1 Inflected infinitives in BP and the structure of nonfinite complements Marcello Modesto ± Universidade de São Paulo 1. Introduction This paper continues the discussion in Modesto (2010, to appear) about the existence ofnonfinite inflection (NI from now on) in Brazilian Portuguese (BP) and its use in control structures. Modesto (2010) showed that NI is used in BP to give rise to partial control (PC) readings in control structures and Modesto (to appear) showed that NI is also possible in control structures with an exhaustive control (EC) interpretation. Both papers pointed out that the use of NI in BP presents a serious problem for theories that take control to be a side effect of A-movement out of nonfinite clauses (Hornstein 1999, et seq., among others). In this paper, I will tackle another angle of the issue, related to the fact that some predicates cannot take an inflected nonfinite complement: this seems to indicate that such complements are truncated below TP, therefore having no room for NI. In fact, as it will be shown, there is evidence that nonfinite complements of EC verbs in BP are in fact truncated, as argued for German by Wurmbrand 2001. European Portuguese (EP) will not be dealt with and will be mentioned only when the contrast between the two dialects becomes relevant for the discussion. Briefly speaking, NI in EP is not relevant for the discussion of control structures because NI in EP seems to be able to license null referential pronouns and, therefore, to be more akin to finite clauses (see Raposo 1987 for an analysis of NI in EP based on structural Case).
like (01) below.1 Lemle, however, does not claim or show evidence that those structures
involve obligatory control. Such evidence has been presented in Modesto, to appear.
(01) a. As italianas sabem ser(em) encantadoras. (Lemle1984: 183)the italians.FEM know be-INF(-3PL) charmingµItalian women know that they are charming/how to be charming.¶
b. Os professores admitiram ganhar(em) pouco. (Lemle1984: 184)
the teachers admitted earn-INF(-3PL) littleµThe teachers admitted to earn little money.¶
2.1 Exhaustive and partial control
As discussed in Modesto 2010, control verbs in BP are clearly divided in the two classes
identified by Landau (2000, 20004) ± the EC class, and the PC class. The two classes are
almost equivalent in BP and English: the EC class includes modal, aspectual, implicative
and knowledge verbs, whereas the PC class includes desiderative, factive, epistemic and
declarative predicates. For ease of exposition, I will refer throughout this paper to the
classes below. Only a few verbs are used to exemplify each class.
(02) Verb classesa. Propositional class: includes epistemic, declarative and factive verbs like
saber µknow¶, ignorar µignore¶, acreditar µbelieve¶, su speitar µsuspect¶, su por µsuppose¶, reconhecer µrecognize¶, perceber µrealize¶, admitir µadmit¶, dizer µsay¶, afirmar µclaim, affirm¶, reclamar µcomplain¶, contar µtell¶, lamentar µregret¶, odiar µloathe¶, a preciar µenjoy¶, dete star µhate¶,
etc.
1 Throughout this paper, infinitives will be glossed by INF, followed by person (1, 2 or 3) and number (SG or PL) when inflected.
b. Desiderative class: includes verbs like preferir µprefer¶, decidir µdecide¶, planejar µplan¶, re solver µdecide¶, prometer µpromise¶, e scolher µchoose¶,e sperar µexpect¶, etc.
c. Implicative class: includes verbs like ou sar µdare¶, con seguir µmanage¶,
e squecer µforget¶, evitar µavoid¶, lembrar µremember¶, etc. Verbs liketentar µtry¶, a prender µlearn¶, ameaçar µthreat¶ and saber µknow how¶ willalso be included in this class, although not having an implicativesemantics.
d. Aspectual class: includes verbs like parar µstop¶, começar µstart¶ andcontinuar µcontinue¶.
e. Modal class: includes verbs like preci sar µneed¶, poder µcan¶, poder µmay¶,dever µmust¶.
Like in English, all the verbs in classes µa¶ and µb¶ are PC predicates and the verbs in
classes µc¶, µd¶ and µe¶ are EC predicates. However, unlike in English, as discussed in
Modesto (2010), PC interpretations are available in BP not only with collective
predicates like µgather¶ and µmeet¶, but with any verb, since, in BP, such readings are
marked by a plural inflection on the nonfinite verb, which is controlled by a matrix DP
marked for singular:
(03) a. O morador 1 disse PRO1+ estarem sendo vítimas de assaltos.
the dweller said be-INF-3PL being victims of robberiesµThe dweller said they have been victims of robberies.¶ b. O cientista1 acredita PRO1+ terem descoberto a cura do
câncer.the scientist believes have-INF-3PL discovered the cure of.the
cancer µThe scientist believes that they have found the cure of cancer.¶
c. A presidente1 resolveu PRO1+ trabalharem também nos feriados.the president decided work-INF-3PL also in.the holidaysµThe president decided (for them) to work during the holidays too.¶
The fact that the empty category in (03) is controlled (PRO with a PC interpretation) and
not a referential null pronoun is clear from the discussion in Modesto 2010, and the data
(04) a. context: President Dilma met with São Paulo state governor to discuss therecent
accusations of fraud.*No encontro, Dilma reclamou pro não terem sido respondidas ainda.
in.the meeting Dilma complained not have-INF-3PL been answered yetµIn the meeting, Dilma complained that the accusations had not been answeredyet.¶
b. context: President Dilma and other female government officials have beenwaiting for the waiter in a restaurant.
Depois de 20 minutos, a Dilma reclamou PRO1+ não terem sido atendidasainda.
after of 20 minutes the Dilma complained not have-INF-3PL been servedyet
µAfter 20 minutes, Dilma complained that they had not been served yet.¶
In (04a), the nonfinite inflection cannot license a referential null pronoun. This should not
be surprising since BP does not licenses referential null subjects even in finite contexts,
except under strict conditions (see Moreira da Silva 1984, Galves 1993, Figueiredo Silva
1994, Duarte 1995, Kato 1999, Modesto 2000, 2008, the collection of articles in Kato and
Negrão 2000 and Rodrigues 2004).2 Overt subjects are likewise not licensed by nonfinite
inflection in the relevant contexts:3
2 The sentences in (i) below are, therefore, ungrammatical in BP (contra Pires 2001), although similar structures are grammatical in EP:(i) a. *Nossos1 amigos detestam pro1 perdermos as coisas deles.
our friends hate lose-INF-1PL the things of-them.µOur friends hate when we lose their belongings.¶
b. *O Pedro convenceu os nossos1 pais a pro1 cursarmos engenharia.the Pedro convinced the our parents PREP study-INF-1PL engineeringµPedro convinced our parents that we should study engineering.¶
3 Factive verbs arguably accept overt subjects in their complement, its grammaticality varying dependingon the choice of the matrix predicate (see (i) below). The fact that nonfinite complements with overt subjectare still acceptable in BP under the verb lamentar µregret¶ lead Modesto (2010) to consider such structuresgrammatical in BP (see also the discussion in Figueiredo Silva 1994). Here, I have disregarded this
problem and lumped factives together with propositional verbs.(i) a. A presidente lamentou os ministros se demitirem.
the predident regretted the ministers SELF resign-INF-3PL b. ?A presidente detestou os ministros se demitirem.
the predident hated the ministers SELF resign-INF-3PL
autorizar µto authorize¶, sugerir µto sugest¶, among others), which may be used with an
implicit argument (see (07c)):
c. ??A presidente aceitou os ministros se demitirem.the predident accepted the ministers SELF resign-INF-3PL µThe president regretted/hated/accepted that the ministers have resigned.¶
(07) a. O Pedro1 convenceu a Dani2 a PRO1+2/2+/*1+/*3 viajarem amanhã.the Pedro convinced the Dani PREP travel-INF-3PL tomorrowµPedro convinced Dani that they should travel tomorrow.¶
b. A prefeitura autorizou os moradores a cortarem as árvores.
the city.hall authorized the residents PREP cut-INF-3PL the treesµThe city hall authorized the residents to cut the trees.¶
c. A prefeitura autorizou cortarem as árvores.the city.hall authorized cut-INF-3PL the treesµThe city hall authorized people to cut trees.¶
Just like in subject control structures, the empty category may not refer to salient
discourse entities and overt subjects are not allowed:
(08) *O Pedro1 convenceu a Dani2 a os meninos viajarem de carro.
the Pedro convinced the Dani PREP the boys travel-INF-3PL by car µPedro convinced Dani that the boys should travel by car.¶
2.1.2 I nterrogative predicate s
Landau (2000, 2004) includes interrogative predicates in the PC class. However, the
status of interrogative complements is not unquestionable. Most studies classify them as
non-obligatory control contexts due to their compatibility with arbitrary control readings
(see Williams 1980, Chomsky 1981, Bresnan 1982, Manzini 1983, Bouchard 1984,
Koster 1984, Martin 1996, Wurmbrand 2001). Landau¶s argumentation in favor of
treating interrogative complements as partial (obligatory) control is based on the fact that,
contrary to EC complements, collective predicates are allowed in interrogative
complements (see (09a)), and that an arbitrary control reading is, in fact, impossible
(09b), which is made clear by the contrast in (09c-d). Since PRO necessarily includes the
matrix controller in its reference, disjoint reference effects are imposed in (09c) by
Binding Condition B.
(09) a. John1 wondered whether PRO1+ to apply together for the grant. b. *John1 guessed where PROarb not to smoke.c. *Sue1 asked what to buy her 1 in Rome.d. Sue1 asked what to buy herself 1/her 1 sister in Rome.
Convincing as Landau¶s arguments may be, the status of interrogative complements as
PC in BP is even more doubtful. As seen in (10a), interrogative complements do not
allow collective verbs as easily as in English. If those verbs are allowed, they cannot
inflect for plural, since nonfinite inflection is banned from such complements with any
verb, as seen in (10b), which is unlike other PC complements. The condition B examples
are difficult to be constructed in BP, since most verbs used by Landau are obligatorily
reflexive in BP and the verb com prar µbuy¶ allows correference between the subject and a
pronoun in object position even in trivial examples (cf. A Maria comprou um sapato pra
ela em Roma µMary bought herself shoes in Rome¶, literally µMaria bought a shoe for her
in Rome¶).
(10) a. ??A presidente não sabe quando PRO se reunir.the president not knows when SELF gather-INF
µThe president does not know when to gather.¶ b. *A presidente não sabe o que PRO fazerem.
the president not know what do-INF-3PL µThe president doesn¶t know what to do.¶
Since the status of interrogative complements in BP is not clear, I leave them out of the
present discussion to be discussed in some future opportunity.
As discussed in Modesto, to appear, the EC and the PC classes also differ in contexts in
which only an EC reading is possible, i.e. when the matrix controller is marked for plural.
The EC class does not allow for inflection of the nonfinite verb, whereas the PC class
optionally allows it:4
(11) a. *Os viajantes1 tentaram PRO1 voltarem para casa.the travellers tried go.back-INF-3PL to homeµThe travellers tried to go back home.¶
b. *Os viajantes1 começaram a PRO1 voltarem para casa.the travellers started PREP go.back-INF-3PL to homeµThe travellers started to go back home.¶
c. *Os viajantes1 precisam PRO1 voltarem para casa.the travellers need go.back-INF-3PL to homeµThe travellers need to go back home.¶
(12) a. Os motoristas dizem estarem sendo vítimas de assaltos.the drivers say be-INF-3PL being victims of robberiesµThe drivers say they have been victims of robberies.¶
b. Os cientistas acreditam ter(em) descoberto a cura do câncer.
the scientists believe have-INF-3PL found the cure of.the cancer µScientists believe that they have discovered the cure of cancer.¶c. Os judeus1 voluntariamente decidiram PRO1 voltarem para lá.
the jews voluntarily decided go.back-INF-3PL to thereµThe jews decided to go back there voluntarily.¶
Modesto (to appear) shows that the structures in (12) are in fact control structures: they
only allow de se readings; they only allow sloppy readings in VP ellipsis contexts;
4 In Modesto, to appear, inflected complements of desiderative predicates in EC reading contexts are judged to be ungrammatical. The different judgments shown here reflect the amount of inflected controlstructures under desiderative verbs found in Google searches, which indicates that such structures are, infact, grammatical.
referential pro and overt DPs are not allowed in the subject position of the nonfinite
clause.5
Nonfinite inflection also commonly appears in object control structures (which
are, uncontroversially, control structures ± cf. Negrão 1986). Example µa¶ below has an
EC reading; example µb¶, a PC reading:6
(13) a. O pai da Maria convenceu os meninos1 a PRO1 viajarem decarro.
the father of.the Maria convinced the boys PREP travel-INF-3PL bycar
µMaria¶s father convinced the boys to travel by car.¶
b. O pai da Maria convenceu ela1 a PRO1+ viajarem de carro.the father of.the Maria convinced her PREP travel-INF-3PL by car µMaria¶s father convinced her (for them) to travel by car.¶
Another context in which nonfinite inflection is optionally allowed is in clausal
complements of nouns. Once again, there is evidence that such structures involve control:
overt subjects and null referential pronouns are not allowed in the nonfinite complement
and only sloppy readings obtain (if, for instance, (14a) is continued by µand the Russians
were the second¶).
5 As seen in (i) below, differently from EP (cf. Raposo 1987) overt subjects are not allowed in thecomplement of propositional predicates in BP with or without auxiliary inversion. Left dislocated and wh-moved subjects are allowed, however. A detailed discussion of these interesting facts is beyond the scopeof this paper.(i) a. *O Pedro acredita (os estudantes) terem (os estudantes) passado.
the Pedro believes the students have- INF-3PL passedµPedro believes the students to have passed.¶
b. Que estudantes o Pedro acredita terem passado?which students the Pedro believes have- INF-3PL passedµWhich students does Pedro believe to have passed?¶
c. O Pedro acredita terem passado todos os estudantes que fizeram a prova.the Pedro believes have- INF-3PL passed all the students that made the testµPedro believes that all the students who took the test passed.¶
6 The interpretation of PRO in (13b) ± i.e. the people who are travelling by car ± may be Maria and her father or Maria and some other person (or group) salient from discourse.
(14) a. Os americanos foram os primeiros a pisarem na lua.the Americans were the first PREP step-INF-3PL on.the moonµThe Americans were the first ones to walk on the moon.¶
b. Os brasileiros foram os únicos a ganharem cinco copas do mundo.
the Brazilians were the only PREP win-INF-3PL five cups of.the worldµThe Brazilians were the only ones to win the world cup 5 times.¶
Raising complements from which the subject has raised cannot be inflected:7
(15) a. *Os meninos parecem gostarem da Maria.the boys seem to.like.3PL of.the MariaµThe boys seem to like Maria.¶
b. *Os meninos custaram a saírem.the boys took.long PREP to.leave.3plµThe boys took a long time to leave.¶
c. *Os meninos levaram três horas pra saírem.the boys took three hours PREP to.leave.3PL µThe boys took three hours to leave.¶
d. *Os meninos só faltam receberem o dinheiro do patrão.the boys only miss get-INF-3PL the money from.the bossµThe only thing missing is for the boys to get the money from their boss.¶
e. *Esses meninos perigam bombarem de ano.these boys are.in.danger fail-INF-3PL of year µThese boys are in danger of failing the school year.¶
With the exception of parecer µseem¶, which does not allow a non-raised nonfinite
complement, the nonfinite complement of all raising verbs is obligatorily inflected if the
subject has not raised:
(16) a. *Parece os meninos gostarem da Maria.seems the boys like-INF-3PL of.the MariaµIt seems that the boys like Maria.¶
b. Custou pros meninos saírem.cost for.the boys leave-INF-3PL µIt took a long time for the boys to leave.¶
c. Levou três horas pros meninos saírem.took three hours for.the boys leave-INF-3PL µIt took three hours for the boys to leave.¶
7 All sentences in (15) are grammatical if the nonfinite verb is not inflected.
d. Só falta os meninos receberem o dinheiro.only miss the boys get-INF-3PL the moneyµThe only thing missing is for the boys to get the money.¶
e. Periga esses meninos bombarem de ano.
is.in.danger these boys fail-INF-3PL of year µThere is danger that these boys will fail the school year.¶
The sentences in (16) above seem to follow a well-defined pattern: every time an overt
subject appears in a nonfinite clause in BP, the nonfinite verb is obligatorily inflected.
Besides complements of raising predicates from which the subject has failed to raise,
nonfinite clauses with overt subjects are attested in BP as subject clauses, adjunct and
purpose clauses, complements of perception and causative predicates and in the
complement of the verb e sperar µwait¶. In all these cases, NI is obligatory:8
(17) a. Vai ser difícil eles aprovarem a proposta. 9 goes to.be difficult they approve-INF-3PL the proposalµIt is unlikely that they will approve the proposal.¶
b. Eu entrei em casa sem os meninos verem.I entered in house without the boys see-INF-3PL µI got in the house without the boys seeing me/it.¶
c. Eu comprei esse livro pros meninos lerem.
I bought this book for.the boys read-INF-3PL µI bought this book for the boys to read.¶d. Eu vi os meninos quebrarem a mesa.
I saw the boys break-INF-3PL the tableµI saw the boys breaking the table.¶
e. Eu fiz os meninos estudarem.I made the boys study-INF-3PL µI made the boys study.¶
f. Eu estou esperando as meninas chegarem.I am waiting the girls arrive-INF-3PL µI am waiting for the girls to arrive.¶
8 This is true of Standard BP, the dialect that retains inflected infinitives (see Modesto, to appear, for adiscussion on the difference between Standard and Popular BP).
9 Raposo (1987) mentions that non-extraposed subject clauses are slightly degraded in EP, but that isunrelated to the inflected character of the infinitive. That does not seem to be the case in BP, in whichsubject clauses are extraposed or not depending on the discourse articulation of topic and focus.
Controlled adjunct and purpose clauses cannot be inflected:
(18) a. Os meninos compraram esse livro pra ler(*em) na praia.the boys bought this book for read-INF-(*3PL) on.the beach
µThe boys bought this book to read on the beach.¶ b. Os meninos saíram sem jantar(*em).the boys went.out without eat-INF-(*3PL)µThe boys went out without eating.¶
Summarizing the information in this section, it can be seen that:
a. Nonfinite inflection is obligatory:
(i) in nonfinite clauses with a lexical subject (i.e. subject/adjunct/purpose
clauses; the complement of perception verbs, causative predicates and the
verb e sperar µto wait¶; non-raised complements of raising verbs).
(ii) in controlled complements of factive/propositional/desiderative and
object-control predicates with a PC reading (except when collective verbs
like µgather¶ are used).
b. Nonfinite inflection is optional:
(i) in object control complements with EC reading.
(ii) in subject control complements of propositional/factive/desiderative
predicates with EC reading.
(iii) in controlled nonfinite complements of nominals.
c. Nonfinite inflection is impossible:
(i) in interrogative, modal, aspectual and implicative complements.(ii) in raising complements from which the subject has raised.
complement of EC verbs is smaller than PC complements. The argument involves the
NPI element nunca µnever¶, interaction with adverbs and quantifier scope.
Firstly, we note that an NPI like nunca in BP is licensed by a clause-mate
negation in both finite and nonfinite contexts (i.e. in the complement of a desiderative
verb like decidir µto decide¶:
(19) a. *A Lina disse que ela sai nunca.the Lina said that she leaves never µLina said that she never goes out.¶
b. *A Lina não disse que ela sai nunca.the Lina not said that she leaves never
µLina didn¶t say that she never goes out.¶c. A Lina disse que ela não sai nunca.the Lina said that she not leaves never µLina said that she never goes out.¶
(20) a. *A Lina decidiu sair nunca.the Lina decided leave-INF never µLina decided never to go out.¶
b. *A Lina não decidiu sair nunca.the Lina not decided leave-INF never µLina decided never to go out.¶
c. A Lina decidiu não sair nunca (mais).the Lina decided not leave-INF never (more)µLina decided never to go out again.¶
In the complement of EC verbs, on the other hand, matrix negation is enough to license
nunca:
(21) a. A Lina não tenta agradar nunca à sua mãe.The Lina not tries to.please never to her mother µLina never tries to please her mother.¶
b. A Lina não começa a estudar nunca.the Lina not start PREP to.study never µLina never starts to study.¶
c. Os meninos não precisam trabalhar nunca.the boys not need to.work never µThe boys never need to work.¶
Negation is licensed in the complement of EC predicates, but that is probably constituent
negation, since that negation does not license an NPI:
(22) a. Os meninos tentam não atrapalhar (*nunca).the boys try not to.be-in-the-way never µThe boys try not to be in the way.¶
b. Os meninos começaram a não estudar (*nunca).the boys started PREP not to.study never µThe boys started not to study.¶
c. Os meninos podem não trabalhar (??nunca).The boys may not to.work never µThe boys may not work.¶
Another difference between EC and PC complements is related to licensing of low
adverbs. EC complements do not license a low adverb, whereas PC complements do:
(23) a. A Dani reconheceu / descobriu / odeia já falar Alemão.the Dani acknowledged/found.out/hate already to.speak GermanµDani acknowledged to speak German already.¶
b. *A Dani conseguiu / começou a / tentou já falar Alemão.the Dani managed / started to / tried already to.speak GermanµDani managed /started / tried to speak German already.¶
The interpretation of universal quantifiers in PC and EC complements is also different.
While universal quantifiers can take wide scope outside the nonfinite complement of EC
complements, these readings are impossible when the quantifier appears in PC
complement. Example (24a) is ambiguous: it may mean that for every x (x a girls in his
class), Pedro tried to travel with x, or it may mean that Pedro tried to travel with the
group of girls in his class. Sentence (24b), on the other hand, lacks the first reading: it
may not mean that for every x, Pedro decided to travel with x.
(24) a. O Pedro tentou viajar com todas as meninas da classe.The Pedro tried to.travel with all the girls in.the classµPedro tried to travel with all/each girl in the class.¶
b. O Pedro decidiu viajar com todas as meninas da classe.The Pedro decided to.travel with all the girls in.the classµPedro decided to travel with all/*each girl in the class.¶
The data reviewed above provides considerable evidence that EC complements are
truncated (restructuring, in the sense of Wurmbrand 2001). Assuming that EC are VPs,
we would explain the impossibility of NI in EC complements. In that case, control into
EC complements could be derived either by movement (as in Bokovi 1994) or by
Agree of a PRO category sitting on the edge of VP. Since PRO would still be required in
control structures involving PC predicates, the second option seems more economical.
However, the existence of backward control in Greek provides strong evidence for a
movement analysis of control with EC verbs,10 which may indicate that movement is
possible exactly because those complements are truncated. The problem is that, exactly in
Greek, the language that provides evidence in favor of control structures involving
movement, there seems to be no evidence that EC complements are truncated versions of
PC complements: in both, the verb is inflected for person and number and the particle
µna¶ precedes it. This and related questions are left open here.
4 Concluding remarks
In this brief discussion, I have shown that two commonly made assumptions are
mistaken. Inflected infinitives do not necessarily correlate with pro/lexical subjects and
subject controlled infinitives may be inflected. The presence of inflection in control
10 It is important to note that backward control only takes place with OC verbs in Greek, a class thatincludes all and only the EC predicates in Romance and Germanic languages (cf. Landau 2004 andAlexiadou et al. 2010).
