Abstract
In this chapter, we implement our analysis of subjunctive as the reflex of an emotive feature in the different languages of our study. We first focus on French, applying our theoretical framework to the various cases. We then tackle variation within the group of Romance languages (in particular French and Italian), examining the predicates in the light of our revised typology. We also deal with Balkan languages, which, as was mentioned previously, exhibit important surface differences with respect to Romance languages. We show that our approach is able to account for the distribution and realization of embedded subjunctives in these languages as well. However, it appears that ‘emotive factives’ in Balkan languages resist our approach. A detailed discussion of these is postponed to Chap. 6. Finally we turn to embedded subjunctives in Hungarian. We use the language as a testing ground for our system, and reach the conclusion that the Hungarian data, as the Balkan one, passes the test satisfactorily on most aspects, making thus an important step towards confirming the validity of our approach. Again, we postpone the detailed analysis of the problematic cases to Chap. 6.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
However, directives also include causation, which suggests that they may be more complex, but in a different, non-relevant dimension. It is clear that directives, the prototypical subjunctive selectors or ‘core subjunctives’ (see Kempchinsky, 2009; Sočanac, 2017, i.a.) are endowed with features that are relevant to our discussion. We nevertheless assume that from the subjunctive perspective, they do not differ from verbs like want or wish. Given that they appear to have other, non-relevant features, we decide not to focus on them in our analysis. However, whatever is said about the relation between a matrix predicate and its embedded clause in terms of subjunctive selection must necessarily be valid for directive predicates as well.
- 2.
- 3.
Note that the embedded verb in (i) can be marked indicative, as an informant tells us. But if it is the case, the emotive reading disappears, and only the cognitive reading shows up. In (8c) the context is richer than in (i) and the pure cognitive reading, with the indicative embedded verb, is degraded.
(i)
Giorgio è una persona empatica : capisce che Leo abbia bisogno di sostegno.
G. is an individual empathetic: he understands that L. have.3sg.subj need of support.
‘Giorgio is an empathetic person: he understands that Leo needs support.’
- 4.
- 5.
Giorgi The and Pianesi (1997) note that Catalan factive emotive verbs can take either mood.
- 6.
This is the case, even for Italian speakers from Roma. We thank Andrea Cattaneo for helping us with the data and with setting up the right contexts.
- 7.
Note that emotive factives in French are usually described as incompatible with the indicative mood. As native speakers of the language, we both prefer the subjunctive mood under these predicates. But Siegel (2009) notes in passing that some speakers mildly accept the following examples:
(i).
Ça me plait que les étudiants soient venus en classe.
It 1sg.dat please.3sg that the students be.3pl.subj came in class
‘It pleases me that the students came to class.
(ii).
? Ça me plait que les étudiants sont venus en classe.
It 1sg.dat please.3sg that the students be.3pl. ind came in class
‘It pleases me that the students came to class.’
(Siegel, 2009, p. 1969, (32))
Among speakers consulted, there is no strong consensus. While one of the authors strongly rejects (ii), the other one does not completely exclude it. Speaker variations are indeed expected.
- 8.
Dispiacere can actually come with a range of negative emotive readings equivalent to ‘be annoyed/saddened/disappointed’, as highlighted by the continuation:
(i) A Giorgio dispiace che Leo abbia comprato una macchina, perché non sarebbe stato necessario.
A Giorgio regrets that Leo has.3sg.subj bought a car, because not would have-been necessary.
‘Giorgio is sorry that Leo bought a car because it wouldn't have been necessary.’
- 9.
An informant tells us that this version is only possible if Giorgio is certain that Leo left.
- 10.
We assume that this account for the loss of the factive reading.
- 11.
Torlakian Serbian is a variety spoken in the Niš area.
- 12.
Verbs of fear will not be discussed here either, because in both Modern Greek and Serbian, these verbs select for subjunctive complements with control (A. Roussou and T. Sočanac, p.c). The Croatian version of (ii) would involve the non-finite form of swim (T. Sočanac, p.c):
(i) Fovame na ton antimetopiso (Modern Greek) fear.2sg na him confront-1sg “I fear/am afraid to confront him”.
(ii) Bojim se da plivam. (Serbian) fear1sg. da swim.1sg.
- 13.
- 14.
The verbs in Bulgarian are given with their 1p morphology, since Bulgarian does not use the infinitive morphology (T. Sočanac, p.c.).
- 15.
The verbs in Serbian and Croatian are given in their infinitival forms. Recall that “Serbo-Croatian” is split up into several varieties. One of the markers of distinction is the pronunciation of the jat phoneme (Old Slavic). It is pronounced / e / in Serbian and /je/ - /ije/ in Standard Croatian (T. Sočanac, p.c.). For instance, the verb ‘believe’ in (19b) is translated by ‘vjerovati’ in Croatian and by ‘verovati’ in Serbian (etc.). We give here the two variants, using parentheses where relevant. We thank T. Sočanac for helping us with these data.
- 16.
Although this is very restricted and Bulgarians do not readily accept the da-version, cf.(26a) above.
- 17.
Note that na may occur with thimame, as shown in (i), but crucially with Subject control. (i) is a case of control subjunctive, a construction we do not elaborate on in this book.
(i) Eghó thimáme na se ghnórisa stin ekdhromí sto ghalaksídhi.
I remember.prs.1sg na you.acc know.perf.pst.1sg at.def excursion to.def Galaxidi.
‘I seem to remember that I got to know you at the excursion to Galaxidi’ (Hedin, 2016, p. 160: (13)).
- 18.
Elaborating on an earlier proposal (Roussou, 2010) that complementizers are nominal element (internal argument of the matrix verb) selecting for CP, Roussou (2020) argues that Modern Greek distinguishes between two types of complement clauses: oti-clauses, which are ‘direct’ complement clauses, and pu-clauses, which are ‘oblique’ complement clauses. Roussou (2020) also shows that the distinction between pu and oti is not one of factivity, but rather of referentiality (see Haegeman & Ürögdi, 2010). This information is, according to her, located in a D-layer, above N. So when oti is selected under factive predicates, as in (35a) the structure includes a (presuppositional) D layer (factive oti = D <N). pu, that is always factive, i.e. presuppositional, involves a D-layer above N as well (in addition to a higher P) (see also Chap. 3 and Baunaz, 2015, 2016 for similar (but differently implemented) ideas about the size of complementizers in Modern Greek, Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian and French).
- 19.
Specifically Torlakian Serbian.
- 20.
In his 2020 paper, he adds that “Arsenijević [2015] also argues that što involves a presupposition of familiarity similar to that of the familiarity accounts of nominal definiteness. More precisely, the situation or the predicate over situations contributed by the što-clause must be familiar to the speaker.” (Arsenijević, 2020b, p. 343).
- 21.
For every Serbian/Croatian speaker, there is more than one difference, actually. A difference similar to the one discussed above with cognitive factive verbs also shows up.
- 22.
Interestingly, T. Sočanac, p.c, who is a Croatian speaker, seems to get the reverse pattern. When the emotive reading is favored, (i.e. when regret is interpreted as ‘feel sorrow’) both da and što are accepted (with a preference for što ), (see (ia,b), (iia,b)), but when the more ‘cognitive’ reading (= apologize) is forced, što is highly favored, (ic, iic):
(i)
Croatian
a.
Ivanu je žao što/da je Leo kupio auto bez razmišljanja, i plakao je zbog
I.-dat is sorry that has L. bought car without thinking and cried has because
toga cijelu noć.
that whole night
b.
Ivanu je žao što/da je Leo kupio auto jer to nije bilo potrebno.
I.-dat is sorry that has L. bought car because that not-has been necessary
c.
Ivanu je žao što/??da je Leo kupio auto bez razmišljanja, ali nije on kriv za to.
I.-dat.is sorry that has L. bought car without thinking, but not-is he guilty for that (i.e. it is not his fault)
(ii)
Croatian
a.
Ivan je sretan što/da je Leo kupio crveni auto, i doslovno skače od sreće.
I. is happy that has L. bought red car, and literally jump3.sg. of joy
b.
Ivan je sretan što/da je Leo kupio crveni auto, iako bi više volio žuti.
I. is happy that has L. bought red car although would more liked yellow
c.
Ivan je sretan što/ ??da je Leo kupio auto, iako to za njega ništa ne mijenja.
I. is happy that has L. bought car although it for him nothing not changes
(i.e. it changes nothing for him)
We leave this variation for future investigation.
- 23.
Note that we do not take a stand on what and how (and if) ‘indicative’ mood is triggered with CL1/CL2 predicates. We simply consider them as embedding ‘non-subjunctive’ clauses.
- 24.
Researchers do not agree on the fact that Hungarian has subjunctive morphology proper. While traditionally, the subjunctive is considered as the imperative mood, some authors rather take the opposite view and claim that imperative clauses actually use the subjunctive mood (see e.g. Farkas, 1992a; Turi, 2009). Finally, some scholars (Pataki, 1984; Kiss et al., 2003) consider that subjunctive and imperative are two distinct moods.
- 25.
Although (53) is fine without the ‘demonstrative’ azt (‘that’), the sentence sounds more natural with it. The role of this pronoun, coindexed with the embedded clause, is discussed in Kenesei (1985), Kiss (1987) i.a. Typically, it takes the case form assigned by the matrix verb, accusative in (53) and can appear in the left periphery with different discourse functions (topic, focus). It is generally present with verbs of saying,but may also appear with other predicates (see below).
- 26.
- 27.
- 28.
- 29.
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
Directives embed subjunctive clauses in Hungarian as well. As discussed previously, although they include a causing component which might correspond to yet another feature, we will only concentrate on the indicative-subjunctive dimension, and will hence lump them together with the wish type predicates.
- 33.
The predicate is actually made up of the perfective particle meg and ért (‘understand’). The particle does not affect the meaning with respect to the cognitive/emotive interpretations. According to dict.com, it both means ‘grasp something with one’s intelligence’ and ‘understand someone’s feelings’ (see https://www.dict.com/hongrois-francais/meg%C3%A9rt).
- 34.
- 35.
- 36.
A similar pattern is found with remél ‘hope’. In addition to the future oriented reading of the present tense (see example 63c above), the predicate can also occur with past tense embedded clauses.
(i)
Remélem, sokan látták ezt a gólt, mert mutatja, hogy vannak magyar tehetségek”
Hope.1sg many saw.3pl this the goal, because show.3s that are.3pl Hungarian talents
‘I hope that many people saw the goal, because it shows that there are Hungarian talents.’
Recall that speakers of French e.g. also have alternation for the verb espérer. This verb appears to be prone to syncretism cross-linguistically.
- 37.
To the extent that example (72b) is not a unique instance of dream +subj, we might even postulate that the ‘wishing’ component shifts it to CL4.
References
Angelopoulos, N. (2019). Complementizers and Prepositions as Probes: Insights from Greek. (PhD dissertation). UCLA.
Arsenijević, B. (2015). Individual- and situation-relatives: Enriching descriptions, restricting reference and feeding incorporation. In Talk given at the Semantikzirkel, Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS), May 27th 2015.
Arsenijević, B. (2020a). Situation relatives: Deriving causation, concession, counterfactuality, condition and purpose. In H. Pitsch et al. (Eds.), Advances in formal Slavic linguistics 2018. Language Science Press.
Arsenijević, B. (2020b). Referential properties of subordinate clauses in Serbo-Croatian. In T. Radeva-Bork & P. Kosta (Eds.), Current developments in Slavic linguistics. Twenty years after (pp. 341–353). Peter Lang.
Baunaz, L. (2015). On the various sizes of complementizers. Probus, 27(2), 193–236.
Baunaz, L. (2016). Deconstructing Complementizers in Serbo- Croatian, modern Greek and Bulgarian. In C. Hammerly & B. Prickett (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 46 (1) (pp. 69–77). Graduate linguistics student associatio.
Baunaz, L. (2018). Decomposing complementizers : The Fseq of French, modern Greek, Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian Complementizers. In L. Baunaz, K. De Clercq, L. Haegeman, & E. Lander (Eds.), Exploring nanosyntax (pp. 149–179). Oxford University Press.
Baunaz, L., & Lander, E. (2021b). Factive Islands in nanosyntax. In Proceedings of NELS52.
Christidis, A. P. (1982). ότι/πως-που: επιλογή δεικτών συμπληρωμάτων στα νέα ελληνικά [Oti/pos – Pu: Complementizer choice in modern Greek]. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 2, 113–177.
Costantini. (2009). Interface perspectives on clausal complementation. The case of subjunctive obviation (PhD dissertation). Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina. Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia.
Farkas, D. (1992a). On obviation. In I. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical matters (pp. 85–109). CSLI.
Farkas, D. (1992b). Mood choice in complement clauses. In I. Kenesei & C. Pléh (Eds.), Approaches to Hungarian. Volume 4: The structure of Hungarian (pp. 207–225). JATE.
Farkas, D. (1992c). On the semantics of subjunctive complements. In P. Hirschbuehler (Ed.), Romance languages and modern linguistic theory (pp. 69–10). John Benjamins.
Giannakidou, A. (1995). Subjunctive, habituality and negative polarity. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), V, 132–150.
Giannakidou, A. (1998). Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency. John Benjamins.
Giannakidou, A. (2009). The dependency of the subjunctive revisited: Temporal semantics and polarity. Lingua, 119(12), 1883–1908.
Giannakidou, A. (2011). Nonveridicality and mood choice: Subjunctive, polarity, and time. In R. Musan & M. Rathert (Eds.), Tense across languages (pp. 59–90). Mouton de Gruyter.
Giannakidou, A. (2013). The subjunctive as evaluation— Nonveridicality, epistemic subjunctive, and emotive-as-expressive. Ms. University of Illinois at Chicago.
Giannakidou, A., & Mari, A. (2016a). The semantic roots of positive polarity with epistemic modal adverbs and verbs: Evidence from Greek and Italian. Ms. University of Chicago.
Giannakidou, A., & Mari, A. (2016b). Emotive predicates and the subjunctive: A flexible mood OT account based on non-veridicality. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 20, 288–305.
Giannakidou, A., & Mari, A. (2021). Truth and veridicality in grammar and thought. The University of Chicago Press.
Giorgi, A., & Pianesi, F. (1997). Tense and aspect: From semantics to Morphosyntax. Oxford University Press.
Haegeman, L., & Ürögdi, B. (2010). Referential CPs and DPs: An operator movement account. Theoretical Linguistics, 36(2/3), 111–152.
Hedin, E. (2016). Negation and modality. A study of some epistemic predicates in modern Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 16, 155–180.
Holton, D., Mackridge, P., & Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1997). Greek: A comprehensive grammar of the modern language. Routledge.
Kádár, E., & Peredy, M. (2014). Discourse meets grammar: The case of Hungarian verbal particles. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 61(2), 153–176.
Kempchinsky, P. (2009). What can the subjunctive disjoint reference effect tell us about the subjunctive? Lingua, 119(12), 1788–1810.
Kenesei, I. (1985). Subordinate clauses: Types and structures. In I. Kenesei (Ed.), Approaches to Hungarian (Vol. 1, pp. 141–165). JATE.
Kiss, K. É. (1987). Configurationality in Hungarian. Springer.
Kiss, K. É., Kiefer, F., & Siptár, P. (2003). Új magyar nyelvtan [New Hungarian Grammar] (3rd ed.). Osiris Kiadó.
Krapova, I. (2001). Subjunctive in Bulgarian and modern Greek. In M. L. Rivero & A. Ralli (Eds.), Comparative syntax of Balkan languages (pp. 105–126). Oxford University Press.
Krapova, I. (2002). On the left periphery of the Bulgarian sentence. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 12, 107–128.
Krapova, I. (2010). Bulgarian relative and factive clauses with an invariant complementizer. Lingua, 120, 1240–1272.
Lee, C. (2019). Non-factive Alternants of the attitude verb ʻknowʼ in Korean, Turkish, and Hungarian. Journal of the National Academy of Science, Republic of Korea, LVIII(1), 37–85.
Mitkovska, L., & Bužarovska, E. (2015). Variation in clausal complementation: Macedonian and Bulgarian predicates ‘hope’ and ‘believe’. In B. Belaj (Ed.), Dimenzije Značenja. Zagrebačka slavistička škola (pp. 189–242).
Pataki, P. (1984). A francia subjonctif és a magyar kötőmód [The French subjonctif and the Hungarian subjunctive]. In Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok XV (pp. 207–218).
Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1994). The subjunctive mood and the syntactic status of the particle na in modern Greek. Folia Linguistica, XXVIII/3-4, 299–328.
Puskás, G. (2000). Word order in Hungarian: The syntax of a′- positions. John Benjamins.
Quer, J. (2009). Twists of mood: The distribution and interpretation of indicative and subjunctive. Lingua, 119(12), 1779–1787.
Roussou, A. (1999). Modals and the subjunctive. In A. Alexiadou, G. Horrocks, & M. Stavrou (Eds.), Studies in Greek Syntax (pp. 169–183). Kluwer.
Roussou, A. (2010). Selecting complementizers. Lingua, 120, 582–603.
Roussou, A. (2020). Complement clauses: Case and argumenthood. In L. Franco & P. Larusso (Eds.), Linguistic variation: Structure and Interpretion (pp. 609–631). de Gruyter.
Saltarelli, R. C. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In M. Kunitz & P. K. Unger (Eds.), Semantics and philosophy. NYU Press. [Reprinted in Pragmatics; A Reader, ed. Steven Davis 1991, 471–482. New York: Oxford University Press].
Serianni, L. (1972). Grammatica italiana: Italiano comune e lingua letteraria. [repr. 1991, 2005]. UTET Università.
Siegel, L. (2009). Mood selection in romance and Balkan. Lingua, 119, 1859–1882.
Simon, E., & Vincze, V. (2016). Universal morphology for Old Hungarian. In Proceedings of the 10th SIGHUM Workshop on Language Technology for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, and Humanities. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Smirnova, A. (2012). The semantics of mood in Bulgarian. In A. Beltrama (Ed.), Proceedings of CLS 48. CLS.
Sočanac, T. (2017). Subjunctive Complements in Slavic Languages: A Syntax- Semantics Interface Approach (Doctoral dissertation). University of Geneva.
Terrell, T. (1977). S assertion and presupposition in Spanish complements. In M. Lujàn & F. Hensey (Eds.), Current studies in romance linguistics (pp. 221–245). Georgetown University Press.
Todorovic, N. (2012). The subjunctive and indicative Da-complements in Serbian: A syntactic-semantic approach (PhD dissertation). University of Illinois.
Turi, G. (2009). Kötőmód a mai magyar nyelvben [the subjunctive in modern Hungarian]. Argumentum, 5, 25–38.
Varga, D. (2013). A magyar felszólító mondatok szerkezete [The stucture of Hungarian imperative sentences]. Doctoral dissertation. Pázmány Péter Catholic University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Baunaz, L., Puskás, G. (2022). Cross-linguistic Variation. In: A Cross-linguistic Approach to the Syntax of Subjunctive Mood. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 101. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04540-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04540-0_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-04539-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-04540-0
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)