The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh constructions

Abstract

This paper attempts to analyze the properties of a construction that is typical of Balkan languages, but is also encountered in non-Balkan Romance and Slavic, and a few additional languages. The construction, neutrally referred to as MEC (Modal Existential wh Construction), has the superficial appearance of a wh-clause, but the semantics of a narrow-scope existential generalized quantifier (GQ) such that the property expressed by IP has modal possibility/ability force. It is proposed, building on Grosu (1994), Grosu and Landman (1998) and Izvorski (1998), and modifying some of the views in these works, that MECs are non-core relative constructions consisting of a bare CP which carries the feature [GQ ∃ ], as well as a specification of its particular modality. Cross-linguistic distribution is captured by extensions of subcategorization options from nominal to CP arguments, such extensions being potentially 'licensed' by semantic-pragmatic properties of the matrix predicates in conjunction with the larger context, in the sense that such properties constitute necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for extension. The proposed analysis accounts for the upper bound on MEC distribution, for the kind of attested cross-linguistic variation, and for certain hitherto unaccounted for properties of MECs, in particular, an inability to serve as predicates, and a complete incompatibility with wh+ever-like phrases. 1 This paper could not have been written without the extensive help I received from a number of persons who generously provided information about their native languages and/or contributed substantive suggestions. Concerning the latter, I am profoundly indebted to Nirit Kadmon, who read several versions of this paper and offered suggestions that led to genuine improvements; concerning the former, I am grateful to

Modal possessive constructions: Evidence from Russian

“…(Markman, 2007 Both constructions are also possible with other existential verbs in addition to BE. Many languages allow ModEx with certain verbs of coming into existence, like find or obtain (Grosu, 2004). The same holds of both ModPoss and ModEx in Russian.…”

Categorías Mixtas Truncadas: La Nominalización Defectiva en Las Cláusulas Relativas Existenciales Modales

“…La etiqueta que se utiliza aquí, Relativas Existenciales Modales, está basada en la acuñada por Grosu (2004) Bello (1847: 650), Fernández Ramírez (1951, Alcina y Blecua (1975Blecua ( : 1042, Demonte (1977: 96-100), Hernanz, (1999Hernanz, ( : 2292 y Masullo (2011: 317), entre otros).…”

“…Pero puesto que ahora SNom no recategoriza la cláusula hasta SDet, ya no es necesario que el operador se restrinja a esta categoría; es posible, por tanto, encontrar sintagmas preposicionales encabezando la proyección aun cuando ésta funcione como objeto de un verbo transitivo: (36) Por otra parte, puesto que la categoría resultante es SQ se predice que las REM tendrán una lectura de cuantificación existencial (cf. Pesetsky, 1982;Grosu, 2004;Šimík, 2011). Y también que estarán restringidas a posición postverbal, ya que la posición de sujeto preverbal en español sólo puede estar ocupada por una categoría plena (i.e.…”

Basque correlatives and their kin in the history of Northern Basque

“…The expression "indefinite free relatives" (henceforth IFR) has been introduced by Caponigro (2001) and Grosu (2004). It refers to wh-clauses found in existential contexts.…”