Cover not available

In:Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 11: Selected papers from the 44th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), London, Ontario
Edited by Silvia Perpiñán, David Heap, Itziri Moreno-Villamar and Adriana Soto-Corominas
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 11] 2017
► pp. 9–31

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 1
Embedding verbs and subjunctive mood

The emotive factor

 | Ghent University & University of Zürich
Published online: 19 October 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.11.01bau
Abstract
I give a uniform account of French mood from a semantic and nano-syntactic perspective by revising the criteria for the distribution of indicative vs. subjunctive mood. I claim that the subjunctive is selected by the semantic property of emotivity encoded in the main clause verb. I develop a definition and a syntactic representation of emotive vs. non-emotive verbs and a set of diagnostics for the two classes. I also reexamine the notion of veridicality and show that it is not the determining factor in the choice of mood (contra Giannakidou 1998, 2009, a.o.).
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1Nanosyntax (Starke 2009, 2011; Caha 2009)
    • 2.2Veridicality, non-veridicality, and relative veridicality
  • 3.Personal constructions
    • 3.1Decomposing the meaning(s) of verbs
    • 3.2 Dowty (1991)
    • 3.3Emotive vs. non-emotive sentience
    • 3.4Verbs optionally taking indicative or subjunctive CPs: Emotive vs. non-emotive readings
  • 4.Impersonal constructions
  • 5.The proposal
    • 5.1The structures of personal constructions
    • 5.2The structures of impersonal constructions
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (31)
References
Baunaz, Lena. 2015. On the various sizes of complementizers. Probus 27 (2): 193–236. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Deconstructing complementizers in Serbo-Croatian, Modern Greek and Bulgarian. Proceedings of NELS 46 (1): 69–77.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baunaz, Lena, and Genoveva Puskás. 2014. “The Selection of French Mood.” In Selected Papers from the 41th LSRL, Ottawa, May 2011, ed. Eric Mathieu et Marie-Hélène Côté, 233–253. John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baunaz, Lena, and Eric Lander. Under review. Nanosyntax: the basics. Ms. Universiteit Gent.
Becker, Martin G. 2010. “Principles of mood change in evaluative contexts: the case of French.” In Modality and mood in Romance, ed. by Martin G. Becker and Eva-Maria Remberger, 209–234. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caha, Pavel. 2009. The nanosyntax of case. PhD, University of TromsøGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Costantini, Francesco. 2009. Interface Perspectives on Clausal Complementation. The Case of Subjunctive Obviation. Venezia, Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. “Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection”, Language 67: 547–619. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Egré, Paul. 2008. Question-Embedding and Factivity. Grazer Philosophische Studien 77 (1): 85–125. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 2002. The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)veridical Dependency. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. The dependency of the subjunctive revisited: temporal semantics and polarity. Lingua, special issue on Mood, 883–1908.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kelepouris, Stavros. 2012. The syntax and semantics of subject-oriented adverbs. A proposal for a new classification. Ms. University of Ghent.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul, and Carol Kiparsky. 1971. “Fact.” In Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology, ed. by Danny D. Steinberg and Leon A. Jakobovits, 345–369. CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2013. Modality and the semantics of embedding, slides from presentation at the Amsterdam Colloquium, December 2013.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Léger, Catherine. 2006. La complémentation de type phrastique des adjectifs en français. PhD, Université du Québec à Montréal.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moulton, Keir. 2009. Natural Selection and the Syntax of Clausal Complementation, Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Puskás, Genoveva. 2013. Subjunctives – a Family Business. Talk given at the Séminaire de Recherche, University of Geneva, 16.09.2013.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quer, Josep. 2009. Twists of mood: The distribution and interpretation of indicative and subjunctive. Lingua 119 (12): 1779–1787. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008a. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon. CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008b. Lexical Items in Complex Predications: Selection as Underassociation. Nordlyd, Tromsø Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. “The fine structure of the left periphery.” In Elements of grammar: A Handbook of Generative Syntax, ed. by Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor H. 1973. Natural categories, in Cognitive Psychology 4: 328–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruwet, Nicolas. 1984. Je veux partir / *Je veux que je parte: on the Distribution of Finite Complements and Infinitival Complements in French. In Cahiers de Grammaire 7: 75–138.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2005. The Lazy Frenchman’s Approach to the Subjunctive. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003, ed. by Twan Geerts, Ivo Van Ginneken, and Haike Jacobs, 269–309. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Socanac, Tomislav. 2011. Subjunctive in Serbian/Croatian. GG@G 7: 49–70.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Starke, Michal. 2009. “Nanosyntax. A short primer to a new approach to language.” In Nordlyd 36.1, special issue on Nanosyntax, ed. by Peter Svenonius, Gillian Ramchand, Michal Starke, and Knut Tarald Taraldsen, 1–6. CASTL, Tromsø.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Towards an elegant solution to language variation: Variation reduces to the seize of lexically stored trees. Ms. Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tóth, Enikő. 2008. Mood Choice in Complement Clauses. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Villalta, Elisabeth. 2006. Context dependence in the interpretation of questions and subjunctives. PhD dissertation, Universität TübingenGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Baunaz, Lena & Eric Lander
2025. Lexical structure and subjunctive selection. In Nanosyntax and the Lexicalization Algorithm, ► pp. 441 ff. DOI logo
Kratochvílová, Dana
2024. The Spanish subjunctive and grounding. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 22:2 ► pp. 564 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue