On Subjunctives and Islandhood

Book Chapter

Reference

On Subjunctives and Islandhood

BAUNAZ, Lena, PUSKAS, Genoveva

Abstract

This paper discusses the distribution of indicative and subjunctive in French embedded clauses. We show that standard semantic criteria, such as factivity and veridicality, cannot account for the subjunctive/indicative alternations. We propose to reexamine the facts in the light of an "emotive" versus "cognitive" division. We then question the role of the complementizer in the selection process. Using syntactic criteria such as wh-extraction, we come to the conclusion that the complementizer que comes in different flavours and that its various feature compositions might play a role in mood distribution

BAUNAZ, Lena, PUSKAS, Genoveva. On Subjunctives and Islandhood. In: Variation within and across Romance Languages. Amsterdam : J. Benjamins, 2014.

Available at:

http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:96355

Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.

1 / 1

On Subjunctives and Islandhood

Lena Baunaz & Genoveva Puskás

1. Introduction

The question of embedded subjunctive clauses has recently sparked growing interest, both from the semantic point of view (see a.o. Quer 1998, 2009, Schlenker 2005, Villalta 2006, Tóth 2008, Giannakidou 2009) and the syntactic point of view (Giorgi and Pianesi 2004, Roussou 2009, 2010). While approaches may vary in details, there seems to be some strong implicit assumption that embedded subjunctive clauses are somehow “selected” by a matrix predicate. Moreover, this assumption seems to come with a correlate, as expressed e.g. in Farkas and Giannakidou (1996), Giannakidou (2000), Lasnik & Saito (1984), that subjunctive clauses are somewhat permeable to extraction, in a way indicative clauses are not.

In this paper, we would like to show that the degree of permeability observed in subjunctive clauses with respect to e.g. wh-extraction is apparent, and is only indirectly related to the indicative/subjunctive alternations. In order to do so, we examine different verb classes in French and we show that the behaviour of various types of wh-phrases in extraction contexts is not directly linked to the mood of the embedded clause. We therefore propose (i) that the indicative-subjunctive distribution is a property of predicates which has to be distinguished from the property involved in complementizer selection and (ii) that islands effects, that is, the degree of permeability of the embedded clauses can be related to the properties of the selected complementizer, and not directly to the fact that the embedded clause is in the subjunctive mood.

The paper is organised as follows. Section 1.1 states the problem, and gives the French data with respect to wh-extraction from various types of embedded clauses. Section 2 clears the question of the nature of subjunctive “selection”. We show that neither factivity nor veridicality can directly account for subjunctive versus indicative mood, and we propose a new typology of verbs in terms of emotive versus cognitive. The latter property cannot account for the wh-extraction facts. Section 3 gives a fine-grained distinction of degrees of islandhood with respect to wh-extraction from an embedded clause, and proposes that extractability correlates with (some version of) veridicality. Section 4 proposes to link the property of matrix verbs with the kind of embedded clause in terms of selection of the

complementizer. We propose that the complementizer varies in its feature composition, and is able to block more or less wh-phrases on their way out. Section 5 is a general conclusion.

1.1 The problem

French verbs are known to embed indicative or subjunctive clauses in some relatively

systematic way. Example (1) below gives the distribution of several classes of indicative and subjunctive embedding verbs. ¹ The labels correspond to rough semantic classes, which, for the time being, should be taken as purely descriptive:

 We thank the two anonymous reviewers, as well as Valentina Bianchi, Marcel den Dikken, Liliane Haegeman, Peter Svenonius, Lisa Reed, Luigi Rizzi, Ian Roberts, Ur Shlonsky and Michal Starke for fruitful comments and discussions. We are also grateful to the audiences in Sevilla, Ottawa, Tromso, Neuchâtel and Geneva. Many thanks to Eric Mathieu, Marie-Hélène Côté and Shana Poplack , organisers of LSRL 41 and editors of the volume. This research is funded by the FNS, grant #100015_126861/1.

1Note that ‘bridge’ verbs like croire ‘believe’, penser ‘think’ embed indicative clauses.

(1) (i) verbs of ‘cognition’ se rappeler ‘remember’ ->indicative

(ii) verbs of ‘intellection’ comprendre ‘understand’, admettre ‘admit’ -> indicative (iii) verbs of assertion dire ‘say’, pretendre ‘claim’ -> indicative

(iv) verbs of ‘emotion’ comprendre ‘understand’, concevoir ‘conceive’-> subjunctive (v) ‘factive(-emotive)’ verbs regretter ‘regret’ -> subjunctive

(vi) ‘desiderative’ and ‘affective’ verbs vouloir ‘want’, préférer ‘prefer’ ->

subjunctive

It turns out, though, that wh-extraction does not completely follow this classification.

The data below exemplify various types of ‘extractions’, namely (a) clefting, (b) long wh-extraction, and (c) in-situ wh-phrases. Extraction targets both an argument, quelle photo

‘which picture’ and an adjunct, comment ‘how’. In the case of wh in-situ, we assume, following Starke (2001), Baunaz (2011), that the echo-reading is irrelevant.

Let us first look at predicates of cognition, illustrated by se rappeler ’remember’, which embeds indicative clauses (1i):

(2) a. ^??/* C'est quelle photo que Jean se rappelle que Jules prend?

It is which picture that Jean remembers that Jules takes-IND

b. ^??/* Quelle photo est-ce que Jean se rappelle que Jules prend?

Which picture does Jean remember that Jules takes-IND

c. ^??/* Jean se rappelle que Jules prend quelle photo?

Jean remembers that Jules takes-IND which picture?

(3) a. * C'est comment que Jean se rappelle que Jules prend la photo?

It is how that Jean remembers that Jules takes-IND the picture b. * Comment est-ce que Jean se rappelle que Jules prend la photo?

How does Jean remembers that Jules takes-IND the picture c. * Jean se rappelle que Jules prend la photo comment?

Jean remembers that Jules takes-IND the picture how?

This is comparable with verbs of ‘intellection’, like comprendre ‘understand’:

(4) a. * C'est quelle photo que Jean comprend/admet que Jules prend?

It is which picture that Jean understands/admits that Jules takes-IND

b. * Quelle photo est-ce que Jean comprend/admet que Jules prend?

Which picture does Jean understands/admits that Jules takes-IND

c. * Jean comprend/admet que Jules prend quelle photo?

Jean understands/admits that Jules takes-IND which picture

(5) a. * C'est comment que Jean comprend/admet que Jules prend la photo?

It is how that Jean understands/admits that Jules takes-IND the picture b. * Comment est-ce que Jean comprend/admet que Jules prend la photo?

How does Jean understands/admits that Jules takes-IND the picture c. * Jean comprend/admet que Jules prend la photo comment?

Jean understands/admits that Jules takes-IND the picture how?

We observe that indicative clauses under these verbs constitute rather severe islands, in that there is no argument-adjunct asymmetry. Both highly specific argument wh-phrases such as

quelle photo ‘which picture’ and adjuncts like comment ‘how’ are trapped inside the embedded indicative clause.

Verbs like comprendre ‘understand’ and concevoir ‘conceive’ can also appear with the subjunctive. In this case, the clause they embed constitutes a weaker (weak) island for wh- extraction (1iv):

(6) a. C'est quelle photo que Jean comprend/admet que Jules prenne?

It is which picture that Jean understands/admits that Jules take-SUBJ

b. Quelle photo est-ce que Jean comprend/admet que Jules prenne?

Which picture does Jean understands/admit that Jules take - SUBJ

c. Jean comprend/admet que Jules prenne quelle photo?

Jean understands/admits that Jules take-SUBJ which picture

(7) a. ^?? C'est comment que Jean comprend/admet que Jules prenne la photo?

It is how that Jean understands/admits that Jules take-SUBJ the picture b. ^?? Comment est-ce que Jean comprend/admet que Jules prenne la photo?

How does Jean understands/admits that Jules take-SUBJ the picture c. ^?? Jean comprend/admet que Jules prenne la photo comment?

Jean understands/admits that Jules take-SUBJ the picture how?

In this sense, they pattern with ‘factive’ verbs like regretter, which, in French, embed subjunctive clauses ( 1v):

(8) a. C'est quelle photo que Jean regrette que Jules prenne?

It is which picture that Jean regrets that Jules take-SUBJ

b. Quelle photo est-ce que Jean regrette que Jules prenne?

Which picture does Jean regret that Jules take-SUBJ

c. Jean regrette que Jules prenne quelle photo?

Jean regrets that Jules take-SUBJ which picture?

(9) a. ^?* C'est comment que Jean regrette que Jules prenne la photo?

It is how that Jean regrets that Jules take-SUBJ the picture b. ^?* Comment est-ce que Jean regrette que Jules prenne la photo?

how does Jean regret that Jules take-SUBJ the picture c. * Jean regrette que Jules prenne la photo comment?

Jean regrets that Jules take-SUBJ the picture how?

We observe that subjunctive clauses, embedded under these verbs offer a milder island effect than indicative clauses under verbs of ‘cognition’ and ‘intellection’. While extraction of adjunct wh-phrases is still strongly degraded, argument wh-phrases can extract easily.

One could say that this is predictable under any standard view of the indicative/subjunctive contrast. However, a third group includes verbs of assertion like dire ‘say’ (10, 11) which embed indicative clauses (1ii), but also a large class of desiderative-like verbs such as préférer ‘prefer’ (12, 13) (or souhaiter ‘wish’) which embed subjunctive clauses (1vi):

(10) a. C'est quelle photo que Jean dit que Jules prend?

It is which picture that Jean says that Jules take-IND b. quelle photo est-ce que Jean dit que Jules prend?

Which picture does Jean say that Jules take-IND

c. Jean dit que Jules prend quelle photo?

Jean says that Jules take-IND which picture

(11) a. C'est comment que Jean dit que Jules prend la photo?

It is how that Jean says that Jules take-IND the picture b. Comment est-ce que Jean dit que Jules prend la photo?

How does Jean say that Jules take-IND the picture c. Jean dit que Jules prend la photo comment?

Jean says that Jules take-IND the picture how?

(12) a. C'est quelle photo que Jean préfère que Jules prenne?

It is which picture that Jean prefers that Jules take-SUBJ b. quelle photo est-ce que Jean préfère que Jules prenne?

Which picture does Jean prefer that Jules take-SUBJ

c. Jean préfère que Jules prenne quelle photo?

Jean prefers that Jules take-SUBJ which picture

(13) a. C'est comment que Jean préfère que Jules prenne la photo?

It is how that Jean prefers that Jules take-SUBJ the picture b. Comment est-ce que Jean préfère que Jules prenne la photo?

How does Jean prefer that Jules take-SUBJ the picture c. Jean préfère que Jules prenne la photo comment?

Jean prefers that Jules take-SUBJ the picture how?

Both indicative and subjunctive clauses under these predicates are absolutely transparent. We observe no argument-adjunct asymmetry whatsoever. That wh-extraction out of these clauses is not problematic in any way is corroborated by the fact that the extraction of aggressively non-D-linked wh-phrases (Pesetsky 1989) like qui diable ‘who the devil’ is licensed from the embedded clauses of predicates of the dire ‘say’ and préférer ‘prefer’ types (14a,b), as opposed to the other classes of predicates discussed previously (15a, b, c, d):

(14) a. Qui diable est-ce que Jean dit que Marie trahit?

who-the hell does Jean says that Marie betray-IND

b. Qui diable est-ce que Jean préfère que Marie trahisse?

who-the hell does Jean prefers that Marie betray-SUBJ (15) a * Qui diable est-ce que Jean se rappelle que Marie trahit?

who-the hell does Jean remembers that Marie betray-IND

b. * Qui diable est-ce que Jean admet que Marie trahit ? who-the hell does Jean admits that Marie betray-IND

c. * Qui diable est-ce que Jean comprend/admet que Marie trahisse ? who-the hell does Jean understands/admit that Marie betray-SUBJ d. * Qui diable est-ce que Jean regrette que Marie trahisse?

who-the hell does Jean regrets that Marie betray-SUBJ

Note that “bridge verbs” like croire ‘believe’, penser ‘think’ embed indicative clauses in French and behave like dire ‘say’.

(16) a. Quelle photo est-ce que Jean croit/pense que Jules prend?

Which picture does Jean believes/thinks that Jules take-IND

b. Comment est-ce que Jean croit/pense que Jules prend la photo?

How does Jean believe/think that Jules take-IND the picture

(17) Qui diable est-ce que Jean croit que Marie trahit?

who-the hell does Jean think that Marie betray-IND

The data discussed in this section raises two questions.

First, how can we account for these variations in extraction facts? Second, is there a relation between the occurrence of indicative and subjunctive and island effects in embedded clauses? In the following sections, we will examine these two questions in turn, starting with the second one.

2. Subjunctive and indicative

Before we are able to tackle the two questions raised in section 1 above, we need to clear a few potential obstacles out of the way. The first step is to identify what determines the occurrence of subjunctives in embedded clauses. There are various suggestions as to mood choice in the literature.

2.1 ‘Factives?’

Typically, some variant of the notion of ‘(semi-)factivity’ is claimed to be involved in mood selection: in standard views, factive verbs embed indicative clauses. Factive predicates (Kiparsky and Kiparsky 1970) presuppose the truth of their complement, as in (18a). We can test this with the use of negation: in a context in which the truth of the embedded proposition is denied, the sentence is infelicitous (18b)

(18) a. Mary regrets that John left

b. Mary regrets that John left (# but in fact he didn’t)

Karttunen (1971) observes that some factive verbs, like know, realize or discover tend to lose their factivity in some contexts:

(19) a. Did you regret that you had not told the truth?

b. Did you realize that you had not told the truth?

c. Did you discover that you had not told the truth?

(20) a. If I regret later that I have not told the truth, I will confess it to everyone.

b. If I realize later that I have not told the truth, I will confess it to everyone.

c. If I discover later that I have not told the truth, I will confess it to everyone [Karttunen 1971]

While regret and realize (19a,b) presuppose the truth of their complement in a question, discover doesn't. But in a conditional context, as in (20), realize also loses its ability to embed a proposition whose truth is presupposed, while regret invariably retains this property. There is thus some flexibility in the factivity of some predicates, like know, realize, discover, (as opposed to regret), which have come to be known as 'semi-factives'.

In French, while factive predicates seem to embed systematically subjunctive clauses (21), semi-factives actually fluctuate between indicative and subjunctive (22). So it is difficult to argue for a one-to-one relation between mood and factivity.

(21) a. Jean regrette que Jule prenne des photos.

Jean regrets that Jules take-SUBJ pictures b. Jean est heureux que Jules prenne des photos.

Jean is happy that Jules take-SUBJ pictures (22) a. Jean réalise que Jules prend des photos.

Jean realizes that Jules take-IND pictures b. * Jean réalise que Jules prenne des photos.

Jean realizes that Jules take-SUBJ pictures c. Jean comprend que Jules prend des photos.

Jean understands that Jule take-IND pictures d. Jean comprend que Jules prenne des photos.

Jean understands that Jules take-SUBJ pictures

Factivity does not predict in a reliable way the occurrence of indicative or subjunctive in French. Therefore, we abandon the notion of factivity altogether (actually, we suggest that factivity is not semantically encoded, but might be the result of some pragmatic effect, see also de Cuba & Urödgi 2010).

2.2 Veridicality?

Giannakidou (2009) associates the indicative/subjunctive selection with veridicality.

Espitemic and cognitive predicates (which take indicative embedded clauses) are veridical, while directive and desiderative predicates, (which select subjunctive clauses) are non- veridical.

The notion of veridicality (Zwart 1995, Giannakidou 1998, 2009) is defined as follows:

(23) Veridicality

"a propositional operator F is veridical iff from the truth of Fp we can infer that p is true according to some individual x (i.e. in some individual x’s epistemic

model".(2009b:1889)

Given this definition, veridical predicates are those which embed a clause such that the truth of the sentence entails the truth of the embedded proposition according to some individual x.

Giannakidou discusses the case of Greek, and proposes that epistemic predicates, such as know are veridical:

(24) Kseri oti aγorasa ena aftokinito.

know.3sg that bought.1sg a car He knows that I bought a car [Giannakidou 2009b: (12)]

The truth of the sentence entails that the embedded proposition, namely I bought a car is true, according to the subject he. With epistemic predicates "the referent of the grammatical or notional subject of the predicate takes it for granted that the complement proposition expresses a state of affairs that corresponds with factual reality". (Haverkate 2002:59).

On the basis of the Greek data, Giannakidou draws a strict parallel between veridicality and indicative mood, and non-veridicality and subjunctive mood. In

Giannakidou’s approach, (emotive) factive predicates (which include predicates like xerome

"be happy") are veridical and the prediction is that they select the indicative mood.

Although the prediction about mood selection may turn out to be correct for Greek, emotive factive predicates in French embed subjunctive clauses:

(25) Anna est heureuse que la maison soit vendue.

Anna is happy that the house be-SUBJ sold

On the basis of French data, we have to question any one-to-one relation between mood selection and veridicality à la Giannakidou. Such a correlation cannot hold in French, and seems to be weakened in other languages (see e.g. Tóth 2008 for Hungarian).

2.3 Emotive vs Cognitive

In order to determine what the mood choice factor(s) is/are, we need to take a closer look at the predicates which can both embed an indicative and a subjunctive clause. We observe that the indicative/subjunctive alternation leads to a slight difference in the interpretation of the predicates:

(26) a. Jean comprend que Jules veut vendre ses photos, mais il se trompe.

Jean understands that Jules wants-IND to sell his pictures but he is wrong.

b. # Jean comprend que Jules veuille vendre ses photos, mais il se trompe.

Jean understands that Jules wants-SUBJ to sell his pictures but he's wrong.

(27) a. # Jean comprend que Jules veut vendre ses photos, mais cela le rend triste.

Jean understands that Jules wants-IND to sell his pictures but it makes him sad.

b. Jean comprend que Jules veuille vendre ses photos, mais cela le rend triste.

Jean understands that Jules wants-SUBJ to sell his pictures but it makes him sad In (27a), comprend ‘understand’ embeds an indicative clause, and the interpretation is that Jean adds to his cognitive environment the fact that Jules wants to sell his pictures. It suggests an intellectual, cognitive exercise. This is compatible with a continuation which expresses a judgement on Jean’s cognitive state (he is wrong). In (27b), comprend with subjunctive forces a reading in which the subject's emotional environment is modified. Hence the inadequacy of the continuation.

In (28), the same pair of sentences comes with a different continuation which comments on the subject's emotional state (he is sad). In (28a), the embedded indicative triggers the interpretation of comprend as an intellectual activity, and the continuation is felt as odd, since it refers to the emotional state of the subject. The continuation is, on the other hand, compatible with (28b), in which the subjunctive indicates the interpretation of comprend as an emotional activity.

We observe that embedded indicative is associated with the cognitive state of the subject of the matrix predicate. We refer to Haverkate's definition: "since the knowledge of the fact described is stored in the memory of the subject, the propositional content of the complement clause forms part of his/her cognitive experience" (Haverkate 2002:59).

The observation that predicates split into ‘emotives’ and ‘cognitives’ is not actually new. Kiparsky&Kiparsky (1970), Karttunen (1971), Hooper (1975), Mødrup (1975) a.o.

observe that some predicates may form a natural class which can be associated with emotions.

The relevant predicates either express a state of emotion or a feeling, such as regretter

‘regret’, être heureux ‘be happy’, or even a subjective value judgement as trouver bizarre

‘find strange’. This class is hence labelled 'emotive’ ( as opposed, to some extent, to

predicates which express knowledge or access to/loss of knowledge, such as savoir ‘know’, réaliser ‘realize’, se rappeler ‘remember’, oublier ‘forget’)

Hence the proposal to ‘split’ factives into emotive factives and cognitive factives (which actually seem to correspond to semi-factives):

I will be concerned with cognitive factives, which is the class of factive verbs used primarily to convey information about what information the subject has or how the information is acquired or lost. Members of this class in English, often requiring the complementizer "that" to establish factivity, include "know",

"realize", "discover", "notice", "recognize", "find out", "remember", "forget", "be aware that", "be unaware that", "admit", "intuit", and a subclass of sensory

factives "sense", "see", "smell", "hear", "detect", "observe". The other major class of factive verbs, the class I will largely ignore, is the emotives, factive verbs used primarily to convey the subject's emotional attitude towards information. This class includes "regret", "be annoyed", "be upset", "be glad", "be happy", "be ecstatic". (Beaver 2010: 65).

Mood selection has come to be associated with this notion, as emotive factive predicates tend to select the subjunctive, and semi-factives (Beaver’s cognitive factives) tend to select the indicative (Suñer 1990, Villalta 2006, Faure 2006, Poplack 1992).

Léger (2006) also discusses predicates in French, and it turns out from her classification that emotive predicates may be both factive and non-factive:

(28) Emotive predicates (adapted from Léger 2006 : (53), (54)):

a. factive : être ridicule "be ridiculous", être bizarre "be weird", être triste "be sad", être regrettable "be regretable", regretter "regret", déplorer

"deplore"

b. non-factive : être urgent "be urgent", être nécessaire "be necessary", être souhaitable "be desirable", être préférable "be preferable", vouloir

"want", préférer "prefer"

We will therefore propose that all the predicates in (1i-iii) can be subsumed under the label 'cognitive predicates'. The subjunctive, on the other hand, is systematically associated with the subject's emotive experience. We will group the predicates in (1iv-vi) as 'emotive predicates'.

There is independent evidence for the fact that predicates distribute following the cognitive/emotive division, even outside the realm of the so-called factive predicates. First, some degree modifiers, like énormément ‘tremendously’, tellement ‘so/so much’ are

compatible with emotive predicates but not with cognitive predicates (see also Villalta 2006, 2008):

(29) a. Jean regrette (tellement/énormément) que Marie parte.

Paul regrets (so much/tremendously) that Marie leave-SUBJ b. * Jean se rappelle (tellement/énormément) que Marie part.

Jean knows (so much/tremendously) that Marie leave-IND

(30) a. Jean comprend/accepte/admet (assez/tellement) que Marie parte.

Jean understands/accepts/admits quite/so much that Marie leave-SUBJ

b. * Jean comprend/accepte/admet (assez/tellement) que Marie part.

Jean understands/accepts/admits quite/so much that Marie leave-IND (31) a. Paul préfère/ craint/ doute/ veut (tellement) que Marie parte.

Paul prefers/ fears/doubts/wants so much that Marie leave-SUBJ b. * Jean dit/confesse (tellement) que Marie part.

Jean says/confesses tremendously that Marie leave-IND

Second, epistemic subject-oriented adverbs are compatible with cognitive predicates, but not with emotive predicates:

(32) a. * Jean regrette (intelligemment) que Marie parte.

Jean regrets cleverly that Marie leaves-SUBJ

b. Jean remarque (intelligemment) que Marie part.

Jean notices cleverly that Marie leaves-IND

(33) a. * Jean préfère/craint/ doute/veut (intelligemment) que Marie parte.

Jean prefers/fears/doubts/wants cleverly that Marie leaves-SUBJ

b. Jean dit/confesse (intelligemment) que Marie part.

Jean says/confesses cleverly that Marie leave-IND

The above examples show that the emotive/cognitive distinction is not an arbitrary one. It has the advantage of making clear predictions with respect to mood choice in embedded clauses.

We thus propose a new classification which correlates directly with indicative/subjunctive embedded clauses in Table 1.

se rappeler ind

Cognitive predicates comprendre, concevoir(I) ind

Dire ind

Regretter subj

Emotive predicates comprendre, concevoir(II) subj

Préférer subj

Table 1 –distribution of indicative/subjunctive complements

3. Islandhood

While table 1 gives us a neat distinction between indicative and subjunctive selection, it does not predict the gradation in the island effects we have observed:

Se rappeler ind Stronger island

effects Cognitive

predicates

Comprendre, concevoir (I) ind Stronger island effects

Dire ind No island

Regretter subj Weaker island

effects Emotive

predicates

comprendre, concevoir subj Weaker island effects

Préférer subj No island

Table 2 – mood selection and islandhood

We observe that while some cognitives select embedded clauses which constitute severe islands, others select totally transparent clauses – but none select embedded clauses which can be islands of a weaker kind; as for emotive predicates, some select complements that are weaker islands, and others select transparent clauses, but none select embedded clauses that are totally opaque for wh-extraction. However, a closer look at the verb classes reveals some systematic alternations, which may help us to distinguish se rappeler from dire, and regretter from préférer.

3.1 Verbs of the se rappeler type (34) Paul se rappelle que Marie part.

Paul remembers that Marie leave-IND

The verb se rappeler embeds a clause which expresses the proposition Marie part ‘Marie is leaving/leaves’. Recall that in Giannakidou’s approach, verbs like know or remember are veridical, because the proposition they embed is true according to ‘some individual’. The question is: which individual?

(35) Paul se rappelle que Marie part, #mais c’est faux (Marie ne part pas).

Paul remembers that Marie leave-IND, but it is false (Marie does not leave)

If Paul knows, then p must be true from Paul’s point of view (in Paul’s epistemic model). But (35) shows that p is also true from the Speaker’s point of view. Therefore, a verb like se rappeler requires that the embedded proposition be true BOTH from the point of view of the Speaker and of the Subject. The same applies to comprendre (I):

(36) Paul comprend que Marie part, #mais c’est faux (Marie ne part pas).

Paul understands that Marie leave-IND, but it is false (Marie does not leave)

These predicates satisfy Giannakidou’s definition of veridicality.

3.2 Verbs of the dire type

(37) Paul dit que Marie part, mais c’est faux (Marie ne part pas).

Paul says that Marie leave-IND, but it is false (Marie does not leave)

Paul might say that p while knowing perfectly that p is not true. Therefore, nothing requires that p be true in the Subject’s epistemic model. But (37) also shows that p need not be true in the Speaker’s model. Actually, the Speaker can even say:

(38) Paul dit que Marie part, mais nous savons tous deux que c’est faux.

Paul says that Marie leave-ind, but we both know that it is false This can be compared to verbs of the préfére type: préférer ‘prefer’, just like souhaiter

‘wish’, do not embed a proposition whose truth must be inferred either by the Subject or the Speaker:

(39) Paul préfère que Marie parte, mais ( ?? c’est faux), Marie ne part pas.

Paul prefers that Marie leave-SUBJ but ( ??it is false) Marie does not leave

These predicates correspond to Giannakidou’s non-veridicals. Up to now, we seem to have retrieved Giannakidou’s distinction between veridical and non-veridical predicates.

3.3 Verbs of the regretter type But let us consider the third type:

(40) Paul regrette que Marie parte.

Paul regrets that Marie leave-SUBJ

With verbs like regretter ‘regret’, it seems quite clear that p must be true from the point of view of the Subject (Paul). However, it is less obvious that it is the case for the Speaker. This is also pointed out in Schlenker (2005):

(41) [Jean est persuadé qu'il pleut, et] il regrette qu'il pleuve. (Mais bien entendu il ne pleut pas!)

[Jean is convinced that it rains, and] he regrets that it rain-subj. (But of course it doesn't rain!)

(adapted form Schlenker 2005)

Schlenker argues that “x regrets that p, presupposes that x believes that p, but not necessarily that p is true” (2005:27). So with respect to the epistemic model of the Subject, p is true, but not (necessarily) from the point of view of the Speaker. Example (42) illustrates this as well:

(42) Paul regrette que Marie parte, mais en fait c’est faux (Marie ne part pas)

but in fact it is false (Marie does not leave)

Claiming that p is false may be acceptable and inserting the locution en fait ‘in fact’ in the continuation forces the relevant reading which takes into account the Speaker’s point of view.

Following Giannakidou’s definition (see 23 above), we observe that the shift in the relevant epistemic model (that is, of the Speaker or of the Subject) allows to make different inferences with respect to the truth of the embedded proposition. The veridical status of regretter

‘regret’, or être heureux ‘be happy’ is relative, as opposed to that of epistemic verbs.

Similarly, comprendre (II) triggers a possible shift in the epistemic models of Subject versus Speaker.

We will adopt the idea that these verbs are ‘relative’ veridical. The notion was actually introduced in Giannakidou (1998) without being explicitly distinct from veridicality as such.

The three-way distinction is also used in Tóth (2008).

We have come up with two distinctions, which seem to lead us in two different directions. On the one hand, the mood triggering criterion was shown to be the cognitive- emotive axis. On the other hand, degrees in islandhood may be associated with the (strong) veridical-relative veridical-non veridical scale. This is what table 3 shows.

Cognitive (+ind) Emotive (+subj) Strong veridical (SI) Savoir, comprendre (I) **??

Relative veridical (WI) ?? trouver?? Regretter, comprendre (II)

Non-veridical (NI) Dire, penser préférer

Table 3 – two axes and predicate distribution

We notice that there is no strong veridical predicate of the emotive type, and hence embedding subjunctive clauses. While it is not absolutely clear whether there are relative veridicals of the cognitive type. i.e. which selects indicative, the situation should not be excluded given the behaviour of predicates trouver ‘find’. Strong veridicality (which requires the Speaker’s and the Subject’s epistemic models to be aligned) can only be realized in cognitive verbs, while relative veridicality (which dissociates the Speaker’s and the Subject’s epistemic models) might be associated with emotive verbs, but also, probably, with cognitive verbs. Non veridicality (i.e. the absence of a position with respect to the truth of a

proposition) may be both in the cognitive and in the emotive domains.

4. Selection, size and islands

The question we must now address is that of the relation between the properties we identified and described in section 3 above and the possibility of embedding variably transparent clauses for wh-extraction. We would like to propose that there is some property of these verbs that enables them to select a complementizer which will, in turn, determine that extraction possibilities from its complement.

4.1 Selection

Let us start with strong veridical cognitives (se rappeler, ‘remember’). Although they select indicative clauses, these are totally opaque to any wh-extraction. The selectional properties of

these verbs must then be able to associate some relevant feature with the clause typing of these embedded clauses.

We propose an analysis along the following lines. If the Subject remembers p, then the Subject presupposes p. But in addition, if the Speaker remembers p, then p is, in some sense, strongly, or very specifically presupposed. We propose that the XP that strong veridical cognitive verbs select must be, in a sense to be developed, strongly presupposed or specific.

Note that a similar proposal appears in Den Dikken (2006) and Warnsach (2009).

Relative veridical emotives (regretter, comprendre (II) select clauses which are less opaque to wh-extraction. In that sense, they behave like neg-islands, for example:

(43) a. Quelle photo est-ce que Jean croit que Jules a prise?

Which picture does Jean think that Jules has taken b. Comment est-ce que Jean croit que Jules a pris la photo ?

How does Jean think that Jules has taken the picture (44) a. Quelle photo est-ce que Jean ne croit pas que Jules a prise?

Which picture does Jean not think that Jules has taken b. *Comment est-ce que Jean ne croit pas que Jules a pris la photo ?

How does Jean not think that Jules has taken the picture

In the case of relative veridical emotives, the Subject presupposes p. But because the Speaker does not, the Subject’s epistemic model is not aligned on that of the Speaker. Rather, the Speaker must pick out, within a set of possible epistemic models, the one that is associated with the Subject. So p is presupposed, but in some “weaker” way, as one which emerges from several possible options. We propose that the XP embedded under these verbs is partitive, or range in Starke’s (2001) terms.

Finally, non veridical predicates, which do not presuppose anything (verbs of assertion typically don’t and desideratives do not either) select an XP which is non presuppositional.

This is summarized in (45) below:

(45) Veridicality and selection

Strong veridical cognitive -> Specific XP

Relative veridical emotive -> Partitive (Range) XP Non veridical cognitive -> non presuppositional XP Non veridical emotive -> non presuppositional XP

4.2 Size

The question we must address now is that of the difference between specific, partitive and non-presuppositional in our system, and how this relates to the notion of islandhood.

In our approach to complementizers, we assume, following Starke (2001), Baunaz (2008, 2011), Baunaz&Puskás (2008), feature composition, where features may be of the type

, Q etc. We further assume that features are organised hierarchically, as discussed in Baunaz (2011), Starke (2001). We are more specifically interested in quantificational types of features (involved, among others, in wh-phrases – see Baunaz 2011) and adopt the hierarchy given in (46) below, where specific contains partitive which in turns contains (bare) Q. In other words,

Qspecific includes the features Qpartitive and (bare)Q, and is thus "larger" than Qpartitive, which is in turn "larger" than bare Q:

(46) Q < Qpartitive < Qspecific

We adopt a distinction between partitive and specific along the following lines. Both partitive and specific involve presupposition, but they are defined relative to the type of possible answer. A partitive wh-phrase triggers a set of available alternatives, each of which is a possible referent to the answer, i.e., a disjunctive answer is possible. Specific wh-phrases ask for the identity of an entity, and a disjunctive answer is then not possible. Specificity is triggered when there is a familiar individual that the interlocutor has in mind as referent for the wh-word.

We also assume Relativized Minimality (Rizzi 2002) as defined below:

(47) Y is in a Minimal Configuration (MC) with X iff there is no Z such that (i) Z is of the same structural type as X, and

(ii) Z intervenes between X and Y.

(48) a. Argumental: person, number, gender, case b. Quantificational: Wh, Neg, measure, focus...

c. Modifier: evaluative, epistemic, Neg, frequentative, celerative, measure, manner,....

d. Topic

Relativized Minimalty (RM) will thus predict intervention effects involving the hierarchy in (46), where a [+specific] quantificational element will function as intervener in the chain of a [+specific], but also of a [+partitive] and bare Q element; a [+partitive] will not block

[+specific] but will block [+partitive] and bare Q; and a bare Q will only block bare Q.

The constraints on extraction observed above suggest that within the embedded clause there is some intervener which blocks completely (2-5), partially (6-9) or not at all (10-13) the extraction of wh-phrases. Given RM, the kind of intervener must be of type Q (48b). Since predicates with a given feature composition select a complementizer, we propose that it is the complementizer que which functions as the Q-type intervener. There are various proposals in the literature on the nominal properties of complementizers. Following Kayne (2010),

Manzini and Savoia (2003), Roussou (2010), we propose that que is nominal and that it operates on propositions. It may include quantificational features and hence, function as intervener in the extraction of wh-phrases. However, given the variation in the extractions that we observe, we propose that que is the lexical realization of three different sets of (Q)-

features.

First, the nominal que selected by strong veridicals is [+specific]. Given the hierarchy we adopt (see 46), this means that it realises the features Q, partitive and specific. ² As such, it

2 In the approach we are considering (namely nanosyntax), the set of features is not be taken as an unorganised bundle of features. Rather, features are hierarchically structured, and a lexical item like que can spell out one, two or even three contiguous terminals. A specific que is then the lexical realisation of several ‘heads’, each of which corresponds to one and only one feature (see Starke 2010 for details, Baunaz 2012 for developments):

(i) [ X⁰ specific [X^o partitive [ X⁰ Q ...

¦________¦__________¦

¦ que

creates an island and blocks extraction of specific wh-phrases like quelle photo as well as of non-specific adjuncts like comment (2-5).

Second, the nominal que selected by relative veridicals is [+partitive]. Given our hierarchy, it is "smaller" than [+specific] que, since it is the realisation of Q and partitive, but not of specific.³ As such, it creates weaker intervention effects, and allows for wh-extraction of specific arguments like quelle photo (6, 8). Adjuncts like comment, which are non-specific, are not extractible (7, 9).

Finally, the nominal que selected by préférer and dire in assertive, non-veridical contexts is non-presuppositional. However, as it creates no islands whatsoever (10-13), we propose that it is not quantificational. It behaves like an indefinite, and since it does not interact with other Q-elements, it never functions as an intervener in wh-extraction.

Therefore, what accounts for the graded islandhood of embedded clauses with respect to wh-extraction is the size of the complementizer selected by the matrix predicate.

Conclusion

In this paper, we have shown that the occurrence of the subjunctive or indicative mood in embedded clauses cannot be directly correlated with the observed variations in the

extractibility of wh-phrases.

We have tried to give an answer to two questions. First, how can we account for variations in extraction facts? Second, is there a relation between the occurrence of indicative and subjunctive and island effects in embedded clauses? We have first shown that in French, the subjunctive-indicative alternation can be accounted for in terms of the emotive–cognitive property of the matrix predicate. The apparent permeability of subjunctive clauses, on the other hand, cannot be related to the same property, since there is a gradation in islandhood which cannot be predicted solely by the subjunctive-indicative alternation. We have shown that what determines the selection of more or less permeable clauses is another property of predicates, which we have approached in terms of degrees of veridicality. We have proposed that this latter property is involved in the selection of the complementizer which, in turn, acts as a more or less strong blocker for wh-extraction from the clause it selects. The possibilities of extraction of a wh-phrase from an embedded clause can thus be accounted for by the size of the complementizer selecting it. The answer to the second question is clearly no, since mood ‘selection’ and complementizer selection make use of different properties of the main predicate, namely emotive/cognitive and veridicality. However, in an approach which

considers lexical items as composed of a (hierarchically organized) set of features, it is highly plausible to consider each feature as triggering syntactic manifestations of a different kind.

This is currently being explored by the research team in different languages (see e.g. Baunaz 2012, Sočanac 2011, 2012).

3 Similarly, a partitive que will be the lexical realisation of the following hierarchically organised ‘heads’ (see Baunaz 2012 for developments):

(ii) [X^o partitive [ X⁰ q ...

¦________¦

¦ que

References

Baunaz, Lena. 2011. The Grammar of French Quantification (= Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 83). Heidelberg: Springer.

Baunaz, Lena. 2012. "The French complementizer que under scrutiny". Ms., University of Geneva.

Baunaz, Lena & Genoveva Puskás. 2008. "Feature stripping and wh-movement in French and Hungarian". Selected Proceedings of the 34th Incontro di Grammatica Generativa

[Special Issue of the Rivista di Grammatica Generativa], ed. by P. Beninca, F. Damonte and N. Penello, vol. 33:43–60. Padova: Unipress.

Beaver, David. 2010. "Have you noticed that your Belly Button Lint colour is related to the colour of your clothing?" Presuppositions and Discourse: Essays offered to Hans Kamp, ed. by R. Bauerle, U. Reyle, and T. E. Zimmermann, pp. 65–99. Oxford: Elsevier.

de Cuba, Carlos & Barbara Ürögdi. 2010. "Clearing up the 'Facts' on Complementation".

University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 16: Iss. 1, Article 6.

Available at: http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol16/iss1/6

Egré, Paul. 2003. "Savoir, Croire et question enchâssées". Proceedings of Division of Linguistic Labor: The La Bretesche Workshop, 2003, ed. by P.Schlenker & D. Sportiche.

http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/general/Conf/LaBretesche/

Egré, Paul. 2008. "Question-Embedding and Factivity". Grazer Philosophische Studien 77:

1.85-125.

Farkas, Donka. & Anastasia Giannakidou 1996. "How Clause-bounded is the Scope of Universals?" In Proceedings of SALT VI, Gallway, T. et al. (eds.), pp. 35-52. Ithaca, NY:

CLC Publications Cornell University.

Faure, Richard, 2006. "Factifs cognitifs, factifs émotifs, liage bas et accommodation locale".

Verbum XXVIII, 2006, 4

Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. The landscape of Polarity Items. PhD dissertation, U.

Groningen.

Giannakidou, Anastasia 2000. "Negative Concord and the Scope of Universals". Transactions of the Philological Society 98: 87-120.

Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2006. "Only, emotive factives, and the dual nature of polarity dependency". Language 82:3.575-603.

Giannakidou, A. 2009. "The dependency of the subjunctive revisited: temporal semantics and polarity". Twists of Mood: The Distribution and Interpretation of indicative and

subjunctive (= Special issue of Lingua), ed. by J. Quer, 119: 12.1883-1908.

Giorgi, Alessandra and Fabio Pianesi, 1997. Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntax. Oxford University Press, New York.

Giorgi, Alessandra and Fabio Pianesi. 2004. “Complementizer deletion in Italian”. In: Rizzi, L. (Ed.), The Structure of CP and IP. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 190–210.

Haverkate, Henk. 2002. The Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Spanish Mood.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hooper, Joan & Sandra A. Thompson. 1973. "On the applicability of root transformations".

Linguistic Inquiry 4. 465-497.

Karttunen, Lauri. 1971, "Some Observations on Factivity". Papers in Linguistics 5.55-69.

Kiparsky, Paul & Carol Kiparsky. 1970. "Fact". Progress in Linguistics, ed. by M. Bierwish

& K. Heidolph., 143-173. The Hague: Mouton.

Léger, Catherine. 2006. La complémentation de type phrastique des adjectifs en français. PhD dissertation, Université du Québec à Montréal.

Lasnik, Howard & Mamoru Saito 1984. "On the Nature of Proper Government". Linguistic Inquiry 15: 235-289.

Manzini, M..Rita & Leonardo Savoia. 2003. "The nature of complementizers". Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 28. 87-110.

Mørdrup, Ole. 1975. "Présuppositions, implications et verbes français”. Revue romane, 10.

125–157.

Pesetsky, David. 1987. "Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding". The Representation of (In)definites, ed. by E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Poplack, Shana. 1992. ‘The inherent variability of the French subjunctive.” Theoretical Analyses in Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Ninetheenth Linguistics Symposium on Romance languages, ed. by Ch. Laeufer, T. Morgan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Quer, Josep. 1998. Mood at the Interface. PhD dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Quer, Josep. 2009. "Twists of mood: The distribution and interpretation of indicative and subjunctive". Lingua 119:12, 1779-1787.

Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Rizzi, Luigi. 2002. "Locality and Left Periphery". Structures and Beyond (=The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3), ed. by A. Belletti. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Roussou, Anna. 2010. “Selecting complementizers”. Special Issue Section, Exploring the left periphery (= Special issue of Lingua), ed. by K. K. Grohmann and I. M. Tsimpli. 120:

3.582-603.

Schlenker, Philippe. 2005. "The Lazy Frenchman's Approach to the Subjunctive". In

Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003: Selected Papers from Going Romance 2003, ed. by T.Geerts, I. van Ginneken and H. Jakobs, 269–309. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:

John Benjamins.

Suñer, Margarita. 1990. El tiempo en las subordinadas. Tiempo y aspecto en español, ed by Ignacio Bosque. 77-105. Madrid: Cátedra.

Socanac, Tomislav to appear. “Subjunctive in Serbian/Croatian”. [Proceedings of SWIGG’11]

GG@G.

Socanac, Tomislav 2012. “Subjunctive Complements in South Slavic languages:

Distributional issues”. Paper presented at SWIGG ’12, Geneva, April 2012.

Starke, Michal. 2001. Merge Dissolves into Move, PhD dissertation, University of Geneva.

Tóth, Enikő. 2008. Mood Choice in Complement Clauses. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Villalta, Elisabeth. 2006. Context dependence in the interpretation of questions and subjunctives, PhD dissertation, Universität Tübingen.

Villalta, Elisabeth. 2008. "Mood and Gradability: An Investigation of the Subjunctive Mood in Spanish". Linguistics and Philosophy 31:4. 467-522.

Zwarts, Frans. 1995. "Nonveridical contexts". Linguistic Analysis 25. 286-312.