Skip to main content
Log in

A modal ambiguity in for-infinitival relative clauses

Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bach, Emmon. 1982. Purpose clauses and control. In The Nature of syntactic representation, ed. P. Jacobson and G. K. Pullum, 35–57. Dordrecht: Reidel.

  • Barss, Andrew. 1986. Chains and anaphoric dependence: on reconstruction and its implications. PhD diss., MIT: MITWPL.

  • Bhatt Rajesh. (2002) The raising analysis of relative clauses: Evidence from adjectival modification. Natural Language Semantics 10: 43–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatt, Rajesh. 1999/2006. Covert modality in non-finite contexts. 1999 PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania (Revised version published by de Gruyter, 2006).

  • Bresnan, Joan. 1972. Theory of complementation in English Syntax. PhD diss., MIT: MITWPL.

  • Carlson, Greg. 1977. Reference to kinds. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Amherst: GLSA.

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from Building 20, ed. Ken Hale and Samuel J. Keyser, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Deal, Amy Rose. 2010. Topics in the Nez Perce verb. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Diesing Molly. (1992) Indefinites. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Faraci, Robert. 1974. Aspects of the grammar of infinitives and for-phrases. PhD diss., MIT: MITWPL.

  • Fiengo Robert., Robert May. (1994) Indices and identity. MIT Press, Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox Danny. (1999) Reconstruction, variable binding and the interpretations of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 157–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeze Ray. (1992) Existentials and other locatives. Language 68: 553–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grosu Alexander, Fred Landman. (1998) Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural Language Semantics 6: 125–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huettner, Alison. 1989. Adjunct infinitives in English. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Hulsey Sarah., Uli Sauerland. (2006) Sorting out relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics 14: 111–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iatridou, Sabine. 1996. To have and have not: on the deconstruction approach. In Proceedings of WCCFL 14, ed. J. Camacho, L. Choueiri, and M. Watanabe, 185–200. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

  • Johnson, Kyle, and Satoshi Tomioka. 1998. Lowering and mid-size clauses. In Proceedings of the 1997 Tübingen workshop on reconstruction, ed. G. Katz, S.-S. Kim, and W. Haike, 185–206. Tübingen: Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen für die Computerlinguistik.

  • Jones, Charles. 1985. Syntax and thematics of infinitival adjuncts. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst. GLSA, Amherst.

  • Kayne Richard. (1994) The antisymmetry of syntax. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 25. MIT Press, CambridgeMA

    Google Scholar 

  • Kjellmer Göran. (1975) Are relative infinitives modal?. Studia Neophilologica 47(2): 323–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koster-Moeller, Jorie, and Martin Hackl. 2008. Quantifier scope constraints in ACD: Implications for the syntax of relative clauses. In Proceedings of WCCFL 27, ed. N. Abner and J. Bishop, 301–309. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.

  • Kratzer, Angelika. 1978. Semantik der Rede. Kontexttheorie, Modalwörter, Konditionale. Königstein: Scriptor.

  • Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Words, worlds and context, ed. H. Eikmeyer and H. Rieser, 825–834. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In The Generic Book, ed. G. Carlson and F. Pelletier, 125–175. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Matthewson, Lisa, Hotze Rullmann, and Henry Davis. 2006. Modality in St’át’imcets. In Studies in Salishan: MIT working papers on endangered and less familiar languages, ed. S.T. Bischoff et al. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

  • McNally, Louise, and Veerle Van Geenhoven. 1998. Redefining the weak/strong distinction. Paper presented at the 1997 Paris Syntax and Semantics Colloquium.

  • Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential sentences in English. PhD diss., MIT.

  • Milsark Gary. (1977) Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis 3: 1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesetsky, David. 1992. Zero Syntax II. Manuscript, MIT. http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/pesetsky/infins.pdf

  • Peterson, Tyler. 2010. Epistemic modality and evidentiality in Gitksan at the semantics-pragmatics interface. PhD diss., University of British Columbia.

  • Portner, Paul. 1992. Situation theory and the semantics of propositional expressions, PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst. GLSA, Amherst.

  • Portner Paul. (1997) The semantics of mood, complementation and conversational force. Natural Language Semantics 5: 167–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portner Paul. (2009) Modality. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Rullmann Hotze., Lisa Matthewson., Henry Davis. (2008) Modals as distributive indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 16: 317–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauerland, Uli. 1998. The meaning of chains. PhD diss., MIT: MITWPL.

  • Tim Stowell (1982) The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 13(3): 561–570

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Geenhoven Veerle. (1998) Semantic incorporation and indefinite descriptions: Semantic and syntactic aspects of noun incorporation in West Greenlandic. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1974. French relative clauses. PhD diss., MIT.

  • von Fintel Kai, Sabine Iatridou. (2007) Anatomy of a modal construction. Linguistic Inquiry 38(3): 445–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams Edwin. (1983) Against small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 14(2): 287–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, Janis. 1987. An indefiniteness restriction for relative clauses in Lakhota. In The representation of (in)definiteness, ed. E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen, 168–190. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Hackl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hackl, M., Nissenbaum, J. A modal ambiguity in for-infinitival relative clauses. Nat Lang Semantics 20, 59–81 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-011-9075-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-011-9075-9

Keywords

Navigation