Syntactic asymmetries in the modal constructions with behar

152 4.1. INTRODUCTION

As shown in the previous chapter, the Basque necessity modal behar, like need-type modals in other languages (e.g. English, German, Norwegian, Spanish) and unlike the modals which show a more functional-like behaviour (e.g. English must), can take different types of complements. It can take –TU infinitival complements¹¹⁷ (the type of complements also selected by other modals in Basque); nominalized -TZEA complements, inflected complements and DP complements.

Crucially, not in all these cases can the necessity modal be used to express different modal meanings (i.e. epistemic modality, directed and non-directed deontic modality, and dispositional modality). Polyfunctionality (which, recall, is how scholars refer to the ability of certain modals to express no less than two types of modality; Haan

& Hansen 2009: 3) only arises when behar combines with –TU complements, as illustrated in (1). Otherwise, when behar takes DP complements, inflected complements or –TZEA complements, behar can only give rise to a dynamic necessity interpretation, as shown (2)¹¹⁸¹¹⁹.

(1) Modal readings of behar with –TU complements

a. Diruak hor egon behar du, nonbait. Epistemic money.sE there be need HAVE.3sE apparently

‘The money must be there, apparently.’

117 Recall from Chapter 3, that I am assuming, together with Haddican (2007) and Haddican and Tsoulas (2012) that -tu is an infinitival head of nominal category, rather than an aspectual affix.

118 The fact that, when combined with other complements, behar can only express dispositional or dynamic readings is common to all need-type predicates, not only Basque.

119 As shown in the examples, Basque necessity modal behar can express at least the same range of readings Barbiers (1995) identifies for Dutch modals. The modal sentence in (1a) expresses an epistemic judgment (a probability interpretation, in Barbier’s classification). In turn, (1b) and (1c), both express an obligation or requirement. In contrast to (1c), in (1b), the requirement is not directed to the subject of the sentence; rather, it is the situation expressed by the entire proposition which is required. Hence (1b) conveys a non-directed deontic interpretation, whereas (1c) can be used to express directed-deontic modality (as reflected in the paraphrases provided). Finally, (1d) expresses a need felt by/internal to the subject; therefore, it should be considered an instance of dispositional/dynamic modality.

153 b. Biharko diruak nire mahai gainean egon behar du. Non-directed deontic

Tomorrow-by money.sE table on-the be need HAVE.3sE

‘It is required that the money be on my table by tomorrow.’

c. Jonek berandu arte lan egin behar du. Directed-deontic John.sE late until work do need HAVE.3sE

‘John is required to work until late.’

d. Non dago komuna? Txiza egin behar dut.

Dynamic/dispositional

Where is toilet.3sA pee do need HAVE.1sE ‘Where is the toilet? I need to pee.’

(2) Interpretation of behar(DP, -TZEA and inflected complements)

a. Jonek [auto berria] behar du. Dynamic/dispositional Jon.E car new.sA need HAVE.3sA.3sE

‘John needs a new car’

b. Jonek [Miren etor-tzea] behar du. Dynamic/dispositional Jon.E Miren.A come-TZEA need HAVE.3sA.3sE

‘John needs for Miren to come.’

c. Jonek [Miren etor dadin] behar du. Dynamic/dispositional Jon.E Miren.A come BE.3sA.subj need HAVE.3sA.3sE

‘John needs that Miren come.’

Since the central goals of this dissertation is to show how the syntax-semantics mapping of modal constructions operates, I will concentrate on the constructions where behar takes –TU complements.

One of the main properties of the constructions where this modal predicate takes –TU complements is that they also present syntactic variability. More specifically, the structures where behar takes –TU complements come in three different guises, to which I will here refer to as Type I, Type II and Type III. The different configurations will be shown in this and in subsequent chapters to differ with respect to the functional/lexical

154 status of the modal, their syntactic complexity and their thematic and scope properties.

So the syntactic variability of these structures proves an extraordinary opportunity to factor out the structural elements that enter into the determination of modal meanings.

This chapter will be devoted to provide a preliminary basic description of those three structures, and show that they differ in three accounts: (i) the word order between the modal and the –TU complement (ii) the auxiliary selection and case pattern they exhibit; and (iii) the asymmetries they manifest with respect to the possibility that the matrix auxiliary agrees with the arguments of the embedded –TU complement. This basic description, where I lay the basic properties of the three constructions that will developed in detail during the next chapters, will thus help the reader in the forthcoming discussion.

The chapter is structured as follows: Section 4.2 introduces the syntactic variability of the modal constructions involving behar and –TU complements, namely: (i) the word order between behar and the –TU complement, (ii) the auxiliary selection and case patterns they exhibit, and (iii) the asymmetries regarding the possibility of agreement between the matrix verb and the arguments of the embedded complement. In Section 4.3., I argue that these asymmetries reflect the existence of different underlying constructions involving behar and -TU complements, and I propose a tentative three-type classification of the constructions under analysis, based on the distribution of the properties analysed: Type I/Functional restructuring, Type II/Lexical restructuring and Type III/Lexical non-restructuring constructions.

155 4.2. THE SYNTACTIC ASYMMETRIES OF THE MODAL CONSTRUCTIONS