Deconstructing Mermaid Constructions:
From Control and Raising in Tatar

Anonymous Submission

Master of Science by Research
University of Edinburgh
31 August 2022

Declaration
I declare that this thesis was composed by myself and that the work contained therein is my own,
except where explicitly stated otherwise in the text.

(Anonymous Submission)2

Abstract
This thesis provides descriptive and theoretical syntactic analyses of the infinitival constructions in
Tatar, particularly with a focus on the ones co-occurring with nominal predicates. Then, based on
the analysis in Tatar and evidence from other languages, it deconstructs the category of the so-called
Mermaid Constructions and reanalyzes them as part of raising and control. The bulk of the syntactic
analyses in this thesis is based on the Minimalist approach of generative grammar, though fundamental
evidence shown is descriptive and neutrally applicable to various theories of syntax. Upon the analysisof the Mermaid Constructions at the syntax-semantics interface, we employ Glue semantics to derivesemantic composition. The scrutiny of the Tatar infinitival constructions with adjectival and nominal
predicates reveals that they consist of raising and control and, in particular, that the ones with a noun
predicate are Mermaid Constructions. The In addition, multifaceted evidence from syntax, semantics,
and diachronic observations further provides a cross-linguistically generalized claim that the canonical
Mermaid Constructions are part of control and raising with a nominal predicate, thereby arguing fortheir biclausal structure and refuting Tsunoda’s (2020a) monoclausalist hypothesis.
Keywords: syntax, Tatar, infinitives, grammaticalization

1

Contents
Abstract

1

Introduction

8

1

Overview of the Tatar Language

10

1.1

The Turkic Language Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10

1.2

Phonology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12

1.3

Morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

1.3.1

Nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

1.3.2

Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

1.4
2

3

Control and Raising

19

2.1

Tatar Infinitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21

2.1.1

Verbal predicates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22

2.1.2

Adjectival Predicates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26

2.1.3

Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27

2.1.4

Nominal predicates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28

2.2

Raising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31

2.3

Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33

2.3.1

Adjectival Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33

2.3.2

Nominal control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41

2.4

Interlude: Dative–Infinitive Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

49

2.5

Summary of this chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54

Mermaid Construction: Control and Raising with a Nominal Predicate

56

3.1

Overview of Mermaid Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

3.1.1

Crosslinguistic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

58

3.1.2

Marginal examples of the Mermaid Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59

3.1.3

Tatar nominal control predicates as Mermaid Constructions. . . . . . . . .

61

3.1.4

Tsunoda’s Monoclausal Analysis of the Mermaid Constructions . . . . . . .

61

Mermaid Constructions as Control and Raising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

62

3.2

2

CONTENTS

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6
4

Exam No. B197769

3.2.1

Mermaid Constructions as control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

62

3.2.2

Mermaid Constructions as raising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

64Counterarguments to the Monoclausal Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

64

3.3.1

Alternative explanation with the Biclausal Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . .

65

3.3.2

Other problems in the Monoclausal Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

67

Syntax–Semantics Interface of the Mermaid Constructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

68

3.4.1

Semantic scopes of raising and control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

68

3.4.2

Predicting the scopal (un)ambiguities of the Mermaid Constructions . . . . .

71

Diachronic Perspectives: Grammaticalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

72

3.5.1

Four mechanisms of grammaticalization by Heine & Kuteva (2002) . . . . .

72

3.5.2

The cline of grammaticalization by Hopper & Traugott (2003) . . . . . . . .

74

3.5.3

Tatar nominal control constructions as grammaticalization . . . . . . . . . .

74

Summary of this chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

76

Conclusion

77

Appendices82

A Conventions for the Transcription and Notations

83

B Glossing abbreviations

863

List of Figures
1.1

The location of the Republic of Tatarstan (in red) in the Russian Federation. The
territory of Moscow Oblast is shown in blue for reference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.2

11

The distribution map of Turkic languages. The language names on the map wereadded by the author. Note that the map only partially names languages, and there are
more Turkic languages that are mentioned neither in the figure nor in Table 1.1. The
original map, retrieved on 15 May 2022, was originally created by GalaxMaps and islicensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. 12

2.1

The structure of (2.82). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31

2.2

Introduction of PredP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32

2.3

The structure of (2.84). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32

2.4

UTAH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34

2.5

A minimal structure of an AP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34

2.6

A tree representation of sentence (2.85). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35

2.7

The infinitival clause (TP) is introduced under PredP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35

2.8

The tree structure of (2.47) before the movement to SpecTP. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

36

2.9

The tree structure of (2.47) before the movement to SpecTP. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37

2.10 T HEME in the lower TP, promoted to subject by passivization, bears no nominative
case from the infinitive, but has nowhere to go because further upward movement isblocked by the Phase Impenetrability Condition. Therefore the representation predicts
the ill-formedness of the passivized kiräk-construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38

2.11 T HEME in the lower TP, promoted to subject by passivization, bears no nominative
case from the infinitive, but has nowhere to go because further upward movement isblocked by the Phase Impenetrability Condition. Therefore the representation predicts
the ill-formedness of the passivized kiräk-construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39

2.12 Wrong prediction produced by the same derivation as in Figure 2.9. . . . . . . . . .

40

2.13 A syntactic representation of (2.88) with the proposed semantic feature [Resp] for the
responsibility of the situation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

42

2.14 A syntactic tree for (2.93). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43

2.15 A structure of nP under DP (based on (Adger, 2003)). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44

2.16 Caption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44

4

LIST OF FIGURES

Exam No. B197769

2.17 A proposed syntactic structure of (2.92). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45

2.18 A templatic structure of the isäp-type control construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

46

2.19 An exemplary structure of (2.96). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47

2.20 A tree representation of (2.97) with CP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47

2.21 The structure of (2.98). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

48

2.22 A monoclausal structure hypothesis of the DatInf construction given by Bailyn (2004). 50
2.23 The structure of DatInf proposed by Fleisher (2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

51

2.24 The tree structure of (2.112). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53

2.25 The structure of (2.113). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54

3.1

A simplified tree for the wide scope interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

70

3.2

A simplified tree for the narrow scope interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71

5

List of Tables
1.1

Categorization of Turkic languages. The distribution of the listed languages are illustrated in Figure 1.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

1.2

Categorisation of the Kipchak languages based on Johanson (2021, 22). . . . . . . .

12

1.3

The vowel inventory of Tatar. The parenthesised phoneme /ïj/ is controversial. . . . .

13

1.4

The inventory of Tatar consonants. Labiodental fricatives /f/, /v/ and labiovelar approximant /w/ are merged into the Labial column. Phonemes with an asterisk are used
only in Russian-origin words. The voiced uvular fricative /K/ can also be realised as avoiced velar fricative [G]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.1

13

Summary of infinitival constructions in Tatar. The check marks and asterisks in theright two columns represent accepted or not accepted, respectively, by native speakers,
and they are not necessarily equal to syntactic grammaticality. . . . . . . . . . . . .

30

3.1

A comparison of the thematic relation in (3.30) and (3.31). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63

3.2

A comparison of the forms of embedded predicates in the Mermaid Constructions.
Languages with a question mark ‘?’ mean that the form is by and large ambiguouswith their finite (declarative) form. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

68

3.3

The semantic denotation of the constituents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

70

3.4

Meaning constructors for yotei and ki in Japanese. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

72

3.5

A comparison of the grammaticalization in control, raising, and the Mermaid Constructions based on Heine & Kuteva’s (2002) categorization. ✓ represents that a
construction of the column has undergone the process of the row. ?? means that it
is unknown whether the process has happened in the construction. Note that control and raising here do not include the Mermaid Constructions (i.e., nominal control
predicates) for convenience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.6

73

A comparison of the degree of the grammaticalization in control, raising, and theMermaid Constructions based on the clines of grammaticality proposed by Hopper &Traugott (2003). Check marks in gray mean that the stage has passed. . . . . . . . .

674

LIST OF TABLES

Exam No. B197769

A.1 Correspondence of the Cyrillic and Latin orthographies with the transcription employed in this thesis. An asterisk means that the character is used only in Russianorigin morphemes. A dagger means that the transcription is used only in Russianorigin morphemes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

84

A.2 Notations for phonological alternations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

85

7

Introduction
Infinitives in Tatar exhibit several syntactically interesting behaviours. As in many languages thathave an infinitive verb form, infinitival complements in Tatar involve classic grammatical phenomena
such as control and raising. The contrast between sentences (1 and 2) gives rise to some intriguing
issues of control and raising. They are both given the same free translations, and both consist of an
infinitival complement (joqla-rGa) and a main predicate (tiješ/kiräk) with an AGENT (3 SG). A crucial
difference is that the AGENT is marked by nominative in (1) whereas it is marked by dative in (2).
(1) uljoqla-rGa tiješ.

3 SG . NOM sleep-INF obligatory‘S/he must to sleep.’(2) aNajoqla-rGa kiräk.

3 SG . DAT sleep-INF necessary‘S/he must sleep.’
Related to this, infinitival constructions include a modal expression without a main modal predicate as in (1). This has a peculiar structure in the sense that there is no finite predicate that bears
tense and person (of the subject) by agreement. In addition, certain nouns can fill the slot of the modal
predicates in (1) and (2) as in (2) and (3).
(1)

aNa
joqla-rGa
3 SG . DAT sleep-INF‘S/he must sleep.’

(2)

aNa
joqla-rGa röxsät
3 SG . DAT sleep-INF permission‘S/he is allowed to sleep.’

(3)

anïN
joqla-rGa isäb-e
3 SG . GEN sleep-INF thought-POSS .3‘S/he is going to sleep.’
Given these observations, the following closely related questions arise:
1. What makes the difference in case-marking of the agent between (1) and (2)?
8

LIST OF TABLES

Exam No. B197769

2. Why is there no finite predicate in (1)? It seems to be non-compositional.
3. Why is the agent marked by dative in (1)? What assigns the case?
4. Sentences (2) and (3) also seem to lack a finite predicate. What is their structure like?
5. The AGENT is marked by dative in (2), while it is in genitive in (3). What causes this difference?
6. Are these sentences monoclausal or biclausal?
An obstacle to tackling these questions is the lack of theoretical research in Tatar syntax. While
there are a number of descriptive grammars of Tatar (Burbiel, 2018; Poppe, 1961; Zäkiev & Xisamova,2015), none of them tackles the problems enumerated above. Therefore, this master’s thesis aims
to provide the descriptive report of the raising and control constructions and other deeply related
constructions of Tatar. In addition, it will show a theoretical account for the intriguing behaviors of
the Tatar infinitival constructions with non-verbal predicates illustrated above. In particular, I will
demonstrate the following points.
• tiješ is a raising construction predicate, while kiräk involves control. The nominative casemarking of tiješ comes from the case assignment by the matrix T, and the dative case-markingof kiräk is assigned as the internal G OAL of kiräk (answer to Question 1).
• The bare infinitive construction involves a null adjectival predicate that is responsible for themodal meaning and dative case-marking of AGENT (answer to Question 2 and 3).
• Infinitive with a noun in (2) and (3) is an instance of mermaid construction, where the noun
functions as a predicate (answer to Question 4).
• The difference in case-marking of AGENT between (2) and (3) is due to the difference in the
structure of nP, which ultimately originates from grammaticalization (answer to Question 5).
• These constructions are biclausal (answer to Question 6).
Example sentences used in this thesis are, unless citation is not shown, sentences verified as grammatical by a native speaker.

9Chapter 1

Overview of the Tatar Language
Tatar (Cyrillic: татар теле, Latin: tatar tele) is a Turkic language spoken mainly in the Republicof Tatarstan, Russia (cf. the location is illustrated in Figure 1.1), which acknowledges Tatar as oneof its two official languages along with Russian. The language is spoken by approximately 7 million
speakers [CITATION!!! Wikipedia?]. The speakers’ geographic distribution is widespread; Tatarspeaking communities exist in neighbouring territories such as the Republic of Bashkortostan, Mari
El, Udmurtia, etc. as well as farther regions and cities in Moscow and Siberia. Furthermore, there
are also diaspora communities in other countries such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Finland, Turkey,
the United States, China, etc. (Sakurama-Nakamura, 2018). Most Tatar speakers are bilingual with
Russian, and frequent code-switching and code-mixing are observed in daily speech of urban Tatars(Wertheim, 2002).
This chapter outlines the language in the aspects of the language family, phonology, morphology,
syntax, and sociolinguistics. The first section 1.1 overviews the language in the context of the Turkic
language family. Next, section 1.2 summarises the characteristics of the Tatar phonology with a
special focus on vowel harmonies. Section 1.3 discusses the morphology of Tatar, in particular the
agglutinative derivations and inflections by affixation. Then, most importantly, section 1.4 provides
a short overview of the Tatar syntax, which we will further discuss in later chapters on raising andcontrol. Readers with good knowledge of Turkic linguistics may skip the following sections.

1.1

The Turkic Language Family

Turkic languages are widely distributed across the Eurasian continent as shown in Figure 1.2. Turkic
languages are generally divided into four groups with two language isolates as summarised in Table 1.1. The map in Figure 1.2 is coloured so that languages in the same subgroup are represented
by similar colours. Red-based areas including Turkish, Azeri, and Turkmen represent the Oghuz
language group, green for Kipchak languages, light blue for Karluk languages, purple for Siberian
Turkic languages, and orange for Chuvash, the only living language of the Oghur Turkic language
group. The genetic classification is based on morphophonological variations and commonalities (Johanson, 2021); for example, Oghuz languages are distinct from other groups in terms of the loss of10

1.1 The Turkic Language Family

Exam No. B197769

Figure 1.1: The location of the Republic of Tatarstan (in red) in the Russian Federation. The territoryof Moscow Oblast is shown in blue for reference.

G in the deverbal marker suffix -GAn (e.g., Azeri qal-an vs. Tatar qal-Gan). Kipchak languages havea distinct feature where they drop the final velar consonant of the denominal suffix -LIG (e.g., Azeri
dağ-lıq vs. Tatar taw-lı).
Group

Languages

Oghuz (Southwestern)
Kipchak (Northwestern)
Karluk (Southeastern)
Siberian (Northeastern)
Oghur (isolate)
Arghu (isolate)

Turkish, Azeri, Turkmen
Kazakh, Tatar, Kyrgyz, Bashkir
Uzbek, Uyghur
Sakha (Yakut), Tuvan, Altai, Khakas
ChuvashKhalajTable 1.1: Categorization of Turkic languages. The distribution of the listed languages are illustrated
in Figure 1.2.
Tatar is classified in the Kipchak language group of the Turkic language family. According to
Johanson (2021), Kipchak languages can be further categorised into four subgroups as listed in Table
1.2. Tatar and Bashkir, both North Kipchak languages, are close enough to each other to share some11

1.2 Phonology

Exam No. B197769

Figure 1.2: The distribution map of Turkic languages. The language names on the map were addedby the author. Note that the map only partially names languages, and there are more Turkic languages
that are mentioned neither in the figure nor in Table 1.1. The original map, retrieved on 15 May 2022,
was originally created by GalaxMaps and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share
Alike 4.0 International license.

mutual intelligibility 1 . Tatar has three dialects: Kazan Tatar (central), Mishar Tatar (western), andSiberian Tatar (eastern), of which Siberian Tatar is at a controversial status whether it is a dialect ofTatar or a language belonging to a different subgroup.
Subgroup

Languages

West Kipchak
North Kipchak
South Kipchak
East Kipchak

Karachay-Balkar, Kumyk, Crimean Tatar, Karaim
Tatar, Bashkir
Nogay, Kazakh, Karakalpak, Kipchak Uzbek
Kyrgyz, South Altay

Table 1.2: Categorisation of the Kipchak languages based on Johanson (2021, 22).

1.2

Phonology

This section briefly introduces the summary of the Tatar phonology. Tatar vowels consist of 8 or 9
phonemes as listed in Table 1.3. The distribution of Tatar consonants are illustrated in Table 1.4.
Russian loanwords are usually pronounced within the Russian phonological system even if the word
is considered as a part of the Tatar lexicon. The syllable structure of Tatar is maximally (C)CVCC.
1

A good level of mutual intelligibility is demonstrated by the fact that Bashkir-speaking clips are not subbed in Tatar
television channels, as can be seen in the video https://youtu.be/RUGT2GcdB_Q, from 7:36 to 7:47.

12

1.2 Phonology

Exam No. B197769

Possible onset clusters are typically /st/, as in qa.zaq.stan (‘Kazakhstan’), though onset clusters are
not found very often in words native to Tatar. When a coda consists of two consonants, the first
consonant is typically a sonorant excluding nasals, as in art.qan (‘increased’), qïlt (‘suddenly’), andqajt.qan (‘returned’).

High
Mid
Low

[+front][+round] [-round]
/ü/
/i/
/ö/
/e/
/ä/

[-front][+round] [-round]/u/(/ïj/)/o//ï//a/Table 1.3: The vowel inventory of Tatar. The parenthesised phoneme /ïj/ is controversial.

Nasal[-voice]Stop[+voice][-voice]
Affricate[+voice][-voice]
Fricative[+voice]
Trill
Approximant

Labial
/m/
/p/
/b/

/f/
*/v/
/w/

Dental
/n/
/t/
/d/

/s/
/z/
/r/
/l/

Postalveolar

Palatal*/ts/*/tC/

/ù/
/ü/

/C/
/ý/

Velar
/N/
/k/
/g/

UvularGlottal

/q/

/X/
/K/

/h/

/j/

Table 1.4: The inventory of Tatar consonants. Labiodental fricatives /f/, /v/ and labiovelar approximant/w/ are merged into the Labial column. Phonemes with an asterisk are used only in Russian-originwords. The voiced uvular fricative /K/ can also be realised as a voiced velar fricative [G].
As is common in Turkic languages, Tatar has fronting and rounding harmonies, of which the latter
is not represented in the orthography. The fronting harmony of Tatar is a forward propagation of
the [+front] feature from the last syllable of a stem. Example (3) contains no front vowel, because
the stem morpheme bar- (‘to go’) lacks the [+front] feature, and therefore [+front] is never found in
the suffixes and enclitic attached to the stem, {-DI}, {-IGIz}, and {=mI}. On the contrary, in (4),the syllable of the verbal stem kil- contains the vowel /i/, whose [+front] feature is propagated to thefollowing suffixes and enclitic, as illustrated by the arrows. Words that are code-switched to Russian
never have [+front] feature, cf. (5), unless they end with either -ия (-ijä) (6), -ие (-ije) (7), or apalatalisation sign -ь (-j ), also known in Russian as мягкий знак ‘soft sign’ (8).
(3) bar-dï-Gïz=mï?
go-PST-2 PL = Q‘Did you go?’[+front]13

1.2 Phonology

Exam No. B197769(4) kil-de-gez=me?
come-PST-2 PL = Q‘Did you come?’(5) injener-nïN/ *injener-neN

engineer-GEN‘engineer’s’(6) *pandemijä-nïN / pandemijä-neN
pandemic-GEN‘pandemic’s’(7) *učreždenije-nïN/ učreždenije-neN

establishment-GEN‘establishment’s’(8) *aprelj -nïN / aprelj -neNapril-GEN‘April’s’The rounding harmony, or roundedness coarticulation, is a propagation of [+round] to succeeding mid vowels, as exemplified in (9).2 However, the assimilation is blocked when non-mid vowels
intervene; in (10), for instance, the low vowel /a/ in the suffix qan blocks the harmony, therefore theassimilation stops before qan. The rounding harmony is not expressed in the orthography, and in thetranscription here either, because the rounding harmony is not crucial to the identity of a phonologicalword. The existence of the rounding harmony in Tatar is in fact controversial, and some researchers
disagree with it (Conklin, 2015; Henry, 2018).
[+round](9) onït-tï-Gïz=mï?

realised as: /o.not.to.Koz.mo/

forget-PST-2 PL = Q‘Did you forget?’[+round]×(10) onït-qan-sïz=mï?

realised as: /o.not.qan.sïz.mï/forget-PST. PTCP -2 PL = Q‘Had you forgotten?’

2

Note that the actual phonetic impression of /o/ and /ö/ is not rounded. Therefore, what is assimilated in the rounding
harmony of Tatar is an abstract phonological feature that is tentatively tagged as [±round].

14

1.3 Morphology

1.3

Exam No. B197769

Morphology

Tatar morphology is epitomised by the agglutinative derivation, declension and inflection by adding
suffixes.

1.3.1

Nouns

There are six morphological case-marking in Tatar: nominative -Ø, genitive {-nIN}, dative {-GA},
accusative {-nI}, locative {-DA}, and ablative {-DAn}.

1.3.2

Verbs

Finite verbs inflect by tense (present and past), person (first, second, and third) and number (singularand plural). Non-finite verb forms include participles (definite future {-AčAG}, indefinite future {(I)r}, agentive present {-UčI}, and past {-GAn}), converbs (sequential {-(I)p}, posterior ‘after ...’{-GAč}, prior ‘before’ {-GAnčI}, simultaneous ‘while ...’ {-A}), conditional form {-sA}, verbal
noun ({-U}), and infinitive ({-(I)rGA}, or {-mAsGA} in negative). These non-finite verb forms do
not inflect by tense, person, or number, except for the conditional form that does agree with person andnumber. Verbs may also inflect by voice (passive {-(I)l}~{-(I)n}, middle {-(I)n}, causative {-t}~{tIr}~{-Ar}, and reciprocal {-(I)š}), and polarity (negative {-mA}). Forms of conditional moods are
inflected by person and number of their corresponding subject, but not by tense. Below are examplesof verbal inflection.
(11) čïG-ar-ïl-dï-q
go_out-CAUS - PASS - PST-1 PL‘We were forced to go out’(12) tanï-š-tïr-ïrGa
be_acquainted-REC - CAUS - INF‘to introduce’(13) söjlä-š-kän-dä
speak-REC - PST. PTCP - LOC‘when (we, you, they) talked’

1.4

SyntaxAs with many Turkic languages, Tatar is a nominative-accusative language with the canonical word
order of the Subject-Object-Verb type, and a modifier in a noun phrase precedes its head. An example
sentence with an intransitive verb is shown in (14), and one with a transitive verb in (15). Assuming that an external argument in these verbal sentences is introduced as the specifier of a functional

15

1.4 Syntax

Exam No. B197769

phrase vP (Kratzer, 1996), a simplest representation of their syntactic form is given in (1.1) and (1.2),
respectively. Here we are also accepting the close-knit relationship of a phrase structure and semantic
arguments, as formalized in the Uniformity of Theta-Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH) (Adger, 2003;
Baker, 1988), where the AGENT argument of a verbal predicate is a direct daughter of vP and the
T HEME a direct daughter of VP.
(14) minjöz-äm.

1 SG . NOM swim-1 SG‘I swim.’(15) minkitap-nïuqï-dï-m.

1 SG . NOM book-ACC read-PST-1 SG‘I read the book.’
(1.1)

TP
T’

min
vP

[Pres]

⟨min⟩

v
v

VP
jozäm
(1.2)

TP
T’

min
vP

[Past]

⟨min⟩

v’
v

VP
kitapnï

V’uqïdïmAdnominal modifiers, adjunct modifiers and adverbial clauses also precede the head, as in (16),(17), and (18), respectively. Finite verbs obligatorily agrees with the subject’s person and number,though plural agreement in third person is optional and is often marked by the singular form.

16

1.4 Syntax(16) aq

Exam No. B197769

külmäkwhite shirt‘white shirt’(17) bügen tatarstan-da

unsigez gradus-qa qädär salqïn bul-ačaq

today Tatarstan-LOC eighteen degree-DAT up_to cold be-DEF. FUT. PTCP
‘Today, it will be as cold as eighteen degrees in Tatarstan.’ (Saykhunov et al., 2021)(18) čišmä suw-ïeč-ep,bit-lär-ebez-ne

juw-Gač,räxät bul-ïp kit-te.

spring water-POSS .3 drink-CVB face-PL - POSS .1 PL - ACC wash-CVB . PF happy be-CVB leave-PST.3‘After (he/she/they) drank spring water and washed our face, (he/she/they) left happily.’(Saykhunov et al., 2021)
Since this thesis puts a particular focus on infinitival constructions, syntactic properties and semantic functions of infinitives in Tatar are described here. Infinitives do not inflect by tense, person,
or number. A common role of infinitive is to form an adverbial clause with a purposive or modal
meaning as in (19). It can also be an argument of certain predicates as shown in (20). Several modal
predicates, such as kiräk ‘necessary’, mömkin ‘possible’, tiješ ‘obligatory’, jara- ‘be allowed’, turïkil- ‘have to’, źïjïn- ‘be intended’, etc. require infinitive complement as in (21). Infinitives may also
modify a noun when the noun phrase is the subject of a main predicate, typically an existential predicate bar ‘exist’ or juq ‘not exist.’ A few nominal predicates allow direct modification as in (23), which
we will claim in later chapters to be mermaid construction. Though infinitives are typically used toform an embedded phrase, a bare infinitive form with no main finite predicate is also used to express
a deontic meaning as shown in example (24). The syntactic clause structure of the latter two types isthe chief interest in this thesis, and will be further analysed later in Chapters 2 and 3.
(19) kafe-Ga dust-ïbïz

belän očra-š-ïrGabar-dï-q

cafe-DAT friend-POSS .1 PL with meet-REC - INF go-PST-1 PL‘We went to the cafe to meet with our friend’ (adverbial modification)(20) mindus-larbelän arala-š-ïrGa

jarat-am

1 SG . NOM friend-PL with hang_out-REC - INF like-1 SG‘I like hanging out with friends’ (control)(21) sez-gä

kit-ärgä mömkin

2 PL - DAT leave-INF possible‘You can leave’ (raising)(22) ozaq söjlä-š-ep

tor-ïrGa waqït-ï

juq

ide

long speak-REC - CVB stand-INF time-POSS .3 SG not_exist COP. PST.3‘(he/she) had no time to talk for long’ (Burbiel, 2018) (adnominal modification)17

1.4 Syntax(23) išle

Exam No. B197769

Gailä bala-lar-ïn-ašähär-gä kit-ärgä röxsät

populous family child-PL - POSS .3- DAT city-DAT leave-INF permission‘Children of a large family are allowed to leave for the city’ (Ibrahim, 2008)(24) tïrïš-ïp uqï-rGa,

jalqawlan-masqa

try-CVB study-INF be_lazy-NEG . INF‘Study hard, don’t be lazy’

18Chapter 2

Control and Raising
In textbooks of linguistic theories, control and raising are often introduced together (Adger, 2003;
Carnie, 2013; Dalrymple et al., 2019). This convention comes from the strikingly similar appearanceof control and raising constructions. At one glance, an example of control in (2.1) merely differs fromthat of raising in (2.2) in the matrix verb.
(2.1) Alice tries to hit Bill. (control)(2.2) Alice seems to hit Bill. (raising)
Despite their similarity, various tests by linguists have shown that these predicates have syntactically different structures. First of all, raising predicates do not assign a semantic role to the externalargument (i.e., the matrix subject) while control predicate does. This can be confirmed by using itexpletive, though it is a somewhat English-centric diagnostic. In (2.3a), paraphrasing with it-expletive
fails because the control predicate try obligatorily assigns an agentive semantic role to the external argument. Sentence (2.3b), in contrast, is a grammatical sentence, because seem does not assign any
semantic role.
(2.3)(a) * It tries that Alice hits Bill. (control)(b) It seems that Alice hits Bill. (raising)

Another piece of evidence that predicates like seem do not assign a semantic role to the matrix
subject is the difference in semantic role assignment of the passivized counterparts. Passivized (2.4a)gives us impression that Bill is deliberately making some effort because he wants to be hit by Alice;that is, the control predicate try assigns a semantic role to Bill. In (2.4b), however, there seems to
be no change in semantic roles from (2.2). In both instances, the hitter (the agent of hit) is Alice,
and the hittee (the patient of hit) is Bill. The patientive semantic role of Bill is solely given by thesubordinate predicate hit. It is also intuitively supported by the unnaturalness of seemer in contrast to
the acceptability of trier (the one who tries).
(2.4) (a)Bill tries to be hit by Alice. (control)
19

Exam No. B197769(b)Bill seems to be hit by Alice. (raising)In addition, the fact that raising predicates do not assign any semantic role to the external argument
enables them to be combined with idiom chunks retaining their idiomatic meaning. The English idiomin (2.5a) means that a secret has been revealed, and the combination of a raising predicate seem (2.5b)
just adds an evidential perspective and does not cause any change in the original idiomatic meaning.
However, when used with a control predicate try (2.5c), the sentence loses the idiomatic meaning andliterally denotes a situation where the cat attempts to get out of the bag.
(2.5) (a)The cat is out of the bag.

(b)

The cat seems to be out of the bag. (raising)(c)# The cat tries to be out of the bag. (control)

Now, if the control predicates assign a semantic role (typically agent role) to their external argument, does it mean that the matrix subject bears two semantic roles together with the one givenby the predicate in the subordinate clause? If so, it violates the classic notion of theta criterion thatstates ‘each arguments bears one and only one θ-role, and each θ-role is assigned to one and only one
argument’ (Chomsky, 2010). Assuming that this statement is valid, the double semantic role assignment of control predicates is solved by supposing an independent pronoun PRO that is phoneticallyunpronounced. That is, we assume a covert subject pronoun, coreferential with the matrix subject, inthe embedded clause (25). In raising, on the other hand, given that the semantic role of the matrix
subject is assigned by the predicate in the embedded clause, the subject is interpreted as ‘raised’ fromthe embedded clause, leaving the trace in its hypothetical original position (26)1 .
(25) Alicei tries [ PROi to hit Bill ]. (control)(26) Alicei seems [ ti to hit Bill ]. (raising)
The phonetically null but syntactically present argument PRO is known to be a fairly theory-neutral
concept (Landau, 2013). Landau (2013: 69–78) enumerates pieces of empirical crosslinguistic evidence for the existence of PRO. First, if we assume an infinitival phrase constitutes a clause, it isinevitable to have some syntactic element, phonetically overt or covert, as the subject of the clause.2
This assumption seems to hold true in Tatar, because a bare infinitive phrase can be an independent
sentence, as will be discussed in detail in Section 2.4. Indeed, a number of languages express obligatory control with a finite verb, for example in Serbo-Croatian (2.6)-(2.7), where the clausal analysis
is obviously valid.

1Note that LFG, which do not assume any such movements, treats raising as functional control, and treats control asanaphoric control.
2This assumption excludes the constructions of restructuring verbs, such as long-distance passive in German (Wurmbrand, 2001).

20

2.1 Tatar Infinitives

Exam No. B197769(2.6) Serbo-Croatian (Mihalicek, 2012)
Ana
hoće
[da
Marko
ode]
Ana.NOM want.PRS .3 SG comp Marko.NOM leave.PRS .3 SG‘“Ana wants Marko to leave.”’(2.7) Serbo-Croatian (Mihalicek, 2012)
Ana
hoće
[da
ode]
Ana.NOM want.PRS .3 SG COMP leave.PRS .3 SG‘“Ana wants to leave.”’
Second, various diagnostics support that PRO is a syntactic substance that is able to occupy a
subject position and can anaphorically bind an element or can be bound, just like an independent DP.
The chief evidence is that secondary predicates require an overt DP outside as their argument, as thecontrast in (2.8) shows (examples from Landau (2013: 72)). In this respect, PRO in control infinitive
can serve as the subject of the secondary predicate (2.9). (2.10) shows PRO’s ability of anaphoric
binding. In addition, sentence (2.11)’s peculiar discrepancy in case-marking (accusative and dative)
can be accounted for by assuming a PRO bearing dative as the default case by an infinitive verb.
Landau (2013) himself mentions more supporting arguments for the existence of PRO and concludes
that it seems to be infeasible to establish a grammatical framework without PRO.
(2.8) (a)(b)

He served dinner [angry at the guests]* Dinner was served [angry at the guests](2.9) [PRO to serve dinner angry] is not good.
(2.10) [PROi to behave oneselfi ] is important.
(2.11) RussianOna
poprosi-l-aego[PRO neezdi-t’ tuda
odn-omu]
3 SG . F. NOM ask-PST- SG . F 3 SG . M . ACC
NEG go- INF to.there alone- DAT‘“She asked him not to go there alone’
This chapter provides a theoretical analysis of control and raising by non-verbal (i.e., adjectival
and nominal) predicates in Tatar. Section 2.1 enumerates more or less grammaticalized infinitival
constructions of Tatar, and outlines a general descriptive observation. Based on the constructions described in Section 2.1, Sections 2.2 and 2.3 theoretically analyze the raising and control, respectively,in the framework of the Minimalist Approach. Section 2.2 argues that raising predicates in Tatar do
not have CP/TP but involve a lower (smaller) phrase vP. Section 2.3, on the other hand, proposes that
control predicates in Tatar involve a CP or TP.

2.1

Tatar Infinitives

As described in sections 1.3 and 1.4, Tatar infinitives take the form of the suffix -IrGA and chieflyfunction as adverbial modifier to signify purposive events. When used with certain predicates or21

2.1 Tatar Infinitives

Exam No. B197769

without any predicate (i.e., bare infinitive), however, it may also express several kinds of modal or
aspectual meanings by grammaticalization. Types of such constructions are limited, and they arelisted below.

2.1.1

Verbal predicates

1. {-IrGA} kereš-: inchoative aspect ‘start to ...’. The subject must be the AGENT of the event (cf.
(2.12) and (2.13)).
(2.12) Maratmäktäp-kä bar-ïrGa kereš-teMarat.NOM school-DAT go-INF start-PST.3‘Marat started going to school.’(2.13) *Šul xat(Marattaraf-ïn-nan)jaz-ïl-ïrGakereš-tethat letter Marat.NOM side-POSS .3- ABL write-PASS - INF start-PST.3‘The letter began to be written by Marat.’
2. {-IrGA} totïn-: inchoative aspect, “start to ...”. The subject must be the AGENT of the event(cf. (2.14) and (2.15)). The verb totïn- lexically means “to cling” but means “to start to” in thisinfinitival construction.
(2.14) Maratmäktäp-kä bar-ïrGa totïn-dï
Marat.NOM school-DAT go-INF cling-PST.3‘Marat started going to school.’(2.15) *šul xat(Marattaraf-ïn-nan)jaz-ïl-ïrGatotïn-dï
that letter Marat.NOM side-POSS .3- ABL write-PASS - INF cling-PST.3‘The letter began to be written by Marat.’
3. {-IrGA} źïjïn-: dynamic modality (plan), “plan to ...”; The subject is typically AGENT of theevent (cf. (2.16) and (2.17), but T HEME can also sometimes be the subject when źijin- means
epistemic modality, cf. (2.18). The verb źïjïn- lexically means “to get together” but means “toplan to” in this infinitival construction.
(2.16) Maratmäktäp-kä bar-ïrGa źïjïn-aMarat.NOM school-DAT go-INF get.together-PRS .3‘Marat is going to go to school.’(2.17) *šul xat(Marattaraf-ïn-nan)jaz-ïl-ïrGaźïjïn-athat letter Marat.NOM side-POSS .3- ABL write-PASS - INF get.together-PRS .3‘The letter is going to be written by Marat.’(2.18) jañGïr
jaw-arGa źïjïn-arain.NOM fall-INF get.together-PRS .3‘It is going to rain.’222.1 Tatar Infinitives

Exam No. B197769

4. {-IrGA} tor-: prospective aspect, ‘be about to ...’. The subject can be either AGENT (2.19) or
T HEME (2.20) marked with nominative. This construction allows passivization of the embedded
clause (2.21). The verb tor- lexically means “to stand” but means “to be about to” in thisinfinitival construction.
(2.19) Maratšul xat-nï
jaz-arGa tor-aMarat.NOM this letter-ACC write-INF stand-PRS .3‘Marat is about to write the letter.’(2.20) jañGïr
jaw-arGa tor-arain.NOM fall-INF stand-PRS .3‘It is about to rain.’(2.21) šul xat(Marattaraf-ïn-nan)jaz-ïl-ïrGa
tor-athat letter Marat.NOM side-POSS .3- ABL write-PASS - INF stand-PRS .3‘The letter is about to be written by Marat.’
5. {-IrGA} jör-: dynamic modality, ‘be prepared to ...’. This construction allows only AGENT as
its subject (2.22). Subject of T HEME and passivization of the embedded verb are ungrammatical(2.23), (2.24). The verb jör- lexically means “to walk” but means “to be prepared to” in thisinfinitival construction.
(2.22) Maratšul xat-nï
jaz-arGa jöri
Marat.NOM this letter-ACC write-INF walk.PRS .3‘Marat is prepared to write this letter.’(2.23) *jañGïr
jaw-arGa jörirain.NOM fall-INF walk.PRS .3‘It is prepared to rain.’(2.24) *šul xat(Marattaraf-ïn-nan)jaz-ïl-ïrGa
jörithat letter Marat.NOM side-POSS .3- ABL write-PASS - INF walk.PRS .3‘The letter is prepared to be written by Marat.’
6. {-IrGA} bul-: attitude, ‘decide to ...’. This construction allows only AGENT as its subject (2.25)
which is marked in nominative. Subject of T HEME and passivization of the embedded verb areunacceptable (2.26), (2.27). The verb bul- lexically means “to be” or “to become”, but means“to decide to” in this infinitival construction with a nominative AGENT.
(2.25) Maratšul xat-nï
jaz-arGa bul-dï
Marat.NOM this letter-ACC write-INF become-PST.3‘Marat decided to write this letter.’(2.26) *jañGïr
jaw-arGa bul-dïrain.NOM fall-INF become-PST.3‘It decided to rain.’23

2.1 Tatar Infinitives

Exam No. B197769(2.27) *šul xat(Marattaraf-ïn-nan)jaz-ïl-ïrGabul-dï
that letter Marat.NOM side-POSS .3- ABL write-PASS - INF become-PST.3‘The letter decided to be written by Marat.’
7. {-IrGA} bul-: modality (possibility), ‘be possible to ..., be allowed to ...’ This construction
requires AGENT with dative case-marking.
(2.28) Marat-qa šul xat-nï
jaz-arGa bul-aMarat-DAT this letter-ACC write-INF become-PRS .3‘Marat is allowed to write the letter.’(2.29) ??jaNGïr-Ga jaw-arGa bul-arain-DAT
fall-INF become-PRS .3‘(lit.) Rain is allowed to fall.’(2.30) ??šul xat-qa(Marat taraf-ïn-nan)jaz-ïl-ïrGa
bul-athat letter-DAT Marat side-POSS .3- ABL write-PASS - INF become-PRS .3‘(lit.) The letter is allowed to be written by Marat.’
8. {-IrGA} jarat-: attitude, ‘like to ...’ As is expected, this construction allows only AGENT as
its subject (2.22). Subject of T HEME and passivization of the embedded verb are unacceptable(2.23), (2.24).
(2.31) Maratšul xat-nï
jaz-arGa jarat-a
Marat.NOM this letter-ACC write-INF like-PRS .3‘Marat likes to write this letter.’(2.32) *jañGïr
jaw-arGa jarat-a
rain.NOM fall-INF become-PRS .3‘It likes to rain.’(2.33) *šul xat(Marattaraf-ïn-nan)jaz-ïl-ïrGa
jarat-athat letter Marat.NOM side-POSS .3- ABL write-PASS - INF become-PRS .3‘The letter likes to be written by Marat.’
9. {-IrGA} telä-: desire, ‘want to ...’ As is expected, this construction allows only AGENT as its
subject (2.34). Subject of T HEME and passivization of the embedded verb are unacceptable(2.35), (2.36).
(2.34) Maratšul xat-nï
jaz-arGa teli
Marat.NOM this letter-ACC write-INF want.PRS .3‘Marat wants to write this letter.’(2.35) *jañGïr
jaw-arGa telirain.NOM fall-INF want.PRS .3‘It wants to rain.’24

2.1 Tatar Infinitives

Exam No. B197769(2.36) *šul xat(Marattaraf-ïn-nan)jaz-ïl-ïrGa
telithat letter Marat.NOM side-POSS .3- ABL write-PASS - INF want.PRS .3‘The letter likes to be written by Marat.’
10. {-IrGA} turï kil-: modality (deontology), ‘have to ...’. In this construction, the AGENT ismarked with dative. Subject of T HEME and passivization of the embedded verb are unacceptable (2.60), (2.61).
(2.37) Marat-qa šul xat-nï
jaz-arGa turïkil-deMarat.DAT this letter-ACC write-INF direct come-PST.3‘Marat had to write the letter.’(2.38) *jañGïr-Ga jaw-arGa turïkil-derain-DAT fall-INF direct come-PST.3(2.39) *šul xat-qa(Marattaraf-ïn-nan)jaz-ïl-ïrGaturïthat letter-DAT Marat.NOM side-POSS .3- ABL write-PASS - INF direct
kil-decome-PST.3
11. {-IrGA} qal-: ‘have no choice but to ...’ This construction expresses deontic modality. The
AGENT is marked by dative (2.40). T HEME in dative is not usually accepted (2.41), but somespeakers allow passivization (2.42).
(2.40) ?Marat-qa mäktäp-kä bar-ïrGa qal-aMarat-DAT school-DAT go-INF remain-PRS .3‘Marat has no choice to go to school.’(2.41) *jañGïr-Ga jaw-arGa qal-a
rain-DAT fall-INF remain-PRS .3(2.42) ?šul xat-qa(Marat taraf-ïn-nan)jaz-ïl-ïrGaqal-athat letter-DAT Marat side-POSS .3- ABL write-PASS - INF remain-PRS .3‘The letter must be written by Marat.’
12. {-IrGA} jara-: permission, ‘be allowed to ...’ This construction requires AGENT with dative
case-marking.
(2.43) Marat-qa šul xat-nï
jaz-arGa jarïj
Marat-DAT this letter-ACC write-INF be.suitable.PRS .3‘Marat is allowed to write the letter.’(2.44) ??jaNGïr-Ga jaw-arGa jarïj
rain-DAT
fall-INF be.suitable.PRS .3‘(lit.) Rain is allowed to fall.’25

2.1 Tatar Infinitives

Exam No. B197769(2.45) ??šul xat-qa(Marat taraf-ïn-nan)jaz-ïl-ïrGajarïjthat letter-DAT Marat side-POSS .3- ABL write-PASS - INF be.suitable‘(lit.) The letter is allowed to be written by Marat.’
13. {-IrGA} it-: attempt, ‘try to ...’ This construction, with a nominative subject, is reported to begrammatical in Burbiel (2018), but some native speakers do not allow it.
(2.46) ?Maratmäktäp-kä bar-ïrGa it-te
Marat.NOM school-DAT go-INF do-PST.3‘Marat tried to go to school.’

2.1.2

Adjectival Predicates

1. {-IrGA} kiräk: modality (deontology), necessity, ‘need to ...’. In this construction, the AGENT
is marked with dative. Subject of T HEME and passivization of the embedded verb are unacceptable (2.60), (2.61).
(2.47) Marat-qa šul xat-nï
jaz-arGa kiräk
Marat-DAT this letter-ACC write-INF necessary‘Marat needs to write the letter.’(2.48) *jañGïr-Ga jaw-arGa kiräk
rain-DAT fall-INF necessary(2.49) *šul xat-qa(Marattaraf-ïn-nan)jaz-ïl-ïrGa
kiräkthat letter-DAT Marat.NOM side-POSS .3- ABL write-PASS - INF necessary
2. {-IrGA} tiješ: deontic/epistemic modality, obligation, ‘must ...’ In this construction, the subject is marked in nominative. It allows both a T HEME subject and passivization unlike otherconstructions.
(2.50) Maratšul xat-nï
jaz-arGa tiješ
Marat-DAT this letter-ACC write-INF obligatory‘Marat must write the letter.’(2.51) jañGïr
jaw-arGa tiješ
rain-DAT fall-INF obligatory‘It must rain.’(2.52) šul xat(Marattaraf-ïn-nan)jaz-ïl-ïrGa
tiješthat letter-DAT Marat.NOM side-POSS .3- ABL write-PASS - INF obligatory‘The letter must be written by Marat.’
3. {-IrGA} mömkin: deontic modality (permission) or dynamic modality (ability), ‘be possible to...’. mömkin is an adjective meaning ‘possible’. The AGENT of this construction is marked withdative (2.53). T HEME with dative (2.54) and passivization (2.55) is unacceptable.
262.1 Tatar Infinitives

Exam No. B197769(2.53) Marat-qa mäktäp-kä bar-ïrGa mömkin
Marat-DAT school-DAT go-INF possible‘Marat can go to school.’(2.54) *jaNGïr-Ga jaw-arGa mömkin
rain-DAT
fall-INF possible(2.55) *šul xat-qa(Marat taraf-ïn-nan)jaz-ïl-ïrGa
mömkinthat letter-DAT Marat side-POSS .3- ABL write-PASS - INF possible
4. {-IrGA} mömkin: epistemic modality “might”. Unlike the construction above, this construction
takes a nominative subject, and also allows a T HEME subject and passivization.
(2.56) Maratmäktäp-kä bar-ïrGa mömkin
Marat.NOM school-DAT go-INF possible‘Marat might go to school.’(2.57) jaNGïr
jaw-arGa mömkin
rain.NOM fall-INF possible‘It might rain.’(2.58) *šul xat(Marat taraf-ïn-nan)jaz-ïl-ïrGa
mömkinthat letter.NOM Marat side-POSS .3- ABL write-PASS - INF possible‘That letter might be written by Marat.’

2.1.3

Others1. {-IrGA} ide: desire, suggestion, ‘should, must ...’ ide is an auxiliary that functions either as a
copula marking the past tense or as a particle expressing the speaker’s conditional, desiderative,
or deontic attitude to the event. In this construction, the AGENT is marked with dative (2.59).
Subject of T HEME and passivization of the embedded verb are unacceptable (2.60), (2.61).
(2.59) Marat-qa mäktäp-kä bar-ïrGa ide
Marat-DAT school-DAT go-INF AUX .3‘Marat should go to school.’(2.60) *jañGïr-Ga jaw-arGa ide
rain-DAT fall-INF AUX .3‘It should rain.’(2.61) *šul xat-qa(Marattaraf-ïn-nan)jaz-ïl-ïrGa
idethat letter-DAT Marat.NOM side-POSS .3- ABL write-PASS - INF AUX .3‘The letter should be written by Marat.’27

2.1 Tatar Infinitives

Exam No. B197769

2. {-IrGA}: deontic modality, ‘must ...’. This construction expresses deontic modality. The
AGENT (the entity bearing the obligation) is marked in dative (2.62), but its usage is mostly
limited to deontic statement to the general audience (2.63). Theme with the dative (2.64) andpassivization (2.65) are unacceptable.
(2.62) ?Marat-qa mäktäp-kä bar-ïrGa
Marat-DAT school-DAT go-INF‘Marat must go to school.’(2.63) söjäl-mäskä
lean-NEG . INF‘Don’t lean (e.g., on a train’s doors)’(2.64) *jañGïr-Ga jaw-arGa
rain-DAT fall-INF(2.65) *šul xat-qa(Marat taraf-ïn-nan)jaz-ïl-ïrGa
that letter-DAT Marat side-POSS .3- ABL write-PASS - INF

2.1.4

Nominal predicates

The following constructions exhibit similar forms, but their predicate is a noun, whose semantics issomewhat bleached to a functional one. Though some of these are often found in text and speech, they
have not been described in existing grammars of Tatar (Burbiel, 2018; Zäkiev & Xisamova, 2015).
1. {-IrGA} röxsät: deontic modality, permission ‘be allowed to ...’. The lexical meaning of röxsät
is ‘permission’. The AGENT is expressed with dative case-marking. T HEME, both unaccusativeand promoted by passivization, cannot appear in the AGENT’s position, unless it is somehow
reanalyzed as AGENT.
(2.66) Marat-qa šul xat-nï
jaz-arGa röxsät
Marat-DAT that letter-ACC write-INF permission‘Marat is allowed to write the letter.’(2.67) #jaNGïr-Ga jaw-arGa röxsät
rain-DAT fall-INF permission‘(lit. The rain is allowed to fall.’(2.68) #šul xat-qa(Marat taraf-ïn-nan)jaz-ïl-ïrGa
röxsätthat letter-DAT Marat side-POSS .3- ABL write-PASS - INF permission‘(lit. The letter is allowed to be written by Marat.’
2. {-IrGA} waqït: deontic modality ‘it is time to ..., now one must ...’. The AGENT, or the bearer ofthe obligation, is marked by dative. Non-AGENT arguments cannot occupy the same position.

28

2.1 Tatar Infinitives

Exam No. B197769(2.69) marat-qa šul xat-nï
jaz-arGa waqït
Marat-DAT that letter-ACC write-INF time
‘Now Marat must write the letter.’(2.70) ??šul xat-qa(Marattaraf-ïn-nan)jaz-ïl-ïrGawaqïtthat letter-DAT Marat.NOM side-POSS .3- ABL write-PASS - INF time
‘Now that letter must be written by Marat.’(2.71) ??jaNGïr-Ga jaw-arGa waqït
rain-DAT
fall-INF time
‘Now it must rain.’
3. {-IrGA} isäp: attitude ‘intend to ...’. The AGENT (the attitude holder) is marked by genitive,
and isäp may agree with the possessor by means of possessive suffix. Non-AGENT arguments
cannot occupy the same position. Its striking feature that is different from other infinitival
constructions is that it can take a question clitic {=mI} right after the infinitive, while it isusually pronounced at the sentence-final position.
(2.72) Marat-nïN mäktäp-kä bar-ïrGa isäb-eMarat-GEN school-DAT go-INF thought-POSS .3‘Marat is going to go to school.’(2.73) *jaNGïr-nïN jaw-arGa isäb-erain-GEN
fall-INF thought-POSS .3(2.74) *šul xat-nïN(Marat taraf-ïn-nan)jaz-ïl-ïrGa
isäb-ethat letter-GEN Marat side-POSS .3- ABL write-PASS - INF thought-POSS .3(2.75) kit-ärgä=me isäp?
leave-INF - Q thought‘Are you going to leave?’
4. {-IrGA} nijät: attitude ‘intend to ...’. Its function and usage are similar to isäp, but nijät tends
to be used in a more formal context.
(2.76) Marat-nïN mäktäp-kä bar-ïrGa nijät-eMarat-GEN school-DAT go-INF intention-POSS .3‘Marat is going to go to school.’(2.77) *jaNGïr-nïN jaw-arGa nijät-erain-GEN
fall-INF intention-POSS .3(2.78) *šul xat-nïN(Marat taraf-ïn-nan)jaz-ïl-ïrGa
nijätthat letter-GEN Marat side-POSS .3- ABL write-PASS - INF intention-POSS .3

29

2.1 Tatar Infinitives

Exam No. B197769(2.79) kit-ärgä=me nijät?
leave-inf-q intention‘Are you going to leave?’
5. {-IrGA} mäslixät: deontic modality, ‘should, had better ...’. The AGENT is marked by dative.
Non-AGENT arguments cannot occupy the same position. mäslixät is not a commonly used
noun, and some speakers do not know this construction.
(2.80) Marat-qa šul xat-nï
jaz-arGa mäslixät
Marat-DAT that letter-ACC write-INF recommendation‘Marat should write the letter.’(2.81) ??šul xat-qa(Marat taraf-ïn-nan)jaz-ïl-ïrGa
mäslixät
that letter-DAT Marat side-POSS .3- ABL write-PASS - INF recommendation‘The letter should be written by Marat.’
Predicate
kereštotïnźïjïnjörbuljaratteläturï kilqaljarabulitkiräk
tiješ
mömkinmömkinØ
ide
röxsät
waqït
isäp
nijät
mäslixät

Category
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
A
A
A
A
?
Aux
N
N
N
N
N

AGENT’s case
NOM
NOM
NOM
NOM
NOM
NOM
NOM
DAT
DAT
DAT
DAT
NOM
DAT
NOM
DAT
NOM
DAT
DAT
DAT
DAT
GEN
GEN
DAT

T HEME
✓
✓
✓
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
✓
*
✓
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Passivization
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
✓
*
✓
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Table 2.1: Summary of infinitival constructions in Tatar. The check marks and asterisks in the righttwo columns represent accepted or not accepted, respectively, by native speakers, and they are notnecessarily equal to syntactic grammaticality.
The following subsections will concentrate on infinitival constructions with a non-verbal predicate, and show that these constructions are instances of raising and control constructions.
30

2.2 Raising

2.2

Exam No. B197769

Raising

This section looks into the raising construction with an adjectival predicate in Tatar. As we havealready seen in the descriptive overview in Section 2.1, adjectives tiješ and mömkin seem to be
triggers for subject-to-subject raising (SSR), because they allow non-AGENT subjects including a
T HEME /PATIENT promoted to subject by means of passivization.
Semantics characteristic to raising predicates is that the raised argument is not a part of the semantic argument relation specified by the predicates. This is confirmed by other (often English-centric)
syntactic tests. Consider an example of raising with seem (2.82). Raising verbs like seem allow an
expletive it to be the subject, and John is the syntactic subject of the embedded CP. Furthermore, while
control verbs like try and want can be derived with an agentive suffix -er (trier ‘one who tries’ andwanter ‘one who wants’, respectively), raising verbs like seem cannot naturally derive with the same
suffix (??seemer). It shows that seem does not semantically host a agent argument.
(2.82) John seems to be leaving.
(2.83) It seems that John is leaving.
From these facts, it seems that raising predicates do not subcategorize for a subject, for example seem(x, y) for some nominal arguments x and y like a transitive verb. Rather, it takes a whole
proposition and returns a subjectified (evidential) evaluation; in the notation of formal semantics, it
should look like λP.seem(P ), where P is some proposition of type t. Therefore, though John in (2.82)
superficially looks like a subject of the verb seem, these tests confirm that it is in fact not semantic
argument of seem. In Generative theories of syntax, the subject surfacing up in the main clause israised from the original specifier position of the embedded TP to the higher Spec,TP. Minimalist syntax explains that this movement is caused by the “strong” uninterpreted feature [uD*] (Adger, 2003).
The movement of John from the lower Spec,TP is driven by the same mechanism as the EPP.
TPJohn

T[uD*]VP

T[NOM]TP

seem⟨John⟩

T
to be leaving

Figure 2.1: The structure of (2.82).
Similarly, tiješ subcategorizes for neither a subject nor any other nominal arguments. The syntactic subject of tiješ or mömkin is raised from the internal TP. Upon deriving the syntactic structure of31

2.2 Raising

Exam No. B197769

this construction, we assume that an external argument of an adjectival predicate is not inside AP but
is introduced by some functional head as expressed in Figure 2.2, following Ramchand (2018). Herethe functional phrase is represented as PredP, because the adjectival phrase serves as the predicate ofa sentence (Al-Dobaian, 2006). In the present tense, its head Pred is normally phonetically unpronounced, but elsewhere it is realized as a copular predicate bul- (Figure 2.2). Thus, the structure of(2.84) is represented as Figure 2.3.
PredP
Pred

SUBJ

AP PredFigure 2.2: Introduction of PredP.

(2.84) Marati [ti kit-ärgä] {tiješ/ mömkin}Maratleave-INF obligatory / possible‘Marat must leave. / It may be the case that Marat leaves.’TPT[uD*]Marat

T[NOM]

PredP
Pred

TP
⟨Marat⟩tiješ/mömkin Pred

TvP
⟨Marat⟩T
VP

kitärgä⟨kit-⟩
Figure 2.3: The structure of (2.84).
The next subsection will delve into the control construction with kiräk. We argue that the kiräktype infinitival construction, unlike tiješ, is control, where a controller is an internal oblique argumentof the control predicate, which is then moved to the higher Spec,TP position.

32

2.3 Control

2.3

Exam No. B197769

ControlThis section theoretically accounts for the control construction with an embedded infinitival clause in
Tatar. We have seen in the previous section that seemingly control non-verbal predicates that do notallow passivization include adjectives (kiräk and mömkin) and nouns (röxsät, waqït, and mäslixät).
This observation raises two intriguing issues. First, control with a nominal predicate is against thecommon description in the literature of control that typically deals only with verbal and adjectival
predicates (e.g., try, promise, (be) likely, etc.). Second, it is often a typological and syntactic factthat nominal and adjectival predicates have different functions and structures. Keeping these issues
in mind, our aim in this section is to provide a consistent theoretical explanation for these two typesof control predicates in Tatar. The first subsection deals with the structure and the mechanism of
the control with the adjectival predicates (kiräk and mömkin). The second subsection, based on thearguments and consequences in the first subsection, proposes a syntactic structure of control nominal
predicates in Tatar.

2.3.1

Adjectival Control

This section explains the control with adjectival predicates: kiräk and mömkin. The previous section
has descriptively shown that these adjectival predicates fail the passivization test outlined in the beginning of this chapter. This fact is partial evidence in favor of a control analysis rather than a raising.
In most textbook cases, an phonetically null syntactic element PRO is controlled by a (nominative)
subject or an (accusative) object, which are called subject control and object control, respectively.
However, the point that differs from them in these adjectival predicates of Tatar is that the controller
is marked by neither nominative nor accusative, but is dative. Then, how should this control be represented in the Minimalist approach?
Recall the UTAH by Baker in Figure 2.4. Assuming that this hypothesis holds true in Tatar, the
G OAL (the bearer of a state described by the adjective) is introduced under AP (Figure 2.5).
Just like canonical verbal predicate sentence, tense and other inflectional features are introducedby the head of TP, whose specifier is filled by the raised subject by virtue of the Extended Projection
Principle (EPP). Thus, a prototypical example in (2.85) has the structure represented in Figure 2.6.
(2.85) su
Marat-qa kiräk.
water.NOM Marat-DAT necessary‘Water is necessary to Marat’We will derive a tree structure for sentence (2.47) from this template. The necessary thing (su‘water’ in the example above) now is a proposition expressed by an infinitival clause (Figure 2.7).
After elaborating the subtree from the subordinate TP, we have the tree structure represented in
Figure 2.9. At this point, we have not assumed the EPP at the level of the matrix clause, so thespecifier of the matrix TP remains empty. Then, which constituent (or phrase) is the right candidatefor occupying the Spec,TP position?

33

2.3 Control

Exam No. B197769

TP
T

AGENT
vP

T

⟨AGENT⟩v
v

VP
V

T HEMEG OAL V
Figure 2.4: UTAHAPG OAL[N, case] A[uN, DAT]
Figure 2.5: A minimal structure of an AP.

We have two possibilities that could be subject to the movement: the NP in the embedded clause(šul xat-nï) or the NP (Marat-qa) under AP.3 The first candidate cannot be raised to the specifier ofthe higher TP, because it needs to go beyond the lower vP, which violates the Phase Impenetrability
Condition (PIC) (Chomsky, 2001) defined in (2.86).
(2.86) P HASE I MPENETRABILITY C ONDITION
Once a phase has been completed and sent to the interfaces, the internal domain of a phase [i.e.
the complement of the phase head] is not accessible to operations at/above the next higher
phase. Only the edge of the phase [the head plus any number of specifiers] remains accessibleat the next higher phase. (Boeckx & Grohmann, 2004)
Following Chomsky (2001), phases are propositional, θ-complete phrases; namely, vP and CP.4
The object of the embedded clause šul xat-nï cannot be raised to Spec,TP because it must cross thephase boundary between v and vP. The remaining candidate is the oblique argument of the sentence,i.e., Marat-qa; it is not a canonical candidate for raising by the EPP, because the NP argument subject
to the EPP typically bears a nominative case-marking by T (Adger, 2003). Furthermore, Marat-qa
seems to be already case-licensed (at least morphologically). This challenges the necessity of the
3
4

The tactic with an expletive subject is generally not available in Tatar.
Some argue for DP also being a phase.

342.3 Control

Exam No. B197769

TP
T

su

T

PredP
⟨su⟩

Pred
Pred

AP
Marat-qa kiräk

Figure 2.6: A tree representation of sentence (2.85).
TP
T
T

PredP
Pred

TP
AP

PRO šul xat-nï jaz-arGa

Pred

Marat-qa kiräk
Figure 2.7: The infinitival clause (TP) is introduced under PredP.

movement, because Case assignment is a key factor that motivates the raising to Spec,TP (Bošković,2011). Yet, if we assume that the EPP in Tatar can select (at least morphologically) case-marked NP
when there is no other possible candidate, we can still predict the desired form. In other words, T
has a strong uninterpretable case feature [ucase:(NOM)*] which prefers to Agree with a nominative
case-marking but can also attract an NP with a different case-marking when there is no other possible
constituent.
Alternatively, following Sigurðsson (2003), we can sever an inherent case (semantically associated case, such as dative, ablative, and genitive) and a structural case (structurally assigned case, i.e.,
nominative and accusative). In this view, Marat-qa under the AP already has the dative case-marking
as an inherent case, but has yet to be marked structurally. Therefore, it can Agree with the uninterpreted valued feature [ucase:NOM*] and raised to Spec,TP while retaining the inherent case-marking5 .
5Sigurðsson (2003) assumes that the selection as to which case-marking is blocked, inherent or structural, is languagespecific. The case selection of Tatar is similar to the Icelandic-type, where an inherent case blocks a structural case.

35

2.3 Control

Exam No. B197769

TP
T
T

PredP
Pred

TP
AP

T

PRO

vP

T

⟨PRO⟩

v
VP
NP

Pred

Marat-qa kiräk

jazarGa+v+Tv⟨jazarGa⟩ ⟨jazarGa+v⟩

šul xat-nïFigure 2.8: The tree structure of (2.47) before the movement to SpecTP.

It follows that Marat-qa in this construction is a quirky subject, where the abstract Case6 is nominative
while the morphological case-marking is not (Sigurðsson, 1992).
Either way, this obligatory movement to the Spec,TP position of the dative argument correctlypredicts the unmarkedness in terms of focus. Though it is possible to place Marat-qa after the infinitival clause like (2.87), it is a marginal expression with a marked focus on Marat-qa. It is therefore
reasonable to suppose that the dative argument is raised to Spec,TP as its default structure, and that
post-syntactic operations at the level of information structure may further move it to the position
immediately preceding the adjectival predicate.
The passivized counterpart (2.49) is ungrammatical because the subject of the passivized TP šul
xat ‘the letter’ can neither be raised to the specifier of the higher TP, as illustrated in Figurenor beanaphorically controlled by any other NP.
(2.87) šul xat-nï
jaz-arGa Marat-qa kiräkthat letter-ACC write-INF Marat-DAT necessary‘It is Marat who needs to write the letter (focus on Marat)’
However, our assumptions so far predict barely acceptable sentences like (2.49).
6

It has been pointed out that abstract “Case” is a confusing misnomer; Sigurðsson ( 2003) instead calls it “argument
licensing”.

36

2.3 Control

Exam No. B197769

TP

T

Marat-qa

T[ucase:(NOM)*]

PredP

Pred

TP

AP

T

PRO

vP

T

⟨PRO⟩

v

VP

NP

Pred

⟨Marat-qa⟩ kiräk

jazarGa+v+Tv⟨jazarGa⟩ ⟨jazarGa+v⟩

šul xat-nïFigure 2.9: The tree structure of (2.47) before the movement to SpecTP.

This prediction arises two problems. First, although the derived syntactic tree shows no syntactic
ill-formedness, its acceptability by native speakers is strikingly low. Second, it does not mean thatthe construction is ungrammatical purely in a syntactic manner, but is grammatical when a suitable
context is forcibly specified as in (2.88).7 Both observations provide us with a hint that the low
acceptability is caused in the domain of semantics.
(2.88) Context: Marat is a stubborn boy who does not listen to adults at all. It is necessary for his dad to beat him to make him listen to others.
Marat-qa (äti-se
taraf-ïn-nan)qïjna-l-ïrGa kiräk
Marat-DAT father-POSS .3 side-POSS .3- ABL beat-pass-inf necessary‘Marat needs to be beaten up by his father.’This observation tells us that the varying acceptability is subject to semantic and pragmatic manipulation rather than to syntactic operation. For this reason, it looks more appropriate to look for thesolution in the semantic aspects of the control theory.
7

The data for the example sentence together with the context was provided by a native Tatar speaker.

372.3 Control

Exam No. B197769

TP
T[uN*]

*

T

PredP
Pred

TP

kiräk PredT[uN*]

NP

T

PassP

šul xatvP

Pass⟨jazïl+v⟩v
VP
NPjazïlïrGa

v⟨jaz-⟩ ⟨jaz-+v⟩⟨šul xat⟩

Figure 2.10: T HEME in the lower TP, promoted to subject by passivization, bears no nominative casefrom the infinitive, but has nowhere to go because further upward movement is blocked by the Phase
Impenetrability Condition. Therefore the representation predicts the ill-formedness of the passivizedkiräk-construction.

Farkas (1988) introduces a new concept of the responsibility relation, which is a two-place relation
RESP(i, s), where s is a situation and i an individual. The relation is defined as “if RESP(i, s) holds, i
is seen as both initiating and controlling s, i.e., the realization of s crucially depends on i (ibid.). The
prominence of this relation becomes clear when we compare the sentences in (2.89), where (2.89a) is
an acceptable expression while (2.89b) sounds unnatural without assuming a specific contextual situation. This semantic difference emerges from the addressee’s (i.e., the only participant) responsibility
over the situation described by the predicate. The addressee in (2.89a) is responsible for being polite
or not and is able to change their attitude by their own will, whereas the addressee in (2.89b), generally speaking, has almost no control over the ability to be tall. Farkas calls the responsible participant
the initiator of the given situation s.
(2.89)(a) Be polite!
(b) # Be tall!

38

2.3 Control

Exam No. B197769

TP
T[uN*]

*

T

PredP
Pred

TP
AP

T[uN*]

PRO

T

PassP
vP

Pass

kiräk

jazïlïrGa šul xat⟨jazïl+v⟩

v
VP

NP

Pred

v

⟨PRO⟩ ⟨jaz-⟩ ⟨jaz-+v⟩

Figure 2.11: T HEME in the lower TP, promoted to subject by passivization, bears no nominative casefrom the infinitive, but has nowhere to go because further upward movement is blocked by the Phase
Impenetrability Condition. Therefore the representation predicts the ill-formedness of the passivizedkiräk-construction.

392.3 Control

Exam No. B197769

TP
T

NP

T

PredP

šul xat-qa

Pred

TP
NP

T

PRO

T

PassP
vP

Pass

⟨šul xat-qa⟩jazïlïrGa

⟨jazïl-+v⟩

v
VP

kiräk

v

⟨PRO⟩ ⟨jaz-⟩ ⟨jaz-+v⟩

Figure 2.12: Wrong prediction produced by the same derivation as in Figure 2.9.

Though it is often the case that the initiator coincides with the AGENT of the main predicate,
Farkas carefully distinguishes them. For example, verbs like chase and run away assumes two intentional agents: the one who runs after and the one who escapes. It tells us that the syntactic argument
structure does not stand solely on the thematic relation but on the perspective as well. In addition,a syntactic subject is not always the initiator of a situation, as it is obvious in passivization, wherean object (typically a non-AGENT argument) is promoted to a subject. Thus, the RESP-relation is asemantic notion different from both the argument structure and the thematic relation.
This theoretical device can also explain the switch of the controller as exemplified in (2.90). Notehere that the verb ask in these two sentences has slightly different meanings; in (2.90a), ask is synonymous to convince, order, and persuade, while ask in (2.90b) is used in a similar way to ask forpermission and appeal. Intuitively, the responsible participant of the situation introduced by the toinfinitive complement with ask in the former sense is the second argument, namely Mary. In contrast,in the second sense, it is the first argument, John, who is responsible for the situation described in
the to-infinitive complement. Thus, the choice of the controller is semantically conditioned by the40

2.3 Control

Exam No. B197769

RESP-relation. This view implies that what motivates control has to do more with semantics thansyntax. Indeed, it seems reasonable given the impression that the predicates that trigger control areoften common across languages in terms of their meaning although their language-specific syntactic
structure may differ to a great extent.
(2.90)(a) John asked Mary to leave. (PRO = Mary)(b) John asked Mary to be allowed to leave. (PRO = John)

Now, when we look back at the Tatar sentence and its provided context in (2.88), it seems thatthe context affects the locus of the responsibility for the situation described by the infinitival clause.
That is, while the initiator of the beating-up situation is typically its AGENT (here Marat’s father),the context forcibly twists the interpretation such that the responsibility of the situation comes fromthe disobedient child. More technically, the control predicate kiräk lexically specifies that the dativeargument is a responsible individual for the situation expressed in the infinitival complement, andthe context emphasizes that the responsible individual is the patient (the one beaten up). To locate
this semantic notion at the interface with syntax, I propose that the control predicate lexically assigns
an uninterpreted unvalued semantic feature [uResp:] which specifies the responsible argument in theexternal matrix clause, and the situation s in the embedded clause, sometimes with the help of thecontext specification, assigns an uninterpreted valued feature [uResp:+] to the responsible individual
i so that the relation RESP(i, s) holds. In order for the sentence to be semantically well-formed, thesesemantic features must be checked.

2.3.2

Nominal control

This subsection provides an explanation of control with nominal predicates röxsät, waqït, and mäslixät, largely based on the discussion in the previous subsection. Nominal predicates and adjectival
predicates, often accompanied by a copula, seem to be structurally different. In semantics, a semantic
denotation JboyK is a set of individuals who are boys, while JtallK denotes a property. In syntax, atleast in languages where nouns and adjectives are different categories, nouns and adjectives exhibit anumber of different characteristics. For example, nouns can be possessed by a possessor with somesyntactic marking, while adjectives cannot. The discussion in this section follows this general viewthat nouns and adjectives of control in Tatar do have a different internal structure. However, it proposes that the mechanism of control with a nominal predicate is the same as the one with an adjectival
predicate.
(2.91)a John is tall.
b John is a boy.

In Section 2.1, we saw that Tatar can have peculiar infinitival constructions with five nouns: röxsät,waqït, isäp, nijät, and mäslixät. We can further categorize these nouns into two groups: the groupthat takes the AGENT in dative (röxsät, waqït, and mäslixät) and the one that takes the AGENT in
genitive (isäp and nijät). The rest of this subsection focuses on each of these two groups and provides
consistent explanations of their syntactic mechanism.
41

2.3 Control

Exam No. B197769

TP

T

Marat-qa[uResp:]

T

PredP

Pred

TP

AP

T

PRO [uResp:+]

T

PassP

vP

v

NP

äti-sePass

Pred⟨Marat-qa⟩ kiräkqïjnalïrGa

qïjnal-v

VP⟨PRO⟩ ⟨qïjna-⟩ ⟨qïjna-+v⟩

Figure 2.13: A syntactic representation of (2.88) with the proposed semantic feature [Resp] for the
responsibility of the situation.

Röxsät-type nominal control with a dative agent
We have seen before that the nominal predicate röxsät can compose a control construction as in(2.92). Now, we start with an observation of a similar sentence with a synonymous verbal predicate
röxsät bir- ‘to give a permission’ as in (2.93), which has a mediocre structure where the verb isbir- which subcategorizes for a subject (AGENT), a direct object (T HEME), and an indirect object(R ECIPIENT). Assuming that V and the specifier of VP (the direct object) are attracted to v, thesyntactic representation of (2.93) is illustrated in Figure 2.14. The position of the arguments in thetree is following the UTAH.
(2.92) Marat-qa kit-ärgä röxsät
Marat-DAT leave-INF permission‘Marat is allowed to leave.’(2.93) Bulat
Marat-qa kit-ärgä röxsät
bir-deBulat.NOM Marat-DAT leave-INF permission give-PST.3‘Bulat allowed Marat to leave.’
Now, when we compare this canonical construction with the nominal control construction in(2.92), we notice the following differences. First, the AGENT (the provider of the permission) is42

2.3 Control

Exam No. B197769

TP

T

Bulat

vP

T

⟨Bulat⟩vv

VP⟨PRO kitärgä röxsät bir-⟩VNP

PRO kitärgä röxsät birde⟨röxsät⟩ Marat-qa ⟨bir-⟩

TP⟨PRO kitärgä⟩Figure 2.14: A syntactic tree for (2.93).

not specified in the nominal control. Second, the T HEME noun röxsät in the canonical constructionis the predicate itself in the control construction. This (dis-)similarity reminds us of the little n, afunctional category used to account for the thematic relation around a noun instead of a verb. When
we consider sentence (2.94), it is clear that the enemy is the agent of destruction and the city the patient thereof. This fact tells us that certain nouns like destruction can have semantic arguments andhave some means to encode their AGENT under some projection. To distinguish from vP which is anextension of the projection of VP, we call this nP. A template of the structure of nP is illustrated in
Figure 2.15.
(2.94) The enemy’s destruction of the city
Based on this observation and the syntactic derivation attempted in the previous subsection, we
can think of a structure for the nominal control in parallel with the canonical construction. That is, in(2.92), the AGENT is empty, and the content of the permission occupies the position for T HEME. Now,
we need to extend the structure of nP to cover the R ECIPIENT (G OAL) of the permission. Fortunately,
taking the UTAH in the verbal structure for granted, we can just assume that the R ECIPIENT is under
an intermediate projection of the noun. Figure 2.16 is a visualized structure of the extended version
with branching fit to the Tatar syntax.
Since there is no AGENT in this construction, the sole nominal argument Marat-qa is raised to thespecifier of TP to satisfy the EPP, just like the mechanism in the kiräk-construction described in theprevious subsection.

43

2.3 Control

Exam No. B197769

DP
D

AGENT

nP

D
⟨AGENT⟩nn

NP
T HEME N

Figure 2.15: A structure of nP under DP (based on (Adger, 2003)).
DP
D

AGENT
nP

D

⟨AGENT⟩nn

NP
N

T HEMEG OAL N
Figure 2.16: Caption

This analysis has merits in the following points. First, it represents well the fact that the noun
röxsät in this construction is different from that in (2.93). The structure of the nominal control construction appears to involve a functional category (here nP) higher than a lexical category (NP), whichreflects thematic relation like vP. This enables the controller to be maintained as an oblique dative argument functioning as the R ECIPIENT which is moved to the sentence-initial position by virtue of
the EPP. Most importantly, the core idea of this structure is similar to the one we assumed in the
kiräk-type adjectival control construction in the sense that the dative argument is generated inside theprojection of the lexical category (NP or AP).

44

2.3 Control

Exam No. B197769

TP
T

Marat-qa

T

PredP
nP

Pred
n

Ø

n

NP
N

TP
PRO

T

⟨Marat-qa⟩ röxsät

kitärgäFigure 2.17: A proposed syntactic structure of (2.92).

Isäp-type nominal control with a genitive agent
One of the unique characteristics of the isäp-type construction, including nouns isäp and nijät, is that
the AGENT is marked by genitive. More interestingly, the nominal predicate isäp can concord withthe genitive (possessor) in person and number by a possessive suffix as concisely shown in (2.95).
Although it looks like just a nominal phrase (‘Marat’s thought to leave’), it is in fact a full-fledged
sentence. Upon analyzing this construction, we start with the assumption that it also involves nP.
This is more similar to the textbook example in (2.94) in the way that the AGENT is expressed in apossessive form. In fact, marking an AGENT with a possessive form is also found in other related
constructions such as a verbal noun (2.96). Taking these into account, we will assume a templatic
structure in Figure 2.18. The external argument is introduced at a higher branch than NP, namely as
the specifier of nP. For example, (2.96) can be represented as in Figure 2.19.
(2.95) Marat-nïN kit-ärgä isäb-eMarat-GEN leave-INF thought-POSS .3‘Marat is going to leave. (lit. Marat’s thought to leave)’(2.96) Marat-nïN äjt-üw-eMarat-GEN say-NMLZ - POSS .3‘what Marat says’
45

2.3 Control

Exam No. B197769

TP
T

AGENT

T

PredP
Pred

DP
⟨AGENT⟩

DnP⟨AGENT⟩

Dn
NP n

Figure 2.18: A templatic structure of the isäp-type control construction.
Another peculiar point of this construction is that the polar question enclitic {=mI} can be attachedto the infinitive (2.98), though it is generally a strictly sentence-final element . Some speakers may
allow the enclitic {=mI} at the sentence-final position as in (2.99), but others definitively judge that
it is ungrammatical. According to the Corpus of Written Tatar (Saykhunov et al., 2021), the numberof hits with the form “<inf>, исәпме” (isäp=me directly follows an infinitive) is 16, while theone with “<inf><q>, исәп” ({=mI} is attached to the infinitive, followed by a bare isäp) is 37.8
Though this is not a decisive factor to stand on either side, at least it shows that the both forms
can be acceptable. However, attaching the polar question enclitic to the infinitive like (2.98) is notgrammatical with the röxsät-type construction (2.100).
(2.97) Maratkit-äčäk=me?
Marat.NOM leave-FUT. PTCP = Q‘Will Marat leave?’(2.98) Marat-nïN kit-ärgä=me isäb-e?
Marat-GEN leave-INF = Q thought-POSS .3‘Is Marat going to leave?’(2.99) ?Marat-nïN kit-ärgä isäb-e=me?
Marat-GEN leave-INF thought-POSS .3= Q‘Is Marat going to leave?’(2.100) *Marat-qa kit-ärgä=me röxsät?
Marat-DAT leave-INF = Q permission
8

Retrieved on 13 August, 2022.

46

2.3 Control

Exam No. B197769

DP
D

Marat-nïN[GEN]nP

D[uGEN*]⟨Marat⟩n
VPäjtüwen⟨äjt-⟩ ⟨äjtüw⟩

Figure 2.19: An exemplary structure of (2.96).

This constrast shows that the structure of the isäp-type control construction is somewhat different
from other control constructions. A possible explanation to the nature of the infinitive in the isäp-type
construction is that it involves CP, not TP as in other control constructions in Tatar. CP, a functional
category headed by a complementizer, is known to be responsible for the clause type in some languages. For example, in English, subject-auxiliary inversion in polar question sentences headed by C
having the interrogative feature (Adger, 2003). In the same manner, we can assume the enclitic {=mI}
is a responsible constituent for selecting the clause type at C. In this case, for example, the structure(2.97) should look like Figure 2.20.
CP
C[Q]

TP
T

Marat
vP

=me
T

⟨kit-⟩ kitäčak

Figure 2.20: A tree representation of (2.97) with CP.
A motivation to assume that {=mI} is C, in addition to the fact that it operates on the clausetype, is that it is strongly sentence-final (i.e., word-final as well). This is a different morphotactic
from some other Turkic languages. In Uyghur, for example, the cognate interrogative marker -m(u)is also a sentence-final element, but precedes a personal suffix. Therefore, it seems that the Uyghur
47

2.3 Control

Exam No. B197769

polar interrogative morpheme is part of the morphology of a predicate. In contrast, the enclitic {=mI}in Tatar is independent of the verbal or adjectival morphology, albeit prosodically dependent on its
preceding element.
(2.101) Uyghur
yaxshi-mu-siz?
good-Q -2 SG . HON‘Are you well?’(2.102) Uyghurbar-am-siz?
go-Q - PRS .2 SG . HON‘Do you go?’Summarizing the points, Figure 2.21 illustrates the structure of (2.98), which contains CP as adaughter of NP.
TP
T[u(NOM)*]

Marat-nïN

T

PredP
Pred

DP
⟨Marat-nïN⟩D[uGEN*]nP

D⟨Marat⟩nnNP⟨isäp⟩

CP
TP

=me
T

PRO

kitärgäFigure 2.21: The structure of (2.98).

48

isäbe

2.4 Interlude: Dative–Infinitive Construction

2.4

Exam No. B197769

Interlude: Dative–Infinitive Construction

In the previous section, we observed control constructions with non-verbal predicates in Tatar. Before
moving on to the raising construction, we will take a short look at a closely related construction: thedative–infinitive construction (DatInf henceforth). DatInf refers to a sentence that contains a bareinfinitive and its agent coded in the dative case. Burbiel (2018), which provides a comprehensive
description of DatInf, categorizes its usage as follows:
1. A categorical command or prohibition (in negative), e.g. (27);
2. A Decision, e.g. (28);
3. An emphatic personal advice, suggestion, instruction etc., e.g. (29);
4. An official instructions, orders, rules etc., e.g. (30);
5. Inquiries, questions, e.g. (31).
(27) qubrat xan berenče bul-ïp awaz sal-dï:

quzGal-ïrGa!

Qubrat Khan firstbe-CVB mouth put-pst.3 move-INF‘Qubrat Khan was the first to cry: “Move!”’(Burbiel, 2018)(28) mondïj qurqïnïč uj-lar-nï

quw-arGa!

such scary thought-PL - ACC chase-INF‘Such scary thoughts must be chased away!’ (Burbiel, 2018)(29) daimi häjbät tuqlan-ïrGa, bolïn

hawa-sï

sula-rGa,čišmä suw-ï

eč-ärgä, ...

always well eat-INF
meadow air-POSS .3 breathe-INF spring water-POSS .3 drink-INF‘(You should) always eat well, breathe meadow air, drink spring water, ...’ (Burbiel, 2018)(30) uqïtuw-tärbïjä

process-ï-ndaimi kamilläš-ter-ergä

teaching-education process-POSS .3- ACC always improve-CAUS - INF‘Education process should be constantly improved’ (Burbiel, 2018)(31) źïjïntïq

turïnda söjlä-š-ergä=me?

collection about speak-REC - INF = Q‘(Are you here) to talk about the collection (of poems)?’ (Burbiel, 2018)
The characteristic common among all the types is the deontic flavor that is further specified bycontext. What is striking about the DatInf constructions is that it includes neither typical finite verbal
predicate that is usually inflected by tense and person nor nominal-adjectival (copulaless) predicate.
In addition, the agent of the infinitive verb is marked by the dative case, not nominative that agentstypically bear. It is also an interesting issue in terms of semantics that, at the level of the surface, the49

2.4 Interlude: Dative–Infinitive Construction

Exam No. B197769

meaning does not seem to be compositional, because there is no pronounced element contributing to
the modal meaning.
In fact, similar DatInf constructions are found in several Slavic languages, for example Russian
as a language relatively well-studied on this construction (Bailyn, 2004, 2011; Timberlake, 2004;
Wiemer, 2017). The semantics of the Russian DatInf constructions also chiefly functions as modal,
and the modality itself is polysemous (e.g., deontology, imperative, possibility, etc.) and depends on
its context. Timberlake (2004) notes that the DatInf construction has historically developed to theuse of the infinitive with certain nonverbal predicates, such as nado “necessary”, možno “possible”,
vozmožno “possible”, and nel’zja “impossible, impermissible ”, which are to-day more commonlyused than the DatInf construction.
Are the DatInf constructions in Tatar and Russian biclausal or monoclausal? Before proceeding
to the discussion in Tatar, let us first take a look at the treatment of DatInf in Russian, on which there
is more abundant literature. The analysis of its clausal structure is still controversial in Russian syntax(Bailyn, 2011). Some linguists stand on the monoclausal analysis for the Russian DatInf construction(Bailyn, 2004). Bailyn argues that the dative case is assigned by a higher category C, and the infinitive
does not morphologically agree with nominative. Partial evidence supporting that the dative case isassigned by C is that an infinitival clause with an overt complementizer čtoby “in order to” triggers
a dative agreement with a reflexive element. In sentence (2.103) which is assumed to contain no C
in the infinitival clause, dative case-marking on the reflexive pronominal element odin “alone” is notallowed. On the other hand, the grammaticality of agreement with dative in (2.104), which has an
overt C čtoby, implies that it is C that causes this difference by assigning the dative case.
CP
TP

C[+Modal]

NP.DAT T
Figure 2.22: A monoclausal structure hypothesis of the DatInf construction given by Bailyn (2004).

(2.103) Russian (Bailyn, 2011)
Ivan
xočet[tanceva-t’ odin
/ *odnomu]
Ivan.NOM want.PRS .3 SG dance-INF alone.NOM / alone.DAT‘Ivan wants to dance alone.’(2.104) Russian (Bailyn, 2011)
Ivan
prišel,[čtoby[tanceva-t’ *odin/ odnomu]]
Ivan.NOM arrive.PFV: PST. SG . M in.order.to dance-INF alone.NOM / alone.DAT‘Ivan arrived in order to dance alone.’An alternative explanation posits that this construction is in fact biclausal (Fleisher, 2006; Sigurðsson, 2002). Based on the fact that Russian is a null-copula language in the present tense, this50

2.4 Interlude: Dative–Infinitive Construction

Exam No. B197769

position assumes that there is an unpronounced copular predicate in the main clause in addition to
the infinitival predicate in the embedded clause. For instance, Fleisher (2006) gives the following
structure in Figure 2.23.9 In this structure, the unpronounced byt’ has the dative argument as an internal argument, not an external argument, which controls the PRO in the infinitival clause. The dative
case-marking of the pronoun in the infinitival clause (also known as “second dative”) (2.104, 2.105) is
as a result of the agreement with the PRO which the dative case is assigned to as a structural case andwhich is the only constituent that can bear a structural dative case from an infinitive (Fleisher, 2006).
TP
T

DP.DAT

VP

Ø

V

expl

⟨Ø⟩ ⟨DP.DAT⟩

CP
C

TP
PRO . DATT
InfP

Figure 2.23: The structure of DatInf proposed by Fleisher (2006).

(2.105) Russian (Timberlake, 2004)
vozmožnost’ [PROpoexa-t’sam-omu]possibility
PRO . DAT PFV :go- INF oneself- DAT. SG‘the possibility of going alone’A motivation for this analysis is the restriction on the position of a negation particle ne. In asentence with a finite verb, the negation particle precedes the main verb (2.106). However, in the
DatInf construction in non-present tenses, the negation particle preceding the overt copular verb byt’is not grammatical (2.107); it has to be placed after byt’ (2.108). This contrast evidently shows thatthe syntactic structure of the DatInf construction in Russian is different from canonical sentences witha finite verb. Bailyn (2011) and Fleisher (2006) mention this as partial evidence for the biclausal
structure of the Russian DatInf. Some monoclausalists like Moore & Perlmutter (1999), however,dodge the biclausal analysis of this data, and argue for the monoclausal analysis claiming that bylo
and budet (past and future forms of byt’, respectively), seemingly inflected verbs, are in fact temporal
particles, and therefore they cannot host negation.
9

The notation for grammatical categories is slightly changed to be consistent with the notation used in this thesis.

512.4 Interlude: Dative–Infinitive Construction

Exam No. B197769(2.106) Russian
gruzovik-i
neproexa-l-i
truck-NOM . PL NEG go.through.PFV- PST- PL‘The trucks did not get through.’(2.107) Russian (Moore & Perlmutter, 1999)*gruzovik-am neby-l-oproexa-t’
truck-DAT. PL NEG be-PST- SG . N go.through.PFV- INF(2.108) Russian (Moore & Perlmutter, 1999)
gruzovik-am by-l-oneproexa-t’
truck-DAT. PL be-PST- SG . N NEG go.through.PFV- INF‘It was not in the cards for the trucks to get through.’
As we have seen, the clausal status of the DatInf construction in Russian has seen no conclusionagreed upon. However, at least in Tatar, based on these arguments and the provided syntactic evidence,
we argue that the DatInf in Tatar has a biclausal structure similar to the one Fleisher (2006). To
begin with, Tatar infinitives do not assign a structural dative case. In Russian, when a controller is
non-nominative, the controlled PRO is assumed to have a dative case because the reflexive pronoun
exhibits an agreement with dative (2.109). However, in Tatar, the reflexive pronoun is nominative(2.110); therefore, the infinitives do not structurally assign dative to their subject.
(2.109) Russian (Timberlake, 2004)
ona{prikaza-l-amne~ umolja-l-amenja}[PRO
poexa-t’
3 SG . F order-PST- SG . F 1 SG . DAT
beseech-PST- SG . F 1 SG . ACC PRO . DAT PFV:go-INF
sam-omu]oneself-DAT . SG
‘She {ordered me ~ beseeched me} to go myself’(2.110) Marat
Bulat-nï[PRO {berüz-e/ *berüz-en-ä}
Marat.NOM Bulat-ACC PRO oneself-POSS .3. NOM / *oneself-POSS .3- DAT
joqla-rGa] künder-de
sleep-INF persuade-PST.3‘Marat persuaded Bulat to sleep by himself (alone).’Second, the grammatical condition of the Tatar DatInf construction resembles that of the control
with adjectival predicates discussed in the previous section. That is, it is not generally accepted for
non-AGENT NPs to be the sentence-initial dative argument (cf. Table 2.1), whereas it is possible inRussian (2.111). This less subject-like characteristic supports Fleisher’s (2006) hypothesis that thedative argument in the DatInf construction is an internal argument of the phonetically null predicate.
Therefore, the structure of the Tatar DatInf (2.112) can be written out as Figure 2.24. Namely, (i) the
DatInf construction in Tatar has a biclausal structure; (ii) the main predicate is phonetically null in thepresent tense; (iii) the dative argument originates as an internal argument of the main null predicate
and is moved to the specifier of TP by virtue of the EPP; (iv) the dative argument controls the PRO in
the infinitival clause; (v) the PRO is structurally nominative.
52

2.4 Interlude: Dative–Infinitive Construction

Exam No. B197769(2.111) Russian (Timberlake, 2004)by-t’groze!
be-INF thunder.DAT. SG‘There will be thunder!’(2.112) Marat-qa kit-ärgä Ø
Marat-DAT leave-INF PRED
‘Marat must leave!’
TP
T

Marat-qa

T

PredP
Pred

TP
PRO . NOM

T

⟨Marat-qa⟩ ØkitärgäFigure 2.24: The tree structure of (2.112).
The biclausal analysis of the Tatar DatInf is also favorable to analyze a double negation in (2.113).
In this case, each negation phrase is inserted after T following the Hierarchy of Projections T > Neg> PRED, where PRED includes functional categories v and Pred.
(2.113) Zaripov (2013)[PRO eč-mäskä]Øtügel, ([PRO iser-mäskä]Ø)PRO drink- NEG . INF PRED NEG
PRO
get.drunk-NEG . INF PRED
‘It is not that one shouldn’t drink, it is that one should not get drunk’
Last but not least, the assumption that the DatInf constructions in Tatar involve a phoneticallynull predicate can solve the problem of non-compositionality of meaning. If we take a view thatthe meaning of a sentence is constructed by applying the meaning of each constituent, the DatInf
construction is problematic because there is no overt lexical source of the modal meaning. Although
Bailyn’s (2004) monoclausal analysis accounts for the compositionality with the hypothesis that an
unpronounced C has a feature of some modality, it is not very clear why C itself is responsible forthe modality because C is typically filled by a complementizer.10 By assuming a null predicate, we
can interpret that the null predicate is lexically responsible for the modal meaning just like overt
predicates.
10
The view that C can be responsible for the modal feature might be related to the verbal morphosyntax of subjunctives
in several Indo-European languages. For example, French subjunctives seem to have a strong relationship with the natureof an embedded CP under que with a subjectified meaning.

53

2.5 Summary of this chapter

Exam No. B197769

TP
T

proi

T

NegP
PredP

tügel
Pred

TP
AP

T

PRO i

T

NegP
vP
⟨PRO⟩

Neg
v

Pred

⟨pro⟩ Øečmäskä⟨eč-+NEG⟩⟨eč-⟩

Figure 2.25: The structure of (2.113).

2.5

Summary of this chapter

The peculiar fact that we saw as the first observation of these constructions was that, although kiräk
and tiješ share the more or less similar deontic meaning, they are superficially different in casemarking, where kiräk is accompanied by a dative (pseudo-)subject and tiješ by a nominative subject.
To this issue, this chapter has given an answer that these constructions are in fact of different kinds.
Specifically, the infinitival construction with kiräk is involves control, while tiješ triggers subjectto-subject raising. In addition, this chapter provided a descriptive report of control with nominal
predicates: röxsät, waqït, isäp, nijät, mäslixät. The functional use of these Tatar nouns in the control
construction itself is a newly reported phenomenon that has not been discussed in the descriptive
grammars of Tatar. Categorizing these nouns in two types, the chapter further gave theoretical analyses
as to why these constructions are instances of control, how their control syntactically works, and how
it can be derived consistently within the framework of Minimalist syntax.
It is also worth mentioning the chapter revealed that the non-verbal control constructions syntactically resemble the DatInf construction in Tatar. Section 2.4 showed that, with the comparison to54

2.5 Summary of this chapter

Exam No. B197769

the similar DatInf construction found in Russian, the Tatar DatInf construction is best analyzed as
biclausal, where the dative oblique argument of a null predicate in the main clause controls the PROof the subordinate clause.

55

Chapter 3

Mermaid Construction: Control andRaising with a Nominal Predicate
In the previous chapter, we dived into control and raising constructions with non-verbal predicatesin Tatar. Above all, it was an interesting finding that several control constructions employ noun
predicates: röxsät, waqït, isäp, nijät, mäslixät. While it is common to find control constructions witha verbal or adjectival predicate across languages, those with a nominal predicate are understudied
linguistic phenomena, though of course it is no wonder to find such a construction given that nouns
can constitute a one-place predicate just like adjectives. Upon an attempt to theoretically account for
the idiosyncratic syntactic phenomena, it is often helpful to look for similar cases in other languages.
That is, are there any similar constructions in other languages?
A keyword in this chapter is the Mermaid Construction. The main argument of this chapter isthat the control constructions with a noun predicate we saw in the previous chapter can be integrated
with the study of the Mermaid Construction — or the latter be integrated with the former. Section 3.1
will concisely explain what the Mermaid Constructions are and provide an overview of the descriptive
studies on them that have been accumulated so far and Tsunoda’s (2020a) monoclausalist hypothesis
thereof. In doing so, we aim to confirm that the syntactic phenomenology of the Tatar nominal control
predicates proves to be part of the crosslinguistically reported Mermaid Constructions. In Section 3.2,
by comparing raising and control with the Mermaid Constructions generally, I will further argue that
the Mermaid Constructions consist of not only control constructions but also raising constructions.
This is a fundamentally opposing argument to the monoclausal analysis, because raising and control
have a biclausal structure assuming that they have an embedded TP. Then, section 3.3, in favor of
the biclausal analysis, provides direct counterarguments against the monoclausality of the Mermaid
Constructions. Sections 3.4 and 3.5 further argue for the biclausalist hypothesis of the Mermaid
Constructions as raising and control. The former section demonstrates that semantics of the Mermaid
Constructions are the same as that of raising and control by deriving their scopal (un)ambiguity withan existential quantifier. Then, the latter juxtaposes the nature of Mermaid Constructions with raisingand control in the study of grammaticalization.

56

3.1 Overview of Mermaid Construction

3.1

Exam No. B197769

Overview of Mermaid Construction

Mermaid Construction, coined by the linguist Tasaku Tsunoda (2011, 2012, 2020a), is a constructionthat typically has the form shown in (3.1). Though there are crosslinguistic differences, the Clause’s
verb is usually in a non-finite form, and the accompanying noun predicate consists of a noun and a
copula. Note that the structure in (3.1) does not specify the linear order of each element, and the ordercan vary in accord with language-specific word order. At least, Tsunoda (2020a) assumes that theClause’s verb and the noun are linearly adjacent and they compose a “compound predicate”, which
we will argue against in detail in Section 3.2.
Even though the structure looks like a nominal sentence lacking a finite verb, it is semanticallysimilar to a verbal sentence with some auxiliary meaning. An example of Mermaid Constructions inJapanese is given in (3.2).1 If we take it as a sentence containing a noun predicate which a verb phrase
adnominally modifies, it would literally mean “Hanako is the feeling to grill the fish”, which is notwhat (3.2) truly means.
(3.1) [(Non-finite) Clause] + Noun (+ Copula)(3.2) Japanese (< Japonic); Japan; SOV
Hanako=ga
sakana=wo yak-u
ki=daHanako=NOM fish=ACC
grill-NPST. ADN feeling(N)=COP‘Hanako intends to grill the fish. (lit. Hanako is the feeling to grill the fish.)’In fact, the Mermaid Construction shown in (3.2) is not the same as a sentence with a typicalnominal predicate like in (3.3). Compare the sentences in (3.2) and (3.3). In (3.2), the nominal
predicate is not coreferential with the subject, as succinctly represented in semantic notation in (3.4).
On the other hand, in the typical nominal predicate sentence (3.3), the denotation of an individual“Hanako” is included in the denotation of the nominal predicate (a set of individuals who grill thefish), as formalized in (3.5).
(3.3) Japanese
Hanako=ga[sakana=wo yak-u]
hito=daHanako=NOM person=ACC grill-NPST. ADN person=COP‘Hanako is the person who grills the fish.’(3.4) JHanakoK ⊈ Jfeeling-to-grill-the-fishK (3.4)(3.5) JHanakoK ⊆ Jperson-who-grills-the-fishK (3.5)
1

Tsunoda (2011) notes that the construction is named "Mermaid Construction" because the [Clause] looks like a verbal
sentence while the part outside the [Clause] looks like a nominal sentence. However, this is a confusing naming because of
the following two reasons. First, the [Clause] does not look like a verbal sentence because it is not a finite verbal clause but
is non-finite in most of the cases. Second, metaphorical usage of “mermaid”, with the upper body of human and the tail offish, creates a false concept that the construction consists of two linearly organized parts, a verbal part and a nominal part.
However, a crosslinguistic scrutiny reveals that the elements can be coordinated in a more complex manner.

57

3.1 Overview of Mermaid Construction

3.1.1

Exam No. B197769

Crosslinguistic Data

Mermaid Constructions are found in languages across language families. Tsunoda (2020a), a crosslinguistic descriptive study of the Mermaid Constructions, mentions a tendency that the distribution of
the Mermaid Constructions is concentrated in languages of Asia, in particular of East Asia, as listedin (3.7)-(3.14). The examples below show the language’s name with its genetic group, chiefly spoken
area, canonical word order, and the data source.
(3.6) Mitsukaido dialect (< Japanese < Japonic); Ibaraki (Japan); SOV (Sasaki, 2020)
are{=Ø
/ =wa / =Na/ =no} uresiNar-u
segi=zja=nee
3SG = NOM / = TOP / = POSS / = GEN be.pleased=NPST seat=COP. IRR = NEG . NPST
‘S/he has no right to be pleased.’(3.7) Irabu (< Miyako < Ryukyuan < Japonic); Irabu (Japan); SOV (Shimoji, 2020)
kai=ga=du
sac=n
idi-r
kutu
3SG = NOM = FOC first=DAT go_out-ADN . NPST thing‘“S/he should go first”’(3.8) Korean (< Koreanic); Korean Peninsula; SOV (Kim, 2020)
chinkwu=ka ilpon=ey
ka-l
yeyceng=i-ta
friend=NOM Japan=DAT go-ADN . PROS plan=COP - DECL‘“(My) friend is going to Japan.”’(3.9) Amdo Tibetan (< Tibeto-Burman < Sino-Tibetan); Amdo (China); SOV (Ebihara, 2020)
aréa=k@nor ptsoN-éu
ntCh arý@ rE
father=ERG yak sell.IPFV- NMLZ . GEN plan
COP. B‘“(My) father plans to sell yaks.”’(3.10) Burmese (< Tibeto-Burman < Sino-Tibetan); Myanmar; SOV (Kato, 2020)
dì híð=gò
sá=dÊ
póuð(=bÉ)”tù
3 SG this curry=KO eat=ADN shape(=EMP)‘“It seems that s/he ate this curry”’(3.11) Kurukh (< North Dravidian < Dravidian); East India; SOV (Kobayashi & Tsunoda, 2020)
a:s-hi:tamba-s-in
ilc-ka:caããe:
rahc-a:3 SG . M - GEN own.father-M - ACC fear.PS - PST. VADJ necessity COP. PS - PST.3 SG . NM‘“It was because he was scared of his father.”’(3.12) Sidaama (< Cushitic < Afroasiatic); Sidaama Region (Ethiopia); SOV (Kawachi, 2020)
íse
faraššó
guluf-f-annó
gara-a=ti
3 SG . F. NOM horse.ACCOBL ride-3 SG . F - IPFV.3 manner-LV = NPC . PRED . MOD‘“She seems to ride a horse (habitually)”’(3.13) Tagalog (< Malayo-Polynesian < Austronesian); Philippines; VSO (Katagiri, 2020)
plano ni=Noyna b‹um›isita
sa=Davao bukas
plan GEN=Noy LK visit‹AF : INF› OBL=Davao tomorrow‘‘Noy plans to go to Davao.”
58

3.1 Overview of Mermaid Construction

Exam No. B197769(3.14) Bengali (< Indo-Iranian < Indo-European); Bangladesh , West Bengal (India); SOV(Huziwara, 2018)
tar
jawar
kOth a.tokio=te
3 SG . GEN Tokyo=LOC go.NMLZ . GEN word‘“It is planned that he will go to Tokyo.”’
Nevertheless, it turns out that the following three languages (3.15)-(3.17), unreported in Tsunoda(2020a), also have similar constructions. None of these languages is a language of East Asia, but theyshare in common the feature of the Mermaid Constructions where the non-finite clause is subordinate
to the nominal predicate. Furthermore, if we presuppose that these examples, particularly of Russianand Welsh, are Mermaid Constructions, they are counterexamples against Tsunoda’s (2020a) assumption that the verb and the noun are adjacent in the word order to compose a compound predicate.
(3.15) Tatar (< Kipchak < Turkic); Tatarstan (Russia); SOV
siNa
joqla-rGa röxsät
2 SG . DAT sleep-INF permission‘“You are allowed to sleep.”’(3.16) Russian (< Slavic < Indo-European); Russia; SVO
pora nampogovorit’
time 1 PL . DAT PFV:talk:INF‘“It is time for us to talk.”’(3.17) Welsh (< Celtic < Indo-European); Wales (United Kingdom); VSO
gynnargodi’n
i fi
rhaid
godi
yn gynnar
i fi
rhaid
necessity to 1 SG wake_up in early‘“I need to wake up early”’
Therefore, though it is true that languages found to have these constructions so far seem to centeraround Asia, these kinds of constructions are not necessarily an areal phenomenon, but can be foundin languages that are unlikely to have had language contact.

3.1.2

Marginal examples of the Mermaid Construction

The Mermaid Constructions we have seen have a morphologically full noun in the predicate. However,Tsunoda (2020a) also includes related examples that do not have a morphologically full noun but
involves a clitic or an affix grammaticalized from a noun or a nominalized form of a verb. Though we
do not delve into these types of constructions in this thesis, it generally remains of interest whether it
is part of the Mermaid Constructions.
Case 1: The noun is grammaticalized into a clitic or an affix
The examples below show the grammaticalization process of a full Mermaid Construction noun in
Early Middle Japanese sama (3.18), through a reportative evidential clitic in Modern Japanese =soo
59

3.1 Overview of Mermaid Construction

Exam No. B197769(3.19), to an inferential evidential suffix in Modern Japanese -soo (3.20). Although the latter two
examples are not canonical types of the Mermaid Constructions in the sense that they do not havean independent Mermaid Construction noun, they can be treated as continuous phenomena to the
Mermaid Constructions (see Section 3.5 for more details).
(3.18) Early Middle Japanese (Tsunoda 2020a; originally from The Tale of the Bamboo Cutter (9–10th century AD)
tune=yori=momono-omop-i-tar-usama=nar-i
usual=ABL = ETOP thing-think-LINK - STAT- NPST. ADN appearance=COP - NPST. DECL‘(Princess Kaguya) seems/appears to be in deeper thought than usual.’(3.19) Japanese (Tsunoda, 2020a)
Hanako=ga
Ezinbara=ni
ik-u=soo=daHanako=NOM Edinburgh=DAT go-NPST. ADN = REPORT = COP. NPST. DECL‘(I heard that) Hanako will go to Edinburgh.’(3.20) Japanese (Tsunoda, 2020a)
Hanako=ga
Ezinbara=ni
ik-i-soo=daHanako=NOM Edinburgh=DAT go-LINK - INF - INFER = COP‘It seems/appears that Hanako will go to Edinburgh.’
Case 2: The predicate is a nominalized verb
Some languages mentioned in Tsunoda (2020a) also include nominalized verbal predicate as part of
the Mermaid Constructions (3.21)–(3.23). These do not have any morphologically independent noun,
but the verb is nominalized and adds to the sentence some grammatical meaning.
(3.21) Japanese
Hanako=gakonokaree=wo taber-u=no=da
Hanako=NOM this.ADN curry=ACC eat-NPST. ADN = NMLZ = COP. NPST. DECL‘(It is the case that) Hanako eats this curry.’(3.22) Burmese (Kato, 2020)
dì híð=gòsá=dà”tù
3 SG this curry=KO eat=NMLZ . RLS‘(It is the case that) s/he eats this curry.’(3.23) Hindi (< Indo-Iranian < Indo-European); India; SOV (Yasunari, 2020)mãı̃ yuunivarsit.ii jaa-ne=vaalaahũũ
1 SG university
go-INF. OBL = NMLZ . M . SG COP. PRS .1 SG‘I am about to go to the university.’
Case 3: The predicate is an adjectivalized noun
This marginal type of the Mermaid Constructions does not have a full noun but a noun adjectivalized
by a proprietive suffix. The proprietive suffix N-PROP means “having N”, and this type of construction is reported in Mongolian (3.24) and Sakha (3.25), for example. Though they are treated as60

3.1 Overview of Mermaid Construction

Exam No. B197769

quasi-Mermaid Constructions in Tsunoda (2020a), I do not consider them so, because they have an
adjectival predicate but not a nominal predicate, which is characteristic to the canonical Mermaid
Constructions. Also, they do not seem to exhibit a similar kind of the peculiar behavior both in syntax
and semantics. They are just an adjectival predicate derived from a noun, and their semantics also
seems to be normally compositional, as can be confirmed in the literal translation.
(3.24) Mongolian (< Mongolic); Mongolia; SOV (Umetani, 2020)bimargaaš xödöö
jav-a-x
tölövlögöö-tej baj-na
1 SG . NOM tomorrow countryside go-EP - VN . NPST plan-PROP
be-TV. NPST
‘I am planning to go to the countryside tomorrow. (lit. I am with the plan to go to thecountryside tomorrow.)’(3.25) Sakha (< Turkic); Yakutia (Russia); SOV (Ebata, 2020)mintokio-Ka
bar-arbWlaan-naax-pWn
1 SG . NOM Tokyo-DAT go-PTCP. PRS plan-PROP - COP.1 SG‘I plan to go to Tokyo. (lit. I am with the plan to go to Tokyo.)’

3.1.3

Tatar nominal control predicates as Mermaid Constructions

We have covered the descriptive overview of the Mermaid Constructions. When we turn back to
the control constructions with a nominal predicate in Tatar that we saw in Chapter 2, we notice thestructural similarity between the two constructions. Namely, both constructions have the followingform:(3.26) (Subject or AGENT) + [Non-finite Clause] + Noun (+ Copula)
In addition, it is also similar that both constructions contribute to some grammatical meaning, inparticular modality. We saw in Section 2.3.2 that the meaning of nominal control constructions in
Tatar is modality (röxsät, waqït, and mäslixät) and intentionality (isäp and nijät). Thus, we claim thatthe nominal control constructions in Tatar are part of the Mermaid Constructions. From this section
on, we continue our discussion assuming that this claim is plausible.

3.1.4

Tsunoda’s Monoclausal Analysis of the Mermaid Constructions

Tsunoda (2020a) analyzes the Mermaid Constructions as having a monoclausal structure. In the construction, the predicate in the rightmost or leftmost of the (pseudo-)Clause, the Mermaid Construction
noun, and optionally a copula constitute a compound predicate. (3.27) illustrates a general form of
the Mermaid Constructions in this monoclausalist view, where the underlined components are a compound predicate.
(3.27) Subject ... Pred N (Copula)
Several authors in Tsunoda (2020a) presents evidence for the monoclausality of the construction(Kawachi, 2020; Kim, 2020; Sasaki, 2020; Tsunoda, 2020b). For example, for the Mermaid Constructions of Japanese, Tsunoda (2020a) demonstrates that both Pred + N and N + Copula form an
61

3.2 Mermaid Constructions as Control and Raising

Exam No. B197769

inseparable unit, and therefore Pred, N, and Copula together form a single compound predicate. For
the former unit, it is confirmed that Pred and N cannot be intervened by any element, such as an
adnominal adjective (compare (3.28) and (3.29)). As for the latter unit, it is impossible to insert anindependent lexical phrase (e.g., AP or NP) between N and Copula.
(3.28) Japanese
tsuyo-iki
strong-NPST. ADN feeling‘strong feeling’(3.29) Japanese
Hanako=ga
Ezinbara=ni
ik-u(*tsuyo-i)ki=daHanako=NOM Edinburgh=DAT go-NPST. ADN strong-NPST. ADN feeling=COP. NPST. DECL‘(intended:) Hanako (strongly) intends to go to Edinburgh.’

3.2

Mermaid Constructions as Control and Raising

We saw in Chapter 2 that the five nouns röxsät, waqït, isäp, nijät, mäslixät can be control predicateswith an infinitival clause. Next, the previous section introduced the Mermaid Constructions (Tsunoda,
2020a)) and positioned those nominal control predicates as part of the Mermaid Constructions. Then,
can other canonical Mermaid Constructions be treated as control? The following subsections argue
that, while some of the Mermaid Constructions are control, others are raising.

3.2.1

Mermaid Constructions as control

This subsection will see if the treatment of the Mermaid Constructions as control that we saw in Tataralso holds true for other Mermaid Constructions. Since it is realistically difficult to analyze all of the
Mermaid Constructions we saw in Section 3.1, we chiefly puts a focus on the Mermaid Constructionsin Japanese, because Tsunoda (2020a) mentions that it is the language with the largest number ofreported Mermaid Construction predicates.
Recall the Mermaid Construction noun ki mentioned in the previous section (3.2). It is a morphologically independent noun that means “feeling”, but when it is used in the Mermaid Construction, itmeans that the subject is intending to do something. We assume that ki is a nominal control predicate;namely, the embedded clause has a phonetically null syntactic argument PRO anaphorically bound by
an argument in the main clause (3.30). In order to check if this is also a kind of control, we apply theclassic diagnostics for distinguishing control and raising: the passivization test and the idiom chunk
test.
(3.30) Japanese
Hanakoi =ga [PROi/∗j Taroo=o tatak-u]
ki=daHanako=NOM PRO
Taro=ACC hit-ADN . NPST feeling=COP. NPST. DECL
‘Hanako intends to hit Taro. (lit. Hanako is the feeling to hit Taro.)’62

3.2 Mermaid Constructions as Control and Raising

Exam No. B197769

Passivization test for ki
The diagnostics of the passivization test are that a predicate is triggering raising if passivizing theembedded verb does not change the semantic role relation of the (main) subject and the (embedded)
object, otherwise it is control. Sentence (3.31) is a passivized counterpart of (3.30). The subject
Hanako is demoted to an oblique argument in the embedded clause, and Taro is promoted to thesubject of the main clause. As is evident by the comparison of their free translation, the semantic role
relation changes after the passivization. While (3.30) has Hanako as both the hitter (the AGENT of hit)and the intender (the AGENT of intend), (3.31) has Hanako as just the hitter, and it is now Taro who is
the intender (see Table 3.1 for a visual comparison). Therefore, the Japanese Mermaid Construction
noun ki has a control-like syntactic behavior.
(3.31) Japanese
Taroo=ga Hanako=ni tatak-are-ru
ki=da
Taro=NOM Hanako=DAT hit-PASS - ADN . NPST feeling=COP. NPST. DECL
‘Taro intends to be hit by Hanako. (lit. Taro is the feeling to be hit by Hanako.)’

Voice
Active (3.30)
Passive (3.31

hit(AGENT, PATIENT)AGENT PATIENT
Hanako Taro
Hanako Taro

INTEND (AGENT )AGENTHanakoTaro

Table 3.1: A comparison of the thematic relation in (3.30) and (3.31).

Idiom chunk test for ki
An idiom is an expression with a figurative meaning that is not compositional. As we saw in the
beginning of Chapter 2, the idiom chunk test judges that a predicate is raising if changing the copularelement to the predicate does not lose the non-literal idiomatic meaning. We apply this test to theJapanese Mermaid Construction noun ki. Sentence (3.32) is a Japanese idiom that literally means“the legs become sticks” but idiomatically mean “one gets exhausted”. As expected, the Mermaid
Construction with ki fails this test (3.33).
(3.32) Japanese
asi=gaboo=ninar-u
leg=NOM stick=DAT become-NPST. DECL‘(One) gets exhausted by some leg-related physical activity (lit. the legs become sticks)’(3.33) Japanese
asi=gaboo=ninar-u
ki=da
leg=NOM stick=DAT become-NPST. ADN feeling=COP. NPST. DECL‘The legs intend to become sticks / *One intends to get exhausted’
Other Japanese Mermaid Construction predicates that behave similarly to control include tumori“intention” and ikoo “intention”.
63

3.3 Counterarguments to the Monoclausal Hypothesis

3.2.2

Exam No. B197769

Mermaid Constructions as raising

Mermaid Constructions we have analyzed in Japanese and Tatar have the traits of the control construction. Then, can all the Mermaid Constructions be reanalyzed as control? As the following data
show, the answer is no. Some Mermaid Construction nouns such as yotei in Japanese pass both thepassivization test (3.35) and the idiom chunk test (3.36).
(3.34) Japanese
Hanako=ga
Taroo=o tatak-u
yotei=daHanako=NOM Taro=ACC hit=NPST. ADN plan(N)=COP. NPST. DECL
‘Hanako is going to hit Taro.’(3.35) Japanese
Taroo=ga Hanako=ni tatak-are-ru
yotei=da
Taro=NOM Hanako=DAT hit-PASS - NPST. ADN plan=COP. NPST. ADN‘Taro is going to be hit by Hanako.’(3.36) Japanese
asi=gaboo=ninar-uyotei=da
leg=NOM stick=DAT become-NPST. ADN plan=COP. NPST. DECL
‘One is going to be exhausted (by some leg-related physical activity)’
The data show that Mermaid Construction predicates like yotei behave similarly to raising predicates. In other words, yotei does not directly subcategorize for any semantic argument, and subordination with yotei does not affect the thematic relation of the arguments. It seems that most Mermaid
Construction nouns in Japanese are of the raising type, for example tokoro “place” (progressive aspect), mono “thing” (habitual aspect), kimari “regulation” (deontic modality), moyoo “appearance,
pattern” (epistemic modality), katati “shape” (epistemic modality), etc.
The claim that the Mermaid Constructions are in fact either control or raising is an updated view
from Taguchi (2021), which argues that they are chiefly raising based on the Japanese data. A further
investigation of the nature of the Mermaid Constructions in this thesis has revealed that some of themdo have an agentive semantic argument like a control verb.

3.3

Counterarguments to the Monoclausal Hypothesis

If we take a position that the Mermaid Constructions are control and raising constructions with a noun,
it almost automatically follows that the Mermaid Constructions are biclausal, given the assumptionthat an infinitival clause is headed by T.2 This is an opposing argument to the monoclausal hypothesis(3.37) proposed in Tsunoda (2020a).

2
Again, our argument at this point excludes smaller infinitival phrases (vP and VP) known as restructuring (Wurmbrand,2001). However, we are not to abandon the possibility of a restructuring analysis for the Mermaid Constructions. This topic
is left for future work.

643.3 Counterarguments to the Monoclausal Hypothesis

Exam No. B197769(3.37) M ONOCLAUSAL H YPOTHESIS OF THE M ERMAID C ONSTRUCTIONS:
Mermaid Constructions have a monoclausal structure where a verb, a Mermaid Construction
noun, and optionally a copula constitute one compound predicate. That is, the Mermaid
Constructions do not have two predicates but one.
Sticking with our analyses so far, we argue against this monoclausal hypothesis, and propose thebiclausal analysis of the Mermaid Constructions (3.3).
(3.38) B ICLAUSAL H YPOTHESIS OF THE M ERMAID C ONSTRUCTIONS:
Mermaid Constructions have a biclausal structure where the Mermaid Construction noun,
together with a copula in some languages, constitute the main predicate, and the non-finite
clause is the subordinate clause.

3.3.1

Alternative explanation with the Biclausal Hypothesis

In the Japanese Mermaid Constructions, Tsunoda (2020a) argues for the monoclausal hypothesis
based mainly on the evidence in Japanese syntax. There are several points that he makes as theevidence for their monoclausality.
NOM / GEN alternation

First, in Japanese, it is possible to alternate the nominative suffix =ga and the genitive suffix =no inan adnominal clause (3.39). However, this is not the case in the Mermaid Constructions; the genitive
subject is not allowed (3.40). From this fact, Tsunoda (2020a) argues that the bracketed phrase in(3.40) is not an adnominal clause.
(3.39) Japanesepro [Hanako{=ga/=no} sakana=o yak-u]
nioi=dapro Hanako=NOM/GEN fish=ACC grill-NPST. ADN smell=COP. NPST. DECL‘(It is) the smell that (comes from where) Hanako grills the fish.’(3.40) Japanese[Hanako{=ga/*=no} sakana=o yak-u]{ki/yotei}=daHanako=NOM/GEN fish=ACC grill-NPST. ADN feeling/plan=COP. NPST. DECL
‘Hanako {intends to/is going to} grill the fish.’
Second, Tsunoda (2020a) points out that the Mermaid Constructions are monoclausal because it
is possible to put a focus on the subject with clefting in the Japanese Mermaid Constructions (3.42),
while the clefting focus is not possible with an adnominal clause (3.41).
(3.41) Japanese[*ti sakana=o yak-u]
nioi=na=no=wa
fish=ACC grill-NPST. ADN smell=COP. NPST. ADN = NMLZ = TOP
Hanakoi =da
Hanako=COP. NPST. DECL
65

3.3 Counterarguments to the Monoclausal Hypothesis

Exam No. B197769(3.42) Japanese[ti sakana=o yak-u]{ki/yotei}=na=no=wa
fish=ACC grill-NPST. ADN feeling/plan=COP. NPST. ADN = NMLZ = TOP
Hanakoi =da
Hanako=COP. NPST. DECL
‘It is Hanako who {intends to/is going to} grill the fish.’
Last but not least, Tsunoda (2020a) argues that the Mermaid Constructions are monoclausal because they can have only one subject, while an adnominal clause can have a subject for each predicate.
In (3.43), another nominative argument kore=ga can stand as the subject of the main predicate. In(3.44), in contrast, if we add the same nominative argument, the Mermaid Construction reading islost, and it is interpreted only in the literal meaning.
(3.43) Japanese
kore=ga [Hanako{=ga/=no} sakana=o yak-u]
nioi=dathis=NOM Hanako=NOM/GEN fish=ACC grill-NPST. ADN smell=COP. NPST. DECL‘This is the smell that (comes from where) Hanako grills the fish.’(3.44) Japanese
kore=ga [Hanako{=ga/*=no} sakana=o yak-u]{ki/yotei}=da
this=NOM Hanako=NOM/GEN fish=ACC grill-NPST. ADN feeling/plan=COP. NPST. DECL‘*Hanako {intends to/is going to} grill the fish. /This is the feeling/plan for Hanako to grill the fish.’From these points, Tsunoda (2020a) concludes that the Mermaid Constructions in Japanese do
not involve an adnominal clause, but has a monoclausal structure with a compound predicate of theadjacent verb and noun. Nevertheless, these points can also be explained by the biclausal analysis. To
begin with, these mentioned differences only demonstrate that the subject belongs to the main clause,and they are not direct evidence for the monoclausality. In the biclausal hypothesis, the overt subject
is in the main clause, either as a controller or as a raised subject. Therefore, the restriction of the=ga/=no alternation is a natural consequence (cf. (3.45)). In addition, even if the sentence contains
an adnominal clause, it is possible to make a cleft sentence if the dislocated argument is the main
subject (3.46). The impossibility of having two subjects in (3.44) is just because the subject of theadnominal clause is either a covert PRO or a dislocated trace.
(3.45) Japanese
Hanakoi {=ga/*=no} [{PROi /ti } sakana=o yak-u]{ki/yotei}=daHanako=NOM/GEN
fish=ACC grill-NPST. ADN feeling/plan=COP. NPST. DECL
‘Hanako {intends to/is going to} grill the fish.’(3.46) Japanese[ti [Hanako=ga sakana=o yak-u]
nioi=na]=no=wa
Hanako=NOM fish=ACC grill-NPST. ADN smell=COP. NPST. ADN = NMLZ = TOP
kore=dathis=COP. NPST. DECL
‘It is this that is the smell which (comes from where) Hanako grills the fish.’66

3.3 Counterarguments to the Monoclausal Hypothesis

Exam No. B197769

The evidence that the subject of the adnominal clause is either a PRO or raised can be confirmed by
the optional honorification agreement, which is known as a subjecthood test for Japanese (Matsumoto,n.d.).3 Sentences (3.47)–(3.49) are all grammatical. That is, the optional honorification agreement
can be morphologically expressed on either the embedded verb, the (main predicate) noun, or both.
Therefore, if we assume that this construction has a compound predicate, it is not clear how twocomponents of a predicate can agree with the subject independently. It is more plausible that thepredicates work morphosyntactically independently rather than compose a compound predicate andthat they share the same subject.
(3.47) Japanese
Hanakoi =sama=ga [{ti / PROi } Ezinbara=ni
irassyar-u]
Hanako=HON = NOM
Edinburgh=DAT come.HON - NPST. ADN{yotei/tumori}=daplan/intention=COP. NPST. DECL
‘Hanako {is going to/intends to} come to Edinburgh (the speaker is showing a respect toHanako)’(3.48) Japanese
Hanakoi =sama=ga [{ti / PROi } Ezinbara=ni
kuru]
Hanako=HON = NOM
Edinburgh=DAT come.NPST. ADN{go-yotei/o-tumori}=da
HON-plan/ HON -intention= COP. NPST. DECL
‘Hanako {is going to/intends to} come to Edinburgh (the speaker is showing a respect toHanako)’(3.49) Japanese
Hanakoi =sama=ga [{ti / PROi } Ezinbara=ni
irassyar-u]
Hanako=HON = NOM
Edinburgh=DAT come.HON - NPST. ADN{go-yotei/o-tumori}=da
HON -plan/ HON -intention= COP. NPST. DECL
‘Hanako {is going to/intends to} come to Edinburgh (the speaker is showing a respect toHanako)’3.3.2

Other problems in the Monoclausal Hypothesis

The Monoclausal Hypothesis by Tsunoda (2020a) contains other problems than the compound predicate analysis. One issue is the strong assumption that the Clause is finite. As is admitted in Tsunoda(2020a), there are already a number of exceptions to this assumption. For example, when the embedded predicate is an adjectival noun predicate, which is a subclass of adjectival predicates, it appears in
the adnominal form, which is distinct from the finite declarative form (cf. (3.50) and (3.51).
(3.50) Japanese
Hanako=ga
genki=daHanako=NOM fine=COP. NPST. DECL
‘Hanako is fine.’
3

I am grateful to Chen Xie (p.c.) for suggesting this diagnosis.

673.4 Syntax–Semantics Interface of the Mermaid Constructions

Exam No. B197769(3.51) Japanese
Hanako=ga
genki=nayotei=daHanako=NOM fine=COP. NPST. ADN plan=COP. NPST. DECL
‘Hanako is going to be fine.’
In addition, we have already confirmed in Section 3.1 that most of the Mermaid Constructions
crosslinguistically take a non-finite clause, though there are typological differences in what non-finite
form they take, as illustrated in Table 3.2. The assumption that what seems to be the embedded
clause is in fact a finite form might be a Japanese-centric confusion coming from the fact that theadnominal and declarative forms in Modern Standard Japanese are morphologically the same in theverbal paradigm.
Form
Adnominal
Nominalized
Infinitival
Adjectivalized

Languages
Japanese?, Mitsukaido Japanese?, Irabu Ryukyuan, Korean, Burmese, Sidaama?
Amdo Tibetan, Bengali
Tagalog, Tatar, Russian, Welsh
KurukhTable 3.2: A comparison of the forms of embedded predicates in the Mermaid Constructions. Languages with a question mark ‘?’ mean that the form is by and large ambiguous with their finite(declarative) form.

3.4

Syntax–Semantics Interface of the Mermaid Constructions

Previous sections have syntactically analyzed the Mermaid Constructions as having a biclausal structure similar to the raising and control constructions. In turn, this section focuses on the semantics ofthe Mermaid Constructions. Specifically, employing a formal approach to semantics, it will demonstrate that the Mermaid Constructions can be treated as part of raising and control at least based on thedata in Japanese.4 Upon the proofs with semantic derivations, we utilize Glue semantics, a framework
for the analysis of semantic composition at the syntax-semantics interface (Asudeh, 2022; Dalrymple et al., 2019). Glue has chiefly been developed in Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG), but it isdesigned to be valid for any syntactic theories that assume syntactic heads. Though we do not diveinto the details of the introduction to Glue, readers with basic knowledge of logic and formal semantics should be able to follow the arguments henceforth, as LFG-specific theoretical devices such as
f-structure will not be crucial to the points in this section. For detailed explanations and definitions,see the aforementioned literature.

3.4.1

Semantic scopes of raising and control

Raising and control are known to exhibit a difference in the semantic scope of an existential quantifier(Dalrymple et al., 2019). Compare the sentences (3.52) and (3.53) below.
4

We focus on the data in Japanese, not Tatar, because no raising Mermaid Construction has been found in Tatar.

683.4 Syntax–Semantics Interface of the Mermaid Constructions

Exam No. B197769(3.52) Someone seemed to yawn. (raising)(3.53) Someone tried to yawn. (control)
In (3.52), there are two possible readings. One reading is to assume that there is a specific person
and he or she seemed to yawn. In this case, the existence of the person is a prerequisite, but it ispossible that they did not yawn in fact. The other reading is that it seemed to be the case a person
yawned. This reading does not presuppose a specific person, and there could actually be nobody inthe situation. Let us call the former reading wide scope interpretation because the existential scope
spreads to the whole, and the latter reading narrow scope interpretation because the existential scopeis under the scope of the evidential modality. In the formal semantic notation, this scopal difference
can be represented as in (3.54) and (3.55), respectively.
(3.54) Wide scope interpretation: exist(x, person(x), seem(yawn(x)))(3.55) Narrow scope interpretation: seem(exist(x, person(x), yawn(x)))
In the case of control (3.53), on the other hand, only the wide scope interpretation of the existential
quantifier is possible (3.56). That is, the sentence only allows the wide scope interpretation that
presupposes the existence of some person, who attempted to yawn. The narrow scope interpretation(3.57), where the yawning attempt was executed impersonally, is impossible in English.5(3.56) Wide scope interpretation: exist(x, person(x), try(x, yawn(x)))(3.57) Narrow scope interpretation: *try(exist(x, person(x), yawn(x)))
Then, how can this scopal difference be derived in denotational semantics? Suppose that we havethe lexicon L = {yawn, someone, seem, try} at hand. For the sake of facilitating the discussion,
we borrow the meaning constructor of each semantic constituent in L used in Dalrymple (2019). A
meaning constructor is a terminology in Glue that consists of a pair of two logical formula separated
by a colon; the left hand side of a meaning constructor is a semantic denotation M in the form oflambda calculus, and the right hand side G instructs how variables should be consumed to deriveanother form based on a syntactic parse (Asudeh, 2022), which works in a similar manner to semantic
types. The linear implication connective is represented by x ⊸ y to mean “to consume x to derivey”, and by and large it works in the same manner as → in linear logic. The list of the lexicon L andtheir meaning constructors is summarized in Table 3.3.6
Now, for wide and narrow scope interpretations, we think of two simplified syntactic-semantic
trees that ignore functional information such as tense and semantic roles for convenience, as illustrated
in Figures 3.1 and 3.2. Note that the linear order of constituents do not reflect the actual word order,
because we do not assume a movement here.
5
6

However, it is certainly not the case in the restructuring infinitival construction in German (Wurmbrand, 2001).
The functional variables e, t, and so on, are not the same as e (entity) t (truth-value) of semantic types.

69

3.4 Syntax–Semantics Interface of the Mermaid Constructions

Exam No. B197769

lexicon L

meaning constructors M : G

yawn
someoneseem
try

λx.yawn(x) : e ⊸ y
λS.exist(x, person(x), S(x)) : ∀H.(e ⊸ H) ⊸ H
λP.seem(P ) : y ⊸ s
λP λx.try(x, P ) : (e ⊸ y) ⊸ (e ⊸ t)

Table 3.3: The semantic denotation of the constituents.
S
VP

DP
someoneV

VP

seem yawn
Figure 3.1: A simplified tree for the wide scope interpretation.

For the wide scope interpretation, we first apply yawn to seem. In doing so, we need to assume
e as the conditional proof assumption (CPA), by which we will obtain yawn(x) : y (cf. Table 3.3)
by the implication elimination. Then, we feed this to seem and get seem(yawn(x)) : s. Since e is an
assumption, we get λx.seem(yawn(x)) : e ⊸ s for Jseem-yawnK. Next, we feed this to someone.

The meaning constructor of someone instructs that it consumes e ⊸ H, where H is any argument,
and returns the same H. Therefore, if we feed e ⊸ s, we will get s. These steps are summarized in(3.58) below.
(3.58) ab

Jseem-yawnK = λx.seem(yawn(x)) : e ⊸ s (CPA)
Jsomeone-seem-yawnK = exist(x, person(x), seem(yawn(x))) : s

The narrow reading is derived from the structure in Figure 3.2. We first apply yawn to someone,
from which we get a truth-conditional form exist(x, person(x), yawn(x)) by the same rule above.
Then, we apply this to seem, and obtain the narrow scope interpretation seem(exist(x, person(x), yawn(x))).
These steps are summarized in (3.59).
(3.59) ab

Jsomeone-yawnK = exist(x, person(x), yawn(x)) : y
Jseem-someone-yawnK = seem(exist(x, person(x), yawn(x))) : s

These semantic compositions predict that the narrow scope interpretation with a control predicate(e.g., try) is impossible, because the instructions in the meaning constructors allows application ofyawn to try but not of someone yawns to try.

70

3.4 Syntax–Semantics Interface of the Mermaid Constructions

Exam No. B197769

S
IP

VP
seem

DP

VP

someone yawn
Figure 3.2: A simplified tree for the narrow scope interpretation.

3.4.2

Predicting the scopal (un)ambiguities of the Mermaid Constructions

Interestingly, scopal (un)ambiguities of the same kind are also found in the Mermaid Constructionsin Japanese. Recall that in previous sections we have argued that yotei is a raising predicate and ki acontrol predicate in Japanese. If this assumption is correct, it must follow that yotei allows both wideand narrow scope interpretation and ki only allows wide scope interpretation. Indeed, this prediction
is correct. In (3.60), there are two possible scopal readings, i.e., wide and narrow. If we take a wide
scope for yotei, its semantic denotation will look like: exist(x, person(x), planned(go(x))), where
there is at least one specific person (say, Hanako, but the speaker does not recognize her) who is goingto go. This is a valid interpretation in Japanese. In contrast, if we take a narrow scope for yotei, its
semantic denotation will be: planned(exist(x, person(x), go(x))), where at least one person is going
but the speaker does not care who. This is also a valid interpretation.
(3.60) Japanesedareka=ga
ik-u
yotei=dasomeone=NOM go-NPST. ADN plan=COP. NPST. DECL
‘Someone is going to go. (raising)’
For the control predicate ki(=da) (3.61), on the other hand, the narrow scope interpretation is not
accepted in Japanese. The interpretation is restricted to a situation where there is a specific person
who intends to go. This observation is in line with the semantic behaviors of raising and control
verbs. Evidently, these behaviors can be semantically derived by assuming the same structure ofmeaning constructors as raising and control. That is, the meaning constructors for yotei (a raisingnoun) and ki (a control noun) should look like Table 3.4.
(3.61) Japanesedareka=ga
ik-u
ki=da
someone=NOM go-NPST. ADN feeling=COP. NPST. DECL
‘Someone intends to go. (control)’713.5 Diachronic Perspectives: Grammaticalization

lexicon L

meaning constructors M : G

yotei
ki

λP.planned(P ) : y ⊸ s
λP λx.intend(x, P ) : (e ⊸ y) ⊸ (e ⊸ t)

Exam No. B197769

Table 3.4: Meaning constructors for yotei and ki in Japanese.

3.5

Diachronic Perspectives: Grammaticalization

The previous section has descriptively shown that the Mermaid Constructions have a syntacticallysimilar structure to control and raising predicates. This section provides a diachronic analysis of the
Mermaid Constructions with a focus on grammaticalization. We argue that, through the comparisonof the degree of grammaticalization happening in Mermaid Constructions and control/raising predicates, the Mermaid Constructions have similar diachronic characteristics to the control and raising
constructions. In particular, our arguments are based on the traits of grammaticalization formalized
by Heine & Kuteva (2002) and Hopper (2003).

3.5.1

Four mechanisms of grammaticalization by Heine & Kuteva (2002)

Heine & Kuteva (2002) mention the following four points as the typical characteristics of grammaticalization phenomena.
1. Desemanticization
A word loses its concrete meaning and is reinterpreted in specific contexts as more abstract,
grammatical meanings.
2. Extension (context generalization)
A word is used in new contexts with newly acquired grammatical meanings.
3. Decategorialization
A word loses its original morphosyntactic properties characteristic of lexical or other less grammaticalized forms.
4. Erosion (phonetic reduction)
A word loses its phonetic substance.
These four concepts are epitomized by the grammaticalization process of the future enclitic =’llin Modern English. In Old English, willan was an independent verb meaning “to want”. In the courseof grammaticalization to =’ll, it has lost the concrete semantics of the action to wish something andgained an abstract function to mark the future tense (desemanticization). At the same time, will(an),originally used to refer to an action or an attitude, is generalized to be also used in a new context torefer to an abstract future tense (extension). In terms of morphosyntactic categories, will used as a72

3.5 Diachronic Perspectives: Grammaticalization

Exam No. B197769

future tense marker is no longer a verb, but is an auxiliary (decategorialization). Finally, in colloquial
speech, will is phonetically abbreviated to =’ll, realizing as something like [ë] (erosion).
"
Based on these four points, this subsection compares the grammaticalization in the Mermaid Constructions and the control/raising constructions. We will cover the topics in the order of control,
raising, and the Mermaid Construction. First, it is hard to say if verbal and adjectival control predicates have undergone any grammaticalization process. That is, it is not clear whether verbs like try andwant have the infinitival complement as a result of grammaticalization from, say, a nominal argument,or they inherently subcategorize for it without grammaticalization.
Raising, on the other hand, seems to have undergone a weak degree of desemanticization andextension. For example, a verb appear used in the context of raising has lost its lexical meaning of “toemerge” and instead gained a grammatical meaning of some epistemic modality. Similarly, tiješ andmömkin as raising predicates in Tatar no longer have their concrete meaning of “obligated, indebted”
and “possible”, and instead have a function as deontic modality (“must”) and epistemic modality (“itmight be the case that ...”), respectively. Still, raising predicates do not exhibit decategorialization anderosion (excluding further grammaticalized forms such as auxiliaries). Raising predicates like seemin English and tiješ in Tatar retain their original lexical categories and morphosyntactically behave asa verb and an adjective, respectively.
In the Mermaid Constructions, it is certain that those nouns have been losing a concrete meaning asa full-fledged noun (desemanticization) and instead acquiring a new grammatical meaning in new contexts (extension). For example, isäp as a control predicate in Tatar no longer means “thought, counting” referring to some actual cognitive process, and marks the speaker’s attitude (dynamic modality)
to a situation described in the infinitival phrase. Yet, those nominal control predicates still retain
morphosyntactic traits as nouns. It follows typical nominal declension morphology and syntactic
rules, e.g., adnominal modification (no decategorialization). In addition, it can be seen from the data
(3.2)–(3.17) that the nominal control predicates are not pronounced in a different (typically reducing) manner from the original noun form (no phonetic reduction). Thus, at least for nominal control
predicates, it seems that they have undergone desemanticization and extension.
As a summary of the observation so far, Table 3.5 illustrates the comparison of control, raising,and the mermaid constructions in terms of the four mechanisms of grammaticalization proposed by
Heine & Kuteva (2002).

Desemanticization
Extension
Decategorialization
ErosionControl??
??
––

Raising✓✓––

Mermaid Constructions✓✓––

Table 3.5: A comparison of the grammaticalization in control, raising, and the Mermaid Constructions
based on Heine & Kuteva’s (2002) categorization. ✓ represents that a construction of the column has
undergone the process of the row. ?? means that it is unknown whether the process has happened in
the construction. Note that control and raising here do not include the Mermaid Constructions (i.e.,
nominal control predicates) for convenience.

733.5 Diachronic Perspectives: Grammaticalization

3.5.2

Exam No. B197769

The cline of grammaticalization by Hopper & Traugott (2003)

Hopper & Traugott (2003) showed that the grammaticalization processes have a unidirectional tendency shown in (3.62). That is, their theory assumes that (i) a content word is the least grammaticalized form; (ii) as grammaticalization proceeds, the semantics of the word shifts from a concrete
content (e.g., a thing, a concept, an event, etc.) to a functional element (e.g., tense, aspect, modality,etc.); (iii) it then loses its lexical independence and realizes as a form attached to another host as aclitic; and, (iv) as the ultimate end of the grammaticalization, the attachment is no longer separable
prosodically and morphosyntactically as an affix.
(3.62) Content word → grammatical word → clitic → affix (Hopper & Traugott, 2003)
This subsection compares control, raising, and the Mermaid Constructions by applying the “clinesof grammaticality” shown above. To begin with, because control predicates retain their lexical concrete meaning, control predicates are at the least grammaticalized stage. On the other hand, raisingpredicates are more of grammatical words than content words. For instance, when a predicate like
begin are used as a control verb, it semantically functions as a two-place predicate; if we take a proposition “John began to run” for example, its semantic denotation would be begin1 (John, run(John)). In
contrast, when begin is used as a raising verb, its semantic function takes a proposition and returns
a truth value. Namely, “John began to fall.” would be begin2 (fall(John)), where John is not a directsemantic argument of begin. This usage of begin marks an inchoative aspect of the situation describedby the infinitival phrase. In the same manner, Mermaid Construction nouns have lost their concrete
semantic content and acquired a new function to mark an abstract grammatical feature. Table 3.6 is asummary of the discussion so far.

Content word
Grammatical word
CliticAffix

Control✓–––

Raising✓✓––

Mermaid Constructions✓✓––

Table 3.6: A comparison of the degree of the grammaticalization in control, raising, and the Mermaid
Constructions based on the clines of grammaticality proposed by Hopper & Traugott (2003). Checkmarks in gray mean that the stage has passed.

3.5.3

Tatar nominal control constructions as grammaticalization

In Chapter 2, we analyzed the control constructions with a nominal predicate in Tatar in the Minimalist
framework. During the discussion, we in fact assumed two points that are implicitly relevant togrammaticalization (3.63).
(3.63)

1. The röxsät-type construction, including röxsät, waqït, and mäslixät, have the dativeargument as an internal argument, because it is a grammaticalized form that has lost its
finite predicate that takes a dative G OAL.
74

3.5 Diachronic Perspectives: Grammaticalization

Exam No. B197769

2. The isäp-type construction, including isäp and nijät, have the genitive argument as anexternal argument. It is a consequence of grammaticalization by which it lost its finite
predicate bar/juq.
The first assumption is that the röxsät-type construction is grammaticalized and has lost a dativetaking predicate. For example, the noun röxsät “permission” typically co-occurs with the verb birü
“to give” that marks the recipient of the permission in dative. In the course of grammaticalization,
this dative-taking predicate is lost, and the dative R ECIPIENT/G OAL is reanalyzed as an internal argument of röxsät, because otherwise it does not have any host. The second assumption is in linewith the discussion of little nP in the possessive-genitive construction in many languages. As theexample in English “The enemy’s destruction of the city” epitomizes, certain nouns seem to retain
the thematic relation, which in turn is expressed in ’s-possessive and of -genitive. Tatar does not use
a have-verb to express possession, but marks the possessor in genitive and the possessed object innominative, optionally agreeing with the possessor’s person and number (3.64). We assume that the
pre-grammaticalized form of the isäp-type construction has this form (3.65) with the existential predicate bar (juq in negative). Then, it lost the existential predicate, and the original DP is reanalyzed asa full TP while retaining its thematic relation that derives from nP (3.66).
(3.64) minem
kitäb-embar
1 SG . GEN book-POSS .1 SG exist‘I have a book (lit. There is my book).’(3.65) [minem [kit-ärgä]VP isäb-em]DPbar
1 SG . GEN leave-INF
thought-POSS .1 SG exist‘I have a thought (plan) to leave.’(3.66) minem[kit-ärgä]VP isäb-em
1 SG . GEN leave-INF
thought-POSS .1 SG‘I am going to leave.’
Evidence to assume an existential predicate as the pre-grammaticalized form is that the negatedform of (3.66) employs juq, a negative form of bar, and not tügel, a negative particle placed after
nominal and adjectival predicate (3.67).
(3.67) minem
kit-ärgä isäb-em
juq/*tügel
1 SG . GEN leave-INF thought-POSS .1 SG exist.NEG/*NEG‘I am not going to leave.’
A similar grammaticalization process is also found in the Welsh Mermaid Construction. Though
it takes the form of the Mermaid Construction in a present, non-interrogative, positive sentence (3.17),
existential predicate (oes, mae, and their inflected forms) is necessary in other environments (3.68)–(3.69).

75

3.6 Summary of this chapter

Exam No. B197769(3.68) Welsh
oes
rhaid
i fi godi
nawr?
exist.Q necessity to me wake_up now‘Do I have to wake up now?’(3.69) Welsh
nac oes, does
dim rhaid
i ti
godi
nawr.
NEG exist exist. NEG NEG necessity to you wake_up now‘No, you don’t have to wake up now.’

3.6

Summary of this chapter

This chapter has positioned the Tatar control constructions with a nominal predicate under the Mermaid Constructions that was outlined in Section 3.1. Then, Section 3.2 provided syntactic evidence
for treating the Mermaid Constructions cross-linguistically as a subset of raising and control . By
doing this, it is inevitable to contradict Tsunoda’s (2020a) analysis that the Mermaid Constructions
have a monoclausal structure because of our assumption that raising and control involve a subordinate
CP/TP. Given this opposition, Sections 3.3–3.5 argued for the biclausal hypothesis from the aspects ofsyntax, semantics, and grammaticalization. All of these perspectives have supported that the Mermaid
Constructions has a biclausal structure that is in parallel with the raising and control constructions.

76

Chapter 4

Conclusion
Before recapping the discussions in this thesis, let us remind ourselves of our initial research questions
that the Tatar infinitival constructions raised.
1. What makes the difference in case-marking of the agent between the tiješ-type and kiräk-typeinfinitival constructions?
2. Why is there no finite predicate in the Dative–Infinitive construction? It seems to be noncompositional.
3. Why is the agent marked by dative in the Dative–Infinitive construction? What assigns the case?
4. The röxsät-type and isäp-type infinitival constructions also seem to lack a finite predicate. Whatis their structure like?
5. The AGENT is marked by dative in the röxsät-type construction, while it is in genitive in the
isäp-type construction. What causes this difference?
6. Are these constructions monoclausal or biclausal?
After a general overview of the Tatar language in Chapter 1, in the course of our discussions
through Chapters 2 and 3, we have found answers to these questions. Chapter 2 chiefly dealt with
the issues related to Questions 1–5. Section 2.1 thoroughly outlined the Tatar infinitival constructions
with a particular focus on non-verbal predicates. Based on this descriptive data, Section 2.2 argued
that adjectival predicates tiješ and mömkin (with a nominative subject) are raising predicates. In
contrast, Section 2.3 confirmed that other non-verbal predicates such as kiräk and röxsät are control
predicates. The dative case-marking on the AGENT (or, to be precise, the initiator) of kiräk is assigned
as an internal G OAL argument of the predicate. These points answer to our first question. Section 2.3
also pointed out that the five nominal predicates, röxsät, waqït, mäslixät, isäp, and nijät are in fact
control predicates but of a noun. This is a cross-linguistically new finding, because most literature on
control and raising analyzes verbal and adjectival predicates. We saw that the first three predicatestake a dative AGENT (initiator), while the last two take a genitive AGENT (initiator). We provided an77

Exam No. B197769

explanation for this difference that the dative case-marking is a remnant of the marking on the internal
G OAL argument and the genitive is a remnant of the marking on the P OSSESSOR =AGENT argument in
nP. In both cases, the original predicate responsible for these case-markings is lost, possibly as a resultof grammaticalization (see also Section 3.5). This hypothesis answers to our fifth question. Then,
Section 2.4 analyzes the Dative–Infinitive construction of Tatar as a subset of the control construction
by assuming a phonetically null (adjectival) predicate that assigns a dative case in the same manneras the kiräk-type control construction. In doing so, the null predicate is analyzed to be responsible forthe modal meaning, and the problem of non-compositionality is solved. These arguments answer toour second and third questions.
Chapter 3, particularly Section 3.1 showed that the Tatar control constructions with a nominal
predicate is part of the Mermaid Constructions. Furthermore, Section 3.2 proposed that the Mermaid
Constructions are a subset of the raising and control constructions. From this proposal, it follows that
the Mermaid Constructions with a morphosyntactically full noun are biclausal, which is a contradicting argument against Tsunoda’s (2020a) monoclausalist proposal. However, Section 3.3 pointed out
the problems of the monoclausal analysis, and demonstrated the plausibility of the biclausal structureof the Mermaid Constructions. In support of this claim, Section 3.4 demonstrated from the aspect of
the syntax-semantics interface that the scopal (un)ambiguity of the Mermaid Constructions with anexistential quantifier can be correctly predicted in the same manner as the raising and control constructions. In addition, Section 3.5 confirmed that the Mermaid Constructions, control, and raising
are closely related to grammaticalization, which has affected the case-marking of the Tatar nominal
control constructions. These arguments answer our last question.
Thus, we have solved our initial questions regarding the raising and control constructions andthe Mermaid Constructions in Tatar and other languages. However, it is true that we have consciously
ignored several related aspects such as restructuring and marginal Mermaid Constructions for the sakeof shaping our arguments straightforward. This thesis is not to declare that such points are irrelevantto the issues; rather, they are also points worth delving into. We shall end this thesis leaving theseremaining tasks as future work.

78

Bibliography
Adger, D. (2003). Core syntax: Minimalist approach. Oxford University Press.
Al-Dobaian, A. S. (2006). A Minimalist analysis of three predicate types: Lexical, functional, andnull. Linguistic Research, 11, 22–52.
Asudeh, A. (2022). Glue semantics. Annual Review of Linguistics, 8, 321–341.
Bailyn, J. F. (2004). The case of q. In O. Arnaudova, W. Browne, M. L. Rivero, & D. Stojanović
(Eds.), Formal approaches to slavic linguistics 12: The ottawa meeting (pp. 1–36). Michigan
Slavic Publications.
Bailyn, J. F. (2011). The syntax of Russian. Cambridge University Press.
Baker, M. C. (1988). Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. The University of
Chicago Press.
Boeckx, C., & Grohmann, K. K. (2004). Barriers and phases: Forward to the past?
Bošković, Ž. (2011). Last Resort with Move and Agree in derivations and representations. In C.
Boeckx (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford University Press.
Burbiel, G. (2018). Tatar grammar: A grammar of the contemporary Tatar literary language. Institutefor Bible Translation.
Carnie, A. (2013). Syntax: A generative introduction (3rd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Chomsky, N. (2001). Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistcis, 20, 1–28.
Chomsky, N. (2010). Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa lectures. De Gruyter Mouton.
Conklin, J. T. (2015). The interaction of palatal coarticulation and palatal harmony in Kazan Tatar.
Proceedings of Purdue Linguistics Association 10th Symposium.
Dalrymple, M., Lowe, J. J., & Mycock, L. (2019). The oxford reference guide to lexical functional
grammar. Oxford University Press.
Ebata, F. (2020). Sakha (yakut). In T. Tsunoda (Ed.), Mermaid Construction: A compound-predicate
construction with biclausal appearance (pp. 363–386). Mouton de Gruyter.
Ebihara, S. (2020). Amdo Tibetan. In T. Tsunoda (Ed.), Mermaid Construction: A compound-predicate
construction with biclausal appearance (pp. 419–464). Mouton de Gruyter.
Farkas, D. F. (1988). On obligatory control. Linguistics and Philosophy, 11, 27–58.
Fleisher, N. (2006). Russian dative subjects, case, and control (Master’s thesis). University of California, Berkeley.
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2002). World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.

79BIBLIOGRAPHY

Exam No. B197769

Henry, C. R. (2018). An optimality theoretic analysis of vowel harmony in Kazan Tatar. 92nd Annual
Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America.
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization (2nd). Cambridge University Press.
Huziwara, K. (2018). A contrastive study of external adnominal clauses in Japanese and Bangla.
Bangabidya: International Journal of Bengal Studies, 10, 358–367.
Ibrahim, X. (2008). Ялгыз тәкәрлек: роман, повестьлар, хикәяләр [Lonely lawping: Novel, stories, tales] (in Tatar). Татарстан Китап Нәшрияты.
Johanson, L. (2021). Turkic. Cambridge University Press.
Katagiri, M. (2020). Tagalog. In T. Tsunoda (Ed.), Mermaid Construction: A compound-predicate
construction with biclausal appearance (pp. 781–816). Mouton de Gruyter.
Kato, A. (2020). Burmese. In T. Tsunoda (Ed.), Mermaid Construction: A compound-predicate construction with biclausal appearance (pp. 781–816). Mouton de Gruyter.
Kawachi, K. (2020). Sidaama. In T. Tsunoda (Ed.), Mermaid Construction: A compound-predicate
construction with biclausal appearance (pp. 781–816). Mouton de Gruyter.
Kim, J. (2020). Korean. In T. Tsunoda (Ed.), Mermaid Construction: A compound-predicate construction with biclausal appearance (pp. 781–816). Mouton de Gruyter.
Kobayashi, M., & Tsunoda, T. (2020). Kurux. In T. Tsunoda (Ed.), Mermaid Construction: A compoundpredicate construction with biclausal appearance (pp. 781–816). Mouton de Gruyter.
Kratzer, A. (1996). Severing the external argument from its verb (J. Rooryck & L. Zaring, Eds.). 33.
Landau, I. (2013). Control in generative grammar: A research companion. Cambridge University
Press.
Matsumoto, Y. (n.d.). Complex predicates in japanese: A syntactic and semantic study of the notion‘word’. Studies in Japanese Linguistics series.
Mihalicek, V. (2012). Serbo-croatian word order: A logical approach (Doctoral dissertation). Ohio
State University.
Moore, J., & Perlmutter, D. M. (1999). Case, agreement, and temporal particles in Russian infinitival
clauses. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 7(2), 219–246.
Poppe, N. (1961). Tatar manual. Indiana University Publication.
Ramchand, G. (2018). Alternating adjectives. The Linguistic Review, 35(2), 283–306.
Republic of Tatarstan. (2013). 1-3РТ от 12.01.2013 ‘Об использовании татарского языка какгосударственного языка Республики Татарстан’ [On the use of the Tatar language as
the state language of the Republic of Tatarstan].
Sakurama-Nakamura, M. (2018). Татарская диаспора и туган тел: ситуация татарского языка
среди татар в странах Центральной Азии [Tatar diaspora and tugan tel: The situation of
the Tatar language among Tatars in Central Asian countries] (in Russian). Татар теле,әдәбияты, һәм тарихы: үткәне, бүгенгесе һәм киләчәге, 23–38.
Sasaki, K. (2020). Mitsukaido dialect of Japanese. In T. Tsunoda (Ed.), Mermaid Construction:
A compound-predicate construction with biclausal appearance (pp. 125–166). Mouton de
Gruyter.

80

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Exam No. B197769

Saykhunov, M. R., Khusainov, R. R., Ibragimov, T. I., Luutonen, J., Salimzyanov, I. F., Shaydullina,
G. Y., & Khusainova, A. M. (2021). Corpus of written Tatar.
Shimoji, M. (2020). Irabu Ryukyuan. In T. Tsunoda (Ed.), Mermaid Construction: A compoundpredicate construction with biclausal appearance (pp. 781–816). Mouton de Gruyter.
Sigurðsson, H. A. (1992). The case of quirky subjects. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 49.
Sigurðsson, H. A. (2002). To be an oblique subject: Russian vs. Icelandic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 20(4), 691–724.
Sigurðsson, H. A. (2003). Case: Abstract vs. morphological. In E. Brandner & H. Zinsmeister (Eds.),
New perspectives on case theory (pp. 223–268). CSLI Publications.
Taguchi, C. (2021). Mermaid Construction in Tatar. Proceedings of the 162nd Conference of the
Linguistic Society of Japan.
Timberlake, A. (2004). A reference grammar of Russian. Cambridge University Press.
Timerkhanov, A. A. (2019). Tatar-English, English-Tatar dictionary. G. Ibragimov Institute of Language, Literature; Art, Tatarstan Academy of Sciences.
Tsunoda, T. (2011). Ningyo koubun: Nihongogaku kara ippan gengogaku he no kouken. NINJAL
Research Papers, 1, 53–75.
Tsunoda, T. (2012). Ningyo koubun to meisi no bunpouka. NINJAL Project Review, 7, 3–11.
Tsunoda, T. (2020a). Mermaid Construction: A compound-predicate construction with biclausal appearance. De Gruyter Mouton.
Tsunoda, T. (2020b). Modern standard japanese. Mermaid Construction: A compound-predicate construction with biclausal appearance (pp. 65–123). Mouton de Gruyter.
Umetani, H. (2020). Mongolian. In T. Tsunoda (Ed.), Mermaid Construction: A compound-predicate
construction with biclausal appearance (pp. 387–417). Mouton de Gruyter.
Wertheim, S. (2002). Language “purity” and the de-Russification of Tatar. UC Berkeley: Berkeley
Program in Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies.
Wiemer, B. (2017). Main clause infinitival predicates and their equivalents in Slavic: Why they are notinstances of insubordination. In L. J. and U. Demske (Ed.), Infinitives at the syntax-semantics
interface: A diachronic perspective. De Gruyter Mouton.
Wurmbrand, S. (2001). Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. De Gruyter Mouton.
Yasunari, I. (2020). Hindi. In T. Tsunoda (Ed.), Mermaid Construction: A compound-predicate construction with biclausal appearance (pp. 651–678). Mouton de Gruyter.
Zäkiev, M., & Xisamova, F. (2015). Татар грамматикасы [Tatar grammar]. Г. Ибраһимов исем. Тел, әдәбият һәм сәнгать институты.
Zaripov, Ä. (2013). Кадерле хәтирәләр. Казан Утлары, 1090, 153–167.

81

Appendices82

Appendix A

Conventions for the Transcription andNotations
The Latin transcription of Tatar used in this thesis is based on the Latin orthography of Tatar specified
in the law of the Republic of Tatarstan 2013 with some modifications for the sake of consistency withthe transcription used in Johanson (2021) that is compatible across Turkic languages. The detailed
correspondence of the Cyrillic alphabet, the Latin alphabet, and the transcription used in this paper
are illustrated in Table A.1 below. The rules of the Latin orthography are also summarised with
examples in Timerkhanov (2019). In this thesis, transcription is italicised, phonological notationis enclosed by slashes /·/, and phonetic realization is enclosed by square brackets [·]. Suffixes andenclitics that have allophones by phonological alternations are enclosed by curly brackets {·}, e.g.,{-GAn} includes -qan, -kän, -Gan, and -gän. The notations for representing phonological alternationsin the curly brackets {·} are listed in Table A.2 below.

83

Exam No. B197769

Cyrillic

Latin

Transcription

А, а
Б, б

A, a
B, b
W, w
V, v
G, g
Ğ, ğD, dE, eYı, yı
Ye, yeYo, yo
J, j
C, c
Z, z
İ, i
Y, y
K, k
Q, q
L, l
M, m
N, n
Ñ, ñ
O, o
Ö, ö
P, p
R, r
S, s
T, t
U, u
W, w
Ü, ü
W, w
F, f
X, x
H, h
Ts, tsÇ, çŞ, ş
Şç, şç
—
I, ı
—
E, e
’
Yu, yuYü, yü
Ya, yaYä, yä

a
b
w
†
v
g
G
d
e
jï
je
†
jo
ž
ź
z
i
j
k
q
l
m
n
N
o
ö
p
r
s
t
u(w)
w
ü(w)
w
f
x
h
†
c
č
š
†
šč
—
ï
—
e
’
ju(w)
jü(w)
ja
jä

В, в
Г, г
Д, д
Е, е
*Ё, ё
Ж, ж
Җ, җ
З, з
И, и
Й, й
К, к
Л, л
М, м
Н, н
Ң, ң
О, о
Ө, ө
П, п
Р, р
С, с
Т, т
У, у
Ү, ү
Ф, ф
Х, х
Һ, һ
*Ц, ц
Ч, ч
Ш, ш
*Щ, щ
ъ
Ы, ы
ь
Э, э
Ю, ю
Я, я

Table A.1: Correspondence of the Cyrillic and Latin orthographies with the transcription employed inthis thesis. An asterisk means that the character is used only in Russian-origin morphemes. A dagger
means that the transcription is used only in Russian-origin morphemes.
84

Exam No. B197769

Notation

Definition

{A}
{I}
{U}
{D}
{G}

Alternation of low vowels a~ä
Alternation of mid unrounded vowels ï~e
Alternation of high rounded vowels u~ü
Alternation of dental consonants d~t
Alternation of velar consonants k~g~q~G

Table A.2: Notations for phonological alternations.

85

Appendix B

Glossing abbreviations
For detailed use of the glossing abbreviations, see the original literature.
ABL — ablative
ACCOBL — accusative-oblique
ADN — adnominal
AF — actor focus
AUX — auxiliary
B — form B in Amdo Tibetan
CAUS — causative
COP — copula
CVB — converb
DAT — dative
DECL — declarative
EMP — emphatic
EP — epenthesis
ERG — ergative
F — feminine
FUT — future
GEN — genitive
INDEF — indefinite
INF — infinitive
INFER — inferential evidential
IPFV — imperfective
IRR — irrealis
KO — clitic =kò/gò in Burmese
LINK — linking interfix
LK — linker
LOC — locative
LV — lengthened vowel

86

Exam No. B197769

M — masculine
MOD — modified
NEG — negative
NM — non-masculine
NOM — nominative
NPC — noun-phrase enclitic
NPST — non-past
OBL — obliquePART — particle
PASS — passive
PFV — perfective
PL — plural
POSS — possessive
PRED — predicative
PROG — progressive
PROP — proprietive
PROS — prospective
PRS — present
PS — past stem
PST — past
PTCP — participle
Q — polarity question clitic
REC — reciprocal
REPORT — reportative evidential
RLS — realis
SG — singular
TOP — topic
TV — terminating verbal
VADJ — verbal adjective
VN — verbal noun

87