NoCommandsSabineIatridou

WorkshoponNon-Canonical ImperativesMay25-262018

Berlin

1

WorkshoponNonCanonical ImperativesBerlin,May25,26,2018

1.“Non-canonical” usesofimperative forms whichseemtodeviatefromthemeaning/function/syntaxofimperatives

2.Non-imperative formswhichseemtohavean imperativemeaning/function

2

WorkshoponNonCanonical Imperatives

1.“Non-canonical” usesofimperative forms whichseemtodeviatefromthemeaning/function/syntaxofimperatives

2.Non-imperative formswhichseemtohavean imperativemeaning/function

3

WorkshoponNonCanonical Imperatives

1.“Non-canonical” usesofimperative forms whichseemtodeviatefromthemeaning/function/syntaxofimperatives

2.Non-imperative formswhichseemtohavean imperativemeaning/function….. functions likethosethat animperativeverbhas

Thecallforpaperslistsinfinitivesandoptatives inthelattercategory.Andofcoursethereisalsothesubjunctive(eg Greek)andthefuture(Hebrew).Butaretheremore?

Thereare.Plentyofthem.4

If“command”isan“ imperativemeaning/function”, thenweshouldatsomepointcometostudycommandslikethefollowing:

1. Quickly!2. Totheprincipal!3. Handsintheair!4. Noloudnoises!5. Silence!

Alltheseareinterpretedascommands.Andifyouthinkacommandisachievedonlywithfunctionalcategoriesintheextendedprojectionoftheverb,youwillhavesomeseriouselidingtodobeforederiving(1-5).

5

Andevenifyoubelievethatpragmaticsplaysthecrucialroleandthatthebasicsyntaxisaproperty, thereisstillsomeseriousthinkingtodofor(1-5).

Hausser,Portner,vonFintel andIatridou andothersconnectasentencetypetoadiscoursemodule,somethingliketheToDoList.Thecommandsin(1-5)arenotsentences,soonewouldhavetoagainconsiderellipsisasapossiblesource.

Otherwise,maybethinkaboutintonationashavingtheabilitytoplacesomethingonaToDoList?

6

Todaywewilllookatonesuchconstructionwhosetopnodeisalsonotverbal.

6.Notalkingwithyourmouthfull!7.Noteasingyoursister!8.Noreadingthenewspaperinclass!9.Nowalkingonthegrass!

Thereareseveralremarkablepropertiesthatcharacterizethesesentences.Firstandforemostisthefactthatnegationisobligatory:

10.*Studyinghard!11.*Readingthenewspaperoutsideofclass12.*Playingthepianocarefully!13.*Stayingoffthegrass!

7

Soourfirstquestion:Whywouldnegationlicenseacommandreading?Wewillcallthisthe“Negation-Licensed Command”phenomenonorNLC.

TheNLCisthetopicofthistalk.

Iwillshowitscrosslinguistic stabilityandthatseveralpossibleaccountsfail.

ButintheendIwillnotbeabletoexplainitproperly.

8

ThephenomenonofNLCisnotreducibletotheknownproblemofcombiningnegationwiththeimperativeverb:

Inmanylanguages,-eitheraspecialformofnegation(“theprohibitive”)isusedtocombinewithanimperativeverbOr-anon-imperativeverbmustbeused,eg subjunctiveorinfinitive

Thisisnotthesameasnegationbeingnecessarytoexpressacommand(NLC).

9

Sowesawthatnegationisnecessarybutnotanynegationwilldo.Sententialnegationdoesn’t:

14.*Nottalkingwithyourmouthfull!15.*Notteasingyoursister!16.*Notreadingthenewspaperinclass!

10

Noradverbialnever:

17.*Nevertalkingwithyourmouthfull!18.*Neverteasingyoursister!19.*Neverreadingthenewspaperinclass!

Theonlyformofnegationthatappearstoworkisthedeterminerno.Thismeansthattheremaindermightbeanominalprojection.Specifically, thatitcouldbeagerund,whichisconsistentwith-ing

Whatsortofgerundisthis?

11

ClassificationslikeAbney1985,recognize3typesofgerundsinEnglish:

ACCing20.Iamrelyingon[them solvingtheproblemcarefully]

POSSing21.[Their advertisingcigarspublicly]botheredme

Ing-of22a.[Thecarefulsingingoftheopera]impressedme

Inthiscommonclassification,onlytheing-ofgerundcantakethedeterminerthe,asin(22a),orthedeterminerno’:22b.Nosingingofanyoperaimpressedme

12

ACC-ing andPOSScannottakethe/no:

23a.*[Thetheir/themadvertisingcigars]botheredmeb.*Iamrelyingon[thetheir/themsolvingtheproblem]

24a.*[Notheir/themadvertisingcigars]botheredmeb.*Iamrelyingon[notheir/themsolvingtheproblem]

Theabovemaybeexpected,giventheD0 statusofthepronoun.

ButthePRO-ing gerund(sometimesconsideredasubcaseofACCing)alsocannottakethe/no:

25.(*the/no)playingthepianoisawonderfulhobby13

Ingeneral,thebeliefintheliteratureisthefollowing:Ifagerundis(verbalenoughtobe)abletoassignCasetoitsobject, itcannottakethe/no.

ACCing -can’ttakethe/no-26.Iamrelyingon[themsolving(*of) theproblem]

POSSing -can’ttakethe/no-27.[theiradvertising(*of) cigars]botheredme

Ing-of -cantakethe/no-28.[Thesinging*(of)theopera]impressedme

14

Inaddition,theadjective/adverbdistinctionhasbeenshowntocorrelatewiththe“verbalness”ofthegerund,i.e.thepresenceofCase:

ACCing -doesn’ttakeof-29.Iamrelyingon[themcarefully/*carefulsolvingtheproblem]

POSSing -doesn’ttakeof-30.[theirpublicly/ *publicadvertisingcigars]botheredme

Ing-of -takesof-31.[The*carefully / careful singingoftheopera]impressedme

15

Withthesedistinctionsinmind,wecanlookattheno-gerundandaskwhichtypeofgerunditbelongsto.Wewillseethatit’sbehaviour ismixed.Theno-gerundCANbeing-of,butdoesnotHAVEtobe.

ItiseasytoshowthatitCANbeing-of:

32a.Nocareless playingof thepiano!b.Noaimless walkingaround!

16

AndtheNLCisclearlyvisibleinthepresenceofadjectivesandof:

33a.*Secretreadingofthenewspaperinclass!b.*Carefulplayingofthepiano

ing-ofisconsidereda“low”nomiminalization,anditsmaximalprojectionanNP(orDP).

Sothefollowingquestionarises:IsthefactthatweobservetheNLCwithing-ofgerundstheresultoftheirbeinggerundsortheresultoftheirbeingNPs?

17

Whichindirectly,presupposesweknowtheanswertothefollowingquestion:CanweobservetheNLCwithNPs?

Indeed,NPscanbeusedascommands,anditmaywellbethattheyaresubjecttotheNLC:

34a.Nosolicitors!b.Nocrankcalls!c.Nodogs! (onasign)

35a.*Students!b.*Cats!

18

TheNLCcanbeseenwithnounsinotherlanguagesaswell.

Forexample,inGreek:

36a.Oxi trexamata!Norun(nominalizedverb)Don’trun!

b.Oxi pexnidia!Noplaying!(pexnidia:toys)

37a.*trexamata!intended:“run!’

b.*pexnidia!intended:“play!”

19

PossiblecounterexamplestotheNLCwithnouns(thoughtheyseemveryformulaictome):

38a.Silence!bAttention!c.Caution!

Soweshouldacknowledgethepossibilibity ofnounsasnon-canonicalcommandsandstudythem.PossiblytheNLCcanbeobservedthereaswell.

(Wewillcomebacktothis)Fromnowon,Iwillrefertousesofnegateding-ofincommandsas‘negateding-of’.

20

Nowconsiderthefollowingsentences:7.Noteasingyoursister!8.Nosecretlyreadingthenewspaperinclass!39.Noplayingthepianocarelessly!40.Nocarelesslyplayingthepiano! (%,39ispreferredbysome)

Thereisno‘of’here.Moreover,wehaveadverbsin(8,40-41), andadjectivesareout:

41a.*Nosecretreadingthenewpaper inclass!vsthenegateding-of:b.Nosecretreadingofthenewspaperinclass!

21

SowehaveagerundthatcanassignCaseandtakeadverbs,butwhichcanalsotakeadeterminer.Thisisnotaknowncategoryofgerund.Moreover,itcannotappearinargumentpositions(withonepossibleexceptiontowhichwewillreturn):

42a.*Iamrelyingonnoteasingyoursisterb.*Iwitnessednoteasingyoursisterc.*Noteasingyoursisterimpressedme

Fromnowon,Iwillusetheterm‘no-gerund’forthegerundwiththefollowingproperties:Case,adverbs,yetcantakethedeterminerno –andnootherdeterminer(andismostlyunabletoappearinargumentposition.)

22

Thefactthattheno-gerundcannotbeanargumenthelpsuseliminateellipsisasapossiblesource.Ellipsiscouldinprinciplebethesourceofthenegateding-ofcommand:

43a.ThereisnoreadingofAnnaKareninaallowedà ThereisnoreadingofAnnaKareninaallowed

b.NoreadingofAnnaKareninaisallowedà NoreadingofAnnaKareninaisallowed

ThoughthisstilldoesnotaddresstheNLCpart.Whynot:44a.*ReadingofAnnaKareninaisallowed

Northemodalforce:44b.*NoreadingofAKisrequired

23

Butellipsiscannotbethesourceofthenogerundbecauseinthepre-ellipsissentencetheabsenceof‘of’ isungrammatical:

45.*ThereisnoreadingAnnaKareninaallowedXà ThereisnoreadingAnnaKareninaallowed

46.*NoreadingAnnaKareninaisallowedXà NoreadingAnnaKareninaisallowed

24

Finally, theno-gerundisverystrictlysubjecttheNLC.Thereisnoaffirmativecounterpart,aswesawinthebeginning:

10.*Studyinghard!11.*Readingthenewspaperoutsideofclass12.*Playingthepianocarefully!13.*Stayingoffthegrass!

25

Insummarysofarwehavefoundthat

• theadditionofnegationcanlicensecommands:NLC.

• Thishappenswithnegateding-ofgerunds

• Thishappenswith“no-gerund”,whosepropertiesdonotreducetothoseofanyknowngerund.

• Thispossiblyhappenswithnouns

• Wehavenot(yet)seentheNLCoccuring withverbalcategories.Onlynominal(ization)ssofar,includingtheno-gerund,whichisnominalized“atthelastminute”.

26

IsthereNLCwithverbs?

Byandlargethenon-imperativeverbformsthatareusedinlanguageswithout“TruenegativeImperatives”donotneednegationtoexpressacommand.Forexample,inGreek,negationcannotoccurwiththeimperativeverbandinsteaditcombineswithnegation.Butthesubjunctiveonitsowncanalsoexpressacommand.

Therearealsosomelanguageswhereanon-imperativeverbcanexpressacommandonlywithnegation.Faroesewasmentionedasonesuchexample.

ThiswouldbetheNLCwithverbs,whichIwillnothaveanythingtosayabouttoday,andwhichmaybeduetodifferentreasons(featurespell-out).

27

CanwedetecttheNLCinotherlanguages?OrisitaquirkofEnglish?

OnParticipialImperativesJohanRooryck andGertjan Postma

InImperativeclauses ingenerativegrammar: studiesofferedtoFritsBeukema. ed.byWim vanderWurff,Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.(2007)

ManythankstoGertjan Postma andHedde Zeijlstra fordataanddiscussion.

28

RPexploreaconstructionthatisquiterelevantinourcontext,butsecondaryinthepapertheydiscuss.

Thereareseveralthingstocommentoninthepaperatlarge(askmeifyouwant),buthereIwillpresentonlythedatarelevanttous,aswellastheiranalysis.

29

RPmentioninpassingaconstructionthatclearlyshowstheNLCandwhichisofcentralimportancetousandalsocompletelyproductive:

47.Geen gepraat!/gepruts!/getreuzel!/getoeter! /gedans!noGE-√praat /GE-√pruts /GE-√treuzel /GE-√toeter /GE-√dance...notalking/fidgeting /hangingaround/honking/dancing

In(47),thenegationisrequired.

Theseareallinterpretedascommands.

Thenegationin(47),isthenegativedeterminergeen.Notthesententialnegationniet.

30

Despitethepresenceofge- ,thesearenotparticiplesbutdeverbal nouns.

Eg fortheverbprutsen (‘tomessaround’):

Participle:geprutstDeverbal noun:gepruts

Wewillcallthisconstruction ‘negateddeverbal nouncommands’

Negateddeverbal nouncommandsarereminiscentoftheEnglishno-gerunds,anobservationwhichRPalsomake.

31

Thesedeverbal nounshave(ingeneral)noCasefortheobject,whichmusteitherincorporate,ortakevan; thisispreserved intheNLC:

48a.Geen boekengelees hier!Nobook-readhere

b.Geen gelees vanboeken inmijn tuin!Noreadofbooksinmygarden

Consistently,themodifiermustbeanadjective(snel,“quick”)andnotanadverb(gauw,“quickly”).

Thenegateddeverbal nouncanbeanargument,butwithoutthecommandreading:

49.Ik hoorde geen gepraatIheardnotalk

32

Whilethesenegateddeverbal nouncommandsareveryproductive,theyarenotpossiblewithunaccusatives orverbsthathavenoargument(Postma p.c.):

50a.*geen geval hiernofallhere

b.*geen geregen opdiezwakke stekjes,alsjeblieft (cryingtothesky)norainonthoseweakcuttings,please

Butthisrestrictionisnotparticulartothecommanduseofthesedeverbalnouns.Itcomeswiththesedeverbal nounsingeneral(Postma 1996).

33

Inshort,wecandetecttheNLCinDutch.

RPproposeanexplanationforadifferentconstructionthatthemainpaperisabout(ahortative,whichisgoodinSouthDutch,butnotNorthDutch)andwhichtheysaycanbeextendedtothenegateddeverbal nouncommands,eventhoughtheydonotdothisexplicitly.

Iwilllayouttheiraccount,alongwithmyquestionsaboutit.

PartoftheaimofthediscussionwillbetoseeifRP’saccountofDutchnegateddeverbal nouncommandscanbeextendedtotheNLCingeneral.

34

RP:Dutchhasthefollowingprocessofellipsis:

51a.Benjenaar dekapper geweest?areyoutothehairdresser’sbeen‘Didyougotothehairdresser’s?’

b.Nee, ik heb deverkeerde shampoogebruikt.noIhavethewrongshampooused‘No, Iusedthewrongshampoo.’

c.iser nogwat postvoor mij?isthere stillsomemailforme‘Isthereanymailforme?’

35

Theideaisthatthereisalsoellipsisinthecaseofournegateddeverbal noun,eventhoughtheydonotprovidethepre-ellipsissentence.

“…theellipted auxiliaryismostlikelyamodalone:thesituationdescribedbytheparticipialmustbebroughtabout.”p.8

Q:Butthisbuildsinpartoftheanswer.Whywouldtheelidedauxiliarybeamodal? Andwhywoulditbeaperformative modal?Whycoulditnothavebeenareportative modal?Ifthatwasthecase,thesentencewouldreportthatsomebodyhasanobligationtodosomething,notbestowinganobligation.

36

Arelatedquestionis,whywouldtheelidedsubjectbe2nd?

Inotherwords,postulatinganelidedperformative addressee-orientedmodalcapturesthefactsbybuildingthemin.

Butlet’sassumethatitisindeedellipsisthatcreatesthenegateddevrbalnouncommands.

Whyshouldsuchanellipsisbepossibleonlyundernegation?(Inourterms,whytheNLC?)

37

Toanswerthis,RPproposethe“No-AmbiguityPrinciple”:

52.No-AmbiguityPrinciple*[...AUXMOD...]ifAUXMOD isambiguous

TheysaythattheNo-AmbiguityPrinciple“…isaparticularrealizationofthePrincipleofFullInterpretation(FI)”(p.8).

Idon’tquiteseehowthiscouldbeacaseofFIaslanguagetoleratesplentyof(structural)ambiguities, includingwithmodals.Butlet’sassumethatsomethinglike(52)holds,regardlessofwhetherornotitisaspecialcaseofFI.

38

RParguethattheNo-ambiguityPrincipleensuresthattheelidedmodalwillbeofuniversalforceandnotofexistentialforce:Modalsthatscopeundernegationcanbeofuniversalorofexistentialforce:

53a.Sheneednotleave Neg>MODUNIV

b.Shecannotleave Neg>MODEX

Modalsthatscopeovernegationareonlyofuniversalforce.Thereisnomodalofexistentialforcethatscopesovernegation:

54a.Shemustnotleave MODUNIV>Negb.???? MODEX>Neg

(theydonotclaimtoknowwhy(54b)doesnotexist)39

RP:Iftheelidedmodalwasonethatscopedundernegation,wewouldnotknowwhetheritisofuniversalorexistentialforce,andtheNo-AmbiguityPrinciplewouldbeviolated:

55.Neg>MODUNIV /MODEX

Butiftheelidedmodalscopedovernegation,theNo-AmbiguityPrinciplewouldbesatisfiedbecausethereisonlyonetypeofmodalthatcanscopeovernegation:amodalofuniversalforce.

56.MODUNIV>Neg

Hencetheelidedmodalcanonlybeuniversal.40

Q:Itisnotcleartomehowthisconstraintonellipsisworks.

Ingeneral,ellipsiscutsoffpartofthesyntactictree.Thisissupposedtobeablindprocess,withnolook-aheadwithrespecttowhichelidedpartsmightcauseproblemslateron.SomaybeRPmeanfortheNo-AmbiguityPrincipletoapplyatLF(whichwouldanywaybemoreconsistentwiththeirMinimalistassumptions).ThismeansthatellipsiscandeleteALLmodals,butLFwillweedoutthoserepresentationsthatviolatetheNoAmbiguityPrinciple.

ButtheNoAmbiguityPrinciple asaguidetoellipsis,seemsabitpuzzling.

41

Inadditiontolanguagepermittingahostofambiguities,ambiguitiescreatedbyellipsis(includingACD)arealsotoleratedjustfine:

57.Johnwantedtoreadthebookyoudid<read,wantedtoread>

58.Ireadeverybookonedaybeforeyoudid<readit,readeverybook>

SotheNo-AmbiguityPrincipleasguidingellipsis,wouldneedmoresupportthanitseemstohave.UnlesswemakeitapplyONLY incasesoftheparticulartypeofellipsisinvolvingperformativemodals.Butthisdoesnotseemideal.

42

Wecannowcomebacktothequestionofwhythereisaneedfornegation.AccordingtoRP,theNo-AmbiguityPrincipleforcesthepresenceofnegation:intheabsenceofnegation,itwillnotbeclearwhetherwearedealingwithauniversalorexistentialmodal.Thatis,withoutnegation,thereisnocueastohowtointerprettheellided modal.

Page9:“Letusfinallyconsiderthestructurein(33),withoutnegation.

[(59)][...AUXMOD ...

In[(59)],ifAUXisnotlexical,itcanbeinterpretedasMUSTorCANand,hence,isnotwell- formedwithrespecttotheNo-AmbiguityPrinciple.“

43

RPwanttoattributetheobligatorypresenceofnegationinthedeverbalnouncommand totheNo-AmbiguityPrinciple.

60. *AUX [gepraat]GE-√praattalk

Intheabsenceofnegation,thereisnocuewrt thequantificational forceofthemodal. Itcouldbeuniversal orexistential, inviolationoftheNo-AmbiguityPrinciple.

Butifnegationispresent,thenthereisawaytoensurenon-ambiguity, asonlytheuniversalmodalcanscopeovernegation.

44

SoforRP, itistheNon-AmbiguityPrinciplethatisresponsiblefortheobligatorypresenceofnegation.

Butitisunclearwhy/whetherlanguageshouldobjecttoambiguitiesingeneral,ortheseambiguitiesinparticular.

Firstofall,ithasbeenreportedthattherearelanguageswheretheforceofthemodalisambiguous(Salish,NezPerce).SoevenifsuchaprincipleholdsforDutch,suchageneralprinciplecannotbeatplayacrosslanguages.

45

Moreover,imperativeverbformsareknowntobeambiguousbetweenauniversalandapermission/acquiescencereading:

61.Openthedoor! (command)

62.A:IwanttoopenthedoorB:Sure.Openthedoor.(acquiescence)

SothestringOpenthedoor! hasnoproblembeingunderdeterminedwrt toitsquantificationalforce.

46

NotethattheNo-AmbiguityPrincipledoesnotsaythatnegationisnecessarysothattheinterpretationisacommand.Itsaysthattherecannotbeambiguityandnegationappearsbecauseitdisambiguates.

Thismeansthatifthereisawaytodisambiguatewithoutnegation,thatshouldbefinetoo.And(62)isonesuchenvironment,asitonlypermitsthepermissionreading:

62.A:IwanttoopenthedoorB:Sure.Openthedoor.(acquiescence)

Butthispredictionisnotverified.

47

Firstthecontrolcase:Dutchdoeshaveacquiescencewiththeimperative.63.Inaschoolclass,afteraskingvarioustimes:A:Meester,magik weg?

sir,mayIaway

B:Ok,ga maarwegokgoMAARaway

But:64.A:Magik naar debakker rennen?

mayItothebakerrunB:Ok.*geren

Inshort,(64)disambiguates,soitshouldbeokwiththeNo-AmbiguityPrinciplebuttheutteranceisstillnotpossible.

48

Anotherwaytodisambiguateiswithparticles.Grosz2011showsthatparticleslike‘bloss’and‘ruhig’inGermandisambiguateanimperativeinfavoroftheuniversalandexistentialreadingrespectively.InDutchtherearealsosuchparticles(Zeijlstra p.c.):

Maar disambiguatestowardspermission:65.Zitmaar

Numightdisambiguatetowardscommanding:66.Zitnu

Sooneshouldexpectthatsincetheseparticlesdisambiguate,theyshouldpermittheaffirmativedeverbalnoun,astheNo-AmbiguityPrincipleissatisfied.Butno:67a.*/???Getoeter maar(int:sure.Goaheadandhonk)b.*/???Gestudeer nu(int:Honk!--ascommand)

49

SoweseethatRP’saccountofellipsisandtheNo-AmbiguityPrinciple,donotreallyadequatelycaptureortheexplainthefacts.

Butevenifwehadgraspedthedetailsoftheellipsisinthedeverbal noun,thereisaproblemwithextendingtheRPaccounttoEnglishno-gerunds,somethingthatRPsayispossible(thoughtheydonotshowthederivation).

WesawthattheEnglishno-gerundhaspropertiesunlikethatofanyotherknowngerundandthatitcannotbeappearinargumentpositioninafullclause.Thismeansthatthereisnosourceforanellipsiswheretheremnantistheno-gerund.Hencetheno-gerundcannotbetheresultofellipsis.AndhencetheNLCcannotbetheresultoftheneedtodisambiguatearemnantofellipsis.

50

Sounfortunately,RPdidnotprovideuswithanexplanationoftheNLCphenomenon.

Fortunately, though,theydidprovideuswithsupportthattheNLChassomecrosslinguistic sway,oratleast,isnotaquirkofEnglish.

51

Atthispointweshouldaskthefollowingquestion:AretheNLCsimperatives(asRPcallthem)?Oraretheycommands?

Whatisthedifference?Iftheyarelikeimperativeverbs,theyshouldbeabletodootherthingsthatimperativeverbsdo,notablyacquiescenceuses,andIaDs.Iftheyaresimplycommands,theyshouldnot.

vonFintel andIatridou 2017: averbformthatcandoIaDs,candoacquiescence.

52

ItseemsthatNLCsinEnglishandDutchdonotpatternwithimperativeverbs.Theycanonlybecommands.TheycannotdoIaDs:

68a.ignoreyourhomeworkandyouwillfailb.*noreadingthetextbookandyouwillfail

69a.workhardandyouwillsucceedb.*Noignoringyourworkandyouwillsucceed

Noracquiescence:70.A:Idon’twanttoreadAnnaKarenina

B:Fine.Don’treadAnnaKarenina71.A:Idon’twanttoreadAnnaKarenina

B:Fine.#NoreadingAnnaKarenina53

ThesameconclusionistobedrawnforDutch:

NoIaDs:

72a.*Geen gestudeer enjezakt voor jeexamens.nostudyandyoufailyourexams

b.*Geen gepruts enalles zal goet gaannomessaroundandeverythinggoeswell

54

Noacquiescence:Moeder Bvraagt aan Aomnuecht gauw naar debakker te gaan wanthetMotherBasksAtonowreallyquicklytothebakergocauseit

loopt tegen zessen.approaches6

73.A.Maarik heb pijn inmijn voeten vanhetsportenbutIhavepaininmyfeetfromthesporting

B.#Ok,geen gerén naar debakker!#oknoruntothebaker

55

Inotherwords,NLCsareproperlynamed.Theyarecommands.Not“imperatives”,withalltheflexibilitythatimperativeverbshave.

Possibly,‘commands’,unlikeimperativesareimplicitlymodalized,andthisiswhytheycannotappearinenvironmentsthatdemandquantificationalflexibility,acquiescenceandIaDs.

Consistentwiththisposition,isthefactthatEnglishandDutchNLCsCANappearinIoDs:

56

ThedifferencebetweenIaDs andIoDs:unlikeIaDs,anIoD tolerates/needsamodalinthefirstdisjunct::

74a.*Youhavetoinvestinthiscompanyandyouwillbecomerich IaDb.Youhavetocoveryourpipesortheywillfreeze IoD

75.Jemoet studieren ofjezakt voor jeexamenyoumuststudyoryoufailyourexams

AndtheNLCscanappearinIoDs:

76a.Noignoringyourhomeworkoryourwillfail!

b.Geen gepruts ofjezakt voor jeexamens!Nomessingaroundoryoufailyourexams

57

SotheEnglishandDutchNLCsdifferfromimperativeverbs:

-NLCscanonlybecommands.-NLCsbehaveasiftheyare(strongly)modalized:noacquiescence, noIaDs

-ofcoursetheyrequirenegation,unlikeimperativeverbs

-theirsubjectcanbePROarb,unlikeimperatives:

77a.Nowashingoneselfinpublic!b.*Don’twashoneselfinpublic.

58

NextStop:Russian(thankstoSergeiTatevosov andDavidPesetsky fordataanddiscussionofthe

data)

59

RussianshowstheNLCaswell,andagainalsowithnominalizations.

78.ni-kak-ogo gulja-nij-avparke!NI-which-GEN.SGwalk-NMN-GEN.SG in parkNowalkinginthepark!

79.ni-kak-ogo pe-nij-apesen!NI-which-GEN.SGsing-NMN-GEN.SG song.GEN.PLnosingingofsongs!

Thenegationisobligatory. ie.WeseetheNLChere.

60

Abitaboutthemorphology:80.ni-kak-ogo gulja-nij-a vparke!NI-which-GEN.SG walk-NMN-GEN.SG in parkNowalkinginthepark!

-nij- aregularproductivedeverbal noun;onlytakesaGEN objectbothinandoutsideNLCskakoj ‘which,whatkindof’GENogo isobligatory.NootherCasewilldo.

ni:negativeconjunction:81.NiVasja,ni Petjaneither Basil,norPeter

61

ni-kak-ogo =(sortof)=Dutchgeen =NEG+indefinite determiner(=noDET)NI-which-GEN.SG

ni-kak-ogo gulja-nij-a =geen geloop =nowalkingGeen/no-GENwalk.NMN nowalk.DV.N

ButwhytheGenitiveonni-kak-ogo ?Russianisanegativeconcordlanguage–unlikeDutch,hencethe“sortof”.ni-kak-ogo isanN-word.Thatmeansthatthereshouldbesententialnegationinthesentence.Onlyitisnotvisible:

62

82.OPNEG ni-kak-ogo gulja-nij-aOPNEG noN.word walking

ThiswouldmeanthattheGenitiveonni-kak-ogo couldbethefamousRussianGenitiveofNegation.

Possibleobjection:GenitiveofNegationistypicallyoptional.TheGenitiveinNLCisnot:

83*ni-kak-oje pe-nij-e pesen!NEG sing-NMN-NOM.SG song.GEN.PLint.:‘nosingingof(the)songs!’

(*inMASCoranyothergender)

63

However,Babyonishev etal2001, citingBabby 1980andChvany 1975, pointtocasesofobligatoryGenitiveofNegationwithverbsthatassert“existence,nonexistence,orpresenceatalocation”p.14:

84a.Vgorode nebylo vrača.intownnot was-NEU.SGdoctor-GEN.SG‘Therewasnodoctorintown./Thedoctorwasnotintown.’

b.*Vgorode nebyl vrač.intownnotwas-MASC.SGdoctor-NOM.SG

64

Ifonesquints,onemightbeabletoseetheNLCasfallingunderpredicatesof“existence,nonexistence,orpresenceatalocation” inthattheyassertthenon-existenceofpermission.

(AndwaitforTurkish,whichlooksevenmorelikethat)

Soifthegenitive isgenitiveofnegation,wewouldhavetoconcludetothepresenceofacovertnegation,becausetheprefixni- wouldnotbenegationitself,butthemorphologicalarkofn-wordsinanegativeconcordlanguage:

85.OPNEG ni-kak-ogo gulja-nij-aOPNEG noN.word walking(*overtOPNEG.Why? )

65

Morover,asinEnglish,notanynegationwilldo.Verbalnegationwon’tdo:86.*nepe-nij-apesen!

NEGsing-NMN-GEN.SG song.GEN.PLintended:‘nosingingof(the)songs!’

87.*nepe-nij-epesen!NEGsing-NMN-NOM.SG song.GEN.PLint.:‘nosingingof(the)songs!’

(thesedifferinCaseonly)

66

AsfortheNLC’snominalization,itbehaveslikeothernominalizations.

Forexample,theadjective/adverbdistinction,hasacertainpattern:andadjectivebefore,anadverbafterthenominalization:

88.gromk-oje pe-nij-epesenloud-NOM.SGsing-NMN-NOM.SGsong.GEN.PLloud singing of(the)songs

89.pe-nij-epesen gromk-osing-NMN-NOM.SGsong.GEN.PL loud-ADVsingingof(the)songsloudly

(thispatternalsoholdsforing-ofnominalizationsinEnglishforsome,thoughnotallspeakers.Fuetal) 67

Thesame holds fortheNLC:

90.ni-kak-ogo gromk-ogo pe-nij-apesen!NI-which-GEN.SGloud-GEN.SG sing-NMN-GEN.SG song.GEN.PLnoloudsingingof(the)songs!

91.ni-kak-ogo pe-nij-apesen gromk-oNI-which-GEN.SGsing-NMN-NOM.SG song.GEN.PL loud-ADVnosingingof(the)songsloudly!

68

Thisnominalizationcanappearinargumentposition:

92.Janeslyshal [ni-kak-ogo pe-nij-apesen]INEGhear.PST NI-which-GEN.SG sing-NMN-NOM.SG song.GEN.PLIdidnothearanysingingof(the)songs.

AsfortheIaD,AcquiescenceandIoD tests,RussianbehaveslikeEnglishandDutch:OkinIoDBADinAcquiescenceBADinnon-endorsingIaDBADish inendorsingIaD

69

Sofar,wehaveseencertainsimilaritiesbetweenEnglish,DutchandRussian:-NLC-NLCwithanominalcategory-The(visible)negationisincorporatedintoadeterminer.-TheNLCbehaveslikeacommand,notanimperative

ThefactthatNLCshappenwithnominalcategories,raisesthequestionofareductiontotheNLConnouns.ThismightworksforEnglishandDutch:

93.Geen honden!Nodogs!

70

ThisdoesnotholdexactlythesameforRussian.Thefollowingisungrammaticalonsigns

94.Nikakix sobakno-GEN.PLdog.GEN.PL

However,onecanutterituponseeingsomeonewithadogenteringaspacewheredogsarenotallowed.(Privoznov p.c.)Whyitisbadonasign,Idonotknow.

SoitstilllookslikeitispossibletoreducetheNLCwithdeverbal categoriestotheNLCwithnouns.

(thoughthiswouldstillbeonlyareduction,notanexplanation)71

SoweseethattheNLCholdsinGermanicaswellasinoneSlaviclanguage.Butitcanalsobeseeninnon-Indo-European.

Let’sgotoTurkish.ThankstoÖmer Demirok fordataanddiscussion.

TheNLCcanbeseenintheobligatorypresenceofthenegatedcopula‘yok’onanominalizedclause.Theaffirmativecopula‘var’isnotpermitted.

Hereisthenegatedexistentialcopula:95.Dolap-tasüt yok.fridge-LOCmilkYOK

"Thereisn’tmilkinthefridge."72

HerearetheNLCs:

96.Geç saat-te TVizle-mek yok!latehour-LOC watch-NOMLYOKLit:"Thereisn’t watchingTVlateatnight!”‘NowatchingTVatnight!’

97.Sınıf-ta sakız çiğne-mek yok!class-LOCgum chew-NOML YOKLit:"There isn’tchewingguminclass!”‘Nochewingguminclass’

98.Bukapı-yı aç-mak yok!thisdoor-ACCopen-NOML YOKLit:“There isn’topeningthisdoor!”‘Don’topenthisdoor’

73

Hereistheaffirmativecopula‘var’:

99.Dolap-tasüt var.fridge-LOCmilkVAR"Thereismilkinthefridge.”

Buta commandisnotpossiblewithit:

100.*Yaşlı yolcu-lar-aöncelik ver-mek var!elderlypassenger-PL-DATprioritygive-NOML VARInt:"Giveprioritytoelderlypassengers!”

74

ThenominalizationthatisthecomplementofYOKisquitehigh,asitcontainsCasefortheobject,eventheAccusativeassociatedwithspecificity, asin(98).ButthisiscommonforTurkishnominalizations.

SoweseethattheNLCcanbeobservedinTurkishaswell.

Andagain,itisnegationonsometypeofnominalization(thoughjustforTurkish,thiswouldnotsaymuchbecausethereisalotofnominalizationinthelanguage).

75

Turkishgivesusthechancetoexploreonemorepoint.Consider(96)again:

96.Geç saat-te TVizle-mek yok!latehour-LOC watch-NOMLYOKLit:"Thereisn’twatchingTVlateatnight!”‘NowatchingTVatnight!’

Giventheliteralmeaningandtheabsenceofimperativemorphology,onemightthinkthatthereisa(mostlikelypragmatic)phenomenongoingonthatcanalsobeobservedinEnglish:101a.Inthishouse,wedonotwatchTVatnight.

b.Don’twatchTVatnight!

Itisentirelypossibletounderstand(101a)asanegativecommandlike(101b).76

Possiblythiscomesaboutbyareasoningalongthefollowinglines:ifthereisnoTVwatchingatnight,itmustbebecauseitisnotallowed.

Butsuchaninterpretationisoptional:

102.InthishousewedonotwatchTVatnightbecausethepowergoesoffat8

Moreover,thereisnoNLChere,thatis,negationisnotobligatory.Evenwheninterpretedascommand,thefollowingisjustfine:103.Inthishousewebrushourteethat8pm!

77

CoulditbethatthenegatedexistentialcopulainTurkishbringsaboutacommandinapragmaticway?

104.Geç saat-te TVizle-mek yok!latehour-LOC watch-NOMLYOKLit:"Thereisn’twatchingTVlateatnight!”‘NowatchingTVatnight!’

Theanswerisno.Ifitwasanassertionthatispragmaticallyinterpretedasacommand,onewouldexpectnegationtobeoptional,asitisin10.Butwealreadysawthatthatisnotpossible.

78

Moreover, itisnotpossibletointerpretitsimplyasadescriptionoffacts,like(102):

102.InthishousewedonotwatchTVatnightbecausethepowergoesoffat8

105.#Maalesef, gece TVizle-mek yokunfortunatelynightTVwatch-NOMLYOK

çünkü akşamları elektrik gid-iyorbecauseeveningselectricitygo-IMPF

Themeaningof(105)isonlyanNLC,hence(105)hasthesomewhatincoherentfollowingmeaning:"Unfortunately,itisforbiddentowatchTVatnightbecausetheelectricitygoesoutintheevening"

79

SotheTurkishnegatedexistentialcommandisnotapragmaticallyinterpretedcommand.Thereisaninescapablemodalmeaning.

Moreover,theinescapablemodalmeaningdoesnotcomefromYOK,asthefollowingdoesnotmeanthatmilkisforbiddeninthehouse:

106.Dolap-tasüt yok.fridge-LOCmilkYOK

"Thereisn’tmilkinthefridge.”NOT:‘Nomilkinthehouse!’

80

Eventhoughnominalizationispresent,theNLCcannotbereducedtoanNLConnouns,asthereisnoNLCthatisproductiveonnouns:

107.*Köpek-ler yok!Dog-pl YOK

Demirok pc:TherearesomegoodexampleswithNP+YOKliketheonesbelowbuttheyseemveryrestricted.

108.TV yok!TV YOK"NoTV!"

81

Insummary,TurkishhasNLCanditcannotbereducedtotheNLConnouns.

SinceRPhadustalkaboutellipsis,andTurkishbroughtustothetopicofexistentialsentences, let’sbrieflylookatapossiblesourceofEnglishno-gerunds.Unfortunately,itwillnotbepossibletoreducetheNLCtothissourceeither.

ThisisaconstructiondescribedinKjellmer 1980.

82

109a.Therewasnomistakingthatscreamb.Therewasnoshouting,nomerry-making,nowavingofflags

Whatisthedifference?

“Byandlargeitcouldbesaidthatthemodalgerundcantakeadirectobject,especially anobjectclause, thatitmustoccurinthesingular,thatithardlytakesanyotheradjectivaladjunctthanno andthatitcanbeturnedintoapassive.Thenon-modalgerund,ontheotherhand,takesadirectobjectonlyinspecialcircumstances, andneveranobjectclause, itcanbeturnedintoapluralandhavevariousadjunctsotherthanno anditcanhardlybemadepassive.”p.60

Kjellmer hasnofurtherexplanationofthisphenomenon,andasfarasIknow,noone elsehascomeupwithoneeither.

83

modalnon-modal

Thenon-modalonedoesnotrequirenegation:

110.Therewasshouting,merry-makingandwavingofflags

Andwhenittakesnegation,anynegationwilldo:

111a.Therewasn’tshoutingormerry-makingorwavingofflagsb.Therewasnevershoutingc.Therewasseldomshoutingd.Therewashardlyshouting

84

Themodalonerequiresnegation:

112.*Therewasmistakingthatscream

Butnotanynegationwilldo:

113a.Therewasnomistakingthatscreamb.*Therewasnotmistakingthatscreamc.*Therewasnevermistakingthatscreamd.*Therewasseldommistakingthatscreame.*Therewashardlymistakingthatscream

85

Canwederivetheno-gerundfromKjellmer’s gerundsbyaRP-styleellipsis?

114.Therewas nosmoking!

Theno-gerundandtheKjlemmer gerunddoshareproperties, eg DET,Casefortheobject.Unfortunately,thisseems ratheranon-promising pathnevertheless.

First,theno-gerundhasnoverbclassrestriction andcanbeintransitive, asseen in(114),unlikeKjellmer’s gerunds,whichcanbemodalonlywithanobject:

115aTherewasnomerrymakingorshouting (notmodal)b.Therewasnomistakingthatscream! (modal)

116a.Therewasnosmoking (notmodal)b.Therewasnosmokingthatcigar. (modal)

86

Onemightrebutthat(117)ismodal(withthepresenttense):

117.Thereisnowhisperinginhishouse.

Butthisisacaseofapragmaticallyinducedruleaswesawearlier,andsuchaninterpretation,unlikewiththeno-gerund,isalwaysoptional

118.Thereisnowhisperinginthishouseaseverybodyisbynatureloud

87

Second(andverycrucially),themodalityisverydifferentinthetwocases.Intheno-gerund,itisdeontic(andperformative).WhileintheKjellmer gerunditisabilityordynamic(andreportative).

119.Therewasnomistakingthatscream=itwasnotpossibletotomistakethatscream.(NOT:itisforbiddentomistakethatscream)

120.Thereisnokillingthatrat=itisnotpossibletokilltherat(NOT:itisforbiddentokillthatrat)

88

Inotherwords,despitesomeapparentsimilarities,theno-gerundcannotbereducedtotheKjellmer gerund.Moreover,severallanguageshavetheNLCbutIknowoftheexistenceoftheKjellmer gerundonlyinEnglish.EveninTurkish,which,aswesaw,showstheNLCwithnegatedexistentialcopulas(whichwouldmakeitclosetoThereisno…),therelevantsentencescannotreceivetheinterpretationoftheKjellmergerund,butonlythecommandreading.

Havingsaidthis,theroleofnegationintheKjellmer modalismysterious.Butwhateveritis,itisnotaninstantiationoftheNLC,giventhatitisnotacommandtobeginwith.PossiblyboththeKjellmer gerundandtheNLCarepartofsomethingbigger,butIleavethatforadifferentoccasion.

89

SowestilldonothaveagoodcandidatetoreducetheNLCto,noranobviousexplanationforit.

Next,onemorenon-IndoEuropeancase:TheNiger-Congo languageBuli,asspokeninGhana.

ThankstoAbdul-Razak Sulemana fordataanddiscussion.

90

Buli hasanimperativeverb,whichcanbenegated.Thechoiceofnegationdetermineswhetheritisa“forever”commandora“rightnow”command,thelatterbeingmostplausiblewhentheactionisalreadyongoing:

121.ɲusigaari!drinkcigarettes‘smokecigarettes’

122a.Kàn ɲusigaari!Neg drinkcigarettes‘Don’tsmokecigarettes’ (rightnow)

b.KaàɲusigaariNeg ASPdrinkcigarettes

‘Don’tsmoke!’(ingeneral)

91

AsinTurkish,itisimpossibletogetastringthatcorrespondstoNodogs. (AndunlikeinTurkish,theremaybenocounterexamplestothisgeneralstatement.)Insteadwhatissaidisthefollowing:

123.Baasakadē!dogsnothere

SodespitethedifficultyofreducingtheNLCwithnominalizationstotheNLCwithnouns,onewouldbetemptedtolookherefirst,andindeedwefindthem:

92

124.Sigaari ɲukkakade!cigarettesdrink-NMNeg here“Nosmokinghere”

Andthelocationcanbemademoreprecise:

125.sīgāārī ɲūkkā ká ɲīŋsāsōkā dōkkúpōcigarettes drink-NMNeg body bath-NMroominside`Nosmokinginthebathroom'

93

AquicknoteaboutBuli nominalizations.Inanominalization,thesuffix–ka appearsontheverb.

Buli hasnoovertCasemorphology.

Withaverb:VOInnominalizations:OVNM

WegetOVNM theNLC:

124.Sigaariɲukkaka-de!cigarettesdrink-NMNeg-here“Nosmoking(here)”

94

Theobjectmustprecedethe(nominalized)verb:

126.*ɲukkasigaarika-de!drink-NMcigarettes Neg-here

Moreover,theplainimperativeverbcannotappearinthisconstruction:

127a.*ɲusigaari ka-dedrinkcigarettesneg-here

b.*Kàn ɲusigaarika-denotdrinkcigarettesnot-here

95

Sowhatwehaveisanegatednominalizationthatservesascommand.

Andmoreover,itisanNLC:128a.*Sigaariɲukka

cigarettesdrink-NMIntended:“smoke!”

b.*Sigaariɲukkade!cigarettesdrink-NMhereIntended:“smokehere!”

TheNLCstrikesagain!96

Untilnow,IarguedfortheexistenceofNegationLicensedCommands.Wesawthatthishappensinseverallanguagesandwithnominalizations.

WealsosawthatsomepossiblecandidatesforbeingthesourceofNLC,didnotpanoutintheend.

IntherestofthetalkIwillattemptonemorereductionofNLCtosomethingelse.

97

Let’sstartwiththisquestion:IsthereanenvironmentEthatpermitsthe‘NLC-minus-negation’toappearasacommand?

Ifso,wemightbeabletounderstandtheNLCbetterbyexploringwhethernegationplaysthesameroleasE,insavingthestructure.Wesawthatjustremovingnegationwillnotdo:

127a.*Smoking!b.*Stayingofthegrass!

ButmaybewecanstillfindsuchanE.98

Considerthefollowing:

128.Smoking, onthebalcony!

Fornow,Iwillparaphrase(128)asfollows:

129a.Ifyouwanttosmoke,youhavetodoitonthebalconyb.Ifthereissmoking, ithastohappenonthebalcony

Wecanseeasimilarphenomenonwithnouns:

99

130a.*dogs! (nogoodascommand)b.Nodogs!

Butnowimagineapartywithlotsofpeopleinvited,manyofwhomarelikelytobringdogs:

131a.Dogs,ontheporch!b.Ifyouhavebroughtadog,youmustputitontheporch.

(ThisisnotunlikethefamousDogsmustbecarried.)

100

ThesameholdsfortheDutchdeverbal nouncommand(andintonationsoundsthesame):

132a.Geen gepraat! √praat =talkb.*gepraat!c.Gepraat,opthestraat,niet inhuisTalkingonthestreet,notinhouse

133a.Geen gepruts! √pruts =messaround,tinkerb.*gepruts!c.Gepruts,indegarageTinkering, inthegarage

134a.Geengetoeter! √toet =honkb.*getoeter!c.Getoeter alleenopkonginnedagHonking,ononQueen’sDay

101

135a.Dogsmustbecarried:ifyouhaveadog,youmustcarryit

b.Smokingonthebalcony:Ifyou(wantto)smoke, youmustdoitonthebalcony

c.Nosmoking: ifyou(wantto)smoke, youmustnotdoititisforbidden

Negationbringsinsometri-partitestructureofsorts?EnglishandDutchseemamenable tothisview.Whataboutotherlanguages?

102

Russian:Indeed,thenominalizationinquestionlookstobeabletoappearwithoutNEGwhenanotherconstituent isthere:

136.*Guljanije ssobakoj!walk-NMN-NOMwithdog.INSTRWalkingwithadog

137.Guljanije ssobakoj — (tol’ko)vo dvorewalk-NMN-NOMwithdog.INSTR onlyinyardWalkingwithadog,onlyintheyard!

(andofcoursethegenitiveisgone,asthereisnonegation)103

ButthingsareharderwithTurkish.Here,partoftheparadigmisduplicatable:

138.*köpek-lerdog-PLdogs!

139.köpek-ler,balkon-a!dog-PL balcony-DAT"dogs,totheporch!"

104

Butunfortunately,nottheNLCpart:

HereistheNLCagain:

140.balkon-da sigara iç-mek yok!balcony-LOC smoke-NOMLYOKNosmokingonthebalcony!

Butremovingthenegationandkeepingthebalconywon’twork:

105

141a.*sigara iç-mek,balkon-da!smoke-NOMLbalcony-LOC

b.*sigara iç-mek var,balkon-da!smoke-NOMLVARbalcony-LOC

c.*balkon-da sigara iç-mek var!balcony-LOC smoke-NOMLVAR

106

AndneitherdoesitworkforBuli.TheequivalentofSmoking,onthebalcony isnotpossible:

142*Sigaari ɲukkaverandawapocigarettesdrink-NMbalconyDEMinside

SoreducingNLCtonegationcreatingatripartitestructure,isnotthegeneralsolutionforthecrosslinguistic picture.

107

Nextquestions:

--IstheNLCwiththese nominal categoriesreducible totheNLCwithNPs?--WhatistheNLCwithNPsdueto?

--Probablyellipsis isnotthesourceofNLC.Thecorrectsourcehasnotbeenfoundyetbutwealsosee thatinsomelanguages, eg Turkish,nothingobviousseems tobemissing.

--NEG>∃modal or∀modal>NEG?

--an NPI∃modal ?

--Whattotrynext?Bruteforce?A“forbidden”operator?

--Roleofintonation?

108