TransparentWishesKaivonFintel andSabineIatridou

April21,2017Berlin

1

“Transparent”comesfromvonFintel andIatridou 2008“Howtosayought inForeign”.

Wehadstudiedtheweaknecessitymodalought:

1. Yououghttodothedishesbutyoudon’thaveto2a.#Youhavetodothedishesbutyoudon’thaveto.b.#Youmustdothedishesbutyoudon’thaveto.

Wefoundthatinmanylanguagesought isexpressedbytheadditionofcertainmorphologyonauniversal/necessitymodal.Specifically,themorphologythatappearsintheconsequentofa“counterfactual”conditional.Wecalledthese“transparentought”.

2

Greektransparentought:

3.Tha eprepe na plinis tapiata ala dhen ise ipexreomenos na tokanisFUTmust+Past NAwashthedishesbutNEGareobligedNAitdo‘Yououghttodothedishesbutyouarenotobligedtodoit’

Frenchtransparentought :

4.Tu devrais fairelavaisselle,mais tu n’es pasobligéyoumust/CONDdothedishesbutyounot+are notobliged‘yououghttodothedishesbutyouarenotobligedtodothem’

Andseveralothers,includingnon-IElanguages. 3

Englishisanoutlierinhavingalexicalitemfortheweaknecessitymodal.(thoughhistoricallyonecandetectCFmorphologyonought)

So“transparentought”: strongnecessitymodal+CFconsequentmorphology

4

Entertwomoreterms:X-markingvsO-markingWeintroducedtheterm“X-markedconditionals”in2016, inworkandinclass,withtheintentionofreplacingtheterms“subjunctiveconditionals”and“counterfactualconditionals”.

“subjunctiveconditionals”isnotagoodtermbecausemanyoftherelevantconditionalsdon’tusethesubjunctive,evenifthelanguagehasasubjunctive(e.g.French).

“counterfactualconditionals”isnotagoodtermbecausemanyoftherelevantconditionalsarenotcontra-to-fact.ForexampleFLVs:5.Ifyoulefttomorrow,youwouldgettherenextweek

Andmoreover,evenoutsideofFLVs, thecounterfactuality hasbeenshowntobecancellable(Anderson1951).

5

So“X-marking” iswhatevermorphologyonconditionalsbringsaboutacounterfactualorunlikely (cancellable)inference.TheabsenceofX-marking isO-marking.

X:extraO:ordinary,open…

X-markedconditional:6.Ifheknewtheanswer,hewouldtellher

O-markedconditional:7.Ifheknowstheanswer,hewilltellher 6

Transparentought:strongnecessitymodal+consequentX-marking,interpretedasaweaknecessitymodalintheactualworld.

OurproposalaimedtoexplainwhyX-markingonastrongnecessitymodalcouldyieldaweaknecessitymodalintheactualworld:

“Perhaps,then,thecounterfactualmarkingisco-optedhereinasomewhatmeta-linguistickindofway:“ifwewereinacontextinwhichthesecondaryorderingsourcewaspromoted,thenitwouldbeastrongnecessitythat...”.ThiswouldexplainwhyeventhoughthereisCF-morphology,themodalclaimismadefirmlyabouttheactualworld;allthatthemorphologymarksisachangeinevaluationparameters.Itprobablynotanaccidentthatcounterfactualmarkingbringswithitanelementoftentativeness:thespeakerisnotsayingthatthesecondaryorderingsourceissomethingthathastobeobeyed.Thechoiceofwhethertoreallypromotethesecondaryorderingsourceisleftopen.”

7

Notethatthepresenceofconsequent X-marking isvaguelyjustifiedbythemodalbeinginthe consequentofanX-markedconditional.

Wehadalsonotedthattransparentought isactuallyambiguous,unlikeEnglishought.

English:-aweaknecessitymodalintheactualworld:8.Fredought tousetheboat

-astrongnecessitymodalina“CF”world:9.IfFredwantedtogototheisland,hewouldhavetousetheboat

8

Butinalanguagewithtransparentought,theformsarethesame:

-aweaknecessity modal intheactualworld:

10.tha eprepe na pari aftin tinvarkamust+X takethistheboat‘heoughttotaketheboat’

-astrongnecessity modal ina“CF”world:

11.AnoFredithele na pai sto nisi,tha eprepe na pari aftin tinvarkaIftheFredwantedtogoto-the island,must+X takethis theboat

‘IfFredwantedtogototheisland, hewouldhavetousetheboat’

9

WhycanX-markingonanEnglishnecessitymodalnotmeanought?

12.Heoughttodothewishes=/=13.Hewouldhavetodothedishes

Wedidn’tknow.Ablockingeffect?

10

Sowhatare“Transparentwishes”?

Thereissomethingpeoplecall“Counterfactualwishes”:

14.HewishesshehadaHondaOdyssey15.Shewishesshewastallerthansheis

CFwishesareamisnomer:thedesireisintheactualworld.

11

12

Inmanylanguages,thereisamorphologicalcommonalitybetweenX-markedconditionalsandCFwishes(Iatridou 2000).

Inthefullversionofthegeneralization,themorphologyontheX-conditionalconsequentappearsontheembeddingverbwant andthemorphologyontheX-conditionalantecedentappearsonitscomplement:

16.X-markedconditional:ifpm1,qm2

17.CFwish:Iwantm2 thatpm1

WewillcallthistheConditional/Desire(C/D)generalization.

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 más altodeloque es.Want.3.sg.COND thats/hebe.3.sg.PAST.SUBJ moretallthanits/heis‘Iwishs/hewastallerthans/heis

13

Wewillfollowthepreviouslyestablishedterminologyandusetheterm“X-markeddesires”forCF-wishes.

X-markeddesiresareinoppositiontoO-markeddesires.

14

SpanishO-markeddesireshaveindicativeonwant andpresentsubjunctiveonthecomplement(whenthecomplementisnotinfinitival).

X-markeddesire:20.Querría que fuera más altodeloque es.

Want.3.sg.COND thatbe.3.sg.PAST.SUBJ moretallthanits/heis‘Iwishs/hewastallerthans/heis

O-markeddesire:21Quiero que sea alto.

Want.1.sg.INDthatbe.3.sg.PR.SUBJ tall‘Iwanthimtobetall’

15

“Transparentwishes”:

onepartoftheC/Dgeneralization:want+X-marking

Spanish,Greek,Frenchandothersaretransparentwish languages.

Englishisnot.Ithasalexicalizeditemwish, justasithasalexicalizeditemought.

Moreover,justasinthecaseoftransparentought, i.e.strong necessitymodal+X,X-markedwantisambiguousbetweenamodalclaimabouttheactualworldandamodalclaiminaCFworld.

16

A desireinaCFworld:Idon’thaveadesireintheactualworld

22.Anitan psiloteros tha ithele makritero krevatiifwastallerFUTwant+Past longerbed‘Ifhewastallerhewouldwantalongerbed’

Adesireintheactualworld:

23.Tha ithele na imun psiloteriFUTwant+Past NAwastaller‘ShewishesIwastaller’

17

Andasinthecaseofweaknecessity, thisambiguity isnotfoundinEnglish:

24.(Ifheweretaller)hewouldwanttohavealongerbed

=/=

25.Hewisheshehadalongerbed

ThenextimageisfromvonFintel andIatridou 2006:18

(77) Anif

itanwas

psiloterostaller

thaFUT

ithelewant+Past

makriterolonger

krevatibed

‘If he was taller he would want a longer bed’

(78) ThaFUT

ithelawant+Past

naNA

imunwas

psiloteritaller

‘I wish I was taller’

English, on the other hand, lexicalizes into one item the case where the de-sire is in the actual world (wish30) while the periphrastic string is reserved fordesire in a counterfactual world (would want to). The parallelism to the caseof ought should now be clear: English chooses specialized lexical items forthe interpretation where the modal claim holds in the actual world (ought) andwhere the desire holds in the actual world (wish).

We can visualize the situation as follows:

transparent languages: strong necessity + CF

OUGHTmodal claim in actual

world

WOULD HAVE TOmodal claim in

counterfactual world

English:

"ought" "would have to"

WISHdesire in actual

world

WOULD WANTdesire in

counterfactual world

"wish""would want"

transparent languages: want + CF

30 This shows that the term “counterfactual wishing” is misleading. The desire is in this world.

20

19

SotransparentwishlanguagesarethelanguagesthatuseX-markingonwant toexpress“CFwishes”.

AndthisisonepartoftheC/Dgeneralization.

WhilethereareplentyoflanguagesthatabidebybothpartsoftheC/Dgeneralization,therearesomethatabidebyonlyoneofthetwopartsoftheC/Dgeneralization.

20

Somelanguagesonlyobeythepartthathastodowithwant (i.e.theyaretransparentwishlanguages) butdonotobeythecomplement-generalization.

OnesuchlanguageisFrench,whichhasCONDonX-want, thewayitdoesonanX-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 vuheithave.COND seen

‘IfMariehadaredumbrella,hewouldhaveseenit’

FrenchX-desire:27.Jevoudrais que Marieait/*avait unparapluierougeIwant.1.sg.CONDthatMaryhave.3.sg.SUBJ/*have.PST.IMPF.INDanumbr.red‘IwishMariehadaredumbrella’

22

WhyistherenosubjunctiveinFrenchX-conditionals,unlikeinSpanishandCatalan?

Iatridou 2000:becausetheModernFrenchsubjunctivehasnotensedistinctions,unliketheSpanishandCatalanone.WhenFrenchusedtohavethesedistinctions,itusedpastsubjunctiveaswell.

“…inFrench,aswellasinanumberofotherlanguages,whatisnecessaryinthemorphologicalmake-upofcounterfactualsisPasttense……andthesubjunctiveappearsonlyifthelanguagehasaparadigmforthepastsubjunctive. ….ModernFrenchdoesnothaveapastsubjunctive.Itssubjunctiveisunmarkedfortense.Hence,itcannotappearincounterfactualconditionals.PreviousstagesofFrench,however,didhaveasubjunctivewhichvariedfortense,thatis,therewasapastsubjunctive,andinthatstageofthelanguage,thepastsubjunctivewasrequiredinacounterfactualconditional.ModernFrench,ontheotherhand,usestheindicative,asithasnopastsubjunctive…”(summaryfromIatridou 2016,p.4) 23

However,evenifthisistherightexplanationfortheabsenceofthesubjunctiveinFrenchX-conditionals,itdoesnotexplainwhyFrenchdoesnotabidebythecomplementpartoftheC/Dgeneralization.

Forthatpart,itseemsthatthesubcategorization frameofwant istheculprit.

Frenchvouloir takesitscomplementintheinfinitiveorinthesubjunctive,dependingonwhethertheembeddedsubjectisco-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,thereisaconflictinwhatmoodthecomplementappearsinwhenthetwosubjectsarecontra-indexed:

Want requiressubjunctiveonitscomplement.TheC/Dgeneralization(rather,whateverisbehindit)requiresIndicative(pastimperfective)onthecomplementofwant.Theselectionrequirementsofwant win.

InSpanish,thereisnosuchconflict:Again,want requiressubjunctiveonitscomplement.TheC/DgeneralizationrequiresPastsubjunctive.Thecomplementofwant inaSpanishX-desirecansatisfyboth,becauseSpanishhasapastsubjunctive.

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 echoaftokinitoWant.1.sg.NAhaveacar‘Iwanttohaveacar’

SoitseemsthatlikeSpanish,butunlikeFrench,Greekcansatisfyboththelocalselectionrequirementsoftheembeddingverb,aswellastheC/Dgeneralization.

28

TherearealsolanguagesthatsatisfythecomplementpartoftheC/Dgeneralizationbutnotthewant part(i.e.theydonothavetransparentwish)

Hindihasanundeclinable particlekaash thatbyitself,i.e.withoutanyverb,expresseswishesthatcannotberealized(moreonthislater).It’ssyntacticcategoryisunknown(Bhattp.c.).It’sreminsicent ofGreekmakari, Italianmagare, Spanishojala.

However,themorphologyonthecomplement isexactlythatofanX-antecedent.

35.kaash vo lambaa ho-taawishhetallbe-Hab‘Iwishhewastall’ 29

Hindita isdescribedasahabituality marker.However,itcannotappearonapredicatethatisbyitsnatureindividual-level:

36.*vo lambaa ho-taa (hai)hetallbe-Hab (is)

ButtadoesappearonILpredicatesinX-conditionals(andwasdescribedaspartof“fake”morphologyassociatedwithX-markedconditionals)

37.agarvo lambaa ho-taa,toarmyusebhartii kar le-tiiifhetallbe-Hab thenarmyhe.Dat admitdoTAKE-Hab.f

‘Ifhewastall,thearmywouldhaveadmittedhim.’

30

Sotainthecomplementofkaash iscompliantwiththecomplementpartoftheC/Dgeneralization.

38.kaash vo lambaa ho-taawishhetallbe-Hab‘Iwishhewastall’

31

ComingtoEnglish,wealreadysawthatitisnotatransparentwishlanguage:

Given(40),Englishwouldhavehadtohave(41)tomean(42)toqualifyasatransparentwishlanguage:

40.IfIhadacar,Iwould behappy

41. *IwouldwantthatIhadacarnow=/=42.IwishthatIhadacarnow

SoEnglishisnotcompliantwiththewant-partofthegeneralization(i.e.itisnotatransparentwishlanguage)

32

ButlikeHindi,itiscompliantinthecomplementpart:

40.IfIhad acar,Iwouldbehappy

42.IwishthatIhad acarnow

33

Inshort,wewilltaketheC/Dgeneralizationtohavesubstancetoit,eventhoughthereareenvironmentswhereoneofitstwopartsseemviolatedforlanguage-specificreasons.

Fromnowonthen,wewilltaketheC/Dgeneralizationassomethingthatneedstobeexplained,andattempttodosoforbothpartsofit.

Wewillstartwiththewant partofthegeneralization,i.e.transparentwish.

Whywouldwant carryX-marking,andmoreover,whywoulditcarryX-consequentmarking?

34

InvonFintel andIatridou 2008,webrieflyconsideredthepossibility(broughtupbyTimStowell p.c.)thattheX-markingoncertainmodalsshouldbeinterpretedunderthem.Inotherwords,inthisproposalthereissomescopal re-ordering.

Werejectedthispossibilityforthecasesweweredealingwiththen(transparentought)butitispossible,ofcourse,thatthisistherightanalysisforthecaseswearedealingwithnow(transparentwishes).

35

Oneadvantageofsuchanaccountwouldbethatwantwouldbeevaluatedintheactualworld,sinceitisnotinthescopeoftheX-marking.Thisisanadvantagebecauseasentencelike

43.Tha ithela na icha aftokinito toraFUT want.PST.sg NAhave.PST.1sgcarnow‘IwishIhadacarnow’

seemstoconveythatIhaveadesireintheactualworld.

36

Buttherearealsodifficultieswithsuchanaccount,namely:

-whywouldtheX-markingmorphologynotappearintheplacewhereitisinterpreted?

-whatsortofscopereversalisthis?

-whywouldtheX-markingonwant bethatofaX-consequent,andnotthatofanX-antecedent?

-underthemodal,therewouldnowbetwoinstancesofX-marking:X-markingonwant,andX-markingontheembeddedverb,aswesawinourdiscussionoftheC/Dgeneralization.WhatdowedowiththisstackedX-marking?

37

Instead,wewill attemptanaccountalongthelinesofour2008treatmentoftransparentought.Werepeattherelevantpartswiththeought-specificsredacted:

“Perhaps,then,thecounterfactualmarkingisco-optedhereinasomewhatmeta-linguistickindofway:“ifwewereinacontextinwhichthesecondaryorderingsourcewaspromoted,thenitwouldbeastrongnecessitythat...”.ThiswouldexplainwhyeventhoughthereisCF-morphology,themodalclaimismadefirmlyabouttheactualworld;allthatthemorphologymarksisachangeinevaluationparameters.”

38

Weclearlywanttoretainthispart:

“Perhaps,then,thecounterfactualmarkingisco-optedhereinasomewhatmeta-linguistickindofway…...ThiswouldexplainwhyeventhoughthereisCF-morphology,themodalclaimismadefirmlyabouttheactualworld;allthatthemorphologymarksisachangeinevaluationparameters”

Afterall,(transparent)wishesaredesiresintheactualworld.

39

Butwhatisthe“somewhatmeta-linguisticway”?

Inthecaseoftransparentought:“ifwewereinacontextinwhichthesecondaryorderingsourcewaspromoted,thenitwouldbeastrongnecessitythat...”.

Thebluepartinthecaseoftransparentought isthestrongnecessitymodalwhichcarriestheX-marking.Thismeansthatinthecaseoftransparentwishes,thebouletic verb(whichisthecarrierofX-marking)goesthere:

“ifwewereinacontextinwhich…,thenIwouldwant...”.

Butwhatwouldbethemissingantecedent?40

Beforewecontinue,animportantnote.Sofar,wehavecomehere:

44.[If…..........]antecedent [then….... want+X-marking …..........]consequent

andaskedthequestionofwhatthemissingantecedent is.In(44),theantecedentispresentedasamissingif-clauseadjunctwithasyntacticpresence.Thisismisleading.Whatwearelookingforisarestrictiononthemodal.Thereisnoreasontobelievethatthisrestrictionisnecessarilysyntacticallyrepresented.

Itcouldbeacontextualrestriction(andrepresentedhoweveronelikestorepresentcontextualrestrictions, forexamplewiththevariableC.)

41

Afterall,wecansay(45a)withtheintentionof(45b):

45a.Everystudentwaslatetodayb.Everystudentwhoisinmyclasswaslatetoday

Butusuallywedonotsaythat(45a)hastolooklike(45b)inthesyntax.Acontextualrestrictionistakentobeabletodothejob.

42

Similarly,whenwesaythatwearelookingforthemissingantecedentin(44):

44.[If…..........]antecedent [then… want+X-marking …..........]consequent

wemeanthatwearelookingfortherestrictionofthemodal,andmakenoclaimaboutthenatureofitssyntacticpresence.

Infact,ongeneralgrounds,onemightsaythatif(45a)canbedealtwithinwhicheverwayonedealswithacontextualrestriction,oneshouldchoosethesamepathfor(44).

However,onemightobjecttothis.

43

Onemightobjectonthefollowinggrounds:

“Acontextualrestrictoroneveryboy doesnotleaveanythreadsuntied.However,acontextualrestrictoronamodalwouldnotbeabletocausetheX-markingonthemodal.Forarestrictortoaffectthemorphologyofthemodal,ithastobesyntacticallypresent”.

Ifthatistheobjection,ouransweris:

44

Itisnottheif-clausethattriggerstheX-markingmorphologyonthemodal.TheX-markingonthemodaliscorrelatedwithacertainoperation.

Whatoperation?WewillstayawayherefromdebateslikePast-as-Past versusPast-as-ModalandsticktothemoreneutraldescriptionalongthelinesofvonFintel 1998:

46.X-markingshowsthatthedomainofquantificationofthemodalreachesoutsidethecontextset

Inotherwords,theif-clauseisnotthecauseoftheX-markingonthemodal.Itonlygivesinformationabouttheworldsoutsidethecontextsetthatthemodalquantifiesover.

45

Inotherwords,takingthe“missingantecedent”of(44)tobeametaphorforamissingcontextuallysuppliedrestriction,ratherthananactuallysyntacticallypresentif-clause,willnotcauseproblemswiththemorphology.

44.[If…..........]antecedent [then… want+X-marking …..........]consequent

Therefore,wewilltakethesimplerpaththattherestrictioniscontextuallysupplied,ratherthansyntacticallypresentasin(44).

Evenso,wewillcontinueusingtheterm“missingantecedent”!

46

Whatwepropose isthatthemissing antecedent makesreferencetoapresupposition oftheconsequent, specifically thepresupposition ofwant.Alreadyatleast Kasper1992discussed caseswhereamissing antecedent containedpresuppositions oftheconsequent:

47.Yourbrotherwouldn’thavefailedtheexam

AsKasperpointsout,themissing antecedent of(47),whenitisclearthatyoutooktheexamandfailed it,is(48):

48.Ifyourbrotherhadtakentheexam

Failinganexampresupposes havingtaken it.

Themissing antecedent of(47)isnot(49)or(50)(unless thecontext issufficiently rich):49.Ifyourbrotherhadhadenoughsleep49.Ifyourbrotherhadputmoreeffortinhisstudies

47

Sowhatpresuppositionofwant issatisfiedinthemissingantecedent?

Thatitscomplementisattainable. (tobeenriched)

Soweproposethatthefelicitoususeofwant meansthattheattainabilitypresuppositionissatisfied.

Iftheattainabilitypresuppositionisnotsatisfied,themissingantecedenttakesyoutotheworldswhereitis.

48

TakeFrench.Aswesaid,thedifferencebetweenaninfinitiveorasubjunctivecomplementisafunctionofthe(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.IwantbearrivedTuesdaypassedintended:‘IwanttohavearrivedlastTuesday’

53. *Jeveux qu’il soit arrivé mardi passé.Iwantthathebe.subj arrivedTuesdaypassedintended:‘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)havemissingantecedentswhichtakeustotheworldswherearrivingonTuesdayisattainable,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‘verysoon’,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 ispossible,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-as-PastvsPast-as-Modaldebates):

46.X-markingshowsthatthedomainofquantificationofthemodalreachesoutsidethecontextset

Inthecasesoftransparentwishes,theX-markingonwant reflectsthatthemodalquantifiesoverworldsoutsideofthecontextset,specificallyoverworldswherethecomplementofwant isattainable.

54

Butnowwehavesetupapotential conflictwithacommontreatment ofbouletic verbswhichgoesbacktoHeim92,butwhichcontinues inotherworksthathavemodifiedotheraspects ofHeim’s initial account.

HereisaninformalversionofHeim’s analysis fromRubinstein 2017:

“Basic ideaforwant:Comparethedesirability oftheq-worldsmostsimilartowtothedesirability ofthe¬q-worldsmostsimilartow,foreveryworldwinthesubject’sbeliefworlds.

Additional ingredients:(i) Onlycomparethedesirability ofworldsthatagreewiththesubject’sbeliefs.(ii) Presuppose thatthesubjectbelieves neitherqnor¬q.”

Ineffect,thismeans thatifIfelicitously utter Iwantq,it isbecause inmydoxasticalternatives, Ihavebothqand¬q.Thatis, inthequantificational domainofthemodaltherearebothqand¬qworlds.

55

Thisfitswhatwehavesaidsofar:Iftheactualworldisbelievedbythespeakertobea¬qworld,thespeakerneedstoreachoutofthecontextsettofindqworlds.Thisreachingoutofthecontextset,isaccompaniedbyX-marking,aswesaid.

Earlier,weputthisintermsoffindingworldswherethecomplementofwant isattainable.

However,itcouldalsobeputinthetermsweareusingnow:thedomainofquantificationofthemodalreachesoutsidethecontextset,tofindqworldsthatarerequiredforthecomparativesemanticsofwant.

Butthenwearepredictingthatiftheactualworldisaqworld,andthedomainofquantificationneedstoreachoutsidethecontextsettofind¬q,weshouldalsoexpectX-marking.

56

Butthisisnotso.Considerthefollowingsentences(fromIatridou 2000):

61.IliveinBoliviabecauseIwanttoliveinBolivia62.IhavewhatIwanttohave

In(61,62)thedomainofquantificationofthemodalneedstoreachoutsidethecontextsettofindworldsinwhichIdon’tliveinBolivia,andworldsinwhichIdon’thavewhatIwant.

Butinthesesentences,noX-markingonwant ispossible:

57

French:

63. J'habite enBolivie parce que jeveux/*voudrais habiter enBolivieIliveinBoliviabecauseIwant/*want+X liveinBolivia

64.J'ai ce que jeveux/*voudraisIhavethisthatIwant/want+X

AndeveninEnglish,theverbwish cannotbeused(Iatridou 2000):

65.*IliveinBoliviabecauseIwishIlivedinBolivia66.*IhavewhatIwishIhad

58

Inotherwords,ifweconnecttheappearanceofX-markingtothemodalneedingtofindbothqand¬qworldsforthecomparativesemanticsofwant,wegetanasymmetry:

-reachingoutsidethecontextsetinsearchofqworldstriggersX-marking-reachingoutsidethecontextsetinsearchof¬qworldsdoesnottriggerX-marking

Thisseemstobeaproblem.Whywouldtherebesuchanasymmetry?

59

ItseemsthatthewayoutofthisproblemistonotconnecttheappearanceofX-markingtoreachesoutsidethecontextsetinordertosatisfythecomparativesemanticsofwant.

Instead,theoriginalideaofreachingoutsidethecontextsettofindworldsthatsatisfytheattainabilitypresuppositionofwant seemstodeliverbetterresults:

Ifweareina¬q world,weneedtoincludeqworldsinthedomainofquantificationinordertosatisfytheattainabilitypresuppositionofwant.

Butwhenweareinaqworld,thereisnoequivalentbutsymmetricalpresuppositionthatneedstobesatisfied.

60

Somuchforthewant partoftheC/Dgeneralization.Thatis,transparentwishlanguages.

TheconsequentX-markingofthemodalreflects(putsomewhatneutrally)

“Perhaps,then,thecounterfactualmarkingisco-optedhereinasomewhatmeta-linguistickindofway:“ifwewereinacontextinwhichtheattainabilitypresuppositionofwant issatisfied,thenIwouldwantthat...”.…”

61

Onemaywanttoraisethequestion:

Underthisdescription,thedesireisassertedtotakeplaceinaCFworld,wheretheattainabilitypresuppositionofwant issatisfied.Ifthelatter,whydoesitfeellikethedesireisadesireintheactualworld?

Theanswertothismaybethattheattainabilitypresuppositionneedstobeslightlyenrichedto“theonlymissingfactorisattainability”.

Connectiontofast etc withX-marking.

62

Inthelittleremainingtime, letusbrieflygotothecomplement partoftheC/Dgeneralization.

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 más altodeloque es.Want.3.sg.CONDthats/hebe.3.sg.PAST.SUBJ moretallthanits/heis‘Iwishs/hewastallerthans/heis

64

GreekX-markedconditionals:

69.Anefevge avrio,tha eftane methavrioIfleave.PAST.IMP tomorrow,FUTarrive.PAST.IMP dayaftertomorrow‘Ifs/helefttomorrow,s/hewouldgettherethedayaftertomorrow’

GreekX-markeddesires:

70.Tha ithela na efevge avrioFUTwant.PAST NAleave.PAST.IMP tomorrow‘Iwishhewouldleavetomorrow’

65

However,thesedataareatmostconsistentwiththecomplementpartoftheC/Dgeneralizationanddonotprovidedirectevidenceforit.

ThereasonisthattheseareSoT languages.

Given that Spanish X-marking contains Past tensemorphology, it could bethatX-marking on want triggers Past tensemorphology on its complement,whichwould asaresult looklike X-marking.

Indeed,inSpanish,theembedded(subjunctiveorindicative)verbalwaysshiftstoapast(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-markedwant is nothing morethan SoT?

68

69

AsimilarconcernarisesforGreekaswell.Hereantecedent X-markingconsistsofPast+Imperfective. Anditispossible tosetupanSoT contextwherePast+Imperfective appears(Iatridou 2000):

75.Prin apo mia vdhomadha ipe oti tha efevye /fiyi sedhio meresbeforeoneweeksaidthatFUTleave.PAST.IMP/Non-PAST.IMP in2days

‘Aweekagos/hesaidthatshewould/will leavein2days’

|___x_____________ |___x/x______________________< ------a week------------------ >

UT

V+prf (will)

V+imp+pst (would)

*V+prf+pst

SolanguageslikeGreekandSpanishdonotprovidedirectevidenceinfavorofthecomplementpartoftheC/Dgeneralization.

However,supportforitcanbefoundinlanguageswhereX-markingdoesnotcontainPast.

WealreadysawthatHindiissuchacase:76.kaash vo lambaa ho-taa

wishhetallbe-Hab‘Iwishhewastall’

TheappearanceofX-markingta isnottheresultofSoT.

70

77.agarvo lambaa ho-ta,toarmyusebhartii kar le-tiiifhetallbe-Hab thenarmyhe.Dat admitdoTAKE-Hab.f

‘Ifhewastall,thearmywouldhaveadmittedhim.’

ButtacannotappearonILpredicatesoutsidethesecontexts(itcanappearonlyonderivedgenerics):

78.*vo lambaa ho-ta (hai)hetallbe-Hab (is)

71

AnotherargumentcanbefoundinTurkish.X-markinginTurkish:TurkishhasfakePast.

X-markingontheconsequent:aorist+pastX-markingontheantecedent:SA+past (past-SAinepistemicconds.)

79.Johnönümüzdeki salı gel-se-ydi, annesi çok mutlu ol-ur-duJohn next Tue come-SA-PST his.mom veryhappybe(come)-AOR-PST‘IfJohnarrivednextTuesday,hismomwouldbeveryhappy’

72

Turkishhasundeclinable keşke (reminiscentbutslightlydifferentfromHindi).

80.Keşke önümüzdeki salı gel-se-ydiI.wish nexttuesday come-SA-PST‘IwishhewouldcomenextTuesday’

Andin(80)thespeakerbelievesthatherwishwillnotcometrue.

Thepasttensein(80)isclearlynottheresultofSoT.

73

Finally,supportforthecomplementpartoftheC/DgeneralizationcanalsobefoundinEnglish.Theappearanceof(fake)pastisnottheresultofSoT,sincetheembeddingverbisnotinthepast:

81.Shewishes shehadacarnow82.Shechangeshermindaboutcarsallthetime.YesterdayshewishedshehadaMercedes.TodayshewishesshehadaBentley.TomorrowshewillwishshehadaLamborghini.

Soquitepossibly,thecomplementpartoftheC/Dgeneralizationisreal.

Whataresomeofthethingsitmighttellus?

74

TheremaybeapointtobemadeaboutthePast-as-PastversusPast-as-Modaldebate.

WhentherearetwooccurrencesofX-markingbutonlyonemodaloperator(whichisthecase,arguably,inbothconditionalsandtransparentwishes),Past-as-Pasthastotreatoneoccurrenceas“non-semantic”,somekindofagreementorreflectionoftheonetruePASToperator(whichshiftsthetimeofaccessibility).

Inbothcases,there’saquestionofwhyitisonlythetimeofaccessibilitythatisshiftedintothepastandnotthetimeoftheordering/preferencestructure.

WesuspectthatP-as-PwillhaveahardertimewithtransparentwishesthanwithX-markedconditionals.Butthisdebateisstillongoing.

75

Summary!

76