Obligation and Possession - University of Massachusetts Amherst

20 Pages·2004·0.12 MB·English

ObligationandPossession
(cid:3)
RajeshBhatt,UniversityofPennsylvania/MIT
1 Introduction
In severallanguages, the meansthatare used formarkingpossession can
beusedformarkingobligation.
(1) a. Johnhasabook.
b. Johnhastoreadabook.
Henceforth,Iwillrefertotheconstructionin(1b)astheObligationalConstruction
(OC)(=theconstructionusedforpossession anon-finiteverbalpart).
+
Inthis paper,I willdiscussthe questionofwhythe same meansare used
for markingpossession and obligationin manylanguagesand providea syntac-
tic analysisof the obligationalconstruction. The analysisproposedhere derives
the answer by treating obligationalconstructionsas existential constructions, of
which possessives can be seen as a special case (cf. Benveniste 1971, Freeze
1972, Kayne 1993, Hoekstra 1994 i.a.). One aspect of this analysis is that the
modalityoftheobligationalconstructionisnotlocatedinhave;thesemanticcon-
tributionofhaveinthisanalysisoftheobligationalconstructionisminimal. This
is in line with recent analyses of possessive have (cf. Benveniste 1971, Freeze
1972,Kayne1993,Hoekstra1994i.a.) andauxiliaryhave(cf.Kayne1993i.a.).
2 Theobligationalconstructioncross-linguistically
Thelanguageswhichhavetheobligationalconstructionvarywithrespect
to how they realize it. Many languages that use the verb have for possession
(henceforthhavepossessionlanguages),canusehaveincombinationwithanon-
finiteformoftheverbintheOC(forexampleEnglish,Catalan,Galician,Haitian
Creole,Spanish,EuropeanandBrazilianPortuguese,German).
IhavebenefittedgreatlyfromdiscussionswithSabineIatridou, RoumyanaIzvorski,DavidPe-
(cid:3)
setsky,DavidEmbick,AlecMarantz,AnthonyKroch,RobinClark,MarkSteedman,MartinHackl,
MichelDegraff,andKaivonFintel. IamindebtedtoJoa˜oCostaandFilomenaSandaloforthePor-
tuguesedata,CarmenRio-ReyfortheGalicianandSpanishdata,MichelDegrafffortheHaitiandata,
MartinHacklfortheGermandata,andJosepQuerfortheCatalandata.Iwouldalsoliketothankthe
audiencesattheArgumentStructureRoundTableandthe20thGLOWColloquiuminRabat,Morocco.
Spanish:have infinitive
Possessive +
(2) a. Juantieneunlibro de Bello
J. has a bookbyBello
‘JuanhasabookbyBello.’
b. Juantieneque comerestamanzana
J. has that/toeat.infthis apple
‘Juanhastoeatthisapple.’
Galician:have infinitive
+
(3) a. Xoa´nten unlibro de Bello
J. hasa bookbyBello
‘JuanhasabookbyBello.’
b. Xoa´nten que comerestamaza´
J. hasthat/toeat.infthis apple
‘Juanhastoeatthisapple.’
EuropeanPortuguese:have infinitive
BrazilianPortuguese:havePosinsefisnsiivtieve+
+
(4) a. Joa˜otemumlivro deBello
Joa˜ohas a bookbyBello
‘Joa˜ohasabookbyBello.’ (StandardEPhas‘OJoa˜o’)
b. Joa˜otemque comerestamac¸a˜
Joa˜ohas that/toeat.infthis apple
‘Joa˜ohastoeatthisapple.’ (StandardEPhas‘OJoa˜o’)
HaitianCreole:have verbalcomponent
+
(5) a. Jan genyonmachin
Johnhas a car
‘Johnhasacar.’
b. Jan genpou l alenansinema
John has FOR3sg go in cinema
i i=(cid:3)j
‘Johnhastogotothecinema.’
German:have infinitive
+
(6) a. DerHanshat einBuch
the Hanshasa book
‘Hanshasabook.’
b. DerHanshat rechtzeitiginWien anzukommen
the Hanshasin-time inViennato-arrive
‘HanshastoarriveinViennaintime.’
Many languages which use be in possessive constructions, for example
Bengali,Hindi,Punjabi,Gujarati,Marathi,andSindhi(henceforthbepossession
languages),usebewithanobliquesubjectintheobligationalconstruction.
Bengali:genitivesubject infinitive
+
(7) a. Ram-er ek-ta boi aachhe
Ram-Genone-CLbookbe.PRS
‘Ramhasabook.’
b. Ram-er Dilli je-te ho-be
Ram-GenDelhigo-Infbe-Fut
‘RamhastogotoDelhi.’
Hindi:dativesubject gerund
+
(8) a. John-ko sirdard hai
John-Datheadachebe.PRS
‘Johnhasaheadache.’
b. John-ko seb khaa-naahai
John-Datappleeat-Ger be.PRS
‘Johnhastoeattheapple.’
Gujarati:dativesubject gerund
+
(9) a. Ram-ne tav che
Ram-Datfeverbe.PRS
‘Ramhasafever.’
b. mahnema¯ra¯bha¯ine thod.a¯ paysa¯ a¯pva¯na¯ che
I-Dat my brother-Data-littlemoneygive-Ger.datbe.PRS
‘I have to give some money to my brother.’ (ex. from Cardona
1965:109)
Sindhi:dativesubject gerund
+
(10) a. hunakhe¯ba put. a¯hin
a
He Dattwosonsbe.PRS
‘He has two sons.’ (ex. Addleton and Brown (1981:92)via Masica
(1991))
b. mu¯ khe¯ke¯tra¯-¯ı kam karan.a a¯hin
I Datnumber-ofthingsdo-Gerbe.PRS
‘Ihavetodoanumberofthings.’(ex.AddletonandBrown(1981:193)
viaMasica(1991))
3 TheObligation-PossessionLink
TheObligation-PossessionlinkthatIrefertoisthatthesameauxiliaryhave
(orbe) isused in bothpossessive andobligationalconstructions. haveor be are
used in many languages in existential constructions and as the auxiliary in per-
fect/passiveconstructions. Thisfacthasledseveralscholarstoproposethatthere
isalinkbetweenhaveandbe,whichIturntonow.
3.1 Thehave-belink
Benveniste(1971),Freeze(1992),Kayne(1993),amongotherspresentan
analysiswhichrelatespossessivehavetoanexistentialconstruction(whichcon-
tains be). For Freeze (1992), have is the equivalent of a be with an
incorporated . Kayne (1993)moPdoisfiseesssaivned extends Freeze’s analysis to aux-
0
iliary have prXoposingthat like have , have is equivalentto be
withanincorporated . UnderthesPeoascscesosuivnets,possAesusxiivlieasrayreakindofexisten-
0
tialsentence. ThesupXerficiallydissimilar(11a)and(11c)arearguedtohavethe
verysimilarunderlyingrepresentations(11b)and(11d)respectively(abstracting
awayfromthedifferencesbetweenFreezeandKayne’sanalysisfornow).
(11) a. Johnhasabook.
b. BE [(abook)(toJohn)]
existential
c. Thereisabookonthetable.
d. BE [(abook)(onthetable)]
existential
Toaccountforthesimilaritybetweenpossessivesandtheobligationalcon-
struction,Ireducetheobligationalconstructiontoanexistentialconstruction.Sev-
eraloptionsariseastohowthismaybeimplemented(settingasidethequestionof
thesourceoftheobligationrightnow). Themostplausiblereductionisshownin
(12a). Inthisrepresentation,thebeareroftheobligationisexplicitlyrepresented
in the underlying representation. The existential analogue of (12a) is shown in
(12b).
(12) a. Thereisanobligation[(PRO toeatanapple)(toJohn )].
i i
b. Thereareunicornsinthegarden.
Atfirstglance,(12a)seemstobetherightanalysissinceitmakesthelink
with possession clearest. However, there turn out to be several reasons to not
adoptit andI argueagainstit in favourof (13a). In (13a),only the existenceof
theobligationisasserted(cf.12b)((13b)istheexistentialanalogueof(13a)).
(13) a. Thereisanobligation[(Johntoeatanapple)].
b. Thereareunicorns.
3.2 TheBeareroftheObligation
The strongest argument in favor of choosing (13a) and not (12a) as the
correctrepresentationfortheObligationalConstructioncomesfromthefactthat
theidentityofthebearerofanobligationisnotasserted. Ithastobeinferred.
Thequestionofwhetheritis(12a)orwhetheritis(13a)whichistheappro-
priateunderlyingrepresentationfortheObligationalConstructioncanbereduced
tothequestionofwhetherdeonticmodalityinvolvesRaisingorControlanditis
tothisquestionthatIturnnext.
4 DeonticModality: RaisingorControl?
In the literature on deontic modality, a distinction is often made between
theoughttobeandtheoughttodoreading(cf. Brennan(1993),Barbiers(1995)
interalia).Thetermsoughttobe,oughttodoarefromFeldman(1986).Examples
ofboththesekindsofdeonticmodalityareshownbelow.
(14) a. Deontic:oughttobe
i. Theremustberegularelectionsinademocraticcountry.
ii. Taxesmustcomedownotherwisethemiddleclasswillbepauper-
ized.
b. Deontic:oughttodo
i. Johnmustfinishhisassignmentsontime.
Theintuitivedistinctionbetweenoughttobedeonticmodalityandoughtto
dodeonticmodalityisthattheformermerelydescribeswhattheworldshouldbe
like accordingto someone’sdesires/the law(cf. Kratzer(1991)’sconversational
background),whilethelatterdescribeswhattheworldshouldbelikeaccordingto
someone’sdesires/thelaw andwhoshouldbe responsibleforbringingitinto its
desired/law-obeyingstate. Whetheragivendeonticmodalityisinterpretedasan
oughttobedeonticmodalityorasanoughttododeonticmodalitydependsupon
thecontextoftheutteranceinwhichthedeonticmodalityoccurs(cf. 15).
(15) We are expecting fifty guests tonight. There have to be 50 chairs in the
livingroomby5p.m. (assaidtothecaterers).
(15) is structurally similar to the example of ought to be deontic modality in
(14a.i), but it is clear from the context that the modality in (15) is an ought to
dodeonticmodality,wherethecaterersarethebearersoftheobligation.Thedis-
tinctionbetweenanoughttobeandanoughttododeonticmodalitydependsupon
whethertheobligationistakentobebornebysomeoneornot.Iftheobligationis
nottakentobebornebyanyone,themodalityisanoughttobedeonticmodality,
otherwiseitisanoughttododeonticmodality.
It is not the purpose of this paper to argue that there is no difference be-
tweenoughttobeandoughttododeonticmodality. WhatIwanttoargueisthat
no difference between these two kinds of deontic modality is syntactically rep-
resented. Deonticoughtto be readingshavebeenarguedto involveRaising (cf.
Brennan 1993inter alia). On the other hand, deontic oughtto do readingshave
beenarguedtoinvolvecontrol(cf.Brennan1993interalia) .
1
Iarguethatbothoughttodoreadingsandoughttobereadingsinthehave
toconstructioninvolveRaising.
4.1 ArgumentsforRaisinginoughttobedeonticmodality
Sincethisisafairlyuncontroversialposition,Iwillonlydiscussitbriefly.
Definitionally, ought to be deontic modality has only one argument, which is
propositional. The syntactic subject of the modalis, therefore, notan argument
of the modal. We see in (16a, b) that the choice of the expletive is determined
bytheunderlyingpredicate. Thissuggeststhatthesyntacticsubjectofthemodal
raises to the syntactic subjectpositionof the modalfrom the subjectpositionof
theunderlyingpredicate.
2
(16) a. Forourcropstosurvive,it /*there has[t torainalotinthecoming
month]. i i i
b. Forthepartytobeasuccess,there /*it have[t tobe50chairsinthe
livingroomby5p.m.]. i i i
4.2 ArgumentsforRaisinginoughttododeonticmodality
I will present two kinds of arguments for a Raising analysis of ought to
do deontic modality. The first kind will show that it is unnecessaryto postulate
a Controlanalysisto syntacticallymark the bearer of an obligationin sentences
like(17),sinceaninferentialmechanismtoidentifythebeareroftheobligationis
neededonindependentgrounds.
(17) Mary has to read this book today. (on the reading in which it is Mary’s
obligationtoreadthebook)
ThesecondkindofargumentwillshowthatnotonlyisaControlanalysisofthe
obligationalconstructionnotnecessary,itis,infact,untenable.
SeealsoPerlmutter(1970)andJackendoff(1971). Theseauthorsdonotdiscussthedistinction
1
betweenoughttodoandoughttobedeonticmodalityperse.However,theirdiscussionofRaisingvs.
Controlinthecontextofepistemicanddeonticmodalitycarriesoverthecurrentdiscussion.
Thearguments forRaisinginoughttobedeontic modalitycarryoverunchanged toepistemic
2
modality. Likeoughttobedeontic modality, epistemic modality hasonlyoneargument, whichis
propositional. Theobligationalconstructioncanalsobeinterpretedepistemically; itiseasiertoget
theepistemicinterpretationwhenthepredicateintheembeddedclauseisstativeasin(i).
i. Johnhastobeathome.I’velookedforhimeverywhereelse.
4.2.1 Syntacticcontrolisnotnecessary
There are cases where the bearer of the obligation is not present in the
sentence (cf. 18). A syntactic controlanalysis is clearly unavailable here if the
controlanalysisis meantto representthe bearerof an obligationas a controller.
Instead, the bearer of the obligationis identified by a process of inference from
thecontext.
(18) a. We are expectingfifty guests tonight. There have to be 50 chairsin
thelivingroomby5p.m. (assaidtothepartyorganizers)
b. John has to eat an apple today. (as said as an instruction to John’s
caretakerattheday-care)
Evenincaseswherethebeareroftheobligationispresentinthesentence,
itdoesnothavetobethesyntacticsubjectofhaveasin(19).
(19) BillhastobeconsultedbyJohnoneverydecision.(Johnbeingthebearer
ofobligation)
Based on (18) and (19), I make the following two observations. Firstly, for an
ought to do modality, it is not necessary to have the bearer of obligation in the
sentenceCf.(18).Ifpresent,itdoesnothavetobethesyntacticsubject(19).
Secondly, the identity of the bearer of obligation is not asserted; it is in-
ferred by a pragmatic mechanism which makes reference to the notion bringer
aboutofsituation. To be the bearerof an obligation,it mustbe possible for the
potentialbearertobeunderstoodasthebringeraboutofthesituation.
Since a mechanism for identifying the bearer of obligation is needed on
independent grounds for (18a, b) and (19), it is unnecessary to posit a control
analysistoidentifythebearerofobligationof(17).
ThefollowingargumentshowthatnotonlyisaControlanalysisoftheobli-
gationalconstructionunnecessary,itisalsountenable.
4.2.2 AControlanalysisisnottenable
AnotherargumentforaRaisinganalysiscomesfromHindi.Thisargument
isinterestingbecauseitshowsthat,atleastfortheHindiobligationalconstruction,
aControlanalysisisuntenable.
(20)isanexampleoftheobligationalconstructionfromHindi.
(20) Tim-ko davaai pii-nii hai
Tim-Datmedicine.fdrink-Ger.fbe.Prs
‘Timhastodrinkmedicine.’
Itconsistsofadative-markedsubjectandanon-finitepart,whichIarguetobea
gerund . Gerundscanhavegenitivesubjectsbutnotintheobligationalconstruc-
3
tion.
ThisiscontraMahajan(1990)whoassumesthenon-finitecomplementofverbslikewantinHindi
3
(21) *Roumi-ko[Leela-ka seb khaa-naa]hai
Roumi-DatLeela-Genappleeat-Ger be.Prs
‘*RoumihasanobligationthatLeelaeattheapple.’
Thisfollows,ifweassumethattheobligationalconstructioninvolvesRaising.
4
(22) Tim-ko [t davaaipii-nii] hai
Tim-Dait iMalta drink-Ger.fbe.Prs
‘TimhastogotoMalta.’
TheargumentsdiscussedinfavouroftheRaisinganalysisfortheEnglish
havetoconstructioncarryovertoHindialso. Inaddition,theHindiobligational
constructiondisplaysastrikingparadigmwhichsupportsaRaisinganalysis.This
paradigmisschematized
in(23).
(23) a. Subj-Dat/*-Acc[V-unergative-Gerund]BE
b. Subj-Acc/*-Dat[V-unaccusative-Gerund]BE
The actual Hindi examples are displayed in (24). The following fact about the
Hindicase-markingsystemisnecessarytounderstandtheexamplesin(24): Da-
tivecaseisalwaysrealizedbythecaseclitic-ko,accusativecasecanberealized
bythecaseclitic-koorbythedefault ,nominativecaseisalwaysrealizedbythe
default . (cid:30)
(cid:30)
(24) a. pii‘drink’isunergative,subjectisdative
i. Han-ko davaai pii-nii thii/hai
Han-KOmedicine.fdrink-Ger.fbe.Pst.f/be.Prs
’Hanhad/hastodrinkmedicine.’
tobeaninfinitival. Thenon-finitecomplementofverbslikewanthasthesamemorphologyasthe
non-finitecomplementin(20). Myargumentisbasedonthefollowingthreefacts: (i)thenon-finite
complement can occur in case positions, as objects of postpositions and with overt case-marking.
ThisislikethecontrastbetweenEnglishgerundsandinfinitivals. However, itshouldbenotedthat
Romanceinfinitival clausescanoccurasobjectsofprepositions, (ii)thenon-finitecomplementcan
assigngenitivecasetoitssubject,and(iii)thenon-finitemorphology-naainflectsexactlylikenouns
endingin-aashowingthefollowingparadigm: -naa‘m.sg’,-ne‘oblique/m.pl’,-nii‘f.sg/f.pl’. This
pointhasalsobeenmadebyButt(1994).
Thepossibilitythatthetheungrammaticalityof(21)isduetotheobligationalconstructioninvolv-
4
ingobligatorycontrolcanbediscounted. Theungrammaticalityoftheobligationalconstructionwith
anovertgenitivesubject(cf. 21)isfarworsethanthecasesofobligatorycontrolwithovertgenitive
subjects(cf.i),whichareonlymarginal.
i. ??Aamir-ne[Akshay-ke Amriikajaa-ne ke-liye]koshish kii
Aamir-Erg Akhsay-Gen.oblAmericago-Ger.oblfor attempt.fdo-Pfv.f
‘?AamirtriedforAkshaytogotoAmerica.’
ThiscontrastsuggeststhattheobligationalconstructioninHindidoesnotnotinvolvecontrol.
ii. *Handavaai pii-nii thii/hai
Han medicine.fdrink-Ger.fbe.Pst.f/be.Prs
’Hanhad/hastodrinkmedicine.’
b. ka.t‘getcut’isunaccusative,subjectisaccusative
i. yehtehnii kat.-nii thii/hai
thisbranch.fcut -Ger.fbe.Pst.f/be.Prs
intr
‘Thisbranchhad/hastobecut.’
ii. is tehnii-ko kat.-naa thaa/hai
this.oblbrach.f-KOcut -Gerbe.Pst/be.Prs
intr
‘Thisbranchhad/hastobecut.’
Thecase onthe syntacticsubjectis determinedbywhetheritis underlyinglyan
externalargumentoraninternalargument.ExternalargumentsgetDative,internal
arguments get Accusative. In order to determine the case of the matrix subject
of the Obligational Construction, reference needs to be made to the underlying
position of an argumenti.e. we need a chain. Since we have a chain, we have
Raising.
Basedontheabovearguments, Iconcludethat(12b)isthecorrectrepre-
5
sentationfordeonticmodalityandhencefortheobligationalconstruction.Having
madethisconclusionabouttheargumentstructureofthemodalityintheobliga-
tionalconstruction,inthenexttwosectionsIwilldiscussthesourceofthemodal-
ity in the obligationalconstructionand the propertiesof the have that occursin
thehavetovarietyoftheobligationalconstruction. AfterthatIwillpullthevari-
ousstrandsinthediscussiontogetherandprovideastructurefortheobligational
constructionin 6.
x
5 SourceofModality
The obligational construction involves modality. However, it remains to
beexplainedwhyitispossibletointerpretthehavetoconstructionascontaining
a modality. have/be do not contribute any modality in their role as possessive
verbs/auxiliaries. So does this modality fall out of the semantics of non-finite
constructions?Iarguethatitdoesnot.
Sincethereareinstancesofinfinitiveswithoutanyexplicitmodalmeaning,
Iconcludethatmodalityisnotanintrinsicpartofthesemanticsofaninfinitive.
(25) a. Itwasfuntodancethetangoin theparkyesterday. Theeventof
dancingthetangoyesterdaywasfun. $
b. Ibelievehimtobeinnocent.
c. IwanttogotoMarrakesh.
Forrelated, butmoregeneral arguments that modal verbs always involve raising see Barbiers
5
1995.
In (25a), there does not seem to be any modality. As for (25b, c), it is un-
clearifthereisanymodalcontributionmadebytheinfinitival. Whatevermodal-
ity/intensionalityispresentseemstofollowfromthematrixpredicate.
ThereisalsosomeHindi-internalevidencefortheconclusionthatthemodal-
ity in the obligational construction does not come from the non-finite construc-
tionalone. Thenon-finiteverbalpartoftheobligationalconstruction(whichisa
gerund)doesnotcontributeamodalinterpretationinisolation(cf.26b,c).
(26) a. hamaarilistparaur kyaa cheeze˜ha˜ı?
our liston elsewhatthings be.Pl.PRS
‘Whatotherthingsareonourlist?’
b. [Tim-kaaMaltajaa-naa]hai
Tim-GenMaltago-Ger be.Prs
‘ThereisTim’sgoingtoMalta.’
c. aur [Kiki-kaaKaahirajaa-naa]hai
andKiki-GenCairo go-Ger be.Prs
‘andthereisKiki’sgoingtoCairo.’
Itcanbeseenthattheexamplesin(26)lackamodalinterpretation. Itakethisas
evidencethatthemodalinterpretationdoesnotspringfromthegerund.
6
5.1 Acovertmodal
Therefore,Iassumefromthispointonwardsthatthemodalityinthehaveto
constructiondoesnotfollowdirectlyfromthesemanticsoftheinfinitival.Instead,
Iposittheexistenceofacovertmodalinthehavetoconstruction.
There is some evidencefromthe Indo-Aryanlanguagesforpositing such
a covertmodal. In the Indo-Aryanlanguages, correspondingto the obligational
construction(in 27a), there is a class of related constructionsthat differ only in
thepresenceofanovertmodal(in27b).
(27) a. Ram-ko phalkhaa-naahai/thaa
Ram-Datfruiteat-Ger be.PRS/be.PST
‘Ramhas/hadtoeattheapple.’
b. Ram-ko seb khaa-naachahiyethaa
Ram-Datfruiteat-Ger should be.PST
‘Ramshouldhaveeatentheapple.’
Notethatinisolation(26b,c)areungrammatical. SinceagerundcanassignGenitivetoitssub-
6
ject,thisungrammaticalityisunexpected. However,theungrammaticalityof(26b,c)becomesunder-
standibleoncewenotethat(26b,c)areexistentialsentencesandthereforesubjecttotheDefiniteness
Effect. In(26b,c),thereisaDefinitenessEffectontheeventofTim(orKiki)’sgoingtoMalta. A
similareffectappearsinEnglishascanbeseenin(i)
i. #Thereis[Tim’sgoingtoMalta].
SentencesruledoutbytheDefinitenessEffectareknowntobecomeacceptableifgivenalistreading
interpretation. WeseethisalleviationoftheDefinitenessEffectin(26).