a copying innitival or not,
and if so, whether they may select a TMA-copying innitival or a partici-
ple copying innitival.
34
The primary variant investigated here is my own
(Jmtland), other variants consulted mainly from Jmtland and Vsterbotten.
Two pieces of additional information are noteworthy. Firstly, copying inni-
tivals are subject to some inter-speaker variation, an issue that lies outside
the scope of the present work. Thus, there is variation regarding the class of
verbs that allow copying and some speakers are more restricted than others
with respect to number of forms copied. The latter phenomenon, I will refer
to as partial copying (see 5.3 below). The overall pattern, however, remains
the same across speakers and therefore I abstract away from ne-grained dif-
ferences here. Secondly, even (self-described) non-copy speakers of Swedish
have some intuitions on copying. Several of the contrasts found here have
been conrmed also by speakers that report not making use of copying inni-
tivals in their language.
This section presents 14 out of the 16 classes of the innitivals identied,
a description of the remaining two being deferred until 5 below. Space does
not allow me to illustrate all properties described in the above section for
each of these innitives. Examples from each class will mainly be restricted
to data determining whether copying is possible or not in the relevant type,
other properties being illustrated in table format (Tables 4 and 5). I will use
of the following labels for the properties introduced above:
FEATURE LABELS:
Tns: Tensed innitive
Prop: Propositional innitive
Fact: Factive innitive
Rais: Raising
ECM: Exceptional Case Marking
SuC: Subject Control
ObC: Object Control
B: Bare innitive
Copy: Copying innitival
PPC: (Past) participle copying
TMA: TMA-copying
2.1. The pst/anse class [+Tns, +Prop, Su/ObC, +B]
Verbs that select propositional innitivals divide into two subclasses. One
class, the pst claim class, only select an innitival when the subject of
the innitival is a trace. This happens either when the main verb is a passive
and the subject of the innitival raises (cf. Pesetsky 1992; Teleman et al.
1999: III: 575ff.), (16b), or (marginally) when the main verb is active but
the subject of the innitival has been wh-moved or topicalised (cf. Pesetsky
1992; Kayne 1984), (16c). In the former case, these verbs instantiate a raising
conguration; in the latter case, an ECM conguration. However, they are
neither fully raising verbs, since they disallow raising in the active form, nor
fully ECM verbs, since they disallow ECM if the subject does not move,
(16a) (to indicate this, the relevant columns in Table 4 and 5 below have a
parenthesised +).
(16) a. *Du
you
pstr
claim.PRES
henne
her
vara
be.INF
intelligent.
intelligent
You claim her to be intelligent
b. Han
he
psts
claim.PRES.PASS
ha
have
stekt
fry.PPC
en
a
sk
sh
igr.
yesterday
He is claimed to have fried a sh yesterday.
c. ?Vem
who
pstr
claim.PRES
du
you
vara
be.INF
intelligent?
intelligent
Who do you claim to be intelligent?
In addition to pst, the class includes anta assume, bedyra avow, frskra
assure, misstnka suspect, sga say, and tro believe. A subset of these
verbs may also select an innitive if used reexively:
(17) Han
he
pstod
claim.PAST
sig
REFL
vara
be.INF
intelligent.
intelligent
He claimed to be intelligent.
The other class of verbs that select a propositional innitive take ECM com-
plements. Anse consider and bedma judge belong to this class:
35
(18) De
they
hade
had
ansett
consider.PPC.
honom
him
vara
be.INF
oartig.
impolite
They had considered him to be impolite.
No verbs of the pst/anse class select copying innitivals in the variants
consulted:
36, 37
(19) a. Han
he
pstods
claim.PAST.PASS
springa
run.INF
snabbt.
fast
b. *Han
he
pstods
claim.PAST
sprang
run.PAST
snabbt.
fast
he was claimed to run fast.
(20) a. Tro
believe.IMP
dig
REFL
vara
be.INF
vacker
beautiful
och
and
du
you
blir
become.PRES
vacker!
beautiful
b. *Tro
believe.IMP
dig
REFL
var
be.IMP
vacker
beautiful
och
and
du
you
blir
become.PRES
vacker!
beautiful
Believe yourself to be beautiful and you become beautiful!
(21) a. De
they
hade
had
ansett
consider.PPC.
honom
him
bli
become.INF
oartig.
impolite
b. *De
they
hade
had
ansett
consider.PPC.
honom
him
blivit
become.PPC
oartig.
impolite
They had considered him to become inpolite.
Since these two classes are very similar, we can conclude little as to what
correlates with copying. We do however have a rst hint that ECMand raising
are not correlated with copying, since the two classes differ both with their
capacity to raise and to ECM while not differing in copying.
2.2. The skmmas ver class [+Tns, +Fact, +SuC, B]
Vara ledsen (ver) be sorry (about), vara stolt (ver) be proud (of), skm-
mas (ver) be ashamed (of) and similar expressions may select innitives
that arguably qualify as factive in Swedish. These are tensed, subject-control,
and non-bare:
(22) a. Han
he
var
be.PAST
ledsen
sorry
ver
over
att
to
sra
hurt.INF
dig
you
(*p
next
fredag).
Friday
He was sorry to hurt you (*next Friday).
b. Han
he
r
be.PRES
ledsen
sorry
ver
over
att
to
ha
have
srat
hurt.PPC
dig
you
igr.
yesterday
He is sorry to have hurt you yesterday.
They do not support copying:
38
(23) a. Han
he
var
be.PAST
ledsen
sorry
ver
over
att
to
mista
lose.INF
jobbet.
job.DEF
b. *Han
he
var
be.PAST
ledsen
sorry
ver
over
o
&
miste
lose.PAST
jobbet.
job.DEF
He was sorry to lose his job.
(24) a. Var
be.IMP
stolt
proud
ver
over
att
to
komma
come.INF
frst!
rst
b. *Var
be.IMP
stolt
proud
ver
over
o
&
kom
come.IMP
frst!
rst
Be proud of arriving rst.
(25) a. Han
he
hade
had
skmts
be-ashame.PPC
ver
over
att
to
ge
give.INF
upp.
up
b. *Han
he
hade
had
skmts
be-ashame.PPC
ver
over
o
&
gett
give.PPC
upp.
up
He had been ashamed about giving up.
Interestingly, this small sample already gives us minimal pairs with respect
to almost every property: none of these verbs copy, but they vary in propo-
sitionality, factivity, raising, ECM, control and necessity of an overt comple-
mentizer. The only aspect they all share is their being tensed.
2.3. The frvnta class [+Tns, Prop, Fact, Su/ObC, +B]
The verbs frvnta expect and befara fear are like pst claim in that
they only select an innitive if passivized, or in active form if the subject of
the innitive is fronted. In addition, frvnta may do so if the verb is used
reexively. They differ from verbs from the pst-class in selecting future-
oriented bare innitives. Copying is ungrammatical:
39
(26) a. Han
he
frvntar
expect.PRES
sig
REFL
att
to
kunna
can.INF
komma
come.INF
nsta
next
vecka.
week
b. *Han
he
frvntar
expect.PRES
sig
REFL
o
&
kan
can.PRES
komma
come.INF
nsta
next
vecka
week
He expects to be able to come next week.
(27) a. Frvnta
expect.IMP
dig
REFL
att
to
hra
hear.INF
frn
from
honom
him
nsta
next
vecka!
week
b. *Frvnta
expect.IMP
dig
REFL
o
&
hr
hear.IMP
frn
from
honom
him
nsta
next
vecka!
week
Expect to hear from him next week!
(28) a. Han
he
hade
had
frvntats
expect.PPC.PASS
komma
come.INF
hem
home
nsta
next
vecka.
week
b. *Han
he
hade
had
frvntats
expect.PPC.PASS
kommit
come.PPC
hem
home
nsta
next
vecka.
week
He had been expected to come home next week.
This new information enables us to discard the [+/Prop] distinction among
tensed innitives as a predictor for copying. A limited set of Swedish and
Norwegian variants display what we will refer to as partial copying with
verbs selecting future-oriented complements. For these speakers copying of
imperative and/or participial form is possible or marginally possible with the
above verbs and/or with some of the verbs from the besluta class and the
vertala class presented below. A discussion of these variants is postponed to
5.3 below.
2.4. The besluta class [+Tns, Prop, Fact, +SuC, B]
Besluta decide selects a non-bare, future-oriented innitive, where the un-
derstood subject is controlled by the matrix subject. Other verbs that belong
to the same class include avse intend, planera plan, krva require, lova
promise, hota med threaten, riskera risk, svra swear, and vervga
consider.
40
Copying is ungrammatical with these:
41
(29) a. Han
he
vervger
consider.PRES
att
to
skriva
write.INF
brevet
letter.DEF
nsta
next
vecka.
week
b. *Han
he
vervger
consider.PRES
o
&
skriver
write.PRES
brevet
letter.DEF
nsta
next
vecka.
week
He considers writing the letter next week.
(30) a. Besluta
decide.IMP
(dig
(REFL
fr)
for)
att
to
komma
come.INF
hem
home
nsta
next
vecka!
week
b. *Besluta
decide.IMP
(dig
(REFL
fr)
for)
o
&
kom
come.IMP
hem
home
nsta
next
vecka!
week
Make a decision to come home next week.
(31) a. Han
he
hade
had
svurit
swear.PPC
att
to
komma
come.INF
nsta
next
vecka.
week
b. *Han
he
hade
had
svurit
swore.PPC
o
&
kommit
come.PPC
nsta
next
vecka.
week
He had sworn to come next week.
2.5. The vertala class [+Tns, Prop, Fact, +ObC, B]
vertala persuade patterns with besluta decide above in selecting a future-
oriented non-bare innitive. It differs from besluta in that the understood sub-
ject is controlled, not by the matrix subject, but by the matrix object. Other
verbs in the same class are be ask, befalla order, rekommendera recom-
mend, sga till/t tell, uppmuntra encourage, erbjuda offer, and upp-
mana request, urge.
42
An object control reading is also possible with lova
promise when certain modals are present in the complement. The verbs in
this class do not allow copying:
(32) a. Han
he
vertalade
persuade.PAST
henne
her
att
to
komma
come.INF
nsta
next
vecka.
week
b. *Han
he
vertalade
persuade.PAST
henne
her
o
&
kom
come.PAST
nsta
next
vecka.
week
He persuaded her to come next week.
(33) a. Befall
order.IMP
henne
her
att
to
skriva
write.INF
p
on
imorgon!
tomorrow
b. *Befall
order.IMP
henne
her
o
&
skriv
write.IMP
p
on
imorgon!
tomorrow
Order her to sign tomorrow!
(34) a. Han
he
hade
had
uppmuntrat
persuade.PPC
henne
her
att
to
komma
come.INF
nsta
next
vecka.
week
b. *Han
he
hade
had
uppmuntrat
persuade.PPC
henne
her
o
&
kommit
come.PPC
nsta
next
vecka.
week
He had persuaded her to come next week.
We are now in a position to conclude that copying seems insensitive to the
distinction between subject and object control. Table 4 below illustrates the
classes arrived at so far.
Table 4. Tensed innitives
Copy Tns Prop Fact Rais ECM SuC ObC B
pst claim + + (+) (+) +
anse consider + + + +
skmmas ashamed + + +
frvnta expect + (+) (+) +
besluta decide + +
vertala persuade + +
2.6. The sluta/kunna class [Tns, +Rais, +/B]
Raising verbs such as sluta stop are the rst verbs that select tenseless com-
plements in this overview:
(35) a. Jag
I
slutade
stop.PAST
att
to
spela
play.INF
(*imorgon).
tomorrow
I stopped playing (*tomorrow).
b. *Jag
I
slutar
stop.PRES
att
to
ha
have
spelat
play.PPC
igr.
yesterday
I stop to have played yesterday.
This (large) set of verbs divides into two subclasses, those that never have
an innitive marker in the innitival (bare), and those that can have such a
marker (non-bare). The non-bare subclass contains aspectual verbs such as
sluta stop, brja start, fortstta continue, hlla p lit. hold on (yield-
ing either a progressive reading, or a reading corresponding to nearly doing
something), stta igng lit. set in-motion (yielding an ingressive reading
closely corresponding to start), vara p vg lit. be on way (yielding a read-
ing corresponding to be about to), and raising hota threaten. This class of
verbs is by far the most commonly accepted one to embed TMA-copying in-
nitivals.
43
Thus, the full range of forms may be copied, illustrated by the
past, the imperative, and the participial form below:
44
(36) a. Jag
I
fortsatte
continue.PAST
att
to
skriva
write.INF
brev
letters
till
to
henne.
her
b. Jag
I
fortsatte
continue.PAST
o
&
skrev
write.PAST
brev
letters
till
to
henne.
her
I contined to write letters to her.
(37) a. Brja
Start.IMP
att
to
lsa!
read.INF
b. Brja
Start.IMP
o
&
ls!
read.IMP
Start reading!
(38) a. Jag
I
hade
had
hllit
hold.PPC
p
on
att
to
skriva
write.INF
till
to
henne
her
i
in
tv
two
dar.
days
b. Jag
I
hade
had
hllit
hold.PPC
p
on
o
&
skrivit
write.PPC
till
to
henne
her
i
in
tv
two
dar.
days
I had been writing to her for two days.
The second class of raising verbs selecting tenseless innitivals contrasts with
the sluta-class above in selecting bare innitives. The class contains modal
and evidential verbs such as msta must, kunna can, bra ought (on both
root and epistemic readings), lr expressing hearsay evidentiality,
45
behva
need, ska shall/will, komma lit. come (meaning will), rka happen,
verka seem, and frefalla appear.
46
The aspectual verb bruka be in the
habit of also belongs to this class.
(39) a. Han
he
brukade
use.PAST
lsa
read.INF
tidningen
newspaper.DEF
(*imorgon)
tomorrow
He used to read the newspaper (*tomorrow)
b. Han
he
brukar
use.PRES
ha
have
lst
read.PPC
tidningen
newspaper.DEF
(*igr)
yesterday
Usually he has read the paper (*yesterday).
An example like (40) may appear to cast doubt on the classication of modals
as selecting tenseless innitivals.
(40) Han
he
borde
ought.PAST
skriva
write.INF
ett
a
brev
letter
imorgon.
tomorrow
He ought to write a letter tomorrow
However, the past form of borde is not a form expressing a temporal rela-
tion but a form that serves to express modality. Insertion of a mismatching
temporal adverb in the matrix results in ungrammaticality.
(41) *Igr
yesterday
borde
ought.PAST
han
he
skriva
write.INF
ett
a
brev
letter
imorgon.
tomorrow
More problematic appear examples like (42a), where adding a temporal ad-
verb does not lead to ungrammaticality; (42b) is acceptable, although prag-
matically restricted.
(42) a. Han
he
kunde
can.PAST
resa
travel.INF
imorgon.
tomorrow
He could travel tomorrow.
b. #Igr
yesterday
kunde
can.PAST
han
he
resa
travel.INF
imorgon.
tomorrow
The pragmatic restriction on (42b) is that the context must support adding an
understood speech event (or other attitudinal event) which took place yester-
day.
47
(42b) when acceptable is thus equivalent to (43) (or a similar sentence
with a reporting event in the matrix). It is this reporting event which is located
by the adverb igr yesterday. The apparent mismatch in (42b) is between
a (covert) reporting event and the reported fact, not between the overt matrix
and its complement.
48
(43) Igr
yesterday
sade
say.PAST
han
he
att
that
han
he
kunde
can.PAST
resa
travel
imorgon.
tomorrow
Yesterday he said that he could travel tomorrow.
Epistemic modals differ from root modals in being capable of selecting what
appears to be past-oriented innitivals, see (44). This is also true in English
and Dutch (Jan-Wouter Zwart, p.c.). In this case, the matrix clause does not
tolerate the addition of a temporal adverbial, cf. (45)
(44) Jag
I
mste
must
ha
have
sovit
sleep.PPC
igr.
yesterday
I must have been asleep yesterday.
(45) *Idag
today
mste
must
jag
I
ha
have
sovit
sleep.PPC
igr.
yesterday
However, tense may still be included within the complement of the modal,
if epistemic modals are merged above tense, cf. Cinque (1999). Although
epistemic modals will not be discussed separately in the discussion that fol-
lows, the important point for the predictions that we will make concerning
copying is that there is just one tense, shared between the modal and the
innitival.
Most Swedish modals can occur with proper expletives, weather-it, and id-
iomatic subjects on both epistemic and root readings, see Eide and Nordgrd
(2000) and Eide (2006) for discussion of Norwegian modals. As opposed to
English modals, most Scandinavian modals have participial and innitival
forms. The notable exceptions in Swedish are:
ska shall/will), which in present-day Swedish is used in the nite forms
alone (present and preterite).
49
komma lit. come (meaning will), which is restricted to present form when
expressing the future (cf. Christensen 1997).
lr expressing hearsay evidentiality, restricted to the present form.
Copying of participial form is possible in fact very common with these
verbs. Imperative copying is impossible to test since these verbs lack imper-
ative forms in their paradigms. Present and past forms, however, do not copy.
The relevant verbs therefore select participle copying innitivals:
50
(46) a. Han
he
kunde
can.PAST
skriva.
write.INF
b. *Han
he
kunde
can.PAST
skrev.
write.PAST
He knew how to write.
(47) a. Han
he
hade
had
kunnat
can.PPC
lsa.
read.INF
b. Han
he
hade
had
kunnat
can.PPC
lst.
read.PPC
(48) a. Han
he
verkade
seem.PAST
bli
become.INF
sjuk.
ill
b. *Han
he
verkade
seem.PAST
blev
become.PAST
sjuk.
ill
He seemed to become ill.
(49) a. Han
he
har
has
lnge
long
verkat
seem.PPC
vara
be.INF
sjuk.
ill
b. Han
he
har
has
lnge
long
verkat
seem.PPC
varit
be.PPC
sjuk.
ill
For a long time he has seemed to be ill.
This (sub)class thus contrasts minimally with the non-bare raising verbs of
the preceding section, showing that the bare/non-bare distinction is not a pre-
dictor of the possibility of copying. On the other hand, we now see a correla-
tion emerging in the sense that all +Tns verb classes investigated so far dis-
allow copying, while the present Tns class may select copying innitivals.
The following section will strengthen this correlation. If copying can only
take place with verbs selecting tenseless innitivals, we may ask whether the
raising/ECM/control distinction still plays a role in that context in the vari-
ants investigated. The following sections introduces ECM-verbs and subject-
/object control verbs that select tenseless innitivals.
2.7. The f/lta class [Tns, +ECM, +/B]
Two verbs, the causative version of f get and the verb lta let, select
tenseless ECM innitives. They differ in that the complement of f is intro-
duced by a complementiser, whereas lta requires a bare innitive. Copying
is possible with both verbs. We may thus discard ECM as relevant to copy-
ing. They differ, however, in that f selects a TMA-copying innitival (tense
copying is marginally possible), whereas copying with lta is restricted to
participial form:
(50) a. Jag
I
hade
had
ftt
get.PPC
henne
her
att
to
skriva
write.INF
p
on
kontraktet.
contract
b. Jag
I
hade
had
ftt
get.PPC
henne
her
o
&
skrivit
write.PPC
p
on
kontraktet.
contract
I had made her sign the contract.
(51) a. Jag
I
ck
get.PAST
henne
her
att
to
skriva
write.INF
p
on
kontraktet.
contract
b. ?Jag
I
ck
get.PAST
henne
her
o
&
skrev
write.PAST
p
on
kontraktet.
contract
I made her sign the contract.
(52) a. Lt
let.IMP
det
EXPL
ligga
lie.INF
blommor
ower.PL
dr!
there
b. *Lt
let.IMP
det
EXPL
ligg
lie.IMP
blommor
ower.PL
dr!
there
Let there be owers there.
(53) a. Jag
I
lt
let.PAST
det
EXPL
komma
come.INF
fem
ve
personer.
person.PL
b. *Jag
I
lt
let.PAST
det
EXPL
kom
come.PAST
fem
ve
personer.
person.PL
I let ve persons come.
(54) a. Jag
I
hade
had
ltit
let.PPC
det
EXPL
komma
come.INF
fem
ve
personer.
person.PL
b. Jag
I
hade
had
ltit
let.PPC
det
EXPL
kommit
come.PPC
fem
ve
personer.
person.PL
I had let ve persons come.
2.8. The glmma/tras class [Tns, +SuC, +/B]
Tenseless subject-control innitives again divide into two minimally differ-
ing subclasses: non-bare and bare. The non-bare version is selected by verbs
such as glmma forget, strunta i not bother about, undvika avoid, prva
try, frska try, lta bli lit. let be (i.e. refrain from), komma ihg re-
member, hinna med manage (timewise), lra sig learn, passa p take
the opportunity, skynda sig hurry, inte bry sig om not care about, gna
sig t devote oneself to, r med cope with, manage (energy-wise), and -
nally vgra refuse and vlja choose on one use.
51
Copying of all forms is
possible:
(55) a. Jag
I
glmde
forget.PAST
att
to
skriva
write.INF
brevet.
letter.DEF
b. Jag
I
glmde
forget.PAST
o
&
skrev
write.PAST
brevet.
letter.DEF
I forgot to write the letter.
(56) a. Vi
We
struntar
bother-not.PRES
i
to
att
go.INF
g
there
dit.
b. Vi
We
struntar
bother-not.PRES
i
&
o
go.PRES
gr
there
dit.
We dont bother to go there.
(57) a. Vi
We
frskte
try.PAST
att
to
g
go.INF
dit.
there
b. Vi
We
frskte
try.PAST
o
&
gick
go.PAST
dit.
there
We tried to go there.
(58) a. Skynda
hurry.IMP
dig
REFL
att
to
skriva!
write.INF
b. Skynda
hurry.IMP
dig
REFL
o
&
skriv!
write.IMP
Hurry to write!
(59) a. Jag
I
hade
had
undvikit
avoid.PPC
att
to
ringa
call.INF
henne.
her
b. Jag
I
hade
had
undvikit
avoid.PPC
o
&
ringt
call.PPC
henne.
her
I had avoided to call her.
Tras dare, and f lit. get (be allowed) are also subject-control verbs se-
lecting tenseless innitives but they select bare complements. Again, this
makes no difference to copying, which is possible, albeit limited to participial
form. The relevant verbs may thus select participle copying innitivals:
52
(60) a. Jag
I
ck
get.PAST
lsa
read.INF
boken.
book.DEF
b. *Jag
I
ck
get.PAST
lste
read.PAST
boken.
book.DEF
I was allowed to read the book.
(61) a. F
get.IMP
lsa
read.INF
boken!
book.DEF
b. *F
get.IMP
ls
read.IMP
boken!
book.DEF
Let me read the book!
(62) a. Jag
I
hade
had
ftt
get.PPC
lsa
read.INF
boken.
book.DEF
b. Jag
I
hade
had
ftt
get.PPC
lst
read.PPC
boken.
book.DEF
I had been allowed to read the book.
At this point we may conclude that the distinction between raising/ECM and
subject control is irrelevant for copying. Raising verbs, ECM-verbs, and sub-
ject control verbs all allow copying (as long as their complements are tense-
less).
2.9. The hjlpa/lta class [Tns, +ObC, +/B]
Finally, tenseless object-control innitives follow a similar pattern. They sub-
divide into non-bare and bare, with both subclasses allowing copying. Verbs
selecting non-bare innitivals include hjlpa help, tvinga force, and lra
teach. These are compatible with TMA-copying:
(63) a. Jag
I
hjlpte
help.PAST
henne
her
att
to
komma
come.INF
hem.
home
b. Jag
I
hjlpte
help.PAST
henne
her
o
&
kom
come.PAST
hem.
home
I helped her to come home.
(64) a. Jag
I
tvingar
force.PRES
henne
her
att
to
kpa
buy.INF
bananer.
bananas
b. Jag
I
tvingar
force.PRES
henne
her
o
&
kper
buy.PRES
bananer.
bananas
I force her to buy bananas.
(65) a. Tvinga
force.IMP
henne
her
att
to
kpa
buy.INF
bananer!
bananas
b. Tvinga
force.IMP
henne
her
o
&
kp
buy.IMP
bananer!
bananas
Force her to buy bananas!
Copying is restricted to tenseless innitivals 57
(66) a. Jag
I
hade
had
lrt
teach.PPC
henne
her
att
to
skriva.
write.INF
b. Jag
I
hade
had
lrt
teach.PPC
henne
her
o
&
skrivit.
write.PPC
I had taught her how to write.
Lta lit. let (meaning allow) contrasts with the above class, in two respects.
It selects a bare innitive and copying is restricted to participial form:
(67) a. Jag
I
lt
let.PAST
henne
her
kpa
buy.INF
bananer.
bananas
b. *Jag
I
lt
let.PAST
henne
her
kpte
buy.PAST
bananer.
bananas
I allowed her to buy bananas.
(68) a. Lt
let.IMP
henne
her
kpa
buy.INF
bananer!
bananas
b. *Lt
let.IMP
henne
her
kp
buy.IMP
bananer!
bananas
Allow her to buy bananas!
(69) a. Jag
I
hade
had
ltit
let.PPC
henne
her
kpa
buy.INF
bananer.
bananas
b. Jag
I
hade
had
ltit
let.PPC
henne
her
kpt
buy.PPC
bananer.
bananas
I had allowed her buy bananas.
We are nowin a position to consider object control along with raising, subject-
control, and ECM as irrelevant to the copy mechanism in the variants in-
vestigated.
3. Copying is restricted to tenseless innitivals
At this point a clear generalization emerges. As can be seen from table 5 be-
low, the Copy property (for the verb classes investigated thus far) goes hand
in hand with the Tns property, in that verbs that select tensed innitivals do
not generally occur with copying innitivals, whereas verbs selecting tense-
less innitivals do in the variants investigated. No other property comes close
to this match: the raising/ECM/control status of innitivals is clearly irrele-
vant as counterexamples exist in all directions (ie. ECM covers both verbs
which do copy (f) and verbs which dont (anse); within copying verbs, some
are ECM some not (eg. f versus glmma); and likewise within non-copying
verbs (anse versus besluta). The same holds for the bare/non-bare distinction.
Finally, while propositional and factive verbs disallow copying, these classes
are in fact subclasses of the class [+Tns].
Table 5. Tensed vs. tenseless innitivals
pst claim + + (+) (+) +
anse consider + + + +
skmmas ashamed + + +
frvnta expect + (+) (+) +
besluta decide + +
vertala persuade + +
sluta stop TMA +
kunna can PPC + +
f get (causative) TMA +
lta let PPC + +
glmma forget TMA +
tras dare PPC + +
hjlpa help TMA +
lta allow PPC + +
Apart from the correlation between absence of tense and presence of copy-
ing, an additional piece of information that is relevant to us can be retrieved
from the table. Within the classes of verbs that select copying complements,
the choice between TMA-copying and PPC-copying is fully correlated with
the Bare/Non-bare distinction, in that verbs that are [Tns, B] TMA-copy,
while [Tns, +B] verbs restrict copying to the participial form.
53
This infor-
mation will ultimately lead us to explain the two differences between TMA-
copying complements and participle copying complements.
This table also reveals other intriguing patterns, which we will not be con-
cerned with here. For instance, the tenseless classes contrast with the tensed
classes in being very regular, cleanly subdividing into raising, ECM, SC, OC
and then subdividing into bare and non-bare. Secondly, all (two) tenseless
ECM verbs are causatives verbs.
Two classes are not discussed yet and thus missing in the table. One class
(desideratives) appears to select a future-oriented innitival, yet allows copy-
ing, the other class (perception verbs) selects a tenseless innitival, yet disal-
Predictions 59
lows copying. I defer a discussion of these until 5 below. Disregarding for
the moment being apparent exceptions to the general pattern, we may con-
clude that TMA-copying innitivals and participle copying innitivals again
display identical effects; both seem sensitive to the tense of the complement
clause into which copying takes place.
4. Predictions
We are now in a position to make predictions about cases involving ma-
trix verbs with multiple subcategorization frames. For a speaker who accepts
copying under such verbs, copying should be ne when the verb selects a
tenseless innitival and bad when the verb selects a tensed innitival. There
are quite a few such verbs in Swedish. Prva and frska try and the two
causative verbs tvinga force and f get typically select tenseless inniti-
vals but can appear with future-oriented innitivals on particular readings for
some speakers (including me). The verb try to X on a future-oriented reading
corresponds to something like try to make (unspecied) arrangements so as
to make X happen or try to get permission to do X:
54
(70) Jag
I
prvade
try.PAST
att
to
komma
come.INF
hem
home
(nsta
(next
vecka).
week)
I tried to (make arrangements to) come home (next week).
The combination of a causative verb and a future-oriented innitive yields
a reading corresponding to something like cause somebody to agree to do
something (at a later time):
(71) Jag
I
ck
get.PAST
henne
her
att
to
sitta
sit.INF
barnvakt
babywatch
(nsta
(next
vecka).
week)
I made her (agree to) babysit (next week).
(72) Jag
I
tvingade
force.PAST
henne
her
att
to
skriva
sign.INF
p
on
(nsta
(next
vecka).
week)
I forced her to (agree to) sign (next week).
The prediction that the copying capacity is lost when the innitival becomes
tensed is borne out. Copying is ne in the tenseless, but bad in the tensed
innitivals, as evidenced by the impossibility of inserting a future-oriented
adverbial in a TMA-copying innitival under these verbs:
(73) a. Jag
I
prvade
try.PAST
o
&
kom
come.PAST
hem
home
(*nsta
(next
vecka).
week)
b. ?Jag
I
ck
get.PAST
henne
her
o
&
satt
sit.PAST
barnvakt
babywatch
(*nsta
(next
vecka).
week)
c. Jag
I
tvingade
force.PAST
henne
her
o
&
skrev
sign.PAST
p
on
(*nsta
(next
vecka).
week)
Note that the future-oriented readings are unavailable in the absence of the
adverbials. Similar contrasts are found with the verbs vgra refuse and vlja
choose that may select future-oriented innitivals on certain uses:
(74) Jag
I
vgrade
refuse.PAST
att
to
skriva
sign.INF
p
on
(nsta
(next
vecka).
week)
I refused to (agree to) sign (next week).
Whereas copying is marginally possible in the tenseless innitival, copying
leads to ungrammaticality in the tensed innitival:
(75) ?Jag
I
vgrade
refuse.PAST
o
&
skrev
sign.PAST
p
on
(*nsta
(next
vecka).
week)
I refused to (agree to) sign (next week).
The tense generalisation also predicts a contrast in spreading of inection in
multiple embeddings. Given a conguration such as (76), where both V1 and
V2 select an innitival complement, and V1 selects a tenseless innitival, we
predict that there will be a contrast in copying depending on the nature of V2:
(76) . . . V1 [
inn,
. . . V2 [
inn
. . . V3 . . . ]]
If V2 selects a tenseless innitival, copying may spread all the way down to
V3; if on the other hand V2 selects a tensed innitival, spreading will be in-
terrupted and will only reach V2. This prediction is correct. (77) involves the
verb sluta stop, embedding an innitival headed by rda advice, in turn
embedding an innitival headed by g go. Whereas sluta selects a tense-
less innitival, the intermediate verb rda selects a tensed innitival. As pre-
dicted, copying does not reach V3, only V2, cf. (77b) and (77c).
55
(77) a. Han
he
slutade
stop.PAST
[att
to
rda
advice.INF
henne
her
[att
to
g
go.INF
till
to
kyrkan]].
church
Apparent counterexamples 61
b. *Han
he
slutade
stop.PAST
[o
&
rdde
advice.PAST
henne
her
[o
&
gick
go.PAST
till
to
kyrkan]].
church
c. Han
he
slutade
stop.PAST
[o
&
rdde
advice.PAST
henne
her
[att
to
g
go.INF
till
to
kyrkan]].
church
d. *Han
he
slutade
stop.PAST
[att
to
rda
advice.INF
henne
her
[o
&
gick
go.PAST
till
to
kyrkan]].
church
He stopped advicing her to go to church.
(78) differs from (77) in that the intermediate verb (V2) selects a tenseless
innitival. As predicted, copying may spread all the way down to the most
embeded verb (V3), see (78b).
(78) a. Han
he
slutade
stop.PAST
[att
to
hjlpa
help.INF
henne
her
[att
to
g
go.INF
till
to
kyrkan]].
church
b. Han
he
slutade
stop.PAST
[o
&
hjlpte
help.PAST
henne
her
[o
&
gick
go.PAST
till
to
kyrkan]].
church
c. Han
he
slutade
stop.PAST
[o
&
hjlpte
help.PAST
henne
her
[att
to
g
go.INF
till
to
kyrkan]].
church
d. *Han
he
slutade
stop.PAST
[att
to
hjlpa
help.INF
henne
her
[o
&
gick
go.PAST
till
to
kyrkan]].
church
He stopped helping her to go to church.
These facts conform to our expectations based on the hypothesis that copy-
ing is restricted to tenseless innitivals. Below, I introduce the prima facie
counterexamples to this hypothesis.
5. Apparent counterexamples
Two classes, not discussed yet, constitute exceptions to the general pattern.
One class (desideratives) selects a future-oriented innitival, yet allows copy-
ing, the other class (perception verbs) selects a tenseless innitival, yet disal-
lows copying. I present the two in turn below, followed by an introduction to
the phenomenon of partial copying. These three classes of exceptions will all
be accounted for in Chapter 4.
5.1. Desideratives the vilja class
Subject control verbs selecting bare future-oriented innitives include vilja
want, nska wish, hoppas hope, and tnka lit. think (meaning roughly
intend). These are often referred to as desideratives or volitionals in the lit-
erature. Some of these verbs differ from other subject control verbs selecting
future-oriented innitivals in being capable of selecting participle copying
innitivals. E.g., vilja may select a participle copying innitival, even in the
presence of a future-oriented adverbial (79b). The same is also true for tnka,
cf. (80b).
(79) a. Han
he
hade
had
lnge
long
velat
want.PPC
komma
come.INF
hem
home
nsta
next
vecka.
week
b. Han
he
hade
had
lnge
long
velat
want.PPC
kommit
come.PPC
hem
home
nsta
next
vecka.
week
He had long wanted to come home next week.
(80) a. Han
he
hade
had
tnkt
think.PPC
lsa
read.INF
en
a
bok
book
ikvll.
tonight
b. Han
he
hade
had
tnkt
think.PPC
lst
read.PPC
en
a
bok
book
ikvll.
tonight
He was planning to read a book tonight.
Other forms do not copy:
(81) a. Han
he
ville
want.PAST
komma
come.INF
hem
home
nsta
next
vecka.
week
b. *Han
he
ville
want.PAST
kom
come.PAST
hem
home
nsta
next
vecka.
week
He wanted to come home next week.
(82) a. Han
he
tnkte
think.PAST
lsa
read.INF
en
a
bok
book
ikvll.
tonight
b. *Han
he
tnkte
think.PAST
lste
read.PAST
en
a
bok
book
ikvll.
tonight
He planned to read a book tonight.
Given that copying is otherwise restricted to tenseless innitivals in the vari-
ants investigated, desideratives thus constitute an exceptional class of copiers.
Table 6. Desideratives
vilja want PPC + + +
Interestingly, desideratives have been observed to behave in unexpected ways
with respect to a number of other phenomena cross-linguistically. Wurm-
brand (2001) observes that the German counterpart of want has multiple
subcategorization frames and is capable of selecting both a smaller type of
innitival (restructuring innitive) in addition to a more elaborate innitival
clause. This also seems to be the case for the Italian counterpart of want, see
Cinque (2004).
Furthermore, despite imposing selectional restrictions on their subject,
desideratives seem to share many properties with modal raising verbs cross-
linguistically (see e.g. Picallo 1990) and the more prototypical exponents are
in fact often reanalyzed to include a modal use. Restricting attention to close
relatives of Swedish,the Norwegian and Danish cognate of Swedish vilja,
ville, has developed a future auxiliary function in addition to its function as a
volitional verb.
Note, however, that (83) below that involves mismatching temporal ad-
verbs in the matrix and embedded clause lacks the pragmatic restriction seen
with the modal counterpart in (42b) and thus desideratives can not be treated
on a par with modals, even though they share some properties with these.
(83) Igr
yesterday
ville
want.PAST
han
he
komma
come.INF
hem
home
nsta
next
vecka.
week
Yesterday he wanted to come home next week.
In Chapter 4 below, I provide an analysis of desiderative complements that
captures the relevant properties.
5.2. Absence of copying the se class
Perception verbs such as hra hear, knna feel, and se see are ECM
verbs selecting tenseless bare innitivals:
(84) a. Jag
I
sg
see.PAST
henne
her
springa
run.INF
i
in
trappan
stairs.DEF
(*p
(*next
fredag).
Friday)
b. *Jag
I
ser
see.PRES
henne
her
ha
have
sprungit
run.PPC
i
in
trappan
stairs.DEF
igr.
yesterday
These differ from the other verbs selecting tenseless innitivals encountered
here in not allowing copying of inection in the variants consulted. The b-
examples below are sharply ungrammatical; (87b), with participial copying,
is less unacceptable in my variant but still quite deviant.
(85) a. Jag
I
sg
see.PAST
henne
her
springa
run.INF
i
in
trappan.
stairs.DEF
b. *Jag
I
sg
see.PAST
henne
her
sprang
run.PAST
i
in
trappan.
stairs.DEF
I saw her run in the stairs.
(86) a. Se
see.IMP
henne
her
springa
run.INF
i
in
trappan!
stairs.DEF
b. *Se
see.IMP
henne
her
spring
run.IMP
i
in
trappan!
stairs.DEF
Watch her run in the stairs!
(87) a. Jag
I
hade
had
hrt
hear.PPC
henne
her
springa
run.INF
i
in
trappan.
stairs.DEF
b. *?Jag
I
hade
had
hrt
hear.PPC
henne
her
sprungit
run.PPC
i
in
trappan.
stairs.DEF
I had heard her run in the stairs.
Table 7. Perception verbs
se see + +
Even if the absence of copying with these verbs does not falsify the hypoth-
esis that copying is restricted to tenseless innitivals, it constitutes an excep-
tion to the general pattern and thus requires an explanation, see Chapter 4 for
a proposal.
5.3. Partial copying
We have hitherto restricted attention to variants where the dichotomy TMA-
copying vs. participle copying is fairly clean. However, there are variants
where full TMA-copying is excluded, but which nevertheless display copy-
ing, although of a restricted set of forms. I will refer to the phenomenon as
partial copying. Some speakers consistently disallow copying of tensed forms
(present and past), either with all, or with some innitive selecting verbs. For
the latter class of speakers, therefore, the class of innitivals picked out by
tests of participle/imperative copying will be a superset of the class of inni-
tivals picked out by tests of present/past copying. This is, I argue, one of the
sources for the confusion in the literature regarding copying phenomena and
the proposal that participle copying and imperative copying are phenomenona
distinct from TMA-copying, see Julien (2003). For speakers that allow par-
tial but not full copying with e.g. prva try, the copying paradigm looks as
follows:
(88) a. *Vi
We
prvar
try.PRES
o
o
skriver.
write.PRES
(Partial-copy var.)
We try to write.
b. *Vi
We
prvade
try.PAST
o
o
skrev.
write.PAST
We tried to write.
c. Prva
try.IMP
o
o
skriv!
write.IMP
Try to write!
d. Vi
We
hade
had
prvat
try.PPC
o
o
skrivit.
write.PPC
We had tried to write.
If a speaker allows copying of tensed forms, the speaker also typically al-
lows copying of imperative and participial forms, whereas the reverse impli-
cation obviously does not hold. Moreover, for a limited set of Norwegian and
Swedish speakers, partial copying extends to seemingly future-oriented (thus
tensed) innitivals, cf. Julien (2003):
(89) %Erbjud
offer.IMP
dig
REFL
o
o
gr
do.IMP
det
it
(%imorgon)!
tomorrow
Offer to do it tomorrow!
(90) %Han
he
hade
had
planerat
plan.PPC
o
o
kommit
come.PPC
hem
home
(%imorgon).
tomorrow
He had planned to come home tomorrow.
(91) %Han
he
hade
had
lovat
promise.PPC
(henne)
(her)
o
o
kommit
come.PPC
hem
home
(%imorgon).
tomorrow
He had promised (her) to come home tomorrow.
Some of the speakers that allow partial copying with verbs selecting future-
oriented innitivals only allow copying in the absence of the adverbial in the
embedded clause. These variants offer support for the correlation identied
here; presence of tense implies absence of copying. For a limited set of speak-
ers, however, partial copying is also possible in the presence of the adverbial
with some verbs. For these speakers, therefore, tensedness still blocks copy-
ing of tensed forms, but does not block partial copying. In Chapter 4 below
(see also Chapter 7), I offer an account for this phenomenon.
6. Conclusion
In this chapter we were able to add one more property to the list characterizing
copying innitivals. Copying is sensitive to the tense of the complement into
which copying occurs. The full list of properties now looks as follows:
Copying constructions involve complementation.
Copied inection is semantically vacuous.
Copying is top-down, syntactic, and local.
Copying is limited to tenseless complements.
Chapter 4
Copying as a restructuring effect
In the preceding chapter, we observed that TMA-copying innitivals and par-
ticiple copying innitivals have distinct selectors and that the category se-
lected by the two classes of verbs differ w.r.t. bareness. Verbs that select
TMA-copying complements select non-bare innitivals (containing an in-
nitival marker), whereas verbs that select participle copying complements
select bare innitivals (lacking an innitival marker), see Table 8.
Table 8. copying non-bare/bare
Verb class Copying complement Standard inf.
sluta stop (Raising) TMA non-bare
f get (causative) (ECM) TMA non-bare
glmma forget (Subj. control) TMA non-bare
hjlpa help (Obj. control) TMA non-bare
kunna can (Raising) PPC bare
lta let (ECM) PPC bare
tras dare (Subj. control) PPC bare
lta allow (Obj. control) PPC bare
This nding will allow us to account for the differences between the two
construction types:
TMA-copying complements are introduced by the conjunction-like ele-
ment o(ch). Participle copying complements are not.
TMA-copying complements may copy the full range of verbal forms. Par-
ticiple copying complements may not.
As we examine the standard non-copying innitivals selected by the relevant
verbs in more detail, we will see that those selected by verbs that TMA-copy
contain more functional structure than those selected by verbs that participle
copy.
On the assumption that the corresponding copying ininitivals display the
same difference in number of functional projections present, copying can be
taken to be proportional to the number of functional projections present in the
complement clause.
68 Copying as a restructuring effect
I will be led to propose that:
Copying is a reex of dependencies between functional heads of the same
label.
In the remaining part of the chapter, I present arguments in favour of taking
copying to be a surface reex of restructuring. If my hypothesis is correct, the
data presented here suggest that restructuring can not be reudced to mono-
clausal congurations, as proposed in some of the literature on the topic.
1. The C-domain
The copy paradigms for TMA-copying and participle copying innitivals are
repeated in Table 9 and exemplied in (1) and (2), respectively.
Table 9. Copied forms
IMP PRES PAST PPC
TMA-copying + + + +
Participle copying +
(1) a. Brja
start.IMP
o
o
skriv!
write.IMP
Start writing!
b. Hon
she
brjar
start.PRES
o
o
skriver.
write.PRES
She starts writing.
c. Hon
she
brjade
start.PAST
o
o
skrev.
write.PAST
She started writing.
d. Hon
she
hade
had
brjat
start.PPC
o
o
skrivit.
write.PPC
She had started writing.
(2) a. *Lt
let.IMP
henne
her
skriv
write.IMP
ett
a
brev!
letter
Let her write a letter!
b. *Vi
we
lter
let.PRES
henne
her
skriver
write.PRES
ett
a
brev.
letter
We let her write a letter.
The C-domain 69
c. *Vi
we
lt
let.PAST
henne
her
skrev
write.PAST
ett
a
brev.
letter
We let her write a letter.
d. Vi
we
hade
had
ltit
let.PPC
henne
her
skrivit
write.PPC
ett
a
brev.
letter
We had let her write a letter.
Given that verbs that TMA-copy select non-bare innitivals, whereas verbs
that participle copy select bare innitivals, our default expectation is that the
conjunction-like element o(ch) introducing TMA-copying innitivals is of
the same category as the innitival marker att introducing the standard inni-
tival counterparts of these. That is, the (non-)bareness of standard innitivals
is preserved in the corresponding copying innitivals. If we can also show
that the non-bare vs. bare distinction goes hand in hand with more vs. less
functional structure for the relevant class of innitivals, copying can be taken
to be proportional to the number of functional projections present in the com-
plement clause:
(3) The more functional structure that is present in the embedded clause
the more forms may copy.
More specically, I propose that copying of a given form is only possible if
the corresponding functional projection is present in the embedded clause.
Below I present arguments in favour of deriving the two differences between
TMA-copying complements and participle copying complements this way.
In what follows, I will assume a full clause to consist of (minimally) the
following domains:
(4) [CP... [TP... [AspP... [VP...]]]]
I take the C-domain to be split, along the lines of Rizzi (1997). The same
holds for the T-domain (see Pollock 1989; Cinque 1999), the Asp-domain
(see Cinque 1999), and the verb phrase (VP) (see Ramchand in press and
Chapter 6 below).
1.1. The complementizer att
I follow Holmberg (1986), Platzack (1986), and Holmberg (1990) in tak-
ing the innitival marker att to be a complementizer (thus residing in the
C-domain of the clause), just like the homophonous element att introducing
nite clauses in Swedish (both are pronounced /At/).
(5) a. Han
he
sa
say.PAST
[
CP
att
that
hon
she
hade
had
skrivit
write.PPC
till
to
honom].
him
He said that she had written to him.
b. Hon
she
brjade
start.PAST
[
CP
att
to
skriva
write.INF
till
to
honom].
him
She started writing to him.
Arguments include the fact that nite att and innitival att behave in a very
similar way with regard to deletion, see Holmberg (1990). Acceptability of
the null version of att drops when the embedded clause is non-adjacent to
the matrix verb in both nite and innitival clauses. Likewise, neither att can
be null after a preposition, nor after verbs corresponding to love, hate, dis-
like, and similar verbs. An additional argument comes from the possibility
of inserting material between att and the innitive. As opposed to German
and Dutch, where nothing can intervene between the innitive marker zu/te
and the innitive (see e.g. Wurmbrand 2001; Abraham 2004; IJbema 2002),
Swedish allows intervening material. (6) and (7) below demonstrate that the
oating quantier alla all, the sentential adverb alltid always, and senten-
tial negation may intervene between att and the innitive (and must do so if
narrow scope is to be achieved).
56
This makes Swedish different from vari-
ants of Norwegian and Danish as well, where sentential adverbs may precede
the innitive marker on the relevant narrow scope reading.
(6) De
they
prvade
try.PAST
[
CP
att
to
alla
all
alltid
always
jobba
work.INF
heltid].
full-time
(7) De
they
prvade
try.PAST
[
CP
att
to
inte
not
skrika].
yell.INF
They tried not to yell.
The above facts support my claim that att-innitivals are of the category CP:
Innitival att is a complementizer residing in the same C-head as nite att.
I will assume that the impossibility of inserting the complementizer att indi-
cates lack of a C-domain within the class of innitivals relevant to us (tense-
less innitivals). On this assumption tenseless bare innitivals are of a size
smaller than CP. Additional arguments in favour of this claim will be pre-
sented as we proceed.
The C-domain 71
1.2. The complementizer o(ch)
Turning to the marker o(ch), the traditional view in Scandinavian grammar
is that the /O/ that we hear in sentences like (8a) is a less careful/colloquial
pronunciation of the innitive marker att (see e.g. Teleman et al. 1999: II:
745). This can not be correct, given that att is impossible in the copying
counterparts of these innitivals, o(ch) being the only option, see (8b).
57
(8) a. Han
he
brjade
start.PAST
o/att
&/to
skriva
write.INF
brev.
letter.PL
b. Han
he
brjade
start.PAST
o/*att
&/to
skrev
write.PAST
brev.
letter.PL
He started writing letters.
On the traditional view, where furthermore (8b) is taken to be a special type
of coordination (Teleman et al. 1999: III: 902-909), the fact that the innitival
marker o(ch) is otherwise the pronunciation of the coordinating o(ch) reduces
to a coincidence; the two are homophones. This purported homophony seems
to date back until at least the 14th century, on the evidence of scribal insecu-
rity (writing ok/oc for at, and sometimes vice versa) documented by Jespersen
(1895) for Danish/Norwegian and stergren (1901) for Swedish.
However, as argued convincingly by Endresen (1995), the series of phono-
logical change which it is necessary to postulate in order to derive /O/ from
/At/ is implausible; several steps in the chain have no independent support;
the only reason they are postulated at all is because the starting and end point
of the chain are taken for granted. Endresen (1995) argues that the o ( in
Norwegian orthography) we hear before the innitive in spoken Norwegian
(and by extension, in Mainland Scandinavian in general) is in fact the same
(polysemous) lexical item as the coordinating conjunction o(ch), and not (de-
rived from) an alternative pronunciation of at/att. This is also the view taken
here. In addition to the arguments presented by Endresen, a further indication
that the sound changes postulated in the traditional account cannot explain
the homophony with o(ch) are given in Eaker (1997). She demonstrates that
the dialect of Gotland, which has no general transition from /A:/ to /o:/ (a
change attested in most Scandinavian variants and making up one link in the
chain of changes traditionally assumed), still has an innitival marker which
is not /A(t)/ but /u/, and homophonous to the conjunction /u/ and.
58
Below I argue that att and o(ch) reside in the same C-head, although they
differ in features. Thus both elements are complementizers. I defer a discus-
Table 10. Complementizers
att o(ch)
Finite clauses +
Non-copying innitivals + +
Copying innitivals +
sion of the feature content of the two complementizers to Chapter 7 below.
Setting copying context aside for a moment, note that att and o are inter-
changeable within the class of non-copying innitivals in the variants con-
sulted here. The classes of verbs that select tenseless non-bare innitivals,
listed in table 8, select either att or o. The same holds for tensed non-bare in-
nitivals. Both elements are possible, exemplied by factive (9a) and future-
oriented (9b) below.
(9) a. Han
he
skmdes
be-ashame.PAST
ver
&/to
o/att
have
ha
write.PPC
skrivit.
He was ashamed to have written.
b. Han
he
erbjd
offer.PAST
sig
REFL
o/att
&/to
komma
come.INF
imorgon.
tomorrow
He offered to come tomorrow.
The position of the innitival is irrelevant. Both att and o are possible in
clause-initial innitivals, (10a), in extraposed innitivals, (10b), in adjunct
innitivals embedded under a preposition, (10c), and in innitivals in the
complement position of nouns, (10d).
(10) a. [O/att
&/to
skriva
write.INF
brev]
letters
glmde
forget.PAST
jag.
I
To write letters, I forgot.
b. Det
it
har
has
frstrt
ruin.PPC
mnga
many
semestrar
vacations
[o/att
&/to
bo
live.INF
i
in
tlt].
tent
It has ruined many vacations to live in tent.
c. Han
he
gick
go.PAST
[utan
without
o/att
&/to
frklara
explain.INF
varfr].
why
He left without explaining why.
d. Jag
I
har
have
ftt
get.PPC
en
a
[soffa
sofa
[o/att
&/to
ha
have.INF
i
in
kket]].
kitchen.DEF
I have got a sofa to have in the kitchen.
The C-domain 73
Like innitival att, innitival o can host the clitic form of the negation.
59
(11) Lars
Lars
prvade
try.PAST
o/attnte
&/to-cl.NEG
sga
say.INF
ett
a
ord.
word
Lars tried not to breathe a word.
Just like oating quantiers and sentential adverbs can be inserted between
att and the innitive, as in (6) and (7) above, such material can intervene
between o and the innitive, witness (12).
(12) De
they
prvade
try.PAST
[
CP
o
&
alla
all
alltid
always
jobba
work.INF
heltid].
full-time
Finally, wherever innitival att can be phonologically null, innitival o can
be dropped as well. Thus, neither element needs to be overt in clause-initial
innitivals such as (10a), but whichever of the two is present, it has to be
overt in extraposed innitivals such as (10b), cf. Holmberg (1990). Also in
(10c) and (10d), whichever of the two is present, it has to be overt. All of the
above observations support the proposal made here that att and o reside in the
same C-head in non-copying innitival complements.
Turning to o in copying complements, our expectation is that this element
should be the same element as o in non-copying innitivals, and, as sug-
gested, that the element resides in the same head as att (or a C-head close
by). On that hypothesis, we make the following prediction. In variants that
allow phonologically null versions of att and o in both innitival and copying
environments, wherever non-nite att can be phonologically null, o should
also have the possibility to drop in the corresponding TMA-copying inniti-
val. Likewise, wherever att needs to be overt, o in the corresponding TMA-
copying complement should be obligatory. This prediction is borne out:
(13) a. Han
he
brjade
start.PAST
(att)
to
skriva
write.INF
brev.
letter.PL
b. Han
he
brjade
start.PAST
(o)
&
skrev
write.PAST
brev.
letter.PL
He started writing letters.
(14) a. Han
he
undvek
avoid.PAST
*(att)
to
skriva
write.INF
brev.
letter.PL
b. Han
he
undvek
avoid.PAST
*(o)
&
skrev
write.PAST
brev.
letter.PL
He avoided to write letters.
I therefore propose that the complementizer att and the complementizer o
express different features of the same head. We have now captured the rst
difference between TMA-copying innitivals and participle copying inniti-
vals. The conjunction-like element o(ch) is a complementizer, present in the
former but absent in the latter, see Carden and Pesetsky (1977) and more re-
cently Aboh (2004) for similar proposals with regard to English and in related
construction types).
60
Therefore:
TMA-copying innitivals contain a C-domain.
Participle copying innitivals lack a C-domain.
The complementizer status of o(ch) is thus an argument in favour of taking the
category selected by the matrix verb to remain constant regardless of whether
copying is present or not, see Wiklund (2006) and below for discussion.
1.3. Copying C-features
I follow the proposal made in Rizzi (1997) that a head in the C-domain is
responsible for licensing/checking of imperative features (the proposal is go-
ing back to May 1985). Rizzi labels the relevant head Force and takes it to
be the topmost head of the clause (cf. Platzack and Rosengren 1998). On the
hypothesis that copying of a given form is possible only if the correspond-
ing functional projection is present in the complement, we correctly predict
imperative copying to be possible where there is an embedded C-domain
(TMA-copying innitivals) but impossible in complements where this do-
main is missing (participle copying innitivals), cf. Table 9. Moreover, we
capture the fact that imperative copying is possible precisely in case the in-
nitival can be introduced by a complementizer (with the proviso that the
innitival is tenesless). Next we turn to the T(ense)-domain of the clause.
61
2. The T-domain
Non-bare and bare (relevantly tenseless) innitivals also differ in a rather neat
way with respect to licensing of adverbs quantifying over times, such as alltid
The T-domain 75
always and aldrig never. I will refer to these as T-adverbs in what follows.
Whereas T-adverbs can be inserted in the former (a-examples below), they
are bad in the latter on normal intonation (b-examples below).
(15) a. Han
he
har
has
glmt
forget.PPC
att
to
alltid
always
andas
breathe.INF
lugnt.
calmly
b. *Hon
she
har
has
ltit
let.PPC
honom
him
alltid
always
andas
breathe.INF
lugnt.
calmly
(16) a. Han
he
har
has
slutat
stop.PPC
(med)
(with)
att
to
alltid
always
visa
show.INF
sina
his
knslor.
feelings
b. *Hon
she
har
has
kunnat
can.PPC
alltid
always
visa
show.INF
sina
her
knslor.
feelings
(17) a. Han
he
hade
had
frskt
try.PPC
att
to
aldrig
never
skryta.
brag.INF
b. *Hon
she
hade
had
verkat
seem.PPC
aldrig
never
skryta.
brag.INF
To ensure that the adverbs are inside bare innitivals (the b-sentences) where
there is no innitive marker to indicate the left-edge of the innitive, the main
predicate of the matrix clause is in participial form. Since only nite verbs
move past these and other sentential adverbs (the V2 effect) and since the
relevant adverbs cannot be clause-nal on normal intonation, we thus make
sure that the adverbs really are inside the innitival.
The obvious conclusion to draw from the contrasts above is that non-bare
innitivals project the domain licensing the relevant type of adverbs, whereas
bare innitivals do not. Since the relevant adverbs (alltid, aldrig) are quanti-
fying over times, I propose that these and other temporal adverbs are licensed
by a head in the T(ense)-domain. If this proposal is correct, then tenseless
non-bare innitivals contain a T-domain, whereas tenseless bare innitivals
lack a T-domain.
An important thing to note at this point is that tenselessness of innitivals,
as dened in Chapter 3 above, does not preclude the projection of a T-domain.
That is, if my hypothesis is correct, it is possible for an innitival to be tense-
less in the sense of not allowing a temporal orientation non-overlapping with
the matrix clause and yet project a T-domain. See Chapter 8 for a discussion.
My proposal that non-bare innitivals differ from bare innitivals in pro-
jecting a T-domain is also supported by facts pertaining to sentential negation.
The sentential negation inte can be reduced to nt or nte and encliticized onto
the nite verb in V2 position, see (18), or alternatively onto the subject if it
follows the nite verb (NEG stands for negation, cl:NEG for the clitic form
of the negation).
62
(18) Lena
Lena
ha(r)nte
has-cl:NEG
lst
read.PPC
boken.
book.DEF
Lena hasnt read the book.
The reduced form contrasts with the constituent negation, which requires the
full form and a different intonation, see (19).
(19) Lena
Lena
hade
had
lst
read.PPC
inte/*nte
NEG/*cl:NEG
boken,
book.DEF,
men
but
tidningen.
newspaper.DEF
Lena had read not the book, but the newspaper.
On the assumption that sentential negation is licensed by the presence of T,
as proposed by Zanuttini (1996), we expect it to be possible in tenseless non-
bare innitivals but impossible in tenseless bare innitivals. This is borne
out. Given the right context, the reduced form of the negation is possible in
tenseless non-bare innitivals, where it encliticizes onto the innitive marker
(argued above to be a complementizer), but not in tenseless bare innitivals
(PRT stands for particle):
(20) Jag
I
kom
remember.PAST
ihg
PRT
attnte
to-cl:NEG
rka.
smoke.INF
I remembered not to smoke.
(21) *Han
he
hade
had
kunna(t)nte
can.PPCcl:NEG
tala
speak.INF
franska.
French
Marginal acceptability can be achieved for (21) with the full form of the nega-
tion if an element in its scope is contrastively focused. However, as illustrated,
a negation originating in a bare innitival cannot encliticize onto the matrix
main verb.
63
A very nice minimal pair, illustrating the difference between non-bare and
bare innitivals with respect to licensing of T-adverbs can be constructed with
hinna manage (time-wise). This verb selects a bare innitival, see (22a). If
combined with the particle med with, however, it selects a non-bare inniti-
val, cf. (22b). There is no semantic difference between the two constructions.
The T-domain 77
(22) a. Han
he
hade
had
hunnit
manage.PPC
(*att)
to
svara
reply.INF
snabbt.
quickly
b. Han
he
hade
had
hunnit
manage.PPC
med
with
*(att)
to
svara
reply.INF
snabbt.
quickly
He had managed to reply quickly.
Whereas the bare innitival cannot host the adverb alltid always (23a), the
non-bare innitival can host this adverb (23b).
(23) a. *Han
he
hade
had
hunnit
manage.PPC
alltid
always
svara
reply.INF
snabbt.
quickly
b. Han
he
hade
had
hunnit
manage.PPC
med
with
att
to
alltid
always
svara
reply.INF
snabbt.
quickly
He had managed to always reply quickly.
If I am correct in assuming the relevant adverbs to be licensed by a head in
the T-domain and in assuming that bare innitivals contrast with non-bare in-
nitivals in lacking the T-domain, the contrast in (23) follows. I propose that
the corresponding copying innitivals differ in the same manner with respect
to presence of T, just as I have argued that they are like their non-copying
counterparts in displaying a difference regarding presence of C. Thus:
TMA-copying innitivals contain a T-domain.
Participle copying innitivals lack a T-domain.
2.1. Copying T-features
Returning to the hypothesis that copying is proportional to the number of
functional projections present in the complement, we now make the following
prediction concering verbs with double subcategorization frames, like hinna
manage introduced above. The copying counterpart of the bare innitival
should be incompatible with imperative copying and copying of tensed forms
(present and past), since lacking the C- and T-domains. In contrast, the copy-
ing counterpart of the non-bare innitival, should be compatible with copying
of the same forms, in virtue of containing the C- and T-domains. This is borne
out, cf. (24) and (25) below.
(24) a. *Hinn
manage.IMP
ls
read.IMP
boken!
book.DEF
Manage to read the book!
b. *Jag
I
hinner
manage.PRES
lser
read.PRES
boken.
book.DEF
I manage to read the book.
c. *Jag
I
hann
manage.PAST
lste
read.PAST
boken.
book.DEF
I managed to read the book.
d. Jag
I
hade
had
hunnit
manage.PPC
lst
read.PPC
boken.
book.DEF
I had managed to read the book.
(25) a. Hinn
manage.IMP
med
with
o
&
ls
read.IMP
boken.
book.DEF
b. Jag
I
hinner
manage.PRES
med
with
o
&
lser
read.PRES
boken.
book.DEF
c. Jag
I
hann
manage.PAST
med
with
o
&
lste
read.PAST
boken.
book.DEF
d. Jag
I
hade
had
hunnit
manage.PPC
med
with
o
&
lst
read.PPC
boken.
book.DEF
I had managed to read the book.
These facts offer support in favour of my hypothesis. The more functional
structure there is in the embedded clause, the more forms may copy.
64
2.2. T-Adverbs
We have captured the difference between non-bare and bare innitivals with
respect to possibility of inserting T-adverbs by assuming that the former but
not the latter innitivals contain a T-domain. On the hypothesis that the corre-
sponding copying innitivals display the same difference in size, we can cap-
ture the difference between TMA-copying innitivals and participle copying
innitivals regarding tense copying. The former contain T, therefore can copy
tense, the latter lack T, therefore are incompatible with tense copying. Our de-
fault expectation is that T-adverbs should also be possible in TMA-copying
The Asp-domain 79
complements. This expectation is not met. Whereas a T-adverb is possible in
the matrix clause of both the standard innitival construction (26a) and the
copying construction (26b), the latter differs from the former in being inca-
pable of hosting this type of adverb in the embedded clause.
(26) a. Han
he
prvade
try.PAST
(alltid)
always
[att
to
(alltid)
always
sluta
nish.INF
tidigt].
early
b. Han
he
prvade
try.PAST
(alltid)
always
[o
&
(*alltid)
always
slutade
nish.PAST
tidigt].
early
He (always) tried to always nish early.
Thus, a T-adverb scoping over the embedded clause alone is possible in tense-
less non-bare innitivals, but impossible in the copying counterparts of these
innitivals. The unexpectedness of this difference will in part resolve in sec-
tion 5 below. For now, we just state the observation:
(27) T-adverbs are licensed by non-copied T, but not by copied T.
We now turn to the aspectual domain and participial copying.
3. The Asp-domain
Below the T-domain is the Asp(ectual)-domain (cf. Cinque 1999; Demir-
dache and Uribe-Extebarria 2000), which I take to be responsible for among
other things licensing of participial features in perfect constructions (ha have
+ past participle).
65
Verbs selecting non-bare innitivals and verbs selecting
bare innitivals of the relevant (tenseless) type can both embed the perfect:
66
(28) a. Hon
she
undvek
avoid.PAST
att
to
ha
have
lst
read.PPC
lxorna.
homework.PL.DEF
She avoided having done her homework.
b. Hon
she
lr
hear-say.PAST
ha
have
lst
read.PPC
lxorna.
homework.PL.DEF
I heard/it is rumoured that she has done her homework.
(29) a. Han
he
brjar
start.PRES
att
to
ha
have
skrivit
write.PPC
frdigt
completely
boken.
book.DEF
He is starting to have completed the book.
b. Han
he
verkade
seem.PAST
ha
have
skrivit
write.PPC
frdigt
completely
boken.
book.DEF
He seemed to have completed writing the book.
(30) a. Han
he
frskte
try.PAST
att
to
ha
have
tit
eat.PPC
middagen
dinner.DEF
i
in
tid.
time
He tried to have had dinner in time.
b. Han
he
kan
can.PRES
ha
have
tit
eat.PPC
middagen
dinner.DEF
i
in
tid.
time
He may have had dinner in time.
This fact suggests that both non-bare and bare innitivals contain the Asp-
domain of the clause. On the present proposal that the corresponding copying
innitivals contain the same amount of functional structure, we capture the
fact that participial copying is possible in both types of copying innitival:
TMA-copying innitivals contain an Asp-domain.
Participle-copying innitivals contain an Asp-domain.
Thus, the perfect (ha have + past participle) is marginally acceptable in a
copying innitival.
(31) ?Han
he
brjade
start.PAST
[o
&
hade
have.PAST
lst
read.PPC
boken].
book.DEF
He was getting close to nishing the book.
The auxiliary ha behaves as any verb in that it may carry vacuous inection
but not itself be vacuous (cf. Chapter 2).
67
(32) shows that the innitive se-
lecting verb brja start may not be copied, (33) that auxiliary ha may not
be copied.
(32) Han
he
brjade
start.PAST
[o
&
(*brjade)
start.PAST
lste
read.PAST
boken].
book.DEF
Intended reading: He started reading the book.
(33) Han
he
hade
have.PAST
brjat
start.PPC
[o
&
(*hade)
have.PAST
lst
read.PPC
boken].
book.DEF
Intended reading: He had started reading the book.
The same facts hold for the modal auxiliary skulle would/should, which
selects an innitival in Swedish. Whereas skulle itself does not copy, see (34),
it may marginally carry vacuous inection, as in (35).
The structure of copying innitivals 81
(34) Han
he
skulle
will.PAST
hlla
hold.INF
p
on
[o
&
(*skulle)
will.PAST
lsa].
read.INF
Intended reading: He would be reading.
(35) ?Han
he
hll
hold.PAST
p
on
[o
&
skulle
will.PAST
lsa].
read.INF
He was about to read.
4. The structure of copying innitivals
We have arrived at the following structures:
(36) Tenseless non-bare innitivals (non-copying and copying):
[CP... [TP... [AspP... [vP...]]]]
(37) Tenseless bare innitivals (non-copying and copying):
[AspP... [vP...]]
4.1. The copying dependency
I have shown that the difference in number of forms copied between TMA-
copying and participle copying innitivals can be captured on the hypoth-
esis that the former contains more structure than the latter, an hypothesis in
favour of which we have found independent support. The more structure there
is in the copying innitival, the larger the set of forms that may be copied.
Since the structure involved is constituted by functional projections, copying
of a given form is possible when the corresponding functional projection is
present. When copying of tensed forms takes place, there is a T(-domain) in
each clause, one in the matrix and one in the embedded clause. When copying
of imperative form is present, there is a C(-domain) in each clause, and so on.
This is captured on the hypothesis that:
(38) Copying is a reex of a dependency between two functional heads
of the same label.
Inectional features must in some sense be shared between the matrix and
embedded clause, regardless of the particular implementation of this agree-
ment in syntactic terms (see Anward 1988; Wiklund 2001a).
We are now in a position to discard a bare VP approach to copying in-
nitivals, such as the one proposed by den Dikken and Hoekstra (1997) for
a Frisian construction that appears to involve participle copying, exemplied
in (39b) (from den Dikken and Hoekstra 1997: 1058).
(39) a. Hy
he
soe
would
it
it
dwaan
do.INF
wollen
want.PPC
ha.
have
(Frisian)
b. Hy
he
soe
would
it
it
dien
do.PPC
wollen
want.PPC
ha.
have
He would have liked to do it.
On the hypothesis that UG allows more than one verb to establish a depen-
dency with the same functional head for checking purposes, a copying in-
nitival may prima facie be analyzed as a bare VP, which is the analysis
proposed by den Dikken and Hoekstra (1997), see also Bokovi c (1999) for
a similar proposal on double participles in Serbo-Croatian. The copying verb
(dwaan, PPC dien) and the matrix verb (wolle, PPC wollen) may both have
the participial feature checked by a matrix functional head (participial head or
auxiliary). The analysis accounts for the fact that the inection of the copying
verb is semantically vacuous and dependent on the specication of the matrix
functional head for its form.
(40) One functional head (Ppc) many participles:
...[Ppc
1
... [V
1
participle
... [V
2
participle
...]]]
Two facts make the bare VP-analysis inapplicable to copying innitivals in
Swedish. First, a bare VP-analysis is incompatible with the presence of a
complementizer, o(ch), in TMA-copying innitivals. Secondly, a general-
ized bare VP-analysis of copying innitivals would fail to account for the
difference between TMA-copying and participle copying innitivals regard-
ing forms/features that may copy from the matrix clause. If the embedded
verb could check its features directly against one or more heads in the matrix
clause, any feature of a copying verb should be checkable and thus copied.
Therefore, there is no way to rule out tense copying in a participle copying
innitival as the analysis stands. The same problem seems to carry over to
Frisian, where tense copying is impossible (Pytsje van der Veen, p.c.). The
data presented here thus suggest that there is one head of the relevant type for
each verb carrying the relevant inection:
(41) One functional head (Ppc) one participle:
...[Ppc
1
... [V
1
participle
... [Ppc
2
... [V
2
participle
...]]]]
I propose that the relevant dependency between the embedded functional
heads and the corresponding functional heads in the matrix may be seen as an
antecedent-anaphor relation (see Chapter 7 for a discussion). For now, I indi-
cate the dependency by coindexation between the feature [f] on an embedded
anaphoric head F (F an arbitrary functional category) and the corresponding
feature f on a matrix head of the same type:
(42) TMA-copying:
C
1
[f]
i
T
1
[f]
j
Asp
1
[f]
k
V
1
[C
2
[f]
i
T
2
[f]
j
Asp
2
[f]
k
V
2
]
(43) Participle copying:
C
1
[f] T
1
[f] Asp
1
[f]
i
V
1
[Asp
2
[f]
i
V
2
]
4.2. Desideratives revisited
Along with partial copying into future-oriented innitivals, participial copy-
ing with desiderative verbs was shown to form an exeption to the correla-
tion between presence of non-overlapping temporal reference and absence
of copying. Complements of desideratives appear to be future-oriented and
yet participial copying is possible with e.g. vilja want. I propose that the
relevant desideratives select a TP complement. In cases of copying, the Asp-
domain is anaphoric (in a dependency with the corresponding domain in the
matrix clause), whereas the T-domain is not:
(44) Complements of desiderative verbs:
C
1
[f] T
1
[f] Asp
1
[f]
i
V
matrix
[T
2
[f] Asp
2
[f]
i
V
embedded
]
The presence of non-overlapping temporal orientation is now an expected
possibility, as well as the presence of participial copying. My proposal also
captures the fact that a complementizer is impossible under the relevant desider-
ative verbs, since the C-domain is missing in the innitival clause.
68
4.3. Perception verbs revisited
In the preceding Chapter, we noted that copying is disallowed into comple-
ments of perception verbs in the variants consulted, exemplied by particip-
ial copying in (45b) below (yielding a relatively better result than the other
copied forms in my variant). Since copying into tenseless innitivals is oth-
erwise allowed, the absence of copying under perception verbs calls for an
explanation.
(45) a. Jag
I
hade
had
hrt
hear.PPC
henne
her
springa
run.INF
i
in
trappan.
stairs.DEF
b. *?Jag
I
hade
had
hrt
hear.PPC
henne
her
sprungit
run.PPC
i
in
trappan.
stairs.DEF
I hade heard her run in the stairs.
I propose that complements of perception verbs differ from other tenseless
innitivals in lacking the C-, T-, and Asp-domains altogether. Such an analy-
sis is independently argued for in Lundin (2003), where it is claimed that the
relevant innitivals are vPs (vP licenses the external argument).
(46) Complements of perception verbs:
[vP...]
Arguments in favour of a missing T-domain include the fact that T-adverbs are
not licensed in these innitivals, (47a), nor is sentential negation, see (47b).
An indication that the Asp-domain is missing is provided by the fact that the
relevant verbs can not embed the perfect, cf. (47c).
(47) a. Jag
I
hade
had
hrt
hear.PPC
henne
her
(*alltid)
always
springa
run.INF
i
in
trappan.
stairs.DEF
b. Jag
I
hade
had
hrt
hear.PPC
henne
her
(*nte)
cl:NEG
springa
run.INF
i
in
trappan.
stairs.DEF
c. *Jag
I
hr
hear.PRES
henne
her
ha
have
sprungit
run.PPC
i
in
trappan.
stairs.DEF
On the proposal that copying of a given form is possible only if the cor-
responding functional projection is present in the embedded clause, we cor-
rectly predict none of the relevant inectional forms (imperative, past, present,
or participial) to copy under perception verbs.
69
4.4. Partial copying revisited
Recall that some speakers accept copying of imperative and participial form
into non-bare innitivals, but exclude copying of tensed forms, a phenomenon
that I labelled partial copying. On the present hypothesis, partial copying
of this kind may be taken to involve C-to-C dependencies and Asp-to-Asp-
dependencies, but not T-to-T dependencies.
(48) Partial copying:
C
1
[f]
i
T
1
[f] Asp
1
[f]
j
V
1
[C
2
[ f]
i
T
2
[f] Asp
2
[f]
j
V
2
]
In part, the present proposal captures the observation that partial copying is
allowed into future-oriented innitivals for a limted set of speakers. Since
embedded T is not in a dependency of the relevant kind with matrix T, embed-
ded T can come with non-overlapping temporal reference, relevantly future-
oriented with respect to matrix tense. Recall the observation that T-adverbs
are licensed by non-copied T, but not by copied T, (27) above. Given the
present analysis, we can formulate the following hypothesis:
(49) Non-anaphoric T licenses T-adverbs, anaphoric T does not.
Our prediction is that T-adverbs should be possible in the presence of partial
copying of the type described above, because the T-domain is not anaphoric
in these innitivals. This is borne out. Solr Norwegian is a variant that disal-
lows copying of tensed forms but allows copying of imperative and particip-
ial forms. As expected, T-adverbs are possible in the presence of imperative
copying as well as in the presence of participial copying in this variant. I
thank Marit Julien for providing me with data:
(50) a. Han
he
hadde
had
prvd
try.PPC

&
sttt
always
sagt
tell.PPC
fr
from
i
in
tie.
time
(Solr
No.)
He had tried to always object in time.
b. Prv
try.IMP

&
sttt
always
sei
tell.IMP
fr
from
i
in
tie!
time
Try to always object in time!
Also to my ear, T-adverbs are better in the context of participial and imper-
ative copying, see (51a) and (51b), in contrast to contexts involving copying
of tensed forms where these are completely impossible, cf. (26b) above.
(51) a. ?Han
he
hade
had
prvat
try.PPC
o
&
alltid
always
sagt
tell.PPC
ifrn
in-from
i
in
tid.
time
b. ?Prva
try.IMP
o
&
alltid
always
sg
tell.IMP
ifrn
in-from
i
in
tid!
time
5. Copying is a restructuring effect
The presence of inection that is copied in what appears to be a cross-clausal
fashion makes the construction type a candidate for an analysis in terms of
restructuring. In the present section, I argue that copying is a restructuring/
clause-union effect (following the proposal made in Wiklund 2001a). For a
discussion of the theoretical consequences of this proposal, see also Wiklund
(2006).
5.1. Restructuring
Restructuring refers to phenomena that are otherwise clause-bound but span
what appear to be two clauses in the context of certain matrix verbs. Much has
been written about restructuring. For Romance, see e.g. Rizzi (1976, 1978),
Kayne (1989), and Roberts (1997). For Germanic, see e.g. Hinterhlzl (1997),
Koopman and Szabolcsi (2000), and Wurmbrand (2001), who also gives a
good survey of the literature on restructuring.
Tests to distinguish restructuring and non-restructuring innitivals are to
some extent language specic. Restructuring effects in Italian are long NP-
movement, auxiliary change (change from avere have to essere be), and
movement of a clitic pronoun from the embedded innitival clause to the ma-
trix clause, a movement referred to as clitic-climbing in the literature. Clitic
climbing is possible with volere want, but impossible with detestare detest
(from Cinque 2004):
(52) a. Lo
him
volevo
want.PAST
[vedere
see.INF
_
_
subito].
immediately
(It.)
I wanted to see him immediately.
b. *Lo
him
detesto
detest.PAST
[vedere
see.INF
_
_
in
in
quello
that
stato].
state
I detest seeing him in that state.
Restructuring effects in German include long-distance (non-focus) scram-
bling and long passive. Long passive is exemplied in (53) (from Wurmbrand
2001) and is possible with versuchen try, but impossible with planen plan.
(53) a. dass
that
der
the.NOM
Traktor
tractor
zu
to
reparieren
repair.INF
versucht
try.PPC
wurde.
was
(Ge.)
that they tried to repair the tractor.
Copying is a restructuring effect 87
b. *dass
that
der
the.NOM
Traktor
tractor
zu
to
reparieren
repair.INF
geplant
plan.PPC
wurde.
was
that they planned to repair the tractor.
The matrix domain is argued to be responsible for the structural case of the
embedded object in German restructuring innitives, see Wurmbrand (2001).
Long passive is an argument in favour of that hypothesis. Since restructuring
innitives can not assign structural object case, the embedded object is de-
pendent on a case position in the matrix clause. If the matrix (restructuring)
verb is passivized, as in (53a), structural accusative case becomes unavailable
and matrix T determines the case (nominative) for the embedded object.
All of the above mentioned operations are restricted to occur with a lim-
ited set of innitive selecting matrix verbs and are impossible out of nite
clauses. This makes copying appear related to restructuring. Considering the
fact that restructuring effects, not restructuring/clause union per se, are de-
pendent on language specic factors, the absence of the above transparency
effects in Swedish is not surprising. Swedish does not display have/be al-
ternation, nor NP-scrambling. The operation that appears to be the closest
counterpart to clitic movement is movement of weak pronouns, referred to as
object shift. The latter operation can be shown to require a movement of the
main verb that does not take place in embedded clauses (Holmberg 1986).
70
Therefore object shift is found neither within innitives, nor across inni-
tives. Likewise long passives are unavailable in Swedish, although may have
candidate counterparts in a subtype of the Norwegian complex passive con-
struction, see Christensen (1991), Taraldsen (2002), Holmberg (2002), and
Wiklund (2006).
71
5.2. Arguments in favour of restructuring
The principal argument in favour of taking copying to involve restructuring
concerns the identical distribution of the two phenomena. Based on ve lan-
guages (German, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, and Japanese) Wurmbrand (2001:
7) proposes that the core restructuring predicates are modal verbs (must, may,
can, want), aspectual verbs (begin, continue, nish), causatives (let, make),
and motion verbs (come, go). The rst three classes have been identied
as involving copying predicates here (Chapter 3) and motion verbs will be
shown to select TMA-copying innitivals in Chapter 5 below. Factive and
propositional predicates are incapable of selecting restructuring innitivals
in the languages investigated by Wurmbrand. Likewise these predicates have
been shown not to select copying innitivals in the variants investigated here.
Remaining predicates (including verbs like try, forget, manage, dare) are sub-
ject to variation according to Wurmbrands investigation. The same predicates
have been shown to copy in the variants investigated here. Thus, we may con-
clude that copying shares with restructuring phenomena the classes of main
predicates involved.
A second argument concerns tense sensitivity. Just like the presence of
non-overlapping tense in the embedded clause blocks copying (Chapter 3),
the presence of non-overlapping tense has been shown to block restructuring,
see Wurmbrand (2001) and Terzi (1996). The independence of the argument
is visible in the context of verbs with double subcategorization frames. As
I showed in the preceding chapter, certain verbs are compatible with both
tenseless and tensed innitivals. Copying is restricted to the former. A limited
set of transparency effects (including focus scrambling) do however show
up in the context of future-oriented innitivals for a limited set of speakers
of German according to Wurmbrand (2001). Thus, certain tensed innitivals
may display some amount of clause union. The phenomenon is referred to as
reduced (non-)restructuring. I propose that partial copying is a surface reex
of the same phenomenon and therefore adds further strength to the above
argument from the distribution of copying. Recall that for some speakers, the
class of innitivals picked out by the test of partial copying is a superset of
the innitives picked out by copying of the full range of forms. Furthermore,
we have seen that some speakers allow partial copying into future-oriented
innitivals. Just as a limited set of transparency effects are in evidence in the
context of future-oriented innitivals in German, thus, a limited amount of
copying may take place into the same class of innitivals in Swedish.
Evidence of structural/featural deciency constitutes a third argument in
favour of taking copying to be a restructuring effect. In 2.2 above, I showed
that T-adverbs, although possible in the standard non-bare innitivals, are im-
possible in the corresponding TMA-copying innitivals. This fact is expected
on the present analysis: since matrix tense and embedded tense are unied
(coindexed) in TMA-copying constructions, T-adverbs cannot occur in both
clauses. A similar effect is visible in Italian restructuring context. In Italian,
movement of an object from an embedded innitive to the matrix clause (long
NP-movement) is possible with some matrix (transitive/unergative) verbs if
the verb is in the impersonal(-passive) si form. The possibility of this move-
Copying is a restructuring effect 89
ment is a test for the presence of restructuring. In the absence of long NP-
movement, the adverb sempre always can occur both in the matrix and in
the embedded clause in contexts with volere want, see (54a). In the presence
of long NP-movement, however, this is not possible, cf. (54b) (examples from
Cinque 2004).
(54) a. Si
one
vorrebbe
would-want
sempre
always
aver
have
sempre
always
esperienze
experiences
come
like
queste.
these
b. *Esperienze
experiences
come
like
queste
these
si
one
vorrebbero
would-want
sempre
always
aver
have
sempre.
always
One would (always) want to (always) have experiences like
these.
On the basis of the above facts, I propose that copying is a restructuring ef-
fect. If restucturing effects derive from the same basic underlying structural
congurations cross-linguistically, our study of copying should thus provide
new insight into the phenomenon of restructuring in natural language. The
most interesting hypothesis to pursue is that the restructuring dependen-
cies between the matrix and embedded clause (reected morphologically in
Swedish) are present also in other languages where restructuring is identi-
ed. How the features acquired in the course of the derivation is interpreted
at the PF interface can be taken to be dependent on language specic mor-
phological factors. These may either block or promote the surface appearance
of copying. I leave this interesting hypothesis for future research. I refer the
reader to Appendix IV for some notes on the mapping to phonological form.
Next, I discuss one consequence of the present proposal for the analysis of
restructuring innitivals.
5.3. Restructuring is not restricted to mono-clausal congurations
There are two traditions in approaches to restructuring; bi-clausal approaches
(going back to Evers 1975 and Rizzi 1976), see e.g. Kayne (1989), Terzi
(1996), Roberts (1997), and references cited in Wurmbrand 2001; and mono-
clausal approaches, see e.g. Cinque (2004) and references cited in Wurm-
brand 2001.
Bi-clausal approaches claim that restructuring innitivals come as clausal
CPs, but that the clausal status of these is altered by syntactic operations, such
as e.g. head movement (Kayne 1989; Terzi 1996; Roberts 1997), rendering
the innitive transparent for movements that are clause-bound. Mono-clausal
approaches state that restructuring predicates select smaller categories, usu-
ally VPs (Wurmbrand 2001), or that restructuring predicates instantiate func-
tional heads (Cinque 2004) and that the size of the category selected therefore
depends on the position of the restructuring verb in the functional sequence.
72
Characteristic of both is the suggestion that the presence of transparency ef-
fects follows trivially from a mono-clausal conguration.
In 4.1 above, I argued that a bare VP-analysis is not applicable to copy-
ing innitivals. More precisely, I argued in favour of size constancy between
standard innitivals and the copying counterparts of these. The two argu-
ments concern the presence of a complementizer in TMA-copying innitivals
and the difference between TMA-copying and participle copying innitivals
regarding number of forms copied.
A bare VP-analysis is commited to assume that the o-element introducing
TMA-copying innitivals is a head merged with VP. There are two immediate
problems with this assumption. First, the similarities between the element o
and the complementizer att, noted in 1.2 above, reduce to a coincidence.
Second, it is not obvious how such an analysis would explain why o can
merge with TMA-copying VPs, but not with participle copying VPs.
Let us consider a variant of the VP approach that would seem to meet
the second objection (difference in number of forms that can copy). Suppose
that the feature set of the embedded verbal complex is determined by the
matrix verb via selection (an assumption that may be necessary anyway) but
that the corresponding functional heads are not present in innitivals of the
copying type. Moreover, suppose that there is variation in the set of features
selected. If the matrix verb selects an AspP and is a potential restructuring
verb, it has the option of merging with a VP that carries only aspectual fea-
tures (restructuring on that analysis). If the matrix verb selects a CP and is a
potential restructuring verb, it has the option of merging with a VP carrying
the full set of features (Asp-features, T-features, and C-features). Under this
scenario, the difference in size between non-bare and bare innitivals would
in the restructured VP-counterparts be preserved as a difference in number of
features carried by the verbal complex, capturing the difference between the
two types of copying innitival in number of forms that copy. In addition to
the problem, mentioned above, posed by the presence of a complementizer in
TMA- copying innitivals, the possibility of inserting T-adverbs in inniti-
vals displaying partial copying (4.4) constitutes a problem for this analysis.
One would have to say that T-adverbs are not dependent on the presence of a
Conclusion 91
T-domain but can be merged directly with VP. In order to prevent tense copy-
ing into a partial copying complement one would still have to assume that
tense features are missing in the verbal complex. Such a proposal would raise
questions concerning the possibility of merging T-adverbs in the absence of
both T-domain and T-features. In particular, we would lose an account for
why T-adverbs are possible in the bigger innitivals (where T is present on
my proposal) but not in the smaller innitivals (where T is absent on my
proposal).
Note also that if copying is a reex of a dependency between two func-
tional heads of the same label, one in each clause, as I have argued, copying
innitivals can also not be explained by merely assuming a functional status
of the matrix predicate, using the framework of Cinque (2004).
If copying innitivals are restructuring innitivals, as I have argued here,
then restructuring does not seem to be restricted to mono-clausal congu-
rations in the sense that the category selected by a restructuring verb need
be of a lower type in the functional hierarchy. Restructuring innitivals can
be big, even CPs. The vacuous nature of the copied inection and the ban
on T-adverbs in copying innitivals, I propose, can be captured on the in-
tuitive assumption that anaphoric functional heads are underspecied, see
Chapter 7 below for the details of this proposal. I will have to leave further
consequences of the present proposal for future research, but see Chapter 7
below and Wiklund (2006) for some discussion.
6. Conclusion
The present chapter started from the observation that TMA-copying inniti-
vals and participle copying innitivals are selected by distinct verbs. Verbs
selecting the former select (tenseless) innitivals introduced by an innitive
marker. Verbs selecting the latter select (tenseless) bare innitivals. I pre-
sented facts suggesting that the conjunction-like element o(ch) present in
TMA-copying innitivals is a complementizer, just like att introducing the
non-copying counterparts of these, capturing one of the two differences be-
tween TMA- and participle copying innitivals. The latter are bare innitivals
in the same sense that their standard counterparts are bare. I presented evi-
dence that non-bare innitivals are bigger than bare innitivals and proposed
that size constancy hold between non-copying and (the corresponding) copy-
ing innitivals. We arrived at the following structures:
Tenseless non-bare innitivals (non-copying and copying):
[CP... [TP... [AspP... [vP...]]]]
Tenseless bare innitivals (non-copying and copying):
[AspP... [vP...]]
I put forth the hypothesis that copying is proportional to the number of func-
tional projections present in the embedded clause. More specically, I pro-
posed that copying of a given form should only be possible in case the cor-
responding functional projection is present in the embedded clause. The pro-
posal was shown to capture the second and last difference between TMA-
and participle copying innitivals. The former copy the full set of forms
(Tense/Mood/Aspect-copying), the latter restrict copying to participial form
(Aspect-copying only). Since more vs. less functional structure goes hand in
hand with more vs. less copied forms, I proposed that:
Copying is a reex of dependencies between functional heads of the same
label.
In the last section, I argued that copying is a restructuring effect and con-
cluded that restructuring is not limited to mono-clausal congurations.
Chapter 5
Pseudocoordination is TMA-copying
The present chapter examines the third and last construction type; pseudoco-
ordination. Like verbs in TMA- and participle copying constructions, pseu-
docoordinated verbs share subject and inectional morphology:
(1) a. Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
o
&
(*han)
he
lste
read.PAST
en
a
bok.
book
He was reading a book (in sitting position).
b. Han
he
gick
go.PAST
o
&
(*han)
he
lste
read.PAST
en
a
bok.
book
He went and read a book.
c. Han
he
var
was.PAST
o
&
(*han)
he
lste
read.PAST
en
a
bok.
book
He was away reading a book.
d. Han
he
tog
take.PAST
o
&
(*han)
he
lste
read.PAST
en
a
bok.
book
He read a book.
Moreover, just like the class of copying verbs is restricted, the class of pseu-
docoordinating verbs is restricted. In Swedish, the principal classes of rst
verbs occuring in the pseudocoordinations relevant here are the following
four:
Posture verbs (sitta sit, st stand, and ligga lie), as in (1a).
Motion verbs (g go, komma come, springa run), as in (1b).
Vara be, as in (1c).
Ta take, as in (1d).
Given that the two phenomena share these (three) basic properties, we have
reason to believe that they are related. Step by step, the present chapter demon-
strates that pseudocoordination does in fact share all other properties charac-
teristic of copying innitivals. In fact, pseudocoordination will be shown to
involve TMA-copying.
94 Pseudocoordination is TMA-copying
1. Towards a unied analysis
Besides the properties given above, pseudocoordination exhibits three dis-
tinctive attributes that make the phenomenon appear related to TMA-copying.
These attributes concern the semantic function of the rst verb in pseudoco-
ordination, the range of inectional forms that may be shared between the
pseudocoordinated verbs, and the impossibility of having T-adverbs in the
second clause. I discuss the three in turn below.
1.1. Aspectual properties
Verbs that pseudocoordinate primarily have other functions than that of pseu-
docoordinating. Thus, (1d) above, repeated in (2) below, seems to involve the
same verb ta take as the sentence in (3). Whereas the verb has a more con-
crete or lexical meaning in the latter sentence, however, it has a more abstract
or functional meaning in the former.
73
(2) Han
he
tog
take.PAST
o
&
lste
read.PAST
en
a
bok.
book
(Pseudocoordination)
He read a book.
(3) Han
he
tog
take.PAST
en
a
bok.
book
He took a book.
In (3), ta expresses a transfer of a concrete object (a book) to the subject
referent. Such a transfer is not referred to in (2). In that sentence ta expresses
initiation of the event denoted by the second predicate lste en bok read
a book, see Ekberg (1993) and Vannebo (2003). Let us refer to the latter
reading as inceptive aspect.
Despite being capable of carrying a wider range of meanings, thus, pseu-
docoordinating verbs are similar to some of the verbs that select tenseless
non-bare innitivals. They are capable of modifying or expressing aspectual
properties of the predicate with which the verb combines. Verbs that have
similar aspectual functions include e.g. brja start. This verb restricts ref-
erence to the beginning of the process component of the event with which it
combines, an aspect we may label ingressive, cf. (4) below.
(4) a. Han
he
brjade
start.PAST
o
&
lste
read.PAST
en
a
bok
book
(TMA-copying)
Towards a unied analysis 95
b. Han
he
brjade
start.PAST
o
&
lsa
read.INF
en
a
bok
book
(standard innitive)
He started reading a book.
It is the nature of the matrix predicate that determines the aspectual modica-
tion of the embedded event, regardless of whether the embedded verb agrees
with the matrix verb, as in (4a), or not, as in (4b). Since pseudocoordinating
verbs contrast with verbs that TMA-copy in displaying a wider usage, a more
detailed classication of the semantics of pseudocoordinations is useful as
a recognition tool. Such a classication will be given in Chapter 6, where I
will claim that three basic readings are available in pseudocoordinations, all
depending on the feature make-up of the rst verb and its relation to syntactic
structure.
Apart from the inceptive reading briey introduced above, pseudocoordi-
nation may yield a progressive (a process in progress) reading of the event
expressed by the second predicate, as in (1a) and (1c), and a reading that I
will refer to as the distal reading, present in (1b) and (1c). The latter reading
co-occurs with the former readings in the relevant pseudocoordinations and
roughly denotes a situation where the subject referent is away doing some-
thing.
1.2. Inectional forms shared
If pseudocoordination involves TMA-copying, we expect copying of any ver-
bal form to be possible (a hallmark of non-bare copying innitivals). This
expectation is met, exemplied by sitta sit below.
(5) a. Sitt
sit.IMP
o
&
t!
eat.IMP
b. Han
he
sitter
sit.PRES
o
&
ter.
eat.PRES
c. Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
o
&
t.
eat.PAST
d. Han
he
hade
had
suttit
sit.PPC
o
&
tit.
eat.PPC
Like TMA-copying constructions. pseudocoordinations involve the conjunction-
like element o(ch) and, which I have argued is a complementizer. This ele-
ment is obligatorily overt in Swedish pseudocoordinations:
(6) Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
*(o)
&
t.
eat.PAST
He sat eating.
Note that this is a property that pseudocoordinations share with a subset of
the TMA-copying constructions. The element may not be dropped in TMA-
copying innitivals selected by e.g. vlja choose and undvika avoid or
their standard innitival counterparts in my variant of Swedish:
(7) Han
he
undvek
avoid.PAST
*(o)
&
skrev
write.PAST
dikter.
poem.PL
He avoided writing poems.
The issue of why this element is obligatorily overt with some verbs but not
others and the variation that we nd in this respect will not be dealt with here.
We may simply conclude that pseudocoordinations behave like some of the
TMA-copying cases in this regard.
74
1.3. T-adverbs are impossible
Finally, just like TMA-copying innitivals have been shown to be incompat-
ible with adverbs quantifying over times, so are the second conjuncts in
pseudocoordinations:
(8) *Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
o
&
alltid
always
t.
eat.PAST
Intended meaning: He sat always eating.
We now have three arguments in favour of taking pseudocoordination to in-
volve TMA-copying. If I am correct, pseudocoordination must involve:
Complementation (not coordination)
Copied inection (semantically vacuous)
In the next two sections, I show that these predictions are met.
2. Properties of pseudocoordination
Both sentences below involve one overt subject, two verbs with identical in-
ection, and a conjunction o(ch) and separating the verb phrases. Although
not crucial, the second verb takes an internal argument in both:
75
Properties of pseudocoordination 97
(9) a. Lars
Lars
sjng
sing.PAST
o
&
drack
drank.PAST
kaffe.
coffee
Lars sang and had a coffee.
b. Lars
Lars
gick
go.PAST
o
&
drack
drink.PAST
kaffe.
coffee
I. Lars walked and had a coffee.
II. Lars went and had a coffee.
Despite the surface similarities between the two sentences, however, (9b) is
ambiguous between two readings, only one of which is similar in nature to
the reading yielded by (9a). Whereas the two events in (9a) singing and
having a coffee are perceived as independent from each other, this is not
necessarily the case for the two events in (9b) walking and having a cof-
fee.
76
In the latter example, the two events can be perceived as expressing one
single complex event. On that reading the rst verb expresses initiation of a
complex event (inceptive aspect) of which another subevent is denoted by the
second predicate. The location of the event denoted by the second predicate
is interpreted as being distinct from the reference location (distal aspect) but
non-distinct from the goal of the motion denoted by the rst verb. I will refer
to the two readings as the independent-event reading and the pseudocoordina-
tion reading in what follows. The latter is a cover name for all interpretations
of the pseudocoordinations relevant here, regardless of aspectual ingredients;
they are all interpreted as expressing one single albeit complex event. Thus,
whereas (9a) is restricted to the independent-event reading, (9b) is ambiguous
between an independent-event reading (reading I.) and a pseudocoordination
reading (reading II.).
77
At least since Ross (1967) it has been recognized that a distinction can
be made between coordinations where the conjuncts stand in a more or less
symmetric relation to each other and coordinations where an asymmetric re-
lation between the conjuncts is indicated. Other references include Shopen
(1971), Schmerling (1975), Carden and Pesetsky (1977), Goldsmith (1985),
Dchaine (1993), Johannessen (1998), and Kehler (2002). The asymmetry
of the latter coordinations is reected by syntactic, semantic, and (in some
cases) prosodic properties. The aspectual properties of the second reading of
(9b) already give us a hint that pseudocoordination is not an ordinary coordi-
nation but instantiates one type of asymmetric coordination. Below I review
the properties that go hand in hand with the relevant reading, the attributes
that are responsible for the pseudo-part of of the term pseudocoordination
so to speak, leaving the possibility open that there are other asymmetric co-
ordinations that share these properties. I demonstrate that each property that
sets (9b) on the pseudocoordination reading apart from (9a) and (9b) on the
independent-event reading are properties that aspectual pseudocoordinations
share with TMA-copying constructions (10a) and their innitival counter-
parts (10b).
(10) a. Lars
Lars
brjade
start.PAST
o
&
drack
drink.PAST
kaffe.
kaffe
b. Lars
Lars
brjade
start.PAST
att
to
dricka
drink.INF
kaffe.
kaffe
Lars started drinking coffee.
This fact will enable us to conclude that the relevant pseudocoordinations do
not exemplify a special type of coordination but involve a structure where the
verb in what appears to be the rst conjunct selects the clause introduced by
o. For the same conclusion, see e.g. Jespersen (1895), Carden and Pesetsky
(1977), Anward (1988), Wiklund (1996), Johannessen (1998), and Ldrup
(2002).
2.1. Restricted set of verbs
Replacing the rst predicate in (9b) by e.g. stdade cleaned yields an un-
ambiguous independent-event reading. Thus, (11) below is similar to (9a) and
(9b) on reading (I.) above in that the rst verb does not express initiation of
the coffee-drinking event, nor relate the location of the event denoted by the
second predicate to that of the event denoted by the rst predicate.
(11) Lars
Lars
stdade
clean.PAST
o
&
drack
drank.PAST
kaffe.
coffee
Lars cleaned and had a coffee.
Whereas almost any two main verbs can be combined to yield an independent-
event reading, only a limited set of verbs can thus combine to yield a pseu-
docoordination reading (cf. de Vos 2005 on English). This restriction is a
property that pseudocoordinations share with copying constructions and with
innitival constructions more generally. On the hypothesis that pseudocoor-
dination involves complementation, this restriction naturally follows.
If pseudocoordinations were coordinations, on the other hand, we would
not expect there to be such a restriction. Whereas coordinations are known
to be subject to parallelism constraints between the conjuncts involved, re-
strictions on the rst conjunct of this kind are unheard of. In order to defend
a coordination analysis of pseudocoordination, one would have to claim that
there is no restriction on rst verbs at all in these constructions. This claim
runs into problems explaining the aspectual properties of the construction
type; the special readings would have to be said to arise as a bonus when spe-
cic verbs occur in the rst conjunct. Although there may be examples of this
kind, these typically differ from pseudocoordinations with regard to aspect
shift. A comparison between Swedish and Icelandic sit-&V constructions
is illustrative, see (12) and (13), respectively.
78
(12) Paul
Paul
sitter
sit.PRES
o
&
lser.
read.PRES
(Sw.)
(13) Palli
Palli
situr
sit.PRES
og
and
les.
read.PRES
(Ic.)
The above sentences have similar readings. The subject referent is in the pro-
cess of reading (while sitting); a progressive reading. However, there is a
semantic difference between the Swedish construction and the Icelandic con-
struction which becomes apparent when we consider other examples. The
Swedish construction is capable of inducing the aspectual coercions typical
of progressives, whereas the Icelandic construction is not. When combined
with a non-activity predicate, a progressive will induce an activity reading of
that predicate (if such a reading is pragmatically available; see e.g. Moens
1987 on this an other aspectual coercions). Thus for instance, a stative pred-
icate like vara sur be grumpy will shift into the associated activity (viz.,
the activity of displaying behaviour typical of a person who is grumpy), ren-
dering a fully acceptable sentence in Swedish (cf. the English He was being
grumpy):
(14) Paul
Paul
satt
sit.PAST
o
&
var
be.PAST
sur.
grumpy
(Sw.)
Roughly: Paul was being grumpy.
The Icelandic construction, in contrast, while combining easily with activity
predicates like lesa read as in (13), fails to induce the relevant shift when
combined with a stative predicate. (15), which is slightly degraded, means
that Palli sat, and he was grumpy, but there is no pseudocoordinate reading of
associated activity.
79
(15) ??Palli
Palli
sat
sit.PAST
og
&
var
be.PAST
sr.
grumpy
(Ic.)
Palli was sitting and was grumpy.
On the intuitive assumption that aspect shift is sensitive to locality (strong
islands), this difference follows if we assume that the Swedish construction
involves complementation, whereas the Icelandic construction involves co-
ordination in the relevant varieties. It is difcult to see how a coordination
analysis of both constructions would be able to account for this type of facts.
2.2. Prosody
Pseudocoordinations differ from their coordinate counterparts with respect
to prosodic properties. Verbs in ordinary coordination bear phrasal stress. In
contrast, pseudocoordinating verbs may not bear phrasal stress, see Teleman
et al. (1999), Josefsson (1991), and Wiklund (1996) for related observations.
(9a) above, therefore has to involve the phrasing in (16a), whereas (9b) is
compatible with two different phrasings. The phrasing in (17a) yields the
independent-event reading and the phrasing in (17b) the pseudocoordination
reading.
80
(16) a. [Lars
Lars
sjng
sing.PAST
[o
&
drack
drink.PAST
kaffe]].
coffee
b. *[Lars
Lars
[sjng
sing.PAST
o
&
drack
drink.PAST
kaffe]].
coffee
(17) a. [Lars
Lars
gick
go.PAST
[o
&
drack
drink.PAST
kaffe]].
coffee
(Independent events)
Lars walked and had a coffee.
b. [Lars
Lars
[gick
go.PAST
o
&
drack
drink.PAST
kaffe]].
coffee
(Pseudocoordination)
Lars went and had a coffee.
The prosodic properties of pseudocoordination are expected on a comple-
mentation analysis of the construction type. They are identical in the relevant
sense to those of TMA-copying innitivals and their standard counterparts:
(18) a. [Lars
Lars
brjade
start.PAST
[o
&
drack
drink.PAST
/*dricka
/drink.INF
kaffe]].
coffee
b. [Lars
Lars
[brjade
start.PAST
o
&
drack
drink.PAST
/dricka
/drink.INF
kaffe]].
coffee
(18b) is the default phrasing associated with a complementation structure on
a neutral intonation. The phrasing in (18a) can only be associated with a
coordination structure and is limited to the case where the two verbs display
identical inection. On that reading a null complement selected by the rst
verb is understood (Lars started [something] and had coffee).
A coordination analysis of pseudocoordination has to assume that the co-
ordination structure associated with (17a) is different from the coordination
structure associated with (17b) to derive this intonational difference. One
option is to say that pseudocoordination is different from other coordina-
tions in involving coordination of smaller (clausal) chunks see e.g. the VP-
coordination analysis of pseudocoordination in Josefsson (1991) and that
such a coordination has a special intonation. This proposal faces the problem
of explaining why VP-coordination is restricted to certain types of predicates.
The second option is to say that VP-coordination is compatible with two dif-
ferent phrasings. Such an assumption merely shifts the explanandum to the
question of why only some VP-coordinations are compatible with the pseu-
docoordination phrasing. Moreover, the fact that the prosodic properties are
shared with complementation structures remains a coincidence.
2.3. Anaphoric reference
The intuition that the coordination in (9a) refers to two independent events,
whereas (9b) on the relevant second reading refers to a single event is
supported by facts pertaining to anaphoric reference, an observation due to
Dchaine (1993). A coordination like (9a) introduces a discourse referent
which can be viewed as either collective (hence singular), see (19a), or plural,
see (19b).
(19) a. Att
to
sjunga
sing.INF
o
&
dricka
drink.INF
kaffe
coffee
r
is
en
a
rolig
fun.SG
grej
thing
att
to
gra.
do
To sing and have a coffee is a fun thing to do.
b. Att
to
sjunga
sing.INF
o
&
dricka
drink.INF
kaffe
coffee
r
are
roliga
fun.PL
grejer
things
att
to
gra.
do
To sing and have a coffee are fun things to do.
Crucially, the two events in (19a) are still perceived as autonomous in the
sense that the rst predicate does not express initiation of a complex event (of
which a subevent is denoted by the second predicate). Nor is there necessarily
any relation between the location of the event denoted by the second predicate
and that denoted by the rst predicate. Pseudocoordinations, in contrast, are
only compatible with singular anaphoric expressions:
(20) a. [Att
to
g
go.INF
[o
&
dricka
drink.INF
kaffe]]
coffee
r
is
en
a
rolig
fun.SG
grej
thing
/
/
r
are
roliga
fun.PL
grejer
things
att
to
gra.
do
To walk and have a coffee is a fun thing/are fun things to do.
b. [Att
to
g
go.INF
o
&
dricka
drink.INF
kaffe]
coffee
r
is
en
a
rolig
fun.SG
grej
thing
/
/
*r
are
roliga
fun.PL
grejer
things
att
to
gra.
do
To go and have a coffee is a fun thing (*are fun things) to do.
The prosodic bracketing in (20a) yields an independent event reading. As
expected, both singular and plural anaphoric expressions are possible. The
bracketing in (20b) yields an unambiguous pseudocoordination reading. There,
only the singular anaphoric expression is possible. This restriction is a prop-
erty that pseudocoordination shares with innitival constructions. These are
also incompatible with plural anaphoric expressions, regardless of whether
they involve copying (21) or not (22).
81
The prosodic bracketing is meant
to exclude independent-event readings and is used in the remainder of this
section.
82
(21) a. [Att
to
ha
have
brjat
start.PPC
(o)
&
druckit
drink.PPC
kaffe]
coffee
knns
feels
som
like
en
a
dlig
bad
grej
thing
att
to
ha
have
gjort.
do.PPC
To have started drinking coffee feels like a bad thing to have
done.
b. *[Att
to
ha
have
brjat
start.PPC
(o)
&
druckit
drink.PPC
kaffe]
coffee
knns
feels
som
like
dliga
bad
grejer
things
att
to
ha
have
gjort.
do.PPC
(22) a. [Att
to
ha
have
brjat
start.PPC
(o)
&
dricka
drink.INF
kaffe]
coffee
knns
feels
som
like
en
a
dlig
bad
grej
thing
att
to
ha
have
gjort.
do.PPC
To have started drinking coffee feels like a bad thing to have
done.
b. *[Att
to
ha
have
brjat
start.PPC
(o)
&
dricka
drink.INF
kaffe]
coffee
knns
feels
som
like
dliga
bad
grejer
things
att
to
ha
have
gjort.
do.PPC
Whereas the above restriction follows from a complementation analysis of
pseudocoordination (the event denoted by the second predicate is embedded
in and thus part of that denoted by the rst predicate), a VP-coordination
analysis of the construction has to say something more to explain the facts;
e.g. that an event-denoting phrase is projected above the rst VP and thus
shared between the coordinated verbs. This type of VP-coordination then has
to be restricted to certain verbs in the rst conjunct, an assumption that is
problematic in the sense noted above.
2.4. Non-islands
One of the most familiar hallmarks of pseudocoodinations is that they are
systematic counterexamples to the Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC), as
fomulated by Ross (1967). Thus, they can not involve strong islands. Whereas
extraction of an argument out of the second conjunct of (9a) above yields a
bad result, as predicted by the CSC, see (23a) below, extraction out of the sec-
ond conjunct of (9b) produces a perfectly acceptable sentence in languages
that allow pseudocoordination (for English, see e.g. Carden and Pesetsky
1977). Extraction yields an unambiguous pseudocoordination reading, see
(23b).
(23) a. *Kaffet
coffee.DEF
som
that
Lars
Lars
sjng
sing.PAST
o
&
drack
drink.PAST
_
_
var
was
gott.
good
b. Kaffet
coffee.DEF
som
that
Lars
Lars
gick
go.PAST
o
&
drack
drink.PAST
_
_
var
was
gott.
good
The coffee that Lars went and had was good.
Similarly, whereas the second conjunct of ordinary coordinations can not be
fronted, see (24a), it can be fronted in pseudocoordinations, modulo the in-
sertion of a dummy verb, cf. (24b).
83
(24) a. *[Drack
drink.PAST
kaffe]
coffee
sjng
sing.PAST
Lars
Lars
o
&
(gjorde)
do.PAST
i
last
lrdags.
Saturday
b. [Drack
drink.PAST
kaffe]
coffee
gick
go.PAST
Lars
Lars
o
&
*(gjorde)
do.PAST
i
last
lrdags.
Saturday
We should now be able to test the possibility of extraction between the min-
imal pair (17a) and (17b) in 2.2. Recall that the prosody of the former sig-
nals an independent-event reading, whereas the prosody of the latter signals
a pseudocoordination reading. We expect the possibility of extraction to be
restricted to the latter phrasing. This is borne out, cf. (25a) and (25b) below.
(25) a. *Kaffet
coffee.DEF
[som
that
Lars
Lars
gick
go.PAST
[o
&
drack
drink.PAST
_]]
_
var
was
gott.
good
b. Kaffet
coffee.DEF
[som
that
Lars
Lars
[gick
go.PAST
o
&
drack
drink.PAST
_]]
_
var
was
gott.
good
Absence of island effects is in principle unexpected in coordinations. As it
stands, the VP-coordination analysis has to stipulate that all (or some) VP-
coordinations can be extracted from and likewise that the second conjunct can
be fronted in all (or some) VP-coordinations. Although this may be a theoret-
ical possibility, it is unclear why this effect would be categorially restricted,
i.e. why we do not seem to get a similar effect in e.g. NP-coordination. On
a complementation analysis of pseudocoordination, on the other hand, the
non-island status of the second clause is expected. Note that the Icelandic
sit-&V construction (introduced in 2.1 above) does not allow extraction in
the variety examined. This is expected on the proposal that it differs from the
Swedish sit-&V construction in exemplifying a coordination, rather than a
complementation structure:
(26) *Hva
What
situr
sit.PRES
Palli
Palli
og
&
les
read.PRES
_?
_
(Ic.)
de Vos (2005) claims that English pseudocoordinations show weak island
effects when the predicate of the rst conjunct is modied by a prepositional
phrase or a particle, but not in the absence of such modication of the rst
verb. Most of his examples of weak island effects involve a goal PP modifying
a motion verb:
(27) *How carefully did John go to town and read his exam notes _?
As I will show below, such examples display weak island effects in Swedish
too. Apart from these cases, however, pseudocoordinations do not involve
weak islands, neither in Swedish, nor in all varieties of English. I take the
possibility of extracting manner adjuncts to indicate absence of weak island-
hood. A thorough description of the relevant classes of pseudocoordination
is given in Chapter 6 below. Starting with progressive pseudocoordinations,
the second conjunct is not a weak island in Swedish, even in the presence of
a locative phrase/particle with the rst verb:
84
(28) Hur
how
hgt
loudly
gick
go.PAST
Lars
Lars
omkring
around
i
in
parken
park.DEF
o
&
sjng
sing.PAST
_?
_
Likewise progressive-distal pseudocoordinations do not involve weak islands:
(29) Hur
how
hgt
loudly
var
be.PAST
Lars
Lars
i
in
kyrkan
church.DEF
o
&
sjng
sing.PAST
_?
_
Inceptive pseudocoordinations do not allow modication of the rst verb, see
Chapter 6 for discussion. Adjunct extraction is unproblematic:
(30) Hur
how
hgt
loudly
tog
go.PAST
du
you
o
&
sjng
sing.PAST
_?
_
Finally, inceptive-distal pseudocoordinations allow adjunct extraction out of
the second clause, even in the presence of one or more particles:
(31) Hur
how
hgt
loudly
gick
go.PAST
du
you
ivg
away
dit
there
ner
down
o
&
sjng
sing.PAST
_
_
?
Inserting a prepositional phrase denoting a goal of motion with the rst verb,
however, makes the adjunct extraction degrade:
(32) ??Hur
how
hgt
loudly
gick
go.PAST
John
John
till
to
stan
town.DEF
o
&
sjng
sing.PAST
_
_
?
Basing his argument on examples like (32), cf. (27) above, de Vos (2005)
claims that we need to separate pseudocoordinations where the rst verb is
modied by a particle or a PP from pseudocoordinations where such modi-
cation is absent. The former are referred to as scene-setting coordinations,
the latter as contiguous coordinations (analyzed as involving a complex pred-
icate head). Note that scene-setting coordinations allow argument extraction
in both Swedish (33) and English (34), thus are not strong islands.
(33) Vad
what
gick
go.PAST
John
John
till
to
stan
town.DEF
o
&
lste
read.PAST
_
_
?
What did John go to town and read?
(34) What did John go to town and read _ ?
Interestingly, insertion of away with the motion verb does not induce a weak
island effect, neither in English (35) (from de Vos 2005), nor in Swedish, cf.
(31) above.
(35) How carefully did you go away and read the notes I gave you _?
Rather than constituting an exception to the claim that English pseudocoor-
dinations are weak islands in the presence of particles/prepositional phrases
with the rst verb, (35) is arguably an indication that English and Swedish
pseudocoordinations are subject to partly the same restrictions. They do not
involve weak islands in the presence of particles and PPs, with the exception
goal denoting PPs.
85
An additional piece of evidence that English pseudo-
coordinations may be like their Swedish counterparts is given in (36) below.
The example involves adjunct extraction out of a progressive pseudocoordi-
nation involving locative modication of the rst verb. The sentence is ne
in American English (Martha Larson p.c., dialect of Wisconsin), cf. Swedish
(28) above.
(36) How loudly did Lars walk around in the ofce and sing _?
The blocking effect of a goal denoting PP, exemplied in (32) and (27) above,
remains to be understood (see Chapter 6 for a preliminary proposal) but is in
fact an additional property that the construction type shares with restructuring
phenomena. In Italian, restructuring in the context of motion verbs is blocked
in the presence of a goal denoting PP. An example involving clitic climbing
is given in (37) (from Cinque 2004: fn.30, citing Fresina 1981: 164ff).
86
(37) Li
them
andiamo
go.1PL
(*alla
to
stazione)
station.DEF
a
to
ricevere.
receive
(It.)
We go to the station and get them.
Apart from constituting an additional argument against a coordination ap-
proach to the pseudocoordinations relevant here, the above facts provide us
with an argument against two other analyses; the adjunction analysis, see
Dchaine (1993); and the complex predicate head analysis, see de Vos (2005).
If the relevant pseudocoordinations were to involve adjunction, we would ex-
pect island effects to be present, contrary to fact.
87
If pseudocoordinated verbs
were to form a complex head, we would not expect modication of the rst
verb to be possible. As we have seen, however, locative and directional mod-
ication (with the exception of goal denoting PPs) does not affect extraction
possibilities in Swedish, nor in variants of English. Restricting the complex
head analysis to cases where there is no such modication would fail to ac-
count for why pseudocoordinations with modication of the rst verb and
pseudocoordinations without such modication share all other properties.
88
I conclude that the second clause in aspectual pseudocoordinations is not
a weak island (except in the presence of a goal denoting PP) in the vari-
ants examined. This follows naturally if pseudocoordination involves TMA-
copying, as proposed here. Innitival clauses allow argument and adjunct ex-
traction, regardless of whether copying is present or not (cf. Chapter 2).
2.5. Commutativity
Many coordinations allow a reversal of the order of the conjuncts without
modifying the truth conditions of the sentence. The truth conditions of (38a)
and (38b) below are identical on at least one reading.
(38) a. Lars
Lars
sjng
sing.PAST
o
&
drack
drank.PAST
kaffe.
coffee
b. Lars
Lars
drack
drank.PAST
kaffe
coffee
o
&
sjng.
sing.PAST
Lars had a coffee and sang.
Note that there is a reading of (38a) where the singing event temporally pre-
cedes the dancing event. On that reading, of course, a reversal of the order of
the conjuncts changes the truth conditions of the sentence. The coordination
is nevertheless subject to the Coordinate Structure Constraint, cf. (39), thus
not a pseudocoordination.
(39) *Kaffet
coffee.DEF
som
that
Lars
Lars
sjng
sing.PAST
o
&
(sedan)
(then)
drack
drink.PAST
_
_
var
was
gott.
good
Pseudocoordinations, on the other hand, do not display the commutativity
property (see Dchaine 1993; de Vos 2005). The truth conditions of (40a)
on the relevant pseudocoordination reading are necessarily different from
those of (40b) below, where the order of the conjuncts is switched.
(40) a. Lars
Lars
gick
go.PAST
o
&
drack
drink.PAST
kaffe.
coffee
b. Lars
Lars
drack
drink.PAST
kaffe
coffee
o
&
gick.
go.PAST
Lars had a coffee and left.
The only reading available for (40b) is the independent-event reading. As
expected, extraction is impossible:
(41) *Vad
what
drack
drink.PAST
Lars
Lars
_
_
o
&
gick?
go.PAST
The absence of the commutativity property is yet another attribute that pseu-
docoordinations share with copying innitivals and their standard counter-
parts, thus follows naturally on a complementation analysis of pseudocoordi-
nation:
(42) a. *Lars
Lars
drack
drink.PAST
kaffe
coffee
o
&
brjade.
start.PAST
b. *Lars
Lars
drack
drink.PAST
kaffe
coffee
att
to
brja.
start.INF
c. *Lars
Lars
dricka
drink.INF
kaffe
coffee
att
to
brjade.
start.PAST
(42a) is only ne on the coordination reading, where the second conjunct
involves a null complement; Lars had a coffee and started [something]. Al-
though the absence of the commutativity property is not a conclusive argu-
ment against a coordination approach to the phenomenon, as noted above,
a coordination approach has to say something more about these particular
cases. Adhering to a sub-temporal ordering between the events involved fails
to account for progressive pseudocoordinations, where there is no temporal
order but rather strict overlap implied between the two (sub-)events (cf. He
sat and read).
2.6. One overt subject
The subject is normally left out in the second conjunct of an ordinary coordi-
nation but can be repeated in the form of a pronoun (or even the full DP):
(43) a. Lars
Lars
sjng
sing.PAST
o
&
han
he
drack
drink.PAST
kaffe.
coffee
Lars sang and he drank coffee.
b. [Lars
Lars
gick
go.PAST
[o
&
han
he
drack
drink.PAST
kaffe]].
coffee
Lars walked and he had a coffee.
In pseudocoordinations, however, only one overt subject is possible (for En-
glish, see Schmerling 1975 and Dchaine 1993):
(44) *[Lars
Lars
[gick
go.PAST
o
&
han
he
drack
drink.PAST
kaffe]].
coffee
Lars walked and he had a coffee.
A VP-coordination analysis is consistent with the the two predicates shar-
ing one overt subject (see Josefsson 1991) but faces the problems noted ear-
lier (e.g. the absence of island effects). If pseudocoordination involves TMA-
copying (a restructuring innitival), on the other hand, as proposed here, the
subject restriction is expected, given that it holds of innitival clauses (copy-
ing or not) as well:
89
(45) a. *[Lars
Lars
[brjade
start.PAST
o
&
han
he
drack
drink.PAST
kaffe]].
coffee
b. *[Lars
Lars
[brjade
start.PAST
&
o
han
he
dricka
drink.INF
kaffe]].
coffee
2.7. Negation placement
For a reading where both conjuncts are false, ordinary coordinations have
two options. Either the negation is repeated in each conjunct, as in (46a), or
the negation follows the coordinated verbs (that are in the V2 position), as in
(46b).
(46) a. Lars
Lars
sjng
sing.PAST
inte
NEG
o
&
drack
drink.PAST
inte
NEG
hela
whole
tiden.
time
Lars did not sing and did not drink the whole time.
b. Lars
Lars
sjng
sing.PAST
o
&
drack
drink.PAST
inte
NEG
hela
whole
tiden.
time
Lars did not sing and drink the whole time.
Pseudocoordination, however, is incompatible with both options:
(47) a. *Lars
Lars
[gick
go.PAST
inte
NEG
o
&
drack
drink.PAST
inte
NEG
hela
whole
tiden].
time
b. *Lars
Lars
[gick
go.PAST
o
&
drack
drink.PAST
inte
NEG
hela
whole
tiden].
time
To negate the whole complex event, the negation must be placed with the rst
verb (in the matrix clause) and can not be repeated with the second verb, a
fact noted already by Jespersen (1895), see also Vannebo (2003):
90
(48) Lars
Lars
[gick
go.PAST
inte
NEG
o
&
drack].
drink.PAST
Lars did not go and drink.
Again, pseudocoordinations behave like innitival constructions (copying or
not) rather than coordinations:
(49) a. *Lars
Lars
[brjade
start.PAST
o
&
drack
drink.PAST
inte].
NEG
b. Lars
Lars
[brjade
start.PAST
inte
NEG
o
&
drack].
drink.PAST
Lars did not start drinking.
(50) a. *Lars
Lars
[brjade
start.PAST
o
&
dricka
drink.INF
inte].
NEG
b. Lars
Lars
[brjade
start.PAST
inte
NEG
o
&
dricka].
drink.INF
Lars did not start drinking.
2.8. Adverb placement
Insertion of an adverb inside the second conjunct yields an unambiguous nar-
row scope reading of the adverb in ordinary coordinations. Only the event
expressed by the second predicate is modied. This is also true for pseudo-
coordinations, where a restricted set of adverbs are possible (see Chapter 7).
Nevertheless, the two constructions differ regarding possible orders between
the main verb and the adverb. In the ordinary coordinations, the adverb nstan
almost can either precede or follow the main verb:
(51) Lars
Lars
sjng
sing.PAST
o
&
(nstan)
(almost)
kysste
kiss.PAST
(nstan)
(almost)
henne
her
(nstan).
(almost)
Lars sang and (almost) kissed her (almost).
In pseudocoordinations, however, the adverb has to precede the main verb:
(52) Lars
Lars
gick
go.PAST
o
&
(nstan)
(almost)
kysste
kiss.PAST
(*nstan)
(almost)
henne
her
(*nstan).
(almost)
Lars went and (almost) kissed her (*almost).
The order where the adverb follows the main verb is only ne on the independent-
event reading, or on the irrelevant wide-scope reading (available when the ad-
verb is in sentence-nal position). Once again, pseudocoordinations behave
like innitival constructions rather than coordinations:
(53) a. Lars
Lars
brjade
go.PAST
o
&
(nstan)
(almost)
kysste
kiss.PAST
(*nstan)
(almost)
henne
her
(*nstan).
(almost)
b. Lars
Lars
brjade
go.PAST
o
&
(nstan)
(almost)
kyssa
kiss.INF
(*nstan)
(almost)
henne
her
(*nstan).
(almost)
Lars started (almost) kissing her (almost).
The order where the adverb follows the main verb is possible under two irrel-
evant readings. The rst is restricted to (53a) and is the coordination reading
involving a null complement in the rst conjunct. The second is the wide
scope reading (available when the adverb is in sentence-nal position).
91
2.9. The linking element
The linking element is restricted to o(ch) and in pseudocoordination. Ordi-
nary coordinations, in contrast, are compatible with other conjunctions. Thus,
whereas the ordinary coordination in our examples is compatible with the ex-
pression bde x o(ch) y both x and y, the pseudocoordination is not (cf.
Schmerling 1975; Dchaine 1993; de Vos 2005):
(54) a. Lars
Lars
bde
both
sjng
sing.PAST
o
&
drack
drink.PAST
kaffe.
coffee
Lars both sang and had a coffee.
b. Lars
Lars
(*bde)
both
gick
go.PAST
o
&
drack
drink.PAST
kaffe.
coffee
A VP-coordination analysis of pseudocoordination has to stipulate that such
coordinations are restricted to involve but one type of conjunction, or that
some but not other VP-coordinations are restricted in this way. On a comple-
mentation analysis, on the other hand, this property is expected, given that
o(ch) contrasts with bde x o(ch) y in being capable of serving as a comple-
mentizer in Swedish (Chapter 4). As I have shown earlier, o(ch) is possible
in both copying and standard innitivals, see (55).
92
An (overt) inectional
parallelism between the verbs involved is thus not required for this element
to be licensed in the relevant contexts.
93
(55) a. Lars
Lars
(*bde)
(both)
brjade
start.PAST
o
&
drack
drink.PAST
kaffe.
coffee
b. Lars
Lars
(*bde)
(both)
brjade
start.PAST
o
&
dricka
drink.INF
kaffe.
coffee
3. Intermediate conclusion
I have reviewed eight properties that set pseudocoordinations apart from their
coordinate counterparts but unite them with innitival constructions, see Ta-
ble 11. (1) Whereas pseudocordinations display a rst verb restriction, coor-
dinations do not. (2) Whereas pseudocoordinated verbs are in the same into-
national phrase, coordinated verbs are not. (3) Pseudocoordinations can only
refer to one event, coordinations do not display this restriction. (4) Pseudo-
coordinations are not islands, coordinations are. (5) Pseudocoordinations do
not display the commutativity property, many coordinations do. (6) An overt
subject is impossible in the second clause of a pseudocoordination, but pos-
sible in the second conjunct of a coordination. (7) The whole complex may
not precede the negation in pseudocoordinations, but can do so in coordina-
Vacuous inection innitival counterparts 113
tions. (8) The main verb has to follow an adverb in the second conjunct in
pseudocoordinations, not in coordinations.
Table 11. Coordination vs. complementation
Properties Coord. Pseudo. Copy. inf. Stand. inf.
Any rst verb +
Two inton. phrases +
Plural anaphoric ref. +
Island status +
Commutativity +
Subj. with 2nd pred. +
V&V > NEG +
Main verb > adverb +
On the basis of the fact that all properties that set the relevant pseudocoordina-
tions apart from ordinary coordinations unite them with copying innitivals
and their standard (non-copying) counterparts, I conclude that pseudocoor-
dination is not coordination but involves (TMA-copying) complementation.
The verb in what appears to be the rst conjunct selects the clause intro-
duced by o. For the same conclusion, see e.g. Jespersen (1895), Carden and
Pesetsky (1977), Anward (1988), Wiklund (1996), Johannessen (1998), Car-
dinaletti and Giusti (2001), and Ldrup (2002):
94
(56) Lars
Lars
[gick
go.PAST
[
CP
o
&
drack
drink.PAST
kaffe]].
coffee
As hinted at above, there are also semantic arguments against a coordina-
tion analysis. These will be elaborated in Chapter 6. Below, I show that the
embedded clause in pseudocoordinations involves vacuous inection.
4. Vacuous inection innitival counterparts
In Chapter 1, I showed that pseudocoordinations and copying constructions
differ in that the former lack innitival counterparts. Below, this difference is
examined in more detail.
4.1. Progressive pseudocoordinations
Replacing the second verb in the sentences in (5) above by an innitival form
of the verb leads to ungrammaticality:
95
(57) a. *Sitt
sit.IMP
att
to
ta!
eat.INF
b. *Han
he
sitter
sit.PRES
att
to
ta.
eat.INF
c. *Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
att
to
ta.
eat.INF
d. *Han
he
hade
had
suttit
sit.PPC
att
to
ta.
eat.INF
At rst sight, the unavailability of innitival counterparts seems to make
pseudocoordination less similar to TMA-copying and innitival constructions
in general. However, (at least) one variant of Swedish has an innitive con-
struction in place of pseudocoordination with the relevant verbs; also in stan-
dard Dutch, the corresponding verbs select innitives. Consider the verb vara
be that may pseudocoordinate in standard Swedish to yield a progressive-
distal reading:
(58) Han
he
var
is.PAST
o
&
kpte
buy.PAST
mat.
food
(Standard Swedish)
He was away buying food.
The buying event is interpreted as being in progress and located in a place that
is distinct from the reference location (roughly being away doing something).
Although the innitival counterpart of (58) is impossible in standard Swedish,
it is ne in Fenno-Swedish, see (59).
96
The construction is restricted to the
o-complementizer, thus excluding att (Anders Holmberg, p.c.).
(59) Han
he
var
is.PAST
o
&
kpa
buy.INF
mat.
food
(Fenno-Sw./*Standard Sw.)
He was away buying food.
Attaching the tag men affren var stngd but the shop was closed to the
Fenno-Swedish construction results in a pragmatic oddity (60a), just like it
does in the standard Swedish pseudocoordinate counterpart (60b). Since the
food-buying event is interpreted as being in progress at the relevant point in
time in both sentences, it is at odds with a situation where the shop is closed.
97
(60) a. Han
he
var
is.PAST
o
&
kpa
buy.INF
mat,
food,
#men
but
affren
shop.DEf
var
was
stngd.
closed
b. Han
he
var
is.PAST
o
&
kpte
buy.PAST
mat,
food,
#men
but
affren
shop.DEF
var
was
stngd.
closed
He was away buying food, #but the shop was closed.
Going back to the sentences in (57), note that these are all ne in stan-
dard Dutch (see Geerts et al. 1984: 537ff.). (61a) below is the counterpart
of (57b) above. It yields the same in-progress reading of the eating event as
the Swedish pseudocoordinate counterpart in (61b).
98
(61) a. Hij
he
zit
sit.PRES
te
to
eten.
eat.INF
(Du.)
b. Han
he
sitter
sit.PRES
o
&
ter.
eat.PRES
(Sw.)
~He is eating.
There are at least two ways to illustrate that the interpretations are identi-
cal. First, attaching the tag men han har inte brjat ta n but he hasnt
started eating yet to the sentence yields a pragmatic oddity in both the Dutch
innitival and the Swedish pseudocoordination. Since the eating-event is in-
terpreted as being in progress in both sentences, it is at odds with a situation
where subject referent has not yet started eating:
(62) a. Hij
he
zit
sit.PRES
te
to
eten,
eat.INF,
#maar
but
hij
he
is
is
nog
yet
niet
not
begonnen
start.PPC
met
with
eten.
eat
(Du.)
b. Han
he
sitter
sit.PRES
o
o
ter,
eat.PRES,
#men
but
han
he
har
has
inte
not
brjat
start.PPC
ta
eat.INF
n.
yet
(Sw.)
~He is eating, #but he hasnt started eating yet.
Secondly, the innitival construction yields aspect shifts identical to those
present in the pseudocoordination. Replacing the embedded verb in (61a) by
niezen sneeze (a point type of event in Moens 1987), as in (63a), yields a
reading where the sneezing-event is interpreted as iterated. This is expected
when the progressive is applied to a predicate of that kind (cf. He is sneezing).
On this and other aspectual transitions, see e.g. Moens (1987). The relevant
aspect shift is present in the pseudocoordinate counterpart (63b) as well.
(63) a. Hij
he
zit
sit.PRES
te
to
niezen.
sneeze.INF
(Du.)
b. Han
he
sitter o nyser.
sit.PRES o sneeze.PRES
(Sw.)
~He is sneezing.
Replacing the embedded predicate by the verb corresponding to fall asleep
(an achievement in the classication of Vendler 1967) yields a reading where
the subject referent is about to fall asleep (nodding off) in both the innitival
construction and the pseudocoordination (the pre-inceptive reading):
(64) a. Hij
he
zit
sit.PRES
in
in
slaap
sleep
te
to
vallen.
fall.INF
(Du.)
b. Han
he
sitter
sit.PRES
o
o
somnar.
fall-asleep.PRES
(Sw.)
~He is falling asleep.
Data from Fenno-Swedish and Dutch thus show that the meaning conveyed
by progressive(-distal) pseudocoordinations in standard Swedish can be con-
veyed by innitival constructions involving the same verbs be and sit, respec-
tively. The fact that innitival alternatives are missing in standard Swedish
can thus not be used as an argument in favour of treating pseudocoordination
and copying innitivals differently. Both constructions belong to a subtype
of innitival constructions where the embedded verb, instead of turning up in
the innitival form, agrees with the matrix verb.
99
Note that the Dutch construction is like the corresponding pseudocoordi-
nation in Swedish in that it allows adjunct extraction (65) but not T-adverbs
(66). The adverb altijd always can only have the wide scope reading in (66),
which I take to indicate that it can not be inside the innitival (nothing may
intervene between te and the innitive). (66) thus contrasts with (67), where
the scope of the same adverb is ambiguous.
(65) Hoe
how
hard
loud
zat
sit.PAST
hij
he
te
to
zingen
sing.INF
_?
_
(Du.)
Intended meaning: How loudly was he singing _?
(66) Hij
he
zit
sit.PAST
altijd
always
te
to
zingen.
sing.INF _
I. He always sits and sings.
II. *He sits and always sings.
(67) Hij
he
probeert
try.PRES
altijd
always
te
to
zingen.
sing.INF
I. He always tries to sing.
II. He tries to always sing.
The explanandum is now shifted from the issue of why the readings of pseu-
docoordinations can not be conveyed by innitival constructions with the
same verbs (they can) to the issue of why the relevant verbs obligatorily copy
in Swedish when they combine with a verbal predicate, in contrast to other
verbs that we have seen may select TMA-copying innitivals. Part of the ex-
planation will be claimed to lie in the property briey mentioned above. The
relevant verbs contrast with other copying verbs that in having other uses. In
Chapter 6 below, I propose that pseudocoordinations are reanalyzed coordi-
nations.
From the above data, we can conclude that the inection of the second
verb in progressive(-distal) pseudocoordinations is semantically vacuous. If
the various aspectual interpretations of these were dependent on the inec-
tional form of the second verb, we would not expect to nd the same mean-
ing conveyed by innitival constructions. We thus have another argument in
favour of taking pseudocoordination to involve copying.
4.2. Inceptive pseudocoordinations
Motion verbs can also be construed with innitivals. However, the inniti-
val construction differs truth-conditionally from pseudocoordination with the
same verb. Consider (68a) and (68b), both involving g go.
(68) a. Han
he
gick
go.PAST
o
&
sjng,
sing.PAST,
#men
but
ck
get.PAST
inte
not
fram
out
ett
a
ljud.
sound
He went and sang, #but did not produce a sound.
b. Han
he
gick
go.PAST
fr
for
att
to
sjunga,
sing.INF,
men
but
ck
get.PAST
inte
not
fram
out
ett
a
ljud.
sound
He went to sing, but did not produce a sound.
The pseudocoordination in (68a) implies that the subject referent went away
and succeeded in doing some singing, contrasting with the innitival con-
struction in (68b), where the implication is that the subject referent went away
with the intention of singing at the relevant point in time, but where no refer-
ence is made as to whether he actually did some singing or not. Predictably,
the tag men han ck inte fram ett ljud but he did not produce a sound results
in pragmatic oddity in (68a), contrasting with (68b) where the tag is perfectly
acceptable. The motion verb expresses initiation of the singing event in (68a)
(the inceptive aspect) but not in (68b).
At rst sight, the above described semantic differences between the pseu-
docoordination and the innitival construction look problematic for propos-
ing that the pseudocoordination is an innitival construction with copied in-
ectional morphology, cf. de Vos (2005). On a closer scrutiny, however, (68b)
is not an innitival counterpart of (68a) in the sense that the underlying struc-
tures are similar. The innitival clause in (68b) is a mild weak island, whereas
the second clause in (68a) is not. Extracting an adjunct out of (68b) yields a
deviant but not fully ungrammatical result (69a). As seen is (69b), in contrast,
the same extraction out of the pseudocoordination is perfectly ne.
(69) a. ??Hur
how
noggrannt
carefully
gick
go.PAST
han
he
ivg
away
fr
for
att
to
leta
search.INF
den
it
_?
_
How carefully did he go away to look for it _?
b. Hur
how
noggrannt
carefully
gick
go.PAST
han
he
ivg
away
o
&
letade
search.PAST
den
it
_?
_
How carefully did he go away and look for it _?
Therefore, the semantic contrast between (68a) and (68b) can not be taken as
an indication that the surface inection of the second verb in the former is
responsible for the interpretation of that sentence. The underlying structures
associated with the two sentences are simply different. That true innitival
counterparts of inceptive pseudocoordinations involving motion verbs are ab-
sent in Swedish is an interesting issue per se but not an argument against the
claim that pseudocoordination involves copying, just like the absence of in-
nitival counterparts of progressive pseudocoordinations in Swedish is not
an argument against the same claim. In principle, an innitival construction
should be capable of conveying the relevant meaning components. That this
expectation is met can be illustrated with the verb ta take. (2) above, re-
peated in (70a), does not have an innitival counterpart, cf. (70b).
(70) a. Han
he
tog
take.PAST
o
&
lste
read.PAST
en
a
bok.
book
b. Han
he
tog
take.PAST
att
to
lsa
read.INF
en
a
bok.
book
He read a book.
When combined with a reexive pronoun (REFL) and the prepositions fr/till
med for/to with, however, ta can either pseudocoordinate (71a) or select an
innitive (71b) in my variant. Crucially, both sentences yield an inceptive-like
aspect.
(71) a. Han
he
tog
take.PAST
sig
REFL
fr
for
med
with
o
&
sjng.
sing.PAST
b. Han
he
tog
take.PAST
sig
REFL
fr
for
med
with
att
to
sjunga.
sing.INF
~He took and sang.
Here, thus, the innitival construction does not yield a purpose reading but
preserves the single event reading where the rst verb expresses initiation
of the (complex) event. Thus, attaching the tag men han ck inte fram ett
ljud but he did not produce a sound results in pragmatic oddity in both the
pseudocoordination, (72a), and the innitival construction, (72b).
(72) a. Han
he
tog
take.PAST
sig
REFL
fr
for
med
with
o
&
sjng,
sing.PAST,
#men
but
ck
get.PAST
inte
not
fram
forth
ett
a
ljud.
sound
b. Han
he
tog
take.PAST
sig
REFL
fr
for
med
with
att
to
sjunga,
sing.INF,
#men
but
ck
get.PAST
inte
not
fram
forth
ett
a
ljud.
sound
~He took and sang, #but did not produce a sound.
This fact enables us to discard the phenomenon of pseudocoordination per se
as responsible for the relevant aspect, which provides us with an additional
argument in favour of taking pseudocoordination to be a special type of in-
nitival construction (involving copying of inectional features). A pseudo-
coordinate complement is to use the words of Jespersen (1895: 170) an
innitive in disguise (en forkldt innitiv).
5. Restrictions on copying
It remains to be shown that the syntactic relation behind pseudocoordination
is top-down, local, and sensitive to tense, just like copying.
5.1. Top-down
Given that pseudocoordination involves complementation (the rst verb se-
lects the clause introduced by o), we already have an argument in favour of
taking the relevant relation to be top-down. A second argument runs as fol-
lows. If the embedded verb were capable of determining the inection of the
matrix verb, we would predict (73) to be acceptable, contrary to fact. That the
innitival form can be copied is evidenced by (74).
(73) *Han
he
har
has
g
go.INF
o
&
ta.
eat.INF
He has gone and eaten.
(74) Han
he
ska
will
g
sit.INF
o
&
ta.
eat.INF
He will go and eat.
The embedded innitival form of ta in (74) must be copied from the matrix
clause, since, as we know, the construction type does not have an innitival
counterpart in (standard) Swedish, cf. (75a).
(75) a. *Han
he
gr
go.PRES
o
&
ta.
eat.INF
b. Han
he
gr
go.PRES
o
&
ter.
eat.PRES
He goes and eats.
5.2. Locality
We have already seen that pseudocoordination does not involve islands (2.4).
That the spreading of inection respects Relativized Minimality is shown in
(76), where the inceptive ta take (+ REFL for with) selects a clause headed
by hjlpa help, which in turn selects a clause headed by skriva write.
Restrictions on copying 121
(76) a. Han
he
hade
had
tagit
take.PPC
sig
REFL
fr
for
med
with
o
&
hjlpt
help.PPC
henne
her
o
&
skrivit
write.PPC
boken.
book.DEF
b. Han
he
hade
had
tagit
take.PPC
sig
REFL
fr
for
med
with
o
&
hjlpt
help.PPC
henne
her
o
&
skriva
write.INF
boken.
book.DEF
c. *Han
he
hade
had
tagit
take.PPC
sig
REFL
fr
for
med
with
o
&
hjlpa
help.INF
henne
her
o
&
skrivit
write.PPC
boken.
book.DEF
d. Han
he
hade
had
tagit
take.PPC
sig
REFL
fr
for
med
with
o
&
hjlpa
help.INF
henne
her
o
&
skriva
write.INF
boken.
book.DEF
Approximately: He had helped her to write the book.
Ta can either pseudocoordinate, as in (76a) and (76b), or select a standard
innitival, as in (76d). Hjlpa can either TMA-copy, as in (76a), or select a
standard innitival as in (76b) and (76d). On the present proposal that pseu-
docoordination involves TMA-copying, hence involve local "spreading" of
inectional features, we correctly predict (76c) to be impossible. The par-
ticipial features of ta can not reach skriva past the innitive hjlpa.
5.3. Tense sensitivity
If pseudocoordination involves copying, pseudocoordination should also be
sensitive to the tense of the complement clause. This is borne out. None of
the pseudocoordinations investigated here allow non-overlapping temporal
properties between the clauses involved. Consider (77).
(77) a. *Idag
today
gr
go.PRES
Lars
Lars
ivg
away
o
&
lser
read.PRES
en
a
bok
book
p
on
fredag.
Friday
b. Lars
Lars
gr
go.PRES
ivg
away
o
&
lser
read.PRES
en
a
bok
book
idag.
today
c. Lars
Lars
gr
go.PRES
ivg
away
o
&
lser
read.PRES
en
a
bok
book
p
on
fredag.
Friday
If surface inectional parallelism between the verbs involved were the rel-
evant restriction, we would expect (77a) above to be acceptable, since the
non-past (present) form in Swedish is ambiguous between expressing present
and future tense. However, pseudocoordination is unavailable in the presence
of a complement that is future-oriented with respect to the matrix clause, just
like TMA-copying is unavailable in that context. Thus, the whole complex
event has to be either present-oriented, as in (77b), or future-oriented, as in
(77c).
100
Thus, a temporal mismatch like (77a) is unavailable despite the fact
that the walking away has to precede the book-reading in these pseudocoordi-
nations. Any precedence relation between pseudocoordinated events is there-
fore sub-temporal. Nor can the complement be past-oriented with respect to
the matrix clause, see (78), even if the inectional morphology is otherwise
compatible with the temporal frame of the adverbials in the example.
(78) *Igr
yesterday
gick
go.PAST
Lars
Lars
o
&
lste
read.PAST
en
a
bok
book
i
in
frrgr.
before-yesterday
Finally, note that the inection of the embedded verb survives movement, just
like TMA-copied inection (Chapter 2):
(79) [Drack
drink.PAST
kaffe]
coffee
gick
go.PAST
Lars
Lars
o
&
gjorde
do.PAST
i
last
lrdags.
Saturday
6. Conclusion
I have argued that pseudocoordinations involve copying innitivals, because
like these:
Pseudocoordination involves complementation.
The inection of the second clause is semantically vacuous (copied).
More specically, I have argued that the relevant pseudocoordinations involve
TMA-copying innitivals, because:
The embedded clause is non-bare (is introduced by the complementizer
och, the reduced form of which is o).
All forms may copy.
Aspectual modication is present.
T-adverbs are impossible in the embedded clause.
Conclusion 123
The relation behind the inectional sharing is syntactic, local, and sensitive
to tense.
If copying is a restructuring effect as I have argued in Chapter 4, then:
Pseudocoordination involves restructuring.
Chapter 6
Pseudocoordinating verbs are light verbs
If we abstract away from prosody (as in written text), the example in (1)
below is ambiguous between a reading that involves two coordinated events
(the independent-event reading) and a reading where the two events form a
single complex event (the pseudocoordination reading).
101
(1) Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
o
&
sov.
sleep.PAST
I. He was sitting and (was) sleeping.
II. He was sleeping (in a sitting position).
The fact that many pseudocoordinations are ambiguous this way still looks
like a piece of support in favour of the coordination analysis of pseudocoor-
dination that I discarded in the preceding chapter. A closer examination of
the rst verb involved, however, will reveal that on the pseudocoordination
use (reading II.), this verb can not coordinate in the rst place. I will present
evidence in favour of taking pseudocoordinating verbs to involve light verb
uses of (otherwise) lexical verbs. This nding will do two things. In addition
to ridding us of the apparent support in favour of a coordination analysis, it
will throw light on the semantic properties of copying constructions involving
these verbs.
1. Semantic classication
Recall the principal classes of matrix verbs occuring in the pseudocoordina-
tions relevant here:
102
Posture verbs (sitta sit, st stand, and ligga lie)
Motion verbs (g go, komma come, springa run)
Vara be
Ta take
The basic aspectual properties of pseudocoordinations depend on the nature
of the matrix predicate. However, as a rst note of caution, it is not possible
126 Pseudocoordinating verbs are light verbs
to propose one-to-one relations between the classes of matrix verbs involved
and aspectual interpretations. One and the same verb may turn up in different
syntactic environments, yielding different aspectual properties. If taken out
of context, one and the same sentence can therefore be ambiguous between
aspectual interpretations. Below I claim that two basic classes of readings are
available with the above pseudocoordinating verbs. I will refer to them as the
progressive and the inceptive readings, respectively. These two, in turn, are
subdivided between non-distal and distal readings.
1.1. The progressive reading
On the progressive reading, the event denoted by the embedded predicate is
interpreted as being in progress at a certain point in time, a reading that is
near-identical to the one yielded by the verb be plus a gerund in English; he
was reading. The most inclusive discussion of the semantics of progressive
pseudocoordinations can be found in Tonne (2000).
103
(2) Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
o
&
lste
read.PAST
en
a
bok.
book
(Progressive)
He was reading a book (in a sitting position).
The Swedish present and preterite tenses are ambiguous (or vague) between
perfective and imperfective readings. Pseudocoordinations can be used to dis-
ambiguate the two. On the relevant pseudocoordination reading of (2), thus,
the book-reading event can only be interpreted as a process in progress at a
past time. In contrast, the book-reading event in the non-pseudocoordinated
counterpart (3) is ambiguous between an imperfective and a perfective read-
ing.
(3) Han
he
lste
read.PAST
en
a
bok.
book
I. He was reading a book.
II. He read a book.
Posture verbs frequently pseudocoordinate to yield the progressive reading,
as do motion verbs, see (4), and the verb BE (discussed below), but not TAKE.
(4) Han
he
gick
go.PAST
omkring
around
o
&
lste
read.PAST
en
a
bok.
book
(Progressive)
He went around reading a book.
Semantic classication 127
1.2. The inceptive reading
On the inceptive reading, in turn, the matrix predicate is roughly interpreted
as expressing initiation of the event denoted by the embedded predicate. The
embedded event may be bounded or unbounded. The whole complex event
has a bounded (perfective) reading (as a function of the matrix predicate).
This reading is described in Ekberg (1993) and Teleman et al. (1999: IV: 907),
examining pseudocoordinations involving the verb TAKE, as in (5) below (see
alsoVannebo 2003).
(5) Han
he
tog
take.PAST
o
&
lste
read.PAST
en
a
bok.
book
(Inceptive)
(Irish English:) He took and read a book.
Motion verbs and posture verbs (on their directional use), cf. (6), are also
capable of expressing initiation, but not BE.
(6) Han
he
satte
sit:DIR.PAST
sig
REFL
o
&
lste
read.PAST
en
a
bok.
book
(Inceptive)
~He sat down and read a book.
TAKE and the motion verb g go can also pseudocoordinate to yield a touch
of unexpectedness to the event denoted by the embedded predicate, as in (7).
That reading has been referred to as the unexpected-event reading or the sur-
prise reading in the literature (see e.g. Carden and Pesetsky 1977; Dchaine
1993; de Vos 2005).
(7) Han
he
gick
go.PAST
o
&
vann
win.PAST
en
a
miljon.
million
(Surprise)
He went and won a million.
I take the surprise reading to be a special version of the class of inceptive
readings for reasons that will become clear as we proceed.
1.3. The distal reading
Progressive and inceptive pseudocoordinations can be divided further with
respect to whether or not the location of the event denoted by the embedded
predicate is interpreted as distinct from the reference location.
104
I will refer
to the former reading, denoting a situation where the subject referent is away
doing something (cf. Ekberg 1983), as the distal reading. Within the class of
progressive pseudocoordinations, the distal reading is only available with the
verb BE, see (8) below.
(8) Han
he
var
was.PAST
o
&
lste
read.PAST
en
a
bok.
book
(Progressive-distal)
He was away reading a book.
The interpretation of (8) thus involves two components. The book-reading
event is interpreted as being in progress (progressive) at a time preceding the
utterance time and as located in a place that is distinct from the reference
location (distal). Motion verbs can also participate in pseudocoordinations to
yield a distal reading, see (9), whereas the verb TAKE can not.
(9) Han
he
gick
go.PAST
o
&
lste
read.PAST
en
a
bok.
book
(Inceptive-distal)
He went and read a book.
In (9) above, the motion verb expresses initiation of the embedded event (in-
ceptive) and the motion is interpreted as directed away from the reference
location (distal). The location of the embedded event is interpreted as identi-
cal to the goal of the motion.
105
In the presence of a verb particle expressing
the nal location of the motion, as in (10), a reading that comes close to a
purely distal interpretation is available. The location of the embedded event
is indentical to the goal of the motion (DIR stands for directional).
(10) Han
he
gick
go.PAST
dit
there.DIR
o
&
lste
read.PAST
en
a
bok.
book
(Distal)
He went there and read a book.
As shown in the preceding chapter, however, a prepositional phrase specify-
ing the goal induces a mild weak island effect, thus yields a subtly different
construction.
Distal aspect seems related to the distantive (or andative) aspect referred
to in Cinque (1999) and Cinque (2004). Note however that my label distal
does not imply directed motion, thus can also be expressed by pseudocoordi-
nations involving the stative verb BE, as in (8), to yield a progressive-distal
reading.
Pseudocoordinating verbs and event structure 129
1.4. Classication arrived at
If the above descriptions are correct, we arrive at the following four basic
readings (disregarding for the moment being the purely distal reading): A.
the progressive reading, B. the progressive-distal reading, C. the inceptive
reading, and D. the inceptive-distal reading. For brief notes on which matrix
predicates impose selectional restrictions on the subject, I refer the reader to
Appendix III.
Table 12. Classes of aspectual pseudocoordination
PROGRESSIVE INCEPTIVE
DISTAL A. as in (2) and (4) C. as in (5) and (6)
+DISTAL B. as in (8) D. as in (9)
Related types of pseudocoordination are found also outside of the Scan-
dinavian languages. Hebrew displays pseudocoordination with the motion
verb corresponding to go (Idan Landau, p.c.). Pseudocoordinations that yield
progressive-like readings are found in English with posture and motion verbs,
see e.g. de Vos (2005). In Bulgarian, posture verbs can pseudocoordinate to
yield a related (durative) reading, see Kuteva (1999). Pseudocoordinations
with TAKE that yield interpretations related to the inceptive reading described
above are attested in Romance, Slavic, Baltic, and Finno-Ugric languages ac-
cording to Ekberg (1993). According to the same study, the literal translation
of (5) above is ne in Irish English and in certain American dialects. Finally,
pseudocoordination with motion verbs to yield interpretations that seem re-
lated to the inceptive-distal reading is possible in the Marsalese dialect of
Italian, see Cardinaletti and Giusti (2001), and in English, see e.g. Carden
and Pesetsky (1977) and de Vos (2005).
2. Pseudocoordinating verbs and event structure
TAKE, BE, and verbs of posture and motion thus frequently yield readings
that are identical or related to those described here crosslinguistically. In this
sense, there is something intuitively basic about these verbs from the point of
view of Universal Grammar. These verbs must be available for encodings of
primitive notions from which the relevant aspectual properties can be derived.
2.1. The lightness of the matrix verb
There is also another sense in which these verbs are basic. They are in a cer-
tain sense less specied than other verbs from the same domains. Whereas
verbs like e.g. sitta sit, st stand, ligga lie, and g go can pseudoco-
ordinate to yield aspectual readings, as in the a-examples below, other verbs
from the domains of posture and motion e.g. luta sig lean REFL, halv-
sitta half-sit (be in a position between sitting and lying), lufsa lumber, and
hoppa jump can not do so, cf. the b-examples. The extraction test is used
to identify possibility of pseudocoordinating:
106
(11) a. Vad
what
satt
sit.PAST
han
he
o
&
spelade?
play.PAST
b. *Vad
what
halvsatt
half-sit.PAST
han
he
och
o
spelade?
play.PAST
(12) a. Vad
what
gick
go.PAST
han
he
o
o
spelade?
play.PAST
b. *Vad
what
lufsade
lumber.PAST
han
he
&
o
spelade
play.PAST
?
(11a) and (11b) both involve avours of the posture verb sitta sit. However,
only in (11a) do we get a progressive reading and the possibility of extract-
ing. Similarly, (12a) and (12b) both involve motion verbs denoting a walking
event. But only in (12a) do we get an inceptive-distal reading and the possibil-
ity of extracting. The relevant difference between the a- and the b-examples
seems to be that the a-examples involve matrix verbs that are less specied
for manner of posture and motion, respectively.
There are various descriptive labels of the latter sense of basic in grammat-
icalization frameworks (see e.g. Hopper and Closs Traugott 1993), including
notions like genericity and bleaching. In a study of Zulu, Mkhatshwa (1991)
(cited in Heine 1993: 29) shows that the verb -hlala sit/stay has grammat-
icalized into a habitual auxiliary -hlale do always, whereas other verbs of
the same domain have not; -qoshama sit on haunches, -qhiyama sit lean-
ing back, and -dangalaza sit with legs astride. Part of the explanation is
claimed to derive from the fact that -hlala sit/stay is the generic member of
the relevant domain by (i) being the semantically least constrained member
of that domain, (ii) exhibiting the widest scope of usage, and by (iii) being
substitutable for other members of the domain, while the opposite does not
hold true. Closely related to genericity is the loss of lexical semantics, which
is seen as a (historic) process through which a verb (or any other category)
loses lexical properties, the nal stage being one where the verb (or what once
was a verb) is bleached enough to be available as a grammatical marker.
The Swedish verb sitta sit may thus be described as contrasting with
halv-sitta half-sit in being the generic member of the domain that includes
both. Or sitta sit may be described as more bleached than halv-sitta half-
sit and therefore the former but not the latter is capable of serving as an
aspect marker. While notions like genericity and bleaching seem to serve a
descriptive purpose, they are, however, not particularly explanatory. Does the
bleaching referred to necessarily come about through absence of lexical prop-
erties, and if so, what does absence of lexical properties mean? Why is the
verb sit more likely to serve as an aspect marker than half-sit or sit-with-legs-
astride? Although space does not allow us to give detailed answers to this
type of questions, I will show what an explanation may look like from the
point of view of syntax. For this purpose, I adopt the essential ingredients of
the framework of Ramchand (in press), briey introduced below.
2.2. Event structure
Ramchand (in press) is concerned with identifying the syntactic components
of event structure building in natural language. She takes lexical items to
carry category features (or tags) through which they may associate with nodes
in the syntactic structure. The relevant features in the verbal domain are three
in number and are labelled init (causation/initiation), proc (process), and res
(result), respectively. Each one of these features has a corresponding projec-
tion in the verb phrase syntax to which the feature may associate; a causa-
tion/initiation projection (initP), a process projection (procP), and a result
projection (resP). These projections are instantiations of (possible) subparts
of the whole event. InitP introduces the causation event and licenses the exter-
nal argument. ProcP species the nature of the change or process and licenses
the entity undergoing this change (or process).
107
Finally, ResP provides the
result state of the event and licenses the entity of which the result state holds:
(13) [initP [procP [resP ]]]
The process (proc head) is the nucleus and is the only component that is oblig-
atory in a dynamic verbal event. Thus, [initP] and [resP], alone or together,
do not form legitimate events, whereas all other combinations do, provided
that the xed order in between the subevents involved is respected:
(14) Legitimate event structures:
a. [procP]
b. [initP [procP]]
c. [procP [resP]]
d. [initP [procP [resP]]]
If the lexical entry of a verb contains init and res features, the relevant verb
may associate with the proc-node and the res-node in the verb phrase built up,
but with no other nodes. As a result of this association, the eventive content
of procP and resP in the structure is semantically identied. An example of a
verb that has rich enough lexical encyclopedic content to identify all possible
parts of the event and hence carries all three features in its lexical specication
is defuse:
(15) Lexical entry for defuse: [init, proc
i
, res
i
]
The undergoer (DP that undergoes the defusing) will be the same as the re-
sultee (DP that acheives the state of being defused), which is indicated by
coindexing in the entry above. In virtue of carrying the maximal set of fea-
tures, the item will be able to associate in structures that yield accomplish-
ments/result transitive verbs:
(16) a. [initP subj
1
defuse [procP subj
2
<defuse> [resP subj
2
<defuse>]]]
b. John defused a bomb.
A stative use of a verb may arise when init selects rhematic material (ma-
terial that is part of the description of the predicate), instead of the process
projection procP:
(17) [initP v
init
[XP
rheme
]]
When init hosts encyclopaedically impoverished verbs like be, rhematic ma-
terial is necessary to fully describe the state, cf. (18) below, where the rhe-
matic material can be e.g. a prepositional phrase, or and adjectival phrase:
(18) He was *(in the park/happy).
Rhemes are according to Ramchand not limited to stative contexts but exist
in dynamic predication as well. A rheme of process and a rheme of result is
exemplied in (19a) and (19b), respectively.
(19) a. Karena jogged 2 miles.
b. He entered the room.
2 miles in (19a) is not subject to a change as a result of the running event but
merely describes the process portion by measuring the path traversed by the
undergoer. Likewise, the room in (19b) is not a resultee in the sense that it
comes to hold the result state of the entering, but instead further describes the
result of that event by expressing the nal location.
The framework provides two loci of exibility. First, a verb (read verbal
lexical item) in one language and what appears to be its counterpart in another
language may be subtly different in not carrying the same number of category
tags. Ramchand proposes that English run differs from its Italian counterpart
correre in not carrying a res-feature, accounting for a difference between the
two languages w.r.t. the interpretation of locative PPs in the context of this
verb. Whereas a goal reading is available in Italian (20a), it is not in English
(20b).
(20) a. Gianni
Gianni

is
corso
run.PPC
a
at/to
casa
house
di
of
Maria.
Maria
(It.)
Gianni has run to Marys house.
b. He ran in the woods.
Can not mean: He ran to the woods.
On the assumption that the Italian motion verb contrasts with the English
counterpart in carrying the res-tag, the locative PP may merge as a rheme of
result in syntax, accounting for the goal reading of the PP. English, in turn,
must make use of result augmentation where the added PP identifying the
resP has to come with a res feature itself (carried by a directional preposition)
in order for the goal reading to be available. In this sense, the English lexical
item run can be said to be lighter, or bleached, as compared to its Italian
counterpart correre. The latter has a res feature in its lexical specication,
whereas the former does not.
A verb need not lack features in the lexical specication in order to be
bleached, however. Under certain circumstances, a verb may leave features
unassociated in syntax. A lexical item may have e.g. an init feature and a
proc feature in its lexical specication but in the verb phrase with which the
item associates, the procP may be identied by another item. The lexical item
is then linked to structure via its init tag alone and therefore does not take part
in identifying the process portion of the event structure. If this is correct, Uni-
versal Grammar makes available (at least) two types of bleaching:
108
A category feature is missing in the lexical specication.
A category feature in the lexical specication remains unassociated.
The latter scenario, Ramchand (in press) labels underassociation. We now
have at least the beginning of an answer to one of the two questions posed
above. Bleaching does not necessarily mean radical absence of lexical prop-
erties, because absence of lexical properties may translate into two things.
It may refer to absence of a category feature in the lexical specication or
absence of association of a category feature in the lexical specication to
syntactic structure. In the latter type of bleaching, the bleached component is
thus not missing from the lexical entry of an item, but merely left unlinked to
structure. Below, I will propose that pseudocoordinating verbs are bleached
in the latter sense.
Using the tools introduced above, I examine properties of pseudocoordi-
nating verbs in more detail. Posture verbs are useful for this purpose, since
these can pseudocoordinate to yield both progressive and inceptive readings.
My investigation will provide us with two pieces of information. First, the
relevant notions encoded to yield the two classes of readings are location
and directed motion (change of location), respectively. Secondly, verbs that
pseudocoordinate to yield the relevant readings instantiate light verb uses of
these verbs in the sense of underassociation to syntax, as described above.
The latter nding will ultimately rid us of the apparent piece of support in
favour of a coordination analysis of pseudocoordination that was noted in the
introduction above.
3. Posture verbs in progressive pseudocoordination
Outside of the domain of pseudocoordination, posture verbs have (at least)
four different uses in Swedish and can therefore associate to different types
of event structure. Using the classication of Rappaport Hovav and Levin
(2000), these uses are the simple position use, the maintain position use, the
Posture verbs in progressive pseudocoordination 135
assume position use, and the transitive causative use, respectively. Taking
sitta sit (referred to as SIT in what follows) to be an illustrative example,
I will show that only two out of the four uses are relevant to pseudocoor-
dination, one to the progressive reading, the other to the class of inceptive
readings.
3.1. Simple position (locative) vs. maintain position SIT
In the simple position use, SIT describes the spatial conguration of the sub-
ject referent with respect to a location, see Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2000):
(21) Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
i
in
soffan.
sofa.DEF
(Locative)
He was sitting in the sofa.
On the relevant reading, the crucial message conveyed by (21) is that the
subject referent is located in the sofa at a past time. (21) is thus a felicitous
anwer to the question Where was he?. That the subject referent is sitting,
as opposed to lying or standing, is a piece of information that is felt to be
subordinate, even if manner of posture counts for the truth conditions of the
sentence. I will henceforth refer to this use of SIT as the locative use, which
is a more transparent label for the present purpose.
That manner of posture cannot be prominent on the locative use of the verb
is reected by the fact that the locative reading disappears when we insert an
adverb that further describes the manner of sitting (22a), or replace SIT with
a verb from the same domain that is more specic regarding manner (22b).
(22) a. Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
avslappnat
relaxedly
i
in
soffan.
sofa.DEF
(Maintain pos.)
He was sitting relaxedly in the sofa.
b. Han
he
halvsatt
half-sit.PAST
i
in
soffan.
sofa.DEF
(Maintain pos.)
He was half-sitting in the sofa.
The above two sentences can only have readings where manner of posture
is interpreted as prominent and therefore form less natural answers to the
question Where was he?. These sentences exemplify the maintain position
use of SIT; the posture verb describes the maintenance of a particular spatial
conguration of the subject referent (Rappaport Hovav and Levin 2000). In
the maintain position use of SIT, the locative PP is optional; in the locative
use, it is required:
109
(23) a. Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
(i
in
soffan).
sofa.DEF
(Maintain pos.)
b. Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
*(i
(in
soffan).
sofa.DEF)
(Locative)
Taking this similarity between the locative version of SIT and the more im-
poverished BE seriously (they both require additional material), cf. (18), I
assume along with Hoekstra and Mulder (1990) that locative SIT is a kind of
copula. The locative argument is required in (23b) to fully describe the state.
Using the framework of Ramchand (in press), I therefore propose that SIT,
in the locative use, associates to init selecting rhematic material rather than
a procP
process
. The locative argument provides the rhematic material. In this
use then, SIT associates to the verb phrase via its init feature alone, leaving
potential eventive features unlinked to structure (underassociation):
(24) Locative use:
...[initP subj
1
SIT [PP
rheme
subj
1
P
loc
DP]]
I will refer to locative init, selecting rhematic material, as init
loc
in order
to facilitate discrimination between this stative-like init and init selecting a
process complement (which is part of an eventive verb phrase). Notice that
the rheme may be followed by another PP:
(25) Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
i
in
en
a
soffa
sofa
i
in
sitt
his
nya
new
hus
house
(Locative)
He was sitting in a sofa in his new house.
The order of the PPs does not appear to be xed:
110
(26) Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
i
in
sitt
his
nya
new
hus
house
i
in
en
a
soffa.
sofa
(Locative)
He was sitting in his new house in a sofa.
I will make the following assumption:
(27) Manner is tied to procP in the event structure.
Intuitively, manner describes the process portion of the event structure. On
my assumption, a verbal lexical item needs to associate its proc feature when
linking to verb phrase syntax in order for the manner component of the verb
to be prominent in the interpretation and in order for further modication
of this component to be possible. I thus take manner adverbs to merge within
procP. It follows that manner of posture is felt to be bleached in the locative
use of the relevant verbs. Only to the extent that the process portion can be
described by the encyclopaedic content of the lexical item SIT itself does
manner of posture survive in the interpretation.
111
It also follows that locative
SIT can not be further modied with respect to manner of posture, accounting
for the unavailability of a locative reading of (22a) and (22b) above. Since the
proc feature has to remain unlinked to structure in the locative use, a process
portion is not identied, hence can not be further specied.
In contrast to the locative use of SIT, the maintain position use of the same
verb involves eventive predication. Reference is made to an initiation compo-
nent and a process component of the event (but not a result component). The
subject of initP and procP is shared:
(28) Maintain position use:
...[initP subj
1
SIT [procP subj
1
<SIT>]]
Since no additional material is required to identify the process portion in
Swedish, the lexical item SIT must have both init and proc in its lexical speci-
cation. In this use, then, SIT associates to both init and proc in the structure.
Manner of posture is prominent in the interpretation and can be further de-
scribed by manner adverbs, as in (22a).
According to Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2000), inanimate subjects are
restricted to the locative (simple position) use of posture verbs. This seems
conrmed by Swedish, at rst sight, by the Swedish data in (29) and (30)
below. These sentences only have locative readings and the locative argument
(rhematic material) is therefore required.
112
(29) Hatten
hat.DEF
sitter
sit.PRES
*(p
on
huvudet).
head.DEF
(Locative)
(30) Inkpslistan
shopping-list.DEF
satt
sit.PAST
*(p
on
vggen).
wall.DEF
In the presence of a manner adverb, however, a maintain position reading is,
not only possible, but the only reading available:
(31) Hatten
hat.DEF
sitter
sit.PRES
bra
well
p
on
henne.
her
(Maintain pos.)
(32) Inkpslistan
shopping-list.DEF
satt
sit.PAST
lst
loosely
p
on
vggen.
wall.DEF
(31) and (32), involving inanimate subjects, contrast with e.g. (23a), involving
an animate subject, in that a manner adverb is necessary for identication of
the process portion of the event.
113
I take the locative phrase to be adjoined
to the macro-event (initP) in the maintain position use. In this position it is
optional:
(33) Hatten
hat.DEF
sitter
sit.PRES
bra.
well
(Maintain pos.)
(34) Inkpslistan
shopping-list.DEF
satt
sit.PAST
lst.
loosely
3.2. Progressive pseudocoordination
We can now go on to examine whether any of the above two described uses of
SIT pseudocoordinate. Manner modication is used to discriminate between
the locative and the maintain position uses and the extraction test is applied
to discriminate between coordination and pseudocoordination:
(35) a. Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
i
in
soffan
sofa.DEF
o
&
sjng.
sing.PAST
(Locative)
He sat singing in the sofa.
b. Hur
how
satt
sit.PAST
han
he
i
in
soffan
sofa.DEF
o
&
sjng
sing.PAST
_?
_
(36) a. Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
sknt
comfortably
o
&
sjng.
sing.PAST
(Maintain pos.)
He was sitting comfortably and was singing.
b. *Hur
how
satt
sit.PAST
han
he
sknt
comfortably
o
&
sjng
sing.PAST
_?
_
Whereas locative SIT can pseudocoordinate to yield a progressive reading
of the event denoted by the embedded predicate, witness (35), the maintain
position use of the same verb can not. (36a) can only have an independent-
event reading and since extraction is disallowed (36b), we may conclude that
the example involves coordination.
114
In the same sense that locative SIT is felt to have a bleached manner com-
ponent in contexts outside of pseudocoordination, pseudocoordinating loca-
tive SIT is bleached. Manner gets through in the interpretation only in so far
as the encyclopaedic content of SIT allows its survival.
115
I propose that the
pseudocoordinate complement in (35) provides the rheme of init
loc
to which
SIT associates in the locative use:
116
(37) ...[initP
loc
SIT [CP
rheme
= pseudocoordinate complement]
We correctly predict the locative PP in (35) to be optional. In (38) below, the
pseudocoordinate complement alone provides the rheme required.
(38) a. Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
[
CP
o
&
sjng].
sing.PAST
He sat singing.
b. Hur
how
satt
sit.PAST
han
he
[
CP
o
&
sjng
sing.PAST
_]?
_
Likewise, since the order between XPs is not xed in (25) above, cf. (26), we
expect the reverse order of (35) to be possible. This expectation is met:
(39) a. Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
[
CP
o
&
sjng]
sing.PAST
[
PP
i
in
soffan].
sofa.DEF
He sat singing in the sofa.
b. Hur
how
satt
sit.PAST
han
he
[
CP
o
&
sjng
sing.PAST
_]
_
[PP i
in
soffan]?
sofa.DEF
An apparent problem for the present analysis is the fact that the pseudoco-
ordinate complement projects its own clausal domain. However, recall that
pseudocoordination is TMA-copying on the present proposal and that TMA-
copying, in turn, instantiates restructuring. In addition to anaphoric C-, T-,
and Asp-domains, the pseudocoordinate clause may involve anaphoric init.
I will assume this to be the case. Embedded init will thus stand in a de-
pendency relation with matrix init in the aspectual pseudocoordinations of
concern here:
117
(40) ... [initP
matrix
init
i
[CP
rheme
... [initP
embedded
init
i
[procP...]]]]
It is well-known that progressives are historically developed from locative
constructions crosslinguistically, see e.g. Bybee and Dahl (1989) and Bybee,
Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994). For an account of why verbs of stance and pos-
ture are used to form progressives, see in particular Demirdache and Uribe-
Extebarria (2000). That location is the relevant notion can also be illustrated
by the motion verb g go. Out of context, (41) below is ambiguous between
a progressive reading (I.) and an inceptive reading (II.) (on the relevant pseu-
docoordination interpretation of the sentence).
(41) Han
he
gick
go.PAST
o
&
skrek.
scream.PAST
I. He went around screaming.
II.He went and screamed.
Verb particles can be used to disambiguate between the two readings. Inser-
tion of runt or omkring around with the matrix verb yields an unambiguous
progressive reading:
(42) Han
he
gick
go.PAST
omkring
around
o
&
skrek.
scream.PAST
He went around screaming.
This is so because this particle denotes a symmetric relation between the
source and goal regions of a movement and therefore does not refer to a
change of location. The particle helps identify a locative (non-directional) use
of the motion verb, where the pseudocoordinate complement is interpreted as
a rheme of init
loc
. I will not have much to say on progressive-distal pseudoco-
ordinations. I take a phonologically null rheme of init
loc
, headed by a particle
corresponding to ivg away, to be a possibility. This particle would precede
the CP
rheme
and be responsible for the distal component:
(43) Han
he
var
be.PAST
[ivg]
away
o
&
skrev
write.PAST
ett
a
brev.
letter
He was away writing a letter.
3.3. Bleaching manner
We should now have at least a beginning of an explanation for the fact that
we do not nd SIT-with-legs-astride and other avours of sit as progressive
markers, having found out that such markers arise from a locative use of the
relevant verbs. I tentatively propose that a verbal lexical item that involves
a heavy description of the process component associates its proc feature to
syntactic structure by default, thus disallows a light verb use of the relevant
kind. It follows that SIT-with-legs-astride can not have a locative use. That is,
we do not expect to nd a language where the counterpart of (44) below has
a locative reading (a reading where manner of posture is not prominent in the
interpretation). And since the verb can not have a locative use, it can not be
used as an aspect marker.
(44) He sits-with-legs-astride in the bar.
Intended meaning: He is in the bar
On the above proposal, however, pseudocoordinations like the following are
unexpected:
(45) a. Han
he
lufsade
lumber.PAST
runt
around
o
&
spelade
play.PRES
jt.
ute
He lumbered around and played the ute.
b. Hur
how
lufsade
lumber.PAST
han
he
runt
around
o
&
spelade
play.PAST
jt
ute
_?
(45) yields a progressive reading of the event denoted by the embedded pred-
icate and the manner component of the matrix verb (mode of walking) is felt
to be bleached. The possibility of adjunct extraction shows that it does in-
deed exemplify a true pseudocoordination, despite the presence of a matrix
verb involving a more elaborate process description.
The phenomenon was (to my knowledge) rst observed by Andersson
(1979), who noted that the presence of a verb particle is a crucial ingredi-
ent in these. Thus in the absence of a verb particle, (45a) can only have an
independent-event reading, where the manner component is prominent, see
(46a). Likewise non-Across-The-Board extraction becomes impossible, cf.
(46b).
(46) a. Han
he
lufsade
lumber.PAST
o
&
spelade
play.PAST
jt.
ute
He lumbered and played the ute.
b. *Hur
how
lufsade
lumber.PAST
han
he
o
&
spelade
play.PAST
jt
ute
_?
My suggestion that verbs with an elaborate manner component can not have a
light verb use thus needs some renement. Particles appear capable of forcing
a light verb use (underassociation) of verbs with a heavy process description
in these contexts. If the lexical item chosen has an elaborate manner compo-
nent, a particle can be used to prevent the verb from linking its proc feature,
either by (i) identifying a structure that does not involve the process portion
(procP), as in (45) above, or by (ii) associating to proc itself. The latter option
should be possible only with directional particles and should yield a different
reading of the pseudocoordination. In 4.2 below, I show that this is indeed
what we nd. My proposal captures the intuition of Josefsson (1991) that
particles can be used to withdraw focus from the verb action itself.
3.4. Summary
Progressive pseudocoordinations involve locative matrix verbs.
In these, the complement clause merges as a rheme of init
loc
.
Posture and motion verbs which do not involve an elaborate manner de-
scription have locative uses in virtue of the possibility of underassociating
to syntactic structure (light verb use).
Particles can be used to force underassociation.
4. Posture verbs in inceptive pseudocoordination
Two uses of SIT have not been discussed yet, the assume position use and the
transitive causative use.
4.1. Assume position vs. transitive causative SIT
The assume position use and the transitive causative use contrast with the
locative and maintain position uses of posture verbs in making referece to
directed motion. In these uses, posture verbs have distinct, though related,
stems in Swedish (indicated by DIR in the glosses below). E.g. sit: sitta
(INF), satt (PAST), suttit (PPC) vs. sit down: stta (INF), satte (PAST), satt
(PPC). (47) denotes the assumption of a position on the part of the subject
referent. (48) denotes the deposition of an object in a place.
118
Posture verbs in inceptive pseudocoordination 143
(47) Han
he
satte
sit:DIR.PAST
sig
REFL
(p
on
stolen).
chair.DEF
(Assume pos.)
He sat down (on the chair).
(48) Han
he
satte
sit:DIR.PAST
stolen
chair.DEF
*(i
in
kllaren).
basement.DEF
(Trans.)
He put the chair in the basement.
All three possible subparts of a dynamic event are referred to and thus rep-
resented in the event structure; a causation/initiation component (initP), a
process component (procP), and a result component (resP). In the assume
position use, the subject of the casuation/initiation is the same as both the
undergoer of the event and the resultee:
(49) Assume position use:
...[initP subj
1
SIT [procP subj
1
<SIT> [resP subj
1
<SIT> ]]]
In the transitive causative use, the subject of the causation/initiation is dis-
tinct from the undergoer (the chair) of the event, while the undergoer is non-
distinct from the resultee:
(50) Transitive causative use:
...[initP subj
1
SIT [procP subj
2
<SIT> [resP subj
2
<SIT> ]]]
In both directional uses, I take SIT to link to structure via init, proc, and
res. If I am correct, Swedish has only one lexical item SIT that is capable
of associating either via init alone (the locative use), via init and proc (the
maintain position use), or via the full set of features (the assume position and
transitive causative uses). The latter use is reected by a different stem, as
noted above.
On the hypothesis that manner adverbs merge within procP, we correctly
predict manner adverbs to be possible in the assume position use, as well as
in the transitive causative use:
119, 120
(51) Han
he
satte
sit:DIR.PAST
sig
REFL
frsiktigt.
carefully
(Assume pos.)
He sat down carefully.
(52) Han
he
satte
sit:DIR.PAST
stolen
chair.DEF
frsiktigt
carefully
i
in
kllaren.
basement.DEF
(Trans.)
He put down the chair carefully in the basement.
4.2. Inceptive pseudocoordination
As seen by the contrast between (53) and (54) below, posture verbs pseudo-
coordinate in the assume position use but not in the transitive causative use.
The former but not the latter has an inceptive reading and allows extraction.
(53) a. Han
he
satte
sit:DIR.PAST
sig
REFL
o
&
sjng.
sing.PAST
(Assume pos.)
He sat down and sang.
b. Hur
how
satte
sit:DIR.PAST
han
he
sig
REFL
o
&
sjng
sing.PAST
_?
_
(54) a. Han
he
satte
sit:DIR.PAST
ner
down
stolen
chair.DEF
o
&
sjng.
sing.PAST
(Trans.)
He put down the chair and sang.
b. *Hur
how
satte
sit:DIR.PAST
han
he
ner
down
stolen
chair.DEF
o
&
sjng
sing.PAST
_?
_
I conclude that directed motion is relevant to the class of inceptive readings.
Furthermore, the undergoer must be identical to the subject of the initia-
tion/causation in pseudocoordinations of this kind.
A closer look at the properties of (53), however, reveals that the pseu-
docoordinating use of SIT must in some sense be different from the assume
position use of the same verb. First, a PP specifying the nal location of the
motion makes adjunct extraction deviant and prevents the inceptive reading,
cf. (47) above vs. (55) below.
(55) Hur
how
satte
sit:DIR.PAST
han
he
sig
REFL
(??p
(on
stolen)
chair.DEF)
o
&
sjng
sing.PAST
_?
_
How did he sit down on the chair and sing?
The effect is familiar from Chapter 5 above. A goal PP induces mild a weak
island effect for reasons yet to be explored. Note, however, that a particle
specifying the nal location does not interfere with extraction but weakens
the inceptive reading, see (56). See de Vos (2005) for similar observations on
English pseudocoordinations with motion verbs.
(56) Hur
how
satte
sit:DIR.PAST
han
he
sig
REFL
ned
down
o
&
sjng
sing.PAST
_?
_
How did he sit down and sing?
Furthermore manner adverbs are impossible with the pseudocoordinating verb
cf. (51) above vs. (57) below. The ban on manner adverbs is thus a distinctive
trait, not only of progressive pseudocoordination, but of pseudocoordination
in general (cf. Vannebo 2003).
(57) Hur
how
satte
sit:DIR.PAST
han
he
sig
REFL
(*frsiktigt)
slowly
o
&
sjng
sing.PAST
_?
_
I propose that the matrix verb associates to structure via the v-feature alone
also in inceptive pseudocoordination. I thus take the light verb use (under-
association) to be a characteristic feature of pseudocoordination in general,
(cf. Aboh 2004). From this assumption, the ban on manner adverbs follows.
Since the proc feature of the posture verb remains unlinked (underassocia-
tion), a further specication of the manner of doing something (e.g. assuming
a position) is impossible.
If my proposal is correct, the eventive heads proc and res must be identi-
ed by other material. I take verb particles and the pseudocoordinate comple-
ment to be capable of lling that function. Evidence that particles can iden-
tify eventive heads without help from a verb exist both within the domain of
pseudocoordination and outside of it. (58) and (59) exemplify inceptive-distal
pseudocoordinations where the motion verb is, not only bleached, but entirely
missing.
121
(58) ...och
...and
han
he
ivg
away
o
&
spelade
play.PAST
jt.
ute
...and he [went] away and played the ute.
(59) Vad
what
ska
will
han
he
ivg
away
o
&
spela
play.INF
_?
_
What will he [go] away and play?
(60) demonstrates the same phenomenon outside the domain of pseudocoor-
dination, the example being a less polite way of ordering someone to come
with a book.
(60) Hit
here:DIR.
med
with
boken!
book.DEF
[Come] here with the book! / Give me the book!
Suppose that there are two options as to where the pseudocoordinate comple-
ment merges, depending on the amount of structure present in the matrix verb
phrase. The pseudocoordinate complement may merge as a rheme of process,
or as a rheme of result:
122
(61) a. ... [initP SIT [procP [CP
rheme
= pseudocoord. compl.]]]
b. ... [initP SIT [procP [resP [CP
rheme
= pseudocoord. compl.]]]]
We now have a partial explanation for the inceptive reading. Recall that the
pseudocoordinating verb is (roughly) interpreted as expressing initiation of
the embedded event in the relevant type of pseudocoordination. The incep-
tive reading now follows from the assumption that the init head (that the
pseudocoordinating verb links to) selects an eventive complement in combi-
nation with the proposal that these particular TMA-copying innitivals (pseu-
docoordinate complements) involve a restructured init. Embedded init is in a
dependency with matrix init, just like embedded Asp, T, and C are in de-
pendencies with the corresponding heads in the matrix. Intuitively, directed
motion or a subpart of this notion (perhaps source of directional force) must
in some sense be translateable into the instigational force leading up to the
process component of an event. That verbs of motion frequently develop
ingressive/inceptive-type aspectual functions is well-known in studies of gram-
maticalization, see e.g. Lichtenberk (1991).
My analysis correctly makes the following prediction. The more material
there is between matrix init and the pseudocoordinate complement, the less
force the inceptive reading will have. The structure in (61a) will yield a purely
inceptive reading. This is so since (eventive material of) the pseudocoordinate
complement identies (and further species) the process portion of the matrix
event structure.
123
The matrix verb will thereby come to express initation of
the event denoted by the embedded predicate. We may ask whether or not
(61a) can also yield a distal reading (inceptive-distal). Consider (62) and (63)
below, both of which I propose are associated with the structure in (61a).
Whereas (62) has a purely inceptive reading, (63) yields an inceptive-distal
reading where the subject referent has to walk somewhere to do the singing.
(62) Han
he
tog
take.PAST
o
&
sjng.
sing.PAST
(Inceptive)
He took and sang.
(63) Han
he
gick
go.PAST
o
&
sjng.
sing.PAST
(Inceptive-distal)
He went and sang.
Suppose that the distal reading in the latter case merely derives from the sur-
vival of encyclopaedic content of g go, just like the manner component
may survive this way, and that any such content is suspended in the former
case involving ta take. Note that the process description of g go is more
elaborate than its English cognate. The subject referent has to walk away,
rather than say drive or ride away, in order for the truth conditions of (63) to
be met. We want to know under what circumstances encyclopaedic content
regarding manner (relevantly mode of locomotion) and distality may survive
in a motion verb associated to init alone.
Suppose such content survives only in the context of a path/process that
refers to more than one transition (e.g. accomplishments and activities). Such
a process is provided by the embedded event in (63). If so, it should be pos-
sible to suspend the manner component and the distal reading by having an
achievement predicate in the embedded clause, since achievement predicates
specify a process portion that is not extended. This seems borne out. (64)
below, involves the same matrix verb g go but has a non-distal reading
available, where the manner component is also suspended:
(64) Han
he
gick
go.PAST
o
&
gifte
marry.PAST
sig.
REFL
(Surprise)
He went and married.
This is the so-called surprise reading mentioned in 1.2 above. (64) can only
involve a distal component (an inceptive-distal reading) to the extent that we
can interpret the matrix event as involving an extended process, as in (65).
(65) Han
he
gick
go.PAST
[in]
in
o
&
gifte
marry.PAST
sig.
REFL
(Inceptive-distal)
He went in and married.
If I am correct, the touch of unexpectedness in (64) derives from a combina-
tion of two factors; the expression of initiation and the absence of an extended
process component. To conclude my line of reasoning, thus, pseudocoordina-
tions of the type depicted in (61a) can have an inceptive-distal reading only
to the extent that the encyclopaedic process description of the matrix verb
survives. The embedded process component may help such content survive,
provided it is of the extended type.
The structure in (61b), in turn, will yield either an inceptive-distal reading
or a purely distal reading. If the resP is identied by (eventive material of)
the embedded clause, the inceptive-distal reading is available. There is an
initiation of directed motion, a path, and a goal (identied and specied by
the embedded event). The location of the embedded event will be interpreted
as identical to the goal of the motion expressed by the matrix verb. At the
same time the embedded predicate will be interpreted as specifying the result
of a complex event, the initiation of which is expressed by a verb of directed
motion. If the resP is identied by a verb particle, the inceptive reading will
be either weak, as in (56) above, or entirely suspended (as in the purely distal
reading). Whether it will be weak or suspended is subject to speaker variation
and seems to depend on the nature of the particles involved and on the number
of particles present. Space does not allow me to explore these factors here.
The present proposal captures the mild weak island effect seen in pseudo-
coordinations involving a PP specifying the nal location of directed motion,
exemplied in (55). The event structure of the matrix is complete in such
cases, the goal PP being a rheme of resP.
(66) ... [initP SIT [procP [resP [PP
rheme
= goal]]]]
On the present proposal, the goal PP and the pseudocoordinate CP compete
for the same position. There is independent evidence in favour of this pro-
posal. The goal PP and the pseudocoordinate CP are both compatible with
goal particles, cf. (56) and (67).
(67) Han
he
gick
go.PAST
dit
there:DIR
ut
out:DIR
till
to
stugan.
cottage
He went out there to the cottage.
Furthermore the goal PP and the pseudocoordinate CP both have to follow all
particles:
(68) a. *Han
he
gick
go.PAST
till
to
stugan
cottage
ut.
out:DIR
b. *Han
he
gick
go.PAST
o
&
sjng
sing.PAST
ut.
out:DIR
Whereas more than one particle may be involved in specifying the nal lo-
cation of directed motion, as in (67), however, only one goal PP is possible
(unless an intonational break is added after the rst PP):
(69) Han
he
gick
go.PAST
ut
out:DIR
till
to
stugan
cottage.DEf
(??till
(to
sovrummet).
bed-room.DEF)
He went out to the cottage to the bed-room.
If both PP and CP can be rhemes of res and if there can be only one rheme
of that type in a verb phrase, then the pseudocoordinate CP has to be in an
adjoined position in examples like (55), repeated below as (70), from which
the deviance of the adjunct extraction follows.
(70) Hur
how
satte
sit:DIR.PAST
han
he
sig
REFL
(??p
(on
stolen)
chair.DEF)
o
&
sjng
sing.PAST
_?
_
How did he sit down on the chair and sing?
Finally, recall our expectation that there should be two ways of forcing un-
derassociation of a verb involving a more specic manner description (3.3).
A particle can be used to prevent the verb from linking its proc feature, ei-
ther by (i) identifying a structure that does not involve the process portion
(procP) yielding a progressive reading, as in (45) above, or by (ii) associating
to proc itself. The latter option, we expected to be possible only with direc-
tional particles and the result should yield a non-progressive reading. (71)
below exemplies this option.
(71) Hur
How
lufsade
lumber.PAST
han
he
*(ivg)
away
o
&
spelade
play.PAST
jt_?
ute
How did he lumber away and play the ute?
The particle ivg away identies proc and the reading yielded is inceptive-
distal. The manner description of lufsa lumber is bleached in the sense of
unlinked. Evidence in favour of taking verb particles to be capable of identi-
fying eventive heads this way was demonstrated above.
My analysis is also extendable to the go & V construction in English (see
e.g. Carden and Pesetsky 1977; Pullum 1990; Aboh 2004), which I take to
involve an inceptive-distal pseudocoordination:
(72) a. He went away [and read a book].
b. What did he go away [and read _]?
c. ... [initP GO [procP away [resP <away> [CP
rheme
and read a
book]]]]
The above construction differs from the so-called go V construction (see e.g.
Carden and Pesetsky 1977; Pullum 1990; Jaeggli and Hyams 1993; Pollock
1994; Aboh 2004) in that the latter does not allow modication of the matrix
verb (see Cardinaletti and Giusti 2001 for a similar restriction on pseudoco-
ordination in Marsalese), and in not involving a conjunction element:
(73) a. Hell go (*away) [sing].
b. What will he go (*away) [sing _]?
The go V construction is also subject to an inection condition:
124
(74) *He went [sang/sing].
I propose that go is used as a light verb in the above sense also in (73), linking
to v alone, but that this construction is not a pseudocoordination, thus not a
clause-union phenomenon of the kind seen with pseudocoordinations, see
Jaeggli and Hyams (1993) for a similar proposal. Instead, the embedded verb
sing in (73) directly identies the process portion of the event structure by
associating via its V-feature:
(75) ... [initP GO [procP sing]]
It follows that a particle specifying the nal location is impossible with go
in this structure. The absence of a conjunction element and the fact that in-
ectional features can not be copied onto the embedded verb follow from the
absence of clause-union; and is a complementizer and copying of inectional
features requires two heads of the same label (Chapter 4). That the rst verb
may not carry inectional morphology is not immediately captured by this
analysis, see Pollock (1994) for an analysis in terms of incorporation of the
lower verb to the higher verb (which relies on the assumption that excorpo-
ration is impossible in the relevant case). In Jaeggli and Hyams (1993) the
inection condition is claimed to have an explanation based on the fact that
the relevant verbs are (secondary) theta-assigners on this use.
My proposal that inceptive pseudocoordination involves a matrix light
verb bears similarities to the analyses put forth by Cardinaletti and Giusti
(2003) and Aboh (2004). It differs from the former in taking the relevant con-
struction type to involve two clauses rather than one. Thus, along with Aboh
(2004) I take the embedded clause to come with a more articulated functional
domain. Likewise, along with Aboh (2004), I take the conjunction element
to be a head in the C-domain. This assumption captures the presence of full
Pseudocoordinating verbs as light verbs 151
TMA-copying in the embedded clause, as Aboh independently argues. My
proposal differs from the above works in two relevant respects. First, I have
provided evidence that copying is top-down, not bottom-up; the inection of
the embedded verb is semantically vacuous, not vice versa. In addition, I have
argued that the construction type involves restructuring in terms of dependen-
cies between functional heads of the same label.
4.3. Summary
Inceptive/distal pseudocoordinations involve verbs of directed motion.
In these, the pseudocoordinate complement is merged as a rheme of proc
or res.
The matrix verb is subject to underassociation light verb use.
Verb particles can be used to force underassociation.
5. Intermediate conclusion
Pseudocoordinating verbs instantiate light verb uses of (otherwise) lexical
verbs. In this use, these verbs associate to structure via the init feature (in their
lexical specication) alone. If the pseudocoordinate complement is merged as
a rheme of init
loc
, the reading will be progressive or progressive-distal (76a).
If the pseudocoordinate complement is merged as a rheme of an eventive
head, the reading will be inceptive (76b) or inceptive-distal (76b) and (76c).
(76) a. ... [initP [CP
rheme
= pseudocoord. compl.]]
b. ... [initP [procP [CP
rheme
= pseudocoord. compl.]]]
c. ... [initP [procP [resP [CP
rheme
= pseudocoord. compl.]]]]
6. Pseudocoordinating verbs as light verbs
We are now in a position to remove the apparent piece of support in favour of
a coordination approach to pseudocoordination.
6.1. Light verbs do not coordinate
We have identied the pseudocoordination reading of (77) below, associated
with the prosodic bracketing in (77a) as opposed to (77b), as involving a
locative use of the posture verb. In this use, eventive category features of the
lexical item sitta sit are left unassociated to structure.
(77) a. [Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
o
&
sov].
sleep.PAST
He was sleeping (in a sitting position).
b. [Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
[o
&
sov].
sleep.PAST
He was sitting and (was) sleeping.
Locative verbs, we have seen, require a rheme (locative argument). A loca-
tive PP or a pseudocoordinate CP may provide this rheme (bracketing is
prosodic):
(78) a. [Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
*(i
in
soffan)].
sofa.DEF
He sat in the sofa.
b. [Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
*(o
&
sov)].
sleep.PAST
He sat sleeping.
In the absence of rhematic material, (78a) and (78b) can only have the main-
tain position reading. Thus the locative argument can not be interpreted as
understood. From these facts it follows that (77a) above can not involve VP-
coordination. A locative verb, in the sense developed here, can not form a
verb phrase on its own in the rst place. The embedded clause is in fact part
of the matrix verb phrase on that reading, in virtue of providing the locative
v with its required rheme. In other words, in the locative use of the posture
verb, (77a) can not have an independent event reading at all.
Only in the presence of a locative argument do we get an ambiguity be-
tween the independent event reading (associated with a coordination struc-
ture) and the pseudocoordination reading (associated with a complementa-
tion structure) in the locative use. Sine a pseudocoordination that involves a
locative argument behaves like a pseudocoordination that lacks the locative
argument (extraction-wise, interpretation-wise, and prosodically), there is no
reason to assume that it should differ from the latter in being a coordination.
It follows that the independent-event reading, associated with the bracket-
ing in (77b), must involve the maintain position use of SIT. As expected, the
reading is limited to a context in which it is felicitous to associate prominence
Pseudocoordinating verbs as light verbs 153
to manner of posture. If such a context is missing and a pseudocoordination
reading is unavailable, we predict the sentence to be degraded or unaccept-
able as it stands. That this is borne out can be illustrated by a language like
Swiss German, where SIT does not pseudocoordinate:
125
(79) a. Er
he
sizt
sit.PRES
?(da)
there
und
and
list.
read.PRES
(Swi-Ge.)
He is sitting and reading.
b. *Was
what
sizt
sit.PRES
er
he
da
there
und
and
list
read.PRES
_?
_
(79a) sounds strange in the absence of a context where posture is prominent.
A locative particle or prepositional phrase saves the coordination by provid-
ing the rheme required for a locative use of the verb.
126
A similar argument
can be construed for inceptive pseudocoordinations. In these, the pseudoco-
ordinate complement identies the process portion of the matrix event on my
proposal.
(80) ... [initP [procP [CP
rheme
= pseudocoordinate complement]]]
In the absence of the pseudocoordinate complement, the matrix verb phrase
does not form a legitimate event structure in the rst place, the process portion
not being identied. Therefore the pseudocoordinating verb can not partici-
pate in a VP-coordination. A pseudocoordinating verb is thus like any inni-
tive selecting verb in that it obligatorily selects a complement. Complements
of innitive-selecting verbs differ from complements of pseudocoordinating
verbs, however, in that the former but not the latter can be non-overt:
(81) a. Han
he
brjade
start.PAST
(o
&
gjorde
do.PAST
ngot).
something
He started (doing something).
b. Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
*(o
&
gjorde
do.PAST
ngot).
something
He sat *(doing something).
6.2. Coordination pseudocoordination
Returning to the context of copying constructions in general, we are left with
the question of why pseudocoordinating verbs obligatorily copy, as opposed
to other TMA-copying verbs, which can select innitives. A possible part
of the explanation may be that TMA-copying with pseudocoordinating verbs
contrasts with TMA-copying with other verbs in deriving from a coordination
structure diachronically. For related proposals, see Kuteva 1999 on progres-
sive pseudocoordinations and Vannebo 2003 on pseudocoordinations involv-
ing TAKE.
127
One argument in favour of such a reanalysis is the fact that pseu-
docoordinating verbs can be modied by locative PPs and locative/directional
particles, as shown above. In those cases the intonational difference between
coordination and pseudocoordination is obscured, making the sentences am-
biguous between two structures. If the hypothesis is correct, the progressive
type must derive from a reanalysis of the second conjunct as rhematic mate-
rial selected by the rst verb:
128
(82) [CP... [initP
locative
SIT [PP
rheme
]]] & [CP...]
[CP... [initP
locative
SIT (PP) [CP
rheme
&...]]]
One prerequisite for such a reanalysis should be a bleached use of the pos-
ture verb in other contexts, such as an unmarked locative use with inanimate
subjects (cf. Kuteva 1999):
(83) Tavlan
Picture.DEF
satt
sit.PAST
p
on
vggen.
wall.DEF
The picture was sitting on the wall.
The inceptive type, in turn, should derive from a reanalysis of the second
conjunct as a specication of a process (or a result) component of an event
structure where the verb of motion/transfer expresses initiation alone:
(84) [CP... [initP GO [procP <GO> ]]] & [CP...]
[CP... [initP GO [procP [CP
rheme
&...]]]]
As with the progressive type, a prerequisite for the reanalysis should be a
bleached use of the relevant verb in other contexts, as in (85).
(85) Vasen
vase.DEF
gick
go.PAST
i
in
golvet.
oor.DEF
The vase fell on the oor.
Conclusion 155
7. Conclusion
I have argued that pseudocoordinating verbs instantiate light verb uses of oth-
erwise lexical verbs. Adopting the framework of Ramchand (in press), I have
proposed that light verbs are verbs that are subject to underassociation. Pseu-
docoordination, I have claimed, involves the following characteristic traits:
The matrix verb associates to structure via its init feature alone.
The pseudocoordinate clause is part of the event structure of the matrix
predicate in that it is selected as a rheme of init, proc, or res.
Restructuring reaches embedded init in TMA-copying innitivals selected
by light verbs of the relevant kind (pseuocoordinating verbs).
From the above assumptions, the central semantic properties of the various
types of pseudocoordination was shown to follow and it became evident that
an apparent piece of support in favour of a coordination analysis of pseudo-
coordination does not bear closer scrutiny.
Chapter 7
Copying
In this chapter, I sketch an approach to derive the results we have obtained so
far. From a theoretical angle, we have arrived at two main results:
(1) a. The more structure there is in the copying innitival, the more
forms copy.
b. The form of the embedded verb is determined by the form of the
matrix.
Since the structure involved is functional, (1a) means that copying is propor-
tional to the amount of functional structure in the copying innitival. For each
functional head (that copies) in the embedded clause, there is a corresponding
functional head in the (selecting) superordinate clause. Temporarily calling
the lower and the higher functional projection a matching pair, the above
generalization means that the more matching pairs, the more copying. This
naturally translates into the hypothesis outlined in Chapter 4:
(2) Copying is a reex of a dependency between two functional heads of
the same label.
(1b), in turn, tells us that one of the two heads the downstairs one is
systematically underdetermined, copying the value of the matching head up-
stairs. I propose that this matching of the value of the other head is an in-
stance of Agree (Chomsky 2000, 2001) and will briey discuss the theoretical
implications of this proposal for Agree, for restructuring, and for innitivals.
1. Copying as Agree
There are three prima facie arguments for my proposal that copying is Agree:
(3) a. Copying operates under C-command; so does Agree.
b. Copying is subject to locality; so is Agree.
c. Copying involves some kind of feature sharing; so does Agree.
Agree is precisely an operation relating two syntactic objects with the same
feature type, where one has a value and the other does not (Chomsky 2000,
158 Copying
2001), with the outcome that the features are matched and the value is copied
from the valued element onto the unvalued element. On this view, what was
called an antecedent-anaphor dependency in Chapter 4 is thus an instance
of Agree, and an anaphoric head amounts to a functional head that is un-
derspecied with respect to feature value. Representative copying structures
are illustrated below. (4) demonstrates full copying into non-bare innitivals
(TMA-copying). Agree dependencies are represented by coindexation. For
some notes on the mapping to Phonological Form, see Appendix IV.
(4) TMA-copying:
CP
C
[value]
i
TP
T
[value]
j
AspP
Asp
[value]
k
VP
V
matrix
CP
C
[ ]
i
TP
T
[ ]
j
AspP
Asp
[ ]
k
VP
V
embedded
Copying as Agree 159
(5) illustrates copying into bare innitivals, which will yield participle copy-
ing in case the matrix verb participates in the perfect construction (i.e. there
is one or more marked features in the aspectual domain of the clause).
(5) Participle copying:
CP
C
[value]
TP
T
[value]
AspP
Asp
[value]
i
VP
V
matrix
AspP
Asp
[ ]
i
VP
V
embedded
160 Copying
(6) demonstrates partial copying. The embedded C- and Asp-domains are un-
valued, thus trigger external valuation from the matrix clause.
(6) Partial copying:
CP
C
[value]
i
TP
T
[value]
AspP
Asp
[value]
j
VP
V
matrix
CP
C
[ ]
i
TP
T
[value]
AspP
Asp
[ ]
j
VP
V
embedded
I take standard (non-copying) innitivals to differ from their copying coun-
terparts in being internally valued:
(7) Standard non-copying (non-bare):
CP
C
[value]
TP
T
[value]
AspP
Asp
[value]
VP
V
matrix
CP
C
[value]
TP
T
[value]
AspP
Asp
[value]
VP
V
embedded
To capture the difference between innitivals where no copying is possible,
and innitivals where copying is a possibility, I make the following assump-
tion:
(8) A valued C
Fin
blocks external valuation of lower heads.
162 Copying
CP
Fin
(a projection encoding a niteness feature) is assumed to relate to
tense and mood in the IP-domain, see Rizzi (1997), and is also taken to be
the projection where the predication relation between the subject and the rest
of the clause is established, cf. Platzack and Rosengren (1998). I propose that
the presence of a valued C
Fin
denes the clausal status of a CP (perhaps
corresponding to a strong phase in phase-based frameworks like Chomsky
2001). A nite clause will thus carry the feature [n: +], whereas a non-nite
clause will be [n: ]. An unvalued (anaphoric) C
Fin
will trigger Agree with
matrix C
Fin
, which alters the clausal status of the embedded CP.
129
As a con-
sequence, operations that are otherwise sensitive to the presence of C
Fin
may
span two clauses, yielding transparency effects.
130
Copying is in this sense
dependent on a Finiteness head (C
Fin
) that is itself unvalued (or missing as
in the case of non-CP innitivals).
The structures in (4), (5), and (6) above show the close match between
Agree and the generalizations made here, but they also bring out one fun-
damental difference: Agree is bottom-up, while copying is top-down. Agree
is bottom-up in the sense that the unvalued feature which triggers Agree is
upstairs (the probe) and the value is downstairs (the goal). In a successful
instance of Agree, the value is copied from downstairs to upstairs. There can
be other matchings involved in that operation, and some of them can be from
upstairs to downstairs (leading to mutual valuation of probe and goal), but
the trigger is a need for the element upstairs to copy a value from downstairs.
Copying, however, instantiates the opposite scenario. Copying of values takes
place top-down. Let us call this Inverse agree (iAgree). We need to ask how
to reconcile Agree and iAgree (copying). I will consider three possibilities:
(i) the problem is apparent: the triggering unvalued feature is really upstairs,
(ii) the problem is apparent: there is another feature which is upstairs and un-
valued, (iii) the problem is real. In the remainder of this section I will argue
that (i) and (ii) are not plausible and therefore that the problem is real.
The rst solution to be considered is that we are subject to an illusion:
underlyingly, the unvalued feature is upstairs and the valued feature is down-
stairs. After all, we only see two copies, we do not see which is originally
valued and which is not. Recall, however, that the interpretive component has
to recognize that one of the two copies was originally unvalued.
131
Hence, the
interpretation of a sentence involving copying betrays which of the two was
originally unvalued. I have already presented extensive arguments in favour
of the lower inection being vacuous (Chapter 2). Given that one of the two
features in a dependency has to be interpreted (some version of Full Inter-
pretation, Chomsky 1995), it follows that the higher (matrix) inection can
not be vacuous. This is easy to show. The TMA-copying construction in (9a)
is like its non-copying counterpart (9b) in that it carries no implication that
the frying event expressed by the embedded predicate was completed. Both
contrast with the nite sentence in (9c), which asserts that some actual frying
took place. From this, we may conclude that the lower tense inection in (9a)
is vacuous and therefore that the unvalued variety of the relevant feature is
downstairs.
(9) a. Han
he
prvade
try.PAST
o
&
stekte
fry.PAST
en
a
sk.
sh
b. Han
he
prvade
try.PAST
att
to
steka
fry.INF
en
a
sk.
sh
c. Han
he
stekte
fry.PAST
en
a
sk.
sh
He fried/was frying a sh.
Since (9a) is like (9b) in that it asserts that there was an attempt to fry a sh,
we can conclude that the tense inection of the matrix verb prvade tried in
(9a) is indeed interpreted and therefore that the upstairs variety of the relevant
feature must be valued. The illusion approach is thus untenable.
Let us consider a more subtle form of the illusion approach. Suppose that
the valued feature is indeed upstairs, and the unvalued feature downstairs. But
suppose also that there is another feature let us call it [stip] as in stipula-
tion that resides in the same functional head. That feature [stip] is unvalued
upstairs and valued downstairs. It is thus [stip] that triggers Agree, probing
for a value downstairs. The top-down valuation yielding copied inectional
morhology is only a side-effect of this Agree relation. Under this story, Agree
is still initiated by a bottom-up feature-sharing and copying is still top-down.
Note that [stip] must occur on every functional head: it occurs on T giving
the appearance of a top-down sharing of T-features, it occurs on Asp, giving
the appearance of top-down sharing of Asp-features, and so on. The problem
with [stip] comes out when copying innitivals are compared to standards
innitivals and above all nite embedded clauses. Since the upstairs clause is
for all purposes the same in those cases, there is an unvalued [stip] on each
functional projection upstairs in those cases too. The question is how [stip]
164 Copying
gets valued. In nite complements They decided
[stip]
[that they would
[stip]
leave] the embedded CP, being a phase, prevents [stip] upstairs to probe
into the embedded clause, preventing the operation Agree to apply. Further-
more, the embedded functional domain is now also part of a nite clause,
and thus must be unvalued. Hence, even if an Agree relation was possible, it
would not help. Both [stip] features would remain unvalued. More generally,
not only does this approach need the assumption that [stip] resides in every
functional projection (valued in innitives and unvalued in nite clauses), but
the presence of [stip] is just stipulated to save the current denition of Agree.
In the absence of an independent need for [stip], I discard this option.
Note that the problem does not disappear if we replace our assumption
that tense is valued on T and not on V by the assumption that tense is unval-
ued on T and valued on V, as proposed by Pesetsky and Torrego (2004). We
would then have to stipulate that matrix T probes the embedded clause (dis-
regarding tense on matrix V) and enters an Agree relation with embedded T
before matrix T gets valued by matrix V. If not, matrix T would be unable to
trigger Agree with embedded T (due to its being valued). I am led to propose
that the problem is real and I leave a reconciliation of iAgree and Agree for
future research. One possibility to explore is that valued features systemati-
cally probe for unvalued features of the same type downstairs. Another is to
abandon the probe-goal (bottom-up) mechanism, see e.g. Zwart (2006) for a
proposal.
2. Restructuring revisited
Bringing the above to bear on my previous proposal that copying is a restruc-
turing effect, we can state that an unvalued functional head in the extended
projection of the verb, plus Agree with a higher head of the same label, yields
restructuring. I am essentially resurrecting, and extending, the idea that re-
structuring arises via tense (or INFL) raising, see e.g. Kayne (1989), Terzi
(1996), Roberts (1997), and references cited in Wurmbrand (2001).
The proposal that restructuring innitivals are underdetermined in one
way or another is not new. The idea of tense deciency goes back to Guron
and Hoekstra (1988) and Rochette (1988), according to Wurmbrand (2001),
and is a recurrent ingredient in analyses of restructuring innitivals, see Wurm-
brand (2001: 15) for a survey. What I am doing is expanding the general idea
to include all portions of the functional domain, leaving the possibility open
Unvalued functional heads do not license modiers 165
that languages may vary with respect to how much of the functional domain is
decient in the relevant sense (cf. partial copying/reduced non-restructuring).
The data presented in this book suggest that the relevant deciency does not
universally reduce to a down-sizing of the structure of the innitival (see e.g.
Wurmbrand 2001 on German), but rather that the structure is there but made
up from decient material.
The main objection to approaches adhering to underspecication con-
cerns the appearance of a vacuous structure that has no semantic, syntac-
tic, or phonological correspondence, see Wurmbrand (2001) for a critical
discussion. On the approach sketched above, however, the empty structure
problem is only apparent. Moreover, a phonological correspondence exist;
TMA-agreement. Decient heads are unvalued heads, therefore by no means
empty (albeit in need of external valuation by a head of the same label).
132
The phonological correspondence is the copied inection itself, given the ob-
servation that copying is proportional to the number of functional projections
present in the complement clause. If copying and other restructuring phenom-
ena have the same basic underlying structure, involving decient functional
heads that motivate dependencies between the matrix and embedded clause,
copying is the phonological reex of this restructuring. The explanandum is
rather why restructuring innitivals do not surface with copied inection in
all languages where restructuring can be identied. I have taken this to be
dependent on language specic factors (arguably morphological in nature),
as with other transparency phenomena.
3. Unvalued functional heads do not license modiers
I will make the following intuitive assumption:
(10) Unvalued functional heads do not license modiers.
Another way to put this is to say that Merge of a specier results in valuation.
Taking T-adverbs to be illustrative; if a T-adverb is merged in the specier of
a T-head of a particular type, that T is not unvalued anymore and thus will fail
to trigger restructuring. The assumption captures two important observations
discussed in Chapter 4. Whereas T-adverbs are impossible in TMA-copying
innitivals (11a), these are possible in partial copying innitivals (11b):
133
166 Copying
(11) a. Han
he
prvade
try.PAST
[o
&
(*alltid)
always
slutade
nish.PAST
tidigt].
early
He tried to (*always) nish early.
b. Han
he
prvade
try.PAST
[att
to
alltid
always
sluta
nish.INF
tidigt].
early
He tried to always nish early.
c. Han
he
hadde
had
prvd
try.PPC
[
&
sttt
always
sagt
tell.PPC
fr
from
i
in
tie].
time
(Solr No.)
Since the T-domain of a TMA-copying innitival is constituted by unvalued
heads (evidenced by tense copying), it will not license T-adverbs (11a). Since
the T-domain of non-copying and partial copying innitivals is constituted
by internally valued heads (evidenced by absence of tense copying), it will
license T-adverbs, as in (11b) and (11c).
The prediction is that no vP-external adverb (initP-external adverb, ap-
plying the terminology of Ramchand in press) is licensed in innitivals dis-
playing full copying. This prediction is borne out. I adopt the proposal that
adverbs occupy designated specier positions in hierarchically ordered func-
tional projections (Cinque 1999). Manner adverbs, I have assumed, are VP-
internal (procP-internal in the terminology of Ramchand in press). For the
present purpose, adverbs can be grouped in three classes:
Impossible in non-copying as well as in copying innitivals
Possible in non-copying as well as in copying innitivals
Possible in non-copying but impossible in copying innitivals
Belonging to the rst class are adverbs that are not possible in standard in-
nitivals and therefore, less surprisingly, are excluded also from the copy-
ing counterparts. These include modal and evidential adverbs such as nd-
vndigtvis necessarily, mjligen possibly, skert certainly, kanske maybe,
and tydligen evidently.
Adverbs that are possible in both standard and copying innitivals include
focus particles like bara only, verkligen really, and nstan almost:
(12) a. Han
he
prvar
try.PRES
att
to
verkligen/bara
really/only
springa.
run.INF
b. Han
he
prvar
try.PRES
o
&
verkligen/bara
really/only
springer.
run.PRES
He is trying to really/only sing.
While these seem possible in all types of innitival clauses regardless of pres-
ence/absence of copying, they have three properties which set them apart
from other sentential adverbs: (i) They seem to require focal stress on the
verb. (ii) They may disrupt V2 (occur immediately before the nite verb in the
C-domain). (iii) They modify other categories as well (nouns, adjectives, and
prepositional phrases). Given these properties, I do not consider these senten-
tial adverbs in the usual sense.
134
The second class also includes event/procP-
related adverbs. Examples are igen again, klart, helt completely, and man-
ner adverbs:
135
(13) a. Han
he
prvar
try.PRES
igen
again
att
to
skriva
write.INF
ett
again
brev igen.
b. Han
he
prvar
try.PRES
igen
again
o
&
skriver
write.PRES
ett
again
brev igen.
He is trying again to write again.
(14) a. Han
he
prvar
try.PRES
att
to
skriva
write.INF
klart
completely
brevet.
letter
b. Han
he
prvar
try.PRES
o
&
skriver
write.PRES
klart
completely
brevet.
letter
He is trying to write the letter completely.
meaning: He is trying to nish the letter.
(15) a. Han
he
prvar
try.PRES
att
to
sjunga
sing.INF
hgt.
loudly
b. Han
he
prvar
try.PRES
o
&
sjunger
sing.PRES
hgt.
loudly
He is trying to sing loudly.
Finally, adverbs that are possible in standard innitives, but impossible in
the copying counterparts of those (third class above) include T-adverbs like
alltid always and aldrig never, ibland sometimes, and ofta often. In
the presence of copying, the latter adverbs are acceptable in sentence-nal
position only on the irrelevant wide scope reading:
168 Copying
(16) a. Han
he
hann
manage-in-time.PAST
med
with
att
to
(ofta)
often
skriva
write.INF
(ofta).
often
b. Han
he
hann
manage-in-time.PAST
med
with
o
&
(*ofta)
often
skrev
write.PAST
(*ofta).
often
He managed to often write.
In this class, we also nd non-quanticational T-adverbs, such as nu now
and d then, and the adverb redan already:
136
(17) a. Han
he
prvar
try.PRES
att
to
(nu)
now
skriva
write.INF
ett
a
lngre
longer
brev.
letter
b. Han
he
prvar
try.PRES
o
&
(*nu)
now
skriver
write.PRES
ett
a
lngre
longer
brev.
letter
He tries to write a longer letter now.
(18) a. Han
he
undviker
avoid.PRES
att
to
(redan)
already
anmla
sign-up.INF
sig
REFL
(redan).
already
b. Han
he
undviker
avoid.PRES
o
&
(*redan)
already
anmler
sign-up.PRES
sig
REFL
(*redan).
already
He avoids signing up already.
Speakers vary regarding sentential negation, which I took to be licensed by
(and thus indicating the presence of) the T-domain. In my variant, sentential
negation is possible, although non-optimal, under some matrix verbs in the
presence of copying, where it may encliticize onto the complementizer:
(19) a. Han
he
prvar
try.PRES
attnte
to-cl:NEG
rka.
smoke.INF
b. ?Han
he
prvar
try.PRES
onte
&-cl:NEG
rker.
smoke.PRES
He tries not to smoke.
(20) a. Jag
I
kom
remember.PAST
ihg
PRT
attnte
to-cl:NEG
rka.
smoke.INF
b. ?Jag
I
kom
remember.PAST
ihg
PRT
onte
&-cl:NEG
rkte.
smoke.PAST
I remembered not to smoke.
I have nothing to say about this fact here but simply note that it seems to
pose a problem for mine and other approaches to restructuring phenomena. A
similar variation is present in Italian restructuring context, see Cinque (2004).
Leaving the domain of adverbs, the present proposal captures the fact that
an overt subject is impossible in a copying innitival, despite the presence of
tense morphology:
137
(21) Lars
Lars
prvade
try.PAST
[o
&
(*han)
he
slutade
nish.PAST
tidigt].
early
Lars tried to (*he) nish early.
In fact the prediction is that PRO-subjects should be impossible as well (at
least external to the verb phrase). Although I need to leave issues regard-
ing the innitival subject for future research, it is noteworthy that subject-
dependent oating quantiers are possible in controlled innitivals like (22a)
and (23a), but sharply ungrammatical in the copying counterparts of these,
cf. (22b) and (23b).
138
(22) a. De
they
prvade
try.PAST
(alla)
(all)
[att
to
(alla)
(all)
sjunga
sing.INF
opera].
opera
b. De
they
prvade
try.PAST
(alla)
(all)
[o
&
(*alla)
(all)
sjng
sing.PAST
opera].
opera
They (all) tried to (all) sing opera.
(23) a. De
they
hann
manage.PAST
(alla)
(all)
med
with
[att
to
(alla)
(all)
sjunga
sing.INF
opera].
opera
b. De
they
hann
manage.PAST
(alla)
(all)
med
with
[o
&
(*alla)
(all)
sjng
sing.PAST
opera].
opera
They (all) managed in time to (all) sing opera.
Likewise, the present proposal captures the ban on wh-speciers in restructur-
ing context. Although this cannot be shown for Swedish, which disallows wh-
innitives in the rst place, it can be shown for other languages, see Wurm-
brand (2001) for a discussion.
Turning to verb phrase material, I have already provided a number of ex-
amples showing that copying innitivals may include objects, see e.g. (14)
above. Added to the fact that event-related adverbs (including manner ad-
verbs) are possible, we may conclude that underspecication does not reach
VP (ProcP). If we disregard sentential negation (which seems to display vari-
ation cross-linguistically in restructuring contexts), and the complementizer
o (which I will argue is underspecied), copying innitivals may contain (i)
focus particles and (ii) lower/event-related adverbs and other verb phrase ma-
terial (main verb plus objects).
170 Copying
This nding supports the analysis of copying innitivals as involving un-
derspecied functional heads. In a (full copying) TMA-agreeing innitival,
restructuring reaches all the way down to the verb phrase and in some cases
into the verb phrase (if selected by a pseudocoordinating verb, cf. Chapter 6).
I leave for future research the possibiliy that the latter is also the case with
some of the other verbs examined.
4. O(ch)- vs. att-innitivals
So far, we lack an account of the blocking effect of the complementizer att:
(24) Han
he
struntade
not-bother.PAST
i
in
o/*att
&/att
skrev
write.PAST
p.
on
He did not bother to sign.
I have implicitly adopted the essential ingredients of the analysis proposed by
Rizzi (1997) for the structure of the C-domain. Since topicalization as well as
focus movement is impossible in Swedish innitivals, I disregard Topic and
Focus phrases in what follows. CP-innitivals in Swedish, I propose, contain
a Finiteness Phrase and a Force Phrase:
(25) [CP
Fin
[CP
Force
]]...
C
Fin
encodes a value for niteness (see 1 above) and C
Force
determines
sentence type (declarative, interrogative, imperative). The order between CP
Fin
and CP
Force
is the reverse in Rizzi (1997). Given my assumption that (a val-
ued) C
Fin
denes the clausal status of a CP and is the principal blocking
category for copying/restructuring, I take CP
Fin
to be the topmost projection
in the C-domain.
139
Note that Swedish does not allow wh-innitives, see (26).
(26) *Jag
I
undrade
wonder.PAST
vad
what
att/o
att/&
gra.
do.INF
I wondered what to do.
I leave it open whether this implies lack of a force head of the wh-type,
which presupposes a more ne-grained structure, or whether this impossi-
bility follows from something else. For the present purpose, thus, embedded
C
Force
will reduce to [imperative: +], [imperative: ], or [imperative: ].
The unvalued feature will trigger external valuation and therefore a restruc-
tured C
Force
. Note that true (non-copied) imperatives typically can not be
embedded, see Platzack and Rosengren (1998) for a discussion:
O(ch)- vs. att-innitivals 171
(27) *Jag
I
ber
beg
dig
you
att
to
skriv.
write.IMP
I beg you to write.
An embedded imperative can thus only be the result of external valuation.
In languages like Swedish, where external valuation is reected morphologi-
cally, copied imperative inection will thus turn up in the context of a super-
ordinate C
Force
[imperative: +]:
(28) Fortstt
continue.IMP
o
&
skriv!
write.IMP
Continue to write!
Now, recall the distribution of the complementisers att and o, repeated in
Table 13 below:
Table 13. Complementizers
att o
Finite clauses +
Non-copying innitivals + +
Copying innitivals +
Given the following:
1. att is found in both nite and non-nite clauses (Table 13),
2. att blocks copying, exemplied in (24),
3. A valued C
Fin
blocks restructuring, assumption (8),
I propose that att spells out a valued C
Fin
, either positive (as in nite clauses)
or negative (as in non-nite clauses). This captures the observation that this
complementizer blocks copying/restructuring: Since att can only be the spell-
out of a valued C
Fin
in Swedish, and since a valued C
Fin
by assumption
blocks restructuring, copying can never take place into an att-innitival.
The complementiser o, I propose, spells out either a negatively valued
C
Fin
or an anaphoric (unvalued) C
Fin
. This yields two types of CP-innitivals
differing minimally with respect to the value of C
Fin
:
(29) a. Att-innitivals are always C[n: ]
b. O-innitivals are either C[n: ] or C[n: ]
172 Copying
If I am correct in assuming that att and o are realizations of (potentially dif-
ferent contents of) the same head C
Fin
, their similarity with respect to con-
ditions on deletion (Chapter 4) is expected. The ban on a complementizer in
restructuring innitivals, displayed in many languages, now potentially de-
rive from the lack of a lexical item that spells out anaphoric C
Fin
in these
languages.
140
I tentatively propose that the C-, T-, and Asp-domains of the clause form
units with respect to restructuring so that either all or no heads of the rele-
vant domains are restructured. That is, if C
Fin
is restructured, so is C
Force
.
For CP-innitivals, we have eight logical possibilities regarding restructuring
domains, see Table 14.
Table 14. CP-innitivals
C-domain T-domain Asp-domain
1. valued valued valued
2. valued valued unvalued
3. valued unvalued valued
4. valued unvalued unvalued
5. unvalued valued valued
6. unvalued valued unvalued
7. unvalued unvalued valued
8. unvalued unvalued unvalued
Class (1.) corresponds to internally valued (non-copying) att- and o-innitivals:
(30) Jag
I
frskte
try.PAST
att
att
gra
do.INF
det.
it
I tried to do it.
Classes (2.), (3.), and (4.) would correspond to att- and o-innitivals that are
C[n: ] and despite this displaying partial copying. These types are unat-
tested, which is captured by the assumption that a valued C-domain blocks
restructuring:
(31) *Jag
I
frskte
try.PAST
att
att
gjorde
do.PAST
det.
it
I tried to do it.
O(ch)- vs. att-innitivals 173
Class (5.) corresponds to o-innitivals where restructuring affects the C-domain
alone. The complementiser o itself is the only visible indication of (potential)
restructuring, except in the context of a matrix imperative, where vacuous
imperative morphology will appear on the embedded verb in languages that
reect copying:
(32) Frsk
start.IMP
o
&
gr
do.IMP
det!
it
Try to do it!
Class (6.) corresponds to o-innitivals displaying partial restructuring: a re-
structured C- and Asp-domain, but an internally valued T-domain (licensing
T-adverbs):
(33) Han
he
hade
had
frskt
try.PPC
o
&
alltid
always
gjort
do.PPC
det.
it
He had tried to always do it!
Class (7.) corresponds to o-innitivals displaying another variant of partial
copying/restructuring; a restructured C- and T-domain, but an internally val-
ued Asp-domain. Examples of this type were provided in Chapter 4 and in-
volve copied tense morphology in combination with a non-copied perfect; the
auxiliary ha + past participle spells out an internally valued Asp-domain:
(34) ?Han
he
brjade
start.PAST
o
&
hade
have.PAST
lst
read.PPC
boken.
book.DEF
He was getting close to nishing the book.
(35) Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
o
&
hade
have.PAST
spillt
spill.PPC
l.
beer
roughly: He was in the state of having spilled beer.
Class (8.) corresponds to TMA-copying innitivals; innitivals whose func-
tional domain is fully restructured:
(36) Han
he
frskte
try.PAST
o
&
(*alltid)
(always)
gjorde
do.PAST
det.
it
He tried to (*always) do it!
The possibility of partial copying into o-innitivals that are future-oriented
is expcted. Since the T-domain in these innitivals is not in a dependency
174 Copying
with matrix T, it can be future-oriented and thereby non-overlapping. That
partial copying is more commonly accepted into innitivals where T has the
same temporal reference as matrix T (see Chapter 8 for a discussion of this
T) than into future-oriented innitivals is a fact that remains unaccounted
for. I am commited to assume that independently tensed innitivals never
have an unvalued C
Fin
, since these innitivals do not allow copying in the
variants investigated here. Dependently tensed past-oriented innitivals, in
turn, correspond to factive innitivals. I propose that factivity is dependent
on a valued C
Fin
, which accounts for the ban on copying/restructuring in
factive innitivals.
5. Conclusion
I have suggested an analysis along the following lines:
1. Functional heads in non-copying innitivals are internally valued.
2. Functional heads in copying innitivals are unvalued.
3. Unvalued functional heads yield (Inverse) Agree.
4. Unvalued functional heads do not license modiers.
5. A valued C
Fin
blocks Agree.
6. Att-innitivals are are always C[n: ].
7. o-innitivals may be C[n: ].
(4.) captures the observation that sentential adverbs, oating quantiers, and
overt subjects are impossible in TMA-agreeing innitivals. (5.) and (6.) cap-
ture the blocking effect of the complementiser att. On the present proposal
that copying is restructuring: Restructuring = F
unvalued
+ Agree with F
valued
(F is an arbitrary functional category).
Chapter 8
The syntax of tenselessness
I have unied three seemingly different phenomena under the following scheme:
Subject...Verb-INFLECTION
i
...Verb-INFLECTION
i
...
The construction types investigated have been demonstrated to reduce to a
special type of innitival complementation involving copying of feature val-
ues from the matrix clause onto the embedded clause. Differences between
the construction types have been shown to be derivable from independent
factors. In essence, the construction types investigated may all go under the
name of:
Tense/Mood/Aspect-agreeing innitivals
I have presented arguments in favour of taking the category selected by the
matrix verb to remain constant regardless of whether the relevant agreement
is present or not:
Non-bare innitivals are CPs (agreeing or non-agreeing)
Bare innitivals are AspPs (agreeing or non-agreeing)
Hence, verbs that select bigger complements do so regardless of whether
agreement is present or not. Likewise, verbs that select smaller comple-
ments do so regardless of whether agreement is present or not. This hypoth-
esis has been shown to capture the difference in number of forms that may
agree in the two types of innitival (non-bare vs. bare):
Where there is an embedded C, there may be imperative agreement.
Where there is an embedded T, there may be present/past agreement.
Where there is an embedded Asp, there may be participial agreement.
Given that agreement is proportional to the number of functional projections
present in the innitival, I have suggested that TMA-agreement (copying)
is a reex of dependencies between functional heads of the same label. I
have furthermore proposed that the relevant dependencies are instances of
176 The syntax of tenselessness
Agree where the lower heads are unvalued, copying values from upstairs.
In connection with that proposal, a problem was noted that is left for future
research: Agree is bottom-up, whereas copying is top-down (inverse Agree).
I have provided arguments in favour of taking TMA-agreeing innitivals
to involve restructuring innitivals. If, as I have claimed, full TMA-agreement
requires a CP-innitival, then restructuring congurations are not restricted
to mono-clausal congurations (but may also involve two CPs).
I have demonstrated that (full) TMA-agreement is limited to structures
where the temporal reference of the embedded clause overlaps with that of
the matrix. Thus, we have examined a subtype of tenseless innitivals in this
book. This nal chapter is an attempt to focus on this property of tenseless-
ness found to be characteristic of TMA-agreeing innitivals. The data pre-
sented here, I will demonstrate, suggest a typology of tenseless innitivals
that includes two major classes, one of which subdivides with respect to re-
structuring.
1. Tenselessness
In examining tenselessness, I will focus on CP-innitivals displaying full
TMA-agreement with the matrix clause. In these, all heads of the embed-
ded functional domain Agree with the corresponding heads of the matrix.
The result is an embedded functional domain that is non-distinct from that of
the matrix clause.
The analysis that I have proposed in this book captures the tenselessness
property of TMA-agreeing/restructuring innitivals. Not only are these in-
nitivals tenseless, they have to be niteless, aspectless, and so on. This
expectation is met in Swedish and seems to be met in other languages where
restructuring is identied as well (see Wurmbrand 2001 on German). Finite
clauses do not restructure, nor do factive clauses, tensed clauses, or clauses
containing the perfect (setting the possibility of partial copying/restructuring
aside). In view of the present proposal that copying involves unvalued func-
tional heads, we may formulate the following hypothesis:
(1) Hypothesis:
Unvalued features alternate with unmarked (negatively specied) va-
rieties of the same features in the functional domain.
If I am correct, this alternation, made available by the system, is one im-
portant aspect of restructuring in natural language. I am led to conclude that
Tenselessness 177
there are three ways to be non-nite, tenseless, aspectless, and so on. I will
illustrate this conclusion with regard to the tense domain.
Recall our point of departure in Chapter 3, where I borrowed the main
ingredients of the classication of tense in innitivals assumed in Landau
(2004). Innitives that may carry temporal reference non-overlapping with
the matrix have been referred to as tensed innitivals. Innitivals that may not
have been referred to as tenseless innitivals. So far, tensed innitivals have
been taken to come in two types: past-oriented or future-oriented. Although
not discussed in detail, tensed innitivals were assumed to subdivide between
independently tensed innitivals (unselected tense) and dependently tensed
inntivals (selected tense). The former class is coextensional with the class
of propositional innitivals; the claim-class. The latter includes the class of
factive innitivals (past-oriented/tenseless), namely the ashamed-class, and
irrealis (future-oriented) innitivals of the expect-, decide-, and persuade-
classes.
I have used conicting temporal adverbials in the matrix and embedded
clause to identify tense mismatches. By this test, innitivals selected by the
verb lova promise are tensed, (2), whereas innitivals selected by undvika
avoid qualify as tenseless, cf. (3).
(2) Igr
yesterday
lovade
promise.PAST
han
he
att
to
skriva
write.INF
brev
letter.PL
p
on
fredag.
Friday
Yesterday he promised to write letters on Friday.
(3) a. *Igr
yesterday
undvek
avoid.PAST
han
he
att
to
skriva
write.INF
brev
letter.PL
p
on
fredag
Friday
b. *Idag
today
undviker
avoid.PRES
han
he
att
to
ha
have
skrivit
write.PPC
brev
letter.PL
igr
yesterday
c. Han
he
undviker
avoid.PRES
att
to
skriva
write.INF
brev
letter.PL
idag
today
He avoids writing letters today.
Note that it is necessary to separate the criterion for the tensed/tenseless di-
chotomy, which is is syntactico-semantic, from morphological tense. This
separation is independently argued for in Landau (2004). There are tensed
innitival clauses without tense morphology, as in (2), as well as tenseless
innitival clauses with tense morphology, e.g. TMA-agreeing innitivals in
Swedish.
Moreover, different tenses must correspond to values of one or more gram-
matical features that are relevant to Agree, contra Pesetsky and Torrego (2004).
On their proposal, different tenses may constitute different sorts of ency-
clopaedic information that is associated with T when positively valued. If
the only tense values relevant to Agree were +T and T, we would predict
tense copying of the kind described here to be impossible, contrary to fact.
I have taken the possibility of a tense mismatch between the matrix and the
innitival to imply presence of a T-domain in both clauses. Although the test
used may need some renement, the facts concerning Tense/Mood/Aspect-
agreeing innitivals presented in this book strongly suggest that some inni-
tivals have tense, contra Wurmbrand to appear.
141
The situation turns delicate
when we consider tenseless innitivals. We rst need to ask whether or not
tenselessness implies absence of a T-domain. The answer is going to be neg-
ative, which leads us to wonder about the nature of tenseless T.
1.1. Tenselessness does not imply absence of T
There are at least three classes of counterexamples to the hypothesis that
tenselessness implies absence of a T-domain. First, we have seen that some
tenseless innitivals are CPs, namely those that contain a complementiser (att
or o), see (4). Their full clausal CP-status suggest that they also contain a TP.
(4) Han
he
undviker
avoid.PRES
[
CP
att
to
skriva
write.INF
brev].
letter.PL
He avoids writing letters.
The second argument is based on T-adverbs. I have assumed that temporal
adverbs are licenced by heads in the T-domain. This assumption captures the
difference between bigger vs. smaller innitivals regarding capability of
licensing T-adverbs. Since a subclass of the tenseless CP-innitivals (those
that do not TMA-copy) license T-adverbs, see (5), we have another argument
in favour of the T-domain being present in these innitivals.
(5) Han
he
undviker
avoid.PRES
[
CP
att
to
{alltid,
{always,
nu,
now,
idag}
today}
skriva
write.INF
mnga
many
brev].
letter.PL
He avoids (always) writing many letters (now) (today).
Tenselessness 179
Thirdly, we have seen that another subclass of tenseless CP-innitivals (TMA-
agreeing innitivals), copy tense values from the matrix clause, see (6). On
the proposal that copying is a reex of Agree between two heads of the same
label (a proposal in favor of which we have independent support), the T-
domain must be present in this type of innitival. The dependency must be
established between two heads of the T-type:
(6) Han
he
undviker
avoid.PRES
[
CP
o
&
skriver
write.PRES
brev].
letter.PL
He avoids writing letters.
The main generalizations arrived at in this book constitute an argument against
approaches that take TP (or any other functional projection) to be present
only when there is a need for it in the sense that its features are marked;
for instance T in the context of a temporal non-overlap (or T-adverb), sug-
gested as a possibility in Wurmbrand (2001). The selected category (bigger
vs. smaller) seems to remain constant regardless of the context.
142
Tense-
lessness thus does not imply absence of a T-domain. The T-domain can be
missing or be present in a tenseless innitival. Given this, we need to worry
about the nature of tenseless T, referred to as anaphoric tense and represented
as [T] in Landau (2004).
1.2. Two types of tenseless T
My ndings suggest that tenseless T heads must come in two guises. One
type (non-restructured) does not copy and licenses T-adverbs, exemplied in
(5). The other type (restructured) does copy but does not license T-adverbs,
cf. (7).
(7) Han
he
undviker
avoid.PRES
[
CP
o
&
(*alltid/*idag)
(always/today)
skriver
write.PRES
brev].
letter
He avoids (always) writing letters (today).
I have proposed that the two types differ with respect to feature value. Tense-
less T that does not copy is internally valued and therefore licenses T-adverbs.
Tenseless T that copies is unvalued (subject to external valuation from matrix
T) and therefore does not license T-adverbs. It is the latter type that I have
referred to as anaphoric. Given that the value of T in the rst type will need
to correspond to whatever representation we give present-oriented tense, I
am led to conclude that embedded T can be present-oriented with respect to
matrix T.
143
Our original class of tenseless innitivals is now seen to include not only
complements that lack tense specication, and hence may receive an external
tense specication via Agree (provided the T-domain is present), but also
complements that have internally specied tense, which is present-oriented
with respect to the matrix. The latter type does not restructure.
2. A typology of tenseless innitivals
The typology thus divides tenseless innitivals into three classes with regard
to the T-domain:
1. T-domain is valued (no tense restructuring):
[Past: ]
[Fut: ]
2. T-domain is unvalued (tense restructuring):
[Past: ]
[Fut: ]
3. T-domain is absent (trivially tense restructuring)
Class (1.) includes standard non-bare innitivals as well as innitivals involv-
ing partial copying (restructuring of at least C, but not T). Class (2.) corre-
sponds to TMA-agreeing innitivals (fully restructured in case the aspectual
domain is also unvalued). Class (3.) includes AspP-innitivals. These may
be internally valued or externally valued (in which case there is aspectual
agreement between the clauses with the possibility of participial copying).
In (1.), the temporal reference of embedded T will be interpreted as over-
lapping with that of matrix T in virtue of being present-oriented.
144
In (2.)
and (3.), tense will be interpreted as identical to that of the matrix; in (2)
in virtue of Agree dependencies between heads in the embedded T-domain
and the corresponding heads in the matrix; in (3) in virtue of the lack of a
T-domain. The typology becomes the one in Table 15 below.
The classes in boldface correspond to the three classes of innitivals that
do not come with a non-overlapping temporal orientation (tenseless by the
A typology of tenseless innitivals 181
Table 15. Innitival tense
(IN)DEPENDENTLY TENSED TENSELESS
+TP +TP TP
Past Present Future Anaphoric 0
denition I have assumed). However, it is now possible to restrict the term
tenseless to tense that is identical to/shared with matrix tense, as opposed
to internally valued. Features encoding present-orientation alternate with the
unvalued (anaphoric) varieties of the same features, yielding the possibility
of restructuring.
Appendix I: Less clear-cut cases
Vga dare selects a bare innitival in my variant but the innitival marker is
not quite as bad as it is in the innitival selected by e.g. kunna can, cf. (1a)
and (1b).
(1) a. Han
he
hade
had
vgat
dare.PPC
(?att)
to
sga
say.INF
sin
his
mening.
opinion
He had dared to tell his opinion.
b. Han
he
hade
had
kunnat
can.PPC
(*att)
to
sga
say.INF
sin
his
mening.
opinion
He had been able to tell his opinion.
Inserting the adverb alltid always in the innitival yields the same judge-
ment, possible in (2a), as opposed to (2b).
(2) a. ?Han
he
hade
had
vgat
dare.PPC
(att)
to
alltid
always
sga
say.INF
sin
his
mening.
opinion
He had dared to always tell his opinion.
b. *Han
he
hade
had
kunnat
can.PPC
(att)
to
alltid
always
sga
sy.INF
sin
his
mening.
opinion
He had been able to always tell his opinion.
Given that the complement of vga oscillates with respect to bareness, we
expect it to be less clear-cut regarding copying as well. This is borne out.
Even though copied tensed forms yield a rather bad result with this verb in
my variant, copying of the imperative form is ne, witness (3) (cf. Anward
1988).
(3) Vga
dare.IMP
(o)
&
skriv!
write.IMP
Dare to write!
Other verbs that seem compatible with bigger complements are orka man-
age (energy-wise), lyckas succeed, and ltsas pretend. Orka and lyckas
share with hinna manage (time-wise) the property of being compatible with
a non-bare innitival if combined with the particle med with. I allow imper-
ative copying with the rst two verbs, even in the absence of a particle:
184 Appendices
(4) Orka
manage.IMP
ls
read.IMP
boken!
book.DEF
The reason why I do not take (3) or (4) and similar cases to be indicative of
the imperative form spreading into a bare complement is precisely the fact
that these verbs seem compatible with both non-bare and bare innitivals.
145
Ltsas pretend also displays conicting properties at rst glance. The verb
selects a bare innitival but the full range of forms may be copied in mine
and other variants:
(5) a. Ltsas
pretend.IMP
skriv!
write.IMP
Pretend to write!
b. Han
he
ltsas
pretend.PRES
skriver.
write.PRES
He pretends to write.
c. Han
he
ltsades
pretend.PAST
skrev.
write.PAST
He pretended to write.
d. Han
he
hade
had
ltsats
pretend.PPC
skrivit.
write.PPC
He had pretended to write.
Conforming to our expectations, the complement of ltsas pretend contrasts
with the complement of e.g. kunna can in being marginally compatible with
an innitival marker and an adverb quantifying over times:
(6) ?Han
he
hade
had
ltsats
pretend.PPC
(??att)
(to)
aldrig
never
vara
be.INF
ledsen.
sad
He had pretended to never be sad
Turning to non-bare innitivals, oscillating cases seem to belong to either of
two classes. In the rst class, the innitival is embedded under a noun form-
ing what seems to be an idiomatic expression with the matrix verb. The pres-
ence of a complementizer is obligatory in these cases. Only partial copying is
possible with these in my variant and is furthermore restricted to participial
form. In Chapter 2, I gave two such examples, involving f tid get time and
f tillstnd get permission, respectively.
Appendix I: Less clear-cut cases 185
The second class involves psych predicates and has two subclasses. The
rst subclass involves predicates corresponding to love, like, and similar verbs.
These verbs may select tenseless non-bare innitivals and marginally allow
partial copying in mine and other variants variants, but not tensed forms:
(7) a. ?Han
he
hade
had
lskat
love.PPC
o
&
lst.
read.PPC
He had loved to read.
b. *Han
he
lskar
love.PRES
o
&
lser.
read.PRES
He loves to read.
Expressions like knna fr feel like and vara rdd fr be afraid of (exem-
plied in Chapter 2.) also belong to this class. With these, partial copying is
marginally possible in my variant. Like innitivals embedded under nouns,
innitivals embedded under fr requires the presence of a complementizer,
cf. Holmberg (1990). The above expressions contrast with e.g. lska love
in being compatible with a future-oriented innitival. In the presence of a
future-oriented adverbial, copying deteriorates in my variant.
Summing up, most cases where the complement wavers between non-bare
and bare status can be taken to conform to the generalization arrived at here;
more structure licenses more forms. A couple of classes remain to be under-
stood in more detail, e.g. psych predicates.
Appendix II: Copying in Scandinavian
The appendix presents a preliminary overview of the distribution of copy-
ing innitivals within the other Scandinavian languages. The overview may
serve as a starting point for future research on the topic. I am grateful to the
following people for help with data: Gunnar Nystrm and Bo Westling (lv-
dalsmlet), Marit Julien, Helge Ldrup, and Helge Sandy (Norwegian), Line
Hove Mikkelsen, Bodil Kappel Schmidt, and Sten Vikner (Danish), Hjalmar
Pll Petersen and Jgvan Lon Jacobsen (Faroese), orbjrg Hrarsdttir,
Halldr rmann Sigursson, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson (Icelandic).
The examples are evaluated on the copy readings. The extraction test has
been used to factor out the irrelevant coordination readings that are some-
times available when a sentence is taken out of context.
Icelandic and lvdalsmlet-Swedish (a dialect spoken in Darlecarlia) are
standardly referred to as differing from the other Scandinavian languages in
displaying obligatory verb movement to the inectional domain in non-V2
clauses, see e.g. Holmberg and Platzack (1995).
146
This assumption com-
bined with the purported absence of copying in verb moving languages has
led to proposals that correlate possibility of copying/pseudocoordinating with
absence of verb movement to the inectional domain, see e.g. Josefsson (1991)
and Wiklund (1998). The hypothesis is not unproblematic. As we will see,
some amount of copying is attested in all Scandinavian languages; including
Icelandic and lvdalsmlet-Swedish. Another group of dialects where copy-
ing and verb movement seem to coexist is Regional Northern Norwegian.
Verb movement to the inectional domain of the clause is optional in these
dialects, see Bentzen (2005). To the extent that participles can move past sen-
tential adverbs, this movement does not affect possibility of copying (Kris-
tine Bentzen, p.c.). Likewise, the Italian dialect of Marsalese displays TMA-
copying with motion verbs (pseudocoordination), yet exhibits verb movement
of the non-V2 type, see Cardinaletti and Giusti (2001).
lvdalsmlet-Swedish
Full TMA-copying is restricted to light verbs in lvdalsmlet, see (1) ex-
emplifying pseudocoordination with the verb corresponding to sit (yielding a
progressive reading of the event referred to by the embedded predicate).
188 Appendices
(1) a. Wenn
what
sit
sit.PRES
an
he
og
&
les?
read.PRES
(lv-Sw.)
What is he reading?
b. Wenn
what
st
sit.PAST
o
she
og
&
var
be.PAST
liessn
sad
yvyr?
about
What was she being sad about?
With innitive selecting verbs. however, lvdalsmlet displays partial copy-
ing (like many other variants of Swedish). In lvdalsmlet, copying seems
restricted to imperative form, see (2a).
147
Tense copying is impossible, cf.
(3a), as is participial copying, cf. (4a) involving a bare innitival.
(2) a. Byr
begin.IMP

on
og
&
kjte!
run.IMP
(lv-Sw.)
b. Byr
begin.IMP

on
kjta!
run.INF
Start running!
(3) a. *O
she
byrd
begin.PAST

on
og
&
kwadh.
sing.PAST
(lv-Sw.)
b. O
she
byrd
begin.PAST

on
kwedh.
sing.INF
She started singing.
(4) a. *An
he
edd
would
a
have
kunnadh
can.PPC
lesidh
read.PPC
buotsje.
book.DEF
(lv-Sw.)
b. An
he
edd
would
a
have
kunnadh
can.PPC
les
read.INF
buotsje.
book.DEF
He would have been able to read the book.
Norwegian
Full TMA-copying with light verbs (pseudocoordination) is part of standard
Norwegian. (5) (from Ldrup 2002: 122) yields a progressive reading of the
event referred to by the embedded predicate (see also Johnsen 1988; Johan-
nessen 1998; Vannebo 2003).
(5) Hva
what
sitter
sit.PRES
han
he
og
&
skriver?
write.PRES
(No.)
What is he sitting and reading?
Appendix II: Copying in Scandinavian 189
As far as my investigations go, copying is for the most part restricted to im-
perative and participial form with innitive selecting verbs in the Norwegian
variants that make use of copying. (6a), from Julien (2003), exemplies par-
ticipial copying into a bare innitival, see also Sandy (1991) and Ldrup
(2002). (7a) and (8a) exemplify participial and imperative copying into non-
bare innitivals, respectively.
(6) a. Ho
she
hadde
had
kunna
can.PPC
gjort
do.PPC
det.
it
(No. var.)
b. Ho
She
hadde
had
kunna
can.PPC
gjera
do.INF
det.
it
She would have been able to do it.
(7) a. Han
he
hadde
had
prvd
try.PPC

&
sttt
always
sagt
tell.PPC
fr
from
i
in
tie.
time
(Solr No.)
b. Han
he
hadde
had
prvd
try.PPC

&
sttt
always
seia
tell.INF
fr
from
i
in
tie.
time
(8) a. Prv
try.IMP

&
sttt
always
sei
tell.IMP
fr
from
i
in
tie!
time
(Solr No.)
b. Prv
try.IMP

&
sttt
always
seia
tell.INF
fr
from
i
in
tie!
time
Full TMA-copying is attested in a couple of Norwegian dialects spoken in
Romsdal and Gudbrandsdalen (Helge Sandy p.c.) with the verbs begynne
start and slutte stop, see (9) exemplifying copying of present tense. Ldrup
(2002) reports full copying to be possible with vere t/holde p carry on
(see also Sandy 1986) and frske/prve try in some Norwegian variants.
(9) Jeg
I
begynner
start.PRES
og
&
leser.
read.PRES
(Romsdal/Gudbrandsdalen No.)
I start reading.
Danish
Full TMA-copying is restricted to light verbs in Danish; pseudocoordinations
like (10) (example from Josefsson 1991: 130) are part of standard Danish.
190 Appendices
(10) Jens
Jens
sidder
sit.PRES
og
&
sker
sh.PRES
nede
down
ved
by
en.
river.DEF
(Da.)
Jens is shing down by the river.
With innitive selecting verbs, copying is restricted to the imperative form,
cf. (11a).
(11) a. Begynd
begin.IMP
og
&
ls!
read.IMP
(Da. var.)
b. Begynd
begin.IMP
at
to
lse!
read.INF
Start reading!
Examples of participial copying into bare and non-bare innitivals are pro-
vided in Mikkelsen (1911), however are rejected by all speakers consulted.
(12) (from Mikkelsen 1911: 420) exemplies participial copying into a bare
innitival.
(12) Det
that
har
have
jeg
I
hele
whole
Tiden
time.DEF
villet
want.PPC
spurgt
ask.PPC
om.
about
(Da. var.)
That, I have wanted to ask about the whole time.
As shown in (13a) and (14a), participial and tense copying into non-bare
innitivals seem impossible in present-day Danish.
(13) a. *Jeg
I
er
am
begyndt
begin.PPC
og
&
lst
read.PPC
bogen.
book.DEF
(Da. var.)
b. Jeg
I
er
am
begyndt
begin.PPC
at
to
lse
read.INF
bogen.
book.DEF
I have started reading the book.
(14) a. *Jeg
I
begynder
begin.PRES
og
&
lser.
read.PRES
(Da. var.)
b. Jeg
I
begynder
begin.PRES
at
to
lse.
read.INF
I started reading.
Faroese
Full copying with light verbs is possible in Faroese (pseudocoordination with
posture verbs):
Appendix II: Copying in Scandinavian 191
(15) Hvat
what
liggur
lie.PRES
hann
he
og
&
lesur?
read.PRES
(Fa.)
What is he reading?
Copying with innitive selecting verbs is limited to the imperative and the
participial forms. (16a) exemplies participial copying into a bare innitival
(see Lockwood 1964 and Sandy 1991), (17a) participial copying into a non-
bare innitival and (18a) imperative copying into a non-bare innitival.
148
As
shown in (19a), tense copying is impossible.
(16) a. Han
he
hevi
had
vilja
want.PPC
lisi
read.PPC
bkina.
book.DEF
(Fa. var.)
b. Han
he
hevi
had
vilja
want.PPC
lesa
read.INF
bkina.
book.DEF
He would have wanted to read the book.
(17) a. Eg
I
havi
have
rynt
try.PPC
at
to
gjrt
do.PPC
naka
something
gott.
good
(Fa. var.)
b. Eg
I
havi
have
rynt
try.PPC
at
to
gera
do.INF
naka
something
gott.
good
I have tried to do something good.
(18) a. Byrja
start.IMP
og
&
les!
read.IMP
(Fa. var.)
b. Byrja
start.IMP
at
to
lesa!
read.IMP
Start reading!
(19) a. *Eg
I
ryni
try.PRES
at/og
to/&
lesi.
read.PRES
(Fa. var.)
b. Eg
I
ryni
try.PRES
at
to
lesa.
read.INF
I try to read.
Icelandic
Icelandic appears to be the most restrictive among the Scandinavian lan-
guages with regard to possibility of copying. The phenomenon is for the most
part limited to light verbs (e.g. the posture verb sit), and is not accepted by
all speakers (Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson p.c.). The subject is preferrably
cliticized to the verb (glossed as CL below):
149
192 Appendices
(20) a. Hva
what
situru
sit.PRES.2SG.CL
og
&
lest?
read.PRES.2SG
(Ic. var.)
b. ?Hva
what
situr
sit.PRES.2SG

you
og
&
lest?
read.PRES.2SG
What are you reading?
(21) a. Hva
what
sastu
sit.PAST.2SG.CL
og
&
last?
read.PAST.2SG
(Ic. var.)
b. ?Hva
what
sast
sit.PAST.2SG

you
og
&
last?
read.PAST.2SG
What were you reading?
Non-bare innitivals do not copy, see (22)-(24), but bare innitivals may copy
the participial form in variants of Icelandic under certain verbs (Gunnar Hrafn
Hrafnbjargarson, p.c.), cf. (25a).
(22) a. *Byrja
start.IMP

you
og
&
les!
read.IMP
(Ic.)
b. Byrja
start.IMP

you
a
to
lesa!
read.INF
Start reading!
(23) a. *g
I
hef
have
byrja
start.PPC
og
&
lesi.
read.PPC
(Ic.)
b. g
I
hef
have
byrja
start.PPC
a
to
lesa.
read.INF
I have started reading.
(24) a. *Hann
he
byrjar
start.PRES
og
&
les.
read.PRES
(Ic.)
b. Han
he
byrjar
start.PRES
a
to
lesa.
read.INF
He starts reading.
(25) a. %g
I
hefi
had.SBJ
vilja
want.PPC
lesi
read.PPC
bkina.
book.DEF
(Ic.)
b. g
I
hefi
had.SBJ
vilja
want.PPC
lesa
read.INF
bkina.
book.DEF
I would have wanted to read the book.
Appendix III: Selectional restrictions
There is some language variation with respect to whether or not pseudocoor-
dinating verbs are compatible with an inanimate subject (see Cardinaletti and
Giusti 2001 for a discussion based on motion verbs). In Swedish, an inan-
imate subject is possible in progressive pseudocoordinations involving pos-
ture verbs, (1a), but not in inceptive pseudocoordinations with these verbs, cf.
(1b).
(1) a. Stenen
stone.DEF
lg
lie.PAST
o
&
glnste
glimmer.PAST
i
in
solen.
sun.DEF
The stone was glimmering in the sun.
b. *Stenen
stone.DEF
lade
lie:DIR.PAST
sig
REFL
o
&
glnste
glimmer.PAST
i
in
solen.
sun.DEF
The motion verb g go requires an animate subject in Swedish regardless of
the aspectual reading, whereas the motion verb fara go is compatible with
an inanimate subject on both progressive (I.) and inceptive (II.) readings:
(2) a. *Flygplanet
airplane.DEF
gick
go.PAST
o
&
gjorde
make.PAST
looper.
loop.PL
I. The airplane went around making loops.
II.The airplane went and made loops.
b. Flygplanet
airplane.DEF
for
go.PAST
o
&
gjorde
make.PAST
looper.
loop.PL
I. The airplane went around making loops.
II.The airplane went and made loops.
Finally, vara be requires an animate subject, (3a), whereas ta take is sub-
ject to variation (contra Ekberg 1993). Thus, (3b) is ne in my variant (yield-
ing a surprise reading).
150
(3) a. *Stenen
stone.DEF
var
be.PAST
o
&
glnste
glimmer.PAST
i
in
solen.
sun.DEF
b. %Stenen
stone.DEF
tog
take.PAST
o
&
rullade
roll.PAST
ner.
down
The stone rolled down.
Appendix IV: Spelling out copied inection
In order to account for the fact that verbs can be inected, it is often assumed
that features of functional heads are duplicated on the verbal complex (ab-
breviated V) and that these features on V need to enter Agree relations with
the corresponding features in the functional domain of the clause, cf. Adger
(2003). Thus, V carries at least [f] (an arbitrary inectional feature), which
is also present on the functional head F (a head of the [f]-type) of the same
clause. [f]-F is valued, whereas [f]-V is unvalued (but see Pesetsky and Tor-
rego 2004 for a different view):
(1) ...[FP F[f: value]
i
... [VP V[f: ]
i
...]]
Theoretical issues are e.g. whether head movement is a necessary ingredient
or not, whether the full set or a subset of the inectional features of the clause
are carried by V, whether [f] is present in heads other than F and V, and
whether there is another feature [f
v
] on F that is unvalued and a trigger for
Agree. Suppose features are indeed duplicated this way within a clause. Then,
an Agree dependency between a functional head F carrying [f] and a head in
the same clause carrying [f] (e.g. V) does not result in F and V both reecting
[f] phonologically, witness (2).
(2) Han
he
(*de)-rita-de.
PAST-try-PAST
He drew.
In contrast, an Agree dependency between a functional head F and a head
of the same label, apparently, can result in the feature being reected on two
items (relevantly verbs), cf. (3).
(3) Han
he
prva-de
try-PAST
[o
&
rita-de].
draw-PAST
He tried to draw.
Feature deletion may take care of the former case but is not applicable to the
latter. I will not discuss this matter here, but consider it noteworthy to state
the observation:
(4) a. [f]-V copies the value of [f]-F: [f] is phonologically reected
only once.
196 Appendices
b. [f]-F
1
copies the value of [f]-F
2
: [f] can be phonologically re-
ected twice.
Although the details of the mappings to Phonological Form will not be dealt
with here, the following dependencies seem crucial to the surface appearance
of copied imperative, present, past, and participial form (assuming, for the
sake of simplicity, that all other heads copy unmarked/negative values):
151
Imperative form in the complement:
152
C
1
Fin
[Fin: +]
i
C
1
Force
[Imp: +]
j
... C
2
Fin
[Fin: ]
i
C
2
Force
[Imp: ]
j
(5) Prva
try.IMP
o
&
skriv!
write.IMP
Try to write!
Present form in the complement:
153
C
1
Fin
[Fin: +]
i
T
1
Past
[Past: ]
j
... C
2
Fin
[Fin: ]
i
T
2
Past
[Past: ]
j
(6) Han
he
prvar
try.PRES
o
&
skriver.
write.PRES
He is trying to write.
Past form in the complement:
154
C
1
Fin
[Fin: +]
i
T
1
Past
[Past: +]
j
... C
2
Fin
[Fin: ]
i
T
2
Past
[Past: ]
j
(7) Han
he
prvade
try.PAST
o
&
skrev.
write.PAST
He tried to write.
Participial form in the complement:
155
Asp
1
Perf
[Perf: +]
i
... Asp
2
Perf
[Perf: ]
i
(8) Han
he
hade
had
prvat
try.PPC
o
&
skrivit.
write.PPC
He had tried to write.
Notes
1. Swedish has two participle forms, one of which can only be used adjectivally (modifying
the noun in a noun phrase or as a predicative adjective) and which agrees with its subject
nominal like an adjective, and one non-agreeing form, the supine, used in the formation
of the perfect, see e.g. Platzack (1989). It is the latter, always ending in -t, which appears
in the construction under discussion.
2. Mainland Scandinavian languages (Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish) differ from Insular
Scandinavian languages (Faroese and Icelandic) in this respect, see e.g. Holmberg and
Platzack (1995).
3. That there is no systematic treatement of the phenomenon in Teleman et al. (1999) is also
pointed out in Anward (2000).
4. There is an irrelevant coordination reading of (3) where the rst verb selects a non-overt
complement:
(i) Lars
Lars
brjade
start.PAST
...
...
o
&
han
he
skrev
write.PAST
dikter.
poem.PL
Lars started [something] and he wrote poems.
5. Traditional descriptions would have it that the innitival marker (orthographic att) has
two pronunciations: either /At/ (in more careful speech) or /O/ (in casual speech). How-
ever, the facts concerning copying constructions furnish a strong case for rejecting this
analysis. I will argue in Chapter 4 that the /At/ and /O/ pronunciations in fact reect two
distinct complementizers (see also Chapter 7).
6. (5) is from Svenska Dagbladet, Sep 9, and (6) from Dagens Nyheter, May 27, 1998.
7. BU1-3 Birgittas uppenbarelser, Bok 1-3. SSFS9:1, ed. G.E. Klemming, original fromthe
end of the 14th century, hand writing from the middle of the 15th century (le containing
around 106 600 words).
8. Object sharing has been identied as a hallmark of serial verb constructions (SVCs)
and is required under some denitions of that construction type, see e.g. Baker (1989),
thus excluding the pseudocoordinations relevant here from the set of SVCs (cf. Cardi-
naletti and Giusti 2001), see Aboh (2004) for a critical discussion. Another property
distinguishing pseudocoordinations from SVCs is the presence of a conjunction element;
traditional denitions of SVCs exclude multi-verb constructions involving a connecting
element (subordinating or coordinating), cf. Stahlke (1970). The latter property may be
challenged by languages like Igbo and FeFe though, discussed in Hyman (1971), see
also Aboh (2004) for discussion. I will not take a stand here on the issue of what the
relation may be between pseudocoordination and SVCs. See Pullum (1990), Dchaine
(1993), Bodomo (1997), and in particular Aboh (2004) for discussion.
9. TMA-copying complements in Swedish thus differ from a construction type present in
d (belonging to the Kwa group of the Niger-Congo family of languages), referred
to as the Modal-aspectual verb construction in Stewart (1999). Alongside the innitival
constructions exemplied in (ia) and (iia), sharing the basic semantics of Swedish (13)
and (14), d exhibits the construction type exemplied in (ib) and (iib) that differs from
the former in two ways: (i) The marker y introducing the innitive is absent. (ii) Whereas
there is no implication that the embedded event took place in (ia) and (iia), there is such
an implication in (ib) and (iib). Stewart (1999) proposes that y is an irrealis marker
198 Notes
and that a null head in (ib) and (iib) conveys a realis interpretation. Both construction
types are argued to be innitival on the basis of the distribution of tones (tense is realized
supra-segmentally on verbs in d).
(i) a. z
z
h
try.PAST
y
to
rr
eat.INF
vbr.
food
zo tried to eat the food.
b. z
z
h
try.PAST
rr
eat.INF
vbr.
food
zo made an effort and ate the food.
(ii) a. z
z
minmin
forget.PAST
y
to
kp!l
sweep.INF
w.
stall
zo forgot to sweep the stall.
b. z
z
minmin
forget.PAST
kp!l
sweep.INF
w.
stall
z forgot and (inadvertently) swept the stall.
10. Not all speakers allow stative predicates under brja start. These speakers will therefore
not accept (16b) and similar examples.
11. To the extent that (17b) is possible at all, the ha + participle can only get a reading where
the result state of the embedded event holds at a particular point in time (a perfect state
reading), thus crucially distinct from the copy-reading.
12. This property of the supine should probably be related to its function as a relative past.
The Swedish past tense has clear modal uses, see e.g. (i), where the past inection on the
modal does not serve to express tense but modality.
(i) Han
he
borde
ought.PAST
skriva
write.INF
ett
a
brev
letter
imorgon.
tomorrow
He ought to write a letter tomorrow.
13. (19) has an additional reading that (18a) lacks; a future perfect state reading on which
the temporal adverbial modies the result state of the embedded event and not the event
itself. Ha-drop eliminates the perfect-state reading in this context, restricting available
readings to the relative past/counterfactual.
14. Placing an auxiliary ha have in front of the participle renders the sentence grammatical.
In that case the participle cannot be replaced by an innitive, thus is not vacuous. It gets
a perfect state reading:
(i) Du
You
vill
want.PRES
ha
have
kommit
come.PPC
hit.
here
You want to have come here.
15. The counterparts of (22b) and (23b) are grammatical in languages like German and
Dutch. The phenomenon is referred to as the IPP-effect (Innitivus Pro Participio), see
e.g. Vanden Wyngaerd (1996), Wurmbrand (2001), and references cited there. We leave
for future research the relation between copying complements and the IPP-effect.
16. An irrelevant ha-drop reading is marginally possible for (27b).
17. (31c) has an irrelevant coordination reading with a null complement in the rst conjunct
(selected by fortstta): I tried to continue... and walked along the path.
Notes 199
18. Prepositionsobjekt in traditional Swedish grammar terminology, see Hellberg (2003) and
references cited there.
19. In (33b), we are interested in the reading where the adverbial takes narrow scope. The
sentence has an irrelevant reading where the manner of the matrix event (i.e. the reading
event) is questioned. Note also that if we replace the matrix predicate with prata talk to
induce subject control, we get the same result.
20. (35b) is possible only on an echo-question reading.
21. It is noteworthy that the predicates that allow copying involve desiderative or psych-
semantics. Another example of copying in the context of auxiliary-adjective predicates
involves so-called politeness phrases, cf. Chapter 1 (3) above.
22. The status of (37b) and (38b) does not change if meditera meditate is replaced by the
participle mediterat meditated.
23. Julien (2003) provides the Norwegian counterpart of (i) (from Sandy 1991), reported to
be ne in some Swedish and Norwegian variants. The sentence is deviant in my variant.
To the extent that it is possible, the reading is that of an innitival perfect, thus seems to
instantiate ha-drop.
(i) %O
&
sprungit
run.PPC
60
60
meter
meter
p
on
10
10
sekunder
seconds
hade
had
inte
not
varit
been
ngon
any
konst
trick
p
on
en
a
sdan
such
bana
track
To run 60 meters on 10 seconds would have been easy (lit. would not have been
a trick) on such a track.
24. As expected, copying into extraposed position yields a marginally better result:
(i) ??Han
he
hade
had
ftt
get.PPC
det
EXPL
o
&
blivit
become.PPC
olagligt
illegal
o
&
rkt.
smoke.PPC
He had made to smoke to become illegal.
25. The deniteness of the object is irrelevant, see (ib) below. The example is ne on the
irrelevant coordination reading: He had gotten an impulse and gone home. The same is
true for (41b) in the text: He had forgotten the advice and gone home.
(i) a. Han
he
hade
had
ftt
get.PPC
en
an
impuls
impulse
att
to
ka
go.INF
hem.
home
b. *Han
he
hade
had
ftt
get.PPC
en
an
impuls
impulse
o
&
kt
go.PPC
hem.
home
26. (42b) is marginally ne on the irrelevant coordination reading: I have rented a movie and
watched [it] tonight. The same is true for (43b).
27. There are also similar examples in Lockwood (1964: 141) from Faroese, all involving the
matrix verb have:
(i) Tygum
You
hava
have
havt
have.PPC
t
time
at
to
gjrt
do.PPC
ta.
it
(Fa.)
You have had time to do it.
28. Julien (2003) provides the following Norwegian example of copying into the complement
of a noun:
200 Notes
(i) Det
it
ville
would
vori
be.PPC
nt
nice

&
hatt
have.PPC
nokon
somebody
til
to

&
hjelpt
help.PPC
seg.
SE
It would have been nice to have somebody to get help from.
The Swedish counterpart is possible but slightly degraded in my variant. As expected,
copying goes hand in hand with extraction:
(ii) a. ?Det
it
skulle
would
ha
have
varit
be.PPC
nt
nice
o
&
haft
have.PPC
ngon
somebody
o
o
hjlpt
help.PPC
en.
one
It would have been nice to have somebody to get help from.
b. ?Var
where
skulle
would
det
it
ha
have
varit
be.PPC
nt
nice
o
&
haft
have.PPC
ngon
somebody
o
o
hjlpt
help.PPC
en
one
_?
_
Thus, the object noun in (iia) is a very mild island, in contrast with the object noun in e.g.
(42a) in the text, cf. (iii), for reasons that are not clear to me. The important correlation
remains; wherever copying is possible, the innitival is not an island.
(iii) *Nr
when
har
have
du
you
hyrt
rent.PPC
en
a
lm
lm
att
to
se
see.INF
_?
_
29. Similar examples are found in Faroese, see Lockwood (1964: p.141):
(i) Ta
it
hevi
would-have
veri
be.PPC
stuttligt
nice
at
to
s
see.PPC
hana
her
... (Fa.)
It would have been nice to see her ...
30. When checking for the possibility of a future-oriented innitive, one has to make sure that
the matrix verb is inected for past rather than present tense, since, in Swedish, present
inection can also express the future. In case the present inection refers to the future,
the adverb following the innitive can have matrix scope. Thus, the grammaticality of a
sentence like (i) below does not indicate the possibility of a tense mismatch, since there
is a reading of the sentence where the future-oriented adverbial has matrix scope:
(i) Han
he
brjar
start.PRES
att
to
skriva
write.INF
brev
letter.PL
imorgon.
tomorrow
He will start to write letters tomorrow.
Narrow scope of tomorrow can of course be forced by the insertion of now in the matrix.
As predicted, the sentence becomes ungrammatical:
(ii) *Nu
now
brjar
start.PRES
han
he
att
to
skriva
write.INF
brev
letter.PL
imorgon.
tomorrow
Now he is starting to write letters tomorrow.
31. Removing the past-oriented adverbial in (4) yields a sentence which is grammatical for
some speakers and means that the subject referent is now getting close to nishing frying
the sh, cf. Chapter 2 (3.1) above.
32. It is important to stress that the criterion for the tensed/tenseless dichotomy is syntactico-
semantic and not morphological. As demonstrated in Landau (2004), there are tensed
clauses without tense morphology e.g. innitives embedded under decide-type verbs
(cf. above) as well as tenseless clauses with tense morphology e.g. controlled sub-
Notes 201
junctives in Greek (and TMA-copying innitivals in Swedish, anticipating conclusions
to be drawn as we proceed).
33. By not constrained, I mean that the innitival embedded under these verbs can have any
temporal orientation; past-, present-, or future-oriented. The tense is unselected or free
(Landau 2004). The temporal location of a past-oriented innitive embedded under e.g.
pst claim is still interpreted w.r.t. that of the matrix verb, cf. (i).
(i) *Han
he
pstods
claim.PAST.PASS
i
in
frrgr
before-yesterday
ha
have
stekt
fry.PPC
en
a
sk
sh
igr.
yesterday
The day before yesterday he was claimed to have fried a sh yesterday.
34. As far as my investigations go, all speakers allowing copying allow the innitival form as
well. Thus copy-speakers typically switch between two registers; one with copying and
another without copying.
35. Both classes of verbs select tensed bare innitives. However, whereas innitives em-
bedded under the pst-class are independently tensed, verbs from the anse-class select
present- or past-oriented innitives.
36. There is an irrelevant reading of (21b), marginally available, where an auxiliary ha have
is dropped in the embedded clause. Interestingly, dropping of ha seems conditioned by
the presence of an auxiliary ha in the matrix clause.
37. The unacceptability of copying remains if passive inection is spread, cf. (i). See Chapter
4 (5) and Wiklund (2006) for a note on complex passives.
(i) *Han
he
pstods
claim.PAST.PASS
sprangs
run.PAST.PASS
snabbt.
fast
he was claimed to run fast.
38. An irrelevant ha-drop reading is (with difculty) available in (25b).
39. An irrelevant ha-drop reading is marginally possible for (28b); He had been expected to
have come home by next week.
40. Some of the verbs selecting future-oriented innitives can select a past-oriented comple-
ment in certain uses that appear to shift their meaning slightly (this is noted by Wurm-
brand 2001 and Landau 2004). In (i) below, the subject referent makes up his mind about
how to view a past situation. I abstract away from such coercions here.
(i) Igr
yesterday
beslutade
decide.PAST
han
he
att
to
ha
have
blivit
be.PPC
lurad
cheated
dagen
day-the
innan.
before
Yesterday he decided to have been cheated the day before.
41. Planera plan and lova promise allow partial copying in my variant, see 5.3 below.
42. Tvinga force is also compatible with a future-oriented innitive, see 4.
43. Tendera tend also belongs to this class but is less commonly accepted in copy context,
most probably due to stilistic factors. The verb belongs to more formal registers, whereas
copying belongs to casual speech. It can select a TMA-copying innitival in my variant:
(i) Det
EXPL
tenderar
tend.PRS
o
&
regnar.
rain.PRS
It tends to rain.
44. Notice that copying is insensitive to the complexity of the matrix verb with respect to the
presence of particles/prepositions. In this sense copying differs from the phenomenon of
verb clustering in Dutch, as pointed out by Marcel den Dikken (p.c.).
202 Notes
45. E.g. Han lr vara intelligent. I have heard that he is intelligent. Lr can also have
a reading meaning be probable for some speakers: Jag lr komma hem vid sju. Ill
probably come home around seven.
46. Verka seem and frefalla appear may select non-bare innitives for some speakers,
thus are less clear-cut with respect to the bare/non-bare distinction, see Appendix I for
some notes on verbs of this kind.
47. Carme Picallo (p.c.) reports similar judgements for Catalan and Spanish. According to
Vivienne Fong (p.c.) sentences like these improve in Singapore English if the adverbial
in the embedded clause is replaced by a relational adverbial, e.g. the next day.
48. The same effect can in fact be achieved with the non-bare verbs of this class. Thus, to the
extent that (i) below is possible, it can only have an interpretation of the type Yesterday
he said that he started reading the book last Friday.
(i) ?Igr
yesterday
brjade
start.PAST
han
he
att
to
lsa
read.INF
boken
book.DEF
i
last
fredags.
Friday
Yesterday he started reading the book last Friday.
Also in this case the innitival complement is tenseless, i.e. not mismatching with the
superordinate clause in temporal properties (the mismatch being between the covert re-
porting event and the tense of brja start).
49. The paradigms in Christensen (1997) include non-nite forms of ska, viz. the innitive
skola and the participle skolat, respectively. These forms are exceedingly rare, conned
to written language and dwindling even there; three cases of innitive skola are contained
in the Press 65 corpus of Swedish newspaper texts from 1965 (990 989 words running
text); in the 1995 Press 95 corpus (6 769 649 words), there are no occurences. The supine
skolat is lacking in both corpora. (http://spraakbanken.gu.se/lb/konk/)
50. Since the verbs ska shall/will, komma will, and lr (expressing hearsay evidentiality)
lack the participial form, we do not see copying with these verbs. Note that (47b) has an
epistemic reading (equivalent to He may have read) in addition to the root reading given.
On that reading, however, the sentence arguably involves an auxiliary ha-drop structure
and not a copy structure. Ha is in some variants (including mine) possible in this context.
51. Some speakers allow prva try, frska try, vgra refuse, and vlja choose to
select future-oriented innitives, see 4 below.
52. (62b) has an irrelevant reading I had gotten the book read, see Hedlund (1992). On vga
dare, orka manage (energy-wise), and ltsas pretend, see Appendix I.
53. This correlation does not hold for variants displaying partial copying, see 5.3.
54. The former reading is also available for German versuchen try, see Wurmbrand (2001).
55. The status of (77b) does not change if the object of rda is encliticized. The ungrammat-
icality of (78d) follows from locality constraints (Chapter 2). The latter sentence has an
irrelevant coordination reading: He stopped advicing her and went to church.
56. Some variants of Dutch also allow material to intervene between te and the innitive, see
IJbema (2002).
57. In my variant, the difference between the full form och and the reduced form o reduces to
a difference in style; the former is used in more careful registers. There may be variants
where the two differ in distribution and therefore also must differ in feature make-up. I
leave that possibility for future research. See de Vos (2005) for some notes on the full vs.
reduced form of English and.
Notes 203
58. This means that the traditional view (reected in Jespersen 1895; stergren 1901) of
the direction of causation in the development of copying constructions must be reversed;
rather than a phonological accident (the homophony between att and o(ch)) leading to
a grammatical development (the emergence of copying constructions), we have instead
a grammatical development, one facet of which being that what was previously only a
coordinating conjunction acquires a new function, leading to a situation which can be
interpreted as homophony by speakers.
59. This is also true for nite att:
(i) Lars
Lars
sa
say.PAST
attnte
to-cl.NEG
det
that
var
was
sant.
true
Lars said that that was not true.
60. Another often cited reference is Faraci (1970).
61. I refer the reader to Portner (2005) for a discussion of the semantics of imperative clauses.
While Portner is critical of the postulation of a Force feature to derive syntactic proper-
ties of imperatives, he proposes an analysis in terms of a variable binding operator, which
resides high in the clausal structure (he speculates). For the purpose of the present pro-
posal, it is enough to assume that whatever licenses the imperative verb form resides in
the C-domain of the clause, thereby restricting imperative copying to innitivals where
this domain is present.
62. In embedded nite clauses, negation occurs encliticized onto the complementizer or onto
the subject.
63. There is no verb movement past negation in embedded clauses in Swedish. Thus, the
negation is impossible in post-verbal position in both examples.
64. On cases that seem less clear-cut regarding the correlation between amount of structure
and amount of copying, see Appendix I.
65. Nothing in what follows hinges on the label Asp. Inner or lower tense are other possible
labels.
66. Many verbs selecting non-bare innitivals are themselves aspectual, containing features
that are less easily applied to the perfect. With a suitable context, however, the perfect
is ne in these contexts as well, cf. (i) in the following context: During her rst years
in school, Lisa always arrived well prepared to classes. But after having changed school
three times in ve years...
(i) ...slutade
...stop.PAST
hon
she
att
to
ha
have
lst
read.PPC
lxorna.
homework.PL.DEF
...she stopped having done her homework.
67. Auxiliary ha may not carry copied participial inection, see (i) below (disregarding the
irrelevant main verb reading of ha, corresponding to he could have had the book read).
This fact has a natural explanation. As opposed to lexical ha the paradigm of auxiliary ha
lacks the participial form. The latter fact, in turn, should follow from independent factors,
presumably related to the position of the verb in the functional sequence, an issue that I
will leave aside here.
(i) *Han
he
hade
have.PAST
kunnat
can.PPC
[haft
have.PPC
lst
read.PPC
boken].
book.DEF
He could have read the book.
204 Notes
68. Possibly, desiderative complements do not contain a full-blown TP but restrict projection
either to T
Fut
, immediately below T
Past
, or to Mood
irrealis
, immediately below T
Fut
in
Cinque (1999). On the latter alternative, T is never present without C.
69. Lockwood (1964: 141) provides an example of participial copying into the complement
of a perception verb in Faroese:
(i) Eg
I
havi
have
hoyrt
hear.PPC
hann
him
sagt
say.PPC
ta.
it
(Fa.)
I have heard him say it.
The impeccable status of the sentence is conrmed by Jgvan Lon Jacobsen (p.c.). It
is possible that the size of these complements is subject to some variation; the relevant
verbs may be capable of selecting an AspP in some variants. My judgement of (45b)
above as slightly better than other copied forms may be an indication of this possibility.
70. Object shift is impossible across any phonologically visible non-adjunct category c-
commanding the object position in the verb phrase, see Holmberg (1999).
71. Complex passives of the kind in (i), from Holmberg (2002), are available in variants of
Scandinavian where passive past participles do not display gender/number agreement,
like Danish and varieties of Norwegian (including the bokml standard).
(i) Bilen
car.DEF
ble
was
frskt
try.PPC
reparert.
repair.PPC
(No. Bokml)
They tried to repair the car.
With a couple of aspectual verbs, double s-passives are marginally possible in variants of
Swedish, including mine, see (ii). The embedded verb may not be replaced by an active
verb form. Space does not allow us to investigate this construction here.
(ii) ?Medicinen
medication.DEF
slutas
stop.PRES.PASS
o
o
sljs.
sell.PRES.PASS
(Sw.)
They stop selling the medication.
72. Wurmbrand (2001) proposes that some of the German restructuring verbs are functional.
73. According to Ekberg (1993) the literal translation of (2), He took and read a book, is ne
in Irish English and certain American dialects.
74. That the ban on dropping the linking element/complementiser is not absolute for pseu-
docoordinations is shown by the Norwegian variant displayed in the writings of Tarjei
Vesaas. There the element is dropped in pseudocoordinations involving posture verbs,
see (i) from Vesaas (1974: 25). I thank Torodd Kinn (p.c.) for the observation.
(i) Mattis
Mattis
satt
sit.PAST
venta
wait.PAST
nre
close
p
to
andelaus.
breathless
(Norwegian var.)
Mattis sat waiting almost breathlessly.
75. To keep uniformity, I refer to the conjunction element orthographic och by the short form
o throughout.
76. In contrast to the English motion verb go, its Swedish cognate g can only mean walk in
the relevant context. Nothing in what follows hinges on this difference.
77. (9b) is in fact ambiguous on the pseudocoordination reading as well in Swedish. It is
ambiguous between the inceptive-distal reading given and a progressive reading roughly
Notes 205
corresponding to Lars went around drinking coffee. I abstract away from this ambiguity
in what follows since pseudocoordinations behave in the same way with respect to the
properties reviewed here, regardless of interpretation.
78. I am indebted to Halldr rmann Sigursson for discussion of Icelandic data. Gunnar
Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson (p.c.) reports varieties of Icelandic where sit-&V constructions
seem to behave like their Swedish counterparts with regard to extraction and aspectual
properties, see Appendix II for a brief note.
79. (15) requires a context where manner of posture is prominent. Insertion of a locative
adverbial renders the sentence perfectly acceptable, see (i). The interpretation of the event
expressed by the second conjunct is the same as in (15). See Chapter 6 for a discussion
of these and related facts.
(i) Palli
Palli
sat
sit.PAST
ti
out

in
horni
corner.DEF
og
&
var
be.PAST
sr.
grumpy
(Ic.)
Palli sat in the corner and was grumpy.
80. Phrasal stress is on the nal phonological word before a phrase boundary. Thus, in (16a)
sjng sang and kaffe coffee bear phrasal stress.
81. I abstract away from the possibility of using a plural expression to refer to a single event
in a context like: Att du klarade tentamen var inga dliga grejer (That you passed the
exam was no bad things). This reading is not available with the above examples.
82. The prosodic bracketing excludes the possibility of a coordinate structure with a null
complement in the rst conjunct in (21b), which would be bracketed [Att ha brjat [o
druckit kaffe]].
83. The obligatoriness of a dummy verb in position of the fronted verb is a property that
pseudocoordinations share with some raising innitives.
84. The extraction facts are not changed if hur hgt (how loudly) is replaced by hur (how) in
the examples that follow. The former phrase is chosen here to disambiguate between po-
tential extraction sites. That a locative phrase is possible with the rst verb in progressive
pseudocoordination is also noted by Josefsson (1991) for Swedish and by Tonne (2000),
and Ldrup (2002) for Norwegian.
85. The corresponding Marsalese pseudocoordinations do not allow any modication of the
rst verb according to Cardinaletti and Giusti (2001).
86. In the presence of a goal phrase, the innitival is argued to constitute an adjunct clause.
87. Dchaine (1993) proposes that pseudocoordinations (and other asymmetric coordina-
tions) involve leftward adjunction of the rst verb phrase, contained in a conjunction
phrase, to the second verb phrase. The conjunction phrase constitutes a barrier. The pos-
sibility of extraction out of the second verb phrase follows from the fact that VP is not
a barrier. Her analysis predicts non-ATB extraction out of the rst verb phrase to be
impossible. As seen in (i) though, the Swedish construction allows extraction.
(i) [Till
to
skolan]
school
gick
go.PAST
Lars
Lars
_
_
och
&
drack
drink.PAST
kaffe
coffee
varje
every
dag.
day.
88. The complex predicate head analysis proposed in de Vos (2005) (for pseudocoordinations
where modication of the rst verb is absent) involves coordination at the (sub-) head
level. The presence of inectional morphology on both verbs in the complex head is an
additional problem for that analysis.
206 Notes
89. The present analysis still has to explain why the tense inection fails to license a subject
in (45a), see Chapter 7.
90. In Afrikaans pseudocoordinations the whole complex V & V has the option of behaving
as a unit with respect to verb second. Sentences like (47b) are therefore ne in Afrikaans,
see e.g. Donaldson (1993).
91. A coordination analysis of pseudocoordination can be made compatible with these facts.
The conjuncts can be said to lack the structure required for a movement of the verb past
the adverb (relevantly the CP domain, Swedish being a verb second language). The pro-
posal is commited to saying that the ordinary coordination in (51) involves a coordination
of bigger clausal chunks on the verb>adverb order.
92. In the presence of bde both, (55a) can only have an independent-event (coordination)
reading, involving a null complement selected by the rst verb.
93. In many Norwegian dialects ogs also pronounced [oso] - can serve as an innitival
marker (replacing ), see (i) below from Endresen (1992: p.269):
(i) Eg
I
skal
will
ut
out
[oso]
also
ske
sh.INF
i
in
natt.
night
(No. var.)
I am going out shing tonight.
94. One question which is left unanswered is how the pseudocoordinations discussed here
relate to other constructions that appear to involve coordination but where an asymmetry
between the conjuncts is in evidence. Although an investigation of these is outside the
scope of the present book, the hypothesis I would pursue is that an asymmetric coordina-
tion that passes all the pseudocoordination tests reviewed here involves complementation,
rather than coordination, and is likely to involve TMA-copying. Many consecutive coor-
dinations involving the right kind of matrix/rst verb, like (9b), undoubtedly belong to
this class in many languages. Resultative coordinations seem subtly different. Although
in the context of a directional intransitive matrix verb in combination with a particle
(these enable light verb uses, see Chapter 6), also these coordinations are candidates for
an analysis in terms of TMA-copying:
(i) a. Han
he
fll
fall.PAST
ner
down
och
and
brt
break.PAST
benet.
leg.DEF
He fell down and broke his leg.
b. Vad
what
fll
fall.PAST
han
he
ner
down
och
and
brt
break.PAST
_?
The extraction in (ib), may disturb the cause-effect reading (see Kehler 2002 for discus-
sion), thus (ib) may not merit the label resultative coordination, but the point remains.
Certain syntactic contexts allow extraction, whereas others do not. It is in the spirit of
the present work to suggest that those that do allow extractions may be something else
than coordinations in terms of syntactic structure, thus not counterexamples to syntactic
constraints on coordination.
95. Neither may the rst verb be replaced by an innitive in the relevant sentences, as in (i)
below.
(i) *Han
he
sitta
sit.INF
o
&
skrev
write.PAST
dikter.
poem.PL
96. Fenno-Swedish is a cover name for the Swedish variants spoken in Finland. I am indebted
to Anders Holmberg for Fenno-Swedish data.
Notes 207
97. The counterpart of (59), but not (58), is ne also in Icelandic. It yields a progressive
reading of the embedded event and is thus subject to the effect illustrated in (60) (Halldr
rmann Sigursson, p.c.).
98. I am indebted to Aniek IJbema and Hedde Zeijlstra for discussion of Dutch data. ~
in front of the translation indicates that we abstract away from the manner of posture.
The closer literal translation He sits eating is not idiomatic in English. Note that the
counterpart of (57d) involves the IPP-effect. The participle is replaced by the innitival
form of the verb:
(i) Hij
he
heeft
had
zitten
sit.INF
(te)
to
eten.
eat.INF
(Du.)
99. Note that the issue of whether the Fenno-Swedish and Dutch constructions involve re-
structuring or not is immaterial to our argument. They may share the essential ingredients
of a pseudocoordinating structure, in which case the relevant dependencies between the
matrix and embedded clause are not reected morphologically. Or the matrix verb may
be analyzed as a functional predicate selecting a small type of complement.
100. The temporal adverbial can be either in sentence-initial position, or in sentence-nal
position (as in the examples).
101. I will continue to refer to verbs that TMA-copy but that do not have the option of selecting
an innitive in Swedish as pseudocoordinating verbs and to the resulting construction as
pseudocoordination.
102. I will refer to the last two verbs as BE and TAKE in running text to facilitate comprehen-
sion. The examples of this section all allow adjunct extraction out of the second clause.
Space does not allow me to show this here.
103. Her thesis concerns Norwegian progressives but the main facts carry over to Swedish.
104. The reference location may but need not be identical to the utterance location.
105. Using the motion verb komma come instead of g go yields a non-distal reading, cf.
(i) below. The motion is interpreted as directed towards the reference location.
(i) Han
he
kom
come.PAST
o
&
lste
read.PAST
en
a
bok.
book
He came and read a book.
106. On the interaction of verb particles and pseudocoordination, see 3.3 below.
107. The process component may be extended (consisting of more than one transition), or
correspond to a single minimal transition.
108. A third type may be the result of movement of an element from a lower position to a
higher position in the functional domain, see e.g. IJbema (2002) and references cited
there.
109. The prosodic bracketings associated with the two readings are distinct, cf. (ib) and (ia):
(i) a. [Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
[(i
(in
soffan)]].
sofa.DEF)
(Maintain pos.)
b. [Han
he
satt
sit.PAST
*(i
(in
soffan)].
sofa.DEF)
(Locative)
110. There are two possible analyses. Either multiple rhemes are allowed or one of the two
PPs is adjoined to matrix initP. Note that particles must precede PPs.
208 Notes
111. Encyclopaedic content corresponds to lexical information that is not relevant to syntax.
Syntactic tagging (category features) allows syntax to connect to encyclopaedic and pho-
netic content, see Ramchand (in press).
112. Choice of manner of posture with inanimates depends either on the subject or on the
locative phrase. Whereas manner of posture is more or less transparent in the former
case, it tends to be opaque in the latter. E.g. a vase is standing if in vertical position, but
lying if in horizontal position. Things on the wall (e.g. pictures) typically sit in Swedish,
whereas things in a text or a book (e.g. paragraphs or sentences) stand.
113. This requirement is not absolute for maintain position uses with inanimate subjects,
though. The determining factor seems to be whether choice of manner of posture de-
pends on the subject or on the locative phrase. In contrast to (31) and (32), (i) below is
ne in the absence of a manner adverb in a context where manner of posture is focalized.
In the former sentences, choice of manner of posture depends on the locative phrase, in
the latter sentence on the spatial conguration of the subject referent.
(i) Vasen
vase.DEF
str
stand.PRES
inte
not
(den
(it
ligger).
lie.PRES)
(Maintain pos.)
The vase is not standing (it is lying).
114. If the Dutch progressive SIT + te-innitive construction (discussed in the preceding chap-
ter) has the same basic underlying structure as the Swedish pseudocoordination involving
the same verb, as we have proposed, we expect it to involve a locative use of the posture
verb. Our prediction is that the presence of an adverb that further describes the manner
component should affect the possibility of extraction (and aspect shift). This is borne out:
(i) *Hoe
how
hard
loudly
zat
sit.PAST
hij
he
makkelijk
comfortably
te
to
zingen?
sing.INF
(Du.)
115. In Swedish, manner of posture still counts for the truth conditions of most pseudocoordi-
nations. In Bulgarian, in contrast, it seems possible to suspend the manner component of
locative/pseudocoordinating SIT, see Kuteva (1999). The same holds true for the Dutch
SIT + te-innitive, see Geerts et al. (1984: 537ff.). See also de Vos (2005) for examples
of English pseudocoordinations where the semantics of posture seems entirely absent.
116. That the specic interpretations available with pseudocoordinations depend on the nature
of the matrix verb and the semantic role of the complement is also noted in Anward
(1988).
117. It has been observed in the literature that progressive pseudocoordinations are compat-
ible with the existential construction, see e.g. Josefsson (1991), Wiklund (1996), and
Ldrup (2002). In this case, the pseudocoordinate clause can not satisfy the locative ar-
gument position; a locative particle or PP is required, cf. (ia). I take this to indicate that
the apparent pseudocoordinate clause is in a non-complement position in this construc-
tion. Support for this analysis comes from extraction facts and facts concerning aspectual
coercion. Adjunct extraction from the pseudocoordinate clause yields a slightly deviant
result, cf. (ib), and there is a limitation as to what type of predicate may occur in the
pseudocoordinate clause. For instance achievements yield a deviant result, cf. (ic).
(i) a. Det
EXPL
satt
sit.PAST
en
a
man
man
o
&
skrek
cry.PAST
*(i
in
parken).
park.DEF
roughly: There was a man crying in the park.
Notes 209
b. ?(?)Hur
how
satt
sit.PAST
det
EXPL
en
a
man
man
o
&
skrek
cry.PAST
_
_
i
in
parken?
park.DEF
c. ?(?)Det
EXPL
satt
sit.PAST
en
a
man
man
o
&
somnade
fall-asleep.PAST
i
in
parken
park.DEF
118. Swedish does not require the particle corresponding to down in the assume position use.
However, a reexive pronoun is obligatory.
119. The manner adverb can occur in three positions in (52). I take the order undergoer>manner
adverb (2 and 3 below) to be relevant here. On that order, the adverb is most certainly
merged in the verb phrase.
(i) Han
he
satte
sit:DIR.PAST
[ADV]-1
(ADV)
stolen
chair.DEF
[ADV]-2
(ADV)
i
in
kllaren
basement.DEF
[ADV]-3.
(ADV)
120. Another example of manner modication is tvr-stta sig quickly-sit:DIR.INF REFL
(to sit down quickly/suddenly), which is possible in northern variants of Swedish:
(i) Han
he
tvr-satte
quickly-sit:DIR.PAST
sig.
REFL
He sat down quickly/suddenly.
121. A parallel phenomenon may be the English example below (from Quirk et al. 1985: 979).
There the particle has taken on the verbal inectional morphology:
(i) She upped and left him.
(59) is marginally possible also in the absence of a verb particle for some speakers. I have
no account for this fact.
122. I am indebted to Gillian Ramchand for suggesting that I explore this possibility.
123. I take the matrix process portion to involve only one transition in this case. This does not
mean that the embedded event can not involve an extended process, since the embedded
proc is distinct from matrix proc (the former is a further specication of the latter).
124. The go & V construction is claimed to display an inection condition when not involving
the surprise reading in Carden and Pesetsky (1977). The try & V construction is subject
to variation. Whereas Carden and Pesetsky (1977) and Quirk et al. (1985) note that the
construction is subject to an inection condition, Chris Johns (p.c.) reports variants of
British English that allow sentences like He tries and does that. The Italian dialect of
Marsalese displays an inection condition with pseudocoordinations involving motion
verbs, see Cardinaletti and Giusti (2001). Only the less marked forms are allowed; present
but not past, indicative but not subjunctive, singular but not plural, 3rd but ot 1st and 2nd
person. However, the imperative form is allowed. I have no account for the presence of
inection conditions of this kind here. They do not seem to reduce to the phenomenon of
partial copying.
125. I thank Thomas Leu (p.c.) for discussion of Swiss German data.
126. Similar facts are reported for German (Klaus Abels, Ute Bonacker, p.c.). Note that (79b)
is ne on the irrelevant reading where was is interpreted as why or how come.
127. The fact that the innitival form and other verb forms are indistinguishable in certain
conjugations in many variants of Swedish may be an important factor.
128. Even in Dutch, we do not nd the present-day POSTURE VERB + te-innitive construction
in earlier stages; instead we nd constructions with V
n
ende and V
n
, according to
Stoett (1923: 12) (see also Kuteva 1999):
210 Notes
(i) Hij
he
stond
stand.PAST
ende
and
dachte.
think.PAST
(Mi-Du.)
He was thinking.
According to IJbema (2002), the Dutch innitival marker te was originally an irrealis
mood marker. Thus, te-innitives are not expected to occur in the above context at earlier
stages.
129. The proposal raises questions about the relation between C
Fin
and T. I need to leave
many of these unanswered. Note however that the existence of partial copying forces a
distinction between features of C and features of T. Therefore, it does not sufce to say
that copying takes place whenever features of T are unvalued; copying may affect the
C-domain alone, as in some future-oriented innitivals (reported to allow imperative but
not tense copying in some variants).
130. I will continue to refer to the embedded clause even in case the CP involves a restructured
C
Fin
.
131. In Chomsky (2000) and Chomsky (2001) unvalued features are uninterpretable and must
delete when valued.
132. It may make sense to compare underspecied heads with certain types of anaphors in
the nominal domain, which are arguably underspecied with respect to phi-features (cf.
Burzio 1992).
133. I thank Marit Julien for the example from Solr Norwegian.
134. The nature of these remains to be understood, see Nilsen (2003) for discussion.
135. The sentences in (13) are ne in a context where the subject referent has written a letter in
the past and is now trying to write another letter, which he has tried at least once before.
136. As with ibland sometimes and ofta often, redan already is ne in sentence-nal
position on the irrelevant wide-scope reading.
137. The presence of tense morphology on the second verb in a pseudocoordination is in
de Vos (2005) presented as evidence that pseudocoordination is not a type of inniti-
val construction and therefore that a subordination analysis is excluded (favouring the
complex predicate head analysis that he proposes). Taking the facts presented here into
consideration, that line of reasoning is untenable.
138. Note that in the presence of att or o, which I have claimed are complementizers, the
subject of an ECM innitival can only appear to the left of this element, regardless of
whether copying is present or not. Thus, the subject of the ECM innitival is not licensed
within the clause (contra Lundin 2003), cf. Lasnik and Saito (1991).
(i) Han
he
hade
had
ftt
get.PPC
henne
her
att
to
skriva
write.INF
p/
on/
o
&
skrivit
write.PPC
p
on
.
He had made her sign.
139. Nothing crucial hinges on this assumption but the reverse order may require additional
assumptions to block imperative copying into a clause containing a valued C
Fin
(e.g. the
assumption that the niteness feature obligatorily moves to C
Force
).
140. For instance remnant extraposition in Dutch is incompatible with the complementatizer
om (Broekhuis et al. 1995).
141. Wurmbrand (to appear) examines future-oriented innitivals and argues that these lack
tense on the basis of the facts that innitival future is relative and does not block sequence
of tense. The argument relies on the assumption that future tense is a combination of
Notes 211
present tense (which is absolute in English) plus an abstract modal (see e.g. Abusch
1985). It is not clear to me that it is not absence of niteness that is responsible for the
relevant properties of the innitival future (assuming the basic analysis of the future to
be correct).
142. The fact that some innitive selecting verbs may select either the bigger or the smaller
type of complement is irrelevant to the argument.
143. As far as the present proposal is concerned, nothing hinges on whether we represent
different tenses as tense features, as tense operators, or as before/within/after relations.
144. That embedded present is interpreted as relative to matrix tense in innitives, I propose,
is a function of the absence of niteness.
145. Orka contrasts with kunna can in not being completely incompatible with a comple-
mentizer, even in the absence of the particle med, cf. (1b) above and (i) below:
(i) ??Han
he
orkade
manage.PAST
att/o
att/&
lsa
read.INF
boken.
book.DEF
He managed to read the book.
146. The claim that Icelandic displays obligatory verb movement to the inectional domain in
non-V2 context has recently been questioned. Wiklund et al. (2006) provides evidence
that the relevant movement is of the verb second type, thus targets the CP-domain rather
than the IP-domain of the clause. Concerning verb placement in lvdalsmlet, most
claims about this dialect are based on Levander (1909) (cf. Vikner 1995 and Bobaljik
2002) describing a variant that displays the verb-adverb order in embedded clauses. Ac-
cording to Bo Westling (p.c.) though, the order where the verb follows sentential adverbs
is possible (ia), in fact prevailing, in present-day lvdalsmlet. There seems to be no
difference between elder and younger speakers in this respect.
(i) a. An
he
sagd
said
nodh
something
so
that
an
he
add
had
older
never
sagt
said
fr.
before
(lv-Sw.)
b. An
he
sagd
said
nodh
something
so
that
an
he
older
never
add
had
sagt
said
fr.
before
He said something that he had never said before
147. following byrd in (3) is a preposition.
148. Note that the innitive marker at is used in (18a), whereas the conjunction-like element
og is used in (17a). I have no explanation for this fact.
149. Vannebo (2003: fn.17) reports pseudocoordinations involving TAKE in Old Icelandic.
150. On the admissibility of non-agentive predicates in pseudocoordinations with TAKE in
Lithuanian, see Vannebo (2003: fn.6).
151. I abstract away from the feature [Future] in what follows.
152. C
Force
[Imp: ]
i
... C
Force
[Imp: ]
i
will yield an innitival form of the embedded verb,
in case all other heads take on unmarked (negative) values:
(i) Han
he
beslutade
decide.PAST
[att
to
prva
try.INF
[o
&
skriva]].
write.INF
He decided to try to write.
153. C[Fin: ]
i
T[Past: ]
j
... C[Fin: ]
i
T[Past: ]
j
will yield an innitival form of the embed-
ded verb, in case all other heads take on unmarked (negative) values.
212 Notes
154. C[Fin: ]
i
T[Past: +]
j
... C[Fin: ]
i
T[Past: ]
j
will correspond to cases where the super-
ordinate clause is a past-oriented innitival (e.g. itself a complement of a factive verb).
Since a past-oriented innitival is an innitival perfect, involving innitival ha + par-
ticiple, the embedded clause, in this case, will come out with copied participial form
(auxiliaries do not copy):
(i) Han
he
var
was
stolt
proud
ver
over
[att
to
ha
have
prvat
try.PPC
[o
&
skrivit]].
write.PPC
He was proud to have tried to write.
155. If the complement is a CP-innitival, the C-domain must of course be unvalued in order
for copying to take place. Asp
Perf
[Perf: ]
i
... Asp
Perf
[Perf: ]
i
will yield an innitival
form of the embedded verb, in case all other heads take on unmarked (negative) values.
(i) Han
he
beslutade
decide.PAST
[att
to
prva
try.INF
[o
&
skriva]].
write.INF
He decided to try to write.
References
Aboh, Enoch Olad
2004 Object shift, EPP and verbal complexes. Ms., University of Amsterdam.
Abraham, Werner
2004 The grammaticalization of the innitival preposition Toward a theory of
grammaticalizing reanalysis. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics,
7: 111170.
Abusch, Dorit
1985 On verbs and time. Ph.D. thesis, UMass, Amherst.
Adger, David
2003 Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Andersson, Lars-Gunnar
1979 Ngra V-V-konstruktioner. Gothenburg Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, 40.
Anward, Jan
1988 Verb-verb agreement in Swedish. In D. Fekete and Z. Laubitz, (eds.), McGill
Working Papers in Linguistics: Special Issue on Comparative Germanic Syn-
tax, 134. Montral.
2000 Allt du nskar kan du f? Sprk och stil, 10: 197220.
Baker, Mark C.
1989 Object Sharing and Projection in Serial Verb Constructions. Linguistic In-
quiry, 20: 513553.
Belletti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi
1988 Psych-verbs and theta-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6.3:
291352.
Bentzen, Kristine
2005 Whats the better move? On verb placement in Standard and Northern Norwe-
gian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 28(2): 153188.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David
2002 Realizing Germanic inection: Why morphology does not drive syntax. Jour-
nal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 6: 129167.
Bodomo, Adams B.
1997 Paths and pathnders: Exploring the syntax and semantics of complex verbal
predicates in Dagaare and other languages. Ph.D. thesis, The Norwegian
University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.
Bokovi c, eljko
1999 On Multiple feature checking: Multiple wh-fronting and multiple head move-
ment. In S. D. Epstein and N. Hornstein, (eds.), Working Minimalism, 159
187. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Broekhuis, Hans, Hans den Besten, Kees Hoekstra, and Jean Rutten
1995 Innitival complementation in Dutch: On remnant extraposition. The Linguis-
tic Review, 12: 93122.
214 References
Burzio, Luigi
1992 On the morphology of reexives and impersonals. In C. Lauefer and T. Mor-
gan, (eds.), Theoretical analyses in Romance linguistics, 399414. John Ben-
jamins, Amsterdam.
Bybee, Joan and sten Dahl
1989 The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies
in Language, 13: 51103.
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca
1994 The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of
the world. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Carden, Guy and David Pesetsky
1977 Double-verb constructions, markedness, and a fake co-ordination. In Papers
from the 13th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 8292.
Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.
Cardinaletti, Anna and Giuliana Giusti
2001 Semi-lexical motion verbs in Romance and Germanic. In N. Corver and
H. van Riemsdijk, (eds.), Semi-lexical categories: On the function of content
words and the content of function words, 371414. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
2003 Motion verbs as functional heads. In C. Tortora, (ed.), The syntax of Italian
dialects, pp. 3149. Oxford University Press, New York.
Chomsky, Noam
1995 The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
2000 Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michels, and J. Uriage-
reka, (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard
Lasnik, pp. 89155. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
2001 Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz, (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language,
pp. 152. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Christensen, Kirsti Koch
1991 Complex passives reanalyzed. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 48:
4576.
Christensen, Lisa
1997 Framtidsuttrycken i svenskans temporala system. Lundastudier i nordisk sprk-
vetenskap A:52. Lund University Press, Lund.
Cinque, Guglielmo
1999 Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford Uni-
versity Press, Oxford.
2004 Restructuring and functional structure. In L. Rizzi, (ed.), The structure of CP
and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, volume 2. Oxford University
Press, New York.
de Vos, Mark
2005 The syntax of pseudo-coordination in English and Afrikaans. LOT Disserta-
tion Series 114. LOT, Utrecht.
Delsing, Lars-Olof
1998 Support verbs and the argument rule. In K. van Durme and L. Schlser, (eds.),
Studies in valency IV: Valency and verb typology, 6388. Odense University
Press, Odense.
References 215
Demirdache, Hamida and Myriam Uribe-Extebarria
2000 The primitives of temporal relations. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriage-
reka, (eds.), Step by step: Essays in minimalist syntax in honour of Howard
Lasnik, pp. 157186. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
den Dikken, Marcel and Eric Hoekstra
1997 Parasitic participles. Linguistics, 35: 10571089.
Donaldson, Bruce C.
1993 A grammar of Afrikaans. Mouton de Gruyer, Berlin.
Dchaine, Rose-Marie
1993 Predicates across categories: Towards a category-neutral syntax. Ph.D. the-
sis, University of Massachusetts.
Eaker, Birgit
1997 Innitivmrket att i dialektalt perspektiv. Studier i svensk sprkhistoria, 4:
4554.
Eide, Kristin Melum
2006 Norwegian modals. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Eide, Kristin Melum and Torbjrn Nordgrd
2000 Modals and the syntax/semantics interface: The Scandinavian challenge. Pa-
per presented at the 18th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, May 18-20,
2000, Lund.
Ekberg, Lena
1983 Vara och - en markr fr subjektets icke-plats. Nordlund, 1: 18.
1993 The cognitive basis of the meaning and function of cross-linguistic take and
V. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 8: 2142.
Endresen, Rolf Theil
1992 Og og - homonymi eller polysemi. Ms. Department of Linguistics, Uni-
versity of Oslo.
1995 Norwegian og and - A cognitive view. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 18:
201218.
Evers, Arnold
1975 The tranformational cycle of Dutch and German. Ph.D. thesis, University of
Utrecht.
Faraci, Robert
1970 And as a verb complementizer. 1st NELS.
Fresina, Claudio
1981 Aspects de la grammaire transformationnelle de litalien. Thse de troisime
cycle, Universit de Paris VIII.
Geerts, G., W. Haeseryn, J. de Rooij, and M. C. van den Toorn, (eds.)
1984 Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen.
Goldsmith, John A.
1985 A principled exception to the coordinate structure constraint. In Papers from
the parasession on pragmatics and grammatical theory, 152167. Chicago
Linguistic Society, Chicago.
Guron, Jacqueline and Teun Hoekstra
1988 T-chains and the constituent structure of auxiliaries. In Constituent Structure:
Papers from the 1987 GLOW Conference. Foris, Dordrecht.
216 References
Hagren, Kristina
2005 Samordning av hjlpverb och huvudverb i svenska dialekter. In G. Byrman,
J. Einarsson, S. Hammarbck, M. Lindgren, and P. Stille, (eds.), Svenskans
Beskrivning 27. Frhandlingar vid Tjugosjunde sammankomsten fr sven-
skans beskrivning. Vxj den 14 och 15 maj 2004, 105113. Vxj University
Press, Vxj.
Hedlund, Cecilia
1992 On participles. Ph.D. thesis, University of Stockholm.
Heine, Bernd
1993 Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Hellberg, Staffan
2003 Varfr inte prepositionsobjekt? In L-O Delsing, C. Falk, G. Josefsson, and
H. . Sigursson, (eds.), Grammatik i fokus: Festschrift till Christer Platzack,
18 November 2003, volume 1, 4753. Department of Scandinavian Languages,
Lund University, Lund.
Hinterhlzl, Roland
1997 An XP-movement account of restructuring. Ms. University of Southern Cali-
fornia.
Hoekstra, Teun and Ren Mulder
1990 Unergatives as copular verbs; locational and existential predication. The Lin-
guistic Review, 7: 179.
Holmberg, Anders
1986 Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian languages and En-
glish. Ph.D. thesis, University of Stockholm.
1990 On bare innitivals in Swedish. In J. Mascar and M. Nespor, (eds.), Gram-
mar in progress: GLOW essays for Henk van Riemsdijk, 237245. Foris, Dor-
drecht.
1999 Remarks on Holmbergs generalization. Studia Linguistica, 53: 139.
2002 Expletives and agreement in Scandinavian passives. Journal of Comparative
Germanic Linguistics, 4: 85128.
Holmberg, Anders and Christer Platzack
1995 The role of inection in Scandinavian syntax. Oxford University Press, Ox-
ford.
Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott
1993 Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hyman, Larry
1971 Consecutivization in Fefe. Journal of African Languages, 10: 2943.
Iatridou, Sabine
2000 The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry, 31: 231
270.
IJbema, Aniek
2002 Grammaticalization and innitival complements in Dutch. LOT Dissertation
Series 54. LOT, Utrecht.
Ivars, Anne-Marie
to appear Dubbelsupinum i Finland. Svenska landsml.
References 217
Jaeggli, Osvaldo A. and Nina M. Hyams
1993 On the independence and interdependence of syntactic and morphological
properties: English aspectual come and go. Natural Language and Lin-
guistic Theory, 11: 313346.
Jespersen, Otto
1895 En sproglig vrdiforskydning. Og = at. In O. Jespersen and K. Nyrop, (eds.),
Dania. Tidsskrift for Folkeml og Folkeminder, volume 3, 145182. Det Schu-
botheske Forlag, Lybecker & Hirschsprung, Copenhagen.
Johannessen, Janne Bondi
1998 Coordination. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Johnsen, Lars
1988 A note on subcoordination. Trondheim Working Papers in Linguistics, 6: 195
201.
Josefsson, Gunlg
1991 Pseudocoordination - A VP + VP coordination. Working Papers in Scandina-
vian Syntax, 47: 130156.
Julien, Marit
2000 Optional ha in Swedish and Norwegian. Working Papers in Scandinavian
Syntax, 66: 3374.
2003 Dobbelsupinum og irreal modus. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidskrift, 21: 135161.
Kayne, Richard
1984 Connectedness and Binary Branching. Foris, Dordrecht.
1989 Null subjects and clitic climbing. In O. Jaeggli and K.J. Sar, (eds.), The Null
Subject Parameter, 239261. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Kehler, Andrew
2002 Coherence, reference and the theory of grammar. CSLI publications [dis-
tributed by University of Chicago Press], Stanford.
Kiparsky, Paul and Carol Kiparsky
1970 Fact. In M. Bierwisch and K.E. Heidolph, (eds.), Progress in linguistics, 143
173. Mouton, The Hague.
Koopman, Hilda and Anna Szabolcsi
2000 Verbal complexes. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Kuteva, Tanya
1999 On sit/stand/lie auxiliation. Linguistics, 37: 191213.
Landau, Idan
2000 Elements of control: Structure and meaning in innitival constructions. Stud-
ies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht.
2004 The Scale of Finiteness and the Calculus of Control. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory, 22: 811877.
Larson, Martha
2005 The empty object construction and related phenomena. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell
University.
Larsson, Kent
1988 Den plurala verbbjningen i ldre svenska. Studier i en sprklig frndringspro-
cess. Institutionen fr nordiska sprk, Uppsala University, Uppsala.
218 References
Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito
1991 On the subject of innitives. Papers from the 27th regional meeting of the
Chicago Linguistic Society, 324343.
Levander, Lars
1909 lvdalsmlet i Dalarna. Ordbjning och syntax. P.A. Nordstedt och sner,
Stockholm.
Lichtenberk, Frantisek
1983 A grammar of Manam. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
1991 Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization. Language, 67: 475
509.
Ljunggren, Ragnar
1934 Supinum och dubbelsupinum: Syntaktiska studier. Uppsala universitets rsskrift,
Uppsala.
Lockwood, William B.
1964 An introduction to Modern Faroese. Munksgaard, Copenhagen.
Lundin, Katarina
2003 Small clauses in Swedish. Towards a unied account. Ph.D. thesis, Lund
University.
Ldrup, Helge
2002 The syntactic structures of Norwegian pseudocoordinations. Studia Linguis-
tica, 56: 121143.
May, Robert
1985 Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Mikkelsen, Kristian
1911 Dansk ordfjningslre. Lehman & Stage, Copenhagen. Republished 1975 by
Hans Reitzels Forlag, Copenhagen.
Mkhatshwa, Simon Nyana Leon
1991 Metaphorical extensions as a basis for grammaticalization. With special refer-
ence to Zulu auxiliary verbs. M.A. Thesis, University of South Africa, Preto-
ria.
Moens, Marc
1987 Tense, aspect and temporal reference. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.
Nilsen, ystein
2003 Eliminating Positions: Syntax and semantics of sentence modication. LOT
Dissertation Series 73. LOT, Utrecht.
Nordberg, Bengt
1977 Har du Dahlstedt ligger p nattduksbordet? En syntaktisk egendomlighet i
mellansvenskt talsprk. In C-C. Elert, S. Eliasson, S. Fries, and S. Ureland,
(eds.), Dialectology and Sociolinguistics. Essays in honour of Karl-Hampus
Dahlstedt, 113136. Acta Universitatis Umensis, Ume.
2001 Om dubbelsupinum - ngra spridda iakttagelser. In Marianne Blomqvist,
Mirja Saari, and Peter Slotte, (eds.), Vra sprk i tid och rum. Meddelanden
frn Iinstitutionen fr nordiska sprk och nordisk litteratur vid Helsingfors
universitet B: 21, 113122. Institutionen fr nordiska sprk, Helsingfors Uni-
versitet.
References 219
Pesetsky, David
1992 Zero syntax II: An essay on innitives. Ms. Department of Philosophy and
Linguistics, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/www/pesetsky/.
Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego
2004 The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In S. Karimi,
V. Samiian, and W. Wilkins, (eds.), Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syn-
tactic derivation and interpretation. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Picallo, Carme
1990 Modal verbs in Catalan. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 8: 285
312.
Platzack, Christer
1986 Comp, In, and Germanic word order. In L. Hellan and K. Koch Christensen,
(eds.), Topics in Scandinavian Syntax, 185234. Reidel, Dordrecht.
1989 The Swedish supine: An active verb form or the non-agreeing form of the past
participle? In D. Jaspers, W. Klooster, Y. Putseys, and P. Seuren, (eds.), Sen-
tential complementation and the lexicon. Studies in honour of Wim de Geest,
305319. Foris, Dordrecht.
Platzack, Christer and Inger Rosengren
1998 On the subject of imperatives: A minimalist account of the imperative clause.
The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 1: 177224.
Pollock, Jean-Yves
1989 Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic In-
quiry, 20: 365424.
1994 Checking theory and bare verbs. In G. Cinque, J. Koster, J-Y. Pollock, L. Rizzi,
and R. Zanuttini, (eds.), Paths towards Universal Grammar. Studies in honor
of Richard Kayne, 293310. Georgetown University Press., Washington D.C.
Portner, Paul
2005 The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. In K. Watanabe
and R. B. Young, (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14.
CLC Publications, Ithaca, NY.
Pullum, Geoffrey K.
1990 Constraints on intransitive quasi-serial verb constructions in modern collo-
quial English. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, 39: 218
239.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik, (eds.)
1985 A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman, London and
New York.
Ramchand, Gillian
in press Verb meaning and the lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin
2000 Classifying single argument verbs. In M. Everaert, P. Coopmans, and J. Grim-
shaw, (eds.), Lexical specication and insertion, 269304. John Benjamins,
Amsterdam.
220 References
Rizzi, Luigi
1976 Ristrutturazione. Rivista di grammatica generativa, 1: 154.
1978 A restructuring rule in Italian syntax. In S. J. Keyser, (ed.), Recent transfor-
mational studies in European languages, 113158. MIT Press, Cambridge,
Mass.
1990 Relativized Minimality. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
1997 The ne structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman, (ed.), Elements of
Grammar: A Handbook of Generative Syntax, 281337. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Robbers, Karin
1997 Non-nite verbal complements in Afrikaans: A comparative approach. HIL
Dissertations 33. Holland Academic Graphics (HIL), Leiden.
Roberts, Ian
1997 Restructuring, head movement, and locality. Linguistic Inquiry, 28: 423460.
Rochette, Anne
1988 Semantic and syntactic aspects of Romance sentential complementation. Ph.D.
thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. [Distributed by: MIT Working Papers in Lin-
guistics, Cambridge, Mass.].
Ross, John Robert
1967 Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Indiana University Linguistics Club,
Bloomington.
Sandy, Knut Helge
1986 Han er t og kjem seg: Om ein vestnordisk aspektkonstruksjon. Department
of Scandinavian Studies, University of Bergen.
1991 Attraksjon av supinum i farysk og norsk. Danske folkeml, 33: 251262.
Schmerling, Susan F.
1975 Asymmetric conjunction and rules of conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan,
(eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, 211231. Academic Press, New
York.
Sells, Peter
2000 The morphological expression of syntactic information. Paper presented at
LAGB, Durham, Sep. 7, 2000.
Shopen, Timothy
1971 Caught in the act. Papers from the 7th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Lin-
guistic Society, 254263.
Stahlke, Herbert
1970 Serial Verbs. Studies in African Linguistics, 1: 6099.
Stewart, smymn Thompson
1999 Innitival clauses, restructuring, and the modal-aspectual verb construction.
Linguistic Analysis, 29: 86136.
Stoett, Frederik A., (ed.)
1923 Middelnederlandsche Spraakkunst. Martinus Nijhoff, s-Gravenhage.
Stowell, Tim
1982 The tense of innitives. Linguistic Inquiry, 13: 561570.
References 221
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald
2002 Complex passives in Germanic and Romance. Paper presented at GLOW,
2002, Amsterdam.
Teleman, Ulf
1976 Manual fr grammatisk beskrivning av talad och skriven svenska. Department
of Scandinavian Languages, Lund University.
Teleman, Ulf, Staffan Hellberg, and Erik Andersson, (eds.)
1999 Svenska Akademiens Grammatik. Nordstedts, Stockholm.
Terzi, Arhonto
1996 Clitic climbing from nite clauses and tense raising. Probus, 8: 273295.
Tonne, Ingebjrg
2000 Progressives in Norwegian and the theory of aspectuality. Ph.D. thesis, Uni-
versity of Olso.
Travis, Lisa
1984 Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido
1996 Participles and bare argument structure. In W. Abraham, S. D. Epstein,
H. Thrinsson, and C. J-W. Zwart, (eds.), Minimal ideas. Syntactic studies in
the Minimalist Framework, 283304. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Vannebo, Kjell Ivar
2003 Ta og ro deg ned noen hakk: on pseudocoordination with the verb "ta" (take)
in a grammaticalization perspective. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 26: 165
193.
Vendler, Zeno
1967 Linguistics in Philosophy. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
Vesaas, Tarjei
1974 Fuglane, 8th edn. Gyldendal, Oslo.
Vikner, Sten
1995 Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Wiklund, Anna-Lena
1996 Pseudocoordination is subordination. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syn-
tax, 58: 2954.
1998 Morphosyntactic parasites as underspecied heads; on the double supine con-
struction. Licentiate thesis, Ume University.
2001a Dressing up for Vocabulary Insertion: The parasitic supine. Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory, 19: 199228.
2001b Dubbelsupinum och dess eventuella fregngare [the double supine and its
possible predecessor]. In L. Jnsson, V. Adelswrd, A. Cederberg, P. A. Pet-
tersson, and C. Kelly, (eds.), Svenskans beskrivning 24. Frhandlingar vid
tjugofjrde sammankomsten fr svenskans beskrivning. Linkping den 22-23
oktober 1999 / Linkping Electronic Conference Proceedings 6. Linkping
University Electronic Press. http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp/006/026/.
2006 Restructuring and size constancy. Ms., under review for publication.
Wiklund, Anna-Lena, G. Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, Kristine Bentzen, and orbjrg Hrarsdttir
2006 Rethinking Scandinavian Verb Movement. Ms., under review for publication.
222 References
Wurmbrand, Susi
2001 Innitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Studies in Generative Gram-
mar 55. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
to appear Innitives are tenseless. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Lin-
guistics, 13(1).
Yuasa, Etsuyo and Jerry M. Sadock
2002 Pseudo-subordination: a mismatch between syntax and semantics. Journal of
Linguistics, 38: 87111.
Zanuttini, Raffaella
1996 On the relevance of tense for sentential negation. In A. Belletti and L. Rizzi,
(eds.), Parameters and functional heads, 181207. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter
2006 Local agreement. In Cedric Boeckx, (ed.), Agreement systems, 317339. John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.
farli, Tor and Chet Creider
1987 Nonsubject pro-drop in Norwegian. Linguistic Inquiry, 18: 339345.
stergren, Olof
1901 r sammanfallet af och och att att hnfra till fornsvensk tid? In B. Hessel-
man, stergren O., and R. G:son Berg, (eds.), Sprk och Stil, 82108. Upsala
Nya Tidnings Aktiebolag, Uppsala.
Index
Aboh, 74, 145, 149, 150, 197
Abraham, 70
Abusch, 211
Adger, 195
adjuncts, 2829
Adverbs
in pseudocoordination, 111
in TMA-copying innitivals, 165169
farli and Creider, 10
Afrikaans, 6, 10, 206
Agree vs. Inverse Agree, 157164
lvdalsmlet-Swedish, 187188, 211
American English, 106, 129, 204
Andersson, 141
Anward, 2, 9, 10, 20, 24, 81, 98, 113, 183,
197, 208
aspect shift, 99100
aspectual verbs, 49, 87
auxiliary-drop, 2021
Baker, 197
bare innitivals, 4243
bare VP-analysis, 82, 90
Belletti and Rizzi, 34
Bentzen, 187
bleaching, 131, 133, 134, 141
Bobaljik, 211
Bodomo, 197
Bokovi c, 8, 82
Broekhuis et al., 210
Bulgarian, 10, 129, 208
Burzio, 210
Bybee and Dahl, 140
Bybee et al., 140
Carden and Pesetsky, 9, 10, 18, 74, 97, 98,
103, 113, 127, 129, 149, 150,
209
Cardinaletti and Giusti, 9, 10, 113, 129,
150, 187, 193, 197, 205, 209
Catalan, 202
causative verbs, 5354, 59, 87
Chomsky, 157, 162, 163, 210
Christensen, 52, 202
Christensen, K, 87
Cinque, 52, 63, 69, 79, 86, 8991, 107,
128, 166, 168, 204
complementizers, 34, 6974, 95, 112, 170
210
complex passive, 87
Conjunction/linking element
in coordination, 17
in non-copying innitivals, 5, 7174,
170210
in pseudocoordination, 8, 95, 111
112
in TMA-copying innitivals, 5, 16
17, 69, 7174, 90, 96, 170210
control innitivals, 4142, 4749, 5457
Coordination
and pseudocoordination, 96113
and TMA-copying, 1617, 71
Copying
and verb movement, 187
denition, 1
dependency, 8183, 157164, 195
distribution in Scandinavian, 187192
imperative/C-features, 74
innitival (vacuous), 120
paradigms, 68
participial/Asp-features, 80
spell-out, 195196
tense/T-features, 7778
verbs, 3766
counterfactuality, 2123, 198
Dchaine, 9, 10, 97, 101, 107109, 112,
127, 197, 205
Danish, 5, 10, 63, 70, 71, 187, 189190,
197, 204
de Vos, 1, 6, 9, 10, 98, 105108, 112, 118,
127, 129, 144, 202, 205, 208,
210
deciency, 88, 165
224 Index
Delsing, 32
Demirdache and Uribe-Extebarria, 79, 140
den Dikken and Hoekstra, 8, 81, 82
dependently tensed, 39, 177
desiderative verbs, 6163, 83204
distal reading, 97, 127, 146, 148
Donaldson, 9, 10, 206
Dutch, 8, 70, 87, 115, 116, 198, 201, 202,
208210
Eaker, 71
ECM innitivals, 4142, 45, 53, 210
d, 197
Eide, 21
Eide and Nordgrd, 52
Ekberg, 94, 127129, 193, 204
Endresen, 71, 206
English, 2, 6, 10, 18, 52, 105, 106, 126,
129, 133, 144, 149, 150, 202,
204, 208, 209
event structure, 131
Evers, 89
evidential verbs, 50
external valuation, 157165
extraposed innitivals, 2930
factive innitivals, 4041, 46, 87, 177
Faraci, 203
Faroese, 5, 7, 10, 187, 190191, 197, 199,
204
FeFe, 197
Fenno-Swedish, 7, 114
oating quantiers, 169
Fresina, 107
Frisian, 6, 8, 81, 82
fronting of innitival clause, 32
future-oriented, 38
Geerts et al., 115, 208
German, 63, 70, 8688, 198, 202, 204
Goldsmith, 97
Guron and Hoekstra, 164
Hagren, 4, 7
Hebrew, 129
Hedlund, 20, 202
Heine, 130
Hellberg, 199
Hinterhlzl, 86
Hoekstra and Mulder, 136
Holmberg, 20, 41, 69, 70, 73, 87, 185, 204
Holmberg and Platzack, 187, 197
Hopper and Traugott, 130
Hyman, 197
Iatridou, 21
Icelandic, 99, 104, 187, 191192, 197, 205,
207, 211
Igbo, 197
IJbema, 70, 202, 207, 210
inceptive reading, 94, 97, 127, 146, 151
inceptive-distal reading, 128, 146, 147, 151
independent event reading, 97
independently tensed, 39, 177
innitival marker, 5, 17, 42, 6970, 170
210
innitival relatives, 31
internal valuation, 157164
Irish English, 129, 204
island sensitivity, 2832
Italian, 10, 63, 8688, 106, 129, 133, 187,
205
Ivars, 7
Jaeggli and Hyams, 10, 150
Japanese, 87
Jespersen, 71, 98, 110, 113, 119, 203
Johannessen, 10, 97, 98, 113, 188
Johnsen, 9, 10, 188
Josefsson, 1, 4, 810, 100, 109, 142, 187,
205, 208
Julien, 2, 6, 7, 2022, 65, 189, 199
Kayne, 44, 86, 89, 164
Kehler, 97, 206
Kiparsky and Kiparsky, 40
Koopman and Szabolcsi, 86
Kuteva, 10, 129, 154, 208, 209
Ldrup, 10, 98, 113, 188, 189, 205, 208
Landau, 38, 39, 177, 179, 200, 201
Larson, 10
Larsson, 7
Lasnik and Saito, 210
Index 225
Levander, 211
Lichtenberk, 10, 146
light verb, 134, 151
Lithuanian, 211
Ljunggren, 7
Locality
and pseudocoordination, 103107, 120
and TMA-/participle copying, 2732
Lockwood, 6, 7, 191, 199, 204
Lundin, 84, 210
Manam, 10
manner adverbs, 166
May, 74
Mikkelsen, 190
Mkhatshwa, 130
modal verbs, 5052, 87
Moens, 99, 115
motion verbs, 87, 125155
multiple embeddings, 60
multiple subcategorization, 59
negation, 7576, 110, 168
Nilsen, 210
non-bare innitivals, 4243
non-canonical complements, 2829
Nordberg, 7, 10
Norwegian, 5, 7, 10, 21, 52, 63, 65, 70,
71, 85, 87, 165, 187189, 197,
199, 204207, 210
stergren, 71, 203
partial copying, 43, 47, 6466, 8485, 165,
173
partial copying and reduced restructuring,
88
participle copying, 68
particle/PP modication, 105, 106, 128, 140,
142, 144, 148
past-oriented, 38
perception verbs, 6364, 8384
Pesetsky, 39, 44
Pesetsky and Torrego, 164, 178, 195
Picallo, 63
Platzack, 20, 69, 197
Platzack and Rosengren, 74, 162, 170
Pollock, 69, 150
Portner, 203
posture verbs, 125155
present-oriented, 180
progressive reading, 126, 140, 151
progressive-distal reading, 128, 151
propositional innitivals, 3940, 4445, 87,
177
prosody, 100101
pseudocoordination, 810
pseudocoordination reading, 97
Pullum, 6, 9, 10, 149, 150, 197
purpose clauses, 28
Quirk et al., 10, 209
raising innitivals, 4142, 4953
Ramchand, 69, 131, 133, 134, 136, 155,
166, 208
Rappaport Hovav and Levin, 134, 135, 137
restructuring, 8691, 164165, 172174,
176177
Rizzi, 27, 69, 74, 86, 89, 162, 170
Robbers, 6, 10
Roberts, 86, 89, 164
Rochette, 164
Ross, 16, 97, 103
Sandy, 189, 191, 199
Schmerling, 10, 97, 109, 112
selectional restrictions, 193
Sells, 24
Serbo-Croatian, 8, 82
serial verb constructions, 197
Shopen, 10, 97
Singapore English, 202
Spanish, 87, 202
Stahlke, 197
Stewart, 197
Stoett, 209
Stowell, 39
Subject
in non-copying innitival, 109
in TMA-copying innitival, 5, 109,
169
subject innitivals, 2930
226 Index
supine form, 197
surprise reading, 127, 147
T-adverbs, 75, 76, 7879, 85, 88, 90, 96,
116, 165167, 178
Taraldsen, 87
Teleman, 4
Teleman et al., 4, 79, 16, 44, 71, 100, 127
Tense/Mood/Aspect-agreeing innitivals,
175
tensed innitivals, 4449
tensed/tenseless, 3839, 5761, 175181
tenseless innitivals, 4957, 121122
Terzi, 88, 89, 164
TMA-copying, 36
Tonne, 10, 126, 205
Travis, 27
underassociation, 134, 142, 145, 149, 151,
155
underspecied heads, 165
unexpected event reading, 127, 147
unvalued features, 157, 176
Vacuous inection
in participle copying, 2023
in TMA-copying, 1820
valuation, 157164
Vanden Wyngaerd, 198
Vannebo, 10, 94, 110, 127, 145, 154, 188,
211
variation, 43
Vendler, 116
verb movement, 187, 211
Vesaas, 204
Vikner, 211
Wiklund, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 74, 81, 87, 91, 98,
100, 113, 187, 208
Wiklund et al., 211
Wurmbrand, 38, 39, 63, 70, 8690, 164,
165, 169, 176, 178, 179, 198,
201, 202, 204
Yuasa and Sadock, 6
Zanuttini, 76
Zwart, 164

Anna-Lena Wiklund, The Syntax of Tenslessness. Tense, Mood, Aspect - Agreeing Infinitivals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anna-Lena Wiklund, The Syntax of Tenslessness. Tense, Mood, Aspect - Agreeing Infinitivals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Syntax of Tenselessness

Studies in Generative Grammar 92

You might also like