constituents, no change of state can be defined. “John washed the shirt” but not *”the shirt washed John”.

Event participants selected in the vP/VP phase may acquire psychological properties in the higher CP/TP phase.<fnref n="4" />

Some event participants construed as bodies in vP remain so construed at the syntax-semantics interface TP/CP, even if +human, as in (13a). Others are associated with psychological properties, such as, for a +human subject, intention, as in (13b).

(13) a. John slipped on a banana peel.

b. John slipped Mary a note.

Elements selected in vP are construed as physical bodies. Under raising they may acquire the mental property of intention. The construal of an ambiguous sentence with a raised object may then turn simply on whether or not the subject is construed as exercising intention in TP as well as undergoing a change of physical state in vP. The soldiers are construed as bodies under the impersonal construal of (14a) but have intention under the reflexive construal. The sick man in (14b) is represented as a body under the middle construal but has intention under the reflexive construal.

(14) a. Beaucoup de soldats se sont tués ici.

b. Ce malade se soulève avec difficulté.

We propose that the property of MIND has two manifestations, *sentience* and *intention*.

(i) **SENTIENCE** is a kind of self-consciousness; it includes both internal emotions and perceptions of one's self and one's immediate environment.

The property of sentience already has been recognized under various names: Ritter (2022) explores “the hypothesis that Blackfoot event structure is organized around the distinctive capacity of sentient arguments for intentional action and sensory/psychological response”. We will argue that while all intentional arguments are sentient, not all sentient arguments are intentional. Ritter’s analysis differs from ours in being embedded in morphosyntax: she proposes that sentience is a feature (“m”) subject to a feature checking operation much like AGREE. We claim, rather, that sentience is assigned to an event participant only under construal at the syntax-semantics interface.

Sentience also goes by the name of *de se*, characterized by Feit & Capone (2013) as “thoughts we have about ourselves...and the statements we use to express them”.<fnref n="5" />

Zribi-Hertz (1989) characterized the antecedent of the long-distance anaphor *herself* in a sentence like “Mary was wondering whether the guests were talking about herself” as a Subject of Consciousness.

We submit that all these terms refer to the property of sentience.

(ii) **INTENTION** is a dynamic property of a mind which envisages a change of state *goal*. This property is obtained compositionally in syntax. If a +human nominal is assigned sentience in the specifier position of a finite TP and its trace is assigned the agentive external theta-role of a change of state event description in vP, that nominal is construed as possessing the property of intention. Indeed, it is reasonable to claim that a body selected for its agentive force which has

<footnote n="4">⁴ For discussion of “phases” cf. Chomsky (2001).</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ On *de se* see Chierchia (1989) and discussion in Bianchi (2003).</footnote>
acquired, in addition, sentience/consciousness of self and the immediate environment, will entertain a change of state goal. We associate such a subject with a conceptual pattern that Guéron & Vogeleer (2022) call a Goal-Directed Trajectory.

A Goal-Directed Trajectory (GDT) is a pattern of construal in which an intentional Agent seeks to accomplish a Goal with the aid of an Instrument. The GDT is associated with Accomplishment event descriptions in vP. It is also ubiquitous outside sentence grammar. It resides in the mind of top athletes, chess masters, and others who possess both force and ambition. In discourse, it provides the basic structure of several literary genres, heroic poetry like *Beowulf*, medieval adventure novels like *The Knights of the Round Table*, and classical dramas such as *Hamlet* or *Le Cid*.<fnref n="6" /> A GDT scenario plays out over an interval of time.

2.2. To complete the list of notions used in our analysis, we distinguish two types of local relations between syntactically asymmetric event participants, *Anaphora* and *Targeting*.

We take *Anaphora* to be the identification (for example by coindexing) of an antecedent nominal possessing a property of Mind and an anaphoric nominal with the property of Body. For example, in English (15), the subject *John*, construed as agentive in Spec vP and as sentient in Spec TP, thereby acquiring intention, binds the direct object (non-focused) *himself* construed solely as a body in VP in (15a-b) and as the subject of a small clause in (15c-e).

(15) a. John washed/killed himself.
b. John threw himself out of the window.
c. Max drank himself to death.
d. Max painted himself into a corner.
e. John got himself fired.

*Targeting* is a dynamic relation in which a human subject located in Spec TP provided with both sentience and intention transmits the property of sentience to a direct or indirect +human object previously selected as a body in vP.

In (16), the intentional subject of a verb with rhetorical/persuasive content transmits sentience to a body-denoting anaphor. *Himself* is an anaphor without sentience in (17a) and with transmitted sentience in (17b).

(16) John convinced/persuaded himself that Bill was the culprit.

(17) a. John is dressing/washing himself.
b. John is deceiving/fooling himself.

2.3. The construal of many grammatical structures distinguishes properties of Body selected in vP from properties of Mind acquired in TP and involve a variety of relations between Body and Mind.

2.3.1. In Spanish, for example, clitic doubling targets a direct or indirect object, depending on the dialect, with +person content, assigning it sentience. As suggested by Jaeggli (1982), clitic doubling obviates the goal reading associated with Spanish “a”, a lexical item with locative/directional content depending on the context. The assignment of sentience to an object

<footnote n="6">⁶ And just as there are “non-culminated accomplishments” (GDTs) such as “John washed the shirt but it is not clean””, there are non-culminated GDT literary works, novels such as *Don Quixote* and plays such as *Phèdre*.</footnote>
by an intentional subject creates a relation between two arguments construed as definite, that
is, as existing in the discourse ground before the event takes place.

(18) a. Le di un caramelo a Mafalda.

b. Lo veo a Juan/a él.

c. *Lo veo al suelo.

2.3.2. A targeting relation is often marked by a distributive element like quantificational *each* in (19), from Burzio (1986). Here too, targeting implies /establishes definiteness.<fnref n="7" />

(19) a. They assigned two interpreters each to the visiting diplomats/*to diplomats.

b. They assigned the visiting diplomats/*diplomats two interpreters each.

2.3.3. Expressions of Inalienable Possession (IA) involve a combination of MIND-BODY relations. In (20), we have relabeled the structure proposed in Guéron (1985/2017) to fit in with the present claims.

(20) Je lui prends la main.

Jeᵢ T+luiⱼ prendsᵣ [vp tᵢ[VP tⱼ [DPⱼ proⱼ laⱼ main tⱼ]]]

| | | | |

MIND MIND BODY (hand)

BODY BODY

As Wierzbicka (1976) pointed out, in a sentence like (20), *I* “do” two things to *him*: (i) I affect his body and (ii) I affect him psychologically.

(20) involves four construal relations

(i) a body-body relation in vP where an implicit body-part (hand) affects an overt body-part hand.

(ii) Mind-mind targeting in TP: the finite subject, having acquired the mental property of intention in Spec TP, targets a dative clitic adjoined to T+V, assigning it the psychological property of sentience.

(iii) An anaphoric relation between Mind and Body. *Je* is the mind antecedent of its body anaphoric trace in Spec vP.

(iv) An anaphoric relation between the mind of the indirect object and the body of the direct object. The DP "la main" has lexical gender. Gender is a classifier of nominal bodies in Romance. It also has syntactic number, but it lacks a person F. Sentient *lui* provides a person F to the genitive pro body complement of *hand* raised to the left edge of the DP object under anaphora. Pro is coindexed with *la*, the head of DP.

A dynamic scenario is thus constructed in which an intentional agent actively “affects” as Wierzbicka put it, both the body and the mind of another argument.

<footnote n="7">⁷ Distributive targeting is part of the construal of reciprocals like (i). In (ii), a distributive adjunct turns a grammatically stative event description into a psychologically dynamic one.</footnote>

<footnote>(i) Jean et Marie se sont parlés hier.</footnote>

<footnote>(ii) Max et Suzanne s'aiment/se détestent l'un l'autre.</footnote>
An event participant may have a lexical person feature yet still be construed as body, as in (2c) above. This is also true of third person pronouns. Even in inalienable possession structures, *lui* has no psychological properties unless it is targeted by an external argument. Stative sentences do not license targeting relations. (21a-b) are stative descriptions in which dative *lui* in (21a) and the subject *elle* in (21b) are construed solely as bodies.

(21) a. Les cheveux *lui* descendent de la tête aux pieds.

b. *Elle* a la taille fine.

In IA, the subject physically targets a body part in VP and psychologically targets an adjunct participant in TP simultaneously. Alternatively, an intentional subject may transmit sentience to an object in order that that object subsequently function as an instrument to fulfill its own goal. Both causative and control sentences realize this type of GDT.

2.3.4. In causative (22), an intentional subject has as its goal an event/proposition in which someone washes the laundry. *Je* provides sentience to the adjunct indirect object *Jacques*. *Jacques* binds the agentive theta-role of the event description, thus becoming the very instrument which the matrix subject needs to attain his GDT goal.

(22) and (23) don't have the same truth conditions,

(22) a. Je ferai/ j'ai fait laver le linge à Jacques.

b. Je ferai/ j'ai fait [laver le linge] [à Jacques].

(23) a. Je ferai/j'ai fait laver le linge par Jacques.

b. Je ferai/j'ai fait [laver le linge par Jacques].

“A DP” in (22) is a PP vP-adjunct denoting a physical body which, being +human, can receive sentience transmitted by an intentional subject.

“Par DP” in (23) is a PP VP-adjunct which denotes the physical means by which the end point of a telic process with a beginning and an end was attained. The means need not be +human and cannot be +human in an unaccusative sentence which does not include the beginning of a process.

(24) a. Le carreau a été cassé par Jean/ par l'orage.

b. Je suis entré par la porte principale.

c. * Je suis entré/tombé/parti par Jean

The lexical-syntactic/semantic differences between the two adjuncts account for the contrast in (25), from Kayne (1975).

(25) a. #Je ferai construire cette maison à mes arrière-petits-enfants.

b. Je ferai construire cette maison *par* mes arrière-petits-enfants.

While a “by-phrase” denotes the material means by which an event was accomplished independent of any time lapse, a targeting relation occurs only when the targeter and the targeted are in the same discourse world (time and place). You can consider your great-grandchildren as the means of constructing a house after your death as in (25b) but you cannot target a person from the tomb as in (25a).
The complement of “à” may alternatively be construed as the -human instrument of a natural cause as in (26a) or as a propositional cause as in (26b).

(26) a. Le vent a fait faire un tour aux ailes du moulin. (Kayne, 1975)

b. [cet incident] dut faire faire à son cerveau un travail considérable, car...
(Proust, Vol.IV)<fnref n="8" />

2.3.5. In obligatory control structures, as in causative structures, the intentional matrix subject has a propositional/eventive goal. The subject targets the direct object psychologically, providing it with sentience. The direct object then binds the agentive body of the PRO embedded subject, thus fulfilling the GDT role of the Instrument which allows an intentional subject to attain his/her goal. Bound PRO, like bound traces and anaphors, denotes a body within a change of state description.

(27) a. I convinced/persuaded/asked/forced/got John to leave.

b. I convinced/persuaded/asked, etc. Johnᵢ [CP [TP PROᵢ to leave]]

However, unlike the sentient subject of a finite TP, a targeted object provided with sentience in TP is not itself intentional, even when it binds the agentive subject of a non-finite embedded verb. Intentionality requires temporal simultaneity between the possessor of sentience and the onset of his agentive action. Temporal simultaneity exists between the sentient subject in a finite Spec TP and its body trace in Spec vP. But if I force, allow, convince, or get John to leave there is necessarily a time gap between my affecting John and his agentive action. John is agentive and sentient but I alone am intentional.

Note that perception, which implies sentience but not intention, doesn't license targeting.<fnref n="9" /> In (28) and (29), a sentient matrix subject merely observes an event executed by a body.

(28) a. J'ai vu/entendu Marie pleurer.

b. J'ai vu/entendu [TP Marie pleurer]

(29) a. Voilà Marie qui pleure/sort du cinéma.<fnref n="10" />

b. Voilà [DP Marieᵢ [CP quiᵢ proᵢ pleure/sort du cinéma]].

2.3.6. Another structure which supports the hypothesis that construal may deconstruct an argument into body and mind are sentences with split feature content, like the “past participle (or adjectival) paradox” in (30a-b) in Italian, from Cinque (1988) and Manzini (1986), respectively.

<footnote n="8">⁸ Vol. IV of *A la recherche du temps perdu*, Sodome et Gomorrhe, éd. Gallimard 1992, p.359. Here, Proust's cruel humor has de-humanized the mind of Marcel's servant, “notre vieille Françoise”.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ Perception does licenses targeting in the idioms like (i) - (iii). The pragmatic impossibility of the literal reading is what makes idiomatic readings like (i-iii) possible. The cohabitation of two readings one of which is farcical unless replaced by the other is what makes such idioms amusing.</footnote>

<footnote>(i) I looked him right in the eye.</footnote>

<footnote>(ii) He caught my eye.</footnote>

<footnote>(iii) John's manner is too much in-your-face.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ Example from Kayne (1975).</footnote>
(30) a. Si è risultati /*risultato non aver dormito. (It.)
       sg. pl
       (Si is (sg.) appeared (pl) not to have slept.)

b. Si è nerviosi
    sg. pl.

While the matrix auxiliary agrees with the object raised to matrix subject position in III pers. sg., the embedded participle or adjective agrees with the intermediate raised object in pl nb. and gender.

Gender is a formal feature which in Romance classifies nominals, that is, material bodies, with or without a person F. The same argument counts as a body in a past participle or an adjective phrase, and as a sentient argument in the higher finite domain.<fnref n="11" />

2.3.7. The division of an argument into body and mind enriches the construal of a sentence structure, when a physical event description in vP/VP is embedded within an assertive (or interrogative or imperative...) speech event in TP/CP. The same participant can function under selection as a body in vP and as a sentient inhabitant of the discourse world in TP. Such complex construals create what we call a *motivated palimpsest: palimpsest*, because there are two texts, construed differently, on the same material support; *motivated*, because the syntactically lower text is presupposed by the syntactically higher one.

The overlay of two grammatical patterns is ubiquitous in grammar. It occurs when stress is added to an assertion, creating different foci or even different referential construals of the same event description, as in (31) and (32). (Capital letters indicate strong stress.)

(31) . Hisᵢ mother LOVES Johnᵢ.
b. *Hisᵢ mother loves JOHNᵢ.

(32) a. *Saᵢ mère aime JEANᵢ.
b. Seule saᵢ MERE aime Jeanᵢ.

In a passive sentence, a DP can count as a BODY, the physical Patient of a change of State event description in VP and, once raised to TP, as an argument provided with intention. (33) and (34)) describe the same event of the doctor examining Mary’s body. But (34), not (33), is necessarily “about” Mary.

(33) The doctor deliberately examined Mary at noon (because he/ she was busy all morning).

(34) Mary was deliberately examined by the doctor at noon (because she/??he was busy all morning).

Guéron (1992) analysed a pseudo-cleft sentence like “My best friend is John” as built upon a lower predication “Johnᵢ is [tᵢ my best friend]”.<fnref n="12" />

<footnote n="11">¹¹ The referential status of number would depend on what other feature it combines with: combined with person, Nb. Is referential; combined with gender within an adjective or participle, it need not be.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² See Haycock (1994) for wide-ranging discussion of such structures.</footnote>
A double reading of the same text is basic to all metered poetry, in which a principle of organization which doesn't exist in sentence grammar – the counting of syllables, stresses or rhymes – is superimposed upon an ordinary grammatical text.

Later we will examine the palimpsestic structure of idioms.

### 3. Clitic SE

3.1. SE is a pronominal clitic with a III person F. A III person pronoun may or may not be +human. It depends on selection, as in (35).

(35) a. Il pleut.
b. Il pleure.

In (36a), where *lui* +human is selected by *le+ dire*, *lui* may denote a man or a woman but not an animal or a plant. But it may denote any of these in (36b). In (36c) *lui* is an anaphor for the wall.

(36) a. Je le lui ai dit hier.
b. Lui as-tu donné de l'eau ?
c. Le mur est plus propre depuis qu'on lui a donné un coup de peinture.

Anaphora is distinct from targeting. Anaphora relates mind and body; targeting relates mind to mind. This is shown by a contrast discussed by Zribi-Hertz (1980).

(37) a. Jean<sub>i</sub> est fier de lui<sub>i</sub>/a honte de lui<sub>i</sub>
b. * Jean<sub>i</sub> est jaloux de lui<sub>i</sub>.

Fier in (37a) selects a body complement and a sentient subject; jaloux in (37b) selects a sentient complement and a sentient subject. As no anaphoric mind-body relation is possible in (37b), the sentence must contain two distinct sentient arguments.

Soi and *himself* behave like *lui*, supporting the claim that all three pronominals may be construed as body or as mind, depending on the lexical-syntactic context.

(38) a. On est souvent fier de soi/ de ses actions.
b. * On est souvent jaloux de soi/de ses actions/pensées.

(39) a. John is proud of himself (and his deeds).
b. * John is jealous/envious of himself (and his deeds).

We suggest that while ME/TE have sentience licensed by the speech act, III person *SE*, *lui*, *le/la/les* are +human only under selection. There are lexical differences within this group: *lui* has an inherent locative F which may be construed as directional, and *le/la/les* have both number and gender which is compatible with the function of classifier of a nominal body as in “le livre”/ “la rose”.

SOI denotes a body in all of (40).

(40) a. Il ne faut pas porter de l'argent sur soi.
b. un coeur toujours maître de soi
c. Il est rare qu'on ne fasse du mal qu'à soi
d. Chacun pour soi et dieu pour tous

e. On ne gagne jamais rien à parler de soi.

f. On est mieux chez soi.

g. Il faut avoir confiance en soi.

## 3.2. Syntactic structures

### I. Reflexives

(41) a. Jean se lave (Se+v+V raising to T not shown)

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

In (41), SE saturates the physical agent role of *laver*. After raising to Spec TP, *Jean* checks its person feature with T and receives the property of sentience. SE is body, Jean is Mind. After raising of SE+v+V to TP, sentient mind and agentive body unite at the Reference Time to form a single intentional argument.

When the raised object cannot be construed as sentient, the external argument bound by SE isn't sentient either.

(42) a. e SE retire la mer
   la mer; SE retire tᵢ

b. e SE casse la lampe
   la lampe; SE casse tᵢ

We saw that a reflexive SE acts like an intransitive structure in syntax. We suggest that the Agreement relation between the sentient constituent in Spec TP and the body clitic adjoined to T creates an overlap in properties which license their construal as a single argument. Consequently, each instant of John's body being washed in (41) is an instant in which John is washing his body. Each motion of the sea in (42a) is a withdrawal motion. As for (42b), whether construed as an accomplishment or an achievement, each or the sole instant of having a disposition to be broken is the same as each instant of exercising the disposition to break apart under an external cause.

Dispositions selected in vP do not suffice to place a change of state in time. There must be a temporal trigger in TP for an assertion to be created. In (41), intention functions as a temporal trigger. In the sentences of (42), the temporal trigger is a natural force external to and preceding
the event description. *La mer se retire* because of the phases of the moon. The lamp breaks because something moved it. In fact, Zribi-Herz (1982) lists as one essential property of “ergative” reflexives, that they are compatible with “causative” phrases.

(43) La mer se retire sous l'effet de la marée.

A reflexive sentence is a motivated palimpsest. The TP has a Predicational Theme-Rheme construal: the subject is the theme and the rheme is the event in which the object was selected for its causal disposition.

The Predication belongs to information structure in TP, and need not be added to the event. A raised subject may be construed in its original object position, with the cause of the event vP describes construed as external to change of state itself. Either an intentional or a non-intentional construal is appropriate in (44a-b).

(44) a. Beaucoup de soldats se sont tués ici.

b. Jean s'est tué en traversant cette rue.

## II The Middle

(45) a. Cette chemise se lave facilement/bien.

b. Cette histoire se raconte facilement.

c. Ce médicament se prend à jeun.

d. Ce genre de chose ne se fait pas.

e. Un prof, ça se respecte.

The middle SE sentence is also a “motivated palimpsest”: vP describes an event and TP is construed as a predication in which the newly thematic raised object was selected in VP precisely for its disposition to undergo a change of state.

The middle differs from the reflexive in that the raised object is construed as a body which does not receive sentience much less intentionality in Spec TP. A constituent with an inherent person F can be subject of a middle, provided it is construed as a body.<fnref n="13" />

(46) a. * Jean se visite le matin.

b. La Tour Eiffel se visite le matin.

c. Les malades se transportent dans un brancard.

The same property is associated with middles as with ergative reflexives. The raised subject lacks MIND, even if it is +person as in (47c) or a I-person pronoun as in (48).

(47) a. La branche s'est cassée.

b. Les vitres se sont brisées.

c. Alfred s'est beaucoup abêti.

(48) a. Je me transporte facilement, dit le malade.

b. Je me suis peu à peu abêtie sous l'influence de la télé.

The Middle structure:

<footnote n="13">¹³ “ça” in (3d)/(45e) is lexically [-human].</footnote>
(49) Cette chemise se lave facilement.

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

In the reflexive structure (41), SE both saturates the Agentive theta-role of the washer and agrees with a sentient subject thus acquiring intentionality. In the middle structure (49), SE does not agree with the subject, which lacks sentience. However, *facilement* is a modal predicate which, like deontic *pouvoir* in “Tu peux entrer maintenant” assigns two theta roles, Benefactive and Event. In both cases the benefactive saturates the physical agentive theta-role. In French (49) the covert Benefactive is assigned sentience and intentionality by a speaker-evaluator. But since both the event and the Benefactive argument are in the scope of an irrealis tense, the external argument can realize its intentionality and function as an argument in the discourse world only at a future time and world (which may never come).

The impossibility of exercising both physical agency and intentionality in the reference time world seems to characterize all deontic modal structures.

### III. Impersonal unaccusative

The impersonal form is an existential structure. In the a. sentences of (50)–(52), the external argument saturated by SE is presupposed, while the sentence asserts the introduction of a object/body into the discourse ground. Since a (D)iscourse-new entity cannot be D(iscourse)-linked, the direct object must be indefinite.

If the direct object raises, it may become part of the predication in a “motivated palimpsest” in which the formerly characterised body becomes a definite thematic body but without acquiring the sentience reserved for +person arguments.

(50) a. Il se prend de drôle de décisions dans la salle du conseil.
Il se prend [de drôle de décisions ...]
b. La décision s'est prise hier soir.
La décision_i s'est prise t_i ...

(51) a. Il se distribue des vivres au premier étage.
b. Les vivres se distribueront t au premier étage.
(52) a. Il s'est discuté beaucoup de questions dans la salle de conseil.

b. Cette question s'est discutée t dans la salle de conseil.

A Predicative Middle has a non-episodic Tense, while impersonals have episodic tense. Consequently, we consider many episodic sentences with raised direct object labelled as “Middle” in the literature cited in Zribi-Hertz (1982) as palimpsests with combined predicational and existential construals.

(53) a. Le noir se portait beaucoup cet hiver.

b. Cette pièce se joue partout.

c. Ses premiers tableaux de fleurs se vendirent bien.

#### IV. Passives

The SE-structures examined above are simple TPs. Passives contain two TPs, a finite and stative TP1 and a non-finite and eventive TP2, as shown in (54b).

(54) a. La chemise fut/a été lavée.

b. [TP1 La chemise<sub>i</sub> T1 fut/a été [TP2 t<sub>i</sub> T2 lavée t<sub>i</sub>]]

Both predicational middle and simple impersonal structures contain the clitic SE and do not accept a par-phrase, while both predicational and impersonal passives lack SE and do take a par-phrase.

(55) a. Les cuisses de grenouille se mangent (*par Jean). (Middle-CAN)

b. Les cuisses de grenouille se mangent avec les doigts (* par n'importe qui). (Middle-MUST)

c. Il se mange beaucoup de cuisses de grenouille en ce moment (*par Jean). (Active Impersonal middle)

d. Beaucoup de cuisses de grenouille ont été mangées (par Jean) (Personal passive)

e. Il a été mangé beaucoup de cuisses de grenouille (par Jean). (Impersonal Passive).

We will return to this contrast below.

We claimed above that a direct or indirect object obtains the property of sentience from an intentional subject in a finite spec TP. But how does the subject acquires sentience? We do not expect the Tense head which checks a formal person feature in the subject and places the event in the Reference Time to assign semantic properties. We generalise this claim in (56).

(56) Functional nodes check formal features of lexical items but do not assign semantic content such as body, sentience, intentionality, etc.

If, as we claim, the property of Mind is assigned to an accusative or dative argument under local targeting by a subject in Spec TP which already has that property, it is reasonable to propose that that subject receives the property of mind from the speaker. Bianchi (2003) describes the Left Periphery of the sentence as a Logophoric Center in the scope of the speaker. In effect, the speaker choses the Sentential Force and fills the informational TOPIC and FOCUS projections.

The finite C head is construed as denoting the Speech time. Reference time in T is determined with respect to that in C (realis identical, before, after; or irrealis). We propose that the relation between a realis/deictic Speech time in C and the finite reference time in T brings the speaker
in Spec CP in local contact with the subject in Spec TP. The speaker cannot affect the body of the subject (she cannot push or bathe the subject) but she can transfer sentience to the subject just as she presupposes sentience in the hearer in (57) or intentionally transfers the property of sentience to a targeted body in (58) in Imperative or Interrogative sentences.<fnref n="14" />

(57) a. Open the door John!
b. John where is your bike?

(58) a. Ouvre-toi Sésame!
b. Death, where is your sting?

We already proposed above that the speaker assigns sentience to the benefactive (overt or covert) body argument of a modal predicate like verbal *pouvoir* or adverbial *facilement*.

Motivated palimpsestic structures like reflexives and middles are possible because a syntactic derivation adds new information to a derivation without deleting previous information. Once selected, an external event participant cannot be absent from construal.

Lexical idioms provide an argument in favor of this claim. Idioms have a particular flavor - in essence, that of humor based on a pragmatic paradox - when both the inappropriate literal and the appropriate idiomatic meaning of the expression exist simultaneously in the mind of the speaker and hearer.

A subject acquires sentience at a specific discourse reference time and world. But an idiom can be inserted in any discourse time-world. In such cases, the matrix subject does not receive sentience and is construed as a body. This is why a literally transitive sentence can be construed as an idiomatic unaccusative, as in (59).<fnref n="15" />

(59) a. Jean a pris ses jambes à son cou. (J. left)
b. Max a pris la poudre d'estampette. (J. left)
c. Pierre a fiché le camp. (P. left)
d. John hit the road/the hay. (J. left/went to bed)

If the speaker assigns sentience to a body raised to subject or clitic position in syntax, the literal physical change of state can be construed as an idiomatic psychological change of state.

(60) a. Jean est tombé dans les pommes.
b. Jean a été roulé dans la farine
c. Jean a eu le coup de foudre pour Marianne
d. J'ai la chair de poule
e. Jean est dans la lune.
f. John is over the moon about that.

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ The speaker is inherently sentient and intentional, as expressed by the choice of a sentential force in the CP domain. Her goal is to assert a sentence, ask for information, give an order, express her emotions and evaluations, etc.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ On this see Everaert (1992). Everaert notes the paradox inherent in a VP construed as unaccusative which takes *have* as its auxiliary, just as in the literal source expression. This paradox is resolved by the coexistence of the literal and the idiomatic readings in a palimpsest: only the literal reading is generated by the recursive grammar.</footnote>
g. La moutarde lui monte au nez.

i. Il m'est venu une idée à la tête.

Just like a non-idiomatic unaccusative, an idiomatic unaccusative itself turns into a palimpsest when the speaker adds an adverbial purpose clause to the original agentless event description.

(61) a. Pierre est parti/ a fiché le camp/pris la poudre d'estampette [pour ne pas voir Marie].

b. Biden will leave/hit the road next week [in order to explain his new legislation].

c. Jesus died to save your soul.

As noted in Fellbaum & Zribi-Hertz (1989), even a stative can receive a purpose clause if the state can be construed as resulting from some intention of a human, as in (62a) or that of the universal order itself, as in (62b-c).

(62) a. This hole is round to put pegs into it.

b. Grass is green to promote photosynthesis. (Williams, 1985)

c. We have noses to hold our glasses up (18h century philosophy).

A purpose clause presupposes an intention. An involuntary (change of) state does not license one.

(63) Jean aime/ a eu le coup de foudre pour Marie [* pour ne pas épouser Suzette].

## 4. A puzzle

Why is the middle limited to generic tense, as shown in (64a) vs (64b) contrary to passive (64c)? (64b) has only a pragmatically unacceptable reflexive construction.

(64) a. Ces lunettes se nettoient avec un linge humide.

b. *Hier ces lunettes se sont nettoyées avec un linge humide (cf. Ruwet, 1972)

c. Hier les lunettes ont été nettoyées avec un linge humide.

d. Hier, les enfants se sont nettoyés avec un linge humide.

Other Romance languages are not so limited, as shown in Spanish (6a), Italian (6b) or Portuguese (65).

(65) Essas salsichas compraram-se ontem. (E.Port. Raposo and Uriagreka,1996)

These pro-drop languages license inverted subjects. If unselected pro in spec TP is construed as an expletive and the inverted subject is adjoined to VP or vP, then there is no local relation with the speaker associated with spec CP, and consequently no assignment of sentience to the subject. The inverted subject is construed as a body within an impersonal existential sentence.

Zribi-Hertz (1982) points out the contrast between sentences like (66a) and those like (66b) from Ruwet (1972).

(66) a. Les livres se sont tous vendus/distribués hier soir.

b. * Les lunettes se sont nettoyées hier soir.
(66a) is a predication derived from raising the body object of an existential impersonal: the selected subject is presupposed and nothing more is asserted than the appearance/disappearance of an object/body at the point in time. (66b) does not simply assert appearance/disappearance of the object; here the raised object has undergone a change of state under the control of an intentional subject over a period of time, so the subject must be – although it cannot pragmatically be accepted as – reflexive and intentional.<fnref n="16" />

Impersonal passives differ from impersonal unaccusatives. In an unaccusative sentence like “il est arrivé/parti trois hommes”, the assertion is based on the speaker’s perception of the emergence of a new Figure-Ground configuration on the discourse ground, caused by the appearance or disappearance of a body. Such a change in the cast of characters may well have been inspired by an intention, but that intention cannot be recovered unless a +human direct object raises to the referential subject position, as in (67b).

(67) a. * il est arrivé en colère/ pour se plaindre trois invités.

b. Trois invités sont arrivés en colère/ pour se plaindre.

The external argument which is presupposed but inactive in the construal of an impersonal sentence, is active in the construal of a passive. Zribi-Hertz (1982) notes that the implied subject in (68) is construed as agentive. Yet (69) is ungrammatical.

(68) Il a été fumé/dansé/dormi/mangé ici (dit Sherlock Holmes).

(69) * Il se dort/se fume/se danse ici.

If SE saturates the external theta role, as we claim, one would expect (69) to be acceptable, since *dormir, fumer, danser, et manger* select an external argument, just as they are acceptable in pro-drop languages like Italian and Rumanian.

(70) a. Si dorme (It.)

b. Se doarme (Rum.)

However, null pro allows construals in pro-drop languages which are unavailable in French. Italian (70a) can be construed as intentional with merger of agentive SI and sentient pro or as unaccusative with expletive pro. In Rumanian, (70b) apparently has only the latter construal.

French has neither of these possibilities. Expletive *il* cannot be part of a pre-verbal argument or license a post-verbal argument, perhaps because it has meaning in the context.<fnref n="17" /> A construal is available via the addition of an indefinite object, as in (71). This derives an unaccusative sentence in which an activity creates an emergent Figure (“des tangos”, “des cigares”) on a deictic Ground (“ici”).

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ Even in English, (i) is an acceptable inverted unaccusative sentence which asserts the disappearance of a body, while (ii) presupposes an intentional subject.</footnote>

<footnote>(i) the books sold easily/ like hotcakes.</footnote>

<footnote>(ii) * the books bought/wrote easily/like hotcakes.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ French *il*, like English *it*, seems to function as a discourse anaphor, denoting the Common Ground at the Reference Time, in contexts in which it has no argument antecedent. One thinks of sentences like “it is raining”, “it is time to leave”, “it is now or never”, “Goldwater won in Arizona but it would never have happened in New York”, etc.</footnote>
(71) a. Il se danse beaucoup de tangos ici.

b. Ici il ne se fume que des cigares cubaines.

While the unaccusative sentence is a simple existential structure, the passive is a complex resultative structure. Whether it be unergative or transitive, a passive introduces a new state created by a previous event, not merely a new object.

The construal of a passive has two parts: first, the perception by the speaker of a change of state of some object; second, the reasoning that the cause of the resulting state was the goal of an intentional subject. In a transitive passive like (64c), the cause of the state was an accomplishment, a GDT. In (68), the cause of the state was, as the perceiver Sherlock Holmes reasons, an activity with an unintentioned telos. Every unaccusative sentence implies a perceiver: Sherlock Holmes is the perceiver of the change of state in (68); the speaker is the perceiver of the habitual states in (71a-b).

# 5. Other languages

## 5.1. Some differences between English and French

5.1.1. Body is a lexical property of all overt and covert participants of a physical change of state event description. In French IA in (20), the body-part DP has a predicative internal structure whose pro subject can be bound by clitic *lui*. The clitic receives sentience from its association with the reference time in T. In English IA, there are no nominal clitics and a definite body part DP is not internally predicative: it denotes only a body quantified by the weak demonstrative determiner *the*. However, as a Body, and just as in French, it can be bound by an antecedent itself construed within the VP domain solely as a physical body.

(72) a. Je lui ai donné la main.

b. *I gave him the hand.

(73) a. Je l'ai frappé sur la tête.

b. I hit him on the head.

(74) a. Je l'ai pris par le manche.

b. I picked it up by the handle.

So while (20) includes four Mind-Body relations, (75) has only has three.

(75) Iᵢ [VP tᵢ [VP hit himⱼ] [PP on the headⱼ]]

Iᵢ [VP tᵢ [VP took himⱼ] [PP by the handⱼ]]

(i) In VP, the Body (hand) of I affects the body of him.

(ii) The higher VP establishes a figure-ground BODY-BODY anaphoric relation: the head/hand was the location of a body-to-body contact.

(iii) Intentional I binds its implicit hand.

What is missing is (iv)

(iv) *lui* binds an empty pro within a predicative DP.
### 5.1.2. English zero SE

English has nothing in certain reflexive structures where French has an overt SE.

(76) a. Jean s'est lavé/rasé t.
b. * Jean a lavé/rasé (refl)
c. John washed/shaved himself
d. Jean washed/shaved. (refl)

In (76a) and (76c) SE and *himself* denote the body of the sentient intentional subject in Spec TP. (76d) but not (76c) is grammatical in the absence of an anaphoric "body" morpheme.

English also has a zero where French has SE in middle sentences. Keyser and Roeper (1984) proposed, with respect to the middle, that "English has an "abstract si" clitic that absorbs case and the agent theme but it is inexpressible". We cannot adopt the letter of this proposal, since SE is an overt clitic adjoined to T+v+V and can be assigned sentience, as in French middles. We propose something close to that idea: English disposes of a null affix on a v node merged with V. The affix binds the external theta-role of the verb but, like the v+V it is affixed on, it cannot raise above vP into the TP domain. Consequently, in English, this affix always denotes body/physical agency.

#### I The reflexive structure

(77) a. John washed.
b. Johnᵢ T [vP afᵢ+v+VP washed tᵢ]]
θ1ᵢ | θ2ᵢ
|          |
SENTIENCE BODY | BODY

The English reflexive is subject to an aspectual condition: there can be no distinction between the washer of the body and the body that is washed: every subevent of being washed is a subevent of washing.

Thus (78b) is out, contrary to English (78a) and French (79).

(78) a. John hit/reproached/congratulated himself.
b. * John hit/reproached/congratulated.

(79) Jean s'est frappé/reproché (cela)/ félicité.

(80a) is bad even with *himself*, contrasting with French (80b).

(80) a. * John combed.
b. Jean s'est peigné.

Because the English null affix is attached to a merged v+V in English and V does not raise to T in syntax, the affix is never part of an intentional agent of a GDT. But a lexically internalized instrument like a comb requires an intentional subject to handle the instrument. French SE does reach T along with the verb and can agree with the sentient subject, deriving an intentional argument.
The zero subject distinguishes the English middle from the French middle for the same reason: the English verb with zero affix never gets high enough in the structure to become sentient.

## II Middle

(82) This shirt washes easily.

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

Both English and French structures describe an event in vP.

While a lexically incorporated instrument disqualifies the English reflexive in (80a) a vP adjunct adding an instrument restriction to a change of state event description is possible in the middle of both languages.

(83) a. Cette chemise se lave avec du Woolite.

b. This shirt washes with Woolite.

Both French and English middles place the event in an accessible future time. Both select a benefactive argument which saturates the physical agent role, but only the French middle can integrate an intentional agent. In French there is a local relation between a selected benefactive argument in the TP domain and the speaker in CP. The speaker assigns sentience to the benefactive, which, as binder of the external agentive participant, can then be construed as intentional.<fnref n="18" /> As the implied Agent of an English middle is solely construed as BODY, no part of it is located in a reference time-world, so it cannot receive instructions from the speaker.

(84) a. Cette chemise se lave souvent/le soir.

b. *This shirt washes often/ in the evening.

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ If there is no Agent, as in (i), the speaker can target the alethic causal world.
(i) It must rain or the crops will rot.</footnote>
The event description may imply a physical activity, but there is no willful agent to trigger and control it.

(85) a. Cette pomme se digère mal.
b. This apple digests badly.

(86) a. Cette pomme se mange facilement.
b. * This apple eats easily.

(87) a. This poem translates well.
b. Ce poème se traduit bien.

(88) a. Ce poème se récite sans problème.
b. * This poem recites with no problem.

It cannot control a PRO in a purpose or manner adjunct.<fnref n="19" />

(89) a. Cette chemise se lave souvent [pour être propre].
b. * This shirt washes often [to be clean].

(90) a. Ce plat se mange [en buvant un bon vin].
b. * This dish eats [while drinking a good wine].

The implicit agent of the English middle can do nothing that is not already implied by the dispositional relation between the object and the verb. To *read* is implied by the selection by *read* of *book*. But to *recite* has an incorporated manner element which requires a willful subject. An apple is digested when consumed, but to eat the apple requires the presence of a willful agent who triggers and controls the process.

The existence of a null agentive affix in the English verb is plausibly related to the often-mentioned fact that an English bare predicate can be used indifferently as Noun or Verb.<fnref n="20" /> A Noun can encapsulate an entire event. The Nouns in (91) - (96) are bare in their nominal form, where French needs morphology to distinguish a transitive Verb from a transitive Noun.

(91) a. John had a good wash/shave./
b. John shaved/washed.

(92) a. * Jean a eu un bon lave/lavage/rase/rasage/
b. Jean s'est lavé/rasé.

(93) a. Can you give me a lift/ a ride?
b. *Pourrais-tu me donner une lève/levée ?

(94) a. This book is a good read.
b. * Ce livre est un bon lire.

(95) a. Don't finger the goods.
b. * Ne doigt pas le matériel.

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ For other differences between the French and English Middles cf. Fellbaum & Zribi-Hertz (1989). These authors link the English Middle to unergative structures and the French Middle to Passive sentences both diachronically and cognitively.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰ For far-reaching discussion, cf. Borer (2005).</footnote>
(96) a. Please hand me the book.
b. * Main-moi le livre s.t.p.

Similarly, a Noun can be used as a verb, especially with body parts.

(97) a. Don't finger the goods.
b. * Ne doigt pas le matériel.

(98) a. Please hand me the book.
b. * Main-moi le livre s.t.p.

**5.2. Italian and other Romance languages.**

As noted above, Italian and other Romance languages possess SE-structures which exploit the existence of an unidentified pro body in the Spec TP position. Via binding of the trace of an agentive event participant in vP provided with body, and as an argument acquiring sentience in situ, pro may be construed as intentional. Or it may be construed as expletive. The first construal is favored in generic (99a) and episodic (99b) with preverbal nominative subject while the second is found in (99c) with postverbal nominal subject. (99d) would be (99c) plus raised post-verbal subject.

(99) a. pro si mangia bene cui.
b. pro si mangia le mele.
c. pro si mangiano le mele.
d. le meleᵢ si mangiano tᵢ

Cinque (1988) noted a surprising contrast between transitive and unergative verbs on one hand and unaccusative verbs on the other in SI-sentences with specific time reference.

(100) a. Oggi a Beirut, pro si è occiso un innocente.
b. Oggi a Beirut, pro si è nati senza assistenza.

In (100a) the subject is construed as an indefinite (arb) intentional external argument provided with both body, via saturation of the external theta-role by SI, and mind, via merger of SI with sentient pro in Spec TP. In (100b), however, pro binds only the trace of the body of the object argument of an unaccusative sentence. Yet pro is construed as a sentient first person plural.

We analyse (100b) as a motivated palimpsest, combining both predication and event in the sense of Zribi-Herz & Fellbaum (1989). The structure is basically impersonal, just as Dobrobvie-Sorin (1998) analyzes Rumanian *“Si canta/si dorme/ si lavora/si mangia”* as meaning “there is sleeping, working, eating going on”. The two languages differ in the surface structure scope of SI, however. In Italian, when SI+V adjoins to T, the speaker assigns sentience to pro in Spec TP, while this is apparently not the case in the existential Rumanian examples, where pro remains expletive.<fnref n="21" />

<footnote n="21">²¹ Intentionality results from the combination in TP of sentience transmitted by the speaker on the TP/CP level plus agency assigned to a selected external argument in vP. Unaccusative verbs have no external argument. This suggests that in sentences like “John went to Paris to see Marie” or “the ship was sunk (by the sailors) to collect the insurance”, the intentionality expressed by an adjunct purpose clause added to an unaccusative sentence represents the speaker’s rather than any overt or covert subject’s point of view.</footnote>
The problem with this palimpsestic structure is its motivation: in (100b), how does a SI-sentence retain the existential reading of a derived in vP within a predication in TP when it lacks an agent? I suggest that this is done via the semantic status of plural marking. The object of an unaccusative is indefinite, implying an open set of bodies, as in (101a). Even a definite pronoun can imply a plural open set, as in (101b-c).

(101) a. There's someone in the room. (It could be anybody.)

b. They say it will rain.

c. You have to be 18 years old to vote.

With respect to (100b), Cinque (1988) cites Paola Benincà's remark that first person plural contains all persons. We suggest that it is the plurality of the first person marking on the subject which allows an unaccusative sentence which introduces a plurality of bodies to be construed as a predication on a plurality of subjects including the inherently sentient speaker.

French *on* behaves like Italian pro+SE. In (102a) “on” denotes a body in the participial vP and a sentient argument in TP thus licensing the construal of intentionality. In (102b,) there is no selected agent; the subject inherits sentience but not intentionality. Indefinite *on* is also semantically plural: it functions as a variable over all persons.

(102) a. On a tué le président. (On= someone)
Oni a [tué le présidenti]. (On= someone)
θ1i θ2j

b. On est arrivé trop tard. (On = we)
On est arrivé tj trop tard.
θ2j

## 6. Conclusion

All the sentences in the French SE-constellation are lexically transitive and syntactically unaccusative. The selected external argument of a change of state event description never occupies the Spec TP position in syntax. We proposed that the lexically selected participants in a physical change of state event description in vP/VP are construed solely as physical bodies, even if they are +human. To acquire the status of an argument with Mind as well as Body, the Mind feature of sentience must be transferred to an event participant by a Subject of Consciousness, in the case of matrix sentences considered here, by the speaker. If a raised subject was selected for its physical force or agency in Spec vP, then it acquires not only sentience but intentionality in Spec TP and is construed as the temporal trigger of a Goal-Directed Trajectory.

A direct or indirect object acquires the property of sentience under local targeting by an intentional subject. We have reproduced this asymmetric TP-internal relation as an asymmetric CP-internal relation: a lexically appropriate subject acquires sentience via a local relation with the speaker associated with CP, just as, under Imperative or Interrogative Force, the speaker presupposes or transfers sentience to an animate or even inanimate interlocutor.

In the modal Middle constellation, French SE adjoined to T has properties of mind: sentience and intentionality are transmitted to an overt or covert Benefactive, although the intentional goal can only be attained at a later accessible time. The English middle possesses a verbal affix which saturates the Agent theta-role, but as English lacks lexical verb raising to T, no mental
properties are ascribed to the physical agent at the reference time. The agentive participant can do no more than what is implied by the dispositional selectional relations between a verb and its object. It can read a book or pronounce a word but not write a book or invent a word. It cannot place an action in time. Lacking will, it cannot control the PRO subject of a purpose clause.

In languages like Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese, pro+SI can function as a full argument: SE binds the external theta-role and merges with pro in Spec TP, acquiring the mental property of will/intention at the Reference Time. Or pro can function as an expletive filling the Spec T position while the post-verbal external argument, placed in time by Nominative case marking, remains construed as a body within an existential structure.

We began by saying that SE has an important role to play in the grammar of French, like its analogs in other languages. We propose that clitic SE provides flexibility to derivations, which necessarily link an event description in VP/vP, where participants are construed as bodies, to a time and world in TP/CP, where sentience and intentionality are necessary to introduce an event. On the TP level, an intentional external argument with sentience acquired in TP merged with agency selected in vP, is a sufficient temporal trigger to initiate a change of state, as in a reflexive sentence. Alternatively, intention may be acquired at the reference Time but exercised only at an uncertain future time, as with French middles. Or the external argument may not be construed as the intentional trigger that places an event in time at all: it may be merely the presupposed agent of an event placed in time by the perception of an onlooker, as in both impersonals and passives. However, while a simple unaccusative, even with a raised subject, does no more than introduce (or remove) an event participant, a passive, even if unaccusative, denotes a state which resulted from the efforts of an active agentive subject.

Because nothing is lost to construal, many sentences are “motivated palimpsests”, with both an eventive reading in vP and a predicational reading in TP/CP. A lexically selected disposition of a subject or object event participant in VP/vP can motivate its new status as subject of Predication under raising to Spec TP. A sentence combines causal dispositions in the sense of Copley (2018) in vP and causal triggers in TP. Reflexive sentences have an intentional (or with -animate subject a natural force) cause. The principal cause of a middle is the disposition of an internal argument to undergo a change of state. Unaccusative change of state sentences combine an internal dispositional cause and a trigger external to the change of state itself.

I have proposed that the construal of change of event sentences involves a dynamic process in which arguments are decomposed into their parts, roughly body and mind, acquired in different syntactic phases and which enter into such syntactic-semantic relations as agreement, targeting, and anaphora.

The grammar I have adumbrated here should be useful for re-examining Reinhart and Reuland's investigation of Dutch reflexivity, Dobrovie-Sorin's work on Rumanian SE-structures and Borer and Grodzinski's (1986) examination of the Hebrew dative. The latter researchers describe three construals of the Hebrew dative which seem to fit our proposal concerning possible MIND-BODY relations. The Hebrew dative licenses a *Possessive* (body-body plus mind-body) relation reminiscent of but not identical to French inalienable possession), a *Reflexive* (body-body plus intentional mind-body) relation, and an *Ethical* (event plus sentient adjunct) construal. This last construal is reminiscent of both French ethical datives in I/II person, like “Je *te* lui flanquerai une gifle” and English “John ran away *on me*”. In all three languages, the construal arises from the speaker's assignment of sentience to a lexically locative/body morpheme.
References

Bianchi, Valentina (2003) On Finiteness as Logophoric Anchoring. In J. Guéron & L. Tasmowski, eds., *Temps et Point de vue/Tense and Point of View*, Nanterre : Université Paris X, 213-246.

Borer, Hagit (2005) *The Normal Course of Events*. Oxford: Oxford U. Press.

Borer, Hagit & Yosef Grodzinsky (1986) Syntactic Cliticization and Lexical Cliticization: The Case of Hebrew Dative Clitics. In H. Borer, ed., *The Syntax of Pronominal clitics. Syntax and Semantics 19*, N.Y., Academic Press, 175-216.

Burzio, Luigi (1986) *Italian Syntax*, Dordrecht: Reidel.

Chierchia, Gennaro (1989) Anaphora and Attitudes De Se. In Renate Bartsch et al, eds., *Semantics and Contextual Expression*, Dordrecht: Foris, 1-32.

Chomsky, Noam (2001) Derivation by Phase. In Michael Kenstowicz, ed., *Ken Hale: A life in language*, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Chomsky, Noam (1995) *The Minimalist Program*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cinque, Gulglielmo (1988) On SI constructions and the theory of arb. *Linguistic Inquiry* 19:521-582.

Copley, Bridget (2018) Dispositional Causation. *Glossa* 3(1): 137.

Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen (1998) Impersonal *se* Constructions in Romance and the Passivization of Unergatives. *Linguistic Inquiry* 29, 399-437.

Everaert, Martin (1992) Aux Selection in Idiomatic Constructions. In Léa Nash & George Tsoulas, eds., *Actes du premier colloque Langues et Grammaires*, Université Paris 8, 103-117.

Feit, Neil & Alessandro Capone (2013) *Attitudes De Se*. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Fellbaum, Christiane & Anne Zribi-Hertz (1989) *The Middle Construction in French and English*. Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Guéron, Jacqueline (1985) Inalienable Possession, PRO-Inclusion and Lexical Chains. In J. Guéron, H.-G. Obenauer & J.-Y. Pollock, eds., *Grammatical Representation*. 43-86. Dordrecht: Foris.

Guéron, Jacqueline (1992) Types syntaxiques et types sémantiques : la phrase copulative comme palimpseste. *Revue Québecoise de Linguistique* 22, 77-115.

Guéron, Jacqueline (2017) Inalienable Possession, Primarily in French. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk, eds., *The Companion to Syntax*, Second ed. Oxford: Wiley and Sons.

Guéron, Jacqueline & Svetlana Vogeleer (2022) Non-culminating Accomplishments: Subject, Speaker and Syntactic Structure" in L. Baranzini & L. de Saussure, eds., *Aspects of Tenses, Modality, and Evidentiality*, Cahiers Chronos 31, 100-135. Leiden: Brill.

Heycock, Caroline (1994) *Layers of Predication: The Non-lexical Syntax of Clauses*. New York: Garland.

Jaeggli, Oswaldo (1982) *Topics in Romance syntax*. Dordrecht: Foris.

Kayne, Richard (1975) *The Transformational Cycle in French*. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Kayne, Richard (2003) Person Morphemes and Reflexives in Italian, French, and Related Languages. In C. Tortora, ed., *The Syntax of Italian Dialects*, New York: Oxford University Press, 102-136. reprinted in *Parameters and Universals*, (2020). Oxford University Press.

Keyser, Samuel Jay & Thomas Roeper (1984) On the Middle and Ergative Constructions in English. *Linguistic Inquiry* 15, 381-416.

Leclère, Christian (1978) Sur une classe de verbes datifs. *Langue française* 39, 66-75.
Manzini, Maria Rita (1986) On Italian Si. In *Hagit Borer, ed., *Syntax and Semantics 19: the syntax of Pronominal Clitics*. New York: Academic Press.

Raposo, Eduardo & Juan Uriagareka (1996) *Indefinite SE. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory*, 14: 749-810.

Reinhart, Tanya & Eric Reuland (1993) Reflexivity. *Linguistic Inquiry* 24, 657-720.

Ritter, Elizabeth (2020) Sentence based event structure: Evidence from Blackfoot. In Bronwyn M. Bjorkman, & Daniel Currie Hall (eds), *Contrast and Representations in Syntax*, 58-96. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ruwet, Nicolas (1972) *Théorie syntaxique et syntaxe du français*. Paris: Le Seuil.

Westphal, Jonathan (2016) *The Mind Body Problem*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wierzbicka, Anna (1976) *Mind and Body*. In J. McCawley, ed., *Notes from the Linguistic Underground*, 129-157. New York, N.Y. Academic Press.

Williams, Edwin (1985) PRO and subject of an NP. *Natural Language and Linguistic Theory* 3, 297-315.

Zribi-Hertz, Anne. (1980) Coréférence et pronoms réfléchis : notes sur le contraste LUI/LUI-MEME en français. *Lingvisticae Investigationes* 4:131-179.

Zribi-Hertz, Anne. (1982) La Construction ‘SE-Moyen’ du français et son statut dans le triangle : moyen-passif-réfléchi. *Lingvisticae Investigationes* 6, 345-401.

Zribi-Hertz, Anne (1987) La réflexivité ergative en français moderne. *Français Moderne* 55, 23-54.

Zribi-Hertz, Anne (1989) Anaphoric binding and narrative point of view. *Language* 65, 695-727.
La grammaire est une fête / Grammar is a moveable feast

Mélanges offerts à / A Webschrift for Anne Zribi-Hertz, 2023
# Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian and Japanese negative imperatives
with special reference to perfective/completive aspect and non-responsibility

Makoto Kaneko

Ehime University

Nadira Aljović

U. of Zenica, U. of Sarajevo

## 1 Introduction

This study aims at revisiting Szabolcsi's (2010) hypothesis about the role of non-responsibility (abbreviated as non-RESP) on certain structural properties of subjunctive and infinitive complements, by examining Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (BCS for short) and Japanese data. The notion of RESP will be defined shortly.

It is well known that in many languages, the subject pronoun of subjunctive clauses cannot be co-referential with the matrix subject. Thus, in Italian example (1a), the intended subject of the subjunctive complement clause cannot be co-referential with *Gianni*. This co-referential interpretation is obtained by an infinitive clause as in (1b).

(1a. Gianni pensa che pro*i/j* parta domani. [Italian]
Gianni thinks that leaves.SUBJ tomorrow.
'Gianni thinks he will leave tomorrow.' (Constantini 2005: 97)

b. Gianni pensa di partire domani.
Gianni thinks COMP leave.INF tomorrow.
'Gianni plans to leave tomorrow.' (ibid.)

This effect is called the “obviation” or “subjunctive disjoint reference” constraint. Szabolcsi (2010) observes, however, that in the subjunctive complement clause of a volition verb in Hungarian, the obviation constraint does not hold when the complement denotes a non-RESP situation, as illustrated in (2a). When the coreferential complement subject is contrastively focused, it may explicitly occur in the immediately preverbal position with primary stress, as in (2b)<fnref n="1" />.

(2a. Nem akarom, hogy lelőjek valakit. [Hungarian]
NEG want.1SG that shoot.SBJV.1SG someone.ACC<fnref n="2" />
'I don't want that I (inadvertently) shoot someone.' (Szabolcsi 2010: 7)

b. Azt szeretném, hogy ne ÉN látogassam meg Marit.
it.ACC like.COND.1SG that NEG 1SG.NOM visit.SBJV.1SG PFX Mary.ACC
'I would like for it not to be me who visits Mary.' (Szabolcsi 2021: 7)

<footnote n="1">¹ According to Szabolcsi (2021: 7), the responsibility is here reduced “because the individual corresponding to the subject of the subjunctive [=the speaker] obviously cannot, by himself or herself, bring about the desired situation”. The speaker needs “the co-operation of others”: in order for him or her not to be the person who visits Mary, someone else “must perform it instead”.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² The glosses follow the Leipzig Glossing Rules. The abbreviations used are as follows: 1 = first person; 2 = second person; ACC = accusative; COMP = complementizer; COMPL = completive; IMP = imperative; INF = infinitive; IPFV = imperfective; NEG = negative; NMLZ = nominalizer; NOM = nominative; PFX: prefix; PERF = perfective; PPI = Positive Polarity Item; PRS = present; PST = past; PTCP = participle; RESP = responsibility; SBJV = subjunctive; SG = singular</footnote>
Szabolcsi (2010) also points out that English *some*-type indefinites in infinitive complements of volition verbs may be interpreted differently with respect to the matrix negation, depending on the semantics of the complement predicate. Thus, in (3a) with *call*, the indefinite pronoun out-scopes the matrix negation, as expected if the two are within a single (extended) clause domain. At the same time, in (3b) with *offend* appearing in the infinitive complement, the indefinite *someone* may take the narrow scope reading with respect to the matrix negation.

(3)a. I don't want to call someone. [*not > some*] (Szabolcsi 2010: 6)

b. I don't want to offend someone. [✓not > some] (ibid.)

c. I want FOR IT not TO HAPPEN THAT I offend someone. (adapted from Szabolcsi 2010: 5)

In order to account for the peculiar narrow scope reading of *someone* in (3b), Szabolcsi (2010: 6-7) proposes that the predicate *offend* induces a non-RESP situation, which motivates her to assume the existence of an implicit extra-layer that she calls ‘non-RESP marker’, which is glossed by *for it to happen that* in (3c)<fnref n="3" />. The infinitive clause in (3b), seemingly implying the same structure as the one in (3a), is reanalysed, as shown in (3c), as a subjunctive clause under the infinitive one. The indefinite pronoun *someone* of the implicit subjunctive clause is thus "shielded" from the negation in the matrix clause. When applied to the Hungarian cases in (2a-b), this analysis in terms of the implicit non-RESP marker should explain the ability of the subjunctive subject to avoid the obviation constraint.

In this study, we try to shed new light on structural correlates with the non-RESP interpretation by examining two configurations both involving perfective or completive aspect: i) the periphrastic imperative in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (BCS) introduced by the imperative (auxiliary-like) marker NEMOJ ‘don’t’, as in (4a-b), and ii) the periphrastic imperative in Japanese introduced by the particle YOONI, as in (5a-b). BCS examples (4a-b) contain the perfective infinitive *uvrijediti* (‘insult’) and the perfective finite verb *uvrijediš* (second person, singular present), both morphologically distinct from their imperfective counterparts, *vrijeđati* and *vrijeđaš* (the infinitive and the present form, respectively). In Japanese (5a-b), the completive aspect is expressed by the auxiliary -TESIMAU. BCS perfective and Japanese completive markers are both glossed by English *end up*.

(4)a. Nemoj uvrijediti nekoga. [BCS]
NEG.IMP.2SG insult.INF.PERF someone
‘Don’t end up insulting someone!’

b. Nemoj [da uvrijediš nekoga] [BCS]
NEG.IMP.2SG that insult.PRS.PERF someone
‘Don’t act so that you end up insulting someone!’

(5)a. {dareka-o / *daremo} kizutuke-tesimawa-nai yooni [Jp]
someone-ACC/ anyone hurt-COMPL-NEG COMP.SBJV
‘Do not to end up hurting {someone / *anyone}.’

b. [{dareka-o / *daremo} kizutuke-tesimau] koto-ga nai yooni [Jp]
[someone-ACC/ anyone hurt-COMPL] NMLZ-NOM NEG COMP.SBJV
‘TAKE CARE<fnref n="4" /> for it not to happen that you end up hurting {someone/ *anyone}.’

<footnote n="3">³ Here, the negation is lowered because according to Szabolcsi (2010: 6), [3b] “doesn’t mean *I have no desire to offend someone*, it means, or it definitely can mean *I want not to offend*”.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ It will be explained in Section 4.1 why we invoke the predicate TAKE CARE put into small capitals in the English translation.</footnote>
Both NEMOJ imperatives and YOONI imperatives may embed an infinitive-like complement, as in
(4a) and (5a): the complement of YOONI here takes a “basic” or “dictionary” form, in which “the
verb stem is followed by the non-past tense affix –(r)u” (Ihara 2021: 157)<fnref n="5" />. NEMOJ may also take a
finite complement clause whose subject is co-referential with the addressee, as in (4b), seemingly
violating the obviation constraint like Hungarian (2). YOONI may take a clause marked by the
sequence *koto-ga nai* which literally means “for there not to exist an event<fnref n="6" /> such that” and may be
glossed by “for it not to happen that”, as in (5b). Furthermore, just like in English (3a), in infinitive-
like clauses in BCS (4a) and Japanese (5a), the narrow-scope reading of a PPI indefinite is allowed:
in Japanese (5a) with the completive auxiliary -TESIMAU, the use of the NPI *daremo*, which requires
a clause-mate licensing negation, becomes even unacceptable.

Similarly, NEMOJ may take a *da*-marked conditional or subjunctive-like complement which seems to allow only the non-RESP meaning and only a PPI *nekoga* ‘someone’, and not the NPI *nikoga* ‘anyone’ which requires a clause-mate licensing negation<fnref n="7" />.

(6) Nemoj [da bi {nekoga/*nikoga} uvrijedio!] [BCS]
NEG.IMP.2SG that would someone/anyone insult-PST.PTCP
‘Don’t act so that you would insult {someone/ *anyone}.’

Our goal is to minutely compare periphrastic imperatives in the two languages -- featuring imperfective and perfective complements of NEMOJ (infinitive and *da*-clauses, conditional *da*-clauses), infinitive-like and *koto ga nai*-marked complements of YOONI with and without the completive auxiliary -TESIMAU, -- primarily in order to verify Fauconnier's (2013)<fnref n="8" /> hypothesis that there is a parallel between perfective or completive markers and non-RESP interpretation. Furthermore, we intend to examine the behaviour of negative and positive polarity items in both languages in all these contexts in order to establish whether, when and under what conditions they are related or not related to the non-RESP interpretation.

In what follows, Section 2 reviews previous work on the notion of *non-responsibility* (non-RESP) and its relation with perfective aspect. Section 3 and Section 4 respectively examine NEMOJ imperatives in BCS and YOONI imperatives in Japanese. Section 5 recapitulates the results of this study.

## 2 Previous studies

In this section, we first clarify the notion of non-RESP by referring to Farkas (1988) (Section 2.1). We next review previous analyses on the relation between perfective aspect in Russian negative imperatives and non-RESP, which will turn out to be instructive for our analysis of negative imperatives in BCS and Japanese (Section 2.2).

<footnote n="5">⁵ Ihara (2021) observes that a “basic” or “dictionary” form alone without YOONI may be read as an imperative clause, as French “Entrer sans frapper” (‘enter without knocking’).</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ The Japanese nominalized clause marked by *-koto* is often analyzed as denoting a proposition. But Hara, Kim, Sakai & Tamura (2013: 264) argue that the one in the context of *koto-ga nai* denotes an event. We here follow their analysis.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ Progovac (1993) points out that obviation effects are expected to be absent in modal subjunctive clauses. In terms of the present work, these clauses behave like barriers to binding of pronouns: pronominal subjects are free within such clauses and need not be disjoint from the immediately superordinate subject. Such subjunctive-like clauses in BCS are barriers to negation licensing of *ni*-NPIs such as *nikoga*, as shown in (6).</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ Besides Japanese -TESIMAU, Fauconnier (2013) cites a number of languages where perfective or completive markers represent a non-RESP reading (in her terms, *non-volitionality* reading), among them Korean, Bengali, St'at'imcets.</footnote>
## 2.1 Non-responsibility (non-RESP) reading

It is Farkas (1988) who first discusses the relevance of responsibility for various syntactic phenomena, like the identification of the controller of a PRO, the exemption from obviation, etc. This author defines responsibility as a “two-place relation, RESP (*i*,*s*), holding between an individual *i* and a situation *s* just in case *i* brings *s* about, that is, just in case *s* is the result of some act performed by *i* with the intention of bringing *s* about” (Farkas 1988: 36). She also points out four contexts requiring a RESP relation: (i) the infinitive complement of control predicates, like order in (7a); (ii) the matrix clause of a purpose clause, as in order to in (7b); (iii) the adverb intentionally, as in (7c); and (iv) imperatives, as in (7d).

(7)a. Mary ordered John to leave. (Farkas 1998: 31)

b. John read *Anna Karenina* in order to impress Mary. (idem. 36)

c. John fell off the ladder intentionally. (idem. 39)

d. [to John] Be polite! (ibid.)

(7a-d) are acceptable since it is natural to assume that John intentionally brings about his leaving, his reading ‘Anna Karenina’, his falling off the ladder and his being polite, while (8a-d) are strange since it is difficult in ordinary situations to assume that John intentionally brings about his resemblance to his father.

(8)a. #Pete ordered John to resemble his father. (adapted from Farkas 1988: 41)

b. #John resembles his father in order to annoy his grandmother. (idem. 36)

c. #John resembles his father intentionally. (idem. 39)

d. #[to John] Resemble your father. (ibid.)

The same verb may induce a RESP or non-RESP situation depending on contexts, especially adverbs or predicates with which it co-occurs. For example, an adverb inadvertently forces a non-RESP reading even when combined with *a priori* RESP-inducing verbs like *shoot*. This is confirmed by its incompatibility with the four RESP-requiring contexts, as in (9a-d).

(9)a. #Pete ordered John to inadvertently shoot someone.

b. #John inadvertently shot someone in order to impress Mary.

c. #John intends<fnref n="9" /> to inadvertently shoot someone.

d. #[to John] Inadvertently shoot someone!

Inversely, similarly to adverbs like *intentionally* as shown in (7c), control predicates like *intend, try*, etc. force a RESP reading, as illustrated in (10a-c).

(10)a. Pete ordered John to try to shoot someone.

b. John tried to shoot someone in order to impress Mary.

c. [to John] Try to shoot someone!

For the purpose of detecting a non-RESP nature of a particular situation, we will use two of the above contexts: i) the incompatibility with adverbs like *intentionally* and control verbs like *intend, try*, etc., and ii) the compatibility with adverbs like *inadvertently*.

<footnote n="9">⁹ In (9c), the intentional predicate is used in place of the adverb *intentionally*.</footnote>
## 2.2 Russian negative imperatives: non-RESP reading and perfective aspect

Among Slavic languages, Russian exhibits a systematic correlation between the non-RESP interpretation and the perfective aspect in negative imperatives. In this language, prohibitive negative imperatives towards an intentional action are marked by the imperfective aspect as in (11a), while preventive ones with respect to a non-RESP situation have to be marked by the perfective aspect as in (11b).

(11)a. Ne {otkryvaj /*otkroj} okno!
not {open-IPFV.IMP/ open-PFV.IMP} window
‘Don’t open the window!’ (Goncharov 2018: 2)

b. Ostorožno! Ne upadi!
careful not fall-PFV.IMP
‘Be careful! Don’t end up falling down!’ (ibid.)

Examples like (11b) raise at least two questions: i) why are preventive negative imperatives compatible with a non-RESP situation, although they are, as imperatives, one of RESP-requiring contexts?; ii) how can we account for the aspectual division of labour observed in (11a-b) ? Among previous studies<fnref n="10" />, Kuehnast (2008: 190) advances an insightful answer, citing example (12).

(12) Ne razbej čašku!
not break-PFV.IMP cup
‘Don’t (inadvertently) break the cup!’ (Kuehnast 2008: 190)

This author first points out that “preventives [=preventive negative imperatives] depict a complex situation representing a cause-effect chain, from which only the last link is addressed”. For example, (12) may be uttered by a mother when “there is a cup on a table and [her] child is pulling the tablecloth” (*idem*.192). The child understands that pulling the tablecloth may cause the cup’s falling down and ultimately its breaking and can infer that (12) “is a hint to change the current behaviour, which is not mentioned explicitly” (*ibid*.). Therefore, “the imperative force is directed to an activity or a state of affairs [in the Preparatory phase] which the addressee is indeed able to control” (*ibid*.). In sum, Kuehnast’s (2008) analysis boils down to paraphrasing the semantics of preventive negative

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ Goncharov (2018) proposes a solution by assuming that imperatives denote modalized propositions (cf. Kaufmann 2012). According to this author, the negative imperative with perfective aspect in (11a) conveys an assertion in (ia). The negative imperative with imperfective aspect in (11a) induces an alternative to this assertion, in (ib), which is stronger than (ia). Then, a scalar implicature is derived by negating the stronger alternative (ib), as in (ic). The *responsibility* (which is redefined as *controllability*, i.e. anticipation of the truth of the proposition) boils down to a presupposition in (id). Now, the combination of the assertion in (ia), the scalar implicature in (ic), and the presupposition in (id), amounts to a contradiction “You may start to open the window & You should not end up opening the window & I’m sure that if you start to open the window, you end up opening it”.</footnote>

<footnote>(i)a. Assertion: You should not end up opening the window.</footnote>

<footnote>b. Alternative: You should not start to open the window.</footnote>

<footnote>c. SI: —(You should not start to open the window)=You may start to open the window.</footnote>

<footnote>d. Presupposition: I’m sure that if you start to open the window, you end up opening it.</footnote>

<footnote>Goncharov (2018) further suggests that negative imperatives denoting a non-RESP situation are compatible with perfective aspect since no such contradiction arises because of the absence of the presupposition like (id). An automatic application of this suggestion would lead us to say that (11b) is acceptable since there is no contradiction to say that you may start to fall but you should not end up falling down. But such an analysis misses the point: what is ordered to do intentionally by negative imperatives with perfective aspect is, as claimed by Boguslawski (1985: 236), “to take in advance all the precautions to secure the absence of the second state”.</footnote>
imperatives by (13a). From this perspective, the semantics of (12) and (11b) amount to (13b) and (13c), respectively.

(13)a. Prevent an occurrence of the contextually relevant Preparatory situation which would cause an occurrence of the denoted situation.

b. (By stopping pulling the tablecloth) Prevent the cup's falling which would cause the cup's breaking. [for (12)]

c. Avoid careless behaviour which would cause your falling. [for (11b)]

Kuehnast (2008: 184) further argues that “negation affects the perfectivity of the predicate by discarding the change of state expressed by perfective verbs. The spotlight of the verbal reference time span moves from the resulting state [where the cup is broken for (12)] back to the source state [where the child is pulling the tablecloth]”. According to this author, the role of the perfective aspect consists in invoking an implicit Preparatory situation which is controllable by the addressee.

The relevance of the Preparatory situation in Russian negative perfective sentences is also pointed out by Copley & Kagan (2021). According to these authors, in past negative sentences, “the choice of [perfective] aspect means that something happened in the world that made an instantiation of the negated event plausible, expected, or feasible”. They use the term ‘specificity effect’ to refer to this meaning of the perfective aspect. Thus, the example (14) “informs the addressee that, although the killing of Ivan by Anna did not successfully take place, it was reasonable to expect such a murder. For instance, it is possible that Anna tried to kill Ivan but failed as he was stronger [in this case, the murder event effectively took place but did not reach completion]. Alternatively<fnref n="11" />, she may have planned the murder but ultimately decided not to perform it (because that would be too risky) [in this case, the murder event did not even begin].”

(14) Anna ne ubila Ivana. (Russian)
Anna NEG killed-PERF Ivan
‘Anna didn’t end up killing Ivan.’ (Copley & Kagan 2021: 4)

An analysis similar to Kuehnast’s (2008) is advanced i) by Boguslawski (1985: 236) who argues that perfective negative imperatives in Russian require one “to take in advance all the precautions to secure the absence of the second state”, and ii) by Richardson (1985: 247) who claims, as regards English negative imperative in (15a), that “not falling off the ladder is for the carpenter not an act [...], but rather a state of affairs which he must try to maintain”, and that (15a) conveys not a prohibition but a “command to monitor against” falling off. He then proposes to capture this meaning by means of the coercion of a monitoring predicate, *take care*, as in (15b). From this perspective, (13a-c) are paraphrased by (16a-c)<fnref n="12" />.

(15)a. [To a carpenter] Don’t fall off the ladder! (Richardson 1985: 247)

b. Take care not to fall off the ladder. (ibid.)

(16)a. Take care for there not to occur the contextually relevant implicit Preparatory situation which would CAUSE an occurrence of the denoted situation.

b. Take care for there not to occur the cup's falling which would CAUSE the cup's breaking. [for (12)]

<footnote n="11">¹¹ Another alternative reading is that Ivan was murdered but it was not Anna who murdered him.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² See also Kaneko (2020) which mainly analyses English negative imperatives and Kaneko (2021) which examines French and Japanese negative purpose clauses.</footnote>
c. Take care for there not to occur careless behaviour which would CAUSE your falling. [for (11b)]

Now, as mentioned in Introduction, Szabolcsi (2010) advocates a correlation between the non-RESP interpretation and i) the possibility for a subjunctive finite complement clause to have a subject which is co-referential with the matrix subject and ii) the interpretation of *some*-type indefinites (PPIs) whereby they take a narrow scope with respect to a seemingly clause-mate negation. These two phenomena are ultimately attributed to the presence of the non-RESP marker (conveyed by the English gloss *for it to happen that*). We may assume that her idea of the non-RESP marker corresponds in (16a) to the part *for there to occur the contextually relevant Preparatory situation*. Furthermore, by considering Kuehnast's and Copley & Kagan's analysis of the Russian perfective aspect as inducing an implicit Preparatory situation and Maslov's (1984) idea that the Russian perfective aspect represents a transition to a new situation, we propose that the implication of the perfective aspect in negative imperatives is expressed by the causal predicate of (16a), given in small capitals. In the next two sections, we verify these hypotheses by examining NEMOJ negative imperatives and Neg-YOONI imperatives.

## 3 NEMOJ negative imperatives in BCS

Zorikhina Nilsson (2013) observes that BCS negative imperatives are often not expressed by canonical imperative forms as in Russian but with a negative imperative auxiliary NEMOJ. As noted in Introduction, this auxiliary may take infinitive or *da* ('that')-marked finite complement clauses. Both versions are compatible with the imperfective and the perfective aspect as in (17a-b). Furthermore, with the perfective imperative, both PPIs, like *nekoga* 'someone', and NPIs requiring a clause-mate licenser like *nikoga* 'anyone', are well-formed, as in (18a-b).

<table><tr><td>(17)a.</td><td>Nemoj</td><td>pisati</td><td>/ napisati</td><td>pismo</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>NEG.AUX.IMP.2SG</td><td>write.INF. IMPFV</td><td>/ write.INF.PFV</td><td>letter</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>b.</td><td>Nemoj</td><td>da</td><td>pišeš</td><td>/ napišeš</td><td>pismo</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>NEG.AUX.IMP.2SG</td><td>that</td><td>write.PRS. IMPFV</td><td>/ write.PRS.PFV</td><td>letter</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">'Don't write the letter!' (Zorikhina Nilsson 2013: 84)</td></tr><tr><td>(18)a.</td><td>Nemoj</td><td>uvrijediti</td><td>{nekoga / nikoga}</td><td>[✓neg&gt;some]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>NEG.AUX.IMP.2SG</td><td>insult.INF.PFV</td><td>someone/anyone</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">'Don't end up insulting someone/Don't insult anyone'</td></tr><tr><td>b.</td><td>Nemoj</td><td>da</td><td>uvrijediš</td><td>{nekoga / nikoga}</td><td>[✓neg&gt;some]</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>NEG.AUX.IMP.2SG</td><td>that</td><td>insult.PRS.PFV</td><td>someone/anyone</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">'Don't end up insulting someone/Don't insult anyone'</td></tr></table>

Furthermore, (18a-b) with the narrow-scoped PPI *nekoga* sound like a request or advice, while the version with the NPI *nikoga* may be paraphrased by “Nobody should be insulted!” and sounds like a warning, order or even a threat. Thus, unlike in Russian, the perfective aspect in NEMOJ imperatives is not necessarily associated with a non-RESP reading and may yield a prohibitive or preventive reading. In other words, in the Russian perfective negative imperative, a superficially mono-clausal structure represents a semantically bi-clausal (preventive) meaning, while BCS's periphrastic imperatives, with a superficially bi-clausal structure as in (17b) and (18b), assume both semantically mono-clausal (prohibitive) and bi-clausal (preventive) meanings.
It should be noted that, with the imperfective aspect, NEMOJ imperatives are expected to have the meaning of prohibition against a voluntary action. Here, PPIs must scope over negation, as in (19a-b). In other words, with the imperfective aspect, a superficially bi-clausal structure (19b) invariably function as mono-clausal at the level where scope relations are decided.

(19)a. Nemoj vrijeđati {nikoga / nekoga} [✓some>neg; *neg>some]
NEG.IMP.2SG insult.INF.IMP anyone/someone

b. Nemoj [da vrijeđaš {nikoga / nekoga}] [✓some>neg; *neg>some]
NEG.IMP.2SG that insult.PRS.IMP anyone/someone
‘Don’t insult anyone/someone! / Stop insulting everyone/someone’

Furthermore, as noted in Introduction, the combination of NEMOJ and a *da*-clause may involve a conditional or subjunctive-like verb form, that is, the auxiliary *bi* and an active past participle as in (20). Here, PPIs are accepted, but not NPIs requiring a clause-mate licenser, as shown in (20). This structure corresponds to Hungarian (2) whose finite complement includes a subjunctive verbal form.

(20) Nemoj da bi {nekoga/*nikoga} uvrijedio!
NEG.AUX.IMP.2SG that would someone/anyone insult- PFV.PST.PTCP
‘Do not act so that you would insult somebody.’

Importantly, the non-RESP meaning obtains only when the conditional auxiliary is combined with a perfective verb; when it is combined with an imperfective verb in this context, the interpretation is "insult voluntarily", as shown in (21a-b).

(21)a. Nemoj da bi nekoga vrijeđao!
NEG.AUX.IMP.2SG that would someone insult-IPFV.PST.PTCP
‘Do not do things in order to insult someone.’

b. Nemoj da bi ikoga vrijeđao!
NEG.AUX.IMP.2SG that would anyone insult-IPFV.PST.PTCP
‘Do not do things in order to insult anybody. / You are not to insult anybody (you shouldn’t insult anyone).’

An *i*-NPI like *ikoga* ‘anyone in (21b) is licensed by a higher negation (or by an interrogative operator). Morphologically, it contains the prefix *i-* and the repeating stem (*i*-koga ‘i-who.ACC’, *i*-šta ‘i- what.ACC/NOM’ etc.). Thus, the NPI *nikoga* which requires a clause-mate licensing negation is excluded in (20) while *ikoga* in (21b) is licenced by the clause-external NEMOJ.

In sum, in BCS periphrastic negative imperatives, the combination of a perfective verb and a modal expression (a conditional/subjunctive verbal form) necessarily triggers the non-RESP interpretation, while the perfective aspect alone is not necessarily associated with a non-RESP reading (it may be associated with a RESP reading, too). This contrasts with the behaviour of the Russian perfective aspect in imperatives, which is closely related with the non-RESP interpretation.

## 4 Japanese Neg-YOONI imperatives with the completive auxiliary-TESIMAU

In this section, we first present properties of Japanese Neg-YOONI imperatives (Section 4.1). We next examine the cases involving the completive auxiliary -TESIMAU (Section 4.2).
## 4.1 Neg-YOONI imperatives

The particle YOONI basically serves as a subjunctive complementizer (Ihara 2020) and typically expresses a purpose clause as in (22a). It may also form independent imperative clauses, as in (22b). As discussed in Introduction, in (22a-b), the verbs take a “dictionary” form, which corresponds to the infinitive. Kaufmann (2012: 200, footnote 14) underlines an elliptical flavour of YOONI imperatives and proposes, in order to get a complete interpretation, to add a matrix clause such as *I order you*. YOONI imperatives however may be interpreted not only as an order or command but also as a request, a suggestion, etc. depending on the context<fnref n="13" />, as shown by the English translation of (22b). Below, for ease of presentation, we omit the matrix clause *I order/request/suggest you* and refer to ordinary imperative forms in the English translations of YOONI imperatives.

(22)a. kodomo-tati-ga oti-nai yooni saku-o tukutta.
child-PL-NOM fall-NEG COMP.SBJV fence-ACC made
‘I made a fence in order for children not to fall down.’ (Maeda 2006: 3)

b. asita Tokyo-ni iku yooni.
tomorrow Tokyo-LOC go COMP.SBJV
‘I order/request/suggest you to go to Tokyo tomorrow!’ (adapted from Kaufmann 2012: 200, footnote 14)

YOONI imperatives may be preceded by the negative marker NAI to form negative imperatives. Like NEMOJ imperatives in BCS, Neg-YOONI imperatives may convey a prohibition or a preventive warning.

In (23a), the complement of YOONI takes a “dictionary” form corresponding to an English infinitive clause. But, as noted in Introduction, YOONI may take a complement clause marked by *koto-ga nai* (‘for it not to happen that’), as in (23b). In this case, similarly to cases of English third person imperatives like “Your guards be the diversion while we sneak in!” (Potsdam 1998: 208), the role of the addressee in the imperative is not specified<fnref n="14" />. In order to specify this role, we propose, inspired by Richardson (1985) (see Section 2.2), to coerce an activity predicate *take care*, as shown in the English translation of (23b). The analysis in terms of the coercion of an activity predicate is supported by the fact that (23b) may be paraphrased by (23c) which involves an explicit occurrence of an activity verb *suru* ‘do’<fnref n="15" />.

(23)a. **dareka-o** kizutuke-*nai* yooni<fnref n="16" />
**someone-ACC** hurt-NEG COMP.SBJV
‘Do not (inadvertently) hurt **someone**.’

b. [**dareka-o** kizutukeru] (to yuu) koto-ga *nai* yooni<fnref n="17" />
[**someone-ACC** hurt] (say) NMLZ-NOM NEG COMP.SBJV
‘TAKE CARE for it not to happen that you might hurt **someone**.’

c. [**dareka-o** kizutukeru] to yuu koto-o si-*nai* yooni
[**someone-ACC** hurt] say NMLZ-ACC do-NEG COMP.SBJV
‘Don’t do the following: you hurt **someone**.’

<footnote n="13">¹³ We are thankful to an anonymous reviewer for this remark.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer whose remark led us to clarify this point.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ We owe this important remark to an anonymous reviewer, to whom we are thankful.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ https://www.oricon.co.jp/prof/617004/lyrics/I197220/</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ https://jys123.hatenablog.com/entry/2021/04/22/194217</footnote>
Neg-YOONI imperatives allow narrow-scoped PPIs like *dareka* ‘someone’<fnref n="18" /> both in their infinitive-like complements and the complement marked by *koto-ga nai* (‘for it not to happen that’) as shown in (23a-b). On the other hand, NPIs requiring a clause-mate licenser like *daremo* ‘anyone’ are accepted in infinitive-like complements as in (24a), but not fully in the complements marked by *koto-ga nai* as in (24b)<fnref n="19" />, which suggests that the latter might constitute a clause-boundary. The fact that *-to yuu* ‘say’ can be added, as in (23b) further supports the view of the existence of a clausal boundary<fnref n="20" /> in (23a,b).

(24)a. **daremo** kizutuke-*nai* yooni<fnref n="21" />
**anyone** hurt-NEG COMP.SBJV
‘Do not to hurt **anyone**.’

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ An anonymous reviewer states that according to her/his intuition, *dareka* takes scope over negation: the only interpretation available is that there is a particular person such that I order you not to hurt him.” Interestingly, however, in the Japanese popular song from which (23a) is taken, this sentence is followed by another sentence meaning -“do so that anyone might not be hurt”- and containing the NPI *daremo*, as illustrated in (i) below. The two clauses are most naturally interpreted as synonymous, in which case the PPI *dareka* ‘someone’ in (23a) ought to be analyzed as taking a narrow scope reading with respect to the seemingly clause-mate negation.</footnote>

<footnote>(i) dareka-o kizutuke-nai yooni, daremo kizutuka-nai yooni.
someone-ACC hurt-NEG COMP.SBJV anyone be hurt-NEG COMP.SBJV
‘Don’t (inadvertently) hurt someone, do so that anyone might be hurt.’</footnote>

<footnote>The same reviewer further points out that the judgement in (23a) is inconsistent with (24a). In (24a), the NPI *daremo* is licensed, indicating that the NPI and negation are in the same clause. If that is the case, the PPI *dareka* in (23a) should be in the same clause as negation, but then PPIs in Japanese in general scope over clause-mate negation. We would like to point out that a similar “inconsistent” scope reading is observed (a) in the BCS example (18a) where the indefinite PPI *nekoga* ‘someone’ as well as the NPI requiring a clause-mate negation *nikoga* ‘anyone’ both take narrow scope under the clause-mate *nemoj*, and (b) the French example in (ii) where the PPI indefinite *quelqu’un* ‘someone’ takes narrow scope under the clause-mate negation.</footnote>

<footnote>(ii) pour ne *pas* déranger *quelqu'un*, je suis parti m'asseoir sur les derniers bancs
'in order *not* to disturb **someone**, I left to sit down on the benches in the last row'
http://centremissionnairelavie.over-blog.org/2013/10/centre-missionnaire-la-vie-ap22/1-5-2.html</footnote>

<footnote>We assume that, in spite of the appearance, the structure of (23a) with the PPI *dareka*, as well as BCS (18a) with the PPI *nekoga*, is different from that of (24a) with the NPI *daremo*, as well as that of BCS (18a) with the NPI *nikoga*, at a level where scope relations are interpreted: the fact that PPIs appear in (18a) and (23a) imply that these PPIs are not in the same clause as the sentence negation in these examples. An important correlation with the narrow scope reading of PPIs is the non-RESP interpretation: the non-RESP marker corresponds to a clause boundary which "shields" the PPIs from not being clause-mate with the negation. In (24a), with an NPI in the same surface structure, we do not get this non-RESP interpretation. What we achieve by positing a different structure in (23a) and (24a) is the fact that (23a) can have this non-RESP interpretation correlating with a PPI being interpreted under the scope of negation - the exact scope relation that is expected if an abstract clause boundary is present in this example. If the reviewer does not have the narrow scope reading of *dareka* in (23a), we expect that (s)he only has the RESP reading. If this is true, then we have to admit that perhaps some speakers cannot use this abstract non-RESP marker as a clause boundary for determining scope relations of these PPIs. Perhaps they need an explicit syntactic clause boundary marker and we're dealing with some inter-speaker variation here.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ Although (24b) (without *to yuu* ‘say’) is an attested example, it sounds awkward to the first author of this paper. An anonymous reviewer shares this intuition. For those who accept (24b), the sequence *koto-ga nai* ‘for it not to happen that’ may be enough grammaticalized not to constitute a clause-boundary, like the BCS *da*-marked finite complement. If we add the expression *to yuu* ‘say’ in front of *koto* to make the clause-boundary explicit, the sentence becomes more awkward.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰ We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for this remark.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹ https://www.oricon.co.jp/prof/309796/lyrics/I067416/</footnote>
b. ?[daremo kizutukeru] (to yuu) koto-ga nai yooni<fnref n="22" />
[anyone hurt] (say) NMLZ-NOM NEG COMP.SBJV
‘(intended) TAKE CARE for it not to happen that you hurt anyone.’

Just like with NEMOJ imperatives, a narrowly scoped PPI invokes a non-RESP reading, while an NPI conveys a prohibitive reading with respect to a RESP situation, which is illustrated by (25a-c). Importantly, when combined with a control predicate -siyootosuru ‘intend’ which triggers a RESP situation, an NPI like *doko-e-mo* ‘anywhere’ is fully acceptable in the infinitive-like complement as in (25a), while the PPI *doko-ka-e* ‘somewhere’, is degraded as illustrated in (25b) because no clause-boundary allows the PPI to be “shielded” from the negation.

(25)a. **doko-e-mo** ik-ootosi-nai yooni
**anywhere** go-intend-NEG COMP.SBJV
‘Do not intend to go anywhere.’

b. ??**dokoka-e** ik-ootosi-nai yooni
**somewhere** go-try-NEG COMP.SBJV
‘??Do not intend to go somewhere.’

c. ??[{**dokoka-e** / **doko-e-mo**} ik-ootosuru] (to yuu) koto-ga nai yooni
[**somewhere** /**anywhere** go-try] (say) NMLZ-NOM NEG COMP.SBJV
‘(intended) Take care for it not to happen that you might intend to go to {**somewhere**/*anywhere*}.’

The complement marked by *koto ga nai* ‘for it not to happen that’ is not fully compatible with the RESP-inducing control predicate -siyootosuru ‘intend’, regardless of whether we have the PPI *doko-ka-e* or the NPI *doko-e-mo*, which indicates that this complement is specialized for the expression of a non-RESP situation, as shown in (25c).

Moreover, when combined with the adverb *ukkari* ‘inadvertently’ emphasizing the non-RESP interpretation, PPIs are naturally accepted both in infinitive-like and *koto-ga nai* complements, which is not the case with NPIs, as shown in (26a-b).

(26)a. **ukkari** {**nanika** / ??**nanimo**} karorii-no takai mono-o
inadvertently **something/anything** calory-GEN high thing-ACC
tabe-nai yooni. [*nai* ‘not’ > *nanika* ‘something’]
eat-NEG COMP.SBJV
‘Do not inadvertently eat {**something** /??**anything**} rich in calories.’

b. ukkari {nanika / ??nanimo} karorii-no takai mono-o
inadvertently something/anything calory-GEN high thing-ACC
taberu koto-ga nai yooni. [✓nai ‘not’ > nanika ‘something’]
eat NMLZ-NOM NEG COMP.SBJV
‘TAKE CARE for it not to happen that you inadvertently eat {something /??anything} rich in calories.’

It is worth noting that the narrow scope of the PPI *nanika* in (26a-b) is not attributable to an intervention effect of *ukkari* since the negative NAI normally takes a narrow scope under a clause-mate quantifying adverb, as illustrated in (27). Japanese is known as a language where the intervention effect is difficult to detect (cf. Shimoyama 2011: 423).

<footnote n="22">²² https://blog.goo.ne.jp/king-oba1998/e/a91c4ebc917f4f6f13c0464dea7610cd</footnote>
(27) Hanako-wa itumo asagohan-o tabe-*nai*. [*nai > itumo 'always']
Hanako-TOP always breakfast-ACC eat-*NEG*

'It is always the case that Hanako doesn't eat breakfast.' (adapted from Shimoyama 2011: 423)

The narrow scope of *ukkari* rather indicates that the negation is here implicitly externalized.

## 4.2 The completive auxiliary -TESIMAU

We next examine properties of -TESIMAU. This auxiliary serves i) "to express the completion of an event in its entirety, up through the concluding stage" (Jacobsen 2020: 343), as in (28a), or ii) "to mark events that are out of conscious control" (ibid.) as in (28b). In the latter case, -TESIMAU may indicate that the situation is "undesirable in some sense, either for the subject or the speaker" (ibid). These two readings are usually referred to as "completion" and "realization" readings, respectively (cf. Sugimoto 1991).

(28)a. sono gohan-o tabe-*tesimai*-nasai. ["completion" reading]
that cake-ACC eat-TESIMAU-IMP
'Eat *up* that rice.' (Abe 2007: 48)

b. hidoi kaze-o hii-*tesimat*-ta. [out-of-control "realization" reading]
bad cold-ACC catch-TESIMAU-PST
'I *ended up* catching a bad cold.' (adapted from Jacobsen 2020: 343)

Jacobsen (2020: 343) suggests that "the utter finality of completion of the event associated with the aspectual use of -TESIMAU is such that the event cannot be undone even if one wished it so, leading to the implication that the event is out of one's control, and by extension, contrary to one's interests". The realization reading (i.e. out of control with or without desirability) derived from the completion reading thus corresponds to a non-RESP reading. Ohba (2002: 143) claims that this reading "indicates that the speaker considers an event as the conclusion of the preceding situation", which reminds us Maslov's (1984) remark that the Russian perfective aspect represents a transition to a new situation.

Now, in Neg-YOONI imperatives, similarly to the perfective aspect in BCS, -TESIMAU surely may invoke a RESP "completion" reading, rather than a non-RESP "realization" reading, in some particular contexts, as in (29a) where the expression *subete* 'the whole' tends to force the aspectual reading of "completion". Apart from that, a RESP situation obtains in the presence of another aspectual auxiliary *-kiru* ('finish'), as in (29b). But without such expressions, a non-RESP "realization" reading obtains by default.

(29) sono keeki-o zenbu tabe-*tesimawa*-nai yooni. ["completion" reading]
that cake-ACC whole eat-TESIMAU-NEG COMP.SBJV
'Do not eat up the whole cake.'

b. sono keeki-o tabe-*kira*-nai yooni.
that cake-ACC eat-finish-NEG COMP.SBJV
'Do not eat up the cake.'

Although some examples where -TESIMAU and the negation are within the same clause have been attested, as in (29a-b) and (30a), Hashimoto & Matsumoto (2000) show, by statistical surveys, that these cases are extremely rare<fnref n="23" /> and that the two elements are usually separated by a clause boundary as in (30b). This observation leads us to assume that the structure of (30a), where -TESIMAU and the

<footnote n="23">²³ Hashimoto & Matsumoto (2000) even propose to analyze the auxiliary -TESIMAU as a PPI.</footnote>
negation co-occur in the infinitive-like complement, is in fact reanalysed, at the level of semantic interpretation, to “resemble” (30b), where -TESIMAU and the negation are separated by a clause-boundary.

(30)a. **dareka-o** kizutuke-tesimawa-*nai* yooni<fnref n="24" /> (=5a))
**someone**-ACC hurt-TESIMAU-NEG COMP.SBJV
‘Do not end up hurting **someone**.’

b. [**dareka-o** kizutuke-tesimau] koto-ga *nai* yooni<fnref n="25" /> (=5b))
[**someone**-ACC hurt-TESIMAU] NMLZ-NOM NEG COMP.SBJV
‘TAKE CARE for it not to happen that you end up hurting **someone**.’

The first support for this hypothesis comes from the observation that, with -TESIMAU, Neg-YOONI imperatives naturally allow a narrowly scoped PPI as in (30a-b), but do not admit an NPI, either in infinitive-like or in *koto-ga nai* complements, as in (31a-b), respectively<fnref n="26" />.

(31)a. **\*daremo** kizutuke-tesimawa-*nai* yooni (=5a))
**anyone** hurt-TESIMAU-NEG COMP.SBJV
‘Do not end up hurting **anyone**.’

b. **\*[daremo** kizutuke-tesimau] koto-ga *nai* yooni (=5b))
[**anyone** hurt-TESIMAU] NMLZ-NOM NEG COMP.SBJV
‘TAKE CARE for it not to happen that you end up hurting **anyone**.’

(i)a. *John-wa daremo* kizutuke-tesimawa-nakat-ta
John-TOP anyone hurt-TESIMAU-NEG-PST
‘John didn’t end up hurting anyone.’

b. John-wa **daremo** kizutuke-nakat-ta
John-TOP anyone hurt-NEG-PST
‘John didn’t hurt anyone.’

(ii)a. *John-wa Mary-o* kizutuke-tesimawa-nakat-ta.
John-TOP Mary-ACC hurt-TESIMAU-NEG-PST
‘John didn’t end up hurting Mary.’

b. John-wa Mary-o kizutuke-nakat-ta.
John-TOP Mary-ACC hurt-NEG-PST
‘John didn’t hurt Mary.’

Hashimoto & Matsumoto (2000) observe, among 11095 occurrences of -TESIMAU in their corpus, 116 cases where -TESIMAU cooccurs with the negative *nai* or *zu*. Most of these 116 cases include some idiomatic modal expression, for example the one originally involving a double negation, as -tesimawa-*naku*-tewa *nara-*nai ‘not admitted not to end up…= should end up’ and they attest no example where -TESIMAU co-occurs with a clause-mate negation in assertive sentences.

<footnote n="24">²⁴ https://music.j-total.net/data/026ha/062_back_number/092.html</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵ https://nettv.gov-online.go.jp/prg/prg18429.html</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶ An anonymous reviewer points out that not only in negative imperatives, but also in negative assertive sentences with the past tense, as in (ia), the NPI *daremo* ‘anyone’ is excluded: without -TESIMAU, the sentence is acceptable as in (ib). The same reviewer suggests attributing this unacceptability to the fact that -TESIMAU creates a clausal boundary. Although we effectively propose that the completive marker -TESIMAU contributes to create a clause boundary, we assume, given that even without an NPI, the sentence is not well-formed, as in (ia) (as contrasted with the acceptable (iib) without -TESIMAU), that the unacceptability of (ia) is due to the difficult compatibility of -TESIMAU and the clause-mate negation, as pointed out by Hashimoto & Matsumoto (2000).</footnote>
Second, -TESIMAU cannot embed a RESP-inducing control predicate -siyootosuru 'intend' in either type of complements, infinitive-like or marked by *koto-ga nai*, as illustrated in (32a-b)<fnref n="27" /> respectively.

(32)a. ??**dokoka-e** ik-ootosi-tesimawa-*nai* yooni
**somewhere** go-intend-TESIMAU-NEG COMP.SBJV
‘(intended) Do not end up intending to go somewhere.’

b. *[dokoka-e* ik-ootosi-tesimawau] koto-ga *nai* yooni
**[someone** go-try-TESIMAU] NMLZ-NOM NEG COMP.SBJV
‘(intended) TAKE CARE for it not to happen that you end up intending to go somewhere.’

Third, this auxiliary is naturally compatible with a non-RESP inducing adverb *ukkari* ‘inadvertently’ as illustrated in (33a-b).

(33)a. ukkari **nanika** karorii-no takai mono-o
inadvertently} **something** calory-GEN high thing-ACC
tabe-tesimawa-*nai* yooni.
eat-TESIMAU-NEG COMP.SBJV
‘Do not inadvertently end up eating **something** rich in calories.’

b. ukkari **nanika** karorii-no takai mono-o
inadvertently} **something** calory-GEN high thing-ACC
tabe-tesimau koto-ga *nai* yooni. [✓*nai* ‘not’ > *nanika* ‘something’]
eat-TESIMAU NMLZ-NOM NEG COMP.SBJV

‘TAKE CARE for it not to happen that you inadvertently end up eating **something** rich in calories.’

The material of Section 4 is recapitulated in Table 1, where we see that the non-RESP interpretation strongly correlates with the -TESIMAU marker in both infinitive-like and in nominalized complements of Japanese YOONI imperatives.

<footnote n="27">²⁷ When -TESIMAU is embedded under -siyootosuru 'intend', it does not invoke a non-RESP "realization" reading, but a RESP "completion" reading, which may be glossed by *finish* as in (ia-b). In this case, -TESIMAU is compatible with -siyootosuru in the infinitive-like complement, which is not the case in the *koto-ga* nai complement as in (ia-b). In (ia), the PPI *dokoka* 'somewhere' seems to be narrowly interpreted under the scope of the negation probably because the successive presence of the two auxiliaries prevents a local relationship between the PPI *dokoka* 'somewhere' and the negation. In effect, the NPI requiring a clause-mate negation, *doko-e-mo* 'anywhere' is here less acceptable.</footnote>

<footnote>(i)a. **dokoka-e** / ??**doko-e-mo** it-tesima-ootosi-*nai* yooni
**Somewhere / anywhere** go-TESIMAU-try-NEG COMP.SBJV
‘Do not intend to finish going somewhere. / Do not intend to finish going anywhere.’</footnote>

<footnote>b. ??[**dokoka-e** it-tesima-ootosuru] koto-ga *nai* yooni
**[someone** go-TESIMAU-try] NMLZ-NOM NEG COMP.SBJV
‘(intended) TAKE CARE for it not to happen that you intend to finish going somewhere.’</footnote>
<table><caption>Table1</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>narrow-scoped PPI</th><th>NPI-requiring clause-mate Neg</th><th>RESP-inducing siyootosuru ('intend')</th><th>non-RESP inducing ukkari 'inadvertently'</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>plain infinitive-like complement</td><td>✓(23a)</td><td>✓(24a)</td><td>??(25b) [with PPI]<br>✓(25a) [with NPI]</td><td>✓(26a)[with PPI]<br>??(26a) [with NPI]</td></tr><tr><td>plain koto-ga nai complement</td><td>✓(23b)</td><td>✓(24b)</td><td>??(25c) [with PPI]<br>??(25c) [with NPI]</td><td>✓(26b)[with PPI]<br>??(26b) [with NPI]</td></tr><tr><td>infinitive-like complement with -TESIMAU</td><td>✓(30a)</td><td>*(31a)</td><td>??(32a) [with PPI]</td><td>✓(33a) [with PPI]</td></tr><tr><td>koto-ga nai complement with -TESIMAU</td><td>✓(30b)</td><td>*(31b)</td><td>*(32b) [with PPI]</td><td>✓(33b) [with PPI]</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 5 Concluding remarks

We have proposed that preventive negative imperatives with respect to a non-RESP situation have the structure in (34) at the level where they are associated with the semantic interpretation.

### (34) Proposed structure of preventive negative imperatives

Take care for there not to occur the contextually relevant implicit Preparatory situation which would cause an occurrence of the denoted situation. (=(16a))

In (35) and (36), we summarize our observations regarding the interpretation of negative imperatives and the relation between perfective/completive aspect and the non-RESP interpretation in BCS and Japanese, respectively.

### BCS

(35)a. Both infinitive and *da*-clause complements of NEMOJ behave as constituting a clause boundary when they denote a non-RESP situation. On the other hand, they both may look like mono-clausal configurations with respect to the matrix predicate, not constituting a clause-boundary<fnref n="28" />, in which case they convey a RESP situation.

b. Narrowly-scoped PPIs tend to (but not always) induce a non-RESP reading, while the presence of NPIs requiring a clause-mate negation clearly excludes a non-RESP reading.

c. The perfective aspect may trigger a non-RESP reading: it may thus explicitly instantiate a causal predicate “cause” as formulated in (34); the non-RESP reading seems to be incompatible with the imperfective aspect.

d. Like in Hungarian subjunctive complement clauses, a modal element in combination with a perfective verb clearly identifies a non-RESP reading: it explicitly instantiates the modal expression “would” in (34).

### Japanese

(36)a. The infinitive-like complement of YOONI imperatives form may constitute a clause boundary when it denotes a non-RESP situation, while the *koto-ga nai* complement of YOONI imperatives tends to mark a clause-boundary and to convey a non-RESP situation, and may be analyzed as an instance of Szabolcsi's (2010) non-RESP marker, which corresponds to “for there not to occur” in (34).

<footnote n="28">²⁸ As independently argued for by Aljović (2005, 2004) based on clitic climing phenomena in BCS.</footnote>
b. Like in BCS, the presence of NPIs excludes a non-RESP reading. (cf. (35b))

c. The auxiliary -TESIMAU itself does not necessarily trigger a non-RESP reading, but its "realization" reading instantiates the causal predicate "cause" in (34), similarly to the BCS perfective aspect (cf. (35c)).

Thus, we propose to answer the two questions posed in Introduction as follows. First, Fauconnier's (2013) hypothesis of a direct correlation between perfective or completive markers and the non-RESP interpretation was partially but not completely confirmed by BCS and Japanese negative imperatives: the Japanese completive auxiliary -TESIMAU represents the non-RESP reading when expressing the "realization" reading, but the non-RESP reading may be conveyed without -TESIMAU. Similarly, the relation between the BCS perfective aspect and the non-RESP reading is unidirectional in the following way: the non-RESP interpretation implies the perfective aspect, but the reverse is not necessarily true. On the other hand, the imperfective aspect obligatorily implies the RESP reading, although the reverse is not true since the RESP reading can be conveyed by the perfective aspect, too. Next, in BCS and Japanese negative imperatives, narrowly-scoped PPIs tend to but do not always indicate the non-RESP reading: rather, the presence of NPIs requiring a clause-mate negation necessarily indicates the RESP reading.

Interestingly, Schlenker (2005) proposes an analysis similar to ours in (34) for the French subjunctive complement in (37a), which is truth-conditionally distinguished from the French infinitive complement in (37b).

(37)a. J'ai **forcé** Jean à ce qu'il m'ouvre. [subjunctive complement]
I have forced Jean to it that he to-me open.SBJV.
'lit. I force Jean that he open.SBJV the door.' (slightly modified from Schlenker 2005: 294)

b. J'ai **forcé** Jean à m'ouvrir. [infinitive complement]
I have forced Jean to to-me open.INF.
'lit. I forced Jean to open the door.' (ibid.)

According to Schlenker (2005: 294), the infinitive version in (37b) is true when the speaker applied physical pressure to the door (or to Jean himself) to get it to open. The subjunctive version in (37a) is deviant in such a situation. It becomes true if the speaker indirectly caused Jean to open the door, for instance by issuing threats that he took sufficiently seriously to comply with my orders. In order to account for this difference, he claims that in the infinitive, the event argument should be read *de se*, in contrast to the subjunctive clause. He further formalizes the difference between infinitive and subjunctive complements by assuming that the former instantiates a direct connection between the event argument of the matrix clause and the clause-internal event argument, while the latter invokes an existential binding of the clause-internal event argument. It seems possible to assume that this existential quantification corresponds to Szabolcsi's (2010) non-RESP marker *for it happen that*. It is the subject of future research to examine whether the notion of event *de se* and the *responsibility* (and inversely, the notion of event *de re* and the non-responsibility) may be analyzed in a unified way from such a new perspective to account for the role of BCS perfective marker and the Japanese completive auxiliary -TESIMAU.

* We are happy to dedicate this paper to Anne Zribi-Hertz, who has been a continuous support, a great friend and a linguistics teacher and colleague sharing her contagious enthusiasm for the field with us for many years. The material of this study goes back to discussion with Anne about Nicola Ruwet's paper treating exemption from obviation in French (Ruwet 1990). We are grateful to Anne for her
comments on earlier versions of this study. The first author especially appreciates her encouragement and support in his difficult time after the loss of his mother (in April 2019) and his father (in July 2022). We are also thankful to two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. Some parts of this study were presented at *Eighteenth International Workshop of Logic and Engineering of Natural Language Semantics* (held online on 13-15/11/2022) and *Workshop on Aspect and Argument Structure of Adjectives/Adverbs and Participles/ Prepositions* (held on 16-17/06/2022 at University of Greenwich). This research is partially supported by the grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Sciences (No. 22K00558).

## References

Abe, Sayaka. 2007. *Space, time, subjectivity and beyond: the cognitive semantic development of the Japanese marker -te-shimau*. State University of New York at Buffalo. PhD dissertation.

Aljović, Nadira. 2004. Cliticization domains: Clitic Climbing in Romance and in Serbo-Croatian. *Proceedings of JEL'2004 Domain(e)s*. Université de Nantes. 169-175.

Aljović, Nadira. 2005. On Clitic Climbing in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian. In: *Lingvistički vidici*. Leko, N. (ed.). Forum Bosna 34/05. Sarajevo.

Buguslawski, Andrej. 1985. The Problem of the Negated Imperative in Perfective Verbs Revisited. *Russian Linguistics, 9*, 225-239.

Costantini, Francesco. 2005. On obviation in subjunctive clauses: the state of the art. *Annali Di Ca' Foscari* 44, 97-132.

Copley, Bridget. & Kagan, Olga. 2021. The Russian perfective and maximality of causal influences. A paper read in CSSP 2021 www.cssp.cnrs.fr/cssp2021/abstracts/Copley_Kagan.pdf;

Farkas, Donka. 1988. On obligatory control. *Linguistics & Philosophy* 11. 27-58.

Fauconnier, Stephanie. 2013. Completives as markers of non-volitionality. *Folia Linguistica* 47.1, 35-53.

Goncharov, Julie. 2018. Intentionality Effect in Imperatives. *Proceedings of FASL 27*.

Hara, Yurie., Kim, Youngju., Sakai, Hiromu. & Tamura, Sanae. 2013. Projections of events and propositions in Japanese: A case study of Koto-nominalized clauses in causal relations. *Lingua* 133, 262-288.

Hashimoto, Osamu. & Matsumoto, Tetsuya. 2000. *Tesimau to nai no kyooki-nitsuite* (On the compatibility between -TESIMAU and the negative NAI). *Tsukuba Nihongo Kenkyuu* 5 (Tsukuba Japanese linguistics), 1-17.

Ihara, Shun. 2020. Pseudo-imperatives as Weak Modalized Assertions. In S. Iwasaki et al. *Japanese/Korean Linguistics* 26, 1-10. CSLI Publications.

Ihara, Shun. 2021. Division of Labor between Semantics and Pragmatics of Canonical and Non-canonical Imperatives. *Gengo Kenkyu* (Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan) 160, 155-182. https://doi.org/10.11435/gengo.160.0_155

Jacobsen, Wesley M. 2020. Temporal categories: Interactions among tense, aspect, and nontemporal meaning. In Wesley M. Jacobsen and Yukinori Takubo (eds.). *Handbook of Japanese Semantics and Pragmatics*. Chapter 6, 311-369. De Gruyter Mouton.

Kaneko, Makoto. 2020. Non-responsibility and narrow scope reading of positive polarity indefinites in negative imperatives and negated controlled infinitive complements. In C. Piñón & L. Roussarie (eds.) *Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics* 13, 25-54. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss13/eiss13_kaneko.pdf
Kaneko, Makoto. 2021. An analysis of a peculiar PPI licensing in French and Japanese negated purpose clauses in terms of an implicit externalization of the negation due to the non-responsibility. *Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Workshop of Logic and Engineering of Natural Language Semantics* 18 (LENLS18), 189-202.

Kaufmann, Magdalena. 2012. *Interpreting Imperatives*. Dordrecht: Springer.

Kaufmann, Magdalena. 2019. Who controls who (or what). *Proceedings of SALT, 29, 636–664*. DOI: http://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v29i0.4643.

Kuehnast, Milena. 2008. Aspectual coercion in Bulgarian negative imperatives. In W. Abraham & E. Leiss (eds.). *Modality-Aspect Interface: Implications and typological solutions*, 175-196. John Benjamins.

Maeda, Naoko. 2006. *YOONI no imi, yoohoo* (Meaning and Usage of the ‘yooni’ clause). Kasama Pub.

Maslov, Yuriy S. 1984. *Ocherki po aspektologii* (Essays on the aspectology). Leningrad: Leningrad University Press.

Ohba, Mihoko. 2002. On the Phrase -TESHIMAU in Japanese. *Mathesis universalis* (bulletin of the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Dokkyo University, Japan) 4.1, 143-157.

Potsdam, Eric. 1998. *Syntactic issues in the English imperative*. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. Garland Publishing, Inc.

Progovac, Ljiljana. 1993. Long-Distance Reflexives: Movement-to-INFL versus Relativized Subject. *Linguistic Inquiry, 24*, 755-772.

Richardson, J. F. 1985. Agenthood and Ease. *Proceedings from the 21st Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society*. 241–251.

Ruwet, Nicolas. 1990. “*Je veux partir / *Je veux que je parte*: On the Distribution of Finite Complements and Infinitival Complements in French” In *Syntax and Human Experience*. (Edited and translated by John A. Goldsmith). The University of Chicago Press.

Schlenker, Philippe. 2005. The Lazy Frenchman's Approach to the Subjunctive: Speculations on Reference to Worlds and Semantic Defaults in the Analysis of Mood. In T. Geerts, I. van Ginneken & H. Jacobs (eds.). *Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory* 2003, 269-311. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Shimoyama, Junko. 2011. Japanese indeterminate negative polarity items and their scope. *Journal of Semantics* 28.4, 413-450.

Sugimoto, Takeshi. 1991. Aspect and Modality in the Case of *te-simau* (1). *Bulletin of the Faculty of Computer Science and Systems Engineering, Kyushu Institute of Technology*, 109-126.

Szabolcsi, Anna. 2010. Infinitives vs. subjunctives: What do we learn from obviation and from exemptions from obviation?
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/szabolcsi/szabolcsi_obviation_march_2010.pdf

Szabolcsi, Anna. 2021. Obviation in Hungarian: what is its scope, and is it due to competition?, *Glossa: a journal of general linguistics* 6(1): 57. doi: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1421

Zorikhina Nilsson, Nadezjda. 2013. The negated imperative in Russian and other Slavic languages. In F. Josephson & I. Söhrman (eds.). *Diachronic and Typological Perspectives on Verbs*, 79-106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
# A short note on the English-specific character of *have* + infinitival ECM

Richard S. Kayne
*New York University*

## 1.

English allows matrix verb *have* with an ECM-like infinitive in the following sentences, taken from Myler (2016, 266, 281):

(1) Neil had something wonderful happen (to him) today.

(2) I had Jim bathe his dog.

Myler calls the first of these an instance of experiencer *have* and the second an instance of engineer *have*, and he is certainly correct to distinguish the two.

In this paper I will not pay particular attention to the difference between these two subtypes of *have*-sentences. I will rather be interested in one surprising property they have in common, namely that both (1) and (2) are not, as far as I know, found in any other Germanic language, nor in any Romance language.

## 2.

Before stating my proposal, let me note in passing that it is only infinitival ECM that will be at issue in this paper, insofar as a participial counterpart of some sentences akin to the experiencer case of (1) can be found elsewhere than in English. For example, consider:

(3) The poor guy had his car stolen (from him) last night

This experiencer-type sentence has a close counterpart in French, with a participle:<fnref n="1" />

(4) Le pauvre a eu sa voiture (de) volée la nuit dernière.
('the poor has had his car (of) stolen the night last')

The fact that participial ECM with matrix verb 'have' is more widespread than infinitival ECM with matrix 'have' is almost certainly related to the fact that small clause ECM is generally more widespread than infinitival ECM, too, as can be seen again in French:

(5) Je crois Marie intelligente. ('I believe M intelligent')

(6) \*Je crois Marie être intelligente. ('I believe M to-be intelligent')

The small clause ECM example in (5) is fine, as opposed to the infinitival example in (6).<fnref n="2" />

<footnote n="1">¹ Example due to Jean-Yves Pollock.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² French infinitival ECM with verbs like 'believe' is acceptable if the infinitival subject is wh-moved, in a way comparable to what is seen in the English pair (cf. Postal (1974, 304ff.):</footnote>

<footnote>i) \*I assure you John to be the best student in the class.</footnote>

<footnote>ii) John, who I assure you to be the best student in the class, ...</footnote>

<footnote>For discussion in terms of the notion 'Case into Comp' (which needs to be updated), see Kayne (1980) and Pesetsky (2021, sect. 2.5.2); for a finer-grained discussion of the French facts, see Pollock (1985).</footnote>
3.

As a first step toward an analysis of the fact that infinitival ECM with 'have' is limited to English within Germanic plus Romance,<fnref n="3" /> we can note that some English has the following (examples from Wolfram and Christian (1975, 142/153)):

(7) a. Just recently, I had an aunt to come from Texas.

b. They'd have a thrashing machine to come in and thrash it.

in which the infinitival verb is preceded by *to*. This suggests the possibility that other English has a silent counterpart of *to* (capitals will indicate silence), i.e. that the following:

(8) We had them arrive early.

should be taken to be as in:<fnref n="4" />

(9) we had them TO arrive early

This suggested alternation between *to* and *TO* recalls, even if inexactely, pairs like:

(10) We wanted them to arrive early.

(11) We wanted for them to arrive early.

which show an alternation between *for* and *FOR*. This in turn makes one wonder if the examples in (7) might not have a silent *FOR*, as in:

(12) they'd have *FOR* a thrashing machine to come in

4.

If they do, then a key question arises as to whether *FOR* might not also necessarily be present in cases like (1) and (2), in addition to *TO*, for example:

(13) he had *FOR* something wonderful *TO* happen (to him) today.

(14) they had *FOR* Jim *TO* bathe his dog.

This possibility is of interest insofar as English seems to be the only language within the set of Romance and Germanic languages to have a complementizer *for/FOR* that is able to license an infinitival lexical subject.<fnref n="5" />

In other words, we can account for the limitation of (1)/(13) and (2)/(14) to English, within

English engineer-type sentences with a participle such as:

iii) They had him arrested.

appear not to have any word-for-word counterpart in French (cf. Kayne (1993, note 16) and den Dikken (1997, note 1 and sect. 6.3)), which suggests that (iii) may contain a silent infinitival BE.

i) They made him write another paper.

ii) He was made to write another paper.

Why silent *TO* is incompatible with overt *for* remains in general an open question:

iii) For there *(to) be another meeting would be a good idea.

<footnote n="3">³ The analysis to be proposed further on leads to the expectation that (within the set of languages having 'have') infinitival ECM with 'have' as the matrix verb will be cross-linguistically rare, just as with matrix 'want'.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Which in turn recalls the well-known:</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ This in turn may be related to English being the only language within these families to lack infinitival suffixes of any kind. For recent discussion of complementizer-like *for*, see Pesetsky (2021, chap. 5).</footnote>
these two families, if the following holds cross-linguistically:

(15) 'Have' can take an infinitival ECM-type complement only via the intermediary of *for/FOR*.

5.

The proposal in (15) establishes a partial link between *have* and Postal's (1974, sect. 4.16) W-verbs, one example of which is:

(16) They definitely want for there to be another meeting.

(17) They definitely want there to be another meeting.

With matrix verbs like *want*, some or much English allows (16) with overt *for*, and all English, I would guess, allows (17), arguably with silent FOR. Within Germanic and Romance, (16) with overt *for* is limited to English. Moreover, (17) without overt *for* is also limited to English, in a way that directly supports taking (17) to contain FOR.

Put another way, sentences exactly like (16) and (17) are limited to English as a side effect of only English having a complementizer *for/FOR*. For (17), we should make things more explicit, as in the following, parallel to (15):

(18) 'Want' and similar verbs can take an infinitival ECM-type complement only via the intermediary of *for/FOR*.<fnref n="6" />

We can note in passing that sentences like:

(19) They want to leave.

are widespread with Germanic and Romance, indicating that with 'want' and similar verbs, *for/FOR* is necessary only for ECM reasons, and is not necessary to license the infinitive itself. Similarly from the present perspective, we can note that sentences like:

(20) They have to leave.

are less limited,<fnref n="7" /> within Germanic and Romance, than the infinitival ECM-sentences with matrix verb 'have' illustrated in (1) and (2), with the idea again being that (20) doesn't need English-specific *for/FOR* since (20) is not an instance of ECM.

There is also a connection between ECM 'want' and ECM 'have' concerning passivization. Alongside:

(21) They want there to be another meeting.

(22) They had us prepare the reading list.

<footnote n="6">⁶ As opposed to 'believe'-type verbs. All this will need to be looked into outside Romance and Germanic, too, of course.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ Cf. den Dikken (1997, note 1). For example, French allows (in some cases):</footnote>

<footnote>i) J'ai à vous parler. ('I have to you to-speak' = 'I have to speak to you')
Cf. Grevisse and Goosse (2008, sect. 821b).</footnote>
we do not have:<fnref n="8" />

(23) *There is wanted to be another meeting.

(24) *We were had (to) prepare the reading list.

6.

On the link between infinitival ECM *want* and infinitival ECM *have* in English, we can note in addition that verbs of the *want* class have, at least in my English, the property that the subject of the matrix verb, in ECM contexts, must be animate/human, as in:

(25) We would like there to be a solution to this problem.

(26) The cat would like you to give it some milk.

Whereas the following is sharply out:<fnref n="9" />

(27) *This problem would like there to be a solution (to it).

There is an even more striking contrast with *need*. With an abstract subject, in a non-ECM context, we can have:

(28) The fact that there's no solution to this problem needs an explanation.

(29) The fact that there's no solution to this problem needs to be explained.

but not (in an infinitival ECM context):

(30) *The fact that there's no solution to this problem needs (for) us to explain it.

Although (30) vs. (28)/(29) could perhaps be stated in terms of a subcategorization property of *need*, a more promising tack would be to try to assimilate the deviance of (30), with *need*, to that of (27), with *like*.

In that vein, we can note parallel examples with *mean*:

(31) This paragraph doesn't mean anything about your having to leave.

(32) This paragraph doesn't mean that you should leave.

But this is not possible in an infinitival ECM context:

(33) *This paragraph doesn't mean (for) you to leave.

<footnote n="8">⁸ With *want* taking a small clause complement, passive is occasionally possible:</footnote>

<footnote>i) You're wanted on the phone.</footnote>

<footnote>ii) You're wanted in the office right now.</footnote>

<footnote>With *have* taking a complement other than an infinitival ECM one, passive is often impossible, but sometimes possible, as Myler (2016, 338) emphasizes, one of his examples being:</footnote>

<footnote>iii) A thorough discussion needs to be had before we proceed.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ A reviewer asks if *like* can ever take an inanimate subject. Potentially relevant, depending on how strong the anti-homophony heuristic of Johns (1992, 84), Embick (2003, 156) and Kayne (2019a) should be taken to be, is:</footnote>

<footnote>i) That problem is just like this one.</footnote>

<footnote>that is, if verbal *like* and the *like* of (i) are the same element.</footnote>
From the present perspective, these facts about *want, would like, need and mean* fall together with the following fact about *have* with infinitival ECM:

(34) They were angry (at us), so they had us leave early.

But not:

(35) *Their anger had us leave early.

(36) *The fact that they were angry had us leave early.

Similarly:

(37) Because of the freezing weather, his mother had him wear three sweaters.

(38) *The cold weather had him wear three sweaters.<fnref n="10" />

The overarching generalization covering *want, would like, need, mean* and *have*, which is available only if we take *have* + infinitival ECM to necessarily involve FOR, would appear to be the following:<fnref n="11" />

(39) A verbal complement introduced by complementizer *for/FOR* is possible only if the verb has a human/animate/sentient subject.<fnref n="12" />

We can note, in passing again, that the contrast between *have* and *make* seen in:

(40) Their anger made/*had us leave early.

(41) The cold weather made/*had him wear three sweaters.

indicates that the infinitive embedded under *make* does not require *for/FOR* to license its lexical subject.<fnref n="13" />

Returning to (39), we might wonder why it should hold. There may be a link to another instance of infinitival *for*:

(42) The flowers are in the dining room in order for there to be something for people to talk about over dinner.

The *in order for...to...* phrase here can be associated with an unpronounced agent, but cannot be directly associated with *the flowers*.

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ To be distinguished from the non-infinitival:</footnote>

<footnote>i) The cold weather had him wearing three sweaters.</footnote>

<footnote>in a way presumably related to the fact that English gerunds license a lexical subject more readily than English infinitives (cf. Reuland (1983)):</footnote>

<footnote>ii) Him having said that in public scandalized everybody.</footnote>

<footnote>iii) *Him to have said that in public is unbelievable.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ Postverbal subject-like *for*-infinitives are not intended to fall under this generalization:</footnote>

<footnote>i) It would be a good thing for there to be another meeting.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² Relevant to the choice of modifier here is the status of sentences like:</footnote>

<footnote>i) That earthworm doesn't want to be eaten.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ Note that *make* is compatible with an animate subject:</footnote>

<footnote>i) They made us leave early.</footnote>

<footnote>On how the lexical subject under *make* might be licensed, see Kayne (1981; 2004) and Pollock (1994).</footnote>
7. Alongside the just discussed similarities between *have* and *want*-type verbs concerning infinitival ECM, there is a sharp difference that we need to reach an understanding of, namely that overt *for* is not seen with ECM *have* in any variety of English (as far as I know), despite its being found with *want*-type verbs, to one degree or another:<fnref n="14" />

(43) We want/would like/would prefer/wish/intend/mean for there to be another meeting.

But not:

(44) \*He had for something wonderful (to) happen (to him) last week.

(45) \*I had for Jim (to) bathe his dog.

As a step toward an account of (44)/(45), we can think of the idea in Freeze (1992) and Kayne (1993), to the effect that *have* in general necessarily involves incorporation involving a preposition.<fnref n="15" /> In well-formed *have* sentences with infinitival ECM, such as (34) and (37), the relevant P is arguably silent FOR itself. In (44) and (45) overt *for* has evidently not participated in incorporation,<fnref n="16" /> so *have* in (44) and (45) is not legitimate (on the assumption that no other P is available).

8. In conclusion, *have* + infinitival ECM is specific to English (within Germanic and Romance) because only English can, in that context, provide *have* with the preposition that it needs (there and elsewhere), with that preposition being in this case FOR, the silent counterpart of complementizer *for*,<fnref n="17" /> which is itself, in ECM contexts, highly specific to English, as is its silent counterpart.

References

Collins, C. & R.S. Kayne (2021) Towards a Theory of Morphology as Syntax. lingbuzz/005693.

den Dikken, M. 1997. The syntax of possession and the verb ‘have’. *Lingua*, 101, 129-150.

Embick, D. 2003. Locality, Listedness and Morphological Identity. *Studia Linguistica*, 57, 143-169.

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ Cf. Postal (1974, sect. 4.16).</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ The execution of this idea will need to be revised if Collins and Kayne (2021) is correct in taking the language faculty to exclude late insertion. Accounting for the absence of overt *for* with *have* is more natural from the perspective of Freeze (1992) and Kayne (1993) than from that of Myler (2016). Myler (2016, 290) notes that Romance causatives (cf. Kayne (1975), Rouveret and Vergnaud (1980) and Sheehan (2020) among others) with matrix verb *faire/hacer* ('do'/'make') can sometimes correspond closely to English 'engineer' *have*. The text proposal tells us why Romance cannot make use of its 'have' in such causatives. Why English cannot use *do* in addition to or instead of *make* remains to be understood.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ Whether *want*-sentences with FOR (rather than *for*) involve incorporation of FOR to *want* is left an open question here.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ For some relevant discussion of the relation between P and C, v. Kayne (1993; 1997; 1999; 2000a).</footnote>
Freeze, R. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. *Language*, 68, 553-595.

Grevisse, M. & A. Goosse 2008. *Le bon usage. Grammaire française*. 14th edition, de Boeck, Brussels.

Johns, A. 1992. Deriving Ergativity. *Linguistic Inquiry*, 23, 57-87

Kayne, R.S. 1975. *French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle*. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Kayne, R.S. 1980. Extensions of binding and case-marking. *Linguistic Inquiry*, 11, 75-96.

Kayne, R.S. 1981. Two Notes on the NIC. In A. Belletti, L. Brandi & L. Rizzi (eds.) *Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar. Proceedings of the 1979 GLOW Conference*, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, 317-346 (reprinted in Kayne 1984).

Kayne, R.S. 1984. *Connectedness and Binary Branching*, Foris, Dordrecht.

Kayne, R.S. 1993. Toward a Modular Theory of Auxiliary Selection. *Studia Linguistica*, 47, 3-31.

Kayne, R.S. 1997. The English Complementizer of. *Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics*, 1, 43-54.

Kayne, R.S. 1999. Prepositional Complementizers as Attractors. *Probus*, 11, 39-73 (reprinted in Kayne 2000b).

Kayne, R.S. 2000a. A Note on Prepositions, Complementizers and Word Order Universals. In Kayne 2000b.

Kayne, R.S. 2000b. *Parameters and Universals*. Oxford University Press, New York.

Kayne, R.S. 2004. Prepositions as Probes. In A. Belletti (ed.), *Structures and Beyond*, Oxford University Press, New York, 192-212.

Kayne, R.S. 2019a. The Unicity of There and the Definiteness Effect. In E. Gonçalves (ed.) *Existential Constructions in Focus*, Editora da Universidade Federal da Bahia, Brazil (reprinted in Kayne 2019b).

Kayne, R.S. 2019b. *Questions of Syntax*. Oxford University Press, New York.

Myler, N. 2016. *Building and Interpreting Possession Sentences*. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Pesetsky, D. 2021. Exfoliation: Towards a Derivational Theory of Clause Size (version 3.1), lingbuzz/004440.

Pollock, J.-Y. 1985. On Case and the Syntax of Infinitives in French. In J. Guéron, H.-G. Obenauer & J.-Y. Pollock (eds.) *Grammatical Representation*, Foris, Dordrecht, 293-326.

Pollock, Jean-Yves 1994. Checking theory and bare verbs. In G. Cinque, J. Koster, J.-Y. Pollock, L. Rizzi, & R. Zanuttini (eds.) *Paths toward Universal Grammar. Studies in honor of Richard S. Kayne*, Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C., 293-310.

Postal, P.M. (1974) *On Raising. One Rule of English Grammar and its Theoretical Implications*, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Reuland, E. 1983. Governing -ing. *Linguistic Inquiry*, 14, 101-136.

Rouveret, A. & J.R. Vergnaud 1980. Specifying Reference to the Subject: French Causatives and Conditions on Representations. *Linguistic Inquiry*, 11, 97-202.

Sheehan, M. 2020. The Development of Exceptional Case Marking in Romance with a Particular Focus on French. *Probus*, 32, 367-400.

Wolfram, W. & D. Christian 1975. *Sociolinguistic Variables in Appalachian Dialects*. Center for Applied Linguistics, Arlington, Virginia.
La grammaire est une fête / Grammar is a moveable feast

Mélanges offerts à / A Webschrift for Anne Zribi-Hertz, 2023
# L'étrusque (rasna)

Quelques contrastes pertinents pour l'acquisition du français langue seconde
par des locutrices de l'étrusque

Amédée Kryse

Université Paris-Faubourg

édité par Alain Kihm

CNRS, UMR 7110 – LLF U. Paris-Diderot

Pour Anna Faure

Ce travail a bénéficié du soutien des programmes « Patalinguistique en Île-de-France » (PIF), « Pour une alterlinguistique du français » (PAF) et « Phonologie optimale uchronique du français » (POUF)

## 1. Introduction

L'étrusque est une langue isolée, sans parentée certaine, parlée en Italie centrale (Etrurie) et censée éteinte depuis le IIe siècle au plus tard. Il se pourrait qu'il n'en fût rien. Dans un article encore non publié, plusieurs enseignants-chercheurs du département d'ethnosémiotique de l'Université de Saint Marin démontrent que la langue s'est bien transmise jusqu'à nos jours dans un village des Abruzzes. Mais, depuis près de deux mille ans, cette transmission s'est faite exclusivement de mère à fille, avec interdiction absolue d'employer la langue dans aucune circonstance, sauf pour l'inculquer secrètement à la génération féminine suivante. Les raisons de cet étrange interdit sont inconnues, à moins que les auteurs ci-dessus mentionnés ne les aient découvertes, en même temps que son existence même, par une nécessaire indiscrétion — due, on doit le craindre, à l'effet délétère des réseaux sociaux sur des esprits qu'on eût crus plus solides.

L'étrusque va-t-il reparaître au grand jour ? Peut-être. Mais il nous est aussi arrivé aux oreilles que se formait à Tarquinia une Lega dei Grammatici per l'Inviolabilità delle Defunte Favelle (favelle 'parlers, langues'). Ayant eu vent de cette possible publication, ses membres, linguistes re joints par des physiciens, seraient bien décidés à l'empêcher par tout moyen, afin que l'étrusque demeure ce que, selon eux, il ne devrait cesser d'être, une langue morte. Respect légitime ? Conservatisme fâcheux ? Nous n'en débattrons pas. La Ligue envisagerait un retour dans le temps, afin d'annihiler toute l'histoire à sa source. Si cela se réalise, le contenu de cette fiche en sera modifié. En fait, elle et son idée même s'annihileront, faute de raison d'être dans un autre monde où l'étrusque est vraiment une langue morte depuis deux millénaires. Mais ne faudrait-il pas écrire ces deux phrases au conditionnel ? Seraient-elles jamais écrites ? Citons le pseudo-Parménide : Ποῦ ἐσμεν εἰ ἔστιν τό μὴ ἐὸν ;

En attendant — et qui peut dire combien de temps encore la continuité qui est nôtre durera? — il convient de se préparer à tout, y compris à la survenue dans nos écoles d'enfants etruscophones, de sexe féminin dans un premier temps, surtout si les menaces de guerre entre le Grand-Duché de Toscane et les Etats du Pape se concrétisent. Aussi, allons-nous présenter préventivement la langue telle qu'on la connaît hors de ce village dont le nom n'a pas encore été révélé, à savoir par les textes et les inscriptions. Connaissance fragmentaire pour deux raisons. La première est l'isolement de l'étrusque, incomparable à aucune langue, si bien que nombre de mots nous restent incompréhensibles. La seconde : quoique abondants (quelques
13 000) et aisément déchiffrables, car rédigés en une variante de l'alphabet grec occidental (le plus souvent orienté de droite à gauche), les textes, principalement des inscriptions funéraires, sont pour la plupart brefs et répétitifs, aide pour l'interprétation contextuelle, mais obstacle à la découverte des formes et du vocabulaire, dont la portion compréhensible n'excède pas 250 mots. La riche littérature antique en langue étrusque, dont des auteurs latins mentionnent l'existence, s'est perdue faute d'être recopiée une fois la langue crue éteinte et remplacée par celle de Rome.

## 2. Eléments de phonologie

### 2.1. Les consonnes

Quant aux occlusives, l'étrusque ignore l'opposition sourde / sonore. Toutes sont sourdes, mais elles s'opposent comme des non-aspirées /p/ (p), /t/ (t) et /k/ (k, Q, C selon la voyelle subséquente) à des aspirées /pʰ/ (f), /tʰ/ (θ) et /kʰ/ (y). Les sonores /b/, /d/ et /g/ du français poseraient donc problème si toutes les (crypto-)etruscophones n'étaient également italophones. La prononciation des siflantes n'est pas assurée. Elles sont au moins deux : /s/ (s) et (probablement) /ʃ/ (M) (cf. *chat*), souvent échangées l'une pour l'autre. On relève encore l'affriquée /ts/ (I) (cf. *tsé-tsé*), la (sans doute) labiodentale /f/ (8), l'aspirée /h/ (η) (anglais *hot*), la semi-voyelle /w/ (F) (cf. *ouate*). Les sonantes sont les deux nasales /m/ (m') et /n/ (n') et les deux liquides /l/ (L) et /r/ (R). Il existe plusieurs traditions de transcription des lettres étrusques et des phonèmes qu'elles sont censées représenter. Nous adoptons les conventions suivantes, qui diffèrent de l'usage français : /k/ = c (devant toute voyelle, comme en latin), /pʰ/ = ph, /tʰ/ = th, /kʰ/ = ch, /ʃ/ = s, /ts/ = z, /w/ = v.

### 2.2. Les voyelles

Le système vocalique étrusque ne connaît que quatre voyelles dont la durée n'est pas distinctive : /a/ (A), /e/ (E), /i/ (I) et /u/ (Y). D'où difficulté pour /o/, /ɔ/, /ɛ/, /y/, /ø/, /œ/ et les voyelles nasales — quoique l'existence d'au moins /ã/ ne soit pas exclue. Là encore, la connaissance de l'italien suppléera en partie. Il existe quatre diphtongues : cf. *zuslei/tsuslej/ 'avec une bête sacrificielle', Hamai-thi/hamajthi/ 'à Hamae', papui/papuj/ 'en [nom de mois]', lavtun/ lawtun/ 'famille'.

### 2.3. La syllabe

La structure syllabique de l'étrusque diffère peu de celle du français, si ce n'est qu'elle tolère des groupes de consonnes que le français exclut : cf. *mlusna* 'sacrificateur', *netśvis* 'haruspice', *tmia* 'lieu, temple', etc. La principale différence est la possibilité pour les sonantes d'être syllabiques : p.ex. *Atlnta/atńta/ 'Atalante' (cf. anglais *cattle*).

### 2.4. L'accent tonique

La syllabe initiale le porte et la voyelle en est allongée. Les élèves devront apprendre à ne pas accentuer ainsi les mots français.
## 3. Eléments de grammaire

### 3.1. Les nominaux et le groupe nominal

L'étrusque ignore le genre grammatical. Les noms dénotant des humains peuvent être féminisés au moyen du suffixe -tha ~ -thu : p.ex. lavtni 'affranchi' / lavtnitha 'affranchie'. Le pluriel se forme au moyen du suffixe -r précédé d'une voyelle variable et parfois accompagné d'une modification de la voyelle du radical (métaphonie) : cf. clan 'fils' / clenar 'filspl', papals / papalser 'petit.e(s)-fils/fille(s)'. Mais plus fréquente est l'absence de marque, le nombre alors inféré du contexte. Outre le pluriel, il existe un collectif marqué du suffixe -chva : p.ex. flere 'statue sacrée' / flereri 'statues sacrées (individualisées)' / flerchva 'groupe de statues sacrées'.

La pluralité n'est généralement pas marquée sur le nom lorsqu'elle l'est déjà par un numéral supérieur à 1 : cf. ci avil {3 année} 'trois années'.

L'étrusque ne possède pas d'article défini à proprement parler. Mais un démonstratif postposé peut en faire office : cf. cn šuthi {DEM.ACC tombeau} 'ce tombeau' vs. sacni cn 'le prêtre'. L'indéfinitude (« un tombeau ») n'est pas marquée.

Les noms se fléchissent selon leur fonction grammaticale. La déclinaison nominale comporte (au moins) cinq cas : (a) le nominatif-accusatif, cas du sujet et de l'objet direct, non marqué :

(1) tite cale atial turce malstria cver
T. C. mère-DAT donner-PRET miroir cadeau
Tite Cale a donné à sa mère le miroir en cadeau'

(b) le génitif, cas du complément de nom marqué par -al ou -s: p.ex. larisal clan {L-GEN fils}
'le fils de Laris', lances clan {L-GEN fils} 'le fils de Larse'; (c) le datif, cas du complément
d'attribution ou de l'agent d'un verbe passif, marqué par -s(i) ou -(a)l : pour l'attribution cf.
atial en (1) (ati 'mère'), pour l'agent cf. (2) :

(2) mi titasi cver menache
1SG.NOM T-DAT cadeau offrir-PRET.PASS
'J'ai été offert en cadeau par Tita' (l'objet parle)

(d) l'accusatif emphatique ou défini marqué par -ni, de fonction incertaine; (e) le locatif, cas du lieu où l'on est, marqué par -i : zilc-i 'au prétoire', spure /spura-i/ 'dans la ville'. On le trouve souvent accompagné d'une postposition telle que -thi : spure-thi 'dans la ville'.

Tous les pronoms personnels ne sont pas connus. Le tableau ci-dessous résume l'état des connaissances actuelles. Les formes qui devraient remplir les cases vides ne sont pas (à ce jour) attestées :

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>1SG</th><th>2SG</th><th>3SG</th><th>1PL</th><th>2PL</th><th>3PL</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>NOM</th><td>mi</td><td></td><td>an/in</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>ACC</th><td>mini</td><td>un</td><td></td><td></td><td>unu</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>GEN</th><td></td><td></td><td>enaś</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>DAT</th><td></td><td>une</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
A 3SG.NOM, *an* renvoie aux humains sans distinction de sexe, *in* aux inanimés :

(3) *vel matunas larisalisa an cn *śuthi cerichunce* V M L-GEN-celui 3SG.HUM DEM.ACC tombeau ériger-PRET ‘Vel Matunas, fils de Laris, il a érigé ce tombeau’

Outre les formes prévues mais inattestées, le tableau offre-t-il toutes les cases nécessaires ? Comment fait-on référence aux animés non-humains ? L’étrusque pratique-t-il des distinctions que les langues indo-européennes ignorent, par exemple entre inclusif et exclusif à la 1ère personne du pluriel ? Peut-être auront-nous bientôt les réponses à ces questions et à bien d’autres.

Les déterminants et pronoms possessifs sont inconnus. Nous sommes mieux renseignés sur les déterminants-pronoms démonstratifs, dont voici le paradigme :

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>SG</th><th>PL</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>NOM</th><td>(i)ca, (e)ca, (i)ta</td><td>cei, tei</td></tr><tr><th>GEN</th><td>cla, tla, cal</td><td>clal</td></tr><tr><th>ACC</th><td>(e)c(a)n, (e)c(e)n, (e)t(a)n</td><td>cnl</td></tr><tr><th>LOC</th><td>calti, ceithi, (e)clth(i)</td><td>caiti, ceithi</td></tr></tbody></table>

L’abondance des formes a-t-elle un sens ? Sans doute, mais il ne ressort pas clairement du corpus disponible. Déterminants, ces formes précédent le nom qu’elles modifient : *cla thesan* {DEM.GEN matin} ‘en ce matin’, *thui clthi mutniathi* {ici DEM.LOC sarcophage.LOC} ‘ici dans ce sarcophage’. Pronoms, elles occupent les mêmes positions que les SN : *ca *śuthi* {ceci.NOM tombe} ‘ceci (est) la tombe’, *cn turce murila hercnas* {ceci.ACC a.donné M. H.} ‘Murila Hercnas a donné ceci’.

Le pronom relatif indéclinable est *ipa*, qui précède immédiatement le verbe de la proposition relative, laquelle précède son antécédent :

(4) *ipa ama hen naper XII* REL être ? *naper* 12 ‘les 12 *naper* [mesure de superficie] qui sont là’

Le relateur peut aussi être omis : *thaura clan line* {tombe fils préparer} ‘la tombe (que) le fils a préparée’. Le pronom personnel *an* fait aussi fonction de relateur :

(5) *murinas an zilath amce mechI rasnal* M. REL prêteur être-PRET peuple-GEN étrusque-GEN ‘Murinas qui fut prêteur du peuple étrusque’

Aucun pronom interrogatif n’est attesté.

Les adjectifs épithètes suivent d’ordinaire les noms qu’ils qualifient, : *cletram *śrenchve* {bol orné} ‘bol orné’, *mi suntheruza spurias mlakas* {1SG.NOM petit.vase (?) Spuria-GEN beau-GEN} ‘Je (suis) le petit vase (?) de la belle Spuria’ (*mlac* ‘beau’). Mais ils les précédent parfois : *mlakas sela(s)* {beau-GEN Sela(-GEN)} ‘de la belle Sela’. Ils sont généralement non déclinés — mais *mlakas* est un contre-exemple. Dans le premier exemple, l’adjectif est dérivé de *sren* (ou *śren*) ‘ornement, image’ au moyen du suffixe *-c(h)ve*. Divers procédés permettent de former des adjectifs à partir de noms. En voici quelques exemples : *ais* ‘dieu’ ↔ *aisiu* ‘divin’, *zamathi*
'or' ↔ *zamthic* 'en or', *lauchumu* 'magistrat' ↔ *lauchumna* 'propre à un magistrat', *raśna* 'Etrurie' ↔ *raśnaia* 'étrusque'. Peu d'adjectifs non dérivés apparaissent dans les textes.

## 3.2. Les numéraux

Les numéraux de 1 à 6 nous sont connus grâce à un jeu de dés sur les faces desquels ils sont écrits en toutes lettres. Si, comme c'est probable (mais pas certain), la somme des valeurs des faces opposées vaut 7 comme sur les dés romains et modernes, on obtient la série suivante : *thu* '1', *zal* ~ *esal* '2', *ci* '3', *śa* '4', *mach* '5', *huth* '6'. Les numéraux de 7 à 10 sont *semph* '7' (incertain), *cezp* '8', *nurph* '9' (incertain), *śar* '10'. Le système est à base 10. De 11 à 16, on procède par addition : cf. *huth-zar* '16' ; de 17 à 19, par soustraction : cf. *ci-em-zathrum* {3-ôté.de-20} '17', *esl-em-zathrum* {2-ôté.de-20} '18', *thun-em-zathrum* {1-ôté.de-20} '19'. De même plus avant dans la numération : *ci zathrum* '23', *cialch* '30', *ci-em-cealch* {3-ôté.de-30} '27', *cezpalch* '80', *esl-em-cezpalch* {2-ôté.de-80} '78'. L'étrusque a ici influencé le latin : cf. *duodeuiginti* '18', *undeuiginti* '19'. Ni la forme orale de 100 ni celle de 1000 ne sont connues. N'apparaissent dans les textes que les symboles numériques \*pour 100 et ⊕ pour 1000.

Les numéraux suivent en général ce qu'ils quantifient : *huśur mach* {enfants 5} 'cinq enfants' — mais cf. *ci avil* 'trois années'. Ils se déclinent comme les noms : cf. *ciś śariś* {3-GEN 10-GEN} 'le 10 (nom de mois)'. Les ordinaux se forment au moyen du suffixe *-na* : *thunina* 'premier'. Il existe des formes distributives, p.ex. *zelur* 'deux par deux' ; et des adverbes comme *eslz* 'deux fois', *huthz* 'six fois', etc.

## 3.3. Le verbe

Il ne s'accorde ni en personne ni en nombre avec son sujet. Il se fléchit pour le temps (présent, prétérit, futur), la voix (actif, passif) et le mode (indicatif, participe, impératif). Le radical nu exprime le présent de l'indicatif actif à la 3e personne du singulier : cf. *eca sren tva* {DEM image montre} 'Cette image montre...'. On ne peut savoir si des affixes particuliers expriment les autres personnes, faute d'exemples associant une 1ère ou 2e personne à une forme de présent. Le prétérit actif, très fréquent, est exprimé par le suffixe *-ce* (cf. (1), (3), (5)). L'exemple suivant montre que la même forme de 3e personne vaut pour le singulier et le pluriel :

(6) *laris avle larisal clenar cn suthi cerichunce*
L. A. L-GEN fils-PL DEM.ACC tombeau ériger-PRET
Laris (et) Aule, fils de Laris, ont érigé ce tombeau.

Un suffixe *-ne* exprime peut-être le futur : *velthina acilune turune ścune* 'Vethina fera, donnera, cèdera'. Mais l'accord n'est pas unanime sur ce point. On s'accorde, en revanche, sur la valeur passive du suffixe *-che*, lequel n'est attesté qu'avec un sujet de 1ère personne du singulier (cf. (2)). Cette forme est en concurrence avec une forme en *-u* interprétée comme un participe passé, passif si le verbe est transitif : cf. *mi lartuzale kuleniiesi zinaku* {1SG.NOM L-DAT K-DAT faire-PTPP.PASS} 'J'ai été fait pour Lartuza Kulenie'; actif si le verbe est intransitif, tel le très fréquent *lupu* 'est mort'. Il existe par ailleurs un participe passé toujours actif terminé en *-thas* ou *-asa* :

(7) *clenar ci acnanasa elsśi zilachnu*
fils-PL trois engendrer-PTPP.ACT 2e fois fut.prêteur
Ayant engendré trois fils, il fut prêteur une seconde fois
Et un participe présent à suffixe -as : spurethi apasi svalas {ville-LOC père-GEN vivre-PTPP.PRES} ‘vivant dans la ville de son père’ (ou ‘dans la ville de son père vivant’) ; et aussi un gérondif d’obligation terminé en -(e)ri (cf. latin Carthago delenda est ‘Carthage doit être détruite’):

(8) huthiś zathrumiś flerchva nethunsl ... thezeri-c
six-GEN vingt-GEN sacrifices Neptune-GEN offrir-GER-et
Et le 26, les sacrifices à Neptune ... doivent être offerts

On remarque le coordonnant postposé -c (cf. latin -que). L’impératif s’exprime ou bien par le radical nu : vacl ar {libation faire.IMP} ‘Fais la libation !’ ; ou bien au moyen d’un suffixe -ti ou -th(i) :

(9) hathrthi repinthi-c šacnicleri cilthl
être.bienveillant-IMP s’incliner-IMP-et sanctuaire-PL-ACC peuple-GEN
śpureri methlumeri-c enaś śveleri-c
ville-PL-ACC district-PL-ACC-et 3SG.GEN foyer-PL-ACC-et
Sois bienveillant et incline-toi devant les sanctuaires du peuple et le villes et les districts
et leurs foyers

### 3.4. La phrase

L’ordre des mots canonique dans les phrases simples affirmatives est sujet-objet-verbe (SOV) comme on le voit en (6). Lorsque l’objet est un pronom ou un démonstatif, il apparaît souvent en tête de phrase, auquel cas le verbe occupe la deuxième position :

(10) mini muluvanece avile vipiennas
1SG offrir-PRET A. V.
Aule Vibenna m’a offert.

(Pour le démonstratif, voir ci-dessus en 3.1 *cn turce murila hercnas*.) Il existe des phrases nominales : *mi venelus numclanies* {1SG.NOM V.-GEN N.-GEN} ‘Je suis à Venel Numclanie’ (un objet parle). Mais le verbe « être » peut s’exprimer (cf. 4 et 5). La négation est *ei(n)* qui précède le verbe.

Les phrases complexes sont rares dans le corpus des textes. Le relatif *ipa* vu plus haut (cf. 4) fait aussi fonction de conjonction de subordination (complémenteur) :

(11) eth fanu lautn precuś ipa murzua ... ein hecz-ri
ainsi institua famille P.-GEN COMP urnes NEG asperger-GER
Ainsi la famille de Precu institua que les urnes ne doivent pas être aspergées.

On relève aussi *ichnac* ‘comment’ :

(12) eca sren tva ichnac hercle unial clan thrasce
DEM image montrer comment H. U.-GEN fils devenir-PRET
Cette image montre comment Hercule devint le fils de Junon.
**Abréviations** : ACC 'accusatif', ACT 'actif', COMP 'complémenteur', DAT 'datif', DEM 'démonstratif', GEN 'génitif', GER 'gérondif', HUM 'humain', IMP 'impératif', LOC 'locatif', NEG 'négation', NOM 'nominatif', PASS 'passif', PL 'pluriel', PRET 'prétérit', PTPP 'participe passé', REL 'relatif'.

**Bibliographie**

Bonfante, G. & L. Bonfante. 2002. *The Etruscan Language : An Introduction*. Manchester : Manchester University Press.

Pericoloso, O. & I. Sporgersi. A paraître (?). La lingua etrusca ressuscitata, *Quaderni sanmarinesi di etnosemiologia* XX(1), 1-2.

Rix, H. 2008. Etruscan. In R.D. Woodard (ed.), *The Ancient Languages of Europe*, 141-164. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

**Postscriptum**

Le document qu'on vient de lire a surgi sur l'écran de mon ordinateur un soir de l'hiver dernier — il avait neigé toute la journée et je voyais de ma fenêtre les coupoles toutes blanches des bains publics — alors que, m'étant attardée à mon bureau pour essayer de terminer un article en retard, je naviguais sur la toile, plus par ennui qu'à la recherche de renseignements utiles. Il n'y resta que quelques minutes, le temps de le lire en diagonale et de l'imprimer, ce que je fis après avoir constaté l'impossibilité de le télécharger. Je ne parvins jamais à le retrouver.

Quel texte étrange ! Il est rédigé dans une langue inexistante — à ma connaissance —, mais qui ressemble assez au parler populaire de la Gaule, celui que moi-même j'emploie quotidiennement dans la rue, à la taverne, avec mon époux, etc. Malgré son orthographe insolite, il est assez facile à déchiffrer, si bien que je n'ai pas cru utile de le traduire. Mais son contenu est extravagant. L'histoire que son auteur au nom bizarre et à l'affiliation inconnue nous conte dans l'introduction est absurde. Prétendre que l'étrusque serait une langue morte ou secrète ! Comme si on ne savait pas que c'est la langue bien vivante de la province d'Etrurie, entre Rome et plaine du Pô ! Et qu'est-ce que ce « duché » de Toscane ? Et ces « Etats du Pape » ? Qu'est-ce qu'un pape ? Et ces bruits de guerre, cette guerre que la Fédération Impériale nous épargne depuis plus de mille ans ? Le voyage dans le temps auquel il est fait allusion est une possibilité à l'étude, comme m'en informent mes collègues physiciennes, mais l'on est bien loin de son éventuelle et encore hypothétique réalisation.

La description grammaticale, quant à elle, est assez exacte dans l'ensemble, quoique non exempte d'erreurs et, surtout, extrêmement lacunaire. Mais comment ne le serait-elle pas dans l'incroyable situation qu'on nous décrit ? Les auteurs et les ouvrages cités dans la bibliographie me sont parfaitement inconnus. La langue du premier et du dernier semble être de l'angle ; celle du deuxième ressemble à du latin populaire. La date de 2008 (MMVIII) suggère que le texte aurait été écrit il y a au moins 767 ans. Cela ne paraît guère possible. Ce doit être un autre calendrier.
Je ne vois que deux explications. Ou bien il s'agit d'une farce concoctée par quelque littérateur qui préfère garder l'anonymat. Mais dans quel but ? Pour tromper qui ? Ayant demandé autour de moi, j'ai acquis la certitude que moi seule ai reçu ce document, par hasard, apparemment. Et puis, l'écrire dans une langue qu'il aura fallu inventer, qui en serait capable ? Ou bien le texte est sérieux, et il émane — en contravention de toutes les hypothèses — d'une autre région de ce multivers dont nous ne faisons que commencer à entrevoir l'infinie complexité. Entre deux suppositions à première vue également invraisemblables, il est raisonnable de choisir celle qui heurte le moins le bon sens. Serait-ce la seconde ?

Julia Aurea
Investigatorix primiceria
Uniuersitas Lutetiæ
a. d. VI Nonas Maias MMDCCLXXV A.U.C

## Postface

Il y a deux ou trois jours, alors que je cliquais sur un lien, le document ci-dessus est apparu à la place de ce que je recherchais, avant de disparaître au bout de quelques minutes. N'ayant pu le télécharger, j'eus quand même le temps de l'imprimer. Il est écrit en français, sauf le postscriptum rédigé en latin, que j'ai traduit. Si l'on en croit les signatures, l'autrice de celui-ci n'est pas la personne qui a écrit le texte principal. Faut-il le croire ? « Amédée Kryse » a l'air d'un pseudonyme. Dissimule-t-il la Julia Aurea du postscriptum ? Ou bien l'inverse ? Pourtant, les détails contenus dans l'introduction et dans le postscriptum suggèrent qu'il s'agit bien de deux personnes distinctes habitant deux mondes aussi différents l'un de l'autre que du nôtre. Celui où semble vivre l'auteur du texte principal ressemble à une Europe dont l'état politique se serait arrêté à ce qu'il était avant les bouleversements de notre dix-neuvième siècle. Pourtant, on y parle le même français et les première et troisième références de la bibliographie sont bel et bien réelles, alors que la deuxième ne correspond à rien de connu. L'autrice du post-scriptum, elle, semble habiter un monde d'où l'Empire romain n'aurait pas disparu.

Sortir de ce labyrinthe n'est pas bien difficile : il s'agit d'un canular, rien de plus. J'aimerais le croire, mais je ne peux m'empêcher de poser les mêmes questions : pourquoi ? pour qui ? Moi aussi, autant que je sache, je fus l'unique récipiendaire du document. Mais si, comme Julia (si elle existe) semble le faire, j'écarte l'hypothèse du canular, l'événement est fantastique : bien qu'il soit généralement admis qu'aucune information ne peut circuler entre les univers, trois régions du multivers seraient entrées en contact. Accidentellement ? Délibérément ? L'avenir le dira peut-être. Quoi qu'il en soit, ici, l'étrusque est bien mort et, comme tel, ne justifie pas qu'on lui consacre une fiche-langue.

Alain Kihm (DR émérite, CNRS — Université Paris-Cité)
# On the unavailability of être + Vant progressive in French<fnref n="1" />

Marie Laurence Knittel

Université de Lorraine & ATILF

## 1. Introduction

Contrary to several other Romance languages (1) and English (2), the progressive aspect in French is not realized by être/be + V-Gerund (3a), but by a periphrastic structure, être + en train de + VInf (3b) (Bertinetto 2000, Laca 2004, De Wit, Patard & Brisard 2013, Copley & Roy 2015). The structure in (3a) was however formerly available (3c), until its decline and full disappearance between the 16th and 18th centuries (Vangaever & Carlier 2020)<fnref n="2" />.

<table><tr><td>1³.</td><td>a. <i>Sta</i> legg-endo. 'I'm reading.' [Italian]<br/>stare-1SG read-GER</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>b. <i>Está</i> corriendo. 'He/she is running.' [Spanish]<br/>estar-3SG run-GER</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>c. <i>Estem</i> jugant. 'We are playing.' [Catalan]<br/>estar-1PL play-GER</td></tr></table>

2. He is sleeping.
pro.3SG be-3SG sleep-GER/PSTPART.

<table><tr><td>3.</td><td>a. *Il est travaillant.<br/>PRO.3SG be-3SG work-GER</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>b. <i>Il est en train de travailler.</i><br/>PRO.3SG be-3SG en train de work-INF<br/>'He is working.'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>c. <i>Un prestres ert messe chantant.</i><br/>a priest was mass sing-ANT<br/>'A priest was singing the Mass.'</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(Adgar <i>Collection of Miracles</i> 9.1 in Vangaever 2021:<br/>(137), p.191)</td></tr></table>

<footnote n="1">¹ I am grateful to the reviewers for their comments, that have helped me to improve the content of this article.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Two differences between Old French on the one hand and Italian, Spanish & Catalan on the other hand have to be mentioned. First, the auxiliary used in the latter historically derives from the Latin verb *stare* 'to be', 'to stand'. In French by contrast, *stare* did not survive later than Old French; *être* derives from *esse*, a Latin auxiliary meaning 'to be' (Marques Ranchod 1995). Second, gerunds and present participles, that were different inflected categories in Latin and still are in other Romance languages, do not differ morphologically or syntactically in French, where the term 'gerund' is mostly used to refer to a clause headed by *en* and where the verb is inflected by *-ant*, rather than to a specific inflected form (Sarré 2000, Vangaever & Carlier 2020, Riegel & al. 1994).</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Abbreviations: Agr: Agreement; Fem: Feminine; Fut: Future; Ger: Gerund; Ipvf: Imperfective; Inf: Infinitive; Nom: Nominative; Neg: Negation; Perf.Past: Perfective participle; Pl: Plural; PstPart: Present participle; Sg.: Singular.</footnote>
In this contribution, I will examine the causes of the disappearance of structures such as (3c), to the benefit of (3b).

I will suggest that this evolution resulted from a complete reorganization of the French inflectional system between the 10th-11th and the 18th centuries. My hypothesis is that the distribution of perfective and imperfective features within inflected verb forms changed in the course of history, resulting in a situation where the imperfective feature can only be conveyed by inflected lexical verbs (4a) and auxiliaries (4b) situated under Tense in I, the higher inflectional position. By contrast, perfectivity can only be expressed by participles, in the lower inflectional position (4b).

4. a. Imperfective: V+I

Il travaill-e.

he work-PST.3SG

'He works / is working.'

b. Perfective: Aux+I V+Perf.Part

Il a travaill-é.

he have.PST.3SG work-PERFPart.

'He worked / has worked.'

This evolution resulted in current French<fnref n="4" /> in a specialization of simple and compound verb forms<fnref n="5" /> in the expression of imperfective and perfective aspect respectively, and consequently in the disappearance of the *être + Vant* progressive (3a vs 3c), a compound tense expressing imperfective aspect. As we will show, verbs inflected with -ant, an imperfective marker, are now located under Tense, despite their non-finite properties.

In what follows, I first describe the inflected verb forms of current French, and how the perfective and imperfective features are distributed in simple and compound forms (Sections 2.1 and 2.2). In Section 2.3 I outline the peculiarities of the *Passé Simple* ('simple past'), a Tense directly inherited from the Latin *perfectum*, and whose features are not distributed according to the regular pattern. In Section 3., I provide a syntactic analysis accounting for the distribution of perfective and imperfective features in French verb forms. The French progressive is characterized from an aspectual and a structural perspective in Section 4, where a hypothesis as to why its former structure (3a) is ruled out in current French is developed.

In Section 5 I will adopt a historical point of view, and focus on the evolution of the French verbal system, and particularly on how the distribution of the perfective and imperfective features evolved, resulting in a situation where *être + Vant*, previously a well-formed structure, slipped out of the inflectional system. The conclusion will be provided in Section 6.

## 2. Inflected verb forms in French and (im)perfectivity

### 2.1. Verbal inflection and Tenses in French

If we set apart forms such as *en train de* 'to be Ving', *sur le point de* 'to be about to', *venir de* 'to just V+Past' etc., that are not analytical, the verb forms in French fall into two classes, traditionally called *temps simples* ('simple tenses') and *temps composés* ('compound tenses'). While the latter are formed by combining an inflectional marker displaying Tense and Agreement features with a lexical verb, the former are built up by an auxiliary (*avoir* 'to have' or *être* 'to be') inflected for Tense and Agreement followed by a lexical verb supporting a

<footnote n="4">⁴ We label 'current French' the variety of French spontaneously used by speakers, disregarding their educational or academic background. See Section 2.3.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Following the terminology of traditional French grammar, we will also use the term 'compound verb forms' to refer to verb forms built up by an auxiliary and a lexical verb in a participle form, and 'simple verb forms' for those that comprise only an inflected lexical verb.</footnote>
perfective marker. The examples in (5) illustrate simple verb forms, by contrast with those in (6), that are compound, both series pertaining to indicative tenses<fnref n="6" />.

5. a. Présent

Il travaill-e.
he work-PST.3SG
'He works / is working.'

b. Futur

Il travaill-era.
he work-FUT.3SG
'He will work / will be working.'

c. Imparfait

Il travaill-ait.
he work-IPFV.3SG
'He was working.'

6. a. Passé composé

Il a travaill-é.
he have.PST.3SG work-PERFPART.
'He worked / has worked.'

b. Futur antérieur

Il aura travaill-é.
he have.FUT.3SG work-PERFPART.
'He will have worked.'

c. Plus-que-parfait

Il av-ait travaill-é.
he have-IPFV.3SG work-PERFPART.
'He had worked.'

Simple and compound tenses are distinguished by the nature of the verb that supports the inflectional features, i.e. Tense and Person-Number Agreement; in simple tenses, these appear on the lexical verb, and in compound tenses, on the auxiliary.

Simple and compound tenses differ aspectually. In simple tenses, the inflected verb locates the event described with regards to Speech Time. Thus, the present tense (5a) situates the event *travailler* 'to work' as simultaneous with Speech Time. In the Futur, the event is presented as occurring after Speech Time (5b) and as having occurred before Speech Time in the Imparfait (5c).

Compound tenses introduce Reference Time, which is a secondary temporal standpoint (Smith 1991, Chapter 5) indicated by the tense marker on the auxiliary. In (6a), where the auxiliary is in the present, Reference Time equates Speech Time, in (6b), it follows Speech Time, and in (6c), it precedes it. In all cases, the event described is completed at Reference Time, as we will see just below.

<footnote n="6">⁶ This pattern is also observed with Subjunctive and Conditional Tenses.</footnote>
## 2.2. (Im)perfectivity

The presence / absence of an auxiliary, and consequently the position of the finite inflection, signals the perfective / imperfective opposition (Guillaume 1929, Wilmet 1980, Grevisse 1993, Comrie 1976, Martin 1971⁷). While simple forms are imperfective, and describe ongoing events at the Reference Time, compound forms are perfective, and the events they describe are presented as completed, i.e. as including both their initial and final endpoints (Smith 1991) at the Reference Time. The perfective / imperfective distinction can be shown by the means of several tests (Smith 1991)<fnref n="8" />.

Consider first examples in (7), that present the atelic verb *travailler* 'to work'. The second clauses of the (a-c) sentences express the fact that the event described in the first still goes on two hours after Reference Time. As expected, only simple tenses (Présent, Futur, Imparfait, cf. (5)) can occur in such contexts, since they present ongoing events. By contrast, perfective tenses (Passé Composé, Futur antérieur, Plus-que-parfait, cf. (6)), that describe complete events, do not combine felicitously with such continuations.

7. a. *Max {travaille / *a travaillé}, et dans 2 heures, il travaillera toujours.*
   'Max is working / has worked}, and in 2 hours, he will still be working.'

b. *Max {travaillera / *aura travaillé}, et 2 heures plus tard, il travaillera toujours.*
   'Max {will work / will have worked}, and 2 hours later, he will still be working.'

c. *Max {travaillait / *avait travaillé}, et 2 heures plus tard, il travaillait toujours.*
   'Max {was working / had worked}, and 2 hours later, he was still working.'

The examples in (8) provide another test for imperfectivity. Here, the first clauses present telic events, that have a final endpoint, while the second clauses deny the fact that this endpoint has been reached. This combination is possible only for events presented in imperfective tenses. Since perfective tenses include the final endpoint of telic events, their combination with a sentence negating that it has been reached results in a contradiction.

8. a. *Cet été, Fred {lit Dune / *a lu Dune}, mais il ne le terminera jamais.*
   'This summer, Fred {reads Dune / *has read Dune}, but he will never finish it.'

b. *L'été prochain, Fred {lira Dune / *aura lu Dune}, mais il ne le terminera jamais.*
   'Next summer, Fred {will read Dune / *will have read Dune}, but he will never finish it.'

c. *L'été dernier, Fred {lisait Dune / *a lu Dune}, mais il ne l'a jamais terminé.*
   'Last summer, Fred {was reading Dune / *read Dune}, but he has never finished it.'

Due to their unbounded nature, imperfective tenses are open to habitual interpretation, that describes unbounded series of events (Verkuyl 1995, Comrie 1976), contrary to perfective tenses, whose bounded nature prevents such readings (see Kleiber 1987, Boneh & Doron 2010,

<footnote n="7">⁷ French terminology is fluctuating on the matter of both lexical and grammatical aspect. The authors mentioned above use the terms perfective / imperfective to refer to grammatical aspect, but these terms designate lexical aspect (i.e. the telic / atelic opposition) for others (Wilmet 1970, Arrivé, Gadet & Galmiche 1986, Leeman-Bouix 1994, Riegel, Pellat & Rioul 1994, Aslanides 2001), who use the terms *global* for perfective and *sécant* for imperfective. See Haas (2011) for a discussion.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ Smith (1991, Chapter 9) considers that Present and Future tenses express Neutral viewpoint, due to the fact that they can sometimes refer to closed situations. However, such cases are restricted. That is why we maintain that the regular aspectual value of these Tenses is imperfective.</footnote>
2013). Consequently, a habitual expression such as *chaque été* 'every summer', combines more naturally with simple (9a) than compound tenses, unless a temporal expression referring to a bounded duration is added (9b).

9. a. *Lisa {lit / lira / lisait} des romans (chaque été).*
   'Lisa {reads / will read /used to read} novels every summer.'

b. *(Pendant 10 ans) Lisa {a lu / aura lu / avait lu} des romans chaque été.*
   'For 10 years, Lisa {has read / will have read / had read} novels every summer.'

To sum up, French verbal morphology distinguishes clearly perfectivity from imperfectivity. Perfectivity requires the use of compound verb forms, that are built by means of an inflected auxiliary and a perfective participle, while simple verb forms are specialized in the expression of imperfectivity. We will provide a syntactic explanation of this opposition in Section 3. Before that, we turn to the examination of the *Passé Simple*, that constitutes an exception to the system just described.

**2.3. An irregularity in the system: the Passé Simple**

The Passé Simple is an exception in the aspectual system of French, in that it is a simple tense expressing perfective aspect (Smith 1991, Chapter 9). Some examples of Passé Simple are provided in (10), along with the imperfectivity tests used in Section 2.2.

10. a. *Max travailla (*et 2 heures plus tard, il travailla toujours).* [comp. (7b)]
   lit.: 'Max worked, and in 2 hours, he still worked.'

b. *L'été dernier, Fred lut Dune (*mais il ne le termina jamais).* [comp. (8c)]
   lit.: 'Last summer, Fred read Dune but he never finished it.'

c. *(Pendant 10 ans) Lisa lut des romans chaque été.* [comp. (9b)]
   '*(For 10 years) Lisa read novels every summer.'

The impossibility to specify that the atelic event described in the Passé Simple goes on (10a) or, if telic, was not completed (10b), as well as the unavailability of habitual expressions without the specification of a closed time span are typical of perfectives tenses, as we have seen in (7)-(9).

The Passé Simple is also peculiar in that it is no longer used in spontaneous speech. Its uses are mostly restricted to narrative contexts (Labeau 1995), and highly formal oral speech (formal discourses and addresses). Contrary to the tenses described in Section 2.1., it is not naturally learnt by children, and has to be taught in primary and secondary school, where difficulties to master its varied inflectional forms have been observed (Lavieu-Gwozdz, Vinel, Goossens & Brissaud 2021).

All these characteristics typically set the Passé Simple in the High Variety of French, by contrast with what we call here current French, an opposition pertaining to a diglossic situation (Ferguson 1959, Crystal 1991, Zribi-Hertz 2011).

The relationship between its form and its aspectual properties as well as its restricted uses make the Passé Simple an irregular paradigm in the verbal system of current French.

In the next section, we provide a syntactic analysis of the inflected forms described in Section 2.1.
### 3. A syntactic account of the French verbal system

As we have seen in Section 2.1., the relationship between grammatical aspect and simple vs compound tenses is regular for the inflected forms commonly used in current French, i.e. to the exception of the Passé Simple. Simple tenses, where the inflectional markers are supported by lexical verbs, are imperfective (11a=4a), whereas compound tenses, built by combining an inflected auxiliary with a perfective participle, are perfective (11b=4b).

11. a. Imperfective: V+I
*Il travaille.*
he work.PST.3SG
'He works / is working.'

b. Perfective: Aux+I V+Perf.Part
*Il a* *travaillé.*
he have.PST.3SG work.PERFPART.
'He worked / has worked.'

The above structures enable us to characterize French verb forms, and to provide an overview of the constraints that underlie the verbal system.

The fact that simple forms always display imperfective value can be seen as resulting from the presence of an intrinsic imperfective feature characterizing Tense in French. This would explain in turn why perfective aspect can only be expressed by compound tenses, by the means of a perfective participle, combined with an auxiliary displaying an imperfective marker.

The morphosyntactic analysis of the French verb forms provided here relies on the framework of Pollock 1989, Borer 1993, Chomsky 1995, Egerland 1998, and subsequent literature, who consider that verbs appear under different syntactic positions according to their morphosyntactic properties (12).

12. [ Agr ] [ Tense ] [V ]<sub>VP</sub>[TenseP]<sub>AgrP</sub>

In the representation in (12), Agr and Tense are the functional heads responsible for checking the Agreement and Tense features appearing on verbs. Checking is achieved by the movement of the lexical head V displaying Tense and Agreement markers under the corresponding syntactic positions, i.e. Tense and Agr. If the verb is in a simple tense, the verbal head moves from V to Tense, then to Agr (13a). In compound tenses, an auxiliary is generated under Tense and moves to Agr, while the lexical verb moves from V to the head Perf (Embick 2004) to check the perfective feature of the participle marker (13b) (for the sake of lisibility, all irrelevant details have been omitted).
On the unavailability of être + Vant progressive in French

13. a.

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

13. b.

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>
In the representations in (13), the difference between perfective and imperfective verb forms is represented structurally; simple verb forms, that are imperfective, move from V to Tense then to Agr. We can consequently analyze Tense as a head characterized by an imperfective feature.

Observe also that, in perfective tenses, the morphological marking on the auxiliary corresponds to that of imperfective tenses: the auxiliary has Présent tense marking in the Passé Composé, Futur marking in the Futur Antérieur and Imparfait marking in the Plus-que-Parfait (5)-(6), which supports this analysis. By contrast, perfectivity can only be marked by the participle Perf head.

Thus, what we observe in current French is a rigid distribution of the aspectual features among the inflectional heads; Tense is necessarily imperfective, and perfectivity is necessarily expressed by non-finite inflection. In compound tenses, the contribution of the Tense head is restricted to the indication of the past, present or future relationship between Speech Time and Reference Time (see Section 2.1).

The system just described is naturally acquired and used by French speakers. By contrast, the Passé Simple, the only simple tense where the Tense head displays a perfective value instead of an imperfective one, that has to be taught and learnt at school, as mentioned in Section 2.3.

In the next section, we examine the characteristics of the progressive aspect and its realization in French.

## 4. Progressive aspect

As mentioned in the introduction, some Romance languages use compound verb forms to express progressive aspect. Thus, in Italian, Spanish and Catalan, progressive aspect is expressed by the means of the auxiliary corresponding to the auxiliary *be* in English (see note 2), followed by the lexical verb in the gerund. As an illustration, the Italian example of progressive provided in (1a), built with the auxiliary *stare* is repeated in (14).

14. Italian
*Stare* 1SG legg-endo.
'I'm reading.'
read-GER

As was also noted above, the progressive in current French cannot be expressed in this manner, but only by the means of the periphrastic structure *être + en train de + Vinf* (15b=3b).

15. a. *Il est lisant.*
he be-3SG read-GER

b. *Il est en train de lire.*
he be-3SG en train de read-INF
'He is reading.'

When forms ending in -ant occur after *être* in French, they are necessarily analyzed as adjectives, as shown by their obligatory Gender-Number agreement. The form *amusantes*<sub>Fem-Pl</sub> 'funny' in (16a) is thus an adjective, similarly to *courtes*<sub>Fem-Pl</sub> 'short' in (16b). By contrast, present participles (16c) and gerunds (16d) are invariable.
16. a. *Ces histoires sont {amusant-es / *amusant}.*
these stories. FEMPL be. PST3SG {amuse-ANT-FEM-PL/ amuse-ANT}
'These stories are funny.' (lit. amusing)

cf. b. *Ces histoires sont {court-es / *court}.*
these stories. FEMPL be. PST3SG {short-FEMPL / short}
'These stories are funny.'

c. *J'ai vu Lisa*<sub>Fem-Sg</sub> *amusant}*(*-e*<sub>FemSg</sub>) *les filles*.
'I saw Lisa amusing the girls.'

d. *Lisa*<sub>Fem-Sg</sub> *a occupé les filles*<sub>Fem-PL en les {amusant /-*e*<sub>FemSg</sub> / *-e*<sub>FemPL</sub>}</sub>.
'Lisa occupied the girls in amusing them.'

Considering the distribution of aspectual features in French verb forms, the unavailability of (15a) is not unexpected. Progressive aspect is indeed similar to imperfective in that it presents situations as ongoing. According to Smith (1991), it focuses on the processive subpart of events, to the exclusion of their endpoints. Similarly, Laca (2004, 94) considers that the progressive sets the eventuality described by the verb after the initial endpoint, but does not make its final endpoint visible. Since this endpoint is not visible, the progressive reacts positively to continuations expressing either that the event is still going or that it has ended<fnref n="9" />.

17. a. *Max est en train de travailler {et dans 2 heures, il le sera toujours / mais dans 2 heures, il ne le sera plus}.*

'Max is working {and in 2 hours, he will still be / but in 2 hours, he will not be any longer}.'

b. *A* 14h, *Max sera en train de travailler {et 2 heures plus tard, il le sera toujours / mais 2 heures plus tard, il ne le sera plus}.*

'At 2, Max will be working, {and 2 hours later, he will still be / but in 2 hours, he will not be any longer}.'

c. *A* 9h ce matin, *Max était en train de travailler, {et 2 heures plus tard, il l'était toujours / mais 2 heures plus tard, il ne l'était plus}.*

'This morning at 9, Max was working, {and 2 hours later, he still was / but 2 hours later, he was not any longer}.'

If, as suggested above, the distribution of perfective and imperfective features within verb forms is rigid, we have a clue as to why être + Vant is unavailable in current French.

On the one hand, we have seen in Section 2 that imperfectivity is a feature checked by Tense. Since -ant is an imperfective inflectional marker<fnref n="10" />, it has to be checked under Tense too. We

<footnote n="9">⁹ Smith (1991: 263) observes that the progressive is hardly compatible with habituality, contrary to other imperfective verb forms, cf. (i).</footnote>

<footnote>(i) ?? *Chaque été, Lisa {est / était / sera} en train de lire des romans.*
lit.: 'Every summer, Lisa {is / was / will be} reading novels.'</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ *-Ant* has no effect on telicity, and does not turn telic predicates into atelic ones. Thus, a telic predicate such as *lire le livre* 'read the book' combines with temporal PPs introduced by *en* 'in' vs *pendant* 'for' in finite tenses (i) as well as in the present participle form (ii):</footnote>

<footnote>(i) *Paul {lit / a lu} le livre {en / *pendant} 2 heures.*
'Paul {reads / read} the book {in / *for} two hours.'</footnote>

<footnote>(ii) *Paul {lisant/ ayant lu} le livre {en / *pendant} 2 heures, ...*
'Paul {reading / having read} the book {in / *for} two hours, ...'</footnote>
consequently expect -ant to appear on V, or on the auxiliary if there is one, similarly to imperfective Imparfait, Présent and Futur makers. The examples in (18) and (19) show that it is indeed the case.

18. a. *Lisa travaillant, Max viendra sans elle.*
   'Lisa working, Max will come without her.'

b. *Fred partant demain, Carla viendra sans lui.*
   'Fred working late, Carla will come without lui.'

c. *Fred attendant Max, Carla viendra sans lui.*
   'Fred waiting for Max, Carla will come without him.'

19. a. *Lisa ayant travaillé, elle était fatiguée.*
   'Lisa having worked, she was tired.'

b. *Fred étant déjà parti, Carla est venue sans lui.*
   'Fred being already gone, Carla came without him.'

c. *Fred ayant attendu Max, Carla est partie sans lui.*
   'Fred having waited for Max, Carla left without him.'

Now, contrary to the other imperfective markers examined above, -ant does not combine with Agreement markers, as was seen in (16c-d), and is consequently a non-finite verb form. For this reason, DPs surfacing as subjects of subordinate -ant clauses cannot alternate with a nominative pronoun (20), but only with a Topic pronoun.

20. a. {Lui*proTopic* / *il} *étant déjà parti*, ... [cf. (19b)]
{PRO.MASC3SGTOPIC/ PRO.MASC3SGNOM} being already gone

cf. b. {Lui*proTopic* / *il*}, *il est parti*.
{PRO. MASC3SGTOPIC / PRO.MASC3SGNOM} he is gone.
'{*Him* / *he*}, he is gone.'

Due to the absence of AgrP, -ant can only appear on verbs in subordinate clauses, but not on main verbs, that need to be finite.

We consider then that, when a subordinate clause headed by -ant includes a DP referring to the external argument of the verb, it is dominated by TopicP. The subordinate -ant clauses in (18a) and (19a) can be represented as in (21) and (22) respectively.
On the unavailability of être + Vant progressive in French

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>
In simple verb forms, V moves to Tense, the position in which -ant merges, and in this case, -ant appears on V (21). In compound verb forms, both -ant and the auxiliary merge under Tense, resulting in the forms *ayant* (19a) / *étant* (19b), where -ant appears on the auxiliary (22).

We can now understand why structures such as *être + Vant* cannot occur in current French. For *être + Vant* to be produced, -ant would have to merge similarly to PerfP, that is, immediately above VP, under a participial head, in this case with imperfective features. In such a case, -ant would be able to combine with V only, the auxiliary merging under Tense, a position higher in the structure, as was the case in Old French, see (3c).

The periphrastic progressive *être + en train de + VInf*, that appeared during 19th century (De Wit, Patard & Brisard 2013), is a different means to convey progressive aspect, that does not violate the regular rules of the inflectional system of French. In using such a structure, French avoids using a combination that does not fit into its regular inflectional pattern.

Now, various authors (Bonnard & Régnier 1995, Buridant 2020, Vangaever 2021) have observed that *être + Vant* was a regular form expressing progressive aspect in Medieval French, until its decline in the 17th and 18th centuries (Vangaever & Carlier 2020). This is shown in (23=3c) and (24), where the relevant forms appear in bold characters.

23. *Un prestres ert messe chant-ant.*
a priest was mass sing-ANT
'A priest was singing the Mass.'

(Adgar *Collection of Miracles* 9.1, in Vangaever 2021: (137), p.191)

24. *Jo oi le corn Rollant ! Un nel sunast, se ne fust combatant*
I hear the horn Rollant he NEG-it blow if NEG was battling
'I'm hearing Rolland's horn. He wouldn't be blowing it if he weren't battling.'

(La chanson de Roland, I. 1768, in Bonnard & Régnier 1995: 91)

The above examples raise the question of why the *être + Vant* progressive declined and disappeared from French. This issue is examined in the next section.

**5. The historical evolution of French tenses**

As we have just seen, Medieval French used to form progressive verb forms by combining the inflected auxiliary *être* and a lexical verb ending in -ant (23)-(24), a structure that cannot be produced any longer. In current French, verb forms ending in -ant do not share the position of perfective participles, but occur under Tense, similarly to simple verb forms with finite inflection (22). By contrast, as we have seen in (1), some other Romance languages maintained *être/be + V-Gerund* with progressive value (see note 2).

Thus, addressing the issue of the unavailability of *être + Vant* amounts to answering two questions. What we need to determine is first why -ant has now to be checked under Tense and not under a non-finite Part head, similarly to perfective participles (13b), as was the case until 17th-18th centuries, and second, how the inflectional system of French evolved from one situation to the other.

Our hypothesis is that the marking of grammatical aspect in the inflectional system of French underwent a series of three successive modifications, that resulted in a complete rearrangement, in which a structure such as *être + Vant* could not fit.

In the following subsections, we describe these steps, beginning with a few remarks on the tense system of Old French.
**5.1. The aspectual system of Old French**

To express events that occurred in the past, Old French used two tenses, the Passé Simple (cf. 2.3.), also called *parfait*, and the Imparfait (5c), respectively derived from the Latin *perfectum* and *imperfectum*. Buridant (2020), Martin (1971) and Bonnard & Régnier (1995) observe that the Passé Simple was typically used to convey perfective aspectual value (25), while the Imparfait conveyed imperfective value (26).

25. *Et li rois, qui mont honora / L'arche, après ce labora / Que ele fust and the King, who a lot honoured / the Arch after that made/ that it was d'ilec portee / En la cité qu' ot conquestee ... from there carried / in the town that had conquered 'And the King, who honoured a lot / the Arch, after that made sure / that it would be carried / in the town that he had conquered...'*
*(Bible des Rois, 1.2658-63, in Buridant 2020: 533)*

26. *Entre ses poinz teneit sa hanste fraisnine 'Between his fists he was holding his ash spears'*
*(La chanson de Roland, 1. 718-20, in Buridant 2020: 538)*

Considering Old French past tenses, then, the situation was that both perfective and imperfective values were conveyed by simple tenses.

Interestingly, *être* and *avoir* could already combine with perfective participles in Old French. However, such structures could only convey a resultative value. Bonnard & Régnier (1995: 83-84) observe that the participle was used at that period to describe the state of a participant — the object with auxiliary *avoir* (27) or the subject with *être* (28) — after the event described by the corresponding verb occurred.

27. *Cruisedes ad ses blanches mains crossPERFPART. had his white hands 'He had crossed his white hands' (i.e. his hands were crossed)*
*(La chanson de Roland, 1. 2250, in Bonnard & Régnier 1995: 84)*

28. *Venez i est li empere Carles comePERFPART. here is the emperor Charles 'Emperor Charles has come here' (i.e. he was here at some time)*
*(La chanson de Roland, 1. 1768, in Bonnard & Régnier 1995: 84)*

At that time, then, reference to a completed event situated before Speech Time could only be expressed by the Passé Simple (25).

**5.2. The emergence of the Passé Composé**

Schogt (1964) notes an evolution of the value of the resultative structure *être/avoir + V-Perf. Part. (cf. (27)-(28)) in the 11th and 12th centuries*. Its use extended to the expression of an event that occurred previously to the time conveyed by the auxiliary; in parallel, this structure, that was previously only used with intransitive verbs, extended to transitive ones.

The lexical verbs in the participle form developed at that time an eventive value, distinct from the resultative value they had before (Section 5.1), and began to express Situation Time, while the auxiliary introduced Reference Time, as is still the case now (see Section 2.1).
29. **Mors as mun filz**
    killed has my son
    'You killed my son.'
    (La chanson de Roland, l. 3591 in Buridant 2020: 558)

30. **Perdut avum nos seignurs e noz pers**
    lost have our lords and our peers
    'We lost our lords and our peers.'
    (La chanson de Roland, l. 2148, in Bonnard & Régnier 1995: 175)

The structures in (29) and (30) are formally and aspectually similar to the examples in (6) presented in Section 2.1, i.e. they describe perfective situations by means of compound verb forms. Interestingly, Squartini & Bertinetto (1995), and see also Bertinetto & Squartini (2016), observe a similar phenomenon in other Romance languages, that they term *aoristic drift*; we will see in the next subsection that this process is part of a larger shift that occured in Romance.

We can conclude that the compound tenses of current French emerged in the 11th-12th centuries.

### 5.3. The decline of the Passé Simple

A consequence of the evolution just described is that French ended up having two perfective tenses at the end of 12th century. Like in Old French, the Passé Simple was still in use, while the emerging Passé Composé was able to convey the same value, i.e. that of a completed event located in the past.

Interestingly, the Passé Simple began to decline in the 14th century, which can be seen as a consequence of this competition. According to Foulet (1920), its progressive disappearance from spoken language took place between the 12th and the 16th centuries. Weinrich (1973) notes that from this period, the Passé Simple was restricted to narrative style, while the Passé Composé was used for commentary, i.e. to describe situations involving the writer, or close to him/her.

As a matter of fact, the decline of the use of a simple tense to refer to a past event, to the benefit of a compound tense, is not restricted to French. Squartini & Bertinetto (1995) observe the same phenomenon in other Romance languages, and identify four successive stages in this process. In the first one, the compound past had only a resultative value. This was the case in Old French, as we have seen in Section 5.1.; in the second stage, its use extends to the description of events, in a reduced set of contexts, a transition described in Section 5.2. In the third stage, the compound past is also used to describe past (i.e. perfect) actions that are somehow related to the present. This phenomenon was finally stated as a rule to be followed by Arnault & Lancelot in the Port-Royal Grammar (1660), which recommends the use of the Passé Composé to refer to events that took place in the previous 24 hours before the present, and of the Passé Simple if they are more remote in time. As noted by Fournier (2004), this rule is related in some manner to the opposition between narrative style and commentary, the latter being used to describe situations closer in time or involving the speaker. In the last stage, the compound past extends its use to the expression of all perfective events, while the simple past is restricted to written formal registers, which is, since the end of the 19th century, the current situation of French (Dauzat 1946).

Now, the decline of the Passé Simple had an important consequence for the aspectual system of French. While perfectivity could previously be conveyed by a simple tense, i.e. the Passé