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).
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
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
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
Fox Danny. (1999) Reconstruction, variable binding and the interpretations of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 157–196
Freeze Ray. (1992) Existentials and other locatives. Language 68: 553–595
Grosu Alexander, Fred Landman. (1998) Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural Language Semantics 6: 125–170
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
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
Kjellmer Göran. (1975) Are relative infinitives modal?. Studia Neophilologica 47(2): 323–332
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
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
Portner Paul. (2009) Modality. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Rullmann Hotze., Lisa Matthewson., Henry Davis. (2008) Modals as distributive indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 16: 317–357
Sauerland, Uli. 1998. The meaning of chains. PhD diss., MIT: MITWPL.
Tim Stowell (1982) The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 13(3): 561–570
Van Geenhoven Veerle. (1998) Semantic incorporation and indefinite descriptions: Semantic and syntactic aspects of noun incorporation in West Greenlandic. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA
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
Williams Edwin. (1983) Against small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 14(2): 287–308
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-011-9075-9