(Relativized) Minimality, Datives, and Reflexive Suffixes

University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 2 Issue 2 Proceedings of the 19th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium 1995 (Relativized) Minimality, Datives, and Reflexive Suffixes Elena E. Benedicto Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl Recommended Citation Benedicto, Elena E. (1995) "(Relativized) Minimality, Datives, and Reflexive Suffixes," University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Vol. 2 : Iss. 2 , Article 3. Available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol2/iss2/3 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol2/iss2/3 For more information, please contact . Article 3 (Relativized) Minimality, Datives, and Reflexive Suffixes This working paper is available in University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol2/iss2/3 Mne ne çitaetsja : (RELATIVIZED) MODALITY, DATIVES AND REFLEXIVE SUFFIXES * Elena E. Benedicto University of Massachusetts 0. Introduction In this paper I discuss some ideas for the analysis and interpretation of the Russian Dative Impersonal Reflexive Construction (DIRC) in (1), which contrasts with the regular active version in (2). (1) çitaetsja1 me:Dat not read:3sgPRES.RFL mne ne (2) ja ne çitaju I:Nom not read:1sgPRES “I don’t read / I’m not reading” The main characteristics of DIRC in (1) are the following:2 1. First,what seems to be the subject appears in the Dative. So, (3), with the Nominative ja instead of the Dative mne, is ungrammatical (but compare with the grammatical (2)). (3) *ja ne çitaetsja I:Nom not read:3sgPRES.RFL 2. Second, the presence of the reflexive suffix -sja, is required:3 (4) *mne ne çitaet me:Dat not read:3sgPRES * My most sincere thanks to Sergey Avrutin and Natasha Kondrashova, who not only gave me judgements but also had enough patience to answer my questions and discuss these issues with me; to Catherine Chvany, who shared her ideas with me; and to Olga Brown for her time and judgements. Of course, all errors are mine. 1Since the interpretation of DIRC is controversial and, precisely, the object of discussion in section 1., I will avoid giving any translation for it and, instead, will only provide word-by-word glosses until the matter is settled. 2This is not to say that these are the only properties of DIRC. There are other properties that have been observed with respect to DIRC (cf. Schoorlemmer 1994), but the ones in (3)-(8) are the ones that I consider crucial to grasp the essence of the configuration. 3 This suffix has two allomorphs: -sja is used after consonant and -s’ after vowel. Like its Romance counterpart SE, this suffix appears in a variety of configurations: reflexive/reciprocals; pronominal verbs; as an intransitivizer; and to form (medio)pasives, among others. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 2 no 2 (1995) 3. Third, the verb shows up in the default 3rd person singular. This means that there is no Person or Number agreement present. So, (5) with a 1st person singular marker in the verb is ungrammatical. (5) *mne ne çitajus’ me:Dat not read:1sgPRES.RFL Also, in the past, where there is Gender agreement, the marking on the verb is always Neuter: (6) çitalos’ 4 me:DAT not read:NeutPAST.RFL Mne ne 4. An adverb may appear, as in (7) (7) mne xoroßo çitaetsja me:Dat well read:3sgPRES.RFL 5. And, finally but most importantly, the expression in (1) carries modality. In the words of Borras and Christian (1971), “disinclination or incapacity to perform an action”. This has usually been rendered with any of the three alternatives in (8): (8) i. I don’t feel like reading ii. I’m not in the mood for reading iii. I can’t read However, the inadequacies of these expressions to fully capture the kind of modality in (1) will become apparent immediately. From all the properties in (3) thru (8), the crucial one and the one to be the backbone of my analysis is precisely the last one, the modality carried by (1). The goal of this paper is twofold: first, to establish the meaning of (1); and, subsequently, to propose an analysis that both yields that meaning and accounts for all the properties in (3)-(8). The paper is organized as follows: The first section is devoted to elucidate the intricacies of the modality in (1); the second one deals with the Dative NP and establishes what kind of argument it is. Next, I present my initial proposal (sections 3. and 4.), and finally (section 5.), in the light of the discussion in the previous sections, I turn to the role of the adverb mentioned with respect to (7). 1. The Kind of Modality in (1). For the purposes of establishing the kind of modality behind (1), I will rely on the theoretical frame established by Kratzer (1991) and her previous work. Kratzer’s main idea is that modality is a relativized notion. Modal words are associated with a variety of readings: epistemic, dynamic, deontic, ... Kratzer claims that modal words are not really ambiguous, rather they just need some further specification about how they 4 The Past morphemes inflect for Gender and Number, but not for Person; they are the following: -lo (Neut.Sg.), -la (Fem.Sg.), -l (Masc.Sg.) and -li for the plural. 2 (Relativized) Modality, Datives and Reflexive Suffixes Benedicto should be understood. Take, for instance, the cases in (9): (9) a. I can lift this box b. I can be the person you are looking for In (9)a., can is interpreted as ‘can. given my physical ablilities’, as a posibility in view of my physical circumstances (and the general characteristics of our world). In (9)b., on the other hand, can is more readily interpreted as ‘can. in view of the available evidence’, a possibility given what we know. This additional information needed to properly interpret a modal word, the kind of modality involved, is what Kratzer calls Conversational Background. The modal force of a modal word has to be interpreted with respect to these Conversational Backgrounds.5 The Conversational Background may be provided contextually (as in (9)), or linguistically, as with the italicized phrase in (10): (10) In view of what you are telling me, I can be the person you are looking for. Conversational backgrounds that determine the facts relevant for the interpretation of a modal are realistic conversational backgrounds;6 they are also referred to as Modal Bases: In (9)a., the relevant facts are my physical conditions or circumstances - the modal base is, thus, circumstantial; in (9)b., the relevant facts are the information that we have (what we know): the modal base is epistemic. In both cases, the modal force (possibility) is interpreted relative to the corresponding modal base. The table in (11) gives an overview: (11) Modal Force Modal Base (Realistic Conversational Background: facts) possibility necessity circumstantial (in view of the circumstances) epistemic (in view of the evidence) Let us consider another example: (12) I cou (...truncated)