TransparentWishes
KaivonFintel andSabineIatridou
April21,2017
Berlin
1
“Transparent”comesfromvonFintel andIatridou 2008
“Howtosayought inForeign”.
Wehadstudiedtheweaknecessitymodalought:
1. Yououghttodothedishesbutyoudon’thaveto
2a.#Youhavetodothedishesbutyoudon’thaveto.
b.#Youmustdothedishesbutyoudon’thaveto.
Wefoundthatinmanylanguagesought isexpressedbytheadditionofcertain
morphologyonauniversal/necessitymodal.Specifically,themorphologythat
appearsintheconsequentofa“counterfactual”conditional.
Wecalledthese“transparentought”.
2
Greektransparentought:
3.Tha eprepe na plinis tapiata ala dhen ise ipexreomenos na tokanis
FUTmust+Past NAwashthedishesbutNEGareobligedNAitdo
‘Yououghttodothedishesbutyouarenotobligedtodoit’
Frenchtransparentought :
4.Tu devrais fairelavaisselle,mais tu n’es pasobligé
youmust/CONDdothedishesbutyounot+are notobliged
‘yououghttodothedishesbutyouarenotobligedtodothem’
Andseveralothers,includingnon-IElanguages.
3
Englishisanoutlierinhavingalexicalitemfortheweaknecessitymodal.
(thoughhistoricallyonecandetectCFmorphologyonought)
So“transparentought”: strongnecessitymodal+CFconsequentmorphology
4
Entertwomoreterms:X-markingvsO-marking
Weintroducedtheterm“X-markedconditionals”in2016, inworkandinclass,
withtheintentionofreplacingtheterms“subjunctiveconditionals”and
“counterfactualconditionals”.
“subjunctiveconditionals”isnotagoodtermbecausemanyoftherelevant
conditionalsdon’tusethesubjunctive,evenifthelanguagehasasubjunctive
(e.g.French).
“counterfactualconditionals”isnotagoodtermbecausemanyoftherelevant
conditionalsarenotcontra-to-fact.ForexampleFLVs:
5.Ifyoulefttomorrow,youwouldgettherenextweek
Andmoreover,evenoutsideofFLVs, thecounterfactuality hasbeenshownto
becancellable(Anderson1951).
5
So“X-marking” iswhatevermorphologyonconditionalsbringsabouta
counterfactualorunlikely(cancellable)inference.
TheabsenceofX-markingisO-marking.
X:extra
O:ordinary,open…
X-markedconditional:
6.Ifheknewtheanswer,hewouldtellher
O-markedconditional:
7.Ifheknowstheanswer,hewilltellher
6
Transparentought:strongnecessitymodal+consequentX-marking,interpretedasa
weaknecessitymodalintheactualworld.
OurproposalaimedtoexplainwhyX-markingonastrongnecessitymodalcouldyield
aweaknecessitymodalintheactualworld:
“Perhaps,then,thecounterfactualmarkingisco-optedhereinasomewhatmetalinguistickindofway:“ifwewereinacontextinwhichthesecondaryorderingsource
waspromoted,thenitwouldbeastrongnecessitythat...”.Thiswouldexplainwhy
eventhoughthereisCF-morphology,themodalclaimismadefirmlyabouttheactual
world;allthatthemorphologymarksisachangeinevaluationparameters.
Itprobablynotanaccidentthatcounterfactualmarkingbringswithitanelementof
tentativeness:thespeakerisnotsayingthatthesecondaryorderingsourceis
somethingthathastobeobeyed.Thechoiceofwhethertoreallypromotethe
secondaryorderingsourceisleftopen.”
7
Notethatthepresenceofconsequent X-markingisvaguelyjustifiedbythe
modalbeinginthe consequentofanX-markedconditional.
Wehadalsonotedthattransparentought isactuallyambiguous,unlikeEnglish
ought.
English:
-aweaknecessitymodalintheactualworld:
8.Fredought tousetheboat
-astrongnecessitymodalina“CF”world:
9.IfFredwantedtogototheisland,hewouldhavetousetheboat
8
Butinalanguagewithtransparent ought,theformsarethesame:
-aweaknecessity modalintheactualworld:
10.tha eprepe na pari aftin tinvarka
must+X
takethistheboat
‘heoughttotaketheboat’
-astrongnecessity modalina“CF”world:
11.AnoFredithele na pai sto nisi,tha eprepe na pari aftin tinvarka
IftheFredwantedtogoto-theisland,must+X takethis theboat
‘IfFredwantedtogototheisland, hewouldhavetousetheboat’
9
WhycanX-markingonanEnglishnecessitymodalnotmeanought?
12.Heoughttodothewishes
=/=
13.Hewouldhavetodothedishes
Wedidn’tknow.
Ablockingeffect?
10
Sowhatare“Transparentwishes”?
Thereissomethingpeoplecall“Counterfactualwishes”:
14.HewishesshehadaHondaOdyssey
15.Shewishesshewastallerthansheis
CFwishesareamisnomer:thedesireisintheactualworld.
11
Inmanylanguages,thereisamorphologicalcommonalitybetween
X-markedconditionalsandCFwishes(Iatridou 2000).
Inthefullversionofthegeneralization,themorphologyontheXconditionalconsequentappearsontheembeddingverbwant andthe
morphologyontheX-conditionalantecedentappearsonits
complement:
16.X-markedconditional:ifpm1,qm2
17.CFwish:Iwantm2 thatpm1
WewillcallthistheConditional/Desire(C/D)generalization.
12
SpanishX-markedconditional:
18.Sifuera
más alto sería
unjugador debaloncesto.
Ifbe.3.sg.PAST.SUBJ moretallbe.3.sg.COND aplayerofbasketball
‘Ifs/hewastaller,s/hewouldbeabastketball player’
SpanishCFwish:
19.Querría
que
fuera
Want.3.sg.COND thats/hebe.3.sg.PAST.SUBJ
‘Iwishs/hewastallerthans/heis
más altodeloque es.
moretallthanits/heis
13
Wewillfollowthepreviouslyestablishedterminologyandusetheterm“Xmarkeddesires”forCF-wishes.
X-markeddesiresareinoppositiontoO-markeddesires.
14
SpanishO-markeddesireshaveindicativeonwant andpresentsubjunctiveon
thecomplement(whenthecomplementisnotinfinitival).
X-markeddesire:
20.Querría
que
fuera
Want.3.sg.COND thatbe.3.sg.PAST.SUBJ
‘Iwishs/hewastallerthans/heis
más altodeloque es.
moretallthanits/heis
O-markeddesire:
21Quiero
que sea
alto.
Want.1.sg.INDthatbe.3.sg.PR.SUBJtall
‘Iwanthimtobetall’
15
“Transparentwishes”:
onepartoftheC/Dgeneralization:want+X-marking
Spanish,Greek,Frenchandothersaretransparentwish languages.
Englishisnot.Ithasalexicalizeditemwish,justasithasalexicalizeditem
ought.
Moreover,justasinthecaseoftransparentought, i.e.strong necessity
modal+X,X-markedwantisambiguousbetweenamodalclaimaboutthe
actualworldandamodalclaiminaCFworld.
16
A desireinaCFworld:Idon’thaveadesireintheactualworld
22.Anitan psiloteros tha ithele makritero krevati
ifwastallerFUTwant+Past longerbed
‘Ifhewastallerhewouldwantalongerbed’
Adesireintheactualworld:
23.Tha ithele na imun psiloteri
FUTwant+Past NAwastaller
‘ShewishesIwastaller’
17
Andasinthecaseofweaknecessity, thisambiguityisnotfoundinEnglish:
24.(Ifheweretaller)hewouldwanttohavealongerbed
=/=
25.Hewisheshehadalongerbed
ThenextimageisfromvonFintel andIatridou 2006:
18
sire is in the actual world (wish ) while the periphrastic string is reserved for
desire in a counterfactual world (would want to). The parallelism to the case
of ought should now be clear: English chooses specialized lexical items for
the interpretation where the modal claim holds in the actual world (ought) and
where the desire holds in the actual world (wish).
We can visualize the situation as follows:
transparent languages:
strong necessity + CF
OUGHT
modal claim in actual
world
WOULD HAVE TO
modal claim in
counterfactual world
"ought"
"would have to"
"wish"
"would want"
WISH
desire in actual
world
WOULD WANT
desire in
counterfactual world
English:
transparent languages:
want + CF
30 This shows that the term “counterfactual wishing” is misleading. The desire is in this world.
20
19
SotransparentwishlanguagesarethelanguagesthatuseX-markingon
want toexpress“CFwishes”.
AndthisisonepartoftheC/Dgeneralization.
WhilethereareplentyoflanguagesthatabidebybothpartsoftheC/D
generalization,therearesomethatabidebyonlyoneofthetwopartsof
theC/Dgeneralization.
20
Somelanguagesonlyobeythepartthathastodowithwant (i.e.theyare
transparentwishlanguages) butdonotobeythecomplement-generalization.
OnesuchlanguageisFrench,whichhasCONDonX-want, thewayitdoesonan
X-consequent.
However,thecomplementisinthe(unmarkedfortense/aspect)subjunctive,
unlikeanX-antecedent,whichisintheindicativepastimperfective.
21
FrenchX-conditional:
26.SiMarieavait
/*ait unparapluierouge,
ifMariehave.PST.IMPF.IND/SUBJ aumbrellared,
il l’aurait
vu
heithave.COND seen
‘IfMariehadaredumbrella,hewouldhaveseenit’
FrenchX-desire:
27.Jevoudrais que Marieait/*avait unparapluierouge
Iwant.1.sg.CONDthatMaryhave.3.sg.SUBJ/*have.PST.IMPF.INDanumbr.red
‘IwishMariehadaredumbrella’
22
WhyistherenosubjunctiveinFrenchX-conditionals,unlikeinSpanishandCatalan?
Iatridou 2000:becausetheModernFrenchsubjunctivehasnotensedistinctions,
unliketheSpanishandCatalanone.WhenFrenchusedtohavethesedistinctions,it
usedpastsubjunctiveaswell.
“…inFrench,aswellasinanumberofotherlanguages,whatisnecessaryinthe
morphologicalmake-upofcounterfactualsisPasttense……andthesubjunctive
appearsonlyifthelanguagehasaparadigmforthepastsubjunctive. ….Modern
Frenchdoesnothaveapastsubjunctive.Itssubjunctiveisunmarkedfortense.
Hence,itcannotappearincounterfactualconditionals.PreviousstagesofFrench,
however,didhaveasubjunctivewhichvariedfortense,thatis,therewasapast
subjunctive,andinthatstageofthelanguage,thepastsubjunctivewasrequiredina
counterfactualconditional.ModernFrench,ontheotherhand,usestheindicative,as
ithasnopastsubjunctive…”
23
(summaryfromIatridou 2016,p.4)
However,evenifthisistherightexplanationfortheabsenceofthesubjunctivein
FrenchX-conditionals,itdoesnotexplainwhyFrenchdoesnotabidebythe
complementpartoftheC/Dgeneralization.
Forthatpart,itseemsthatthesubcategorization frameofwant istheculprit.
Frenchvouloir takesitscomplementintheinfinitiveorinthesubjunctive,depending
onwhethertheembeddedsubjectisco-indexedornotwiththematrix:
28.Jeveux aller à Paris.
Iwant.1.sggo.inf toParis
‘IwanttogotoParis’
29.Jeveux
que tu ailles à Paris.
Iwant.1.sgthatyougo.2.dg.SUBJtoParis
‘IwantyoutogotoParis’
24
Thesesubcategorization restrictionsareretainedinX-desires:
30.Jevoudrais
aller à Paris.
Iwant.1.sg.CONDgo.inf toParis
‘IwishtogotoParis’(cf.“IwouldhavewantedtogotoParis’)
31.Jevoudrais que tu ailles à Paris.
Iwant.1.sg.CONDthatyougo.2.dg.SUBJtoParis
‘IwishyouwouldgotoParis’
25
Thepicturethatemerges:
InFrenchX-desires,thereisaconflictinwhatmoodthecomplementappearsin
whenthetwosubjectsarecontra-indexed:
Want requiressubjunctiveonitscomplement.
TheC/Dgeneralization(rather,whateverisbehindit)requiresIndicative(past
imperfective)onthecomplementofwant.
Theselectionrequirementsofwant win.
InSpanish,thereisnosuchconflict:
Again,want requiressubjunctiveonitscomplement.
TheC/DgeneralizationrequiresPastsubjunctive.
Thecomplementofwant inaSpanishX-desirecansatisfyboth,becauseSpanish
hasapastsubjunctive.
26
GreekcanbedescribedinthesametermsasSpanish.
X-conditional:
32.Anicha aftokinito tora,tha imun eftichismeni
Ifhave.PST.1sgcarnow,FUT was.PST.1sghappy
‘IfIhadacarnow,Iwouldbehappy’
X-desire:
33.Tha ithela
na icha aftokinito tora
FUT want.PST.sg NAhave.PST.1sgcarnow
‘IwishIhadacarnow’
TheX-desirecontainstheparticleNA,thatisabsentintheX-conditional.
27
Thisparticleispartoftheselectionrequirementsofwant (andotherverbs):
34.Thelo
na echoaftokinito
Want.1.sg.NAhaveacar
‘Iwanttohaveacar’
SoitseemsthatlikeSpanish,butunlikeFrench,Greekcansatisfyboththelocal
selectionrequirementsoftheembeddingverb,aswellastheC/D
generalization.
28
TherearealsolanguagesthatsatisfythecomplementpartoftheC/D
generalizationbutnotthewant part(i.e.theydonothavetransparentwish)
Hindihasanundeclinable particlekaash thatbyitself,i.e.withoutanyverb,
expresseswishesthatcannotberealized(moreonthislater).It’ssyntactic
categoryisunknown(Bhattp.c.).It’sreminsicent ofGreekmakari, Italian
magare, Spanishojala.
However,themorphologyonthecomplementisexactlythatofanXantecedent.
35.kaash vo lambaa ho-taa
wishhetallbe-Hab
‘Iwishhewastall’
29
Hindita isdescribedasahabituality marker.However,itcannotappearona
predicatethatisbyitsnatureindividual-level:
36.*vo lambaa ho-taa (hai)
hetallbe-Hab (is)
ButtadoesappearonILpredicatesinX-conditionals(andwasdescribedas
partof“fake”morphologyassociatedwithX-markedconditionals)
37.agarvo lambaa ho-taa,toarmyusebhartii kar le-tii
ifhetallbe-Hab
thenarmyhe.Dat admitdoTAKE-Hab.f
‘Ifhewastall,thearmywouldhaveadmittedhim.’
30
Sotainthecomplementofkaash iscompliantwiththe
complementpartoftheC/Dgeneralization.
38.kaash vo lambaa ho-taa
wishhetallbe-Hab
‘Iwishhewastall’
31
ComingtoEnglish,wealreadysawthatitisnotatransparentwishlanguage:
Given(40),Englishwouldhavehadtohave(41)tomean(42)toqualifyasa
transparentwishlanguage:
40.IfIhadacar,Iwould behappy
41. *IwouldwantthatIhadacarnow
=/=
42.IwishthatIhadacarnow
SoEnglishisnotcompliantwiththewant-partofthegeneralization(i.e.itis
notatransparentwishlanguage)
32
ButlikeHindi,itiscompliantinthecomplementpart:
40.IfIhad acar,Iwouldbehappy
42.IwishthatIhad acarnow
33
Inshort,wewilltaketheC/Dgeneralizationtohavesubstancetoit,even
thoughthereareenvironmentswhereoneofitstwopartsseemviolatedfor
language-specificreasons.
Fromnowonthen,wewilltaketheC/Dgeneralizationassomethingthat
needstobeexplained,andattempttodosoforbothpartsofit.
Wewillstartwiththewant partofthegeneralization,i.e.transparentwish.
Whywouldwant carryX-marking,andmoreover,whywoulditcarryXconsequentmarking?
34
InvonFintel andIatridou 2008,webrieflyconsideredthepossibility
(broughtupbyTimStowell p.c.)thattheX-markingoncertain
modalsshouldbeinterpretedunderthem.Inotherwords,inthis
proposalthereissomescopal re-ordering.
Werejectedthispossibilityforthecasesweweredealingwiththen
(transparentought)butitispossible,ofcourse,thatthisistheright
analysisforthecaseswearedealingwithnow(transparentwishes).
35
Oneadvantageofsuchanaccountwouldbethatwant wouldbe
evaluatedintheactualworld,sinceitisnotinthescopeoftheXmarking.Thisisanadvantagebecauseasentencelike
43.Tha ithela
na icha aftokinito tora
FUT want.PST.sg NAhave.PST.1sgcarnow
‘IwishIhadacarnow’
seemstoconveythatIhaveadesireintheactualworld.
36
Buttherearealsodifficultieswithsuchanaccount,namely:
-whywouldtheX-markingmorphologynotappearintheplacewhereitis
interpreted?
-whatsortofscopereversalisthis?
-whywouldtheX-markingonwant bethatofaX-consequent,andnotthat
ofanX-antecedent?
-underthemodal,therewouldnowbetwoinstancesofX-marking: Xmarkingonwant,andX-markingontheembeddedverb,aswesawinour
discussionoftheC/Dgeneralization.WhatdowedowiththisstackedXmarking?
37
Instead,wewill attemptanaccountalongthelinesofour2008treatmentof
transparentought. Werepeattherelevantpartswiththeought-specifics
redacted:
“Perhaps,then,thecounterfactualmarkingisco-optedhere
inasomewhatmeta-linguistickindofway:“ifwewereina
contextinwhichthesecondaryorderingsourcewas
promoted,thenitwouldbeastrongnecessitythat...”.This
wouldexplainwhyeventhoughthereisCF-morphology,the
modalclaimismadefirmlyabouttheactualworld;allthat
themorphologymarksisachangeinevaluationparameters.”
38
Weclearlywanttoretainthispart:
“Perhaps,then,thecounterfactualmarkingisco-optedhereinasomewhat
meta-linguistickindofway…
...ThiswouldexplainwhyeventhoughthereisCF-morphology,themodalclaim
ismadefirmlyabouttheactualworld;allthatthemorphologymarksisa
changeinevaluationparameters”
Afterall,(transparent)wishesaredesiresintheactualworld.
39
Butwhatisthe“somewhatmeta-linguisticway”?
Inthecaseoftransparentought:
“ifwewereinacontextinwhichthesecondaryorderingsourcewas
promoted,thenitwouldbeastrongnecessitythat...”.
Thebluepartinthecaseoftransparentought isthestrongnecessitymodal
whichcarriestheX-marking.
Thismeansthatinthecaseoftransparentwishes,thebouletic verb(whichis
thecarrierofX-marking)goesthere:
“ifwewereinacontextinwhich…,thenIwouldwant...”.
Butwhatwouldbethemissingantecedent?
40
Beforewecontinue,animportantnote.Sofar,wehavecomehere:
44.[If…..........]antecedent
[then…....
want+X-marking
…..........]consequent
andaskedthequestionofwhatthemissingantecedentis.
In(44),theantecedentispresentedasamissingif-clauseadjunctwitha
syntacticpresence.Thisismisleading.Whatwearelookingforisarestriction
onthemodal.Thereisnoreasontobelievethatthisrestrictionisnecessarily
syntacticallyrepresented.
Itcouldbeacontextualrestriction(andrepresentedhoweveronelikesto
representcontextualrestrictions,forexamplewiththevariableC.)
41
Afterall,wecansay(45a)withtheintentionof(45b):
45a.Everystudentwaslatetoday
b.Everystudentwhoisinmyclasswaslatetoday
Butusuallywedonotsaythat(45a)hastolooklike(45b)inthesyntax.
Acontextualrestrictionistakentobeabletodothejob.
42
Similarly,whenwesaythatwearelookingforthemissingantecedentin(44):
44.[If…..........]antecedent
[then… want+X-marking
…..........]consequent
wemeanthatwearelookingfortherestrictionofthemodal,andmakeno
claimaboutthenatureofitssyntacticpresence.
Infact,ongeneralgrounds,onemightsaythatif(45a)canbedealtwithin
whicheverwayonedealswithacontextualrestriction,oneshouldchoosethe
samepathfor(44).
However,onemightobjecttothis.
43
Onemightobjectonthefollowinggrounds:
“Acontextualrestrictoroneveryboy doesnotleaveanythreadsuntied.
However,acontextualrestrictoronamodalwouldnotbeabletocausetheXmarkingonthemodal.Forarestrictortoaffectthemorphologyofthemodal,
ithastobesyntacticallypresent”.
Ifthatistheobjection,ouransweris:
44
Itisnottheif-clausethattriggerstheX-markingmorphologyonthemodal.
TheX-markingonthemodaliscorrelatedwithacertainoperation.
Whatoperation?
WewillstayawayherefromdebateslikePast-as-Past versusPast-as-Modal
andsticktothemoreneutraldescriptionalongthelinesofvonFintel 1998:
46.X-markingshowsthatthedomainofquantificationofthemodalreaches
outsidethecontextset
Inotherwords,theif-clauseisnotthecauseoftheX-markingonthemodal.It
onlygivesinformationabouttheworldsoutsidethecontextsetthatthemodal
quantifiesover.
45
Inotherwords,takingthe“missingantecedent”of(44)tobeametaphorfora
missingcontextuallysuppliedrestriction,ratherthananactuallysyntactically
presentif-clause,willnotcauseproblemswiththemorphology.
44.[If…..........]antecedent
[then… want+X-marking
…..........]consequent
Therefore,wewilltakethesimplerpaththattherestrictioniscontextually
supplied,ratherthansyntacticallypresentasin(44).
Evenso,wewillcontinueusingtheterm“missingantecedent”!
46
Whatweproposeisthatthemissing antecedent makesreferencetoapresupposition ofthe
consequent, specifically thepresupposition ofwant.
Alreadyatleast Kasper1992discussed cases whereamissing antecedent contained
presuppositions oftheconsequent:
47.Yourbrotherwouldn’thavefailedtheexam
AsKasperpointsout,themissing antecedent of(47),whenitisclearthatyoutooktheexam
andfailedit,is(48):
48.Ifyourbrotherhadtakentheexam
Failinganexampresupposes havingtakenit.
Themissing antecedent of(47)isnot(49)or(50)(unless thecontextissufficiently rich):
49.Ifyourbrotherhadhadenoughsleep
49.Ifyourbrotherhadputmoreeffortinhisstudies
47
Sowhatpresuppositionofwant issatisfiedinthemissingantecedent?
Thatitscomplementisattainable. (tobeenriched)
Soweproposethatthefelicitoususeofwant meansthattheattainability
presuppositionissatisfied.
Iftheattainabilitypresuppositionisnotsatisfied,themissingantecedenttakes
youtotheworldswhereitis.
48
TakeFrench.Aswesaid,thedifferencebetweenaninfinitiveorasubjunctive
complementisafunctionofthe(contra)indexingofthesubjects:
51a.Jeveux aller à Paris.
Iwantgo.inf toParis
b.Jeveux que tu ailles à Paris.
Iwantthatyougo.subj toParis
49
Whentheembeddedeventisnotattainableanymore,plainwant isout:
52. *Jeveux être arrivé mardi passé.
IwantbearrivedTuesdaypassed
intended:‘IwanttohavearrivedlastTuesday’
53. *Jeveux qu’il soit arrivé mardi passé.
Iwantthathebe.subj arrivedTuesdaypassed
intended:‘IwantyoutohavearrivedlastTuesday’
50
Instead,X-markingonwant mustbeused:
54.Jevoudrais être arrivé mardi passé.
Iwant+X bearrivedTuesdaypassed
‘IwishIhadarrivedlastTuesday’
55.Jevoudrais qu’il soit arrivé mardi passé.
Iwant+X thathebe.subj arrivedTuesdaypassed
‘IwishhehadarrivedlastTuesday’
(54-55)havemissingantecedentswhichtakeustotheworldswherearriving
onTuesdayisattainable,sothatinthoseworlds,want canbeusedfelicitously.
51
Herearesomeotherexamples:
56. *Jeveux être à Parismaintenant.
IwantbeinParisnow
57.*Jeveux que tu sois à Parismaintenant.
Iwantthatyoube.subj inParisnow
These sentences arebadwhenmaintenant isusedstrictlyspeaking as‘now’,andnotas‘very
soon’,andwhenthespeaker(56)ortheaddressee (57)isnotinParisatthemoment.
Instead,X-markingmustbeused:
58.Jevoudrais être à Parismaintenant.
Iwant+X beinParisnow
59.Jevoudrais que tu sois à Parismaintenant.
Iwantthatyoube.subj inParisnow
52
Andasexpected,in(59),onlytheimmediatefuturereadingofnow is
possible,whereasin(60),thereisinaddition,thereadingoftheX-desire,
wherenow istakenasbeingsimultaneouswiththetimeofutterance
59.Jeveux être leprésident delaRépublique maintenant.
Iwantbethepresidentoftherepublicnow
60.Jevoudrais être leprésident delaRépublique maintenant.
Iwant+X bethepresidentoftherepublicnow
53
Onepotentialinconsistency:
RecallthatwegavethemeaningofX-markingasin(46)(toavoidthePast-asPastvsPast-as-Modaldebates):
46.X-markingshowsthatthedomainofquantificationofthemodalreaches
outsidethecontextset
Inthecasesoftransparentwishes,theX-markingonwant reflectsthatthe
modalquantifiesoverworldsoutsideofthecontextset,specificallyoverworlds
wherethecomplementofwant isattainable.
54
Butnowwehavesetupapotential conflictwithacommontreatment ofbouletic verbs
whichgoesbacktoHeim92,butwhichcontinues inotherworksthathavemodifiedother
aspects ofHeim’sinitial account.
HereisaninformalversionofHeim’s analysisfromRubinstein 2017:
“Basicideaforwant:
Comparethedesirability oftheq-worldsmostsimilartowtothedesirability ofthe¬q-worlds
mostsimilartow,foreveryworldwinthesubject’sbeliefworlds.
Additionalingredients:
(i) Onlycomparethedesirability ofworldsthatagreewiththesubject’sbeliefs.
(ii) Presuppose thatthesubjectbelieves neitherqnor¬q.”
Ineffect,thismeans thatifIfelicitously utterIwantq,itisbecause inmydoxastic
alternatives, Ihavebothqand¬q.Thatis,inthequantificational domainofthemodalthere
arebothqand¬qworlds.
55
Thisfitswhatwehavesaidsofar:
Iftheactualworldisbelievedbythespeakertobea¬qworld,thespeaker
needstoreachoutofthecontextsettofindqworlds.Thisreachingoutofthe
contextset,isaccompaniedbyX-marking,aswesaid.
Earlier,weputthisintermsoffindingworldswherethecomplementofwant is
attainable.
However,itcouldalsobeputinthetermsweareusingnow:thedomainof
quantificationofthemodalreachesoutsidethecontextset,tofindqworlds
thatarerequiredforthecomparativesemanticsofwant.
Butthenwearepredictingthatiftheactualworldisaqworld,andthedomain
ofquantificationneedstoreachoutsidethecontextsettofind¬q,weshould
alsoexpectX-marking.
56
Butthisisnotso.Considerthefollowingsentences(fromIatridou 2000):
61.IliveinBoliviabecauseIwanttoliveinBolivia
62.IhavewhatIwanttohave
In(61,62)thedomainofquantificationofthemodalneedstoreachoutsidethe
contextsettofindworldsinwhichIdon’tliveinBolivia,andworldsinwhichI
don’thavewhatIwant.
Butinthesesentences,noX-markingonwant ispossible:
57
French:
63. J'habite enBolivie parce que jeveux/*voudrais habiter enBolivie
IliveinBoliviabecauseIwant/*want+X liveinBolivia
64.J'ai ce que jeveux/*voudrais
IhavethisthatIwant/want+X
AndeveninEnglish,theverbwish cannotbeused(Iatridou 2000):
65.*IliveinBoliviabecauseIwishIlivedinBolivia
66.*IhavewhatIwishIhad
58
Inotherwords,ifweconnecttheappearanceofX-markingtothemodal
needingtofindbothqand¬qworldsforthecomparativesemanticsofwant,
wegetanasymmetry:
-reachingoutsidethecontextsetinsearchofqworldstriggersX-marking
-reachingoutsidethecontextsetinsearchof¬qworldsdoesnottriggerXmarking
Thisseemstobeaproblem.Whywouldtherebesuchanasymmetry?
59
Itseemsthatthewayoutofthisproblemistonotconnecttheappearanceof
X-markingtoreachesoutsidethecontextsetinordertosatisfythe
comparativesemanticsofwant.
Instead,theoriginalideaofreachingoutsidethecontextsettofindworlds
thatsatisfytheattainabilitypresuppositionofwant seemstodeliverbetter
results:
Ifweareina¬q world,weneedtoincludeqworldsinthedomainof
quantificationinordertosatisfytheattainabilitypresuppositionofwant.
Butwhenweareinaqworld,thereisnoequivalentbutsymmetrical
presuppositionthatneedstobesatisfied.
60
Somuchforthewant partoftheC/Dgeneralization.
Thatis,transparentwishlanguages.
TheconsequentX-markingofthemodalreflects(putsomewhatneutrally)
“Perhaps,then,thecounterfactualmarkingisco-optedhereina
somewhatmeta-linguistickindofway:“ifwewereinacontextinwhich
theattainabilitypresuppositionofwant issatisfied,thenIwouldwant
that...”.…”
61
Onemaywanttoraisethequestion:
Underthisdescription,thedesireisassertedtotakeplaceinaCFworld,where
theattainabilitypresuppositionofwant issatisfied.Ifthelatter,whydoesitfeel
likethedesireisadesireintheactualworld?
Theanswertothismaybethattheattainabilitypresuppositionneedstobe
slightlyenrichedto“theonlymissingfactorisattainability”.
Connectiontofast etc withX-marking.
62
Inthelittleremainingtime,letusbrieflygotothecomplement partoftheC/D
generalization.
C/Dgeneralization:
16.X-markedconditional:ifpm1,qm2
17.CFwish:Iwantm2 thatpm1
HowrealisthecomplementpartofC/D?
Originally,supportforitcameformlanguageslikeSpanishandGreek
63
SpanishX-markedconditionals:
67.Sifuera
más altosería
unjugador debaloncesto.
Ifbe.3.sg.PAST.SUBJ moretallbe.3.sg.CONDaplayerofbasketball
‘Ifs/hewastaller,s/hewouldbeabasketballplayer’
SpanishX-markeddesires:
68.Querría
que
fuera
Want.3.sg.CONDthats/hebe.3.sg.PAST.SUBJ
‘Iwishs/hewastallerthans/heis
más altodeloque es.
moretallthanits/heis
64
GreekX-markedconditionals:
69.Anefevge
avrio,tha eftane
methavrio
Ifleave.PAST.IMP tomorrow,FUTarrive.PAST.IMP dayaftertomorrow
‘Ifs/helefttomorrow,s/hewouldgettherethedayaftertomorrow’
GreekX-markeddesires:
70.Tha ithela
na efevge
FUTwant.PAST NAleave.PAST.IMP
‘Iwishhewouldleavetomorrow’
avrio
tomorrow
65
However,thesedataareatmostconsistentwiththecomplementpartofthe
C/Dgeneralizationanddonotprovidedirectevidenceforit.
ThereasonisthattheseareSoT languages.
Given that Spanish X-marking contains Past tensemorphology,it could bethat
X-marking on want triggers Past tensemorphology on its complement,which
would asaresult looklike X-marking.
Indeed,inSpanish,theembedded(subjunctiveorindicative)verbalwaysshifts
toapast(subjuctive orindicative).
AndthishappensalsowithverbsthathavenothingtodowithX-marking.
66
The verb doubt takes subjunctive:
71.SofíadudaqueRafaelpueda venir.
Sofíadoubts that Rafaelcan:PRES.SUBJ.3SG come.
Sofíıa doubts that Rafaelcancome.
The verb tobeglad takes subjunctive :
72.
Marcelasealegradeque lahayan
invitado.
MarcelaSEglad ofthat PROher have:PRES.SUBJ.3PL invited.
Marcelais glad that they have invited her.
67
Andunderpast,pastsubjunctive:
73.SofíadudabaqueRafaelpuediera
venir.
Sofíadoubted that Rafaelcan:PAST.SUBJ.3SG come.
Sofíadoubted that Rafaelcould come.
74.
Marcelasealegrabadeque
lahubieran invitado.
MarcelaSEglad ofthat PROher have:PAST.SUBJ.3PL invited.
Marcelawas glad that they had invited her.
Somaybe the shift from present subjunctive topast subjunctive under X-marked
want is nothing morethan SoT?
68
AsimilarconcernarisesforGreekaswell.Hereantecedent X-markingconsists
ofPast+Imperfective. Anditispossible tosetupanSoT contextwhere
Past+Imperfective appears(Iatridou 2000):
75.Prin apo mia vdhomadha ipe oti tha efevye /fiyi
sedhio meres
beforeoneweeksaidthatFUTleave.PAST.IMP/Non-PAST.IMP in2days
‘Aweekagos/hesaidthatshewould/will leavein2days’
UT
|___x_____________ |___x/x______________________
< ------a week------------------ >
*V+prf+pst
V+imp+pst (would)
V+prf (will)
69
SolanguageslikeGreekandSpanishdonotprovidedirectevidenceinfavorof
thecomplementpartoftheC/Dgeneralization.
However,supportforitcanbefoundinlanguageswhereX-markingdoesnot
containPast.
WealreadysawthatHindiissuchacase:
76.kaash vo lambaa ho-taa
wishhetallbe-Hab
‘Iwishhewastall’
TheappearanceofX-markingta isnottheresultofSoT.
70
77.agarvo lambaa ho-ta,toarmyusebhartii kar le-tii
ifhetallbe-Hab
thenarmyhe.Dat admitdoTAKE-Hab.f
‘Ifhewastall,thearmywouldhaveadmittedhim.’
ButtacannotappearonILpredicatesoutsidethesecontexts(itcanappear
onlyonderivedgenerics):
78.*vo lambaa ho-ta (hai)
hetallbe-Hab (is)
71
AnotherargumentcanbefoundinTurkish.
X-markinginTurkish:TurkishhasfakePast.
X-markingontheconsequent:aorist+past
X-markingontheantecedent:SA+past
(past-SAinepistemicconds.)
79.Johnönümüzdeki salı gel-se-ydi, annesi çok mutlu ol-ur-du
John next Tue come-SA-PSThis.mom veryhappybe(come)-AOR-PST
‘IfJohnarrivednextTuesday,hismomwouldbeveryhappy’
72
Turkishhasundeclinable keşke (reminiscentbutslightlydifferentfromHindi).
80.Keşke önümüzdeki salı gel-se-ydi
I.wish nexttuesday come-SA-PST
‘IwishhewouldcomenextTuesday’
Andin(80)thespeakerbelievesthatherwishwillnotcometrue.
Thepasttensein(80)isclearlynottheresultofSoT.
73
Finally,supportforthecomplementpartoftheC/Dgeneralizationcanalsobe
foundinEnglish.Theappearanceof(fake)pastisnottheresultofSoT,since
theembeddingverbisnotinthepast:
81.Shewishes shehadacarnow
82.Shechangeshermindaboutcarsallthetime.Yesterdayshewishedshe
hadaMercedes.TodayshewishesshehadaBentley.Tomorrowshewillwish
shehadaLamborghini.
Soquitepossibly,thecomplementpartoftheC/Dgeneralizationisreal.
Whataresomeofthethingsitmighttellus?
74
TheremaybeapointtobemadeaboutthePast-as-PastversusPast-as-Modal
debate.
WhentherearetwooccurrencesofX-markingbutonlyonemodaloperator
(whichisthecase,arguably,inbothconditionalsandtransparentwishes),
Past-as-Pasthastotreatoneoccurrenceas“non-semantic”,somekindof
agreementorreflectionoftheonetruePASToperator(whichshiftsthetime
ofaccessibility).
Inbothcases,there’saquestionofwhyitisonlythetimeofaccessibilitythat
isshiftedintothepastandnotthetimeoftheordering/preferencestructure.
WesuspectthatP-as-Pwillhaveahardertimewithtransparentwishesthan
withX-markedconditionals.Butthisdebateisstillongoing.
75
Summary!
76